Sovereign citizens

[Beorning]

I was bored yesterday, so I started watching YT court videos featuring "sovereign citizens"  (of the US variety, specifically).

... wow. What the heck.  :o

I already knew these people have crazy legal theories - like the insistance on "not consenting"... or the "all caps name" nonsense... or the "I don't need a driving license - I'm not driving, I'm travelling" thing. But the insanity goes way further, it seems...

I mean, I watched a guy who, at the court hearing, claimed he was "an agent, a settler and an individual, but not a person". I watched a man who claimed the US courts had no jurisdiction over him, as he was a "Moorish American" (and cited documents dated in a accordance to "Clock of Destiny"). And there was a defendant who named as his lawyer some weird guy who called himself "Attorney General" and appeared at the Zoom court brandishing a gun and a sword...

Seriously, where do these people get these legal ideas? Are they really that ignorant? And what's up with all those self-proclaimed "Moorish Americans" wearing fez hats during trials?

[Regina Minx]

Darrell Brooks, the man who drove a car through a Christmas parade in 2021, was not always a sovereign citizen. But he found that ideology in jail and represented himself using, at times, sovcit defenses such as contesting and refusing to concede subject matter jurisdiction (the right of a court to hear a particular case), refusing to acknowledge the name Darrell Brooks, and using magic words such as "I accept for value and return for value this document" when handed any piece of paper through his trial.

Oh, and he attempted to persuade the jury to go for jury nullification.

These were the least insane things about this trial.

[Beorning]

I've seen the excerpts from that trial. The judge who presided over it had a patience of a saint... She reminded me of another female judge, the one from one of Alex Jones' trials. Both of them had amazing restraint in the face of the antics they were facing.

(going on a tangent for a moment: has anyone here seen the Bradley Yohn trial? I'm not sure whether Yohn was using sovcit tactics while self-representing, or if he was simply absolutely ignorant of the law... in any case, this was the first trial I've watched where the prosecutors were seen headdesking while listening to the defendant...)

[Oniya]

I did a quick scan of some of the shenanigans, and can only cite the old aphorism:  He who will take no-Advice, but be always his own Counsellor, shall be sure to have a Fool for his Client. 

While counsellor may or may not have meant 'lawyer' in the original, it still seems valid.  Yohn appears to have known just enough law to be an idiot about it.  My suspicion is that he watched a handful of YouTube videos.

[Missy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glnqzfPNEzM

[Oniya]

It's not just knowing when you're wrong, it's realizing that a source that hypes its claims with things like 'They don't want you to know', and 'LEGAL!!!!!1!!!WTFBBQ!' just might not be on the up-and-up.  There are probably some of these sovcits who have done enough research to make the opposing counsel need a small consultation break, but Yohn doesn't seem to be one of them (hence the headdesking).

[Beorning]

Yohn is clearly an idiot, period. It so embarrassing to watch when he tries to formulate an argument and comes up with "Sometimes evidence is not evidence"...

Speaking of not knowing you are wrong - this video has a lovely judge that shows this to a sovcit very painfully. He doesn't get, though...

(I apologize for the annoying channel commentator - I don't like this guy's attitude at all. But the court video itself is golden)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1LFz6wB204

[Pink Duct Tape]

My very favorites are SovCivs vs Sparky the Taser. :D

The simple reality is that a lot of these knuckleheads fall into this category because they are looking for any excuse they can find to avoid the difficult task of following society's rules and accept responsibility for their own poor behavior. Just look at the ones doing the, "I'm not driving!" schtick. It's always because they have no source of income, can't pay for their insurance and tags, have a suspended or revoked license, and usually have a long criminal record that includes evasion and resisting arrest. They're hoping that if they can vomit enough word nonsense John Law will get bored, tired of dealing with them, and just let them go with a warning.

That is the best case scenario.

Otherwise, yes. Yes they really are that stupid. Stupid being a polite understatement.

