Talk:Sovereign citizen movement/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Page move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Sovereign citizen movement → Sovereign-citizen movement – Was moved then this discussion started, formal RM would be helpful —blindlynx (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

note to closer i don't care one way or another please don't take my starting this RM as a !vote—blindlynx (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I've moved the page Sovereign citizen movement to Sovereign-citizen movement per MOS:HYPHEN. A sovereign-citizen movement (a movement of sovereign citizens) is not the same as a sovereign citizen movement (a citizen movement that has sovereignty).--Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I bet this is another open compound, and though I've had this page watchlisted since the Malhuer Occupation, I don't really care so I will not be objecting. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

No. VQuakr (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Jesus, have you ever read WP:WALLOFTEXT? Take it down a notch. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: ↓. VQuakr (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

No, no. This is Wikipedia. You're supposed to give me six reasons why I'm wrong while implying that it's because I'm an idiot, without ever calling me an idiot outright. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Implied meaning is in the mind of the recipient; another possibility is repetition implies stubborness, rather than idiocy and there are probably others as well. So its better to just stick with what was actually said, the six reasons, and act on that info. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Now that's what I'm talkin' bout! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose since the concept is called "sovereign citizens" not "sovereign-citizens." --Orange Mike | Talk 23:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

That's the difference between a noun (or noun phrase) and an adjective. The phrase "sovereign-citizen" is there to modify the noun "movement". --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

But that phrase doesn't usually need to be hyphenated. As noted at MOS:HYPHEN or, ya know, any dictionary. Please consider further proposals for this type of move contentious, and do not do additional ones without a move discussion. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

You're both incorrect because it is not a phrase at all. A phrase is made up of more than one word. As I linked to the dictionary in another comment, "sovereign citizen" is a single word... another example of an open compound that looks like two words with a space. Despite the space, it is not a "phrase". I agree it is an adjective, though, modifying "movement". [when nouns serve as adjectives to modify other nouns https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/everyday-grammar-when-nouns-act-like-adjectives/2998821.html] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: You're fortunate I don't know "eyeroll emoji" in Wiki markup and can't be bothered to figure it out. You'll just have to imagine. VQuakr (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, well, gee... um.... I hear ya. But I think it's either "eye roll" or "eye-roll"........ anything but "eyeroll"..... how meta NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: We can all clearly agree it's eye—roll. VQuakr (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I just use copy & paste. 🙄 --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh! Well then one might say "I just roll with it" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

No. It's clearly "eye roll". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

FYI I still don't care, but here is dictionary support for the view that "sovereign citizen" is a single noun with a space in the middle aka an "open compound noun" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The hyphen would be appropriate if there were such a thing as citizen movements that are sovereign, which could be confused with the title of this page which deals with a movement of sovereign citizens. Such use of hyphens is correct when used for clarification, even when the term by itself does not normally use a hyphen. See also MOS:HYPHEN. Thus, my !vote is support if necessary to avoid confusion. 00:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

someone start a proper move request!—blindlynx (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "citizen movement that has sovereignty". Indeed, mere "movements" of any kind do not have "sovereignty."

Sovereignty (noun): ..."the international independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign dictation....[t]he power to do everything in a state without accountability -- to make laws, to execute and to apply them, to impose and collect taxes and levy contributions, to make war or peace, to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1252 (5th ed. 1979).

Sovereign (noun): "A person, body, or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested...." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1252 (5th ed. 1979).

Oppose. There is no need for the proposed hyphen. Famspear (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Familiarity with legal jargon should not be a prerequisite to understanding Wikipedia articles. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The need for familiarity with legal jargon as a prerequisite to understanding Wikipedia articles is not precisely the issue here. Editors of Wikipedia should have some knowledge of the meaning of legal jargon to the extent that such familiarity is relevant to an understanding of how to edit the articles that include legal terms. That's also the case for editing articles with other kinds of technical material, such as medical terms (when editing medical science-related articles) or engineering terms (when editing engineering related articles). Famspear (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

