# Is this announcement some "Freeman of the Land" or "Sovereign Citizen" thing? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 22, 2021, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-announcement-some-freeman-of-the-land-or-sovereign-citizen-thing/944838 "2021-06-22T12:30:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2021, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-announcement-some-freeman-of-the-land-or-sovereign-citizen-thing/944838/81 "2021-06-25T22:46:26Z")
> [@gdave](#): > > SovCits go from “military units are authorized to display U.S. flags with a gold fringe” [of course, so is literally _everyone_ else] to “therefore, U.S. flags with a gold fringe are _only_ authorized for use as military standards” [completely untrue] They do this all of the time. They particularly misunderstand the word “includes.” For example, a federal statute may talk about how states can do this or that and has a definitional section which says, “For the purposes of this article, the term “state” shall include Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.” It seems that anyone with half of a brain can understand this. The feds are passing a law dealing with states and for the purposes of this law, we are treating these places which are not states as if they were states to administer this law. A SovCit will read that and decide that the fifty states of the United States are in fact not states at all and that the only states are the ones named. And not just for the purpose of this particular law, but for all purposes. ---
**Author:** ![Bootb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e19b73/32.png) [@Bootb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bootb)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2021, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-announcement-some-freeman-of-the-land-or-sovereign-citizen-thing/944838/82 "2021-06-26T00:34:12Z")
That one is not necessarily their fault. There is a legitimate legal principle called “expressio unius est exclusio alterius,” or, “the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other.” [http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/E/ExpressioUniusEstExclusioAlterius.aspx](http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/E/ExpressioUniusEstExclusioAlterius.aspx) See the top of page 4 on the following link: > The term "includes’ is a term of limitation and not enlargement in most cases. Where it is used, it prescribes all of the things or classes of things to which the statute pertains. All other possible objects of the statute are, thereby excluded, by implication. > **[20190611092122150\_00000055.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-9575/102239/20190611092122150_00000055.pdf)** > > 2.99 MB Now this principle does not always apply. But many times it does. There is often a vast difference, legally speaking, between “including” and “including, but not limited to.” ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2021, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-announcement-some-freeman-of-the-land-or-sovereign-citizen-thing/944838/83 "2021-06-26T00:47:08Z")
> [@velomont](#): > > they have created 3 new lives all born on the land, They didn’t learn the first time, or they did it intentionally. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2021, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-announcement-some-freeman-of-the-land-or-sovereign-citizen-thing/944838/84 "2021-06-26T00:51:30Z")
I disagree. Expressio unius is usually in the following form: A person may wear a red or black dress to the party. Some person may say that it did NOT say that she couldn’t wear a green dress to the party, so she may. Expression unius says that the specification of red or black was meant to exclude all other colors. That makes sense in the way English speakers interact. It was clearly the intention of the speaker that ONLY red or black dresses may be worn. That definition of “includes” seems pretty narrow and has the weasel word of “most” and it seems silly in the context described above. If a statute said that “No bombs may be carried aboard the aircraft, and the word “bomb” includes incendiary fireworks” would any sane person believe that you can carry C-4 on the plane because it isn’t a firework? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2021, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-announcement-some-freeman-of-the-land-or-sovereign-citizen-thing/944838/85 "2021-06-26T04:11:54Z")
> [@gdave](#): > > It’s even dumber than that. No such Federal law exists, nor is there any actual association between gold fringes and admiralty courts. Maybe even dumber. I don’t believe the US has admiralty courts anymore. Those cases are handled in District Courts. ---
**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:** [June 26, 2021, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-announcement-some-freeman-of-the-land-or-sovereign-citizen-thing/944838/86 "2021-06-26T04:14:26Z")
Suuuure. That’s what _they_ want you to believe. ---
**Author:** ![jjakucyk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3d9bf3/32.png) [@jjakucyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjakucyk)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2021, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-announcement-some-freeman-of-the-land-or-sovereign-citizen-thing/944838/87 "2021-06-26T04:27:11Z")
Sir, we _are_ they. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/WAfNefX3faI/hqdefault.jpg "Sir, we are they.") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAfNefX3faI) ---
**Author:** ![Isilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@Isilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isilder)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2021, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-announcement-some-freeman-of-the-land-or-sovereign-citizen-thing/944838/88 "2021-06-26T12:54:15Z")
And then there is this … his website [https://www.neuralium.com/team](https://www.neuralium.com/team) ---
