Psuedolaw Sovereign Citizen vs Legitimate Dissent
I had two recent experiences that share a concern for the differences and labelling of the pseudolaw label of “sovereign citizen” and the rule of law act of legitimate dissent.
I discovered that one of the Court Sheriff’s who had sat in on several of my hearings communicated with other members of law enforcement labelling me as a “Freeman of the land” pseudolaw which I perceived as affecting the fairness and impartiality of the process encouraging others to essentially dismiss my arguments as garbage, as it is well known that the judiciary do not respect this line of argument.
I have had a couple of communications with people on email that make similar allegations to discredit my claims similar to this one on Twitter, conflating the procedures for the application of the rule of law with “Sovereign Citizen” arguments. I decided to examine the issue a little closer as it goes to that misinformation and disinformation and how controlling the narrative affects trial fairness.
I imagine Dr Bob Sled is a lawyer but I haven’t really bothered to investigate further.
In B.C. I had presented a failure in the rule of law throughout the legal system and requested a writ of mandamus, an order of the court for a minister to do his duty. In a failure of the application of the rule of law the judiciary dismissed my application as “irrelevant” after not even showing up to court on the day the decision was to be announced because on that day the Minister enforced the Emergencies Act on Canadians. I appealed the BC Supreme Court decision to the Court of Appeal where Justice did not want to submit to my legitimate request for accountability so they denied my appeal by labelling my experience as a “conspiracy theory. This does not reflect reality”
Question: How does pseudolaw define a sovereign citizen?
Pseudolaw defines a "sovereign citizen" as an individual who believes that they are not subject to government laws and regulations, often asserting that they are only bound by their personal interpretation of common law or natural law. Sovereign citizens typically reject the legitimacy of federal, state, and local governments, claiming that they have opted out of the legal system or that the legal system does not apply to them.
Key beliefs often held by sovereign citizens include:
The government operates as a corporation, and therefore has no authority over them as private individuals.
They are not subject to taxation or regulation by government entities.
Legal and financial obligations (like paying taxes, traffic tickets, or mortgages) can be voided through various pseudolegal methods.
They can declare themselves "sovereign" through specific documents or declarations, which supposedly exempt them from all government authority.
These beliefs are not supported by actual law and have been consistently rejected by courts. Individuals adhering to sovereign citizen ideologies often face legal consequences, including fines and imprisonment, for attempting to implement these pseudolegal tactics.
There is an intersection between the two concepts and I could start to see that perhaps there was some correlation which I was encouraging the legal system to examine for cause and effect. Whether people engaged with the pseudolaw field because of legitimate dissatisfaction with access to justice.
Justice Lionel Murphy was a Judge of the High Court of Australia who was prosecuted for obstruction of justice or perverting the course of justice with the allegation that he attempted to protect a lawyer friend or two, with the above statement, a request for quid pro quo.
But that is different from this RCMP Police Report on the dangers of Freeman on the Land Ideologies and their threat to public safety and the integrity of the legal system.
This precedent outlines the problem facing the community in how they respond to an unjust system. There are two ways you can maintain reputation.
1. By upholding professional standards, or
2. By prohibiting evidence of failures from being exposed.
“…all members of the community are entitled to see that the justice system works fairly, efficiently and with reasonable dispatch. The failure of the justice system to do so inevitably leads to community frustration with the judicial system and eventually to a feeling of contempt for court procedures…”
R v Askov
and that is the intersection between Pseudolaw and Legitimate Dissent.
Question: How does the law define legitimate dissent?
The law defines legitimate dissent as the exercise of the legal rights to express disagreement or opposition to policies, actions, or decisions made by those in power, within the boundaries set by law. Legitimate dissent is a fundamental aspect of democratic societies, protected by various legal provisions such as the rights to free speech, assembly, petition, and association.
Question: How can the concepts of sovereign citizen be contrasted by the legitimate request for the application of the rule of law?
The concepts of a sovereign citizen can be contrasted with the legitimate request for the application of the rule of law in several fundamental ways:
Source of Authority:
Sovereign Citizen: Believes that they are not subject to the authority of government laws and regulations, often asserting personal sovereignty based on their interpretation of common law or natural law.
Rule of Law: Asserts that all individuals and institutions, including the government, are accountable under the law. The law is established through legitimate processes and applies equally to all citizens.
Adherence to Legal Processes:
Sovereign Citizen: Often rejects established legal processes and creates or follows pseudolegal documents and procedures that are not recognized by the legal system.