My point is that readers unaware that mere "movements" of any kind do not have "sovereignty" should not be misled by the title into thinking there might be such a movement. Technically citizens do not have "sovereignty" either, so the definition is moot. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose since this is now an actual move request. Someone slap whoever did this with a trout and let them know MOS:HYPHEN doesn't say what they seem to think it does. VQuakr (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CRITERIA, especially WP:COMMONNAME. The sources do not use the hyphen, and there is no risk for confusion with a sovereign movement of citizens, since such a movement does not exist. Sjö (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Sovereign-citizen movement. Sources and general usage overwhelmingly prefer "sovereign citizen", both in isolation and as part of phrases such as "sovereign citizen movement". Adumbrativus (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: The talk page is currently at Talk:Sovereign citizen movement, while the article is currently at Sovereign-citizen movement. (The discrepancy is unusual, but not a big deal since it's only temporary.) Just in case anyone arriving here is confused by that like I was, "Support" means you want the hyphen, and "Oppose" means you don't want the hyphen. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC) This was fixed. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Russian SovCit

Hi! Just wanted to leave a note here, I found out a few days ago there is a movement in Russia as well. They say that the USSR never disbanded properly and the current Russian Federation is a de facto occuopier. So they do not claim to be sovereign, however I think it is the same category and could be mentioned on this page as well. RickJacobus (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

It is hard to decide based only on the information you gave. A link would be appreciated. Preferably to a reliable source, but if you can’t find one a link to an unreliable source will do as a starting point for further investigation. Sjö (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Given the nature and purposes of the old USSR, I'd say that movement is the total inverse of the bizarre ideological and pseudo-legal assertions of the sovereign citizen movement. It's just another irredentist/legitimist movement that doesn't like their country's current regime. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Sounds exciting. Ochloese (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit request, 6 October 2021

Somebody needs to include a section regarding the fact that many people accuse police officers of being sovereign citizens. This is because many police officers believe that the laws of the United States don't apply to them which is an inherent belief held by sovereign citizens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.107.160 (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done While sovereign citizens consider themselves above (or perhaps more accurately, outside) the law, it is not the defining characteristic. The defining characteristic is the system of pseudolegal reasoning used to get to that belief. We don't need to include what "many people" think. What Wikipedia goes by is material that has been published in reliable academic, legal, and journalistic sources. Sources are essential. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

"Putting the UK on notice: How US legal fiction inspired aggressive action from UK anti-vaxxers"

See this about its spread in the anti-vaxxer movement. Doug Weller talk 14:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Also this. Doug Weller talk 14:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I have added the first link to the article. Psychloppos (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Psychloppos: I'm glad it was useful. Doug Weller talk 17:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: During the past few days, I did my best to develop the article, and added some stuff about the links with anti-mask and anti-vaccine movements. Your link is a welcome addition. If you're interested, please feel free to take a look at the article. It might be in need of some spelling and grammar corrections. Psychloppos (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Psychloppos: I took a quick look, seems great. Thanks for all your work here and elsewhere. Doug Weller talk

@Doug Weller: Thank you : I came to the subject by working on the David Wynn Miller page. I've also worked on pseudolaw and to a lesser extent on Freeman on the land and Strawman theory. Talk about a rabbit hole ! Psychloppos (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Rabbit hole indeed. I live in a large village/small town in the UK, and I've seen a related poster on someone's land. Doug Weller talk 16:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I just added a section about the UK sovereign citizen movement. Psychloppos (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2022

Bigbmcc (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC) The term sovereign citizen is a oxymoron made up term it’s only ether sovereign man/ woman or just citizen

This is the truth Bigbmcc (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Youtube

Youtube is linking this article to a bunch of videos of people who have interactions with police (people who want officers not to trample their rights, not as sovereign citizens, but as American citizens), as if to imply that these people are sovereign citizens. Wikipedia should request for youtube to stop trying to misinform the public. 2601:985:4201:1F60:35DE:8435:EE29:DA23 (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done YouTube is a for-profit enterprise, and we have no power over what they do there. You would need to approach YouTube directly about this concern. Good luck with that. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Youtube is owned by Google and the company is not linking this article in videos. Individual users are linking to this article in their videos. Good luck policing that. WTF? (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually this is a decision made by YouTube itself. They're adding a link to and snippet of this article as part of a "Context" panel. More info on why is here. Still OM got it right, there's nothing we can do (except improve the article). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Also a group in Greece

