If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Police departments receive training in dealing with 'sovereign citizens'. Regicide?   (latimes.com) divider line 82
    More: Interesting, sovereign citizens, Contra Costa County, Santa Rosa County, oaths of office, finches, money orders, West Memphis, monarchs  
•       •       •

9551 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Apr 2013 at 11:53 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-04-06 08:46:25 AM  
6 votes:
zealots who refuse to recognize government authority in virtually any form.

Except when its convenient to do so.

Farking hypocrites.
2013-04-06 04:43:50 PM  
5 votes:

Rabbitgod: And that is the problem with these sovereign citizen weenies. They feel that they are entitled, and have the right to more privileges and protections than anyone else, because they think that they are more insert excuse here than other people, and because of that they feel that their rights, real or imaginary, supersede other less  insert excuse here people.


Well, no, that's not really the problem. That's a symptom of the problem. The problem is that they feel marginalized and powerless, largely because the kind of people that go in for "sovereign citizen" bs ARE completely powerless. They aren't terribly bright, and suffer from enough personality disorders that they never attain any power in the workplace or community. They hold hugely unpopular beliefs, so they always feel like the majority votes against them and they never really manage to attain any measure of political popularity or influence. They generally fall into lower socio-economic classes, have little in the way of formal education, and are looked down on by the majority of society, largely for reasons that are beyond their control (it's hard to be popular when you're mildly insane).

So they take these very real power imbalances, and blow them out of proportion. It's actually a very common defense mechanism: no one wants to feel like a small-time loser, so they inflate the strength of their oppressors to ludicrous proportions. Set themselves up as the brave but oppressed David fighting an overwhelming Goliath. Better to be a poor, oppressed, freedom fighter than a chump with nothing going for them.

So, with that, they take their personal shortcomings, and imagine that they are the result of an all-powerful oppressive force, the Government ("with help from the Sheeple! All those people who are happy and successful and call them mean names in person. They only THINK they're happy and successful because they're stupid. Not like me. I'm miserable because I know the truth, and am being oppressed for my enlgihtenment!"). They don't have any REAL gripes with the government, so they see no valid path to addressing their concerns, and thus instead do the only thing they can think of: attempt to opt out. But people won't let them opt out. They still get called names at work, and the teller at the bank still gives them funny looks. So they get angry, and ascribe even more sinister motives to their oppressors.

Then they get violent, because in their minds at this point, they are under full out assault, and they need to defend themselves. And then they die in a police standoff, and the circle of life is complete. Meanwhile, others like them use that as further proof of government oppression, while completely writing off the intricate series of events that led to the situation.

So the problem isn't really that they feel self-entitled. The problem is that these people are pathetic losers who got one too many wedgies in school.
2013-04-06 12:50:09 PM  
4 votes:

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: How does a sovereign citizen justify using the internet?


Sovereign citizens are not mountain men. They are just people who want to play by rules they make up as they go along. Like the postal worker mentioned in TFA.
2013-04-06 12:42:44 PM  
4 votes:
I'm a little incredulous that anyone can support these types of people.  They don't "just want to be left alone" or "live off the grid," they don't want to pay taxes and they don't want to follow laws.  Here is a good test to determine if your philosophical belief is stupid: apply it universally and see what happens.  What would happen if everyone decided what and how much taxes they pay, and how those taxes are used.  What would happen if everyone carried a list of laws that personally applied to them and they only had to follows those laws.  Does society as we know it disintegrate, and we revert into a Somalia-like collection of warlord ruled clans? Yes?  Then your philosophical belief is probably stupid.
2013-04-06 12:10:52 PM  
4 votes:
The sovereigns are clearly deluded nutjobs but terrorists?  A terrorist is someone who uses attacks on civilians to further a political agenda.  While these folks have a political agenda they do not generally espouse or engage in attacks on the civilian population.

The word "terrorist" has lost all meaning in the last few years.  News agencies should really refrain from using it.  It is now commonly applied to any sort of criminal, rather than according to its actual meaning.
2013-04-06 05:24:21 PM  
3 votes:
To be honest, the authority postures imposed on society are essentially to keep order with money that has no value, backed by weapons and designed to keep it flowing in the direction of that authority.  It's old news.  You might as well play along, though because the whole charade is eating itself with or without your participation and there's no need to die for the belief that it's a con.  It is a con.  And, so what?  Smile, wave, pay your bills, hand cops your license, give them their revenue, watch the implosion.  And when it falls over, it will be replaced by another con.  On the upside, we have the most order, clean water, cheap food, best roads and highest standard of living since Rome.  Rome imploded, too.  It all does.  Don't act like you can change the word with a handgun and phony plates.  Squinty, cheap little men are always going to gather together to subvert any useful system of governance.  They're not important.  Your well being is.
2013-04-06 12:56:18 PM  
3 votes:

pedrop357: No matter how far 'off the grid' they go, someone will always come up with a reason that imposes the government on them no differently then people in the middle of a city.


Certainly living in the borders of a nation protected by the best and most expensive military in the world, inside one of the most stable nations in the know galaxy that is the defacto reserve currency of the known universe means they should be left alone and allowed to reject the very authority of the government that provides them the blanket of peace they wish to wrap themselves in.

There are plenty of small nations and parts of the world they could easily go to so they could relax in the peace of using only 'real' currency, no pesky governments to make sure that the person upstream doesn't dump sludge from oil wells and raw sewage in your drinking water and no hassle from the those mean old coppers making sure your POS 1974 GMC pickup with bad tires and busted back glass asking it should be on the road.  Go there, and rejoice in nirvana that being a sovereign will bring to all and prove to the rest of the world how wrong the idea of a 'social contract' is.
2013-04-06 12:34:31 PM  
3 votes:
I'm pretty pro sovereign citizens... provided they renounce US citizenship and agree to be parachuted down into Somalia. I'd even be fine with the gubmint paying for a one way trip.
2013-04-06 12:31:04 PM  
3 votes:

pedrop357: But you're not a control freak, right?


No, I was making a joke.  Apparently, you are incapable of recognizing humor.

Then again, from the rest of your post, I think it's pretty much clear that you an incapable of many other things, such as reasoned thinking, having a firm grasp on reality, and an understanding of government.

