# Is there any legitimacy to the Sovereign Citizen argument? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 7, 2017, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legitimacy-to-the-sovereign-citizen-argument/786097 "2017-05-07T22:25:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Shamozzle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shamozzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shamozzle)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2017, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legitimacy-to-the-sovereign-citizen-argument/786097/1 "2017-05-07T22:25:12Z")
So, I’ve been browsing through a series of fascinating Sovereign Citizen-themed videos on YouTube. SC’s keep citing things like “Black’s Law Dictionary”, “Maritime Admiralty Law”, “Common Law”, “Corporate Law”, etc. I was wondering, were the aforementioned laws ever the present and legitimate legal authority anywhere? If so, were they superseded and rendered null by updated legal code and thus the SC’s are behind the times? Or, are those laws still sitting there on the books somewhere (so to speak) and technically in effect, but everyone in authority ignores them because they’re silly and akin to those old funny laws nobody cares about, like “Women Can’t Smoke on the Sidewalk on Thursdays”, etc. Or is it a mix? Do Sovereign Citizens’ actually have any legal claims considered legitimate by anyone who isn’t even remotely insane? Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2017, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legitimacy-to-the-sovereign-citizen-argument/786097/2 "2017-05-07T22:52:37Z")
> [@Shamozzle](#): > > Or, are those laws still sitting there on the books somewhere (so to speak) and technically in effect, but everyone in authority ignores them because they’re silly and akin to those old funny laws nobody cares about, like “Women Can’t Smoke on the Sidewalk on Thursdays”, etc. The term here is [desuetude](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desuetude). ---
**Author:** ![Kimera757](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kimera757/32/3765_2.png) [@Kimera757](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimera757)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2017, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legitimacy-to-the-sovereign-citizen-argument/786097/3 "2017-05-07T23:00:08Z")
Here’s a prolonged takedown of one such individual in a Canadian court case, along with an explanation of the various kinds of commonly-raised nuttiness, here: Link: [https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html](https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html) It’s long, but interesting, and also hilarious. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2017, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legitimacy-to-the-sovereign-citizen-argument/786097/4 "2017-05-07T23:07:05Z")
Nope. Next question ? ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2017, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legitimacy-to-the-sovereign-citizen-argument/786097/5 "2017-05-07T23:08:31Z")
This page has a lot of information about them, including a list of their successes (scroll down to Freeman Successes): > **[Freeman on the land](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land)** > > Freeman on the land, also known as FMOTL, FOTL (not to be confused with ROTFL), "Footle" or simply freeman,\[2\] is a form of pseudolegal woo in various English-speaking countries. Freemen believe they can opt out of being governed, and that what... ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legitimacy-to-the-sovereign-citizen-argument/786097/6 "2017-05-08T01:07:33Z")
The basic premise of the Sovereign Citizens movement is that there are secret laws. For some unknown reason, the government cannot repeal these secret laws. So instead the government tries to hide these secret laws and hopes nobody will find out about them. But Sovereign Citizens claim to know the secret laws and they invoke them. And once they’re invoked the government has no choice other than to obey the secret laws. This is pretty much nonsense from start to finish. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legitimacy-to-the-sovereign-citizen-argument/786097/7 "2017-05-08T01:15:40Z")
I’ve spent about 20 years helping other lawyers respond to sovereign citizen arguments. Not once have the SovCits been successful. There is no merit to their arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legitimacy-to-the-sovereign-citizen-argument/786097/8 "2017-05-08T01:27:44Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > I’ve spent about 20 years helping other lawyers respond to sovereign citizen arguments. There should be a medal awarded for stuff like that ;). ---
**Author:** ![Kimera757](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kimera757/32/3765_2.png) [@Kimera757](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimera757)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legitimacy-to-the-sovereign-citizen-argument/786097/9 "2017-05-08T01:28:59Z")
A segment of the Mearls case > [@](#): > > [73] A critical first point is an appreciation that the concepts discussed in these Reasons are frequently a commercial product, designed, promoted, and sold by a community of individuals, whom I refer to as “gurus”. Gurus claim that their techniques provide easy rewards – one does not have to pay tax, child and spousal support payments, or pay attention to traffic laws. There are allegedly secret but accessible bank accounts that contain nearly unlimited funds, if you know the trick to unlock their gates. You can transform a bill into a cheque with a stamp and some coloured writing. You are only subject to criminal sanction if you agree to be subject to criminal sanction. You can make yourself independent of any state obligation if you so desire, and unilaterally force and enforce demands on other persons, institutions, and the state. All this is a consequence of the fact gurus proclaim they know secret principles and law, hidden from the public, but binding on the state, courts, and individuals. > > [74] And