Movement at Root of Recent Police Murders Growing
Saturday 14 August 2010
by: J.J. MacNab | The Southern Poverty Law Center | Report

(Photo: Matt Gibson / Flickr)
It had been one of those mornings for West Memphis, Ark., police officers Brandon Paudert and Bill Evans. By 11:00 on May 20, they'd already spent three hours monitoring a suspicious rental truck and vehicle with Arizona license plates parked at a local motel, trying to determine whether the truck contained a shipment of illegal drugs. As members of the West Memphis Police Department's drug interdiction team, their job was to stop the seemingly endless flow of narcotics that passed through their town on busy Interstate 40. Officer Paudert called it in, and the West Memphis chief of police arrived at the scene to assess the situation.
When it was discovered that the truck and car was nothing more sinister than a grandmother moving her family, the good-natured ribbing began.
After all, the chief of police was not just the officers' boss; he was Brandon Paudert's father.
"I told them to get off their butts and get back on the interstate," Chief Bob Paudert recounted later. "They were really laughing."
Chagrined, Paudert and Evans returned to I-40, watching for signs of drugs on the move through their jurisdiction. When Evans spied a white minivan with unusual Ohio license plates, he pulled the van over at the exit near Mile Marker 275, and called his partner for backup. Safety came first, and in the dangerous world of drug trafficking, there is no such thing as a routine stop.
Inside the white minivan, a 16-year-old boy named Joseph Kane remained in the passenger seat, while his father, Jerry, age 45, stood in front of the police SUV and argued with the officers. There was a tussle, and Jerry Kane pushed Officer Evans into a roadside ditch. The boy quickly emerged from the minivan with a loaded AK-47 and aimed at Evans. The officer put one hand on his pistol, and held the other up to the boy as if to signal "Stop." The boy shot Evans several times and turned his attention to Paudert, who took cover behind the police vehicle.
A package delivery man, exiting the highway at Marker 275, stopped his truck to witness the horrific scene. He called 911, and the alert went out: "Officer down!"
While Paudert was able to fire his pistol seven times, he was outgunned and the police vehicle offered little protection from Joe Kane's assault rifle. The boy chased Paudert around the police SUV, shooting him several times in the back of the head before returning to Evans in the ditch. There, he fired again. The Kanes then rushed to the minivan and pulled away, while Joe continued to shoot at the downed officers.
Another alert went out: "Two officers down!"
According to a preliminary investigation report, Brandon Paudert was struck 11 times and died at the scene; Evans was hit by 14 rounds and died at the hospital.
In the next 90 minutes, there was a frenzy of activity around West Memphis. The highways were closed, law enforcement from various agencies converged on the area looking for the white minivan with odd Ohio plates, and calls started coming in from alert citizens. The van was spotted at a local country club, a commercial truck terminal, and an apartment building. One witness claimed that Jerry Kane had asked for directions to the nearest Walmart. As seen in Walmart security videotapes of the parking lot, Joe Kane walked into the store and made a purchase, while his father removed the license plates from the vehicle.
The first to spot the van was an Arkansas wildlife officer who rammed into the Kanes' vehicle to prevent it from leaving. The Kanes fired more than a dozen rounds at the officer's truck, but he wasn't hit. As police converged on the scene, two more officers were wounded in a frenzied shootout before the Kanes were both killed. Crittenden County Sheriff Dick Busby was shot once in the shoulder, and W.A. Wren, West Memphis' chief of enforcement, was hit multiple times in the abdomen. Both men survived.
Over the next few days, West Memphis mourned the loss of its officers. At the same time, the department, other law enforcement officials, and the public at large began to question exactly what had provoked the violence.
Who are the "Sovereigns"?
It would be tempting to dismiss the violence that took place that day as an isolated event — an unstable father and son who exploded in a moment of vicious, unexplained fury. The truth, however, is more frightening. Jerry Kane and his young son were active participants in the sprawling subculture of "sovereign citizens" in America: hundreds of thousands of far-right extremists who believe that they — not judges, juries, law enforcement or elected officials — get to decide which laws to obey and which to ignore, and who don't think they should have to pay taxes. While law enforcement officers may disagree on how to deal with or even label this extremist subculture, one thing is certain: it's trouble. The sovereign movement is growing fast, and its partisans are clogging up the courts with their indecipherable filings. When cornered, many of them lash out in rage, frustration and, in the most extreme cases, acts of deadly violence.
It is difficult to say precisely how many sovereigns there are in the United States today, in part because there is no central leadership and no organized group that members can join — instead, there are a variety of local leaders with individualized takes on sovereign citizen ideology and techniques. Those who are attracted to this bizarre subculture typically attend a seminar or two, or visit one of the thousands of websites and online videos on the subject, and then simply choose how to act on what they've learned. Some start by testing sovereign ideology with small offenses such as driving without a license, while others proceed directly to taking on the IRS as tax protesters.
In the mid-1990s, the IRS estimated that there were approximately 250,000 such tax protesters in the U.S., not all of whom were full-blown sovereign ideologues. Since the late 1990s, an abundance of evidence suggests that the sovereign citizen movement's growth has been explosive, although there have been no more recent IRS estimates because Congress in 1998 prohibited the agency from tracking or labeling those who file frivolous arguments in lieu of paying their taxes. But a conservative estimate of the number of all kinds of tax protesters today would be about 500,000.
In the 2008 criminal tax trial of actor Wesley Snipes, whose tax filings made clear that he was a sovereign tax protester, IRS senior technical adviser Shauna Henline testified that the agency receives between 20,000 and 30,000 frivolous returns each year, along with roughly 100,000 letters from tax protesters. Earlier, in 2001, the U.S. Senate's Finance Committee held hearings on the growing movement and, by 2008, the Department of Justice had decided to introduce the National Tax Defier Initiative in a bid to target key movement leaders. "Simply stated," then-Assistant Attorney General Nathan Hochman said in announcing the DOJ initiative, "we want to pull back the curtain and show the public that the promoters of these tax and bogus schemes are not some wizards that have revealed the tax-free universe to America, but instead are nothing more than garden variety hucksters and modern day snake oil salesmen, peddling their bogus tax products."
