“Sovereign citizen” or “Freeman” are catchall terms referring to those who believe that by declaring themselves as “living people” or “natural people” they can break free from society’s contract with the corporate government. These groups share some common beliefs and behaviours. A central belief is that the Australian government and other agencies are corporations and illegitimate.  

Sovereign citizens believe they can issue their own driver’s licenses and vehicle registration, create and file their own liens against government officials who cross them, question judges about the validity of their oaths and challenge the applicability of traffic laws. They are wrong. They can’t do these things. 

I’m all for protecting fundamental human rights and freedoms, including freedom of expression, free speech, and religious freedoms, and I understand that many Australians have the sense that there’s a lot wrong in our society, on that I agree. The Sovereign Citizen movement is not the answer. 

The movement embraces a wide spectrum of beliefs based on false, pseudo legal concepts, including the view that a government-controlled and enslaved ‘strawman’ persona is created at birth. This is supposedly evidenced by documents showing the person’s name in all capital letters, birth certificates, social security cards, driver’s licenses, tax forms, etc.

Where did this movement come from? 

The sovereign citizen movement started during the 1970’s in the United States and is growing in Germany, England, North America, Canada, New Zealand and here in Australia.  

The word “sovereign” comes from the Latin word for ‘above’ and the Old French word for ‘highest’ or ‘chief’. Today the word sovereign, when used before a noun, means ‘free to govern itself”. Much like the common phrase ‘sovereign nation’, sovereign citizen means free to govern oneself. 

During the American colonial period, a Freeman was a person who was not a slave. The term originated in 12th-century Europe and was originally used in feudal society. In England it came to mean a man possessing the full privileges and immunities of a city, borough or trade guild to which admission was usually by birth, apprenticeship, gift or purchase. 

The Freeman concept today has become marginalised. The idea of a nation state is no longer new and people are accustomed to the idea that we’re born into nation states that make laws for us and that those laws are inherently valid.  

In the UK, there’s a movement like the Sovereign Citizens, one that is often referred to as ‘Freeman on the Land.” Freemen-on-the-land believe that the Magna Carta and “common law” mean that they do not have to comply with legislation they don’t consent to. 

Worth noting is that throughout history, even in the days when nation states were first emerging, people questioned authority. A healthy society is one where citizens can question without repercussions: Why should I obey the laws of this monarch, this emperor, or this system of government? Why does their assertion of the right to make laws for me have any validity?  

The quote by Don Chipp in 1980 proclaiming he would “keep the bastards honest” is more important today. People are entitled to question critically or philosophically those in positions of power.  I do this on behalf of citizens. It is every citizen’s right and duty to question and criticise.

What do Sovereign Citizens believe? 

There are a few common themes in the Sovereign Citizens movement that are based on misreadings and assumed loopholes in laws, including that: 

• Laws are illegitimate because the legislators were not truly elected. The constitutional provision allowing a law was never actually ratified, the law does not comply with the common law or a higher law, such as natural law or God’s law. 

• Law enforcement has no right to enforce the laws because police officers are attempting to enforce illegitimate laws, judges are sitting in the wrong type of court and judicial proceedings are not brought in the proper way. 

• Citizens have the same authority as the state and should be treated as equal entities. 

• Comprehension of law has departed from an older, truer law and citizens are only bound to obey the old law. 

• There are little known procedures under old law that obligate modern judges to abandon modern law and decide the case under the old law. 

Sovereign Citizens believe that when you’re born, you’re a living person. Once you have your birth certificate registered, you create what’s called a ‘straw man’ or ‘straw person.’ The idea is that when you’re getting fined by the government, it’s your straw person or ‘corporate identity’ that’s getting fined. Not you, the ‘living person’.

