This post is part of a series beginning with The conspiracy theory that revolves around wordplay about the so-called “sovereign citizen” movement. As a reminder, they don’t usually call themselves sovereign citizens, but I will use that label because it is the one generally accepted among outsiders like myself.

In the previous post in this series, One man’s 25-year opus, I discussed a sovereign citizen website sedm.org (and its sister site famguardian.org) and the site’s author Chris Hansen (not the famous one). Early this year (2024), sedm.org posted an article entitled, “Questions To Ask Those Criticizing Sovereignty Advocates”. I took it upon myself to answer these 20-something questions as seriously as I could though the questions are not directed at me.

Introduction

The article begins by providing some context:

There are many occasions where government workers, law enforcement, or members of the legal profession will:

1. Falsely accuse our members of being “sovereign citizens” or
   
2. Falsely accuse our members or [sic] being irresponsible or avoiding legal responsibility. . .or
   
3. Falsely accuse our members advocating not being subject to ANY law.
   
4. Falsely accuse our members of thinking they are better than everyone else.
   
5. Falsely accuse our members of FALSE beliefs.
   
6. Ask our members “Are you a sovereign citizen”.

NOTHING could be farther from the truth about our members.

Let’s address these 6 points before moving on to the questions.

1. (and 6) This is genuine ignorance on the part of the person saying that. I noted in the beginning of this post (and in my previous post about sovereign citizens) that they do not typically use this term to describe themselves, and in fact there are a variety of different ways such people describe themselves.
2. Sovereign citizens only receive outside attention when they do something irresponsible, unlawful, etc. Few people care about content sovereign citizens make themselves, and many people find it entertaining to watch sovereign citizens being arrested or talking in court. There isn’t much other discussion of sovereign citizens at all. In other words, the public image of a sovereign citizens is someone who is irresponsible and avoids legal responsibility. While such people don’t reflect the entire group, there is a definite pattern.
3. Sovereign citizens vary in what laws they think they should be subject to, but I have seen several claim that all statutes are not “real laws”. They distinguish between a law and a statute and believe they don’t have to follow statutes if they don’t enter into any contracts. This would imply they advocate not being subject to any civil or criminal code in any state or at a federal level. This is virtually all laws.
4. Like many conspiracy theory groups, sovereign citizens tend to see people in the mainstream as misled sheep. I don’t think, in general, that sovereign citizens believe they are worth more than other people. They do, however, believe that they have critical insight that the vast majority of people lack. This is not exactly the same as thinking you’re smarter than someone else, but it is self-aggrandizing.
5. Sovereign citizens, like everyone, have some false beliefs. There are some specific aspects of the sovereign citizens movement itself that involve believing false things, such as believing that all ordinary courts in the US are actually operating in a maritime jurisdiction.

The questions

Below are some questions you can ask any such a person in response to such questions. We guarantee that those who criticize sovereignty can’t answer these questions without contradicting either themself, the law, or both, and thus PROVING they are LYING:

1. Are you a sovereign citizen?

1.1 What precisely is your court admissible legal definition of what a “sovereign citizen” is? How can I prove I’m not something that you can’t even accurately or legally define?

The vast majority of words do not require “court admissible legal definitions”. There have been prominent cases that hinged upon the definition of a word; famously Smith v. United States involved the definition of the word “use”. The disagreement was whether trading a gun for drugs constituted “using” the gun in a drug crime.

When a word is not defined by statute, we normally construe it in accord with its ordinary or natural meaning. See Perrin v. United States, 444 U. S. 37, 42 (1979) (words not defined in statute should be given ordinary or common meaning). … Surely petitioner’s treatment of his [firearm] can be described as “use” within the everyday meaning of that term. Petitioner “used” his [firearm] in an attempt to obtain drugs by offering to trade it for cocaine. Webster’s defines “to use” as “[t]o convert to one’s service” or “to employ.” Webster’s New International Dictionary 2806 (2d ed. 1950). Black’s Law Dictionary contains a similar definition: “[t]o make use of; to convert to one’s service; to employ; to avail oneself of; to utilize; to carry out a purpose or action by means of.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1541 (6th ed. 1990). … Petitioner’s handling of the [firearm] in this case falls squarely within those definitions. By attempting to trade his [firearm] for the drugs, he “used” or “employed” it as an item of barter to obtain cocaine; he “derived service” from it because it was going to bring him the very drugs he sought.