all these “secrets” can be yours, for small payment to the guru. > > [75] These claims are, of course, pseudolegal nonsense. A judge who encounters and reviews OPCA concepts will find their errors are obvious and manifest, once one strips away the layers of peculiar language, irrelevant references, and deciphers the often bizarre documentation which accompanies an OPCA scheme. When reduced to their conceptual core, most OPCA concepts are contemptibly stupid. Mr. Meads, for example, has presented the Court with documents that appear to be a contract between himself, and himself. One Mr. Meads promises to pay for any liability of the other Mr. Meads. One owns all property, the other all debts. What is the difference between these entities? One spells his name with upper case letters. The other adds spurious and meaningless punctuation to his name. Mr. Meads (with punctuation) is the Mr. Meads who appeared in court. He says the Mr. Meads (all capitals) is the one who should pay child and spousal support. > > [76] So where is that Mr. Meads (all capitals)? At one point in the June 8 hearing Mr. Meads said that Mr. Meads (all capitals) was a “corporate entity” attached to his birth certificate. Later, he told me that the other Mr. Meads was a “person” - and that I had created him! Again, total nonsense. > > [77] The bluntly idiotic substance of Mr. Mead’s argument explains the unnecessarily complicated manner in which it was presented. OPCA arguments are never sold to their customers as simple ideas, but instead are byzantine schemes which more closely resemble the plot of a dark fantasy novel than anything else. Latin maxims and powerful sounding language are often used. Documents are often ornamented with many strange marking and seals. Litigants engage in peculiar, ritual‑like in court conduct. All these features appear necessary for gurus to market OPCA schemes to their often desperate, ill‑informed, mentally disturbed, or legally abusive customers. This is crucial to understand the non-substance of any OPCA concept or strategy. The story and process of a OPCA scheme is not intended to impress or convince the Courts, but rather to impress the guru’s customer. > > [78] Mediaeval alchemy is a helpful analogue. Alchemists sold their services based on the theatre of their activities, rather than demonstrated results, or any analytical or systematic methodology. OPCA gurus are modern legal alchemists. They promise gold, but their methods are principally intended to impress the gullible, or those who wish to use this drivel to abuse the court system. Any lack of legal success by the OPCA litigant is, of course, portrayed as a consequence of the customer’s failure to properly understand and apply the guru’s special knowledge. > > [79] Caselaw that relates to Gurus, reviewed below, explains how gurus present these ideas in seminars, books, websites, and instructional DVDs and other recordings. They provide pre‑prepared documents, which sometimes are government forms, and instruct how to fill in the necessary information that then produces the desired effects. Gurus write scripts to follow in court. Some will attempt to act as your representative, and argue your case. > > [80] When gurus do appear in court their schemes uniformly fail, which is why most leave court appearances to their customers. That explains why it is not unusual to find that an OPCA litigant cannot even explain their own materials. They did not write them. They do not (fully) understand them. OPCA litigants appear, engage in a court drama that is more akin to a magic spell ritual than an actual legal proceeding, and wait to see if the court is entranced and compliant. If not, the litigant returns home to scrutinize at what point the wrong incantation was uttered, an incorrectly prepared artifact waved or submitted. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legitimacy-to-the-sovereign-citizen-argument/786097/10 "2017-05-08T03:18:58Z")
Black’s Law Dictionary is an actual published dictionary. Admiralty Law or Maritime Law (usually called one or the other and Corporate Law are legitimate bodies of law. Common Law developed in the UK, formed the basis of the legal systems of 49 states, and still has some effect today (though a lot of it has been replaced by statutory law). The problem is not that those things don’t exist, it’s that they just don’t work anything like the way sovereign citizens say they do, and most of the specifics that sovereign citizens cite are badly misinterpreted, non-existent, and/or long defunct. A good example is the claim that income tax is entirely voluntary. What’s actually voluntary is filing a tax return, not paying taxes. As long as you’re paying the IRS what you owe or more and they believe you, you don’t have to file a return (IIRC, IANAL). You won’t get a refund and can’t take deductions, but it’s legal not to file. But SCs take the ‘voluntary’ word and decide it applies to all income tax for no real reason, which is just bunk. > [@](#): > > Do Sovereign Citizens’ actually have any legal claims considered legitimate by anyone who isn’t even remotely insane? This is a badly phrased question - they certainly have SOME legitimate legal claims, and a stopped clock is right twice a day. The core claims that they make are not legitimate, but if you write enough legal documents some portion of them will have some accuracy by chance somewhere. And sometimes there will be a badly written low-level law that they stumble across and challenge that gets overturned, but that’s not the ‘See? We’re entirely correct!’ victory that they paint it as. ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legitimacy-to-the-sovereign-citizen-argument/786097/11 "2017-05-08T03:23:51Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The basic premise of the Sovereign Citizens movement is that there are secret laws. For some unknown reason, the government cannot repeal these secret laws. So instead the government tries to hide these secret laws and hopes nobody will find out about them. But Sovereign Citizens claim to know the secret laws and they invoke them. And once they’re invoked the government has no choice other than to obey the secret laws. > > This is pretty much nonsense from start to finish. It’s kind of like prostitutes who legitimately believe that if they ask an undercover cop if they are law enforcement, they are compelled by law to answer truthfully. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legitimacy-to-the-sovereign-citizen-argument/786097/12 "2017-05-08T03:47:34Z")
