# Sovereign citizen tests his theories in practice; is shocked by the results **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [September 19, 2012, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereign-citizen-tests-his-theories-in-practice-is-shocked-by-the-results/635218 "2012-09-19T23:15:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2012, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereign-citizen-tests-his-theories-in-practice-is-shocked-by-the-results/635218/141 "2012-09-25T20:25:04Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > If Jefferson believed that majorities were important, then that contradicts the idea that any individual person should be able to opt out. “Consent of the governed” refers to the governed as a whole, not to the consent of each and every individual person. If that were the case, then majority rule and voting would have no meaning. Correct, and AFAIK (and IANAHistorian or Political Scientist) neither Jefferson nor the other founders explicated or explicitly defended this concept of “the governed as a whole”—a concept that you have to admit seems a bit suspect from an objective standpoint. All the other arguments the founders made seem to depend on _individual_ rights, but when you get to this “consent of the governed” thing, suddenly you’re talking about some collective? The “freemen” seem correct in inferring that _IF_ the government and the founders are logically consistent then there _must_ be some intermediate step by which an individual willingly becomes part of this whole. Rather than admit that their premise might be flawed, they dedicate themselves to finding this missing step somewhere in the arcane structures of the law, whence we get all the nonsense about Admiralty law and gold fringes. They are searching for something that doesn’t exist, and so they resort to “finding” it in anything they don’t understand. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2012, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereign-citizen-tests-his-theories-in-practice-is-shocked-by-the-results/635218/142 "2012-09-25T20:31:13Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > a concept that you have to admit seems a bit suspect from an objective standpoint. Does it really? I don’t agree that this is either objective or seemingly correct. > [@](#): > > All the other arguments the founders made seem to depend on _individual_ rights, but when you get to this “consent of the governed” thing, suddenly you’re talking about some collective? I don’t really see how it’s that complicated objectively. When they talk about individual rights, they are talking about specific rights in the face of government authority. But for any of the governmental structures they created to have any meaning there has to be a government, and every time a majority or minority is mentioned, it implies that the majority can, under certain circumstances, force its will upon the minority. An individual is just a minority of one. _That’s_ what is logically consistent. ---
**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:** [September 25, 2012, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereign-citizen-tests-his-theories-in-practice-is-shocked-by-the-results/635218/143 "2012-09-25T20:36:43Z")
Seems to me that their parents consented to government on their behalf by choosing to have their child acquire US citizenship by birth. ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2012, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereign-citizen-tests-his-theories-in-practice-is-shocked-by-the-results/635218/144 "2012-09-25T20:58:10Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Does it really? I don’t agree that this is either objective or seemingly correct. > > I don’t really see how it’s that complicated objectively. When they talk about individual rights, they are talking about specific rights in the face of government authority. But for any of the governmental structures they created to have any meaning there has to be a government, and every time a majority or minority is mentioned, it implies that the majority can, under certain circumstances, force its will upon the minority. An individual is just a minority of one. _That’s_ what is logically consistent. But what’s the philosophical rationale for it? You go straight from wanting the government to have meaning to allowing force upon the minority. But what’s the justification for wanting to empower the structures of government and why do those justifications warrant infringing upon the agreed upon rights of the minority to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Keep in mind, I agree with you that it is justified for the majority to impose its will (in certain circumstances) upon the minority, but I don’t think (and neither do the FOTL) that you can find that justification if you limit yourself to the arguments put forth explicitly by the founders. And again, the basis of FOTL/sovereign citizen thought is the (false!) idea that the laws and the justifications for the laws put forth by the founders _must_ be explicitly logical. Someone above likened it to Kirk trying to trick Nomad into a logical trap. It’s not enough for them to say “Clearly the founders must have thought majority rule was acceptable or they wouldn’t have established it.” If the government didn’t show its work in getting from the premises of natural law to the conclusion of majority rule, the whole thing broken because of a giant loophole that _surely_ (they think) the courts will acknowledge if it’s pointed out to them. > [@Smapti](#): > > Seems to me that their parents consented to government on their behalf by choosing to have their child acquire US citizenship by birth. I agree with you, but that goes against the 17th century Protestant philosophy that led to the idea of individual rights and that (according to the FOTL) forms the only legitimate basis for law. What are you, some kind of Papist? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereign-citizen-tests-his-theories-in-practice-is-shocked-by-the-results/635218/145 "2012-09-26T01:57:20Z")