Smith v. United States (1993)

With “sovereign citizen” being a multiword phrase and one that is not used frequently, no dictionary that I’m aware of offers a definition. Furthermore, it is not the kind of thing that a dictionary definition is appropriate for but rather an encyclopedic entry. It is not a simple, straightforward concept. Wikipedia has an entry that explains what it means pretty well.

Aside from that, per my response to number 1 (and 6) above, it’s not necessary to prove you are not a sovereign citizen. You don’t have to identify that way. Other people may or may not call you a sovereign citizen based on their understanding of the word, and there’s not really anything you can do about that.

1.2 Are you equal to everyone else in your own family according to your parents?

No, not really. Equal means that two things are the same, and I’m not the same as my siblings. In political contexts “equality” can refer to something like “equal value”, “equal dignity”, or “equal rights”. Certainly my parents think all our family members are of equal inherent value.

1.3 What happens within families when your parents treat you or your siblings unequally?

I think this question expected a “yes” to the previous question. In any event, parents should and do treat their children unequally. Again, equal means the same. I guess this question meant “unfairly”. My only response is that unfair treatment causes resentment and conflict.

1.4 If I told you that all I expect is to be equal to the government in court and to absolutely own and control my own body and property without being FORCED to share ownership or control of either with others so long as I don’t hurt anyone with it, would you still call me a sovereign citizen?

Yes, that sounds like something a sovereign citizen would say.

I’m tempted to leave it there, but I’ll explain. It’s not reasonable, in the real world we all live in, to expect to be equal to the government. The government is an institution with an incredible amount of power. Fair or not, you just can’t expect to be equal to it. However, the question says in court. When it comes to this, I would say that most US courts do treat parties to a case relatively fairly. There are absolutely many serious problems with the judicial system in the US, it’s just relatively fair.

What about being forced (or rather “FORCED”) to share ownership or control of one’s own body and property? To be honest, I’m not entirely sure what this is even referring to. Maybe the idea is that (for example) registering a vehicle with the state grants the state ownership or control of the vehicle. I have certainly heard sovereign citizens say that about vehicle registration before, and it’s just false. Registering or not registering a vehicle doesn’t grant or deny the government any authority over the vehicle. It’s just a way for the government to keep track of expensive, dangerous property that frequently gets stolen or injures people. It behooves us all to keep track of such things, and that’s the kind of thing that the government is made for.

2. Better than everyone else:

2.1 What gives you the right to tell me what to do if I haven’t hurt you and don’t possess any of your property?

This question implies that I am telling you to do something, which I’m currently not. Situationally, I may have the right to tell you what to do, for example if I am your teacher and you are my student, that relationship gives me the right to tell you which problems to work on. This article actually specifically calls out “government workers, law enforcement, or members of the legal profession”. There are many situations where such individuals would have the right to tell you what to do, and typically what gives them that right is a statute. This comes back to point number 3. If you say you are subject to statutory law, then people will occasionally be granted the right to tell you what to do. If you say you are not subject to statutory law, then you are effectively claiming you should not be subject to any laws.

2.2 Do you dislike supremacists?

Yes.

2.3 Are you a government supremacist who thinks a government of delegated powers can have any more powers than a single human?

No.

“Government supremacism” is a strange concept. Supremacism usually refers to a type of person being supreme over other types of people. The government isn’t a type of person, and I can’t think of another “type of” thing that the government could be type of and potentially supreme over. The Supreme Court is supreme over the other courts. Individuals and institutions are apples and oranges. Aside from the odd and clearly loaded language of the question, many institutions including government obviously do have more power than a single human. So yes, of course a government can have more powers than a single human.

Maybe this question really meant to say “should have any more powers” rather than “can have any more powers”. A power is just an ability to do something; the word has no connotation of being “legitimate” or justified in any way. To the very general question, “should a government have any more powers than a single human?”, I would say yes. That’s kind of the purpose of having a government.

Maybe delegated is the key word. The idea is that in our supposedly representative government, the people delegate power they possess to the government. This question is saying, if the powers are delegated by individual humans, how can the delegated powers be greater than an individual’s? The answer is that the government’s powers are delegated collectively by many people who have powers together they wouldn’t have as individuals. For example, I don’t have the power to build a highway. For a highway to be built, the people who collectively do have the power to build a highway (e.g., the people of Wisconsin) delegate this power to the government. The sovereign citizen may say, “I’m not a sovereign citizen” “I never agreed to delegate that power.” The point is that you personally do not have the power and thus you cannot individually decide to delegate this power. Maybe this is tyranny of the majority, but that’s how our system works.