But that's okay, at least you give the rest of us something to laugh at.
2013-04-06 12:29:57 PM  
3 votes:

pedrop357: The biggest issue a lot of people seem to have with these people is that they don't want to participate 100% in everything that society does. Without getting into whether all of those things are just or not, doesn't it seem a bit sinister and proving of their point for the government to get so upset when some try to distance themselves?


It's not that they do not want to participate in society, it is that they reject social standards for cooperation and seek to play life by their own arbitrary rules while remaining in society.
2013-04-06 12:15:57 PM  
3 votes:
"He had renounced his U.S. citizenship."

a) that doesn't excuse you from any laws or taxes

B) deport the farking moran
2013-04-06 12:14:33 PM  
3 votes:
The agency calls sovereigns - who number between 100,000 and 300,000 - a "domestic terrorist movement."

I highly doubt there are that many truly committed whackjobs out there.  Plenty of whackjobs, sure.  But whackjobs willing to live the lifestyle instead of just raging against the machine in online chat rooms?  Probably only a small percentage.

These nutcases existed 80 years ago too- it's just that we were much more rural and could afford to let crazy old Charlie stay up in his cabin and stew.  Nowadays, it seems like we have a collective need to poke 'em with a stick to see how angry they get.
2013-04-06 11:26:54 AM  
3 votes:
I don't mind people being 'sovereign citizens' but the deal is you don't get to use any government services, public utilities, roads, etc.
2013-04-06 05:43:49 PM  
2 votes:

Rabbitgod: They eventually, regardless if they started out as con men or imaginary Davids, really do feel entitled  because they are white, black, ginger, god's chosen, FSM's chosen, tall, rich, poor, insert excuse here,


Oddly, this is the chief ally of the people running the con.  We don't see ourselves as American.  We see ourselves as black, white, brown, straight, gay, metalheads, Beatles fans, Niners fans, (no WAI, yo STEELERS!), goths, old people,. young people, Gen Xers, boomers, millennials, X- Box users, PS3 users, headbangers, classical fans, bikers, Presbyterians, and any one of the endless sub factions thereof.  And boy is that handy for keeping people from noticing your hand is in their pockets.  And, every four years, they trot out two sockpuppets in what is more than anything else, a demographic survey to see which subcultures are buying which flavor of kool aid and they install one and and we all cheer and drink high five each other or weep and rail at the stupidity of our guy not winning and nothing changes.  And that is essentially, our form of government.  That and sketchy IOUs with pictures on them.  Meh.
2013-04-06 05:36:48 PM  
2 votes:

pedrop357: While interacting with society, I can understand the requirement of following all the rules, but why does that requirement continue into their little compound where society offers no protections or benefits?


Because they DO get society's protections and benefits while on their compound, whether they believe it or not. So long as you are located within the political boundaries of the United States, you are obligated to follow the rules of living here, or to live with the consequences of breaking those rules.

pedrop357: You're not actually serious or even remotely sincere about the concept of being left alone away from society.


No, but only because you're playing word games. You aren't actually trying to "be left alone from society". You're trying to attain full legal autonomy. That is impossible, so long as you remain under the jurisdiction of the United States. If that is your ultimate goal, there is a pretty simple and well-established process for leaving US jurisdiction. You are more than welcome to avail yourself of this process, and no one will try to stop you.

I, on the other hand, am merely proposing a compromise solution that gives you the maximum amount of privacy ("being left alone") possible while remaining within United States Jurisdiction. There is no alternative. You either accept that, try to change the relevant laws through legitimate political action, or you leave. Those are your options, if your actual goal is to be "left alone". Pick one, and go for it. Or, STFU and go back to flipping burgers.
2013-04-06 01:51:24 PM  
2 votes:

atomicmask: FarkinHostile: atomicmask: Also, a cop IS just a guy in a halloween costume, it is the peoples authority and belief in that costume that gives him any power.

Perhaps you are forgetting the gun, baton, tazer, pepper spray....

Force is power.

Not forgetting it, just telling the part that goes from criminal to cop. Its the people that give him authority to carry that and use it for anything other then self defense. We give him the right to be the aggressor in situations, thats it. Otherwise he is gang member with strange bling.


True, but it's the biggest, best armed gang. When it comes right down to it, might makes "right". A 16 year old inner city punk pointing a gun at me is in charge, at least till I can get more force than he has, and no one has given him any authority.

Just sayin'.
2013-04-06 01:28:38 PM  
2 votes:
While I agree these " sovereign " citizens are wrong in their basic thinking, it's the police training that concerns me. At what point does a cop make the distinction between a law abiding citizen, standing on his or her 4th amendment rights, and a law breaking sovereign? Or will he?
2013-04-06 01:27:48 PM  
2 votes:

atomicmask: Furthermore FARK, the land of self hating pasty white lib coonts, seems to have a love/hate relationship with authoritarians..

If they are abusing poor little brown people, they are evil jack booted thugs

If they are abusing white people, they are completely justified in the abuse and labeling...


From your profile, and your comments, you do seem to have a bit of racial resentment.
2013-04-06 01:12:23 PM  
2 votes:
Furthermore FARK, the land of self hating pasty white lib coonts, seems to have a love/hate relationship with authoritarians..

If they are abusing poor little brown people, they are evil jack booted thugs

If they are abusing white people, they are completely justified in the abuse and labeling...
2013-04-06 12:45:46 PM  
2 votes:

rustypouch: If they don't like the rules of a country, there's little stopping them from moving to a country that's more to their liking.


Ah, the old "if you don't like it, you can just get out" canard.  Let's try that with gay marriage or voter ID and see if anyone agrees.
2013-04-06 12:28:54 PM  
2 votes:

JesseL: I find it pretty farking scary that the government is willing to classify as much as 0.1% of the population as domestic terrorists based on a stance that ultimately doesn't amount to anything worse than wanting to be left alone.

Granted there are a handful of serious whackjobs who are a serious danger to those around them, but the vast majority aren't doing anything that should remotely qualify as terroristic or threatening enough to paint a movement as large as they claim with such a brush.


THAT is why I sympathize with them despite disagreeing with a lot what they do.

