Abstract
When surveyed, United States law enforcement consistently ranks sovereign citizens as the top domestic extremist threat, even greater than that presented by homegrown jihadists.Despite the considerable size of the movement, estimated to include hundreds of thousands of adherents, few Americans know what sovereigns believe and how those beliefs inform their actions. So called sovereign citizens believe in an alternate history of the U.S., replacing reality with a vast conspiracy governed by complex, arcane rules. They believe that if someone understands and properly invokes those rules, that person is exempt from many laws, including the obligation to pay taxes, and that he or she can be empowered to seize private property, enforce legal actions against individuals, and claim money from the government. When faced with arrest for illegal actions that they believe are legal, sovereign citizens can become violent. What exactly do sovereigns believe? The answer is complicated. There are many variations on sovereign ideology, and while some are more common than others, any two sovereign citizens might offer different explanations. And the explanations that are offered may seem incoherent to people who are not immersed in sovereign subculture. Although the movement itself is relatively young, first meaningfully coalescing in the 1990s and growing rapidly since, it is based on
beliefs that go back decades.
In order to bring light to this topic, this paper will:
- Outline the basic concepts to which at least a plurality of sovereigns subscribe.
- Provide information on the origins of the most significant sovereign ideas.
A Sovereign History of the United States
The most fundamental tenet of the sovereign movement is an alternative version of American history that roughly accords with the outline given below, along with a set of alternative laws that extend from that history. Not all sovereigns understand, subscribe to, or care about every one of these points, but this broad narrative is fairly common within the movement. This understanding of history undergrads sovereign ideological beliefs about legal powers and privileges, even if those invoking those powers and privileges are unfamiliar with their derivation. To support their beliefs, sovereign citizens frequently cite real laws, but their understanding of these laws in context is incorrect, and attempts to take action in accordance with the beliefs outlined here are almost always illegal, as hundreds of courts have ruled over the course of many years. In most cases, sovereigns use multiple synonyms for the terms given here. Sovereigns also believe capitalization and punctuation are extremely important in written law, and they may take issue with the capitalization or punctuation used here. Concepts outlined below are presented in an order intended to reflect cause and effect, with each building upon the previous. There are no definitive sovereign texts. Rather, adherents draw on a variety of published sources, and increasingly on books, videos, and manifestos distributed over the Internet. Thousands of pages of content online describe different variations on the sovereign theme. Adherents usually pick and choose from these elements to create their own individualized beliefs that loosely conform to this general template. Individual sovereign “gurus,” who sometimes present themselves as attorneys or judges, also promote specific versions of the sovereign worldview.Fourteenth Amendment While most sovereigns have erroneous beliefs about the Founding Fathers and the early history of the United States, the most useful starting point for understanding the movement’s alternate history is the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. The Fourteenth Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to slaves freed after the Civil War, states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” Most sovereign citizens believe this amendment created a form of second class citizenship, less empowered and more subject to the federal government, which is seen as distinct from the state centered form of citizenship articulated in the Constitution. “Fourteenth Amendment citizens” are seen by sovereigns as inferior limited, or in more extreme views, as slaves. However, sovereigns believe they can opt out of Fourteenth Amendment citizenship by understanding certain legal provisions and reclaiming their constitutional citizenship. The Fourteenth Amendment also stipulates that the validity of “public debt” of the U.S. government cannot be questioned. In the eyes of some sovereigns, this provision opened the door
to a financial conspiracy starting with the implementation of a commercial legal system superseding the previous constitutional system.