There is a also group in Greece who was very active with anti-vaccine campaigns, with their own fake police, fake state attorgneys, etc., called "guardians of the Constitution". They were covered very much by the media and here are some links to read about them in Greek: https://www.in.gr/tags/thematofylakes-tou-syntagmatos/ https://www.kathimerini.gr/society/561628144/thematofylakes-toy-syntagmatos-i-domi-oi-epidromes-kai-i-stratologisi/ https://www.kathimerini.gr/society/561624943/thematofylakes-toy-syntagmatos-trampoykismoi-tagmata-efodoy-kai-synomosies/ 79.131.38.86 (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• "Sovereign Citizen" notice, Belfast (October 2013) (geograph 5824402).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2022

Current text = law enforcement ranked the risk of terrorism from the sovereign citizen movement higher than the risk from any other group, including Islamic extremists, militias, racists, and neo-Nazis.[16][17]

Proposed change = law enforcement ranked the risk of terrorism from the sovereign citizen movement higher than the risk from any other group, including Islamic extremists, militias, skinheads, environmental and animal rights extremists, and neo-Nazis.[16][17]

Change "racists" to "skinheads" Add environmental and animal rights extremists to list

The reason for this change is below: 1) the FBI doesn't consider "racists" a threat, but Skinhead groups. Just using the term racists gives the false sense that the readers racist next door neighbor is viewed as a potential terrorist by the FBI. 2) Environmental and animal extremist groups are also referenced in the cited source. Those were I bealieve left out of the listing for political reasons as these groups tend to be leftist, all the groups mentioned tend to be right wing groups. 2601:547:1200:1290:BDD9:B693:59CA:743E (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Consensus should be reached before using the edit request template. Those are all just examples; the key information is "higher than any other group". "Racists" is more recognizable and broad than "racist skinheads" per the source. The source has a ranked table of 17 different groups; need we list all the other 16? I don't think that's necessary. VQuakr (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Those were I bealieve left out of the listing for political reasons

Let's not accuse other editors of acting in bad faith. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd be okay with the mention of "Racists skinheads" rather than just "Racists", per the sources. As for mentioning radical environmentalists: why not. We could also keep it simple by saying "and other fringe groups". (However, I must say that I find it surprising and interesting that in this source "Extreme Animal Rightists" and "Extreme Environmentalists" come right after "Neo-Nazis" and before the KKK in terms of dangerousness.) Psychloppos (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I replaced "racists" with "racist skinheads" and added a link to "radical environmentalists" (which I assume can include animal rights extremists). If anyone feels that the mention of the latter group makes the sentence too long, I won't mind if they remove that part. Psychloppos (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2022

In Legal status of theories § Immunity from taxes and laws the link for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington actually leads to the article for that of Pennsylvania. It should instead be changed to United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Greencyclone (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. --Mvqr (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Language used

I think the language used in the introductory paragraph, especially since that’s shown on places like YouTube context boxes, is ambiguous. By labeling them “activists,” it seems to justify their OPCA narrative. An activist has a positive connotation. 71.191.198.57 (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I don't think "activist" has a positive - or negative, for that matter - connotation in English. It's just descriptive. Martin Luther King was an activist, and so was the Grand Wizard of the KKK. Psychloppos (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I have seen it jused dergatory, as in "activist judges". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, in that case, it is derogatory, because by definition, judges, prosecutors and the like are not supposed to be activists (well, unless they are Andrey Vyshinsky or Roland Freisler, of course). But generally speaking, someone who wants to advance his own ideas is not necessarily good or bad: it depends on which ideas he is promoting, and how he does it. Psychloppos (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The term "activist judge" has no place being used in Wikipedia's voice, as that would be an NPOV violation; but we have no control over how others use it. But that's got nothing to do with describing an MLK as an activist, since he was very active indeed. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course. What I meant is that calling someone an "activist" does not, per se, make him look good or bad. What matters is the context and the nature of their actions. Psychloppos (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Change of language

that even though they physically reside in this country,

that even though they physically reside in the USA, 194.223.67.40 (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a direct quote from the FBI. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

pursuant to the flag

One American sovereign citizen "guru" and "quantum grammar" advocate, Russell Jay Gould, claims that having filed a document pursuant to the U.S. flag at a moment when the United States was supposedly bankrupt makes him the legitimate ruler of the country.

