I’ve seen YT vids and FB posts about them, but I still don’t understand. What are they trying to accomplish?
In: Other
On a surface level they do the same thing as each other, but there is two kinds of sovereign citizen.
1. They believe or think what they say is true, often have little to no understanding of the legal system or court. often claiming as they never consented to be governed by the US, and that they have additional rights not listed that cannot be violated. Will often misquote legal terms and documents endlessly. It’s like a legal form of the Gish gallop.
2. They are using the tactics of a Sovereign citizen to delay courts or cause a mistrial. Often they are involved in a legal case where the odds are overwhelmingly against them and they are trying to cause a mistrial or to delay the case as long as possible to avoid jail/prison.
There’s an old law in the US that has been defunct (no longer a law) for hundreds of years now.
Basically, back when the US was starting out, the states weren’t all that united, so the federal government passed a law that tells all the states that they need to consider citizens of other states as if they were citizens of any other state they travel to. It also says something about not impeding the travel of citizens between states.
Basically it defined that citizens of each state are also citizens of the US, and each state needs to play nice with citizens of other states.
But as the US developed, this set of laws were outdated and rewritten, so they don’t even apply anymore.
Sovereign citizens are deeply misinformed regarding that old law and its wording, basically thinking that if they “travel” they can’t be stopped by cops because it infringes on their right to travel enshrined in the defunct law. They also interpret the defunct law’s about “treat them as if they were citizens of your state” as being given all the rights and freedoms of the law, but aren’t actually required to follow the law and are free to commit any crimes.
This is obviously an incorrect understanding of the law, which I remind no longer applies, and they use it as an excuse to drive without paying for insurance or getting a license.
Sovereign Citizenship is more of a rag-bag collection of related views than a cohesive “Movement”. That might explain why it’s a bit confusing to understand if different SCs are coming at it from different angles.
What ties SC together is an over-riding mentality that many laws are somehow invalid, and that if you “Crack The Code” and “Know The Truth” then you do not have to actually abide by any of them.
Typical SC arguments are some combination of:
* The US Constitution was never properly ratified, or the ratification was illegal or invalid or whatever. So the Articles of Confederation – a sort of first draft that suggested very limited federal power – is actually the “real” Constitution. Anything listed in the Constitution that isn’t listed in the Articles Of Confederation is an illegal law or rule, and you do not have to obey it.
* You the individual are not the same as the “You” on government forms. SCs will use all sorts of claims about capital letters, abbreviations, full stops etc to claim that the JOHN Q SMITH on a taxation form is a completely different entity to John Quincy Smith the flesh and blood human being. All of the laws and rules actually apply to this “other” JOHN Q SMITH….whoever he is.
* Claiming if a flag is displayed a certain way or certain words are said/not said, then a courtroom is an invalid entity and has no right to try or convict an individual.
* Using extreme semantic word games to get around rules and laws. A classic is to describe driving as “travelling”, and using claims about “free travelling” to argue that they don’t need drivers licences or vehicle plates.
* Claiming that if they didn’t consent to being bound by a law, they can’t be bound by it. They’ll make Granpa Simpson type “Dear Mr President, I do not agree to be taxed. PS I am not a crackpot” claims and appeals on this basis. A variation on this is claiming they never consented to being a citizen of the US, so no US rules apply to them.
As a recent example, Darrell Brooks tried (badly) to use a combination of the second, third and fifth points. Hence all his outburts about “I do not consent to the charges” and “This is an Admiralty Court” and “I don’t know anyone of the identity Darrell Brooks”.
The common perception of SC is that they are either ignorant morons or selfish assholes – they want all the freedom of society but none of the responsibility. And no doubt many of them fit this category.
However in the current political climate, I feel some SCs are probably people who are genuinely disheartened or feel let down by the system in some way. There’s a sense of them looking for a sort of “escape” or “reset” button to get outside a system they don’t believe in anymore.
Okay – so here is my question. If the person is a sovereign citizen, are they responsible to defend their sovereignty? I mean could someone give them an ass kicking and that would be fine? If they think they are not subject to “our” laws. Do they think they should get property and thug protection? Do they call 911?
Latest Answers