How the government responds to a bunch of C rate rabble-rousers should tell us how the government would deal with any truly effective movement for change, especially one that would push for more individual autonomy.  It's also highly effective in weeding out the high grade authoritarians among us.
2013-04-06 12:19:48 PM  
2 votes:

tillerman35: The agency calls sovereigns - who number between 100,000 and 300,000 - a "domestic terrorist movement."

I highly doubt there are that many truly committed whackjobs out there.  Plenty of whackjobs, sure.  But whackjobs willing to live the lifestyle instead of just raging against the machine in online chat rooms?  Probably only a small percentage.

These nutcases existed 80 years ago too- it's just that we were much more rural and could afford to let crazy old Charlie stay up in his cabin and stew.  Nowadays, it seems like we have a collective need to poke 'em with a stick to see how angry they get.


That's the problem.  If someone wants to live 'away' from society, or limit the interactions and influence of society, they have to be harassed, abused, and/or forcefully pulled back in.

The attitude of some seems to be "let's mess with them until they push back, then we can justify why we were pushing them."

People always talk about how if someone doesn't like some aspect of society, they should "go live off the grid" or some other nonsense, THEN we have this issue where it's basically proven that there's no such thing as allowing people to live even slightly off the grid.

The biggest issue a lot of people seem to have with these people is that they don't want to participate 100% in everything that society does.  Without getting into whether all of those things are just or not, doesn't it seem a bit sinister and proving of their point for the government to get so upset when some try to distance themselves?
2013-04-06 12:15:55 PM  
2 votes:
I'd like to propose the following procedure for law enforcement:

Officer: Your license and registration please.
Sovereign Citizen: I'm a sovereign citizen and you have no authority over me!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZE!
Sovereign Citizen: EEEEEEAAAAAYYYYYAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
Officer: Your license and registration please.
Repeat as necessary.
2013-04-06 11:42:01 AM  
2 votes:

Generation_D: Its one thing to think the cops are cartooney at times, they certainly are.

Its quite another to start babbling about how you pay your taxes in silver paper and you refuse to form joinder and you are a human being and a man, therefore laws don't apply to you.


I'm sure some of them are crazy, but weren't we just recently say that we needed to do more to help people with mental illness?

If their whole delusion is that they think the Government is out to get them, then officially declaring them terrorists and sending in swat teams goes firmly under the category of...

dl.dropbox.com
2013-04-06 09:43:07 AM  
2 votes:
"When all else fails deploy the self-propelled Cockpunch 5000 -- when fully fueled it's capable of delivering 180 cockpunches per minute for up to two hours at impacts customizable all the way up to 'Earnie Shavers on PCP,' and, in a major upgrade over the Cockpunch 4000, the 5000 has a built-in webcam that provides streaming video of the cockpunches set to 'Yackety Sax."
2013-04-07 06:03:40 PM  
1 votes:

tirob: A Las Vegas "libertarian" according to your profile! Congratulations. Just like some of my best friends. They crack me up.

Want less government in your life? Stop using electrical power from the Hoover Dam, which was paid for and is still maintained (and protected from sabotage) by our federal tax dollars. And don't pay taxes to maintain and police I-15, likewise a federal government project, which provides access to and from Vegas from southern California, Vegas's biggest tourism market. You'll *really* be off the grid then, because your city will be out of business.

Look, it's all right with me if you want to go off into the hills someplace and live there with your guns and your fishing rods. But forgive me if I take with a grain of salt your complaints (and similar complaints from casino barons and their paid PR people) about the government while you sit there and reap the benefits of things that taxpayers paid for and continue to maintain.


Hey someone missing the point AND basically suggesting that anyone who benefits from government services that are paid for in part by their tax dollars can't discuss, complain, advocate, or otherwise dissent against anything the government does, did, will do, or might do.

In other words, the message to all of us is:
mikeduran.com
2013-04-07 04:22:53 AM  
1 votes:

pedrop357: thiefofdreams: I deal with people like you all day. They stand for the government when we are bombing a country and are the first to buy flags from China to slap on their car. They are also the first to tell poor people to suck it up and get rich or die trying.

I sure as hell don't stand up for government bombing countries and I don't care at all for the faux patriotism you're describing

thiefofdreams: You have been somewhat abusive and abrasive to most of the people in the thread with differing view. This makes your point come off as rather crass and seems like you are just trying to out mean everyone else.

I acknowledge that I have been abrasive, and it's not for nothing.  Lots of bullshiat tossed my way.

thiefofdreams: Perhaps you can take a step back for a minute and see it as we do. We care for our fellow man, we take care of him. We try to be good neighbors and feed the poor. We do believe in society as a whole. That each one of us is a part of this country and as such we all deserve the rights and respect due to each of us.

So do I.  I donate a lot to charities, primarily Missions and things like 3square.   I also believe that we're all part of this country and deserving of respect and rights.  I view rights as a thing that the government is prohibited from infringing on and not as a series of entitlements (negative rights vs. positive rights).

thiefofdreams: You do not. You believe in your own self and that is great. What you need to understand is there are people out there that take a stand offish view of society to show some form of mental instability. I am not saying you are mentally unstable, I am saying that the way you make your points is completely out of bounds.

Total bullshiat and a leap apparently based on the fact that I don't subscribe to the view of the social contract as espoused here.

I rarely ever (really never) hear anyone use the term/euphemism "social contract" as anything but a device to compel/coerce others into basically obeying ...


Thank you for your response. I appreciate that you realize I was not attacking and just honestly questioning.

I understand on the social contract, perhaps it is that we see the same thing from two different angles.

You see it as a means for the government and society to encroach on personal liberties. I remember the stories my grandfather told me when he was a farm in the great depression and how they could not have survived without aid from the government and society. I also remember us winning WW2 due to the country knuckling up and working their collective asses off for the greater good.

I still think there can be a greater good. I have to state that you views seem to be very jaded. There is still good in mankind. It is rare but the fact that you give to charities shows that even you see good in mankind.

Perhaps we should do more to look for the positive in life. I realized at work the other day that we only ever discuss the bad phone calls. We never discuss the good. I am finding this to be the way on issues these days. Both sides run the meaning out to the extreme end.