What the heck does "pursuant" mean here? Did Gould get secret coded instructions from the flag itself? —Tamfang (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

SovCits believe that US flags with gold fringe are naval flags, indicating that the court they're displayed in is using maritime law, rather than common law. It's an inane argument, but it's what they actually believe.

Gould thinks he can identify the exact time the US government went "bankrupt" by when this supposed change in flags occurred. Their entire belief system hinges on this fact, that the government has been operating illegally for over a century and using citizens as collateral to pay off debts. They seem to think they can file just the right legal paperwork (with an government they simultaneously believe has no legal authority, mind you) so that they can get access to this money and absolve themselves of following the law. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I still think there must be a clearer word than pursuant, unless of course Gould used that word. —Tamfang (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

"Pursuant" was used by the source. I've edited the text a little bit, replaced "pursuant" with "relating" and made it clearer that the document Gould claims to have filed relates to Title 4 of the United States Code. The source does not specify what Gould's document was about but he claims that it makes him the legitimate owner of the US flag, and therefore the ruler of the country (it's very confusing, to be honest). Psychloppos (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. —Tamfang (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Success in court?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

'Sovereign citizen arguments have no basis in law and have never been successful in court'

Cliven Bundy managed to succeed. Certainly not in the manner of a legal precedent, but he won the case. Jokem (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

No sovereign citizen arguments led to the dismissal of the charges against the Bundys. Rather, the judge declared a mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct. Thus, the statement is correct. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

From what I read, both attempts at a trial had a jury favorable to Mr Bundy, even though the prosecution cheated. So your statement above is what is called a technicality. Cheers. Jokem (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not a technicality to say that no sovereign citizen argument worked in either case. That's just a fact. Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Bundy won his court case. I call that being successful. You can argue it is or is not a technicality, but he won. Jokem (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

He didn't win the case because of his arguments is the point—blindlynx 00:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

May be true, but he was still successful in court. Jokem (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Right -- I think we're talking past one another here. Have so-called sovereign citizens at times succeeded in court? They have. Have legal arguments from the sovereign citizen world succeeded in court? They have not. That's the distinction we mean. Dumuzid (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Right. The literal interpretation of the phrase...

'Sovereign citizen arguments have no basis in law and have never been successful in court'

Is incorrect. Jokem (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Nope. That phrase is quite right. Sovereign Citizens have won in court, but not because of SovCit arguments. There is a difference between correlation and causation. But hey, if you can establish a consensus for a different version, be my guest. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep. The phrase is quite wrong. You want to establish a consensus for the actual meaning of words, go ahead. Cheers. Jokem (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The phrase is absolutely correct. Bundy's arguments were not successful in court, because the case was thrown out due to prosecutorial misconduct. The case was not won based on SovCit arguments, but ended by the discovery of improper conduct of the prosecution. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 09:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The statement is specifically talking about their arguments not about the individuals—blindlynx 14:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Jokem, what are you talking about? Did the Sovereign citizen win because of his arguments that he has the right to drive without a license? Vmelkon (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

No, he did not. Some SovCits like to pretend otherwise, though. (I'm not accusing anybody here of that.) --Orange Mike | Talk 22:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

What does it mean that the jury, which never deliberated, was pro-Bundy? How does anyone know? —Tamfang (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no way to be sure without a fair trial, but the first mistrial was 10-2 favoring Bundy and the second was 11-1 in his favor. That sounds like pro-Bundy to me, with the Prosecution cheating on top of that. Jokem (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Per the Cliven Bundy page, his attempts to challenge the federal court's jurisdiction were promptly dismissed, so his sovereign citizen arguments were not successful at all. He won because the prosecution botched the case. So one may say that Bundy won despite his sovereign citizen arguments, not because of them. Psychloppos (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