Common Law
common.jpg
Sovereigns believe that soon after and in conjunction with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment the U.S. ceased to be a constitutionally governed republic that reflected the will of the people. Referred to as the de jureor legally rightful, government, this original republic was governed under “common law” or “constitutional law.” In the sovereign worldview, “common law” refers to a legal structure that is validated by the Constitution and/or biblical or divine mandate. Tosovereigns, common law supersedes the illegitimate laws currently effective in the United States. Beyond this key quality of legal primacy, the exact meaning, origin, and provisions of common law vary considerably depending upon the individual beliefs of sovereigns. Shortly after the unanimous ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1870, sovereigns believe, the government was quietly overthrown by corrupt bankers who transformed the government into a corporation and subjected the American people to an entirely new set of commercial laws. In the sovereign narrative, this new set of commercial laws usurped the Constitution and overturned its protections for citizens. This corporation is often referred to as the de facto government and is seen as illegitimate. The vehicle for this change was an 1871 law, which many sovereigns believe created a “United States corporation” to govern the District of Columbia under commercial code, rather than common law. Subsequently, the United States Code essentially laws compiled to this point extended this form of corporate rule to the entire country, thanks to a provision in Title 28, § 3002 (15) (A) (B) (C) that includes the phrase “‘United States’ means a Federal corporation.” Google searches for this statute overwhelmingly link to sovereign citizen resources, far more so than actual historical commentary on the law or the context of the section, which refers to a limited use of the term within a specific chapter of the U.S. Code. Commercial Law Most sovereigns make a distinction between “common law citizens” governed under the original Constitution and “Fourteenth Amendment citizens” governed under the U.S. Code, or commercial law, and thus subject to the rules of the United States corporation. Some sovereigns
refer to this supposed commercial law as admiralty law, or the Law of the Sea, claiming this illegitimate law is based on principals of international commerce. Sovereigns consider themselves common law citizens and thus exempt from many federal laws and other modern laws that are derivative of federal court rulings or otherwise corrupted by the illegitimate commercial law. Sovereigns believe specific signals that commercial law is in effect can be found in a courtroom, such as the style and type of flag displayed, and the use of specific language or capitalization practices in court filings. Based on these, and other pseudolegal citations, many sovereigns hold that the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)published in 1952 to provide a consistent framework for business transactions across state linesis a codification of the illegitimate commercial law. However, sovereigns believe the UCC contains loopholes they can cite in legal filings or confrontations with law enforcement in order to invoke the special privileges and powers of common law citizens.
Fictitious Person
Because the UCC provides an interstate standard for things such as driver’s licenses, property ownership, and bank accounts, many sovereigns believe that these documents (and associated laws and financial obligations) do not apply to them, but instead to a fictitious person created by the illegitimate law, sometimes referred to as a “straw man.” Some believe a fictitious person is denoted in legal documents by listing his or her name in all capital letters. The fictitious person is a legal entity akin to a company with the same name as the citizen, sovereigns believe. Some sovereigns create their own driver’s licenses and license plates because they believe the state issued documents are inauthentic, as they refer to the fictitious person, and that using or signing these documents exposes them to vulnerabilities under the illegitimate and tyrannical commercial laws, including debt collection, arrest, and prosecution. The correct use of certain phrases or legal citations can reduce or eliminate these vulnerabilities, however. For instance, some believe that documents used by the illegitimate system, such as contracts or court documents, can be signed safely if the citizen appends the phrase “Without Prejudice UCC 1308” to the signature, which they believe preserves the sovereign citizen’s common law rights and privileges. can be found in a courtroom, such as the style and type of flag displayed, and the use of specific language or capitalization practices in court filings. Based on these, and other pseudolegal citations, many sovereigns hold that the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)published in 1952 to provide a consistent framework for business transactions across state linesis a codification of the illegitimate commercial law. However, sovereigns believe the UCC contains loopholes they can cite in legal filings or confrontations with law enforcement in order to invoke the special privileges and powers of common law citizens. Fictitious Person Because the UCC provides an interstate standard for things such as driver’s licenses, property ownership, and bank accounts, many sovereigns believe that these documents (and associated laws and financial obligations) do not apply to them, but instead