Talk:Sovereign Citizen Movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sovereign Citizen Movement article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Needs work

I've created a stub article, based on information in the 3 references. A good article would be a lot longer. It would also be better to have a wider range of sources. I seem to remember an article in TIME magazine, but I haven't been able to find it. Cheers, CWC(talk) 10:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April 2007

User 216.188.248.205 (talk · contribs) recently deleted a large portion of the article. I've reverted those edits. (I left a message on user talk:216.188.248.205, but that seems to be a dynamic IP, so he/she may not see them.) Anyone who has problems with the article can discuss them by editing this page. (Reading the Wikipedia:talk page guidelines first would be helpful.) Cheers, CWC 01:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General cleanup

This material makes little if any sense to the extent it touches on legal topics. I've tried to make some edits to begin a clean up, and and to tone down the POV - but without changing the meaning. Yours, Famspear 16:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've made some more edits to tone down the POV. This article as written prior to my edits sounded like a sales pitch for someone pushing conspiracy theories (and it still does to some extent). Neutral Point of View requires that Wikipedia present this kind of material as a description of some people's beliefs. Wikipedia cannot take a position that the beliefs are correct or valid. Yours, Famspear 16:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made some additional changes, but much of the article as presently configured still reads like a joke. Yours, Famspear 16:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear readers: Regarding this paragraph:
The main premise is that the United States is a "Trust". The Congressman and Senators Trustees, and the common people are the Beneficiaries of that Trust. Under this theory, the United States went bankrupt in 1933 and provided a remedy under something called "Limited Liability" in the form of Social Security Insurance. HJR-192 (House Joint Resolution 192) of June 5th 1933, states in part "that no contract can be put forth which calls for payment in substance", and "all debts must be discharged like for like, dollar for dollar." [bolding added on last sentence by Famspear]
I deleted the last sentence. I haven't checked the official text of HJR-192 in the United States Statutes at Large; the version of the text in Wikisource, however, includes no such quotations. (Of course it's possible that the Wikisource version is wrong.)
Aside from the fact that these appear to be false quotations, the sentence doesn't make much sense anyway (although the same can be said about much of the theories described in the article). Yours, Famspear 22:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I imagine the only way to "make sense" of this would be to cut it substantially. Rather than the long, convoluted attempt at explaining an incomprehensible string of legal theories, just boil it down into two or three paragraphs giving an overview of the nature of their claims. Obviously it's not going to "make sense" as a logical argument, but there's no reason we can't craft an accurate characterization of the nature of their beliefs. Unfortunately, what we have now is so nonsensical I wouldn't even know where to start, so good luck.75.139.35.32 13:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critique

I find the so-called critique weak. When someone critiques or comments on something, they should point to specific items in the article or theory and then write something like "when the 'sovereign citizen movement' claims that xyz, they are in error because such and such refutes that point specifically. For example, in Jan., 19xx, John Doe of anytown, US presented this idea but it was shown to be false because of a, b, & c."

The "Critique" in this article is nothing more than a thinly-veiled ad hominen attack. The "Southern Poverty Law Center" as a rule holds the view that "anyone who challenges 'government authority' is a nutcase and is probably violent"

July 22, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creolefood (talk • contribs)

So what? No court has ever upheld the wacky, baseless legal theories these lunatics spout. The only real critique one can make is that these people are completely wrong and are just making this stuff up. --Eastlaw 21:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

September 7, 2007 Anti-Sheeple League

Folks who espouse the "sovereign movement" as wacky "conspiracy theorists" are obviously blissfully ignorant (a CONSCIOUS CHOICE, not a condition) of the commercial + corporate = fascist mechanism known today as the "Federal Government". If the courts themselves and executive branches of "our" government are openly TRADING on the stock market (don't take my word for it, look it up on the Dunn & Bradstreet website),what in the blue blazes makes you think that all of their "court case decisions" are LAWFUL? It's high time for the mindless supporters of the "perception is reality" set to wake up, due their due diligence & study up on TRUE AMERICAN history & POSITIVE LAW, not case law. Cognitive Dissonance is the financially elite's greatest ally, & it's working brilliantly on folks like yourself, Eastlaw. Let me give you a reading assignment - check out the IRS code section that deals with 501 (c) 3 "tax exempt" organizations such as Wikipedia & the Anti-Defamation League - do you REALLY think that you can be "unbiased" when they fall under the DIRECT CONTROL of the TAX COLLECTION arm (IRS) of the PRIVATELY OWNED FEDERAL RESERVE BANK? Oops, you probably were blissfully ignorant of that TRUTH also, because you obviously prefer blind OPINION to TRUTH. IT IS OUT THERE - do YOU have the courage to face it head-on? I hope so for this country's sake. This whole movement is about returning to a UN-CORRUPT REPUBLICAN form of government, NOT anarchy nor a "DEMOCRACY". Another reading assignment & a gentleman's bet- show me ANYWHERE in the Declaration of Independence (our FOUNDATIONAL document by the way) or the Constitution that makes a SPECIFIC reference to this country as a "Democracy". THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC". That in itself is a contradiction in terms. "Republican" means "BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE". The Definition for "Democracy" is "MOB RULE". Ben Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves & a sheep voting on what to have for dinner". As for the ignorantly ambiguous tripe that the ADL likes to vomit on the "common herd" (not my term - our own "people in government's") is that ANYONE who disagrees with their views is an obvious "anti-semitic" & "white supremacist". How banal! The only "defamation" happening here is THEIR OWN racist railing propaganda. Perhaps some remedial history reading is in order for the likes of you who enjoy seeing your own baseless writing rather than attack the issue in a truthful, forthright manner. Try reading "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin or watch America: Freedom to Fascism from Aaron Russo. Don't just spout OPINION - BACK IT UP WITH TRUTH!By the way, Wikipedia - the LEGAL term for "straw man" is defined in Black's 4th LAW Dictionary as "Stramineus Homo" - "A man of straw, one of no substance, put forward as bail or surety". Oh darn-did I give you another "wacky theory"? Look up "Public Statute" then "Private Statute". Look up "Status" then "Estate". Look up "sovereign" then "Sui Juris". Webster's Dictionary is NOT used in a "court of law", so get a Black's or Ballentine's. Can YOU HANDLE the TRUTH? Think you're up to it? Time to either "break from the herd" or put your head back down, be quiet & keep on grazing. 24.253.74.174 04:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear user at IP24.253.74.174: Thank you for sharing your feelings with us, but this is not a weblog. The purpose of this page is to discuss ways to improve the article. Stay on topic. Yours, Famspear 02:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