That is a POV argument. Jokem (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I haven't the foggiest notion what you mean by that, but it's a bit beside the point. When you have a consensus (or, indeed, one other person who agrees with you), then we can discuss. Until then this is just a tendentious refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Huh? No it isn't. VQuakr (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of examples

Even though this was a bit drastic, I will readily admit - being the main culprit - that this list of "judicial responses" was much too long and had become unreadable. However, some of these examples are pretty useful and IMHO it would be a pity to do dispense entirely with them. The example about Wesley Snipes is pretty notable, and the cases of Elvick, Shrout and Tucci-Jarraf are about prominent gurus : it would be pretty useful to show how even those people (purported sovereign citizen "experts") failed in court. The case of Darrell Brooks would also be useful to mention, as it has been featured prominently in the media. I'd suggest that we put back some of these examples, in shortened form, not in a separate section which would be as unreadable as the previous one, but in the various paragraphs of "Legal status of theories". Any thoughts ? Psychloppos (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

As proposed, I put back some of these examples, in a somewhat shortened form. I hope that they're more readable and useful now that they're contextualized. I could shorten the text again if necessary. Psychloppos (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I will have a look, but as a general proposition, I think a few examples are called for. Thanks again for putting in so much work. Dumuzid (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, having looked, I think the examples are fine--I do think the "other arguments" needs contextualization, rather than a bullet-style list of bad ideas. Many (if not all!) are addressed elsewhere in the article, and I am not quite sure if it makes sense to introduce them and immediately have a rebuttal, or to take some other form. But that would be my two cents! Dumuzid (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I have created a distinct subsection for the sovcit "common law courts", as this part represented a big chunk of text. Psychloppos (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2023

This article is completely biased regarding gold fringe and whether united states is a federal corporation.These are both true and I suggest the reader fact check 2001:5B0:2545:1E69:955C:D931:2752:8EB1 (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - this article is indeed biased, in favor of reliable sources and against nonsense. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Not a nice definition or explanation

To be honest I’d not care what a sovereign citizen is but to describe them the way you did in this article or explanation is completely rude and disingenuous 174.211.98.175 (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

This page is a summary of what reliable sources say. Your issue is with them. That said, if there are concrete changes you'd like to propose, please do. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Obviously Biased Viewpoint

WP:NOTFORUM TarnishedPathtalk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article is filled with blatant name calling and tagging with derogatory terms that have little to do with the descriptions of the movement. Calling the group conspiracy theorist is as needlessly derogatory as calling the authors of the article communists. Also, nowhere is it noted that this group seems to be a type of anarchists. One could have called the founding fathers of the united states members of a type of sovereign citizen movement. Although I personally think that this movement is silly, the reporting should be factual rather than divisive. Gaither (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC) The article is based on what reliable sources say about the movement. Your criticism would be better aimed there than at editors here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Sovereign Citizen

WP:NOTFORUM TarnishedPathtalk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is someone who believes in the laws written down by our forefathers called the Constitution of the United States. I think it is what they truly believe We as a people do have the right to question or government. And if you don’t have permission from the people you don’t do it. I believe that you would take away more of those rights if given the opportunity. You have proven it. The real law is written in our constitution. Live by it! 67.46.64.37 (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Sovereign Citizens Wiki Article:

WP:NOTFORUM TarnishedPathtalk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please keep in mind that this article is merely an opinion piece by someone who believes firmly in strong government control of citizens. Some people believe their world will fall apart if there isn't a government controlling most all aspects of their lives. This is an understandable fear-based view, so that anyone outside of their authoritarianism group who gives opinion that government should be greatly reduced can tend to strike panic in these people's psyche. These people, too, need to be understood and considered kindly. While they are actually delivering some of the nation's greatest panic, fear, and conspiracy theory rhetoric. Most importantly note: that this WIKI article is only opinion, and not delivering solely fact-based information. 76.6.25.165 (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2023 (UTC) What so-called Sovereign Citizens fail to grasp is that there is a difference between what the law is and what any person thinks the law should be. On an even more ironic note, they apparently have total disregard for the feature and insight of the common law system--namely that no decision is made in a vacuum and reference is made to both precedent and current practice. One can certainly have their own interpretation of the law, but if the vast majority of others disagree with that interpretation, it is simply a nullity. We are of course sovereign within ourselves, but that doesn't mean we can use magic words or semantic shenanigans to wriggle out of the legal system. It simply means that if you disagree with the government or legal system, you are free to try to find one that you prefer, and live in said jurisdiction. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Soundness of claims

