In the United States, at some point in time, it became a somewhat common phenomenon for some people to declare themselves as "sovereign citizens". I don't think even they themselves can give a clear definition of the term (most probably if you ask three "sovereign citizens" to give a definition you'll get seven different answers), but very broadly they think that they are citizens that are independent of the current government and its laws, as if each such "citizen" formed its own independent country or sovereignty that's separate from and independent from the United States government. They widely believe that this status of theirs is based on and supported by the Constitution, the Founding Fathers and the founding documents they wrote. They think that since they aren't citizens of the current United States, instead being their own "independent countries" of sorts, the laws, law enforcement and courts have no jurisdiction over them, and thus they can do pretty much what they want and this "foreign government" that's the United States government can't do anything to them because they have no jurisdiction.
The funniest thing about them is their behavior when they are confronted by law enforcement and courts of law.
For starters, they are masters at completely meaningless word salad. They try to make it sound like legalese, but for the most part it doesn't even sound like that, and instead is just completely asinine and incoherent rambling. Over the decades their "gurus" have built an enormous arsenal of words, terms, arguments, legalese and (alleged) case law which most of them have memorized so that they can just spout the meaningless drivel as a form of shotgun argumentation.
And they just love wordplay. They have concocted all these vague meanings of different words to eg. describe themselves (which most often they can't even explain what the difference between the words is), and will constantly spout them and interrupt law enforcement officials and judges with them, "correcting" them on the "incorrect" term to describe themselves. For example, they love to make the distinction between "person", "human", "individual", "citizen", "representative" and a myriad of other similar words, and the just love to constantly interrupt people by "correcting" them on these words, and they act as if different words applied to them in different situations, as if that had any sort of legal meaning. None of this is based on anything but their imagination. There is no legal meaning to any of it.
One of their favorite claims, which always comes up when they are stopped while driving, is that they are not "driving", they are "traveling" (because they argue that they have the "right to travel", and that somehow exempts them from having to obey any traffic laws and regulations, even though they are clearly driving a car, ie. traveling by car.) They also love to spout complete nonsense about being or not being a contractor, and stuff like that, as if it had any meaning at all with regard to traffic laws.
Hypocritically, they also love to cite and quote law statutes and case law, when it suits them. Laws of the United States, mind you. Laws that they happily ignore and claim doesn't apply to them when that suits them. They may even argue with or reject the exact same law depending on whether they think it benefits them or not. They also love to cite case law ("such-and-such vs. such-and-such"), which most of the time, if not always, is completely irrelevant to the situation at hand, but which they think applies because of their completely wild and baseless personal interpretation of it.
The sovereign citizen "gurus" have amassed an absolutely ginormous amount of such arguments for them to use, most if not all of it completely useless because they are just personally interpreting and distorting them to suit their needs.
They also like to lie a lot. One of their most common lies is to claim that what they are saying, what they are arguing, has been judged as true and valid by courts or other officials, when that's actually not the case (again, it's just their wild distorted interpretation of court cases and rulings that have nothing to do with the situation at hand). They may even directly lie to a police officer who has stopped them in traffic by saying that they were already stopped before and let go, precisely because of the argument they are presenting (eg. "I'm not driving, I'm traveling"), when that's quite clearly not the case and complete fabrication.
And, of course, if the police tries to arrest them, they never, ever comply. They even prefer their car windows being broken than complying. They are so entrenched in this belief system that they just can't get themselves to comply with anything a police officer says.
The funny thing is that they just keep doing it, they keep spouting their word salad, they keep spouting their arguments and their made-up faux-legal terms and concepts, as if they had any legal relevance, even though I have never, ever seen it working eg. in a court of law. They never convince judges that the pertinent laws don't apply to them, or that the judge "doesn't have jurisdiction", yet they still keep making the same claims over and over, no matter how many times they are arrested and sentenced for blatantly and deliberately breaking the law.
Comments
Post a Comment