Sunday, February 26, 2012

Sovereign Citizen Movement and the L.A. Times Article.

Feb. 25th, 2012

After reading an article in yesterday’s (Friday’s) Los Angeles Times about the ‘sovereign citizen movement,’ I decided to blog and chime in with my thoughts on any such movement and the newspaper’s condemnations thereof. The article, “Contempt for the law,” by Brian Bennett, Feb. 24th 2012, page A1, continues on page A15 under the heading “ ‘Citizens’ hold themselves above the law.” ( Given the history of the printed source of the article (The Los Angeles Times), this newspaper’s weakly masked political leanings typically displayed in its articles, and the reality of modern-day political tactics, I would tend to doubt much of the conclusions stated in this article. Furthermore, I would tend to doubt these conclusions regardless of the source. Because, in a nutshell, for any group to call for a strict interpretation of the U.S. Federal Constitution should not qualify that group as 'domestic terrorists.'

To begin with, the article speaks of how the Sovereign Citizen movement is now classified as a domestic terrorist organization as a result of “…two recent unpublished studies [wherein] the Homeland Security Department and the National Counter-terrorism Center ranked the sovereign citizen movement as a major threat along with islamic extremists and white supremacists.” The article also spoke of six police officers having been killed as a result of clashes with members of the movement. The movement is credited in the article as having 100,000+ members.

I don’t know a great deal about the Sovereign Citizen movement; but from what I know of it, the members don’t consider themselves to be above the law. From what I have been told, members of the Sovereign Citizen movement typically and exclusively recognize the U.S. Federal Constitution as the only law of the land – which could be a valid argument. They often contend that the Constitution and the Founding Fathers of the nation intended the inhabitants of the United States of America to be as sovereigns (or kings). As such, many laws outside the Constitution would therefore be more-or-less unjust. However, what I consider to be the Sovereign Citizen-type movement could ultimately be different from that which is addressed in the article – as I have never heard of any of the ‘Sovereigns’ being violent. So, there could exist varying degrees of this movement and varying degrees of tactics employed by the different elements of any such group, one would have to suppose.

Additionally, as I understand, the Sovereign Citizen movement takes issue with the current tax and revenue generating arms of the government – including as an example The Federal Reserve System – as it would appear that such may not have been authorized by the Constitution either. Nevertheless, as far as I can tell, the Sovereign Citizens might have a valid argument concerning the applicability of the Constitution in addition to their views leaning towards the possible absurdity of many other 'laws.' (See: Thomas Jefferson and the Federal Reserve System. See also: 11-11-11 Day, Repeal the Eleventh Amendment, I say! )

Similar to the Anti-Wall Street protesters and somewhat in-line with the Tea Party folks, the Sovereign Citizen movement, from my limited knowledge, seems to speak of how the nation’s banks appear to control OUR government and of how OUR government seems to consistently only endeavor for the banks and financial industries. And, as OUR government and the value of OUR currency continually display, there has been no significant change concerning the ‘policy regime’ of the Federal Reserve System in recent decades other than to implement policies that were to the apparent further detriment of the American people – regardless of any advertised or superficial calls for ‘change’ by any recently elected politician. The grass-roots movements, then, seem well-justified in illuminating this matter for the apparently blind (or banker-supported) politicians. To be clear, as an example, the Federal Reserve System is a private banking cartel that has absolute control over the U.S. nation’s money supply – which would seem unconstitutional. Clearly, the Federal Reserve System maintains no fiduciary responsibility to any entity other than itself. (If you don’t believe me, try and find something to contradict such a statement in the Fed’s website: and ). (See also: Concerning the Federal Reserve System and Fiduciary Responsibility…. , and, Allow the Federal Government to Control America’s Currency, and, Definition of Terms: "Shred The Fed".)

WE are all aware of the typical propaganda efforts long disseminated from our governments regarding any group or individual opposed to the power structure as it currently exists. Such a gathered opposition to seated government officials and opposition to the current affairs of government would likely then have their names included on some fascist-type government list of those to be ‘black-listed.’ Given the often un-forthright and self-centered nature of OUR government entities, agencies, and officials, should the government types label a group as one to be avoided appears to this blogger as more of an unofficial endorsement that those blacklisted folks are probably worth hearing to some extent. In other words, it is difficult to believe OUR government (and press) about anything stated regarding groups of which the government does not approve. (See: “No-Fly List,” Safeguard or Political Weapon? And, Is the Nation Under Siege? Could We Trust the Nation’s Press to Tell Us? See also: Military Weapon Causes Annual Bird Kill From Arkansas Sky?)

The point of this blog entry is to highlight that when a coalition of ‘citizens’ (with 100,000+ members) questions the validity of the status quo of OUR government and the validity of the current - and often apparently dysfunctional - political power structure by way of a lawfully posed question, it seems illogical that such a commonly-held viewpoint/question necessarily makes that group ‘terroristic’ in nature. To call for the return of the Constitution as the ultimate - if not the only - law of the land is not terrorism; regardless of the extent to which the group demanding such is despised within the halls of OUR bloated and constitutionally-challenged government(s). As an example, there is nothing in the Constitution which might allow for the control of the nation’s money supply to be given to a non-government entity such as the Federal Reserve. Yet, our government has allowed such a situation to continue for the better part of a century. Then, to question such an unconstitutional enumeration of power to control the nation’s money supply does not appear as terroristic; at least not in my opinion. To the contrary, when an often self-serving national government that appears to work mostly (if not exclusively) for the financial industries (and the likes) is faced with a growing citizen-based group that opposes (among other things) the current and arguably unconstitutional situation whereby a banking cartel controls the nation’s money supply as well as the cartel’s control of the government, for the government to label such a group as terroristic realistically appears more as an endorsement of the likely just cause championed by any such group and therefore the group may be worth hearing.

IN the end, I can only wonder, by my voicing my opinion on matters such as these and by possibly displaying any sympathy or support for any such “Sovereign Citizen Movement” as I understand any such movement, would such an opinion make me a ‘domestic terrorist” as well? (See: Prepare to Defend Yourself from the Thought Police. And, The Thought Police Might Be on the Move. ) I don’t think I even want to know what the likely answer is to such a question. Regardless, A Just Government Fears Not…

Adam Trotter / AVT


"Madison prepared the Report in support of the protest. His premise was that the Constitution created a form of government under which "The people, not the government, possess the absolute sovereignty." The structure of the government dispersed power in reflection of the people's distrust of concentrated power, and of power itself at all levels." (Justice Powell,
From: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 273 (U.S. 1964) (Lexis))