I cleaned up the article by mostly cutting the rambling explanation of how to conduct your redemption and instead cited a USDOJ news release, that explains the theory these people work under. It is kind of cockamamie, but the idea I've gotten from reading some other websites is that people who believe in redemption theory, literally believe that government debt is directly connected to each individual citizen, and that as the government pays off that debt, an individual is entitled to the proceeds. Thats where the strawman (which is evidently your account where this money is supposed to be deposited) comes from. SiberioS (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Pretty weird stuff. I made some general copyedits. It's hard to make sense of out this stuff. Famspear (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: Regarding the recent edits by IP97.81.109.205 that were reverted by other editor(s), I have posted the following on that editor's talk page:

I cannot speak for the editor(s) who removed your recent contributions in this article, but I suspect that one reason for the reversions might have been that the language was a bit too non-neutral. I myself agree with the thrust of your edits; it's just that in Wikipedia, Wikipedia itself cannot take these positions.
For example, I think we can agree that the sovereign citizen ideas are indeed "bizarre." Wikipedia, itself however, cannot take that position. If we can locate a previously published third party source that takes that position, we can cite to that source -- making clear that the "bizarreness" is the source's opinion, and not Wikipedia's opinion.
On the Tennessee court case as a primary source, I think that there might be a way to work that back into the article along with some secondary sources (if we can locate some) in the context of an expansion of the article.
I don't know a lot about the sovereign citizen movement per se, so please hang in there. This may take some time.

To reiterate, I think the Tennessee court case might be a proper sourcing, along with some secondary sourcing like material from the Anti-Defamation League, here: [1]. The material just needs to be presented in a neutral tone.

Thoughts or ideas, anyone? Famspear (talk) 03:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias of a particular source compared to neutral point of view of the article

A new user deleted a quotation from the Anti-Defamation League, objecting to the verbiage because the verbiage is biased. I reinstated the verbiage.

"Bias" generally does relate to the Wikipedia policy on Neutral Point of View -- but not in the way that the new user may have thought. Bias of a particular source is not the same as neutral point of view (or lack of same) of the article as a whole. Although it may seem odd to a newcomer at first, there is no "neutral point of view" requirement in Wikipedia that sources used in Wikipedia be unbiased. If you think about it after a while, you may realize why this is so.

Here is the rule:

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. Debates within topics are clearly described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from asserting which is better.

-- from WP:NPOV (bolding added).

You cannot present opposing viewpoints in an article without those viewpoints being biased. By definition, the viewpoints must be biased in order for those viewpoints to be opposed to each other. "Neutral point of view" means the neutrality of the article as a whole -- not the absence of points of view (biased or unbiased) within the article.

It is not Wikipedia itself that is saying the words in the quotation. It is the source that is making the statement. And it is OK to show that quotation (or an accurate paraphrase of that statement) in the Wikipedia article, even if the statement is biased and even if the source making that statement is biased.

What would be impermissible, however, would be for Wikipedia to then say "Oh, by the way, this source is correct" or "that source is wrong".

Neutral point of view is a complicated concept in Wikipedia, and we would agree that there are certainly some ways that an article might fail the NPOV standard, even without the article expressly saying "this source is right" or "that source is wrong." Deleting an accurate, in-context quotation from a reliable, previously published third party source merely because that quotation is biased, however, is generally not appropriate -- for the simple reason that the mere use of a "biased quotation" does not, in and of itself, violate the NPOV rule. Famspear (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)