[Beorning]

One of the things I find mindboggling about these people is that, due to their beliefs / attitudes / tricks, manage to escalate really small situations. And make their situation much worse.

They don't want to pay a fine or a driving ticket... so, they start going sovcit in court... and, thanks to their incompetence, they manage to litigate themselves into jail. Can't they see it's not working?

[inkybus]

Humans have done way bigger, stupider things than that. Just look at Putin.

[Beorning]

I don't know if Putin's murderous politics can be compared to the blatant idiocy of sovcit ideas...

Frankly, I'm more reminded of Flat Earthers here. Coincidentally, I've watched some FE clips lately. Let me tell you: you haven't seen the true depth of ignorance, if you haven't seen a grown man proudly aim a hand-held digital thermometer at the Sun to measure its temperature...

Coming back to sovcits, I really recommend this lengthy video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcxZFmKrxR8

It doesn't cover everything, but it's a good place to get an overview of the "movement". Plus, it's really well-made (who is this woman? She's brilliant!)

[Regina Minx]

One of the things I find mindboggling about these people is that, due to their beliefs / attitudes / tricks, manage to escalate really small situations. And make their situation much worse.

They don't want to pay a fine or a driving ticket... so, they start going sovcit in court... and, thanks to their incompetence, they manage to litigate themselves into jail. Can't they see it's not working?

To people with a persecution or victim complex, it would only reinforce their delusions that the clearly corrupt, unconstitutional, rigged courts and police officers are running them through a kangaroo court and depriving them of their rights unjustly.

[Oniya]

To people with a persecution or victim complex, it would only reinforce their delusions that the clearly corrupt, unconstitutional, rigged courts and police officers are running them through a kangaroo court and depriving them of their rights unjustly.

This sounds familiar - did you get an advanced transcript of Tucker Carlson's 'debate night' show?  (ROFL)

[Humble Scribe]

We have a similar bunch of crazies in the UK who believe that Clause 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta (although they always call it 'Article' 61, as though it were part of a written constitution) gives them a "lawful right to rebel" and therefore they don't need to wear masks during covid or all kinds of other things. They also will tell you that 'article' 61 was LAWFULLY INVOKED (as though it were a spell) in 2001, and that all subsequent UK governments have been invalid since then, and in fact the UK has been lawfully ruled by 25 Barons since then, and you can send off a letter full of legal mumbo jumbo to one of them and pledge allegiance (although the nobleman in question admits he puts the letters in the bin), which means that all UK courts no longer have jurisdiction over them. Essentially, they think they've found a 'cheat code' to UK law. The craziness also seems to have trickled into some former colonies like Canada and Australia.

Needless to say this is not how anything works. The 1215 Magna Carta was repudiated by King John four weeks after he put his seal to it, in no small part because of Clause 61, which placed an unelected junta of barons above Royal authority, and just a couple of weeks later in August 1215 the Pope absolved him of his vow to obey it. The Magna Carta that ended up on the statute books in 1217 was a compromise version issued by the regent, William Marshal, after King John's death, and it had removed the contentious clause (the Barons accepted they no longer needed it - it had been because they didn't trust John to stick to it, but Marshal was a much more honourable and trustworthy man).

It's true that there were a bunch of badly informed Conservative members of the House of Lords who tried to prevent the Blair government signing up to the Treaty of Nice in 2001, and who tried to use Clause 61 as an excuse for them to protest directly to the Queen, before they were politely informed that this was all bullshit and they should stop being silly. And, of course, since Brexit, the Treaty of Nice no longer binds the UK in any case.

I was especially amused that one of the crazies tried to 'seize' Edinburgh Castle in 2021, even though Magna Carta was never law in Scotland. The protesters soon dispersed when the Scottish police explained this to them.

[stormwyrm]

Ah, the "freeman on the land" nonsense. 🤦‍♂️

[Chulanowa]

One of the things I find mindboggling about these people is that, due to their beliefs / attitudes / tricks, manage to escalate really small situations. And make their situation much worse.