Not all tax protesters are sovereign citizens, and many newer recruits to the sovereign life did not start out as tax protesters. But based on the available evidence, a reasonable estimate of hard-core sovereign believers today would be 100,000, with another 200,000 just starting out by testing sovereign techniques for resisting everything from speeding tickets to drug charges, for a total of 300,000. As sovereign theories go viral throughout the nation's prison systems and among people who are unemployed and desperate in a punishing recession, this number is likely to grow.
Redeeming the "Strawman"
While many sovereign citizens own guns, their weapon of choice is paper. A simple traffic violation or pet-licensing case can end up provoking dozens of court filings containing hundreds of pages of pseudo-legal nonsense. For example, Donna Lee Wray, Jerry Kane's "common-law wife," was recently involved in a protracted legal battle in a dog-licensing case. She filed 10 sovereign documents in court over a two-month period, then declared victory when the harried prosecutor decided to drop the case. A three-year dog license in Wray's Pinellas County, Fla., costs $20.
Tax cases are even worse —sovereign filings in such legal battles can quickly exceed a thousand pages. While a normal criminal case docket might have 60 or 70 entries, many involving sovereigns have as many as 1,200. The courts are struggling to keep up, and judges, prosecutors and public defenders are being swamped.
It isn't just the number of pages that is causing courts to sag under the weight of these filings. The documents are written in a kind of special sovereign code language that judges, lawyers and other court staff simply don't speak. Sovereigns believe that if they can find just the right combination of words, punctuation, paper, ink color and timing, they can have anything they want — freedom from taxes, unlimited wealth, and life without licenses, fees or laws, are all just a few strangely worded documents away. It's the modern-day equivalent of "abracadabra."
At its core, the current sovereign belief system is relatively simple and is based on a decades-old conspiracy theory. At some point in history, sovereigns believe, the American government set up by the founding fathers — with a legal system the sovereigns refer to as "common law" — was secretly replaced by a new government system based on admiralty law, the law of the sea and international commerce. Some sovereigns believe this perfidious change occurred during the Civil War, while others blame the events of 1933, when America abandoned the gold standard. Either way, they stake their lives and livelihood on the idea that judges around the country know all about this hidden government takeover but are denying the sovereigns' motions and filings out of treasonous loyalty to hidden and malevolent government forces. Under common law, or so they believe, the sovereigns would be free men. Under admiralty law, they are slaves, and secret government forces have a vested interest in keeping them that way.
The next layer of the scheme is even more implausible. Since 1933, the U.S. dollar has been backed not by gold, but by the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government. According to sovereign researchers, this means that the government has pledged its citizenry as collateral, by selling their future earning capabilities to foreign investors, effectively enslaving all Americans. This sale, they claim, takes place at birth.
When a baby is born in the U.S., a birth certificate is issued, and the hospital usually requires that the parents apply for a Social Security number at that time. Sovereigns say that the government then uses that certificate to set up a kind of corporate trust in the baby's name — a secret Treasury account — which it funds with an amount ranging from $600,000 to $20 million, depending on the particular variant of the sovereign belief system. By setting up this account, every newborn's rights are cleverly split between those held by the flesh-and-blood baby and the ones assigned to his or her corporate shell account.
The clues, many sovereigns believe, are found on the birth certificate itself. Since most certificates use all capital letters to spell out a baby's name, JOHN DOE is the name of the corporate shell "strawman," while John Doe is the baby's "real," flesh-and-blood name. As the child grows older, most of his legal documents will utilize capital letters, which means that his state-issued driver's license, his marriage license, his car registration, his criminal court records, his cable TV bill, and correspondence from the IRS will all pertain to his corporate shell identity, not his real, sovereign identity.
The process sovereigns have devised to split the strawman from the flesh-and-blood man is called "redemption," and its purpose is two-fold. Once separated from the corporate shell, the newly freed man is now outside of the jurisdiction of all admiralty laws. More importantly, by filing a series of complex, legal-sounding documents, the sovereign can tap into that secret Treasury account for his own purposes. Over the last 30 years, there have been hundreds of sovereign promoters packaging different combinations of forms and paperwork, attempting to perfect the process. While no one has ever succeeded, of course, they know with the religious certainty of a true cult believer that they're close. All it will take is the right combination of words, say the promoters of the redemption scam.
Jerry Kane was one such promoter.
Why Do They Do It?
Newcomers drift into the movement in a variety of ways. Originally, the sovereign citizens movement mostly attracted white supremacists and anti-Semites, mainly because sovereign theories originated in groups who saw Jews as playing a behind-the-scenes role in manipulating financial institutions and controlling the government. Most early sovereigns, and some of those who are still on the scene, believed that being white was a prerequisite to becoming a sovereign citizen. They argued that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which gave blacks U.S. citizenship, also made black Americans permanently subject to federal and state governments, unlike themselves.
In recent years, however, most new recruits are people who have found themselves in a desperate situation and are searching for a quick fix. Others are intrigued by the notions of easy money and living a lawless life, free from any unpleasant consequences. (Moreover, many self-identified sovereigns today are black and apparently completely unaware of the racist origins of their ideology.) When they experience some small success at using redemption techniques to battle minor traffic offenses or local licensing issues, they're hooked. For many, it's a political issue. They don't like taxes, traffic laws, child support obligations or making banks rich, but they are too impatient to try to change what they dislike by traditional, political means.
In times of economic prosperity, sovereigns typically rely on absurd and convoluted schemes to evade state and federal income taxes and hide their assets from the IRS. In times of financial hardship, they turn to debt- and mortgage-elimination scams, techniques to avoid child support payments, and even attempts to use their redemption techniques to get out of serious criminal charges. Jerry Kane, who'd suffered a series of personal defeats in life, specialized in teaching a mortgage-elimination technique that had no basis in the actual law.