So as I see it the social contract is as Jesus said, "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" I see it as an act of love toward my fellow man, and hell I quoted Jesus and I am an atheist.

Just so you know the laws of the land are nothing more than a contract with society, a social contract if you will. The Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and Laws. They all depend on society to uphold them. One of the hallmarks of a civilized nation is when we stop casting our sick and poor out and begin to co-exist.

The thought that people can cast aside that contract and still use the perks of the social contract is selfish at best and hypocritical at worst. As I said before, I live in a town where one of these guys when to jail with co-conspirators for planning on killing cops and judges. I understand that some SCs just want to live off the land, but I have never met one that didn't strike me as very dangerous. They wanted to change the laws they did not like with force or laws that simply don't exist. This is a problem no matter how you want to slice it.
2013-04-07 03:48:59 AM  
1 votes:

thiefofdreams: I deal with people like you all day. They stand for the government when we are bombing a country and are the first to buy flags from China to slap on their car. They are also the first to tell poor people to suck it up and get rich or die trying.


I sure as hell don't stand up for government bombing countries and I don't care at all for the faux patriotism you're describing

thiefofdreams: You have been somewhat abusive and abrasive to most of the people in the thread with differing view. This makes your point come off as rather crass and seems like you are just trying to out mean everyone else.


I acknowledge that I have been abrasive, and it's not for nothing.  Lots of bullshiat tossed my way.

thiefofdreams: Perhaps you can take a step back for a minute and see it as we do. We care for our fellow man, we take care of him. We try to be good neighbors and feed the poor. We do believe in society as a whole. That each one of us is a part of this country and as such we all deserve the rights and respect due to each of us.


So do I.  I donate a lot to charities, primarily Missions and things like 3square.   I also believe that we're all part of this country and deserving of respect and rights.  I view rights as a thing that the government is prohibited from infringing on and not as a series of entitlements (negative rights vs. positive rights).

thiefofdreams: You do not. You believe in your own self and that is great. What you need to understand is there are people out there that take a stand offish view of society to show some form of mental instability. I am not saying you are mentally unstable, I am saying that the way you make your points is completely out of bounds.


Total bullshiat and a leap apparently based on the fact that I don't subscribe to the view of the social contract as espoused here.

I rarely ever (really never) hear anyone use the term/euphemism "social contract" as anything but a device to compel/coerce others into basically obeying.

When was the last time someone said something like "Well, we don't like people growing marijuana in their home for their personal consumption, BUT the social contract means that we leave them alone because they're not hurting anyone?"  Rinse and repeat with a variety of things that are victimless or where the other person has mitigated most/all externalities.

The concept of "social contract" should work both ways and should compel society to largely 'put up' with things it doesn't like that don't actually hurt society, in the name of keeping society intact.  Since it's completely unwritten and is largely a device for individuals to justify various restrictions and compulsions on others, I'm going to continue to point out how this is bullshiat and actually antithetical to the concept of society.

I can easily imagine a person in the 1950s saying that the social contract and duty to each other requires everyone to report suspect communists to the government.  Do the same thing in the 40s with nearly everything war related-rationing, not questioning the government, etc.  The "social contract" as employed by interested parties in the 1840s would undoubtedly say that society requires people to report and turn in runaway slaves.
2013-04-07 02:12:08 AM  
1 votes:

ciberido: I stand by what I said. Any third party who doesn't know which of us to believe, is welcome to google for other threads in which you've posted on the subject.

But in fairness, rather than argue about what you've said in the past, consider this your chance to elucidate exactly what your thoughts on abortion are, and how they relate to your position vis-à- vis the "sovereign citizen" issue.


You brought it up, you elucidate as you feel necessary.
2013-04-07 12:13:49 AM  
1 votes:

ciberido: pedrop357: There is no social contract.  No one has ever presented one to be signed or agreed upon, nor can a contract be so easily changed and one sided and still claim any semblance of legitimicay.  The concept of a social contract largely seems to exist to compel every person to do what they're told and pay what is demanded of them regardless of how far they try to stay away from 'society' as well as forbidding anyone to ever leave society.

There's a line between "libertarian" and "dangerously insane whackjob" and you just took a flying leap over it.

When the nice men come to take you to a cozy rubber room, please don't start shooting.


BTW, anyone who wants to take any action against me for expressing this viewpoint (or others) would be resisted with whatever means I could muster.

It's worth pointing out that the social contract of the 1930s probably called for people to keep white neighborhoods white and black neghborhoods black.  In the 1920s, it undoubtedly called for people to support their local and state governments in their mass sterilization efforts.  I'm sure the compact/contract of the 1950s called for everyone to report suspected communists and undoubtedly called for people to ostracize their communist neighbors and pay extra taxes for anti-communist programs and awareness programs.

The contract of the 1840s would have called for raised taxes to deal with runaway slaves and wayward women.

So pardon the fark out of me if I don't subscribe to or agree with an infinitely flexible, unwritten bullshiat concept that's been wrapped up in the euphemism "social contract"
2013-04-06 10:15:44 PM  
1 votes:

thiefofdreams: USA Love it or Leave it.


Is it OK to mourn it?
2013-04-06 05:27:13 PM  
1 votes:

pedrop357: So we can dispense with this idea that society is a voluntary thing or that one can truly choose to limit their interactions with society as well as giving up some of the privileges AND protections that come with society.


Are you an idiot, intentionally dense, or trolling? You CAN limit your exposure to society, so long as you STAY OUT of society. It's like a club: you don't have to follow the by-laws of the club if you're not a member and don't enter the clubhouse, but as soon as you step foot in the club-house, or try to use the rights and privileges of being a member of said club, you have to follow its rules, by-laws, and regulations.

pedrop357: In short, the concept of society stops being a fairly benign concept and is instead a coercive, compelling entity that doesn't forgive even slight attempts to leave or limit the influence of that society.