Some of the Other Beliefs Held by Sovereign Citizens

• I don’t have to pay taxes because the Government or the Constitution itself is illegitimate.
• I’m not driving, I’m travelling in my vehicle on your roads.
• I have the right to travel freely without the need for a driver’s license, vehicle registration, or insurance, to travel on toll roads without paying and without a license plate or driver’s license, because of the fundamental freedom of travel.
• A court cannot convict me of a crime because all modern courts are technically admiralty courts, which only have jurisdiction over sea-based crimes.
• I can incorporate myself and the court will only have jurisdiction over the corporation, not the natural person, myself.
• Lawsuits or prosecutions are legal contracts which I can refuse to enter into and therefore not have to submit to a judge’s decision.
• There’s a set of secret law judges are bound to honour, which I can invoke in order to escape punishment or access funds that the government is holding in trust for me.
• I have the right to initiate a trial of a law enforcement officer or judge in their absence, find them guilty and seize their property for the infraction.

What’s Attracting People to the Movement?

Many in the Sovereign Citizen movement were initially drawn to it due to financial stress or because of frustration with the government. What starts as a search for tips to get out of a speeding fine might bring about a complete shift in ideology and a total rejection of government and the law. Society needs to be directly involved with democracy and citizens should continue to exercise their civic muscle and challenge those who should serve them in federal, state and local government. We all need to ensure that government power has been exercised fairly and that justice prevails in the courts.

Rejecting government outright and claiming to be immune from all laws doesn’t work in a civil society.

Is Any of this True or Legal?

Laws are not opt-in, nor are they opt-out. No Australian court has ever recognized the legitimacy of any of the arguments put forward by Sovereign Citizens with good reason, because if it did, that court would be illegitimate and would not have the authority to accept the arguments.  The concept is, in any case, incoherent.

Being a ‘citizen’ means that you are already part of a sovereign entity and are subject to its laws. In other words, you can’t be a ‘citizen’ if you claim to be ‘sovereign’. What entity or mechanism would grant you citizenship?  

There are some elements of truth woven into the fabrication. One of these is the law of the sea versus the law of the land.

Admiralty law is a synonym for maritime law. It’s the law that governs shipping and the sea. Sovereign citizens’ beliefs are sourced from a variety of bogus theories and legal theories that are not recognized by the legal system.

One of these theories is the that the United States legal system operates under maritime admiralty law, which is based on laws that govern international commerce and navigation. Maritime law as the basis of an argument for ignoring one’s legal responsibilities, is a common myth of the Sovereign Citizen movement. It’s utterly false!

There are areas where maritime law contains some unusual rules and concepts that are contrary to what we might call terrestrial law. Maritime law always operated separately and along very different lines from the main body of law.

Why are People Believing This? 

People are searching for ways to take back their rights, and these pseudo-legal ideas are finding fertile ground to flourish in, particularly since all the inhuman and dishonest restrictions imposed on Australians during the COVID response. Government, both state and federal, imposed and facilitated extreme restrictions on ordinary Australians that included border closures, lockdowns and vaccine mandates. 

There have always been people pushing back against government controls, however the Sovereign Citizen movement is gaining popularity with a growing number of businesses or ‘gurus’ selling the concept. Without a doubt, this is a reaction to the public health orders that have resulted in the loss of people’s jobs and freedoms.  

Sovereign Citizens reject the conventional ‘social contract’ system of laws and believe an individual should only be bound by things that they’ve explicitly consented to. The movement sells the ideology of absolute ‘freedom’ through opting out of civil society and the systems they were born into.  

What is Pseudo Law? 

Pseudo Law looks a bit like law, but it doesn’t follow normal legal rules. The belief that you can speak or write in a certain way, create your own identity documents and no longer be subject to any local laws, is appealing. The idea that you can become free of any legal constraints, including taxes and fines, is tempting. What those people fail to see is that they want all the protection and infrastructure provided by government, without participating and paying the cost for it.  

