Talk:Sovereign citizen movement

Missing SovCit leader
I was skimming the page looking for things missing from the SovCit page I'm writing for a smaller wiki that mostly follows minor players in the American and Canadian movements and noticed that Russell-Jay: Gould was missing from the list of notable individuals. Russel took over most of David-Wynn: Miller's audience and Quantum Grammar after his passing. I also couldn't find a wiki page on Russell which kinda makes sense he has a tendency to drone on and on for hours blowing smoke up his own ass and revising the history of Quantum Grammar. 50.37.85.2 (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I am vaguely aware of Gould, IP, but I am not sure he has the sort of notability (yet) for a Wikipedia article. I am not even sure he belongs in this article, but I certainly don't keep tabs as closely as I once did.  You could certainly prove me wrong by providing reliable sources about him!  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

'Sov Cit movement never been successful in court' is a subjective statement
The last sentence in the second paragraph saying, 'Sovereign citizen arguments have no basis in law and have never been successful in any court' is more a truthy statement than a factual one. Not too many sovereign citizen ideologues have been successful in an american court however case law is more complex than a broad blanket statement. John Joe Gray is one example of a court removing an arrest warrant after a 15 year standoff with texas authorities. This is not an attempt to justify the sov cit movement of course, however I'd like broad blanket statements to be clarified Filthy Peasant (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * John Joe Gray didn't win because of any sovereign citizen argument, but more because the DA thought fifteen years was enough. .Sjö (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not subjective at all. There are no WP:RS which document a successful SovCit argument in court. Every "victory" they've claimed is because of actual legal considerations, the SovCit argument was never considered. For instance, SovCits love to claim Cliven Bundy won based on SovCit arguments, but that's flatly untrue: the case was declared a mistrial due to prosecutorial malfeasance. And that's how it always winds up, anytime a SovCit "wins" it had nothing to do with their nonsense. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Still, to say so, we need a reliable source saying so; otherwise it's a novel synthesis WP:SYNTH. Nø (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's WP:SKYBLUE. There is no synthesis, because there are zero examples of their strategies working. We don't have to prove there's no invisible unicorn in my backyard, the onus is on those who want to show the SovCits have ever had their strategies upheld by a court. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * what are you talking about regarding SYNTH? The statement is already sourced and cited to the SPLC. OP: As others have noted this is an objective statement of fact not a subjective statement as you claim. VQuakr (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think the first of the two sources cited at the end of the sentence warrants the statement "... have never been successful in any court". Never and Any are big words. The second source cited I cannot verify. Nø (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * They're very straightforward words. As I said, the onus is on those who want to show that there has ever been a successful SovCit argument in court. Just present one. Otherwise, this argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That is not how WP:BURDEN works. Those who want to add a statement have to present the evidence, and since proving a negative is very hard I think that the sentence should read something like their "arguments are repeatedly dismissed by courts". As it is the best support for "never" I can find is that Netolitzky writes "Pseudolaw never works" and I think that is bit weak and indirect. I could have missed something, and I would be happy to see a source that supports "never", but I just do not think there is one. Sjö (talk) 07:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The SPLC source says, The only touted success stories are from sovereigns who were in fact committing fraud against the government or private companies by creating counterfeit or fraudulent and fictitious documents. That is sufficient support for the sentence in our article as written. WP:BURDEN is satisfied. VQuakr (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The paragraph in the SPLC source begins "To tap into the secret Treasury account that they believe exists..." and is about the attempts to extract money from what they believe is a secret government fund. That is a sufficient source concerning that specific scheme, but not as a general statement about all sovcit contact with the courts. Sjö (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's in one of several sequential paragraphs describing SC theories in general. I don't see any reason to assume the sentence applies specifically and exclusively to secret government funds, particularly for a statement that borders on WP:BLUE territory. VQuakr (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. If it had been about their success in general, it would have made sense to put it near the bottom of the section. But now it is above the paragraph about driving/traveling and so on, so it clearly belongs to that paragraph. As for your assertion of WP:BLUE, this claim is a universal negative and still needs a WP:RS that will be both extremely hard to find and outdated the day after it is published. Sjö (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like over-analysis of the source TBH. That will be both extremely hard to find already found. Outdated the day after it is published that's a standard we apply nowhere. This isn't a universal negative BTW; it's qualified by "in any court". Ultimately though, there's no requirement for you to be satisfied with the answer you got here. VQuakr (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * that sentence and a section further on both clearly say 'Sovereign citizen arguments have no basis in law and have never been successful in any court' not 'movement'—blindlynx 00:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Took me like 5 minutes. Pro_se_legal_representation_in_the_United_States