I sometimes wonder if the political theory of the Founders had at its root a contradiction: trying to reconcile a natural philosophy that’s ultimately anarchic while still retaining government. If you take natural rights seriously at face value, you come to the conclusion that there shouldn’t be any government at all, like an L. Neil Smith libertarian utopia. But that would lead to a power vacuum and the reimposition of tyranny, as the then not-so-long-ago example of Cromwell showed. So then the best that could be done was to deliberately create a preemptive. limited tyranny as a sort of vaccine to even worse alternatives. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereign-citizen-tests-his-theories-in-practice-is-shocked-by-the-results/635218/146 "2012-09-26T22:16:42Z")
> [@Mnemnosyne](#): > > While the legal crazy is of course crazy, the use of a taser there is ridiculous and a little frightening to me; people seem far too willing to accept the use of these things. There were numerous officers present; how annoying he might have been doesn’t justify the use of a taser to subdue him when he wasn’t violent and appeared to be in no danger of causing harm to anyone. Physically restraining him would have been more than adequate, and by the looks of it, not particularly difficult (it seems likely he would have shouted more “legal” nonsense, but not fought back). Add the fact that the event took place in an area where he had already been checked for weapons, and the officers had no plausible way to think he would pull out a dangerous weapon if they attempted to simply apprehend him physically. In general, I am concerned about the appearance that law enforcement agents are turning to tasers as their FIRST line of response to any resistance or confrontation, rather than as an intermediary step between conversing and use of lethal force. While tasers are generally non-lethal and usually non-injurious, there are people who and conditions where they are dangerous. That’s why Canada has scrutinized their policy, and I approve. Training is also important to differentiate resistance and fighting back with motion from reacting to pain, etc. > [@septimus](#): > > Two bailiffs were dedicated to physical blocking his path; if he had stayed there, taunting them for five hours, should the taxpayers afford ten man-hours to block him? Just before the tazering it appears “Robert” tried to shoulder his way past the bailiffs. Should they have let him continue to do that, perhaps wrestling with him? Inform him that he will not be allowed in, and trying to force his way past is grounds for arrest. Advise him that they are placing him under arrest. Tell him to put his hands behind his back, try to physically position him. If he does not comply, instruct him that they will taze him if he fails to comply. > [@](#): > > Perhaps an arrest for “disturbing the peace” was appropriate, but the camera dissuaded that route? I have to wonder if that played a role in the slow response in the courtroom. They took their time double checking and conferring on the radio in order not to disrupt the proceedings. I assume their intent was to arrest him as soon as they cleared the courtroom, except he exited with the rest of the crowd. > [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > But wasn’t he in a municipal or state courthouse? So even if you accept the loony arguments about the Federal Government, the state or municipal courts still are valid, right? He was physically there so he could present his case that they did not have proper jurisdiction. He had to go to them physically to have the conversation. > [@Muffin](#): > > A couple of things stood out in the video for me as being very different from what I am used to. First, the security guards in the video put up with the Chihuahua in the toe shoes far longer than the security in the courts in my area would have. Around here, after being told that he could not bring the camera into the courtroom, if he continued to press the issue, he would have been escorted out of the building, for disruptions (including distracting court security) are not tolerated. Second, when the nutter’s behaviour changed from passive resistant to active resistant as he tried to push his way through, the officers up here would have cuffed him and marched him off, rather than zapping him, for arguably bodily harm was not imminent, or if it was, there was time to draw and warn him before zapping him. In other words, around my area, I would have expected a firmer response earlier on to have removed him, but if he still tried to push through, then I would have expected the arrest to be made without escalating to a zapping. Agreed. They seemed to flounder for a while with his passive resistance, but took extra strong action when he made the mildest active resistance. > [@OttoDaFe](#): > > It took me a while to find it — I’d forgotten the exact title — but [this](http://www.rogermwilcox.com/debuck.html) is an interesting (to me, at least) insight into the sovereignty mindset. Interesting, and it has two cites of The Straight Dope. > [@Mnemnosyne](#): > > I didn’t see any assaulting going on in the video before the tasering. Technically, when he physically tried to push past the guards, that was assault. It was not violent and not causing harm or potential harm, but it did change from passive resistance (refusing to comply) to active resistance. > [@](#): > > But they for some reason felt it was necessary to zap him before trying to apprehend him or even telling him that they were arresting him. Agreed. > [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > That may all be true, but I thought it was of some value to point out that his uncooperative attitude with the bailiffs started before part 3 of the video. Considering how part 2 ended, it’s hard to imagine how they got him out of the courtroom without some physical force, but seemed to stop short of arresting him. We’re also seeing the tape as edited and