This entire movement is based on cherry-picked language from old cases and treaties that happened hundreds of years ago. Some of their concepts involve courts lacking jurisdiction because a flag with fringe makes a court an ‘Admiralty’ court. Another is that writing or typing a name in capital letters reveals the corporate entity, while lower-case denotes the living person, and this can be used to deprive the court of its jurisdiction. These ideas have been completely rejected and debunked in court. 

The attempt to create a quasi-legal system with a kind of legalese overlaying society is not the answer to our problems. 

Are there Two Constitutions?

Another aspect of the broad brush that is the Sovereign Citizen movement is the claim there are two Australian Constitutions, one legitimate and one corporate. In a nutshell, people are led to believe the Constitution adopted at Federation in 1901 has been superseded by a corporate Constitution linked to Australia’s financial registration in the United States with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 

For the purposes of trading and selling bonds and other financial exchanges, most nations are registered in this way. The Australian government registered “The Commonwealth of Australia” as a Form 18-K entity for the purpose of issuing securities in the US. It’s a requirement of US law if Australia wants to borrow money and sell securities. 

Many governments around the world have done the same thing. It does NOT mean that Australia is now a corporation.

Government entities also routinely use an Australian Business Number (ABN) for operational activities such as ordering and invoicing, claiming goods and services tax credits or registering an Australian government domain name.

Australia has only ONE Constitution, which was adopted at Federation in 1901. 

People can verify this for themselves: obtain a copy of the “1901 Constitution,” identify the eight changes made through referendums, and compare it with the current Constitution.

If you don’t have a copy of the constitution, please contact our office and we will mail one to you.

Legal, Lawful, Common Law, Magna Carta: What Does It All Mean?

The Common Law system is the legal system followed in Australia, inherited from the United Kingdom. Common Law is developed by judges on a case-by-case basis, building on the precedent and interpretation of earlier court decisions. It fills in the gaps in legislation made by Parliament.

Sovereign Citizens often base arguments in Common Law, relying on the supposed distinction between the “living person” on one hand and legal “personhood” on the other.

Australian Common Law doesn’t make that distinction because it is one that was used to support slavery.

In Australia, which is a sovereign nation, every human being once wholly born is a legal person. 

Legislation enacted by Parliament takes precedence over previous court decisions (Common Law) and courts are required to interpret existing Common Law principles consistently with legislation. 

We are all bound by both sources of law. You cannot elect to live under the jurisdiction of only one or the other.

From birth we all have a legal identity. We cannot opt out of it by declaring ourselves a “living person”, or a “natural person”, a sovereign citizen or a freeman-on-the-land. None of these titles have any legal meaning or effect. 

Legal fact: Once a principle of Common Law has been superseded by statute or by a development in the common law, it cannot be revived by somebody saying, “I still consider myself bound by the old common law”. 

The Magna Carta is a foundation document of English (and Australian) Constitutional Law. In the context of the rule of law, its fundamental provision was that the King undertook not to act against a person except by lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land, and not to sell, deny or defer justice. This meant the Magna Carta was considered to establish that no-one, not even the King, is above the law. 

The Magna Carta (‘Great Charter’) of King John of 1215 was amended and reissued by later monarchs. On display at Parliament House is one of the four remaining originals of the 1297 issue, which contained the final wording that was entered on the Statute Roll of England. 

No Case Relying on Sovereign Citizen Arguments Has Been Won in an Australian Court

The study of jurisprudence (the philosophy of law) involves these questions and discussions. Why do we consider laws imposed upon us by others to be binding? Is it just because the state has people with guns and courts that can lock us up, that it forces us to comply with those laws? Or is it because of the inherent social contract – that by voluntarily becoming part of that society we implicitly accept all rules, both good and bad? Or is it something else? 

Pseudo Legal Arguments 

The idea of an ‘illegal government’ is a pseudo-legal body of ideas that has been floating around on the internet for years. This can be loosely called the ‘Sovereign Citizen’ or ‘Freeman’ movement. Those who subscribe to these ideas believe that governments and lawyers use secret, shady techniques to circumvent sovereign rights. They believe that relying on certain counter-tactics people can successfully defend themselves in the face of law enforcement and the court system. 