2.4 How can a government of delegated powers have any more powers than a single human if ALL are equal under real law?

See above. Also, it is not the case that all are equal under the law. I won’t belabor this “equality vs. fairness” point further. Note that the constitution guarantees people equal protection under the law.

3. Advocate Irresponsibility:

3.1 Do you think it’s irresponsible for police officers to NOT be held legally liable for either telling the truth in court or apprehending someone who is threatening to kill me?

“Irresponsible” is not the word I would use, but certainly police should be required to tell the truth in court and should stand in when someone is threatening to kill you (whether it’s appropriate for the person to be apprehended depends on the situation). The question suggests that this is not happening, and it assuredly does not always happen, but it doesn’t really provide any information. Fortunately, the author included a link to a “waiver of immunity” for their readers to print out and ask police to sign. This document provides a little more context:

By default, law enforcement officers enjoy absolute, unqualified immunity from section 1983 liability for giving false testimony. Such false witness and testimony includes anything they tell the public out in the field and anything they say in court as a witness.

In Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 96 S.Ct. 984 (1976) and Briscoe v. Lahue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983), the United States Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement officers (witnesses), like all other witnesses, must be free from liability for their false statements.

The two cases cited both relate to section 1983. The first couple sentences bury the lead: it applies to all witnesses, as stated towards the end, and has nothing to do with policing specifically. The two precedents referenced just reinforce that it applies to all witnesses without exception.

You may be thinking, “That’s strange, I thought perjury was a thing.” And you’d be right. Section 1983 provides immunity from civil lawsuits (being sued for damages). For example, imagine if a witness testifies that a local ice cream shop is using soy milk in their milkshakes because they believe that to be the case. This turns out not to be true, but the rumor spread and it’s hurting the shop’s business because it’s located in Wisconsin (America’s Dairyland). Section 1983 says that the ice cream shop cannot then sue the witness for their damaging false statement. The general idea here is that we don’t want witnesses to avoid testifying out of fear of legal retaliation. Even though witnesses can be mistaken, it’s better for witnesses to testify rather than not. This is not immunity to perjury, which is a crime.

I do think there are some legitimate concerns underlying this, namely police honesty and qualified immunity. Police do usually have broad permission to lie, even intentionally, in order to do their job “effectively”. I don’t think that, for example, a police officer should be allowed to lie to a suspect about what the law says. Police have immunity for almost any actions undertaken as part of their job, which in my opinion provides too much protection and allows police to abuse their positions. Unfortunately, police unions have a strong hold on lawmakers.

3.2 Do you think its irresponsible for government to have sovereign immunity that allows them to NOT be LEGALLY accountable for anything in court unless they consent as they currently do?

This question also links to a document, this one much more extensive, entitled “Your Irresponsible, Lawless, Anarchist Beast Government”. It is more of a manifesto. It includes a section for example with the title “Why Christians are COMMANDED BY GOD to ‘Leave Babylon’ (secular Civil Government) and How to Do So: Change your domicile to the Kingdom of Heaven and become ‘foreign’ in relation to the CIVIL statutory franchise codes”. It also rehashes in one part what the previous document said about section 1983.

As for my answer, again, I wouldn’t use the word “irresponsible”. I’m going to interpret the question as asking whether I think it’s good or just for the government to have sovereign immunity. For context, sovereign immunity in the US does indeed mean that (in most situations) states or the federal government can’t be sued without their consent. Note that individuals within government are not immune. Wisconsin has a helpful memorandum explaining its state sovereign immunity in detail. The first page includes this chestnut:

The doctrine derives from the age-old English legal maxim that “the King can do no wrong.”

Which is just an absurd thing to say. I guess my first point would be that I don’t consider any government or person to be sovereign in any high-and-mighty sense. The government is a system we have in place to solve practical problems, and as an institution it wields a very large amount of power. Governments (and kings) can and do do wrong and deserve no special treatment. This is all to say that so-called sovereign immunity, as a public policy, is only justified inasmuch as it serves a practical purpose that conveys greater benefit than cost.

