Talk:Sovereign citizen movement

Neutrality

Originally added to an ancient stale thread and cut out verbatim to a new section by me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is very biased and is basically a list of crimes committed by some of the radical sovereign movement participants. But you don't see the same thing for Black Lives Matter. 160.39.203.39 (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 160.39.203.39: No, the article is not biased. The article accurately and neutrally reports on the subject matter.

What you may be picking up on is the fact that people who adhere to the "sovereign citizen" philosophy are, almost by definition, rejecting established law -- including criminal law. Obviously, those who reject the validity of criminal law are more likely to commit crimes than those who accept the validity of the law, and those who commit crimes are somewhat likely to be arrested, charged, tried, convicted, sentenced, and so on. The article reflects that reality, using reliable sources, but the article itself does not "take sides" as to who is "right" and who is "wrong." Famspear (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

'Obviously, those who reject the validity of criminal law are more likely to commit crimes than those who accept the validity of the law ...'

I don't accept that reasoning. Those who admit validity aren't necessarily law-abiding and those who reject, are not rendered reckless. Plus, there's the possibility that such people are prone to greater scrutiny/persecution by law enforcers. Beingsshepherd (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

That's not what the passage says. The passage says that "those who reject the validity of criminal law are more likely to commit crimes than those who accept the validity of the law ..." It doesn't matter whether you accept that reasoning or not. Famspear (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

PS: Sorry, I don't mean to be grumpy. You are correct that those who admit the validity of the law aren't necessarily law abiding, etc. The point is that I was talking about probabilities and generalities, not specific cases. People who reject the validity of criminal law are indeed more likely to commit crimes, etc. Whether a particular person who rejects the validity of criminal law will actually commit crimes is a separate issue. Famspear (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

People who reject the validity of criminal law are more likely to ignore that law, which necessarily encompasses situations considered crimes under said law. Most of sovereign citizen rhetoric revolves around selling people a scheme or theory under which they are not subject to a certain law - thus creating the situation where they commit a crime, even if they are deluded enough to believe they aren't because they have filed some weird (and not actually legally valid) paperwork somewhere, or taken the license plates off their vehicle, or burned their birth certificate while spelling their name in a weird capitalization and hyphenation scheme and doing the hokey pokey... Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Greatest Threats

'... a survey of law-enforcement officials and agencies across the United States concluded that the movement was the single greatest threat to their communities, ranking above Islamic terrorists and jihadists. '

Why give prominence to those two, or ANY other? Beingsshepherd (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

You would have to ask the people who participated in the survey. Famspear (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Try reading the source, Beingsshepherd. "Islamic Terrorists/Jihadists", Table 2 in the survey report, was rated the 2nd greatest threat. The notation is valid. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

That's a matter of opinion, I never doubted its inclusion, I'm questioning the relevance to this article. Beingsshepherd (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, it's relevant to the subject of the article: the sovereign citizen movement. Law enforcement officers identify members of the movement as a greater threat to their communities than Islamic terrorists, that is a significant point, especially for Americans. Famspear (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Why? It's not at all obvious. Beingsshepherd (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Beingsshepherd: Yes, it is obvious, and you see that it is obvious. I suspect that you understand the meaning of the term relevant. Obviously, the threat from sovereign citizens is relevant to the subject of the article, and a comparison of the threat from those people to the threat from other groups, especially Islamic terrorists and jihadists, is also relevant to the article. You're being needlessly argumentative.

Note: If your purpose is to disagree with the conclusion of law enforcement, people, etc., about the level of the threat from the sovereign citizen movement, as cited in the article, then Wikipedia (or this talk page in particular) is not the proper place for you to do that. Further, if your purpose is to object to the fact that law enforcement people were comparing the threat from the "sovereigns" to the threat from Islamic terrorists, etc., then Wikipedia (or this talk page) is not the proper place for you to do that, either. Famspear (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I do wish that you'd answer my question.

If this article were about the second greatest anything, then saying: "they are second only to X (the number one)" would be pertinent, standard-fare; e.g.

' Worldwide, Back in Black is the second best-selling album of all time, behind only Michael Jackson's Thriller. ' ~

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_in_Black#Commercial_performance

But here, someone has seen fit to go the other way AND IN THE INTRODUCTION.

You hint at this being '... a significant point, especially for Americans.' but seem evasive when pressed to elaborate. Beingsshepherd (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Coverage here and in the U.S. press mentions this over and over because a majority of Americans who are not in law enforcement or security reportedly believe that Islamic terrorists and jihadists are the biggest threat to the security of the U.S. and its citizens. Thus, the fact that this is not the case is important anough to make the ledes of this article, as it did the ledes of most U.S. press coverage on the topic (can't say about other countries' press, to the extent they might have even noticed this study). --Orange Mike | Talk 23:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

That appears to be your unsourced perception, which is not even alluded to in the article. Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Beingsshepherd: Orange Mike doesn't need a "source". He's not putting his own "perception" into the article. This is the talk page, not the article itself. He's responding your own comments on this talk page. If you don't want to hear answers, then stop asking questions.

By contrast, the article reference is to a survey of law enforcement, which is clearly cited in the article. It's a reliable source. If you don't like what the source is saying, that's just too bad. You have not come up with a coherent reason for objecting to the material in the article.

No, I don't seem "evasive" to you. You're just being argumentative. And, no, I am not "hinting" at something being a "significant point." Indeed, I am very clearly and directly making my points.

You, on the other hand, are being evasive.