presented by the person who was tased, so we’re not seeing the parts he doesn’t wish us to see. That is on the long version. Since he refuses to turn off the camera and refuses to leave, they begin to clear the courtroom. I assume they were going to then confront him again and arrest him for whatever (disrupting the peace, failure to comply, whatever), but he chose to leave with the rest of the crowd, thus relieving the situation. So when he’s standing around in the lobby area, they apparently are conferring on how to proceed. I assume that is when they agreed on the plan to block his access and arrest him if he tried to push his way in. > [@handsomeharry](#): > > BTW, did you all catch the “…it’s not like I haven’t been tazered before.” Priceless. Yeah, that jumped out at me. I notice mom wasn’t quite so eager to push the camera issue a second time. Then again, there is one moment when she tells him “I want to to do what they tell you”, so she wasn’t fully as committed as he was. ---
**Author:** ![Chicago\_Craig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e480ec/32.png) [@Chicago\_Craig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chicago_Craig)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2012, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereign-citizen-tests-his-theories-in-practice-is-shocked-by-the-results/635218/147 "2012-10-01T19:24:36Z")
> [@Alan\_Smithee](#): > > You can see at the end of the first video that he’s wearing toe shoes. I think that justifies the tazering tight there. Even Vinny didn’t try showing up in court wearing toe shoes. > > ETA: Holy shit, I think his mother’s wearing toe shoes too! Someone with him is. Are toe shoes a Sovereign Citizen thing? Are you trying to create joinder between his toes??? ---
**Author:** ![Chicago\_Craig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e480ec/32.png) [@Chicago\_Craig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chicago_Craig)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2012, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereign-citizen-tests-his-theories-in-practice-is-shocked-by-the-results/635218/148 "2012-10-01T19:32:10Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Crazy as the Creationists are, they at least have a consistent basis for their beliefs - they base everything on the Bible. > > But Free Men/Sovereign Citizens? They’re claiming that the Law of the United States gives them the power to live outside of the jurisdiction of the Law of the United States. And that the elites who created this system were smart enough to do it but stupid enough to leave loopholes gaping enough for a lukewarm-IQ teenager to exploit. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereign-citizen-tests-his-theories-in-practice-is-shocked-by-the-results/635218/149 "2012-10-06T07:19:29Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > You know folks, all this stuff about how it works in Canada is as relevant and on-topic as how it works in Zimbabwe. If Zimbabwe’s rules worked and had a greater consensus amongst Americans than current laws, then, I guess you’re right. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 9:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereign-citizen-tests-his-theories-in-practice-is-shocked-by-the-results/635218/150 "2012-10-06T09:38:14Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > You know folks, all this stuff about how it works in Canada is as relevant and on-topic as how it works in Zimbabwe. > [@BigT](#): > > If Zimbabwe’s rules worked and had a greater consensus amongst Americans than current laws, then, I guess you’re right. I’m not sure where **Chimera** is coming from with his (her?) remark. Canada is a common-law country, as is the USA (and the UK, Australia, India, and to the best of my knowledge, Zimbabwe). Most “common law” countries take their system of law from the British tradition. In this regard, Canada is no different from the US: _stare decisis_ rules. What this means is different caselaw, same result. That being said, I’ve been doing some research into the Freeman stuff (including caselaw), and there are some differences between the US and Canada in this regard. Perhaps most laughable is the fact that Canadian freemen seem to think that the United States constitution and statutes apply here in Canada; at least, according to the documents they foist on authorities. I’ve reviewed Canadian freemen documents that cite the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, the American UCC, Magna Carta, and the US Code. None of the above apply here in Canada. In short, law works in Canada the same way it does in the US; and as a result, the freemen’s arguments are just as worthless here as they are in the US. ---
**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereign-citizen-tests-his-theories-in-practice-is-shocked-by-the-results/635218/151 "2012-10-06T10:41:22Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > Canada is a common-law country, as is the USA (and the UK, Australia, India, and to the best of my knowledge, Zimbabwe). Zimbabwe is a common-law country in a procedural sense; that is, its courts follow precedent and the rule of _stare decisis_ and so on. But the substantive law of Zimbabwe is not the English common law but the [Roman-Dutch common law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Dutch_law) (“the law in force in the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope on 10th June, 1891, as modified by subsequent legislation”) which it shares with South Africa and other countries in the region. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 11:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereign-citizen-tests-his-theories-in-practice-is-shocked-by-the-results/635218/152 "2012-10-06T11:36:12Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > I’ve reviewed Canadian freemen documents that cite the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, the American UCC, Magna Carta, and the US Code. None of the above apply here in Canada. Magna Carta? I’d consider it to be part of Canada’s Constitution. (Not that it would be of any use to the nutters.) All the US law would not be binding, of course, but might be persuasive (again, not that it would be of any use to the nutters). ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereign-citizen-tests-his-theories-in-practice-is-shocked-by-the-results/635218/153 "2012-10-06T12:11:31Z")
Here’s an interesting [brief](http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=%22peter%20hogg%22%20%22magna%20carta%22&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCEQxQEwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fviewer%3Fa%3Dv%26q%3Dcache%3AcR_PxJxiOPcJ%3Awww.garrybreitkreuz.com%2Fpublications%2FLibrary%252520Report_Magna%252520Carta_2005_04_131.doc%2B%2522peter%2Bhogg%2522%2B%2522magna%2Bcarta%2522%26hl%3Den%26gl%3Dca%26pid%3Dbl%26srcid%3DADGEESiTUfU6WcPxluC-NU1xaBawdhu4Izr8U1w06v7x6rdK7KMnFKEqYmYHiwJ7CPMYm-Y52pqkpTHtOBo5cnjNI3_zYtHjnlz50QPqBmEA11g7dZd9mQcdMr6cKPV9VLidhJ_EVkU9%26sig%3DAHIEtbRBQv92R1cSM5oCwrR8TR6mVE86EQ&ei=ARxwUOq_FYqpyAGd44F4&usg=AFQjCNGpzIspN31cmYbcE_wF8Zubzcc2Vg) from the Parliamentary Information and Research Service that asserts that the Magna Carta is part of our legal heritage and influential, but it is just an ordinary statute and is not part of our Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereign-citizen-tests-his-theories-in-practice-is-shocked-by-the-results/635218/154 "2012-10-06T13:57:13Z")
But is there even a single clause in the Magna Carta that hasn’t been superseded by subsequent law? ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereign-citizen-tests-his-theories-in-practice-is-shocked-by-the-results/635218/155 "2012-10-06T14:36:32Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > But is there even a single clause in the Magna Carta that hasn’t been superseded by subsequent law? Arguably, due process, which was received in the BNA, although s. 7-14 of the '82 Charter would seem to cover it. (The more I look at it, the more I think I’m wrong with respect to my opinion that the Magna Carta is a constitutional document – it’s the concept that is entrenched, not the document.) ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereign-citizen-tests-his-theories-in-practice-is-shocked-by-the-results/635218/156 "2012-10-06T14:56:14Z")
For what it’s worth (from [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta)): > [@](#): > > Lord Denning described it as “the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot”.[3] In a 2005 speech, Lord Woolf described it as “first of a series of instruments that now are recognised as having a special constitutional status”,[4] ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2012, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereign-citizen-tests-his-theories-in-practice-is-shocked-by-the-results/635218/157 "2012-10-07T00:20:34Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > (The more I look at it, the more I think I’m wrong with respect to my opinion that the Magna Carta is a constitutional document – it’s the concept that is entrenched, not the document.) That’s my understanding. Magna Carta is part of our constitutional heritage, certainly. But the important rights (_habeas corpus_, for example) granted by it have been superseded by the Constitution and the the Charter. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2012, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereign-citizen-tests-his-theories-in-practice-is-shocked-by-the-results/635218/158 "2012-10-07T02:14:56Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > All the US law would not be binding, of course, but might be persuasive (again, not that it would be of any use to the nutters). It typically isn’t, and it appears in many cases as if documents have been copied and pasted from American websites or similar documents originating in the US. It’s kind of amusing to be reading through court documents filed in a Canadian court by a Canadian freeman, and find an assertion of his Fourth Amendment rights, with no reference made at all to Charter s. 8. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2012, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereign-citizen-tests-his-theories-in-practice-is-shocked-by-the-results/635218/159 "2012-10-07T02:51:19Z")
Well, you know, Canada, Inc., _is_ a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of The United States of America, Inc., currently in hock to the British Crown, Ltd., which is in turn majority-owned by the Bilderburgers, a private corporation based out of Malta. Ultimately, the chain of ownership traces back to Larry “Bud” Melman, who faked his own death and is really a heck of a guy. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2012, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereign-citizen-tests-his-theories-in-practice-is-shocked-by-the-results/635218/160 "2012-10-07T03:18:57Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > Well, you know, Canada, Inc., _is_ a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of The United States of America, Inc., currently in hock to the British Crown, Ltd., which is in turn majority-owned by the Bilderburgers, a private corporation based out of Malta. I know you’re having a little fun, but my research has indicated that some (not all) Canadian freemen really do believe that “Canada Inc.” is incorporated under the laws of the United States; and that the head office (i.e. capital) of Canada Inc. is not Ottawa, but the Canadian embassy in Washington DC. I wonder if that means that the huge fund that governments have attached to Canadian freemen’s birth (or berth; they use the spelling interchangeably) certificates comes from the US treasury, or the Bank of Canada? 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereign-citizen-tests-his-theories-in-practice-is-shocked-by-the-results/635218.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sovereign-citizen-tests-his-theories-in-practice-is-shocked-by-the-results/635218.md?page=9)