So what is that purpose and benefit? It’s a little unclear to me, and it’s not something I have extensive knowledge about. I am wary at this point to say whether sovereign immunity is a good policy or a bad one. The justifications I have heard are that it prevents governments from being bogged down by excessive lawsuits and that it reinforces the separation of powers (since a court deciding on a case where the government is a defendant can place the judicial above the legislative and executive). Maybe that’s fair. Aside from positive justifications, people also point out exceptions and limitations to sovereign immunity, basically things that moderate its downsides. Immunity can be legally waived by the government and there are some non-lawsuit-based systems for bringing grievances to the government. To give a concrete example, Wisconsin has explicitly waived sovereign immunity in regards to employees being able to sue their employer for wages (see the memo I linked above).

To sum up, my answer is “I don’t know.”

3.3 If the powers of the government are delegated, then why doesn’t EVERYONE have sovereign immunity?

There are a couple reasons for this I can see. One is historical. As mentioned in the last question, sovereign immunity goes back to monarchy, a system with a very clear “ruler” and “subjects”. The saying wasn’t “no one can do any wrong”, it was “the King can do no wrong”. In the US and elsewhere, representative government was seen as replacing the authority of the king, even though the government is supposedly “by the people”. Sovereign immunity was just a continuation of an existing policy.

Alternatively, there is a perspective that “the people” are sovereign, such that they can collectively delegate sovereign immunity to their government (see question 2.3 above regarding collective delegation).

My view is that, pragmatically, we just can’t have everyone be immune to lawsuits. We might as well just do away with all civil law at that point. In terms of why the government does get sovereign immunity when no one else does, see the previous question.

3.4 If they have superior or supernatural powers greater than me, the natural, doesn’t that make them an unconstitutional civil religion?

The government’s powers are not supernatural. They come from the physical possession of resources and being able to organize large numbers of people to accomplish tasks. If you had the same resources and the same number of people equally willing to do what you tell them then you would literally have the same power as the government. It’s like when someone bigger and stronger than you forces you to do something; there’s nothing mystical afoot, some people are just more physically powerful than others. It may be distasteful or even abhorrent to think of the government as a strongman, but that doesn’t change the practical reality of where the government’s power comes from.

There is also nothing religious about how the government is structured, what powers it has, etc. Religion involves shared spiritual beliefs and specific rituals, practices, or observances. Despite what some Christians may claim, secular civics does not involve any spiritual beliefs.

This is another question with a linked document, this time called “Socialism: The New American Civil Religion”. I don’t care to address the substance of the work, as it is nonsense, but I will point out that the introductory section has a whopping four George Orwell quotes. Here’s another Orwell quote the author probably wouldn’t be so keen to share in the same document:

Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.

Orwell (1946), “Why I Write”

Anyway, here’s the next question.

3.5 Where in the constitution is sovereign immunity authorized and if it isn’t, then isn’t it unconstitutional for any part of the government o [sic] have it?

It is more or less authorized in Article III, and it is explicitly authorized for states in the Eleventh Amendment. Confusingly, sovereign immunity is not a power that must be enumerated, since it is actually not a granting of power but rather a limitation on the power of the judiciary. The effect is “citizens can’t sue the government” but the legal basis is that the judiciary does not have jurisdiction to settle such disputes. For more information see this essay on the Library of Congress’ website.

3.6 Why isn’t just calling me irresponsible enough? Why does it need an EXTRA name like “sovereign” and making that synonymous with irresponsibility even necessary?

“Irresponsible” is not a specific enough descriptor to identify people who would commonly be considered sovereign citizens, hence the label. I don’t really advocate for calling sovereign citizens irresponsible, though certainly some of them are sometimes. It also doesn’t make a difference to me what you’re called. “Sovereign citizen” isn’t particularly accurate or informative as a label, we just need some label, and the people within the movement seem to disagree about how to label themselves.

3.7 Is God a sovereign?

God doesn’t exist, so yes.

3.8 If I am representing God on official business under my employment agreement the bible and thereby practicing my religious faith, doesn’t hat [sic] make me sovereign?

No, and I don’t see how it would. Employees or representatives of the government are not considered sovereign and do not have immunity from lawsuits.

3.9 Do you think democrats [sic] who vote for politicians who want to steal from the 1% to give to the 99% are advocating irresponsibility?

No, and since you’re just asking my opinion there’s no need to explain.

3.10 Do you think that STEALING the money to transfer wealth is being irresponsible? Are or should thieves be responsible to pay back what they steal?

None of this stuff is “irresponsible”. I agree that theft is harmful and thieves should pay back what they steal. The “theft” here is referring to taxes I think, which is not in fact theft because there are statutes outlining how and when people are required to pay taxes. You are subject to those laws unless you think you aren’t, in which case see my response to point 3 above regarding laws and statutes.