Once in the movement, it's an immersive and heady experience. In the last three decades, the redemptionist subculture has grown from small groups of like-minded individuals in localized pockets around the nation to a richly layered society. Redemptionists attend specialized seminars and national conferences, enjoy a large assortment of alternative newspapers and radio networks, and subscribe to sovereign-oriented magazines and websites. They home school their children so that a new generation will not have to go through the same learning curve that they did to see past the government's curtain to the common-law utopia beyond.
While the techniques sold by promoters never perform as promised, most followers are nonetheless content to be fighting the battle, and they blame only the judges, lawyers, prosecutors and police when their gurus' methods fail. While most have never achieved financial success in life, they take pride in engaging the government in battle, comparing themselves to the founding fathers during the American Revolution.
In recent months, their movement has grown to the point where a group called the Guardians of the Free Republics is attempting to assemble its own common-law-based, alternative government on a national scale. Already, the group, which earlier this year demanded that the governors of all 50 states step down, claims to have set up a common-law court in every state. At least 1,350 people have signed up to serve as jurors on these pseudo-legal judicial bodies.
Liens, Litigation and Murder
A litigation plan based solely on conspiracies and absurd legal theories is doomed to fail. When the inevitable happens, the sovereign has two choices: he can admit he was wrong and fell for an obvious scam, or he can blame the government. Considering that most sovereigns were already desperate when they joined the movement, spending years and many dollars on worthless redemption techniques can only have worsened their situation. Realistically, some angry outbursts are to be expected when the moment of truth arrives.
Sometimes, those outbursts are aimed at self or family. But far more often, the sovereign takes aim at his perceived enemies. The judge that dismisses his claim, the county recorder who refuses his filing, the reporter that calls him a deadbeat dad, and the sheriff who evicts him from his foreclosed home — all are possible targets of a sovereign's rage (see tips for law enforcement officials, p. 24). Since most sovereigns favor paper over guns, this revenge most often takes the form of retaliatory property liens and tax forms that are designed to ruin an enemy's credit rating and cause them to be audited by the IRS.
But in those cases where a sovereign feels particularly desperate, angry, battle-weary and cornered, his next government contact, no matter how minor, can be his final straw. The resulting rage can be lethal.
Jerry and Joe Kane were not the first sovereigns to lash out at a routine traffic stop and it's unlikely they'll be the last. In 1995 in Ohio, a sovereign named Michael Hill pulled a gun on an officer during a traffic stop. Hill was killed. In 1997, New Hampshire extremist Carl Drega shot dead two officers and two civilians, and wounded another three officers before being killed himself. In that same year in Idaho, when brothers Doug and Craig Broderick were pulled over for failing to signal, they killed one officer and wounded another before being killed themselves in a violent gun battle.
And, in a 1993 case that bears an eerie similarity to the recent events in West Memphis, an Alabama officer approached a family's car in a strip mall parking lot. A shopper there had told the officer that a boy in the back seat was asking for help. The officer walked to the car and asked to see the father's driver's license. There was an argument, and the father made some typical sovereign claims. Then, without warning, the father pulled out his gun and shot the officer. Badly wounded, the officer tried to run to his car, but instead met the wife of the sovereign, who pulled out her own weapon and shot him dead. The couple had warrants out for their arrest in Florida, and the car they were driving had unusual sovereign-style license plates. Sovereign citizens George Sibley and Linda Block were executed for the murder by the state of Alabama several years later.
Citizen Kane
May had been a stressful month for Jerry Kane. He'd been traveling around the country with his teenage son, giving seminars to financially strapped individuals and promising them the tools to avoid foreclosure. His seminar fee ranged from $100 to $300 "per man," but a man was free to bring his wife and children for that price. If a follower were in really dire straits, Kane would let him attend free.
As a former long-haul trucker, Kane was used to long hours on the road with his son, but in his most recent online radio show, he'd told his followers that he was frustrated with the seminar circuit and planned to cut his scheduled tour off early, after one more date in Florida. A recent seminar in Denver had been a disaster — no one had shown up — and he'd just completed a two-day event in Las Vegas, traveling thousands of miles in his old Plymouth Voyager. Despite his efforts and time, only six people had attended.
To make matters worse, Kane knew that driving cross-country was risky. As a sovereign citizen and a member of the larger antigovernment "Patriot" movement — a free man who believed that the Constitution guaranteed his right to travel without restriction — he was breaking a number of laws. He didn't have a driver's license. His van was registered to an accommodating ministry in Ohio. There was a brick of marijuana in the car. And, most importantly, he had outstanding warrants for his arrest in two states. In Ohio, he faced charges of forgery and theft by deception. And only a few weeks earlier, he'd been arrested in New Mexico for driving without a license and concealing his identity. He'd been preparing a series of documents to file in New Mexico that were designed to punish the police officer who arrested him. Kane was determined to make the officer and his family pay.
On May 20, Jerry and Joe Kane were driving east on I-40 from Las Vegas to their last seminar and a new life in Florida. Kane had met a Floridian named Donna Lee Wray at one of his foreclosure seminars three months earlier, and they had fallen in love. Father and son were headed, they thought, to a bright new life. Instead, they left a trail of human wreckage and smashed-up hopes and dreams.
Today, even after learning many of the facts behind the sovereign citizens movement that helped lead the Kanes and others to murder, the late Officer Paudert's boss and father, the West Memphis chief, struggles to make sense of what happened. Bob Paudert mourns his son and the other casualties of the collision of sovereign citizen ideology and law enforcement, and he worries that his personal tragedy could repeat itself with other police officers on roads around the nation.
"How much more routine can you get than a father and son in [what looked like] a church van?" he asked in an interview. "Your guard is down and you're just not ready for a shootout. We need indicators that tell us what to look for."
There are telltale signs of sovereign citizens — strange license plates, unusual comments about the Fed and other government agencies, and so on. But they are not always easy to spot. And while not all are violent — sovereign leaders around the country have had mixed views of the Arkansas shootout, from painting the Kanes as heroes to various wild-eyed conspiracy theories about them being "set up" by government forces — there is little to suggest that the killings have weakened the movement. Donna Lee Wray, for example, reacted to the death of her new family by firing off angry missives demanding, among other things, that she be paid $1 million every time her "copyrighted" name is printed by those writing about the case. The number of sovereigns across America is clearly expanding, and with that growth comes an increasing level of danger.
