Extremely dangerous, mentally ill morons.



"I'm not driving, I'm travelling."

Yep - you're travelling in the back of a cop car on the way to jail   

The sovereign citizen movement is a loose group of anti-government activists, conspiracy theorists, vexatious litigants, tax protesters and financial scammers found mainly in English-speaking common law countries—the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand.

Daves2017 wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 10:20am:

yep... you'd be right about the cat... being ignorant of law.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 8:54am:


So... just for the saying ... there are just laws and unjust laws...

"The Latin phrase for "an unjust law is no law at all" is "lex iniusta non est lex". This phrase is attributed to St. Augustine and is a key concept in natural law theory. It suggests that laws must align with morality and justice to be considered legitimate and worthy of obedience".

How then is the citizen to determine what is just and what is unjust - and still be held to the standard that 'befehlen ist befehlen' is not an adequate defence?  Should every citizen abide by every law regardless of its moral quality - or should some laws be rejected...... in this case, beginning with the law that says we must all accept suzerainty under an accepted order built without our permission.

I think that is the kernel of the matter... is a person absolutely obliged to abide by the sovereignty of a social order which he/she did not create or vote for or in any way facilitate .... and which may contain laws over which that person had no input but which that person considers immoral or plain wrong?

Were the opponents of Nazism in Germany 'sovereign citizens' who refused to be controlled by what they viewed as an unjust social order?  Were the Confederate States 'sovereign states' with the absolute right to withdraw from the Union ... and if so... does that same right extend to any citizen who wishes to withdraw from the Union with the existing state?  Can a person or a region secede without permission from the central body purely on the basis of majority of votes in that region?  To what extent can the compliance of the populace be enforced, even when they refuse to comply?  Where do the powers of the state stop and those of the people begin?

These are curly questions for the future direction of democracy.... and underlying this issue of 'sovereign citizenship' is the very real issue of a growing and increasingly savage discontent with the management by state bodies of people and country...

I remind you again of Richard J Barnet's "Intervention and Revolution" - and remind you that in that Four Corners episode it was stated that much of this 'sovereign citizenship' push came from the feeling that real change was too slow or non-existent - leading to insurrection - and that is one of the main causes of insurrection Barnet lays out.

I advise you all to read the book...  Chapter 3 - The Roots of Revolution ..... which I did way back in the late 1960's.

"The power of the Province government stops at the village gates." - Vietnamese saying.

And when the southern states asserted their claimed right to secede from the Union...

MeisterEckhart wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 2:05pm:


And yet the principle holds sound.... then the question becomes - is an unsuccessful revolution a just or an unjust one?

It is clear that human nature rejects tyranny - and the individual is clearly upheld in that US revolution and in that quote from Vietnam... across the world ... so clearly this is a universal approach ...

Everywhere where tyranny has attempted to hold sway, there has been a background of refusal to tolerate it ... and eventually tyranny fails.... many would argue that The Arab Spring was a ground roots movement towards democratisation .... not necessarily our form of democracy, but 'power sharing with the people' ... that it failed due to being hijacked by religious extremists and also due to repression from governments in the Muslim world does not show if it was a just cause or an unjust cause... and its basic push WAS for democratisation and more power to the people ... a clear example.

Now what we see is tyrannical regimes being opposed within their own countries by those who reject that approach... with some old despots, such as in Iran - being replaced by a group of ostensibly religious based despots.... roving that in those places the quest for power is not just or moral other than by the twisted interpretations of those handed power.

Now look around you at Australia....

Snide Note:-  Ah so - assertion of a need for fairness, justice and morality in laws is contentious now.... even 'dangerous' .... who'd 've thunk that?

Dangerous to whom, suh?  A despotic government?  Dangerous to the hegemony of the established 'city hall' of our judiciary, legislatures, and public services as Ian - sorry - Dave - pointed out from that magistrate's position on Four Corners?  Fairness, justice and morality in lawmaking cannot be dangerous to the populace .... indeed the law itself requires that it treat all equally and fairly ... so it can only be dangerous to a self-appointed ruling elite bent on despotism and tyranny.

Perhaps the root cause of this pursuit of secession by individuals from that control of that ruling elite is what this 'sovereign citizenship' is all about...  we have Aboriginal groups stating that they are somehow 'sovereign'... we have Islamites saying the same ... and a host of others... so is it then only the White European majority who hold no such 'right' to declare sovereignty away from a despotic government as they see it to be?  Every other group can declare that they are a state within a state - meaning they enjoy the privileges of belonging but not the burdens of belonging - except those who are deemed guilty of 'colonialism' and therefore must pay for it all?

Can you not see why those people would therefore seek an avenue away from that form of discriminatory despotism?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 2:29pm:

It's the way of the world... just revolutions are when the revolutionaries are victorious, and unjust usurpations and coups are for the defeated revolutionaries' causes.

The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood won a democratic election, so... not a good example.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Aug 19^th, 2025 at 2:32pm:

Lincoln decreed that secession was not an option that an individual state could take... that it required approval by a majority of states.

Ever the lawyer, Lincoln argued that individuals could secede from a state by leaving that state... or secede from the Union by leaving 'these United States'... a state, however, could not unilaterally up and leave the Union.