4. Lawless:

4.1 How can someone who acknowledges that they are subject to the common law and the criminal law such as myself NOT be subject to ANY law or worst yet “irresponsible” for the damages and injuries they cause others?

This is point 3 from the first list. It’s confusing that the author rearranged the topics between these two numbered lists.

Sovereign citizens are not completely lawless and anyone who says otherwise is exaggerating. That being said, you appear to believe that you are not subject to any civil statutes, which is the thing that would ensure you’re held responsible for damages or injuries you may cause.

I’m not going to address the “irresponsible” thing anymore.

4.2 Are you subject to the vehicle code when you aren’t driving and don’t operate a vehicle?

In a sense yes, you are always subject to all the laws on the books. This is meant to be a trick question though. What the author is getting at here is the widespread sovereign citizen idea that the terms “driving” and “vehicle” refer exclusively to commercial operations, and instead they are “traveling” in their “conveyance”. I explained in my first post about sovereign citizens where this idea comes from and why this is not correct.

I will cut through the question’s leading wording and answer that you are subject to traffic laws and ordinances when you use an automobile to travel on a highway.

4.3 Are you subject to civil laws for government employees if you aren’t a consenting government employee?

This is similar to the last question, but this time with terms like “resident”. Being called a resident does not refer to any office or position, it refers to inhabiting a location or area. I’m tired of this trick question angle so I’ll just say no, you’re not.

4.4 Can I force you to become a government employee or officer without your consent? Wouldn’t that be slavery?

If you actually made me do work it would be slavery. If the government just tells me I’m now their employee, but they don’t want me to do anything, I would have questions but I would not think I had been enslaved. Slavery requires labor.

My point is that sovereign citizens think they were swindled or forced into having some kind of government office, but the government hasn’t ever asked them to do any work. Maybe a sovereign citizen would say that being stopped by police, being made to appear in court, being made to file taxes, or being made to follow other various laws is the “work”. Well, in the first place you’re wrong about the government calling you its employee, and I’ve never seen evidence of this presented aside from the terminology thing. You would have to show concretely how these activities constitute labor that you are being employed by the government to do.

I guess to speak to this more generally, being forced to do something isn’t inherently slavery either. See question 2.1 where I gave the example of a teacher making a student do something. If that “something” was washing windows unpaid for 10 hours a day, 7 days a week, then it would be slavery. What people can legally make you do (and how they can make you do it) is situational. The tasks I listed above may be things the government makes you do but they do not resemble any form of labor I am aware of.

Note that we are apparently not talking about chattel slavery, where ownership of the person is part of the definition.

5. False beliefs:

5.1 You haven’t even proven and CAN’T prove that I’m a sovereign citizen. That’s an “ipse dixit” statement unsupported by evidence.

I was surprised when reading this page by how offended the author is about being called a sovereign citizen. Anyway, this isn’t a question and requires no answer.

5.2 You are being irresponsible if you can’t prove with evidence that I meet all the exact objective criteria for BEING an objectively defined “sovereign citizen”.

OK.

That’s the end, so I think the author did what I did and combined points 1 and 6 from the first list.

I suppose I can charitably interpret these last two assertions 5.1 and 5.2 as a question, basically “What evidence do you have that I’m a sovereign citizen?”

I hate to say it, but defending yourself so vehemently against being called a sovereign citizen is a pretty good indication that you are one. You are also posting this on a site called Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry. The SEDM website ticks a lot of the boxes as far as beliefs espoused (like “driving” vs. “traveling”), “litigation tools” which are Definitely Not Legal Advice™, documents for visitors to print out and mail to government officials or ask police to sign, legal pleadings that cost $100 to download, and even “services” for up to $1000. These are the things you are doing that make people call you a sovereign citizen. And people calling you a sovereign citizen is basically what it means to be a sovereign citizen. By that I mean I’m never going to expect you to identify with the label yourself. It is by its nature an outsiders’ concept. But there are some actual criteria, like the ones I listed, whereby outsiders identify a person as part of this vague movement.

But wait, there’s more

Finally, I would be remiss not to mention the two additional documents linked at the very end of this article. The first is “Policy Document: Rebutted False Arguments About Sovereignty”. This document is over 400 pages long. Obviously I only skimmed parts of it, but I found some interesting tidbits.

The problem with Black Holes is that they are beyond even a definition of what they are or how they work.