Bob Paudert, in an emotional interview with the Intelligence Report, said he knows only too well what the cost can be. "It was the worst day of my life, ever," the chief said. "I hope no parent has to go through what we've been through."
J.J. MacNab is a nationally known tax and insurance expert who has testified before the U.S. Congress and in other important venues. The author of numerous articles, she is currently at work on a book about the sovereign citizens movement.
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.



Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
Folks who have "everything
Sat, 08/14/2010 - 12:36 — Anonymous (not verified)Folks who have "everything wrong" have beliefs that do stand up under some scrutiny. They are being taxed much more then wealthy folks.
They are getting information from sources that maintain an illusion of being conservative, but are very radical.
Not to condone a wildly violent episode - A 16 year old kid shouldn't have an ak-47 nearby when his dad decides to excahnge blows with the cops. Desperation can drive people to extremes. We're not going to hear complaints about the drug war in this SPLC piece, or an anaylsis of the intense fear (paranoia?) these guys must have been feeling, We have more things in common then both sides care to admit. Not too long ago, if you were black, and in the rural area of a southern state and the cops were stalking you, you'd certainly be fearing for your life.
I've never hear of such a
Sat, 08/14/2010 - 12:42 — Myronnmous (not verified)I've never hear of such a movement and it sounds ridiculous--rel psychological issues. however, there are some things I can agree with. I think taxes should increase. i believe in contributing to my community and therefore taxes benefit me and members of our communities, but our taxes are not used in our communities--they are used in part to finance illegal, preemptive wars that do far more harm and probably no good. We have a bloated military-industrial complex. Our "representatives" are accountable to no one--except cyclopean corporations. Nothing is done to build our community or build social infrastructure. We are indeed nothing more than consumers and wage-slaves.
Our banking system is designed to benefit the rich, corporations and multi-national transnational corporations. All of the mainstream press and telecommunications is owned in part or essentially in whole by foreign investors and entities. THE Wall street Journal and/or the Washington Post is owned by an Australian, a Chinese, and Saudi Arabia. hmmm. They control the flow of information.
So, i can sympathize with their frustration, though it is deranged.
i think this article is harmful to legitimate honest ethical claims by good citizens that want to affect change--it paints all dissenters with the same brush--or at least implies that anyone with similar claims are somehow violent lunatics.
launching such claims is inappropriate and futile with a police office though. They may not always have the best principles but they do not make the always they just do their jobs.
Individually, we must all
Sat, 08/14/2010 - 13:19 — Kevin Schmidt (not verified)Individually, we must all obey the laws, that includes the president as well as corporation people. Only WE THE PEOPLE are the sovereignty and only when we are acting collectively and in the majority do we get to decide which laws to obey and which to ignore. But that rarely happens because it is difficult to determine exactly when we are in the majority. So when it does happen, voting is usually associated with our sovereign actions.
It has happened at least six times in our history when we elected men into Congress before they reached the legal age specified in the Constitution. This was the collective will of the people acting in the majority to overrule the Constitution itself.
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. But WE THE PEOPLE are the sovereignty, and collectively and in the majority we can even overrule the Constitution. We cannot change the Constitution, that must be done through the amendment process. But we can indeed choose to ignore it on occasion, again only if we act collectively and in the majority.
On a smaller scale, it also happens during jury trials when juries ignore the federal, state and/or local laws on the books and find defendants not guilty when they are.
The US has always had fringe
Sat, 08/14/2010 - 14:08 — drosera (not verified)The US has always had fringe groups like the sovereigns. In the 19th century alone there were the free-soilers, the know-nothings, the liberty party, and the greenbacks. They tended to gather a head of steam and then flare out spectacularly. If sovereigns commit crimes, they should be prosecuted. Dangerous ones should be incarcerated. Otherwise, they should be left alone.
There are too many cops
Sat, 08/14/2010 - 14:16 — Anonymous (not verified)There are too many cops bugging the hell out of citizens. Having an Arizona license plate is no reason for two bored cops to spend three hours of surveillance and then violate the civil rights of innocent American citizens.One dead cop's father is quoted as saying how could the cops know that such killers as the Kanes were in such an ordinary everyday looking van.If it was everyday and ordinary then why the hell did the cops bug the Kanes in the first place. This police state mentality has got to cease as more and more people are enraged at the porkers who hassle them for no good reason.''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
If you live here, you live
Sat, 08/14/2010 - 14:33 — Anonymous (not verified)If you live here, you live under the laws of the land. If you break the laws of the land, you will be punished according to the laws of the land. End of story. These so-called "sovereigns" can quit crying and take some personal responsibility instead of playing victim for their crimes.
Sorry, "J.J" but this
Sat, 08/14/2010 - 15:04 — Anonymous (not verified)Sorry, "J.J" but this article is rather silly and full of logical fallacies. There are many who would consider themselves as liberals or even socialists who participate in the Sovereign movement, they are not all far-right-wingers. Not only that, but saying that this ideology is racist is just incorrect. Even if it did have "racist" origins, so does the bulk of American statutory law in general; after all, Jim Crow was allowed to exist under American law for years and those same racist politicians who let those laws come into effect also passed many others which still remain as actively enforced. To reiterate, the racist origins of this ideology (not necessarily the sovereign ideology itself) were absolutely legal and condoned by the U.S. government.
If you have never read most of these pieces of legislation, which the sovereigns combat you have absolutely no basis for this criticism. Many of the sovereigns are former legal officers, CPA's and tax specialists who have studied law for years. I would love to know how many years have you been doing extensive legal research?
If even SOME of these individuals have had successes in their legal pursuits (even if success means putting an end to being harassed by IRS agents), what basis do you have to say that they are wrong?
Check out Charlie Sprinkle in California, ,who has been driving lawfully without a license for over 35 years. He personally sued the citing officer and Governor Reagan after being unlawfully charged and received a settlement (and an apology) outside of court. If that's not a lawful action, what is?