Take one of the real claims that some Sovereign Citizens have made: that an American flag that has a gold fringe has some legal significance if it’s present in a courtroom and by invoking the right law in such a courtroom, you make it impossible for the legal system to convict you. Now suppose, for the sake of argument, that this was true. How would the government respond? 1. Repeal the law that gives gold-fringed flags legal power. 2. Make sure every courtroom is using the right kind of flag. 3. Hide all the law books that mention this law and hope nobody ever finds out about it. Sovereign Citizens are the people who think #3 is the obvious answer. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legitimacy-to-the-sovereign-citizen-argument/786097/13 "2017-05-08T03:54:08Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 1. Repeal the law that gives gold-fringed flags legal power. > 2. Make sure every courtroom is using the right kind of flag. > 3. Hide all the law books that mention this law and hope nobody ever finds out about it. That’s a good succinct summary of the philosophical problem. Congress passes laws every year modifying laws, if you could really get out of conviction because of the gold-fringed flag why wouldn’t they pass a law closing the loophole or banning gold-fringed flags from courtrooms? The hidden law idea just doesn’t make sense at a very basic level. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legitimacy-to-the-sovereign-citizen-argument/786097/14 "2017-05-08T05:07:05Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > That’s a good succinct summary of the philosophical problem. Congress passes laws every year modifying laws, if you could really get out of conviction because of the gold-fringed flag why wouldn’t they pass a law closing the loophole or banning gold-fringed flags from courtrooms? The hidden law idea just doesn’t make sense at a very basic level. What would be hilarious would be if there really was a secret law and the Sovereign Citizen invoked it correctly. And then went to prison anyway because judges and lawyers only act on the laws they’re aware of. A law that nobody knows exists is the same as a law that doesn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legitimacy-to-the-sovereign-citizen-argument/786097/15 "2017-05-08T05:13:03Z")
A lot of those SC bozos end up in Southeast Asia. I knew one in Thailand who was adamantly opposed to the US but happy to take Social Security payments. ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legitimacy-to-the-sovereign-citizen-argument/786097/16 "2017-05-08T05:28:43Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Nope. Next question ? Such a fact-free answer is distinctly unhelpful, and is contrary to the premise of this board. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The basic premise of the Sovereign Citizens movement is that there are secret laws. For some unknown reason, the government cannot repeal these secret laws. So instead the government tries to hide these secret laws and hopes nobody will find out about them. But Sovereign Citizens claim to know the secret laws and they invoke them. And once they’re invoked the government has no choice other than to obey the secret laws. > > This is pretty much nonsense from start to finish. So your contention is that the things mentioned in the OP are actually secret laws, despite centuries of use? ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legitimacy-to-the-sovereign-citizen-argument/786097/17 "2017-05-08T07:02:56Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > So your contention is that the things mentioned in the OP are actually secret laws, despite centuries of use? I believe he’s saying that the things mentioned in the OP don’t do and never did the things that SCs _think_ they do. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legitimacy-to-the-sovereign-citizen-argument/786097/18 "2017-05-08T07:05:20Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > So your contention is that the things mentioned in the OP are actually secret laws, despite centuries of use? Of course not. But Sovereign Citizens aren’t using real Common Law and such. They’re using an imaginary set of laws which they claim is based on Common Law. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legitimacy-to-the-sovereign-citizen-argument/786097/19 "2017-05-08T07:11:27Z")
Which sort of invalidates their argument since a basic tenet of Common Law is that statute trumps common law. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2017, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legitimacy-to-the-sovereign-citizen-argument/786097/20 "2017-05-08T08:17:25Z")
> [@Ambivalid](#): > > It’s kind of like prostitutes who legitimately believe that if they ask an undercover cop if they are law enforcement, they are compelled by law to answer truthfully. It’s in fact a sort of magical thinking—like how death is said to have to accept a challenge in any game, or the devil is bound by saying the right words, and so on. But these things only work because there is some higher metaphysical authority compelling those actors to obey its dictates; but the law is not a higher metaphysical authority binding government, government is the body that issues law. Or perhaps more broadly, laws are things that societies agree on, rules formulated in some sort of common discourse; it simply makes no logical sense to appeal to any ‘hidden laws’, because laws that nobody knows of simply aren’t laws. It’s like playing chess, and suddenly making an illegal move, claiming it’s a hidden rule—it’s not unless the other players agree on the rule. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-legitimacy-to-the-sovereign-citizen-argument/786097.md?page=2)