"Edward C. Lawson, an African-American civil rights activist, was the pro se defendant in Kolender v. Lawson (461 U.S. 352, 1983), in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a police officer could not arrest a citizen merely for refusing to present identification.[88][89][90][91]"

--TZubiri (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Edward C. Lawson was not a sovereign citizen, and the holding is simply not that broad (which is not your fault); rather it held the statute in question was void for vagueness. To wit: We conclude § 647(e) is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it encourages arbitrary enforcement by failing to describe with sufficient particularity what a suspect must do in order to satisfy the statute.  The pro se page should be improved.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * If by "successful" you only recognize cases where the courts abandon their jurisdictioanl authority, then yes you won't find any successful cases, we can instead look at convergence between the claims of both parties, or favourable court veredicts.
 * Also if by subjects of this article you only recognize those who self identify precisely as the title of the article, then you will not find many such subjects either.
 * See also Anarchy, Civil Rights, Social Contract, Constitutionalism, Freeman (Thirteen Colonies). TZubiri (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * By the way self identification is a central topic in anarchism sovereignity and secessist movements. Although in this case the entity secceding is the individual.
 * I'm familiar with Catalunyan and Basque seccesion movements, but identity cards are a major point of contention. And unlike royal Spain, the USA does give the freemen an undeniable legal framework, there is no concept of a national identity in the US even, just a number. Drivers licenses are used as pseudo identities, but they hold no cannonical federal authority.
 * Just take a look at other countries and you'll see that the US is one of the countries that most respects these anarchist POV. Of course if they outright start issuing their own currency or "state immunity" that's an extremist that will cause issues with the law. But something tells me there's millions of people living relatively off grid who cause no issues, especially in rural areas.
 * --TZubiri (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

NPOV
Hey, first of all, just declaring my intentions here, so I don't hold any of the two main-line POVs.I'm not a US citizen nor a resident, so I'm not a Democrat, not a Republican, not a third party. What I am to the main topic of the article is a foreginer, I'm not an immigrant or a potential one, although if I were that would give me a favourable POV, as the freedoms exherted by these groups of people enable illegal immigrants to live in their country as free men as well.

I have a general idea of what bias we are seeing in this article, and its from someone partial to the subject, a citizen/resident of the United States, I will not go into what specific party, or what tells they have, but anyone with a very basic understanding of US politics can see it clearly.

To be precise, I will focus in specific sections of the article I want to change.

And the basis of those changes is on the basis that they constitute a point of view that is: held in disproportion to other point of views, presented as dominant over the main opposing POV.

The specific changes are: - sources regarding the "financial scam" allegations. - The section on citizenship being aligned with the general knowledge present in Wikipedia in various ways, (see edit history for more details). The article presents several standard legal concepts of the relevant legal systems(U.S.A and Common law) as informal, made up, or lacking legal validity. This POV is presented as an editorialization, like wrapping a word in quotes, even if the word is itself a blue link, like Relinquishment_of_United_States_nationality, Filing_(Law), U.S State.

For organizational and jurisdictional purposes, the main scope of the discussion is this article, although I'm open to exporting these POVs to the communities who manage the US legal articles to see what they have to say on the subject. If an opposing editor wants to claim that expatration or filing to a county clerk are not legally valid processes, they can present their sources and they can be added to the main articles. And discussion can be carried over there.

For now I will break changes into smaller pieces so that progress can be made and not stalled by full reverts. --TZubiri (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you're going to want to explain what changes you want made in smaller, actionable pieces. The above doesn't actually explain anything you're objecting to. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Check edit history for concrete edit proposal. TZubiri (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why don't you spell it out for us?—blindlynx 21:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sovereign_citizen_movement&diff=prev&oldid=1228713775 TZubiri (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

BTW, I am tapping out, not going to get into this as it seems like a very time intensive task for something I have no skin in.

Also if the US considers this movement a domestic threat, I'm not gonna get into a national defense issue.

But just consider this when editing wikipedia, the sources we find here are all from the opposition of the subject of the article.

Perhaps, if you still view them a threat, consider portraying them as something different than idiots with a backwards understanding of the law, they clearly understand something right if they can be so threatening. Even in an article of jihadists, portraying them as farmer brutes will be of no help to anyone.

TZubiri (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * They don't need to understand anything to be a danger. A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.  We just follow the reliable sources around here.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)