You are actually painfully stupid, and your logic has holes in it that are big enough to fit your moms ass through. "You have to follow the rules of society when entering society? Clearly, this means that society will FORCE you to interact with it!"
2013-04-06 03:18:48 PM  
1 votes:

ScaryBottles: These people are like a really really biatchy woman married to a really nice guy or vice versa. They do whatever they feel like, screw around, beat em up, say things that are unforgivable and every other type of offense or indignity they can perpetrate against their spouse because they know Mr. Nice Guy/Girl would never dream of saying shiat. They are spoiled pathetic children who have been convinced by equally moronic people like RON PAUL! that the rules can be whatever they say they are if they just stick their head far enough up their own ass.


www.trilobite.org
2013-04-06 02:32:01 PM  
1 votes:
If you're going to claim yourself as a sovereign citizen, you should probably back your words up with a death-triggered motorcycle-mounted hydrogen bomb and brutal glass-knife skills. Otherwise, STFU and GBTW.
fc06.deviantart.net
2013-04-06 02:27:05 PM  
1 votes:
We used to have a solution for people like this.  Then we deinstitutionalized all the nutters.
2013-04-06 02:22:05 PM  
1 votes:

atomicmask: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to have for dinner.

Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting that vote


And the interesting irony of that statement is that the rightwing militia soverigns are well-armed wolves. And they occasionally like to "Timothy McVeigh" some unarmed sheep.
2013-04-06 02:14:26 PM  
1 votes:

sheep snorter: ...

///Sovereign = Teabagger under a blah President.


Sovereign = Teabagger under a blah President.

Sovereign = Teabagger under a blah President.
2013-04-06 02:14:15 PM  
1 votes:
SC's arguing on the internet about how bad the government is, when there wouldn't even be internet without government.
2013-04-06 02:13:12 PM  
1 votes:

Kittypie070: pedrop is deeply and foully oppressed by being expected to obey the hideous, satanic laws set forth in this document.

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x432]


I wonder if there are those who see 'We The People' and think of the royal 'We.'

\I personally see it as the Adam We
2013-04-06 02:11:02 PM  
1 votes:
pedrop is deeply and foully oppressed by being expected to obey the hideous, satanic laws set forth in this document.

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
2013-04-06 02:07:35 PM  
1 votes:

atomicmask: FARK is a bunch of earth worms calling the sheep names because he owns a gun and doesn't wanna be eaten, cheering the wolves as they devour the white sheep while booing the wolves when they ate the black one.


Amazing how its all about how superior you absolutely have to feel to the rest of us plebes. Just another disenfranchised authoritarian.
2013-04-06 01:58:42 PM  
1 votes:

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: atomicmask: About the same as how long you would last there, believing in the social contract.

So you're admitting your smug sociopathic view on society is propped up by the rest of us keeping society running. You could have at least said 'thanks'.


No, retard.  The social contract is worthless without good people, and with good people it's irrelevant.  You can have all the "contracts" you want, but people who don't care about non-existent contracts will kill you and take what you have.  Even just decent people don't need the same "contract" in order to not harm or rob you.

The "social contract" as used by others always seems to come up as a grant of power of "society" or government over people far beyond anything necessary for a society to function and serves to largely coerce and compel all people to completely participate in, and by extension, be completely ruled by that society.  In short, any talk of "off the grid" or similar concepts always results in someone brandishing this non-existent contract to justify nearly every incursion, regulation, rule, tax, etc. applied to that person.

A caveman who lives 50 miles from the nearest town over 100 people will still be ruled and regulated (or at least they will attempt it) no differently than the person in the center of a large metropolitan area.  The justification will be this "societal contract" and various attenuation(s) and contortions will be engaged in to justify subjecting him to numerous laws that barely make sense in a dense urban area.
2013-04-06 01:54:42 PM  
1 votes:

FarkinHostile: True, but it's the biggest, best armed gang. When it comes right down to it, might makes "right". A 16 year old inner city punk pointing a gun at me is in charge, at least till I can get more force than he has, and no one has given him any authority.

Just sayin'.


Which is why we decided to make the biggest best armed gang of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's not perfect, but to borrow a phrase from Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
2013-04-06 01:54:33 PM  
1 votes:

atomicmask: lostcat: atomicmask: bighairyguy: I'd like to propose the following procedure for law enforcement:

Officer: Your license and registration please.
Sovereign Citizen: I'm a sovereign citizen and you have no authority over me!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZE!
Sovereign Citizen: EEEEEEAAAAAYYYYYAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
Officer: Your license and registration please.
Repeat as necessary.

Cool, I guess you are ok with the following situation too?

Officer: Papers citizen
Regular person: I was simply walking down the sidewalk, I did nothing wrong!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZZZZZE
Person: AAAHHHHHHH!
officer: papers now citizen!
repeat necessary

And you honestly see this as something we have looming on the horizon?

There's two.

Looming on the horizon? Its here...A cop can stop you while walking and demand to see identification if the thinks a crime has happened. no proof, no call ins, no victims, just "suspects" you may be a criminal.


When was the last time this happened to you, and how is this any different from how things have been historically? I don't remember a time when a cop didn't have the right to stop someone and ask to see identification in the investigation of a crime.

The last time it happened to me was 20 years ago when I was in college, living in a home with rented rooms. One of the tenets was wanted on a warrant, so the cop came to the house and asked to check the ids of all the men present. It didn't bother me one bit. If the guy was wanted, why shouldn't the cops question the people who live at his address and verify that none of the people there are him?
2013-04-06 01:51:19 PM  
1 votes:

Farking Canuck: It is very simple. Ask them if they are a citizen.

If they say yes then inform them that the must follow the laws of the land.


If you ask any federal prosecutor, and he's honest with you, he'll tell you that we're all criminals. Each and every one of us commits at least one (probably several) federal felonies every day. Read The Clean Water Act and its associated case law. There's no question that we all violate that one almost daily. And, before you say that you don't violate it, be advised that those tasked with enforcing the law can't agree on what constitutes a violation, the courts that hear the cases can't agree on what constitutes a violation, and the Supreme Court seems to just flip a coin when presented with a CWA case, so don't tell me you know that you don't violate it. The CWA aside, there are thousands of criminal laws and ten thousand regulations with criminal penalties, and that most of these "crimes" are victimless; if you're minding your own business and not bothering anybody in the slightest, that's no guarantee that you are acting legally.
2013-04-06 01:44:49 PM  
1 votes:

lostcat: atomicmask: bighairyguy: I'd like to propose the following procedure for law enforcement:

Officer: Your license and registration please.
Sovereign Citizen: I'm a sovereign citizen and you have no authority over me!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZE!
Sovereign Citizen: EEEEEEAAAAAYYYYYAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
Officer: Your license and registration please.
Repeat as necessary.

