Sovereign citizens are odd creatures, Moorish-Americans a bit more so since they also work race into the mix.
That guy is very patient and why would you post that of yourself?
There have also been unscrupulous people who write books outlining how to be an SC. They get money. The police and courts get a headache.
In Canada, SCs have tried to get out of owing money for debts, not lose their driver’s licenses, avoid arrest (actually succeeded … once), not lose money in a divorce and not pay taxes.
In the first case, someone mailed the bank he had his mortgage some stamps that he claimed were worth millions of dollars. Or maybe fake cheques. Either way, the bank said no, despite OPCA (Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments) saying this was valid.
There’s the common story of people saying they’re “traveling”, not driving. That never works.
Somebody physically resisted arrest. He got arrested anyway. He actually won the case through some BS. I think the police officer had overstepped his authority, but that shouldn’t allow violent retaliation. The appropriate response would be to sue the police officer.
A divorced man wanted to get out of paying spousal support. He made a series of claims as to how his marriage wasn’t valid in the first place. (Wouldn’t signing a marriage contract indicate you gave consent to that contract? He had an unexpected response to that one…)
Canada had one or more “businesses” (such as Paradigm) that taught the “secret technique” to not having to pay taxes. Or even better, Fiscal Arbitrators, who would get you huge refunds based on previous tax returns, by claiming all kinds of personal expenses as “agent” expenses. (The taxpayer is split into two people, one of whom conveniently does not have to pay taxes, since that “person” doesn’t have a Social Insurance Number.) Even making that argument in court loses you the case and applies restrictions on you (so you can’t go to court anymore without certain conditions).
Many of these people are desperate and, knowing they can’t win the case, grab onto some nonsense. It doesn’t work and often backfires. And some people (like the detaxers) are just greedy.
Wait, what? I’ve seen a lot of videos, but I’ve never seen those claims. That’s fantastic - what pot of gold do they think they have the right to, and where do they think the end of the rainbow is?
It is called “Redemption Theory” and it is covered early on in this article about Sovereign Citizens.
Rick and the others claiming powerlessness have it correct. Everything stems from that.
SCs and the group of people who know they lack power to control their own lives and don’t understand why. Being a SC gives them that sense of power back. And it’s like a drug, this believing you are powerful. It makes one feel more secure and in control.
Sadly, it’s not the case, but they’ll never admit it because to do so would be to come face to face with how small and insignificant they truly are.
Wow. What was up with the bag? Was she, somehow, wearing it?
They’re idiots who don’t read after the first sentence or think about anything critically. Take Article IV (AOC) Right to Travel
These SovCits don’t stop to think
- Does this apply in states that never signed the Articles of Confederation?
- Is this superseded by the Constitution.
- Does this apply to intrastate travel or does it mean no state can bar me entry?
Most Americans are simply, “Don’t need driver’s license. Derp!!!”
And use the proper capitalization and punctuation.
And if you buck the system long enough, in time, you will be bucked OUT of the system.
I wonder if one of my HS classmates and her husband are SVs. Her Facebook page was one of the oddest I’ve ever seen; in short, they belong to a fringe religious sect whose members work only for cash, pay for everything in cash, do not use banks or insurance, and in their case, they also homeschooled their kids so they wouldn’t be exposed to people whose ideas differed from theirs. I later found out that they live in a house that was purchased outright by her very wealthy parents, who then sold it to them on contract.
She was highly intelligent, and I always liked her, but nope, no way was I going to send her a friend request.
And pseudo-history. They claim the Moroccans were in North America before white people, and they’re descended from them.
As the philosopher, Robert Fuller, once said “I fought the law. And the law won.”
You might not agree with the legitimacy of the government. But your disagreement doesn’t make the government disappear.
People who think the pleasure of “bucking the system” is worth the consequences of the system responding are short term thinkers. You get to yell at a judge for a few hours and then you spend a few years in prison.
Smart people recognize that the system exists and figure out ways to get around it.
Well, that’s just the thing. I believe the state has no legitimate authority over me. The state is just a mafia protection scheme. The difference between me and the SovCits is that I also believe that the cops and judges and prison guards and soldiers have guns and organization, and if I don’t go along with their mafia protection scheme they’re going to squash me like a bug, like, you know, a mafia guy would when I tell him that I’m not going to pay him the protection money since I never agreed to submit myself to his authority. No, when I tell the mafia guy I’m not going to pay, he gets out a baseball bat and breaks my kneecaps, that’s what makes him a mafia guy. And when I tell the cops and the judges and the prison guards I’m not going to pay my taxes or obey their so-called “laws”, my expectation is that they will get out their baseball bats and go to town on my kneecaps. I won’t like it when the cops beat the crap out of me for not obeying, but I won’t be surprised either.
That’s the silly thing. Yes, the government is illegitimate, we get it. You still have to obey their laws, or they get cranky. So either get good at evading the fascist cops, or get good at following the orders of the fascist cops, but either way don’t be surprised when the fascist cops start beating the crap out of you, that’s a fascist cop’s job.
Who is this “we” of which you speak?
SC’s are libertarians on crack.
Fin.
Some very much do mention God, as they only follow ‘God’s Laws’, not the laws of men, which is why they don’t need driver licenses, etc. I’ve seen their court filings, full of the normal sovereign stuff, but full of biblical references as well. It just varies by your flavor of crackpot.
The Meads v Meads decision by Assoc Chief Justice Rooke, which is the go-to document on sovereign arguments and why they’re bullshit, notes the tactics of Edward Belanger, who uses faith in his arguments. Belanger has argued that the King James Bible is the primary overriding law of Canada.
Quatloos has forums all about their nonsense in different countries.
I admit I find it interesting that many (most?) don’t view it as some kind of cynical evasion but have bought into it as an actual thing, judging from youtube videos of them completely panicking as their rituals fail when confronted by cops who are being TOTALLY uncool about the whole thing.
P. Barnes is still one of my heroes.
It it were only keyboard commandos, it wouldn’t be so widespread. No, people exploit this stuff for profit, writing books where they claim it’s worked for them.
That one Canadian court case where the judge explained the history of the movement involved a lot of hucksters.
It’s like the “get rich quick” schemes and MLM marketing–you create an idea to appeal to people who feel trapped, and then you make money off of them.
The idea that they are actually the ones doing the reading and coming up with the ideas is silly. The hucksters do that. Sure, maybe some people learn of it online for free, but it was still started by a huckster.
That was R. v. Duncan, 2013 ONCJ 160:
Mr. Duncan didn’t really win the case through BS, and it certainly wasn’t due to his using Freemen-on-the-Land (FOTL) tactics. It was a misunderstanding of the Highway Traffic Act (yep, this all stemmed from a traffic stop over Mr. Duncan allegedly failing to use a turn signal), on the part of the police. When Mr. Duncan refused to identify himself, things escalated.
The judge ruled that since there were no grounds for a traffic stop, owing to the officers’ misunderstanding of the Act, then the charge needed to be tossed, and everything that happened subsequently that led to charges should be tossed too. The judge did take care to say that while the matter was dismissed, Mr. Duncan’s attempt to use FOTL methods had nothing to do with the dismissal, and all Mr. Duncan did in that regard only wasted his and the court’s time.