They don't want to pay a fine or a driving ticket... so, they start going sovcit in court... and, thanks to their incompetence, they manage to litigate themselves into jail. Can't they see it's not working?

Sovereign Citizens are, ultimately, a flavor of conspiracy theorist. And the thing about being a conspiracy theorist is that you can never be wrong. They can't "see it's not working," becuase to them, the fact they get jailed is literal proof of their own oppression and "The Deep State" trying to silence their beliefs.

[GloomCookie]

I think it also boils down to a sense of entitlement. It's not just that they know the truth, it's that they have found a loophole to let them do things that makes them superior to the sheeple they look upon in disdain. It's an unwillingness to be held accountable for their actions and a belief that they are the ones writing their own narrative, and that nothing will stop them.

[Regina Minx]

Although Matt Orchard only talks about the Sov Cit movement enough to give context to Darrell Brooks, it is still a worthwhile introduction and also a good documentary about the Brooks case. There is some content warning with this one given what the man did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W9r3vAQZ00

[Jerram]

They also call themselves "sovern citizens" and I call them, charitably, uneducated with a sense of anomie and feeling that the government is unresponsive to their needs and values. 

They go off the rails when they try to understand constitutional theory without a grounding in knowing how constitutional law works.  For over two hundred years since Marbury v Madison courts have given themselves the power to interpret the Constitution.  Core concepts like "due process" or "unreasonable searches and seizures" do not define themselves, but courts do under the precedential rulings of the courts of appeal or supreme court, not the amateur opinions of sovereign citizens.  Where the Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law ..." does not mean that any protected right is absolute.  Without writing an essay, all rights are subject to some limitations because they have to be balanced against other rights or interests, whether of the government or of other individuals.  If the first amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech had no limits, defamation, child porn, bullhorns at midnight on residential streets, and F-35s for Dummies would all be legal.

The antics of sovereign citizens are laughable, but I think they actively discourage proper exercise of rights because no one wants to look like an SC lunatic and will cooperate with the police beyond what is required and often to their regret.  Consider an interaction between the police and a citizen, where the cop asks for identification.  A sovereign citizen might refuse, cite the Treaty of Ghent and end up in jail when the situation spins out of control.  An informed citizen would know in his or her state, a driver has to provide license, registration, insurance card.  In some states, someone not driving (just sitting in a park) does not have to identify, in other states, a person has to identify but not provide an identification document (like a drivers license), in other states, the person stopped must give a name and documents.

For example, an SC pulled out of his car for alleged speeding screaming, "I do not consent" is doing himself a favor.  Even if "not consenting" is meaningless when it comes to the traffic stop, the SC is also not consenting to a possibly illegal search of the vehicle and the five pounds of weed in the trunk will never appear in evidence at his trial.

In other words, a person who will not cooperate with the police beyond what is required, talk to the police, consent to a search by the police or voluntarily go to a cop shop to "give a statement" is not necessarily an SC.

[Top Cat]

I've seen the excerpts from that trial. The judge who presided over it had a patience of a saint... She reminded me of another female judge, the one from one of Alex Jones' trials. Both of them had amazing restraint in the face of the antics they were facing.

You'll note that female judges tend to have far more patience than male judges. I ascribe that to them having to deal with the sexism baked into the system, as well as the subtle and not-so-subtle comments that they get from other judges and attorneys. Seriously, if female judges threw people in jail every time someone made a sexist, denigrating comment to them, a quarter of the country would be in jail.

They also call themselves "sovern citizens" and I call them, charitably, uneducated with a sense of anomie and feeling that the government is unresponsive to their needs and values. 

Most SovCit types avoid the term Sovereign Citizen these days, because the FBI has categorized the Sovereign Citizen movement as domestic terrorists since the late '80s. They don't like having such a negative connotation applied to what they're doing. I can't imagine why.