Obviously, most of the claims of the Sovereign citizen movement have no chance of being accepted in the jurisdictions where they are operating. It is stupid or deluded to believe that one can escape the power of the state and its laws through homemade license plates and the like. However, I think this article is too adamant as to the invalidity of fundamental tenets of the movement. Philosophically and ethically, an individual can hold the view that it is sovereign in itself, and that its sovereignty is above that of the state. Substitute conscience for sovereignty, and I think most sane people would agree. From such a point view, the state is enforcing its sovereignty through its superior power, through force, ultimately through violence. Or, for most of us, because we choose to transfer our inherent sovereignty (if we think we have it) to the state, for the greater good, and/or for our own good.

This talk page is not a forum, but I seriously - and as a strong opponent of most of the views held by the Sovereign citizen movement - think the tone of this article should be less dismissive of the fundamental tenet that individuals are sovereign. I do not know if it would require additional sources to adjust this tone. Nø (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Many articles are quite dismissing of anything viewed as WP:FRINGE. Any specific suggestions? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

No specific suggestions at this point, but while Sovereign citizen movement as a whole is definitely "fringe", my point is that one core belief is not. It may be a minority view, perhaps in line with Nietzsche, Rand, and other rather extreme philosophers, but unlike e.g. fringe science, it is not a view that is demonstrably false, and I think the article needs to acknowledge this. Nø (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I highly doubt your average SovCit is what Nietzsche had in mind when he was writing about the Übermensch. In fact the average SovCit from my experience is very much engaged in what Nietzsche considered to be slave morality, i.e. Christianity. TarnishedPath^talk 11:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Not really. Sovereign citizens are yet to go find their own patch of dirt and create their utopia free from the benefits that the state has provided for them that Sovereign citizens want all the rights of, but none of the responsibility for. The state can be defined as having the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical violence, paraphrasing Max Weber. However as I stated that governance comes with rights not just responsibilities. We should be so lucky that in Western nations the pendulum swings more in favour of rights than responsibilities. I can guarantee you there are many countries that would not entertain such counter productive ideas for a second. TarnishedPath^talk 10:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The tone of the article is appropriate, as this particular conspiracy theory is founded on an idea that the US government is inherently illegitimate. It's not really about personal sovereignty at all, it's about declaring the law does not apply to oneself in defiance of all rationality.

A proper article could be developed about the idea of personal sovereign, but this article isn't the appropriate venue. SovCits start from a false premise, often pushed by scam artists, and then work backwards from that to declare themselves sovereign in order to avoid the laws they dislike, while weaponizing the courts against their enemies. The latter is what betrays the movement as not inherently about personal sovereignty, but about "Imma do what I want!" — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely to everything that has been replied above. And I just want to add that "the individual is sovereign" is a bit of a meaningless claim; I suppose it is true at some basic level, but the way to exercise that sovereignty is to either join a state of one's choosing or to try to find a place beyond state control. It absolutely does not mean that one can ignore the laws of the state one is in nor that Black's Law Dictionary or the UCC hold any magical sway. And don't get me started on the misbegotten notions about common law. Sigh. Happy Monday to everyone except SovCits. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. If they were truly about personally sovereignty, they would disavow all societal trappings and be 100% self-made. TarnishedPath^talk 00:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Let me just clarify - or reiterate - that I believe SovCits are generally stupid, misguided, or frauds. I think they basically make one valid point, and after that everything goes haywire. I think the article would be better if it aknowledged that. Nø (talk) 11:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that they even make a valid point, because they're not trying to make the point of individual sovereignty. They're just trying to do an end-run around the law to get the benefits of our government & legal system, while avoiding their responsibilities as citizens because they just don't like it.