Portraying this movement as violent and masochistic is not only wrong but immoral. If you looked into the cases of any of the, at minimum, 500,000 sovereigns, you would see that almost all are peaceful citizens who are just plain tired of this oppressive government.
this article is pathetic,
Sat, 08/14/2010 - 15:51 — Anonymous (not verified)this article is pathetic, disgusting. What happened @ truth out?? Where was the truth in this one? Its just a smear piece that attempts 2 color anyone who is against abuse of the constitution and the govt and legal apparatus as right wing nut jobs. I can't believe this was posted on truthout! Looks like the cia/fbi already infiltrated truthout!
For those who say they have
Sat, 08/14/2010 - 16:26 — CleverTitania (not verified)For those who say they have never heard of such people; yes you have. One of them would be Timothy McVeigh. I also can offer my own grandfather as an example, which makes me very sad to acknowledge.
And as for the base of the article, whether you like it or not many of these sovereigns are domestic terrorists. Does that mean they all are, and they are all crackpots? No, it doesn't (which I think the article explains perfectly well). But McVeigh is just one example that proves this ideology can lead to lethal results. The article is filled with even more.
I believe in dissent against unfair laws. But there are people who think that any law is fair game, just because they don't like it. That's stupid. Dissent is meant for laws which unfairly prevent life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness without a greater goal being served. For instance, you can argue that killing people will make some people happy, but that doing so prevents others from their own life, and so serves a greater good. Taxes also do the exact same thing. They provide for services which protect the greater good, even if they dip into your happiness.
Complain about where they go, fight to improve the tax code, but you still have to pay taxes or move to a remote location and not use any public services (including the interstates). But you don't get to live in this world and just do whatever you want. You want to live within society, then you have to follow the same laws that society does.
After reading this article I
Sat, 08/14/2010 - 16:55 — Anonymous (not verified)After reading this article I said what piece of propaganda 'hit' on We The People and US knowing and seeing what really is going on in this day and age of government/corporate/banking corruption!
The Kanes are (dead) LOSERS! Those two young cops should be a live today! BUT when this article (by design) tries to relate ANYONE who has "funny opinions about the Fed" to be JUST LIKE the Kanes, shows who the SPLC works for! AND IT AIN"T US!!
I'm glad I went be to read the 'comments' because it restored my HOPE and BELIEF in my fellow Americans to be TO SMART to believe this ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA!!!
First they shred the
Sat, 08/14/2010 - 17:23 — Anonymous (not verified)First they shred the constitution to pieces (You with us or you are with the terrorists), now they want to be the attorney, the judge, the jury and the executioners. Would someone, PLEASE, knock some sense into them? If everyone made his/her own law, would the society survive? Wouldn't that lead to a war of all against all?
According to the writer your
Sat, 08/14/2010 - 17:47 — DJBALL (not verified)According to the writer your crazy if you question your government or the federal Reserve banking cartel.
Call me crazy.
Funny that the people
Sat, 08/14/2010 - 19:32 — Texas Aggie (not verified)Funny that the people objecting the most to this article are the ones who posted the same things numerous times just like the article said.
These people aren't at all like those who protest against government overreaching. These are a bunch of freeloading weasels who want to benefit from the efforts of other people, and trying to equate the two groups is deceitful and dishonest. They are the people who scammed your grandmother and dumped their trash alongside the road because they don't want to pay to have it picked up. They are a bunch of grifters, and those who defend them are equally low.
I have to think a lot of
Sat, 08/14/2010 - 19:39 — Ed (not verified)I have to think a lot of these commenters did not even read the article.
This article is designed to
Sat, 08/14/2010 - 20:26 — Earl Sharp (not verified)This article is designed to categorize anyone who disagrees with or is critical of forces which are currently undermining the constitution of the United States, as criminal whacks.
The credibility of Truthout has become highly questionable.
In the first few paragraphs
Sat, 08/14/2010 - 21:09 — notamerica (not verified)In the first few paragraphs I got the feeling that the police of Arkansas stop all "out of state" licences in the hopes of milking the innocent travelers for money.
Unless they have a real reason for stopping these people why don't they just leave them alone ?
I do not sympathize with a police state mentality that figures all non police are criminals and scum bags that need harassing at all times.
Leave the fucking citizens alone and you won't endanger your selves so much.
The article scares me. Many
Sat, 08/14/2010 - 22:46 — Anonymous (not verified)The article scares me. Many of the comments that have come in clearly express the truth of the article, and that scares me even more.
so these various
Sun, 08/15/2010 - 01:10 — Anonymous (not verified)so these various municipalities decided to go "sovereign" and declare themselves as a "sanctuary city" for illegal aliens. This was the first punch in deciding which laws would be obeyed, and which would not.
So stop acting so darn surprised that people on the other side of the aisle.... copy your tactics and copy your thinking.
You got what you deserved.
The story of the police
Sun, 08/15/2010 - 02:49 — Anonymous (not verified)The story of the police officers is very tragic.
I've never heard the label either - "the sovereign citizen movement" - though I'm aware of some of viewpoints - even the court battle over the twenty dollar dog license fee,
I have to say the writer's casting of these people as those who "have not achieved financial success" turns me off .. as someone who has not achieved financial success themselves, and also feels, that this country tends to overvalue that characteristic as expressing the worth or intelligence or togetherness of a person, more than it should.
After all, it's what's gotten a society of wealthy people who are forever fighting not to pay their fair share of taxes, and successfully, over the decades, brought down the tax rates to such lows, with spending on defense budgets and military adventures at obscene highs, without sufficient public funding for schools, parks and playgrounds, health care, post offices, police, etc.
So aren't these individuals, in many respects, simply reflecting what those who "have achieved financial success" in our society tend to value, as well?
For I can sympathize with a guy who doesn't have any money and doesn't want to pay the city a 20.00 licensing fee. And may love and care for his dog very much. (Though I agree that dogs should be licensed because of public health issues like rabies shots.)