**Author:** ![gdave](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gdave/32/3683_2.png) [@gdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gdave)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2021, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-announcement-some-freeman-of-the-land-or-sovereign-citizen-thing/944838/89 "2021-06-26T12:56:33Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Maybe even dumber. I don’t believe the US has admiralty courts anymore. Those cases are handled in District Courts. Thank you for correcting my correction. You are absolutely right. The U.S. does not have distinct “admiralty” courts. As it happens, I live in a port city in the U.S.. There are local attorneys that advertise themselves as “Proctors in Admiralty”, which actually used to be a technical distinction in the Federal court system, but now is just advertising jargon. Until 1966, in the U.S. there were admiralty _lawyers_, but that was just a specialized certification for lawyers to practice admiralty law in U.S. District Courts, which have original jurisdiction over all admiralty and maritime law cases - as well as a lot of other kinds of cases. I _think_ for purposes of international maritime law, U.S. District Courts _are_ considered “admiralty courts”, but that’s just one of many functions they have. Admiralty law is actually a thing in the U.S., but it’s just one of _many_ areas of law that fall within the jurisdiction of U.S. District Courts ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2021, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-announcement-some-freeman-of-the-land-or-sovereign-citizen-thing/944838/90 "2021-06-26T22:42:05Z")
> [@gdave](#): > > Admiralty law is actually a thing in the U.S., but it’s just one of _many_ areas of law that fall within the jurisdiction of U.S. District Courts Which feeds into their notion that because some institution _functions as X_ or because some provision of law _includes Y_, then that and only that is what they are and what applies. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2021, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-announcement-some-freeman-of-the-land-or-sovereign-citizen-thing/944838/91 "2021-06-26T23:14:47Z")
> [@Bootb](#): > > There is a legitimate legal principle called “expressio unius est exclusio alterius,” or, “the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other.” This applies if there’s a straightforward conditional prohibition (e.g. “No parking between 6AM and 7PM Monday-Friday” implies that parking is permitted at other times). That doesn’t cover the distinctly un-straightforward semantic shenanigans of sovereign simpletons. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2021, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-announcement-some-freeman-of-the-land-or-sovereign-citizen-thing/944838/92 "2021-06-28T02:36:56Z")
> [@gdave](#): > > I _think_ for purposes of international maritime law, U.S. District Courts _are_ considered “admiralty courts”, but that’s just one of many functions they have. As an admiralty lawyer, I don’t know of any international maritime law that “considers” courts to be or not be admiralty courts. ---
**Author:** ![Moonshine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5e9695/32.png) [@Moonshine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moonshine)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2021, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-announcement-some-freeman-of-the-land-or-sovereign-citizen-thing/944838/93 "2021-06-28T12:23:46Z")
And this post right here is why I read the Dope. Here we are, gently mocking Sovereign nut jobs, and along comes an actual honest-to-god admiralty lawyer with some relevant facts. Right here on the Dope, come for the fun, stay for the insights! Or am I being whooshed? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2021, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-announcement-some-freeman-of-the-land-or-sovereign-citizen-thing/944838/94 "2021-06-28T12:40:47Z")
This being GQ I am being serious. For once. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2021, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-announcement-some-freeman-of-the-land-or-sovereign-citizen-thing/944838/95 "2021-06-29T05:22:22Z")
As I reread this, I’m convinced I’m correct. If you tell your daughter: I want you to clean your room, and that includes your closet. Does that mean she needs to only clean her closet? And how about: You are being grounded and may not leave this house on the weekend, and that includes going to see grandma! Does that mean she can fly to Vegas with her boyfriend on the weekend? …I think any speaker of English means these things to state: X, and in case there is doubt, X is also this. It is not a term of any sort of exclusion. ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2021, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-announcement-some-freeman-of-the-land-or-sovereign-citizen-thing/944838/96 "2021-06-29T10:28:17Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > As I reread this, I’m convinced I’m correct. If you tell your daughter: > > I want you to clean your room, and that includes your closet. When it’s simple like that - no problem. But what if you make it more complicated? I want you to clean the house, and that includes your room, the kitchen, dining room, family room and the deck. She might reasonably assume that once she has ticked the list she is done, even though you left out the bathroom and your room. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2021, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-announcement-some-freeman-of-the-land-or-sovereign-citizen-thing/944838/97 "2021-06-29T10:56:52Z")
A statement like you made seems like you want to tell the daughter to clean the house, but you fear that she is trying to lawyer ball you and you make an even more imprecise statement. When anyone in the family speaks of “cleaning the house” there is usually an agreed upon meaning for that statement. It includes the common areas, but may or may not include the personal bedrooms. It probably does not include the cellar that nobody has been in for thirty years with cobwebs hanging down from it. It probably would not include cleaning the deck. So I could see a statement of, “You are to clean the house including the bedrooms and bathrooms, the deck, and the Addams Family basement!” If the parent feared that she might lawyer ball the direction, and included a list as you did (like family room, how is that not part of the house by any definition) and did it incompletely, then I feel it would still rest on what the common understanding of what “clean the house” meant prior to the conversation. If cleaning the master bedroom was never part of cleaning the house prior, then the daughter would be right. But in my example, a “state” is always been known as one of the fifty states and could not realistically or reasonably said not to be included in that definition. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-announcement-some-freeman-of-the-land-or-sovereign-citizen-thing/944838.md?page=4)