In brief
- The sovereign citizen (SovCit) movement rejects government authority, claiming individuals can choose not to be governed.
- Originating in the US with links to anti-tax and nationalist ideologies, it has since attracted followers from all walks.
- In New Zealand, SovCits challenge council rates and police authority, with overlap in Māori sovereignty movements.
- It is legal “quackery” and this article explains why.
Origins and ideological roots
Like the related Canadian-born “Freeman-on-the-Land” ideology, the US-born “sovereign citizen” (SovCit) movement refers to individuals who believe government authority is illegitimate.
They claim to be “natural persons” or “free men,” asserting that government rules, taxes, and licences infringe on their inherent freedoms. They often argue they are subject only to “common law” rather than national statutes.
While originally linked to anti-tax extremism following the US Civil War, the SovCit movement has since broadened to attract followers from diverse backgrounds, united by a shared assertion that government authority is a violation of personal sovereignty.
High-profile events like the Ruby Ridge standoff and the Waco siege in the 1990s fueled further mistrust of federal authority, boosting a broader “Patriot” movement.
Core beliefs and common tactics
They often believe the government is a “corporation” with no legitimate power over individuals unless they consent. How it would matter if the government was a corporation, is not explained. Note that a corporation only exists as a creation of statute by the government.
Sovereign citizens employ distinctive tactics to resist government authority.
The Meads v. Meads case in Canada identified several themes in what courts call an Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA), characterising it as “pseudolegal quackery.”
Adherents claim exemption from government jurisdiction, often through complex rituals they believe override legal authority. Many freemen base their views on interpretations of admiralty or “common” law, suggesting that government laws function like contracts, which they can “opt out” of by rejecting consent.
Key themes include the somewhat obtuse “strawman” theory, where individuals claim a separate legal entity (represented by a capitalised name) is subject to statutory law, while their “flesh and blood” selves are not.
Some also believe silence equals consent, making unrebutted claims true, and that the government has hidden financial accounts linked to each person’s birth certificate, theoretically usable to pay off debts.
New Zealand’s SovCits
The sovereign citizen ideology arrived in New Zealand over a decade ago, finding overlap with some Māori sovereignty movements.
SovCits have refused to pay council rates, claiming no consent to these fees. Councils across the country report interactions with SovCits who send lengthy pseudo-legal documents or mark their rates invoices with “no consent, no contract.” They sometimes assert that the Land Transport Act or other laws don’t apply to them, leading to confrontations in areas like traffic stops.
The now defunct pseudo research group The Disinformation Project hyperbolically cited Sovereign Citizens use of “paper terrorism” (the use of pseudo-legal claims, which tie up government bureaucrats) as a “threat to democracy, stable governance, and human life” in a 2022 briefing to Cabinet.
Why it doesn’t work
It is true that just being born in a country does not mean you have consented to their government structure. However, if there is a system (eg. courts, police, prisons) to enforce the purported laws, then you will be subject to penalties, if you are there. And if other countries recognise the authority of those laws then where else do you go?
So, even if you think you have an interesting argument, it is only going to be recognised by like minded people. The courts are not going to agree.