And not so much with the humane society that should be encouraging adoptions, not charging people 150.00 in fees, while insisting on financial background checks, and proof of animal health insurance, as if this is equivalent to adopting a human child. While in the past, it was quite inexpensive, and they were simply grateful to finding caring people to love a pet.
Not to go off on a tangent, but, I have sympathy for the financial stresses people are under, and think we should be placing blame more where it's due. And I can't blame a guy for trying to make a living having seminars on how to avoid home foreclosures.
The people who act the most "entitled" in our society are usually, in my experience, "the financially sucessful."
A minor point, perhaps, but significant, IMV.
For many people, the law is
Sun, 08/15/2010 - 02:52 — Anonymous (not verified)For many people, the law is a convoluted, complex and unfathomable process where the government and legal profession seem to work rather hard to keep it that way to the detriment of us all. The Texas suit against Nolo Press for practicing law is a great example. Then there are what seem to be little things, like the US Board of Tax Appeals which was renamed Tax Court but then, in many people's mind, doesn't operate like a court as described in the Constitution.
What I believe is lost as a result is the buy-in necessary to support a legal system - look at the increased problems judges are having with juries.
For many years, those in the sovereign movement were upset over what they perceived as violations at every level of government of their second amendment PERSONAL right to arms. Many thought they were nuts. After the Heller and McDonald decisions, were they right after all? Might they be right about a few other issues?
Add me to the list of those
Sun, 08/15/2010 - 05:43 — Erich Von Freemason (not verified)Add me to the list of those who have never heard the term, "sovereign citizen movement." But, in a free country, unless you're robbing or beating someone, the government LEAVES YOU ALONE. Just on the federal level, this country has thousands of criminal laws and 100,000+ regulations, many of which carry criminal penalties, and 99% of them violate the concept of what it means to be a free country (is it right that you can be arrested for milking a cow in one state and selling the raw milk in another?) and they've made the legal system so complex and so expensive that only the wealthy can defend themselves. While I'm not a violent person, I believe in every person's right to fight for their freedom once the government stops fighting for you (or actively fights against you).
Carl Drega, noted in the article, is a perfect example of someone who did nothing more than defend his freedom, as the government's actions against him were arbitrary and capricious. For the "crime" of insisting that he be left alone to live as he chose, as his actions in no way impinged on the rights of others, the government came down on him like a ton of bricks.
Show me the law that says I
Sun, 08/15/2010 - 07:59 — Anonymous (not verified)Show me the law that says I have to pay taxes and name the states that ratified the 16th Amendment and the dates they ratified it. Does the total add up to 2/3 of the states
Do this and the tax resisters will go away.
corrected comment Show me
Sun, 08/15/2010 - 08:33 — Anonymous (not verified)corrected comment
Show me the law that says I have to pay income taxes and name the states that legally ratified the 16th Amendment and the dates they ratified it. Does the total add up to 3/4 of the states? For the answer see - http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm .
Do this and the tax resisters will go away.
I, too, am dismayed at the
Sun, 08/15/2010 - 09:36 — FRTothus (not verified)I, too, am dismayed at the supportive comments this, what is, effectively, sweeping indictment of the principles of liberty, has generated. How did we become such a group of weaklings, blind to what is taking place here? Methinks the author and some of the commentators here would be very happy to be Commandants of Nazi military concentration camps. The State must have the monopoly on arbitrary and brutal force and violence! The fear must be immense to so longingly desire a big bad State for protection. How willingly they beg for their chains, demand to be locked up at night!
Who, today, will stand up and say that the police and the State have far too often overstretched their authority, that far too often (find an exception) the press reports exonerate and praise the State's representatives and officials, and reflexively ridicules and demeans their targets as either ridiculous, or more often, dangerous buffoons, the disinterested feigning that there is no understanding some people? The corporate press and professional (bought-and-paid-for) scribes systematically deprive the accused of any hearing - fair or otherwise - (a precursor to what will eventually occur to the accused in court), and thus avoids facing contradictions and hypocrisy the accused might raise. Truly this is intellectually and morally lazy, and such "journalism" thus passive-aggressively ignores any relative merit of an opposing argument. All we hear of them, their beliefs, no matter what their merit, is what the State's spokespeople and their boosters tell us they said or did, with their tacit particular interest in having things presented in a way that shows the State as holy, and paints the accused (us vs. them) as horrible, probably violent, certainly deranged, villains.
What the hell are grandma and all the other innocent people being pulled over for by these thugs with badges in West Memphis, Arkansas and practically everywhere else? Drug interdiction? Driving while Mexican? Too slow? Looks "suspicious". Is that what they are calling the militarization of the police and illegal search and seizure these days, is that the current infinitely elastic excuse to dispense with the absurd notion that the citizens have rights? Is that why the thousands of grandmas and the rest of us are subject to check points and random searches and our papers are demanded of us, why we have cameras everywhere, have to strip to travel by air? The police do not work for you and me. They are not here to "protect and serve" us. They work for someone else. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool, or paid to think otherwise.
Simply asserting one's right to be left alone is apparently too much freedom for a citizen in a Police State to have in the eyes of "law and order" types. When did it get lost in this modern War of Terror Nazi state that we should not any longer be secure in our persons and our effects, that the US Constitution has somehow become quaint? Anyone who has been the subject of official special attention knows what these "law and order" types do not: that there are thousands of laws on the books which make practically every behavior illegal, and the system doesn't concern itself with justice, but harshly demands order and meek compliance by all except the high and mighty. Try explaining your First Amendment right to the National Guard or our militarized local gestapo while they beat you with a truncheon or spray you with a water cannon or mace you or tazer you or sick dogs on you and then charge YOU with a crime. Maybe some people understand that voting and protest are ineffective, as they are supposed to be, and that mere dissent is being criminalized. Some (better educated) people understand that there IS a difference between Maritime law and Common law, and that when they ask us to find the law that says we owe federal taxes on earnings from private labor and we cannot, they might have a point, but they certainly demand a better hearing than what has been presented in the above article.