Rule of Law: Emphasizes the importance of following established legal procedures and processes to ensure fairness, accountability, and justice. Legal rights and responsibilities are upheld through recognized judicial and administrative systems.
Legitimacy and Recognition:
Sovereign Citizen: Engages in self-declared legal practices that are not recognized or supported by courts or legal authorities. Their actions and claims are often deemed frivolous or without legal basis.
Rule of Law: Operates within a framework of laws and regulations that are created through democratic processes and are recognized by legitimate legal authorities. Legal claims and defenses are based on established laws and precedents.
Accountability:
Sovereign Citizen: Often avoids accountability by claiming immunity from government laws and regulations, which can lead to conflicts with legal authorities and the broader community.
Rule of Law: Holds that all individuals and entities, including government officials, are accountable to the law. Accountability mechanisms, such as judicial review and the appeals process, ensure that legal standards are upheld.
Resolution of Disputes:
Sovereign Citizen: May attempt to resolve disputes through self-declared courts or other mechanisms that lack legal authority and legitimacy.
Rule of Law: Resolves disputes through established legal institutions, such as courts and administrative agencies, which operate according to recognized legal principles and procedures.
In summary, the rule of law represents a structured, recognized, and accountable system of governance where laws are created, interpreted, and enforced through legitimate processes. In contrast, sovereign citizen ideologies rely on personal interpretations and pseudolaw methods that lack legitimacy and recognition within the established legal system.
Question: If the rule of law is not applied in a legal system how does that impact the contrast between sovereign citizen and legitimate dissent of a corrupt legal system?
If the rule of law is not applied in a legal system, the contrast between a sovereign citizen and legitimate dissent of a corrupt legal system becomes more nuanced and complex. Here’s how the lack of rule of law impacts this contrast:
Impact on Sovereign Citizens
Basis of Belief:
Sovereign Citizen: Sovereign citizens inherently reject the legitimacy of the existing legal system regardless of its adherence to the rule of law. They operate on the premise that the legal system is invalid or does not apply to them, often based on personal or pseudolegal theories.
Impact of Lack of Rule of Law: The absence of rule of law does not fundamentally change the beliefs of sovereign citizens. Their rejection of the system is rooted in ideology rather than specific failings of the legal system. However, a corrupt legal system might reinforce their belief that legal authorities are not legitimate.
Impact on Legitimate Dissent
Basis of Dissent:
Legitimate Dissent: Legitimate dissenters recognize the importance of the rule of law but protest against its improper application, corruption, or abuse within the legal system. Their goal is often to restore or uphold the rule of law, ensuring justice, fairness, and accountability.
Impact of Lack of Rule of Law: When the rule of law is not applied, legitimate dissent becomes more critical and justified. Dissenters may use lawful means, civil disobedience, or advocacy to highlight and correct the system's failures. The legitimacy of their actions is based on the need to address genuine grievances and systemic corruption.
Differentiating Factors
Goals and Objectives:
Sovereign Citizen: Aims to operate outside the established legal framework, often seeking personal exemption from laws and regulations.
Legitimate Dissent: Seeks reform within the system to ensure that the rule of law is applied correctly and that justice is served.
Methods and Approach:
Sovereign Citizen: Uses pseudolegal tactics and rejects legal processes, often leading to conflict with authorities.
Legitimate Dissent: Uses recognized methods of protest, advocacy, and legal challenges to bring attention to and address issues within the system. Even if they engage in civil disobedience, it is often done with an understanding of the legal consequences and a focus on highlighting systemic issues.
Recognition and Support:
Sovereign Citizen: Lacks broad support and recognition from legal authorities and the general public due to the fringe nature of their beliefs.
Legitimate Dissent: Often garners support from broader segments of society and legal experts who recognize the need for reform and the importance of addressing corruption and injustice.
Conclusion
In a legal system where the rule of law is not applied, the actions of legitimate dissenters become more important and justified as they strive to correct systemic issues and restore fairness and justice. On the other hand, sovereign citizens continue to operate outside the legal framework, largely unaffected by the specifics of the system’s corruption or failure. The key difference lies in the intent and approach: sovereign citizens reject the system outright, while legitimate dissenters seek to reform and improve it.
I attach my recommendations for improvement of the accountability of Judges.
Some of the other posts relevant to this inquiry include
My initial protest statement regarding judiciary breaching fundamental justice
Judge Shaw and Judicial Independence
The abusive system that is the Canadian Judicial Council
Judicial conduct complaint to the Chief Justice of BC Provincial Court