(p. 71)

First of all is this quote, which I find incredibly absurd. The concept of a black hole started out as a mathematical definition. They are mysterious, to be sure, but we know quite well what they are and we know something about how they work. I wonder if the author thought that famous first image of a black hole was faked? Or possibly that multiple teams of scientists using the most advanced technology captured an image of a black hole without having a single clue about what it is or how it works? Maybe he didn’t see it.

Second, I noticed that the topic of sovereign immunity was one of the first things in the table of contents, so I looked to see what they had on it. To my genuine surprise, the document does not refer to the Eleventh Amendment even a single time. I already mentioned it, but this amendment does explicitly lay out the sovereign immunity of the states under federal courts:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

I feel like this has to be acknowledged or responded to in some way if your claim is that the US Constitution doesn’t provide for sovereign immunity. It can be found so easily that omitting it seems intentional and dishonest. At least come up with a bogus reason it shouldn’t apply.

Next, the following image from p. 73:

Much of this “Policy Document” links to or directly quotes other content on sedm.org. Some pages are basically just long lists of links. Multipage documents are included in their entirety. It also features numerous lengthy quotes from case law and other sources. My point is that there is a lot of information, but it’s scattered among difficult to read legal passages, irrelevant nonsense, and ranting.

Another thing that makes it tiring to read is the rampant use of ALL CAPS for emphasis.

The statutory definition of “communist” in 50 U.S.C. §841 is someone who REFUSES to acknowledge or live within the limits on their authority. When are USEFUL IDIOTS like the guy who wrote this article going to STOP acting like the COMMUNISTS they are and FINALLY acknowledge the above constitutional limits upon the delegated authority of the police to enforce ONLY the CRIMINAL and never the CIVIL law?
If people like this legal ignoramus are going to SLANDER people like us by connecting us to violent, anarchistic behavior, I think it’s time to give him a label: Government Supremacist. He places government above the people they are supposed to SERVE in rights, autonomy, and freedom. If white supremacy is bad, then ALL forms of supremacy, INCLUDING Government Supremacy, are bad. And it’s time to give the false pagan god he worships in violation of the First Amendment another name: De Facto Anarchist Government as described in:
Your Irresponsible, Lawless, and Anarchist Beast Government, Form #05.054
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/YourIrresponsibleLawlessGov.pdf

(p. 344)

This particular diatribe is directed at one Eric Brandt, who wrote an article about sovereign citizens in 2023, but it might as well be directed at me too. I will preemptively accept the author calling me an ignoramus. I find it interesting that, skimming to a random section of a random page like I did to find this quote, you can virtually always find something about it that is completely incorrect. In this case, 50 U.S.C. §841 is not a statutory definition and does not define communist as “someone who refuses to acknowledge or live within the limits on their authority”. It instead describes (not defines) the Communist Party of the United States (not communists in general) in the following way:

The peril inherent in its operation arises not from its numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional Government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence.

(emphasis added)

This is a “findings and declaration of fact”, not the kind of law that actually does something. It was passed in 1954 as part of an act to outlaw the Communist Party. It was barely enforced and parts of the act were later repealed or ruled to be unconstitutional. The Communist Party still exists to this day, and 50 U.S.C. §841 only remains as an artifact of the Red Scare.

In a roundabout way my point is that this tome of an e-book isn’t much worth reading. Lest you forget, that was only the first of two documents the author linked. The other, thankfully, is only 57 pages. The title is “Policy Document: Answers to Press Questions About Sovereignty Advocacy”. Unfortunately it’s much of the same. The “press questions” include things like “Do you believe the government is deceiving the public about what the law requires of them?” The answer begins, “We absolutely do.” No shit you do! Why is this phrased like an interview? No one has ever asked a sovereign citizen most of these questions, much less any press outlet.

Postscript

Well, that’s the end of the article. I tried to be charitable to sovereign citizen arguments where I could, despite being at times snarky or flippant. It would be fantastic if some of the people who subscribe to these arguments (assuredly not “sovereign citizens” themselves) read this, but it’s a long shot. I don’t have much readership and they’re a fairly small and isolated collection of communities. Multiple times throughout my writing of this post I toyed with the idea of using sovereign citizen-friendly language, for example never referring to someone as a person who would not refer to themselves as a person. I still like the idea and think it would be respectful to do, but it’s too much effort that probably no one would ever appreciate.

---

Featured image by Icier Llido.