to a fictitious person created by the illegitimate law, sometimes referred to as a “straw man.” Some believe a fictitious person is denoted in legal documents by listing his or her name in all capital letters. The fictitious person is a legal entity akin to a company with the same name as the citizen, sovereigns believe. Some sovereigns create their own driver’s licenses and license plates because they believe the state issued documents are inauthentic, as they refer to the fictitious person, and that using or signing these documents exposes them to vulnerabilities under the illegitimate and tyrannical commercial laws, including debt collection, arrest, and prosecution. The correct use of certain phrases or legal citations can reduce or eliminate these vulnerabilities, however. For instance, some believe that documents used by the illegitimate system, such as contracts or court documents, can be signed safely if the citizen appends the phrase “Without Prejudice UCC 1308” to the signature, which they believe preserves the sovereign citizen’s common law rights and privileges. Declaration of Sovereignty To fully claim immunity from the illegitimate laws related to the U.S. Code and UCC, many sovereigns believe they must take certain legal steps and invoke specific language and principles. This frequently includes writing and filing a florid “declaration of sovereignty” that renounces the fictitious person and associated entities, and claiming the rights and privileges of a common law citizen. The precise language varies. Declarations of sovereignty can often be very complex and appear incoherent to someone who is not versed in the movement’s particular rules and pseudolegal principles. This complexity has created space for opportunistic groups and individuals to sell legal filing “kits” and guidelines to wouldbe sovereigns, often for hundreds of dollars or more. Many adherents are drawn to the sovereign citizen movement after experiencing financial stress, and they can be vulnerable to scammers who charge money for document filing kits or seminars 6 that teach “secret knowledge” regarding how to discharge tax obligations or bank debt, or claim significant sums money from the government. For example, some sovereigns believe they are not obligated to pay a debt addressed to the fictitious person, in that the proper sovereign court filings can discharge that debt. Other filings, illegally presented as liens, may attempt to collect damages from government officials for violations of a sovereign citizen’s common law rights. Some sovereigns believe they can seize foreclosed homes and other real estate using “quitclaim deeds.” Some even believe they can arrest people who they think have violated the Constitution or common law. None of these techniques work, and all of them are illegal. The failure of a government official to comply with the sovereign’s imagined rights and privileges is seen as a grave crime and even an “act of war.” Sovereigns may become violent when they perceive they are being denied the rights and privileges to which they feel entitled
Conclusions
The sovereign citizen movement is difficult to pin down for a number of reasons. Its integration of diverse influences from a variety of sources, including some that are decades old, results in a confusing and sometimes incoherent narrative of U.S. history. The movement is also constantly mutating and, as sovereign ideas extend into other fringe and extremist circles, it can be difficult to evaluate who is a sovereign citizen and who is not and how that self identification may inform their actions.
While there are some relatively clear concepts that frame the movement and inform its principles, as outlined in this paper, court filings and writings by practicing sovereign citizens suggest that few understand the history of the movement or all of its precepts. For many sovereigns, the appeal of financial relief through the invocation of special words and phrases is enough to fuel their behavior, both in terms of “paper terrorism” and their growing propensity for violence when their expectations of their rights and privileges are not met. 26 Nevertheless, there is utility in understanding what a typical sovereign believes and where those beliefs come from. In most cases, the ideas behind the movement traveled from one group to
another via specific individuals, and understanding the transmission of these concepts can help us better anticipate how
the movement will evolve. While it is tempting to dismiss sovereign ideas as gibberish or nonsense, its framework is based
on a legacy of specific theories regarding the economy and the role of race in America and abroad, including both white supremacy generally and anti Semitism in particular. While modern sovereigns may not fully understand that legacy for example, African Americans seen “renouncing their Fourteenth Amendment citizenship these influences nevertheless play a role in shaping the contours of the movement and the behaviors of adherents as the movement continues to move forward. The complex history of the sovereign movement also suggests avenues for future research, particularly regarding the role of publishers and pamphleteers who for decades promoted the financial and racial theories undergoing the movement. A number of authors from the mid 20th century still influence the thinking of American conspiracy theorists. While they are largely forgotten by the mainstream, additional study of these authors and their political context may shed light on the trajectory of white nationalism, anti Semitism and anti government extremism in the United States.