Also, you are belaboring and needlessly agonizing over what is very obvious to many or most Americans. As Orange Mike noted, many Americans would be surprised to learn the results of the study mentioned in the article, as most Americans probably do view Islamic terrorists and jihadists as being the greatest current threat to Americans. Perhaps you disagree with that assessment. If so, this talk page is not the proper place to vent your feelings. Famspear (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I have noting to add to what Famspear and Orangemike said, but I 100% support and agree with their points, in case we need to establish that there is a consensus here. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

My dear Famspear, Talk pages ARE the proper forum for discussing the propriety of an article's content and I thank you for finally furnishing me with an answer to my question, though I sincerely hope that Orange Mike will not also misinterpret my reply above. I don't suppose that I, a humble editor, would ever be permitted the unsubstantiated most people would agree defence, but, as the adage goes, might makes right. Cheerio. Beingsshepherd (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

No, "discussing the propriety of an article's content" does not mean merely expressing your own displeasure -- in this case, your displeasure with the fact that law enforcement officials ranked the threat of sovereign citizens above that of Islamic terrorists, etc. And I did answer your question (which was "why give prominence" to the Islamic terrorists, etc.) very directly in my very first post. I said that you would have to ask the people who gave them that prominence -- namely, the law enforcement people who participated in the survey.

However, your question was really a sort of rhetorical one. You weren't looking for an answer.

Initially, you were really arguing with the propriety of the assessment made by the law enforcement people who participated in the survey. That is not your proper role as an editor. "Discussing the propriety" of the article's content (in the broad sense that you apparently mean) is a bit too loose a description of the proper purpose of the talk page. Instead of expressing your own objection to the assessment made by the sources, go look for additional, reliable sources that (perhaps) take some other view. Report on what reliable, previously published third party sources say.

You then switched the form of your objection to an argument that the law enforcement officers' assessment was not relevant to the article. That objection was not taken seriously. It was obvious to us that you were trying to find another way to object to the use of the phrase "Islamic terrorists and jihadists". Famspear (talk) 01:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Legal name billboards in the UK

I just noticed on of these - a large billboard announcing that it is illegal to use a legal name, eg [1] [2] Related is something about it being illegal to vote. [3] Doug Weller talk 15:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

A person is born in a rural area where there are no hospitals, and no birth certificates are recorded or kept, and this person has no identification due to no birth record, Shouldn't they be allowed to vote? Authoritarians believe laws should apply to everyone, but these natural people aren't represented. That's why requiring identification before being allowed to vote should be illegal because such a requirement marginalizes natural born people. Roninmd (talk) 09:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Classification

This article fails to mention that the sovereign citizen movement is a subset of the general common law movement that attempts to bind our government agents to the oaths that they swore to uphold. The article seems to neglect those people who study the common law and who understand the relationship of common law to statute as those people that are part of the pro se problem whenever sovereignty and the constitution are mentioned in court. Common law is not just case law. Case law is a record of common law as it is being practiced in a court of record where due process and court procedure are followed. The article doesn't even explain why they call themselves sovereign citizens.

When people read this article, bias is formed when sovereignty is mentioned and this is akin to a type of propaganda. Law abiding people do exist that understand the notions of the people's sovereignty and it's importance in making law. The sovereignty of the people is what empowers government and also has the ability to dissolve government.

While this article is written by a "neutral" authoritarian interested in maintaining the validity of statute, the People are the authority over the authoritarian when statute under strict practice is abhorrent to the people. e.g., prohibition Roninmd (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

If you suggest some text based on what wikipedia calls a WP:Reliable source then we can talk. No one is interested in your opinion, nor mine. Only on what is found in what wikipedia calls a reliable source. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Roninmd: Wikipedia operates based on reliable previously published third party sources. In the United States, the sovereign citizen movement, in general, is not really based on the idea that the people are "sovereign." The sovereign citizen movement (at least in the United States) is instead based in part on the false idea that an individual person can be "sovereign." Our ancestors fought the American Revolution for the purpose of ridding ourselves of political subservience to an individual sovereign (namely King George III). This is a not-so-subtle distinction ("people" versus "individual") that appears to be lost on the adherents to the sovereign citizen movement. The beliefs described in the article are nonsense, and the courts in the United States correctly treat those beliefs as nonsense under our laws. If you have Reliable Sources that you feel should be reflected in the article, please discuss. Famspear (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Everyone, please see WP:FORUM and WP:SOAP. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Famspear: Then I suggest the article make that distinction between plural sovereignty versus the sovereignty of the individual. Individual personal sovereignty is just as valid a concept when we relate this to the confines of the individuals jurisdiction (i.e., in their own dwelling) and how this relates to the state.

In the constitution of any real republic the operative word is "establish." The People existed in their own individual sovereignty before the constitution was enabled. When the People "establish" a constitution, there is nothing in the word "establish" that signifies that they have yielded any of their sovereignty to the agency they have created. To interpret otherwise would convert the republic into a democracy (see Republic vs. Democracy; also see conditions of admission of any state to the union). This is not a mere opinion.

For example, see the legislated notice from the People to the government written in the California Government Codes 11120 and 54950. In these codes you will see language such as

"..The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know..." -CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54950 et seq. (how is this not a reliable source?)

To deprive the People of their sovereignty it is first necessary to get the People to agree to submit to the authority of the entity they have created. As individuals, people have the choice to submit their authority or not. It is a matter semantics whether you call them criminals and is relative upon who the reader considers the higher authority (i.e., the people or the state.) Roninmd (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)