Travel restrictions, quarantine detentions, business closures and health orders have sadly become the ‘new normal.’ Since COVID, Australians are facing greater deprivations and restrictions on their fundamental human rights, such as freedom of movement, the right to peacefully assemble and the right to privacy, more than ever before. We are committed to and working hard to reverse these changes.

These Sovereign Citizen ideas are completely legally ineffective. Worse, they are potentially harmful to individuals who rely on them. The landmark case of Meads v. Meads, 2021 ABQB 571: Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Schemes provides a breakdown of the theories and arguments put forward by those selling lessons in the sovereign citizen movement: 

• Formatting & punctuation: Unusual formatting of names, such as “:gary-winston :of the family lineker”, documents “sealed” with a thumbprint in red ink and postage stamps placed on documents as if to “authenticate” them.
• Inapplicable law & authorities: Reference to any of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”, which is US federal legislation), Black’s Law Dictionary, Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. Repeated pseudolegal “mantras” (common examples include “Notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent”, “All rights reserved, non-assumpsit”). 
• Consent: Demanding evidence that the person has consented to be bound by some piece of legislation. Serving an “affidavit” and asserting that if the recipient fails to rebut the contents within a set time limit, they are forever deemed to be true. 
• “Straw man” theory: Distinguishing between ones’ “real” and “legal” persons. Writing to staff in their personal capacities (e.g. “Ms So-and-so, doing business as Chief Executive of Such-and-such Council”). Addressing public bodies as if they were limited companies. 
• Money: Charging for any interaction and using a “common law commercial lien” to enforce this.
• Courts & court behaviour: Referring to alternative “common law courts” or “world courts”. Requesting a judge present evidence of their oath or “bond information”, or demanding they answer various questions to prove their suitability to sit. Refusing to sit or otherwise behaving disruptively in court hearings. 

Pseudolegal arguments are a response to the state and its judicial systems, but they are also a consequence of it. The uptick of Pseudolaw adoption is indicative of social unrest, disaffection, and inequality.

Unfortunately, people looking for answers to their problems online can readily find gurus cashing in on the disaffected. 

Credits

This post includes information attributed to Robert Sudy, who was once intrigued by the beliefs of the sovereign citizen movements. He attempted to employ these beliefs in a traffic matter in a Magistrates Court in New South Wales, albeit unsuccessfully.

Mr Sudy is not a lawyer; however, his research is meticulous and can be sourced here: https://freemandelusion.com/ 

This substantial resource provides analyses of the arguments and debunks them. It’s targeted at Australian law and is a helpful resource for other common law jurisdictions too. 

Robert entertainingly takes us down the rabbit hole of its frameworks and beliefs. His tone is irreverent and light-hearted and he is speaking from direct experience. It’s eye-opening. 

Access to justice requires education and information about government, law, politics and economics, as well as clearly accessible information on government functions and legal processes. This requires planning, funding and resources to support individuals and communities at risk of social and economic dislocation. 

In these unpredictable times, with governments exceeding their social license and not being accountable, people quite rightly are frustrated and feeling helpless. The way forward is to educate rather than scorn those who are vulnerable and misled. Many of those captivated with these ideas tend to be extremely mistrustful already, which is understandable after the societal upheaval caused by the governments’ COVID response and the restrictions on people’s lives and livelihoods.

Robert Sudy’s website is a free public resource. Extensive time and effort has been dedicated to bring this valuable information into the public domain to make it accessible to everyone.

While access to the website is free, donations are greatly appreciated. Your support will help cover the costs associated with maintaining the site, ensuring that it remains a valuable resource for years to come.

You can support his work by donating here: https://freemandelusion.com/honestybox/