Cool, I guess you are ok with the following situation too?

Officer: Papers citizen
Regular person: I was simply walking down the sidewalk, I did nothing wrong!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZZZZZE
Person: AAAHHHHHHH!
officer: papers now citizen!
repeat necessary

And you honestly see this as something we have looming on the horizon?

There's two.


You honestly don't understand the particulars and how there are a lot of similarities, do you?

Both average citizens and so-called "sovereign citizens" will both have their primary interactions with law enforcement officers over minor traffic things or 'suspicious person' stops.  People in both groups may choose to exercise their right to remain silent, not be searched, not show ID, etc. and the police already treat average people with quite a bit of contempt for exercising those rights.

NOW we have police groups whipping up hysteria about 3rd rate groups who have occasionally used violence, and nearly always exercise their right to remain silent, not be searched, etc.

The result is that the line blurs between standing up for one's rights and being one of those violent sovereign whatevers.  The police will get a nice big pass from all he lefty "civil rights" groups as long as they claim that they thought they were dealing with "one of those anti-government people that kills cops."

If you don't see the danger in that, then you're part of the problem.
2013-04-06 01:43:27 PM  
1 votes:

cig-mkr: So, a person can't purchase a few hundred acres, construct shelter, cut wood for fire, hunt and fish, live off the land, and barter for goods without being a terrorist ? As long as they don't use publicly funded resources I say leave him alone.


Why not leave them alone anyways? If you buy gas, you're paying for roads. Ditto for hundreds of other things. Even if a person pays no income tax, he's paying taxes. Probably in excess of the services received.
2013-04-06 01:41:47 PM  
1 votes:

atomicmask: If they are abusing poor little brown people, they are evil jack booted thugs

If they are abusing white people, they are completely justified in the abuse and labeling...


Yes, I know. Its as if we 'libs' have things like a shared sense of humanity and a shared intolerance of assholes. Funny how that works.
2013-04-06 01:37:49 PM  
1 votes:

lostcat: atomicmask: bighairyguy: I'd like to propose the following procedure for law enforcement:

Officer: Your license and registration please.
Sovereign Citizen: I'm a sovereign citizen and you have no authority over me!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZE!
Sovereign Citizen: EEEEEEAAAAAYYYYYAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
Officer: Your license and registration please.
Repeat as necessary.

Cool, I guess you are ok with the following situation too?

Officer: Papers citizen
Regular person: I was simply walking down the sidewalk, I did nothing wrong!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZZZZZE
Person: AAAHHHHHHH!
officer: papers now citizen!
repeat necessary

And you honestly see this as something we have looming on the horizon?

There's two.


Your mom's two.
2013-04-06 01:34:21 PM  
1 votes:

sweet-daddy-2: While I agree these " sovereign " citizens are wrong in their basic thinking, it's the police training that concerns me. At what point does a cop make the distinction between a law abiding citizen, standing on his or her 4th amendment rights, and a law breaking sovereign? Or will he?


That's the point.

These people are 3rd and 4th rate troublemakers, but wow do they do a great job in stirring the left wing authoritarians up.

Groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center consider these guys on par with the 1950s KKK, and the ACLU whips up fury about right wing radical groups.

All the police have to do is slowly conflate standing up for one's rights with "sovereign citizen" and all the previously opposed lefty groups will be quiet when the police abuse someone who dares to talk about constitutional rights or, even worse, "spouts legal doctrine the way anti-government extremists do".  The officer, fearing for his safety...
2013-04-06 01:26:07 PM  
1 votes:

atomicmask: So what exactly makes them terrorists since they have not done anything violent to create fear in order to change political agendas? Having lots of paperwork and giving cops a hard time  was never considered terroristic before..

Also, a cop IS just a guy in a halloween costume, it is the peoples authority and belief in that costume that gives him any power. Cops and citizens seem to have forgotten that. Unless the cop is authorized and supported by the community he works in, he is just a gang member with different bling.


gifrific.com

Anyone who doesn't is, buy the new ObamOrwellian definition, a "terrorist".
2013-04-06 01:25:40 PM  
1 votes:
Most "sovereigns" I know simultaneously refuse to acknowledge government, while happily applying for government disability handouts.

Look, police can be--and often ARE--douchebags. But claiming not to need license plates, a driver's license, etc. makes YOU just as much of a douchebag.
2013-04-06 01:10:00 PM  
1 votes:

Farking Canuck: It is very simple. Ask them if they are a citizen.

If they say yes then inform them that the must follow the laws of the land.

If they say no then lock them up until you can find a country to deport them to.


Can we do that with Mexicans as well...or is that not allowed since they're only "undocumented Democrats"
2013-04-06 01:05:50 PM  
1 votes:
So what exactly makes them terrorists since they have not done anything violent to create fear in order to change political agendas? Having lots of paperwork and giving cops a hard time  was never considered terroristic before..

Also, a cop IS just a guy in a halloween costume, it is the peoples authority and belief in that costume that gives him any power. Cops and citizens seem to have forgotten that. Unless the cop is authorized and supported by the community he works in, he is just a gang member with different bling.
2013-04-06 01:04:53 PM  
1 votes:

maxalt: Since the 1930's the US has become more and more of a police state. Prior to the 1980's you did not have to carry id with you and if asked you name you could, and I did demand under what authority the police officer had in questioning me. I would try to egg the cops on, if I were walking and I saw a cop I would turn away from the cop and run like hell. They would ALWAYS chase me and demand to know why I was "running away?". I would just repeat over and over "Am I under arrest?" Once they answered "No" I would just walk away. Now the Police Court, I mean the Supreme Court has decided that you can be arrested for not having ID with you at all times and not producing the said ID upon the Police State demand. Yea America = Freedom.