This society is so corrupt
Sun, 08/15/2010 - 09:44 — genierae (not verified)This society is so corrupt that many people feel that they have no chance to live a successful life, and so they end up with a big chip on their shoulder. Some, like the Kanes, react violently, with resulting tragedy for all concerned. Ignorance and want breed hatred and despair, its a dangerous combination.
In an ideal society, everyone would be valued equally, and the common good would be the top priority. As Jesus said, everyone would have a place at the table, no one to be left out. People need to see that paying taxes is part of being a responsible member of the community, and if the taxes go to such things as unnecessary wars, then we have a duty to protest, and work to change these conditions.
"Rather than being
Sun, 08/15/2010 - 12:55 — Edie (not verified)"Rather than being legitimate crusaders against alleged right-wing “hate” groups, SPLC and Dees have been shameless exploiters of the misfortunes of people they do almost nothing to help, claims Silverstein. Alarmist and often graphic direct mail solicitations, hyping supposed hate crimes that are usually the sick handiwork of lone individuals rather than organized groups, net the SPLC handsome returns while doing little or nothing to aid the victims. The hate “groups” the SPLC relentlessly raises money to fight are often the figment of SPLC’s direct mail department’s overheated imagination, and unrelated crimes are attributed to these groups because, like sex and fear, hate sells. " Check out thesocialcontract.com. It is a thoughtful probably "right wing" website, but food for thought. Personally, I think it wise to check out the right and left wing stuff, maybe then we can find common ground and take off. The mainstream media and the SPLC are very very fond of each other and I have to ask what is their real agenda???
TruthOut must be doing
Sun, 08/15/2010 - 13:10 — Don (not verified)TruthOut must be doing something right. I've noticed that your articles, like this one, are not just drawing comments from the liberal-progressive - leftist audience, but recently also more comments from those who are obviously well to right who typically -- and quite unintentionally -- tend to reinforce the notion that the far right is heavily populated by those who's opinions are shaped solely by belief -- religion, conspiracy, aliens, supremist, etc. -- rather than rational thought or facts. At least some of them are reading TruthOut and are typically incensed by what they read and are determined to correct the record.
It's very encouraging to see all the short, nasty notes and long, irrational diatribes from people who can't comprehend that their own comments often illustrate precisely how irrational and gullible some of those on the extreme right really are. So, keep submitting those comments -- the nuttier, the better!!
Our leaders are corrupt. Our
Sun, 08/15/2010 - 13:31 — Anonymous (not verified)Our leaders are corrupt. Our system encourages them to stay corrupt. Until we become more fair to the citizenry-how can you expect less. Desperate people will do desperate things.
Set an example!
Hold Government accountable, even if it takes the trials of Nuremberg approach!
Hold the Madoff's accountable (not after 20 years) of their thefts!...
Keep the laws between Church and State absolutely separate!
Should our citizens be trumped - the Government will also be trumped! We are only demonstrating and encouraging betrayal when "Corporations" have the same and equal right as a "Citizen!" We have become a Nation of Fools for Fool's folly! Our legacy to all living things has become a "Sham!"...Change or we all die!
I have been casually reading
Sun, 08/15/2010 - 16:49 — Very Poor Article (not verified)I have been casually reading truthout for sometime now and I have to say this article is lowering the credibility of this website as being a progressive place to talk about the issues.
People don't trust government bottom line. Trillions of dollars have transfered to large banking institutions. Many people are upset taxes are being raised while the standard of living is in free fall for the middle class.
The government has turned into a semi corporate state and it is not just right wingers who are very upset about the direction of this country
-A Concerned Reader
This article is very short
Sun, 08/15/2010 - 18:33 — Martin de Pateshull (not verified)This article is very short on fact, very big on hand-waving and irrelevant anecdotery.
JJ MacNab: If every one is equal before and under the law, how does anyone gain any right to command another except by voluntary agreement?
You could have written a much shorter article:
"Notion of Sovereignty a threat to corporate slavery, lawyers and actuaries worried about end of their role as human resource managers, possible fraud and war crimes charges."
It sounds as if this J.J tax
Sun, 08/15/2010 - 19:05 — Anonymous (not verified)It sounds as if this J.J tax expert woman has never even read the regulations regarding taxable income in their entirety, especially if she is going to criticize the sovereigns on this issue.
I agree with many of you in saying that the publishing of this article has definitely lowered the credibility of truthout as a journalistic organization.
This article is also very
Sun, 08/15/2010 - 21:01 — Martin de Pateshull (not verified)This article is also very poorly researched. I suggest she google "John Lilburne", "John Lilburne (1614 – 29 August 1657), also known as Freeborn John"
Yes, right, John Lilburne, the early 17th century White Supremacist! The issue, in fact, was unlicensed printing, which is more or less the same issue as today---now the issue, though, is who is actually licensed to print lawbooks. Large co-ops of men and women may certainly print their own law books and use them, but they may not force others into their co-ops, nor may they force them to use their books as though they were the Gospel.
As Bracton says in his Laws and Customs of the Kingdom of England, free men are exempt from dominion and commerce.
Also, to the genius above who posited some difference between "belief" and "fact," when it comes to law, especially positive law, well, positive means artificial, made up, opposed to natural law, which is binding on all animate creatures. Obligations, which are what this is all about, are incorporeal---come on, fact boy, tell me how any obligation is a "fact" in the sense that a ball on the ground is a "fact." It's not. It is by analogy, and when that analogy becomes injurious to many, well, they don't need to keep playing along.
What's really scary is that many, even supposedly "educated" people really cannot conceive of their way-of-being being a way-of-being-in-a-system; it simply does not occur to them. Or, the even more scary thing is that it does occur to them, and rather than admit the systematization of humanity, they simply take the "we can redefined words to mean whatever we want because the old classical definitions were produced by stupid white men, anyway!" turn, which is currently on-track to destroy every University department that doesn't have a tangible work-product, like metallurgy.
