What is your opinion of "sovereign citizens"?

[Alison Wonderland]

An open ended question.

 

[sun rise]

They are fanatics who put themselves above the law with many being terrorists. They are a worse threat to life than ISIS in the USA and Canada.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Idiots, from what I've seen so far.

 

[Stevicus]

An open ended question.

I suppose it could be a test of just how devoted to "freedom" our government truly is. I remember talking with an advocate for sovereign citizenship, and it seems that it relies on the differences between "common law" and "admiralty law." My understanding is that we live under the principles of "common law" in this country, but sovereign citizens assert that that's a lie, that we're not as "free" as the government says we are, and that we're actually living under military jurisdiction. They claim that the proof of this is when one goes into a courtroom and sees the US flag with gold fringes around the edges, which is supposedly an indication that it's secretly a military court and subject to "admiralty law," not "common law."

So, when their arguments get shot down in court, then they can come back and say "There, you see? The government is refusing to follow its own legal principles!"

I'll admit I'm not as well-versed on the legal theories in question to say whether they're truly valid or not, but I've seen enough absurdities coming from the political/legal system that makes me believe that anything is possible. There are ostensibly enough loopholes and vagaries in the law, and lawyers and politicians are clever thinkers. They can come up with all kinds of inventive stuff. Who am I to say whether they're wrong or right?

But even if there was a legitimate basis for the concept of "sovereign citizenship," it would probably be extremely impractical if everyone started operating that way. Society would fall apart into anarchy and disarray.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

They claim that the proof of this is when one goes into a courtroom and sees the US flag with gold fringes around the edges, which is supposedly an indication that it's secretly a military court and subject to "admiralty law," not "common law."

That's common among conspiracy loons. There's no basis for that belief and courts reject it as an argument.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Another group of delusional and reactive nutjobs who seem to have a tenuous grasp on reality. Like most other social "movements" in this country.

 

[Stevicus]

That's common among conspiracy loons. There's no basis for that belief and courts reject it as an argument.

Yeah, although I'll admit don't know enough about "common law" to be able to argue the point one way or the other. I understand that most countries of the world don't use "common law." As I understand, Continental Europe uses Napoleonic Code, although I don't know what the difference is on that.

 

[Alison Wonderland]

Yeah, although I'll admit don't know enough about "common law" to be able to argue the point one way or the other. I understand that most countries of the world don't use "common law." As I understand, Continental Europe uses Napoleonic Code, although I don't know what the difference is on that.

Common law is simply law that is derived from judicial precedent (essentially past case law) as opposed to legislative statute.

From what I've seen, sovereign citizens seem to employ both (including wild interpretations of constitutional law) in order to justify doing whatever they want. It seems as if the idea allows for the perception of agencies such as law enforcement to be just people harassing and detaining other people.

Some of the stuff I've seen on YouTube is just unbelievable; mostly baiting the judicial system into a fight that they're always going to lose.

 

[Alison Wonderland]

I suppose it could be a test of just how devoted to "freedom" our government truly is. I remember talking with an advocate for sovereign citizenship, and it seems that it relies on the differences between "common law" and "admiralty law." My understanding is that we live under the principles of "common law" in this country, but sovereign citizens assert that that's a lie, that we're not as "free" as the government says we are, and that we're actually living under military jurisdiction. They claim that the proof of this is when one goes into a courtroom and sees the US flag with gold fringes around the edges, which is supposedly an indication that it's secretly a military court and subject to "admiralty law," not "common law."

So, when their arguments get shot down in court, then they can come back and say "There, you see? The government is refusing to follow its own legal principles!"

I'll admit I'm not as well-versed on the legal theories in question to say whether they're truly valid or not, but I've seen enough absurdities coming from the political/legal system that makes me believe that anything is possible. There are ostensibly enough loopholes and vagaries in the law, and lawyers and politicians are clever thinkers. They can come up with all kinds of inventive stuff. Who am I to say whether they're wrong or right?

That's why the legal profession (and the implications involved in a person being admitted as an officer of the court) is bound by the same principles these people seem to believe are open to interpretation. Sure, a person is allowed to act as their own attorney in legal matters, but, if most, if not all, of these people were admitted lawyers, they'd be struck off very quickly for professional misconduct.

I don't know how any person can legally justify breaking the law simply by not recognizing that it exists.

 

[Alison Wonderland]

Idiots, from what I've seen so far.

LOL, some of them roll around with a camera in hand just so they can get a rise out of police officers and then scream bloody murder into the sound recorder when they're apprehended.

 

[Stevicus]

Common law is simply law that is derived from judicial precedent (essentially past case law) as opposed to legislative statute.

From what I've seen, sovereign citizens seem to employ both (including wild interpretations of constitutional law) in order to justify doing whatever they want. It seems as if the idea allows for the perception of agencies such as law enforcement to be just people harassing and detaining other people.

Some of the stuff I've seen on YouTube is just unbelievable; mostly baiting the judicial system into a fight that they're always going to lose.

I don't know how any person can legally justify breaking the law simply by not recognizing that it exists.

I don't know either, and that's why the whole question of "common law" seems to be the key, since they say that "common law" exists, and that's the law that they'll follow. I don't know where they're getting it from. Is there some loophole somewhere that they're using? Or is this just some concept they're totally making up out of the blue?

One guy I spoke to about this pointed out that the government should only legally enforce law related to actual damage or harm to an individual. If they're driving without a license, that doesn't actually harm anybody or cause any damage, so (the argument goes) the government has no legal basis for punishing someone for such an offense. I don't think they advocate ignoring all laws, only those that seem like "paper violations" that don't cause any actual damage or harm to people.

 

[Valjean]

For a group that talks a lot of anti government anarchy, they seem peculiarly obsessed with flags, the constitution and law. As social theorists, they seem rather anti social.
Otherwise, I can sympathize with them.

 

[VioletVortex]

They are insane. An intelligent person can't possibly believe that he can live in a society that expects him to follow certain legal rules, and then not follow them as a "free inhabitant". Doesn't that defeat the purpose of laws in the first place?