I totally agree, that does suck.  You should write to your congressman and get your friends to do the same.  If he doesn't listen, you should find someone that does, get him to run for political office and then vote for him and get all your friends to vote for him as well.  If you can't get enough support, you should hone your arguments and try to convince anyone who will listen, then teach your children how to do this as well and concentrate on setting the foundation for change in the next generation.

What you shouldn't do is declare yourself a sovereignty citizen and start shooting cops.
2013-04-06 01:02:36 PM  
1 votes:

cig-mkr: So, a person can't purchase a few hundred acres, construct shelter, cut wood for fire, hunt and fish, live off the land, and barter for goods without being a terrorist ? As long as they don't use publicly funded resources I say leave him alone.


That's all well and good until something goes wrong. If a crime is committed on their property, they still want police protection. If someone gets sick or injured, they still want to use ambulances and hospitals. If there's a fire they still want the FD to come out.

And even then, you're assuming they won't want sewer hookups, electricity, telecom connections of any kind, own a car, use roads, bank, have any kind of insurance, etc.

What happens to Rugged Individualist when there's a severe drought? He dies or he goes on the dole, and we pick up the tab.
2013-04-06 12:59:03 PM  
1 votes:
What annoys me most about these people is that "sovereign citizen" is an oxymoron.
A citizen is a member of a political community or society. Sovereignty means not recognising any power higher than your own. You cannot be a member of a group if you aren't bound by the rules of that group.
2013-04-06 12:56:30 PM  
1 votes:

maxalt: Since the 1930's the US has become more and more of a police state. Prior to the 1980's you did not have to carry id with you and if asked you name you could, and I did demand under what authority the police officer had in questioning me. I would try to egg the cops on, if I were walking and I saw a cop I would turn away from the cop and run like hell. They would ALWAYS chase me and demand to know why I was "running away?". I would just repeat over and over "Am I under arrest?" Once they answered "No" I would just walk away. Now the Police Court, I mean the Supreme Court has decided that you can be arrested for not having ID with you at all times and not producing the said ID upon the Police State demand. Yea America = Freedom.


Citation, please, regarding SCOTUS and arrests for lacking an ID.
2013-04-06 12:52:53 PM  
1 votes:

dksuddeth: rustypouch:
If they don't like the rules of a country, there's little stopping them from moving to a country that's more to their liking.

when the government doesn't follow the rules, why should we?


For a clear, very modern example of this, look at how the Colorado government is proposing to deal with marijuana legalization.

The people voted, they said they wanted marijuana legalized for people over 21.  The legislature could have read that as mandate to tread carefully with the regulatory power they were granted, but instead are choosing to rule, regulate, tax, and prohibit as much as possible.  The end result will be one only trivially different then criminalization and many of the problems that legalization was supposed to solve will remain.
The government certainly isn't honoring the spirit of the ballot initiative, and in some cases are subverting the actual word of the initiative as well.
2013-04-06 12:44:51 PM  
1 votes:
Ya know, there are some places in the middle east(or Detroit) where if you used CIA airlines to drop these sovereigns off, without weapons,
It would be farking hilarious to see them challenge local laws. Especially that big new tattoo on their forehead dissing the locals.
All embassy's would be closed that day........

/Cops are a bit of a problem when they refuse to arrest the sovereigns for not having drivers license and car insurance and forged documents, etc. Considering how normal people are treated when part of their registration is farked up.

//Yea I know, you try to deal with a person foaming at the mouth and a herd of nutjob sovereign lawyers who would be arrested as they showed up with the same infractions. Its like the free car giveaway at the cop station for all drug dealers in town.

///Sovereign = Teabagger under a blah President.
2013-04-06 12:42:49 PM  
1 votes:

pedrop357: lostcat: So they estimate there are 100,000 to 300,000 of these extremists who are happy to drive on roads and enjoy other infrastructure and services paid for by the rest of us (who understand that a social contract and taxes are important when you are a social creature living in a society)?

Guessing like at least half of them have Fark accounts.

Unless they're using untaxed fuel, tires, etc. they are paying for the roads and bridges.  If they're buying their power from the power company, they are paying for that infrastructure like everyone else.

There is no social contract.  No one has ever presented one to be signed or agreed upon, nor can a contract be so easily changed and one sided and still claim any semblance of legitimicay.  The concept of a social contract largely seems to exist to compel every person to do what they're told and pay what is demanded of them regardless of how far they try to stay away from 'society' as well as forbidding anyone to ever leave society.  It also seems to be used a rhetorical tool to advocate never reducing or restraining society's power over people.


If they don't like the rules of a country, there's little stopping them from moving to a country that's more to their liking.
2013-04-06 12:42:47 PM  
1 votes:

SuperSeriousMan: pedrop357: But you're not a control freak, right?

No, I was making a joke.  Apparently, you are incapable of recognizing humor.

Then again, from the rest of your post, I think it's pretty much clear that you an incapable of many other things, such as reasoned thinking, having a firm grasp on reality, and an understanding of government.

But that's okay, at least you give the rest of us something to laugh at.


Oh fark off.

Everyone's always making a joke when their straight post in a sea of straight posts is responded to in a manner they don't like.

Basically this is the Jon Stewart car; talk politics, then go "gee shucks I'm a comedian" when someone calls him on his shiat.
2013-04-06 12:42:35 PM  
1 votes:

cig-mkr: So, a person can't purchase a few hundred acres, construct shelter, cut wood for fire, hunt and fish, live off the land, and barter for goods without being a terrorist ? As long as they don't use publicly funded resources I say leave him alone.


Many, many, many moons ago I worked for a small mortgage servicer and these guys were a frequent thorn in our sides. They'd mail on fake checks with explanatory pamphlets that would say since paper was good enough for the govy, should be good enough for us. They'd file fake release of liens for their mortgage, and then contest the case through ridiculous, nonsensical (but amusing) filings that read like a new Nicholas Cage movie.

Too bad they didn't stay harmless nutters.
2013-04-06 12:40:19 PM  
1 votes:

earthworm2.0: I can understand not recognizing the authority of a police officer. Ok, FBI says 6 cops a year killed by these people.... How many people do cops kill every year? And I'm expected to respect them. Fear, yes. Respect. Nah. Repect is earned.


