Throughout the country, hundreds of thousands of Americans declare themselves sovereign to America. They refuse to obey state and/or federal laws, refuse to pay their taxes, ignore law enforcement and actively defy any notions of national obedience or fidelity.
While most Americans would overlook or ignore such individuals, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has moved to classify such individuals “a domestic terrorist movement.”
“The FBI considers sovereign-citizen extremists as comprising a domestic terrorist movement, which, scattered across the United States, has existed for decades, with well-known members, such as Terry Nichols, who helped plan the Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, bombing,” said a Sept. 2011 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. “Sovereign citizens do not represent an anarchist group, nor are they a militia, although they sometimes use or buy illegal weapons. Rather, they operate as individuals without established leadership and only come together in loosely affiliated groups to train, help each other with paperwork, or socialize and talk about their ideology.”
“The lawless ones”
“Sovereign citizens,” as these individuals are sometime called, form a loosely-associated, leaderless movement that is proliferated via the Internet and through seminars from movement experts. The Southern Poverty Law Center in 2010 numbers about 100,000 Americans who are “hard-core sovereign believers” with another 200,000 who are testing out sovereign techniques for their own benefits, such as dodging traffic violations or more serious criminal charges.
“Sovereigns” tend to believe that precedence-based law, or common law, is the only legitimate legal authority in the United States. They, in general, reject statute-based laws. Many “sovereigns” consider American currency illegitimate, as it is not based on a precious metal-basis. In addition, they reject taxation in all forms and feel that “citizens” surrender their sovereignty to the federal government by “blindly” obeying federal and state laws.
All challenges against the sovereignty of the federal government by “sovereigns” have, to date, been rejected by the courts. The United States only considers sovereign a separate foreign state. All American citizens, regardless of where they live, and all residents residing on American soil are subject to national and applicable state and local laws. Many “sovereigns” rely on misinterpretations of the Constitution and legal semantics to justify their claims of legal “exclusion.”
In Feb. 12’s United States v. Kenneth Wayne, the ridiculousness of such an argument was presented in the judge’s decision — “Defendant evinces, like all sovereign citizens, a belief that the federal government is not real and that he does not have to follow the law. Thus, Defendant argues that as a result of the ‘REGISTERED FACTS,’ the ‘states of body, persons, actors and other parties perpetuating the above captioned transaction(s) [i.e., the Court and prosecutors] are engaged … in acts of TREASON, and if unknowingly as victims of TREASON and FRAUD …’ (Def.’s Mandatory Jud. Not. at 2.) The Court therefore feels some measure of responsibility to inform Defendant that all the fancy legal-sounding things he has read on the internet are make-believe…”
All this begs the question of why the government is making special consideration for a group of anarchists to be labeled as terrorists.
A need for vigilance
According to the FBI, there have been at least six police officers killed by “sovereigns” since 2000. In 2010, two police officers in West Memphis, Ark. were shot by a father-son “sovereigns” team that were traffic stopped because of a fake license plate. A typical “sovereigns” tactic against the police is to request that the police officer swear oaths of office and fill out various forms before the officer can service the “sovereign.” The pair threw a stack of such forms at the officers, distracting them.
“The bulk of them go about their lives whining about government but never presenting a reason for the government to take any action against them — a sort of domestic terrorist détente, if you will,” said Frank Scafidi, a former Los Angeles County deputy sheriff and FBI agent and the current director of public affairs for the National Insurance Crime Bureau. “You can believe what you wish and play mind games with others of your ilk, but that’s not a violation of any law. Be happy in your world, and we’re happy for you, too. But if these folks do commit crimes or do fail to do what the law requires in some circumstances, then that takes it to another level.”
“How government responds to those overt acts of criminal behavior is the intersection where deeds determine response,” Scafidi continued. “In other words, if a sovereign citizen is thumbing his nose at a minor statute is it really wise to investigate, charge, arrest and prosecute? That depends on the alleged misconduct.
“In my opinion, you treat sovereign citizens types as you would ordinary citizens — if they violate a law of sufficient seriousness that it warrants prosecution, then you follow that path. Period. However, the manner and timing of how you tread that path must be determined by applying reasonableness and common sense above all else. For example, if you charge a sovereign citizen with a violation of law and you have an arrest warrant, is it smart to go charging into a sovereign citizen ‘compound’ to make the arrest? Probably not a good idea. So you pick your timing and make it clear that an arrest is inevitable and there may be other means to effect that arrest that makes it safe for all involved.”
There is concern among the FBI that many “sovereignists” may be involved in “redemption.” “Redemption” assumes that — as the United States has removed itself from the gold standard — the nation bases its currency on its citizenry themselves, allocating a monetary worth between $630,000 and $3,000,000 on every citizen, held in an U.S. Treasury Direct account. Based on this false claim, many “sovereigns” make claims in an attempt to “liberate” these monies. This is ironic, as the “sovereigns” find the money to be worthless — at least, in philosophy.
In part due to a rash of fraud cases — including a 2010 theft of diplomatic credentials, an insurance fraud case in Sacramento, Calif. and a Las Vegas, Nev., case involving more than a million dollars in money laundering — along with acts of violence against government officials — the FBI feels that “sovereigns” are a group that should be monitored. As stated by the FBI, “incidents against law enforcement make it a group that should be approached with knowledge and caution. It is important that law enforcement be aware of sovereign citizens’ tactics so agencies can warn the public of potential scams, spot illegal activity and understand its potential severity, and be prepared for and protect against violent behavior or backlash through intimidation and harassment.”
A need for temperance
“Law enforcement should be proactive to the extent that they (law enforcement officials) are aware of the group(s) and their membership and only react when a violation has occurred,” said Tod Burke, associate dean and professor of criminal justice at Radford (Vir.) University. “Therefore, the members should be treated with the same due process rights as all citizens. However, if there is a plot that may harm others, beyond mere thoughts, then proper enforcement should be enacted (e.g., a threat to blow up a building).”
“With respect to monitoring them, that’s nothing new,” Scafidi agreed. “The government has always had some kind of awareness of fringe groups whether they are sovereign citizens, militia members, neo-Nazis, eco-terrorists, etc. But to “monitor” in the sense of having some cyber leash on them would take this to another level — one that would most likely involve getting some kind of judicial authority for doing so. And if a court is granting that authority, then you most likely have a crime that has been committed, and a crime of such significance that it will be prosecuted.”
“Profiling and monitoring individuals absent some information or suspicion that they are conspiring to commit a crime or that a they have committed a crime is an area that, post-9/11 is evolving,” Scafidi continued. “I would defer to the lawyers among us to opine on that aspect, but government monitoring of individuals based solely on their radical beliefs and/or associations is not something our Constitution embraces — and, I believe, rightly so.”