It's also been noted that a massive 15% of all actual domestic terrorism events committed between 2015 and 2019 were ascribed to Sovereign Citizens.

For people who poo-pooh the Sovereign Citizen tenets, I'd like to point out that I almost fell into that when I was in my late teen years. I resented the government taking so much of my paycheck, and seemingly not providing much benefit for it. Someone started pitching Sovereign Citizen stuff on the board that I was part of, and I bit... but after reading it, I had questions. They didn't have answers that didn't revolve around scripted, memorized responses. So, bullet dodged.

For example, an SC pulled out of his car for alleged speeding screaming, "I do not consent" is doing himself a favor.  Even if "not consenting" is meaningless when it comes to the traffic stop, the SC is also not consenting to a possibly illegal search of the vehicle and the five pounds of weed in the trunk will never appear in evidence at his trial.

On the flip side, if he'd talked calmly and presented ID when asked, he might have just gotten a ticket or even just a warning, and sent on his way. By throwing a temper tantrum, he greatly increased the chances of going to jail, which in turn may mean that the car gets towed, which in turn means that the car may be legally inventoried... At which point, whoops, that five pounds of weed is found, and he's charged with felony distribution.

[CopperLily]

One of the things I find most interesting about this is the basic idea of "magic words".

The idea that you can say a specific thing, and like...the world, the court system, etc. is bound to behave a certain way. The same thing is true when I see right wing folks coopt traditionally left wing concepts, like someone recently who thoughts "I just want a safe space for me and my friends to play $game", where "safe space" here meant "One where we've kicked out women and LGBT (and double for T) folks" and thought we'd all go "Oh, okay." because they said safe space.

[Lux12]

One thin to know about sovcits, is that they aren't simply disobeying the law, they are claiming to follow a version of the law that doesn't actually exist based on semantic fuckery, conspiracy theory bs, and perhaps pre-existing delusions. Now all laws are made up and work only because we believe they do, but they believe in a form of the law that literally no one else but sovcits believes in. Furthermore, a lot of these people seem to be trying to circumvent the law in ways that will improve their less than ideal socioeconomic living conditions. They feel kind of hopeless when it comes to other means, so they might as well try this pseudo-legalese laden quackery because nothing else has worked.

[Top Cat]

There are basically three types of SovCits.

1.) The true believers. These people were convinced through spurious logic that some form of SovCit something-or-other is true, that they can somehow separate themselves from their country/state's governmental laws. They want to believe it, so they accept it without looking closer.

2.) The flim-flammers. These people don't actually believe the SovCit BS, but think that they can make enough of a nuisance that police/courts/whoever will just stop dealing with them to stop having to listen to their BS. They're angling to get, at worst, a ticket that they'll ignore. They may believe part of the SovCit nonsense, but know on some levels that most of it is bunk.

3.) The gurus. These people know it's absolute bullshit, but are trying to make a profit off of the dumb people who buy into it. They're selling fake license plates, fake ID cards, and so on. What they're offering is fraudulent, but is usually on such a small scale that the government doesn't take the time to chase them down. Interestingly, sometimes the gurus start drinking their own kool-aid, and end up getting in trouble by trying to defend one of their rubes from the police/courts. Obviously, that means that there's some overlap between the gurus and the flim-flammers.

Sovereign Citizens are, ultimately, a flavor of conspiracy theorist. And the thing about being a conspiracy theorist is that you can never be wrong. They can't "see it's not working," becuase to them, the fact they get jailed is literal proof of their own oppression and "The Deep State" trying to silence their beliefs.

It's very common for YouTube SovCits (particularly gurus or wannabe-gurus) to post videos of other SovCits' arrests/court failings, and try to critique what they did wrong, why it didn't work for them. "It was the other guy's fault, it works fine, they just did it wrong." Or, just as common, "the officers/judge/etc are corrupt, they know it's valid, they're just ignoring it."