I reiterate, an article about individual sovereignty could be very interesting, if sources could be provided. But this article ain't the place for it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. TarnishedPath^talk 06:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Miscontrued victories

Often cases involving a sovereign citizen get dismissed for practical reasons like cases do every day, but instead the sovereign citizen attributes this to outsmarting the court with thier rehearsed scripts. Maybe that should be added after the part in the article about it never being successful in court. 99.149.237.197 (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that tells us about this happening? HiLo48 (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I think what they are more accurately referring to are instances where a case will get adjourned, for short recess because the SovCits and their supporters are making a scene, and the SovCit will huff and puff like they have had a victory and then depart prior to the resumption of the hearing which never goes in the SovCits favour. The SovCit have literally never won a case using their pseudo-legal tactics. It's not worth putting in because it's not notable and I doubt there are any reliable sources. TarnishedPath^talk 02:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

This definitely happened with the Cliven Bundy case, we had a discussion about it before (should be in the Archives). But I don't know of any reliable sources specifically calling it out as a SovCit tactic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

So, I just want to anecdotally back up what the IP is saying -- SovCits do indeed trumpet otherwise unremarkable dismissals or declinations of prosecution as somehow 'proving' their system works. It was especially common in decades past for them 'win' on minor or ministerial matters simply through bluster and sheer jackassery. That was largely to do with unfamiliarity with the movement and an assumption of good faith that is no longer present. Of course, none of this comes anywhere close to verifiability for Wiki purposes. I thought I recalled something along these lines within Alberta Chief Justice Rooke's thorough examination in Meads v Meads, but upon a quick scan I am not finding anything. So, to the IP, I say I absolutely agree with you, but at present I don't see a basis for inclusion in the article. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM TarnishedPathtalk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm sorry, but if you really do your homework and know what you are talking about, the 14th Amendment was never ratified as a 10th of the states did not agree to it. In addition, people living now live under the US Corporation of the United States and not the Organic Constitution. Your birth certificate, social security number, driver's license #, any contacts you sign. The "lot#" of your home, which you falsely believe you own, is actually "lease of tenant" and not owned by you. You can pay off the brick and mortar, but you can't buy the land. It's "leased" to you. The gvt isn't there to protect the people. It's there to protect the Corporation. If you can't find what you are looking for when you actually do research, let me know. I'll help you, but your entire article is false. I'll no longer be supporting Wikipedia financially because I see the narrative that we are all free on here and we are not. We are the collateral for the trillions owed by the federal gvt loans. You are not a person. You are a number. I'm not radical. I don't go around yelling to all to become freeman and Free Woman, but I at least know our history. You sir, do not. You also claimed that BAR is supposedly the "British accredidation registry" That's a fact, not an opinion. It's not made up. Even our Congress uses "Parliamentary rules". We no more pulled away from the British than Canada did. We are in fact part of their system with lies told to all of us from the beginning of learning all that we thought was correct in school. I bid you good day, Sir. Pamela562 (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC) The views you present here are historically false, legally nonsensical, and utterly irrational. Nothing operates as you seem to think it does. Incidental similarity of terms (e.g., "parliamentary procedure") is not, in fact, a trenchant analysis of anything in any way. I find it ironic that what sovereign citizens seem to miss entirely is the fundamental notion of common law (which they honor in name only): that the law exists as an ongoing dialectic between government and its citizens. What a law says is of course important, but how it has been interpreted is also very important. I fear that your understanding of these issues is much like your financial support for Wikipedia: a snare and delusion. Find professionals you trust. Ask them. You are badly misled. That said, good luck to you. Dumuzid (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Suggested new edit from today's news

In 2023, Taylor James Johnatakis was tried and convicted on a number of felony charges related to his participation in the January 6, 2021 coup attempt in Washington, DC. Johnatakis made a number of sovereign citizen arguments as part of his defense, which the judge characterized as "bullshit" and "gobbledegook" ""January 6 rioter found guilty after judge calls defence argument 'gobbledegook'"". 24.62.176.13 (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Please state your requested changes in a clear X to Y format as described by Wikipedia:Edit requests, making sure to use the correct template when making your request. TarnishedPath^talk 05:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)