Last I read, police kill around 300-400 people each year, with nearly all of them being classified as self-defense (usually by the department that employs the officer).  Non-police kill around 50-70 police officers each year, with all of them being considered murder.  In a typical year as many or more police officers will die in traffic crashes as are killed by non-police.
2013-04-06 12:32:44 PM  
1 votes:
Treat them like Emperor Norton.
2013-04-06 12:32:20 PM  
1 votes:

bighairyguy: I'd like to propose the following procedure for law enforcement:

Officer: Your license and registration please.
Sovereign Citizen: I'm a sovereign citizen and you have no authority over me!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZE!
Sovereign Citizen: EEEEEEAAAAAYYYYYAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
Officer: Your license and registration please.
Repeat as necessary.


and you wonder why they're just shooting the cops right away...............
2013-04-06 12:23:07 PM  
1 votes:
I find it pretty farking scary that the government is willing to classify as much as 0.1% of the population as domestic terrorists based on a stance that ultimately doesn't amount to anything worse than wanting to be left alone.

Granted there are a handful of serious whackjobs who are a serious danger to those around them, but the vast majority aren't doing anything that should remotely qualify as terroristic or threatening enough to paint a movement as large as they claim with such a brush.
2013-04-06 12:13:08 PM  
1 votes:

hardinparamedic: / knows the son of the assistant chief who was shot in the second shoot out.
// He flew his own dad to the trauma center.


That has to hurt, to see your own father shot and dying like that.
2013-04-06 12:10:42 PM  
1 votes:

Mr. Coffee Nerves: "When all else fails deploy the self-propelled Cockpunch 5000 -- when fully fueled it's capable of delivering 180 cockpunches per minute for up to two hours at impacts customizable all the way up to 'Earnie Shavers on PCP,' and, in a major upgrade over the Cockpunch 4000, the 5000 has a built-in webcam that provides streaming video of the cockpunches set to 'Yackety Sax."


That is beautiful.
2013-04-06 12:09:57 PM  
1 votes:

SuperSeriousMan: Krymson Tyde: I don't mind people being 'sovereign citizens' but the deal is you don't get to use any government services, public utilities, roads, etc.

I think we should present everyone of these wack-a-loons with a bill for using federal roads and infrastructure, which was paid for and obviously designed solely for the use of U.S. citizens.

I'm thinking about $10,000 per month would be an amicable fee for clean air, clean water, non-contaminated food, access to roads and bridges, etc etc and so forth.


But you're not a control freak, right?

I always love this counter response that basically says that the government owns all of us because we used or once used some service that was provided or regulated by the government.

Non contaminated food exists on numerous farms and slaughterhouses without a single government official doing anything.  It's surprisingly easy for families that eat what they raise/grow to just follow basic sanitary practices even without the watchful eye of the government.

They paid for most of that stuff whether they wanted too or not.  If they put fuel in their vehicles and purchased tires, they've paid for access to the roads and bridges for example.
2013-04-06 12:03:59 PM  
1 votes:

Krymson Tyde: I don't mind people being 'sovereign citizens' but the deal is you don't get to use any government services, public utilities, roads, etc.


I think we should present everyone of these wack-a-loons with a bill for using federal roads and infrastructure, which was paid for and obviously designed solely for the use of U.S. citizens.

I'm thinking about $10,000 per month would be an amicable fee for clean air, clean water, non-contaminated food, access to roads and bridges, etc etc and so forth.
2013-04-06 12:02:40 PM  
1 votes:
BullBearMS:
I'm sure some of them are crazy, but weren't we just recently say that we needed to do more to help people with mental illness?

If their whole delusion is that they think the Government is out to get them, then officially declaring them terrorists and sending in swat teams goes firmly under the category of...

[dl.dropbox.com image 480x360]


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzoXQKumgCw
2013-04-06 12:00:24 PM  
1 votes:

Generation_D: zealots who refuse to recognize government authority in virtually any form.

Except when its convenient to do so.


'zactly.

FTA: Once he threatened to sue a deputy who pulled him over.

How's that work, seeing as how you don't recognize government authority, sovereign?
2013-04-06 11:59:40 AM  
1 votes:
2013-04-06 11:58:52 AM  
1 votes:

BullBearMS: Generation_D: Its one thing to think the cops are cartooney at times, they certainly are.

Its quite another to start babbling about how you pay your taxes in silver paper and you refuse to form joinder and you are a human being and a man, therefore laws don't apply to you.

I'm sure some of them are crazy, but weren't we just recently say that we needed to do more to help people with mental illness?

If their whole delusion is that they think the Government is out to get them, then officially declaring them terrorists and sending in swat teams goes firmly under the category of...

[dl.dropbox.com image 480x360]


Except these people are in fact terrorists, and dangerous.
2013-04-06 11:57:53 AM  
1 votes:

Generation_D: zealots who refuse to recognize government authority in virtually any form.

Except when its convenient to do so.

Farking hypocrites.


Politics is the new religion.
2013-04-06 11:32:58 AM  
1 votes:

Krymson Tyde: I don't mind people being 'sovereign citizens' but the deal is you don't get to use any government services, public utilities, roads, etc.


At which point unless they're Les Stroud living completely off the grid in Alaska, they are still a burden to some infrastructure in the country.

And we all know how well it turns out sometimes when someone goes of and lives in a mountain shed on government land for 20 years, right, Ted Kaczynski ?
2013-04-06 11:20:31 AM  
1 votes:

PreMortem: Reason #132 why we need involuntary institutionalisation. Peoples be delusional.


As long as I get to decide who we institutionalize.
2013-04-06 10:49:42 AM  
1 votes:
Reason #132 why we need involuntary institutionalisation. Peoples be delusional.
2013-04-06 10:33:35 AM  
1 votes:
sovereigns

If they don't want to play by the rules, the don't deserve a euphemistic title.  "Dangerous assholes" is staying.
2013-04-06 09:47:46 AM  
1 votes:
Remember: title IV flag says you're schwag.

i.imgur.com
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-04-06 08:56:37 AM  
1 votes:
Best quote is at the end: Finch asked how he justified working for a government he considered illegitimate. "He told me he needed the money to live out his ideology," he said.
 
Displayed 82 of 82 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report