When I read the article,
Tue, 08/17/2010 - 18:59 — Gervasia (not verified)When I read the article, especially the section quoted below, I recalled a segment of the /This American Life/ radio program (you can hear it at: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/409/held-hostage --Act 2) which deals with the misery caused by a toxic individual who certainly used the kinds of tactics described, even if he was not identified as a member of the Sovereign movement. Many properties he owned in New Orleans were seized for non-payment of taxes; he made life hell for unsuspecting buyers of the properties, primarily by filing ream upon ream of false legal documents that challenged their ownership.
"...the sovereign takes aim at his perceived enemies. The judge that dismisses his claim, the county recorder who refuses his filing... the sheriff who evicts him from his foreclosed home-- all are possible targets of a sovereign's wage... Since most sovereigns prefer paper over guns, the revenge most often take the form of retaliatory property liens and tax forms..."
I just am astonished that
Wed, 08/18/2010 - 03:38 — Art S. (not verified)I just am astonished that Truthout could publish such piece of propaganda journalism. I like this site and support it but this is not truth.
I find it incredible that
Thu, 08/19/2010 - 10:40 — Earl (not verified)I find it incredible that you print this article and then have the audacity to ask for donations.
I would suggest the writers
Thu, 08/19/2010 - 22:33 — gary A Clymer (not verified)I would suggest the writers of this uninformed article do a little research on American history.Upon the founding of this nation all men were sovereigns having the same freedoms as the king of England this thirst for freedom was what motivated the early settlers to set out and find a place where they could be free to pursue happiness as they saw fit.There are only two type of law that can be applied to the physical man. Common law and civil law.All the laws in these two categories can be summed up in one simple phrase. Cause no harm or loss to your fellow man. Maratime Admiralty law UCC is the law of water, commerce. The corporation which has taken over every aspect of the world today.THE UNITED STATES. Is the corporation that runs America. Americans have been duped into giving up there sovereignty unknowingly and without there consent.There are 12 million sovereigns in America today and as people do there homework and the blinders come off the numbers will explode even more. Sovereigns are the most law abiding group in this country but they will not abide by corporate law as they are not corporations. They Also will not tolerate A knotize police state and will defend freedom with there own blood when necessary.I would suggest all Google search strawman legal fiction and sovereignty.....WOW what an eye opener...
happiness as they saw fit.
I would suggest the writers
Thu, 08/19/2010 - 22:37 — gary A Clymer (not verified)I would suggest the writers of this uninformed article do a little research on American history.Upon the founding of this nation all men were sovereigns having the same freedoms as the king of England this thirst for freedom was what motivated the early settlers to set out and find a place where they could be free to pursue happiness as they saw fit.There are only two type of law that can be applied to the physical man. Common law and civil law.All the laws in these two categories can be summed up in one simple phrase. Cause no harm or loss to your fellow man. Maratime Admiralty law UCC is the law of water, commerce. The corporation which has taken over every aspect of the world today.THE UNITED STATES. Is the corporation that runs America. Americans have been duped into giving up there sovereignty unknowingly and without there consent.There are 12 million sovereigns in America today and as people do there homework and the blinders come off the numbers will explode even more. Sovereigns are the most law abiding group in this country but they will not abide by corporate law as they are not corporations. They Also will not tolerate A knotize police state and will defend freedom with there own blood when necessary.I would suggest all Google search strawman legal fiction and sovereignty.....WOW what an eye opener...
It appears as though there
Fri, 08/20/2010 - 13:06 — Earl (not verified)It appears as though there may be more to the change in management story than meets the eye.
I don't specifically support
Sun, 08/22/2010 - 00:13 — Anonymous (not verified)I don't specifically support this movement, but I feel really annoyed at this sort of tabloid style article (except for the length and depth, lots of good info in here) that demonizes apparently a large group of people, who have very little violence to associate them with. I mean compared to the police or gangs or the war in iraq, this is the bogeyman we need to be frightened of?
I am basically a progressive, but I have been troubled the last few years by fellow progressives ease and willingness to back up the state. Radical left anarchists, though having different behavior and rhetoric, probably have a politics that is not too distant to many of these types of people, seen objectively.
What kind of crap did you
Mon, 08/30/2010 - 17:23 — Anonymous (not verified)What kind of crap did you expect from the Southern Poverty Flaw Center.
Well, this reporter is
Thu, 09/09/2010 - 17:59 — Anonymous (not verified)Well, this reporter is obviously far-left, so we can't really listen to anything he has to say about the right.
The Kane story is news because it's odd. You don't see stuff about the drug trade or illegals kidnapping children every day, because that isn't out of the ordinary.
And one more thing: if anything, this "far-right group" that hardly exists at all is no more crazy than the far-left group that comprises the Obama Administration.
"Moreover, many
Thu, 09/09/2010 - 18:02 — Anonymous (not verified)"Moreover, many self-identified sovereigns today are black and apparently completely unaware of the racist origins of their ideology."
That was a pretty racist comment, if you ask me. It suggests that blacks can't think for themselves.
prada outlet
Wed, 10/31/2012 - 18:59 — Juisabit (not verified)look at prada outlet with confident RMZGFrrl http://www.prada--outlet.org/
gucci outlet online
Fri, 11/09/2012 - 07:44 — Rerysees (not verified)you must read gucci outlet online shopping bVOkrsqE http://www.gucci--outlet.net/
White Ostrich Feathers Centerpiece
Fri, 02/15/2013 - 14:53 — White Ostrich Feathers Centerpiece (not verified)Some truly excellent articles on this website , appreciate it for contribution.
cheap ugg boots edlbmq
Thu, 03/07/2013 - 05:43 — suttokdrrik (not verified)coach outlet lspnjlsc coach usa ppndqbgj coach factory outlet onriobwm coach factory zniovfse
cheap ugg boots kbqxhk
Thu, 03/07/2013 - 20:45 — suttokdrrik (not verified)coach outlet kfbhpdhq coach usa wqspdush coach factory outlet owpxbquk coach factory sakfmobs
cheap ugg boots gvhpfc
Thu, 03/14/2013 - 10:24 — suttokdrrik (not verified)coach outlet jwjrtxgd coach usa foebrvip coach factory outlet sfikbzej coach factory dzcnjydd