Court DEFINES what a “sovereign citizen” is and PROVES that SEDM Does not Advocate that Status

SOURCE: Policy Document: Rebutted False Arguments About Sovereignty, Form #08.018, Section 1.7;
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/RebFalseArgSovereignty.pdf

The following case defines what a “sovereign citizen” is for the first time we have seen by any court:

A. The Sovereign Citizen Movement

Ms. Walby’s complaint reflects that she adheres to the belief that even though she was born and resides in the United States, she is not a “Fourteenth Amendment” United States citizen but rather a citizen of [**2]  the “sovereign state” of Michigan. This belief is a hallmark of the sovereign citizen movement. So-called “sovereign citizens” believe that they are not subject to federal government authority and employ various tactics in an attempt to, among other acts, avoid paying taxes, extinguish debts, and derail criminal proceedings. See, e.g., Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 622-23 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (describing an attempt to avoid payment of federal income taxes); United States v. Schneider, 910 F.2d 1569, 1570 (7th Cir. 1990) (describing an attempt to present a defense in a criminal trial); Bryant v. Wash. Mut. Bank, 524 F. Supp. 2d 753, 755-56 (W.D. Va. 2007) (describing an attempt to satisfy a mortgage).

The goal of some sovereign citizens is the recovery of money from the United States that they actually—in the form of taxes—or purportedly paid to the government. See, e.g., Ambort v. United States, 392 F.3d. 1138, 1139 (10th Cir. 2004) (describing attempts to obtain a refund of federal income taxes); Rivera v. United States, 105 Fed. Cl. 644, 646-47 (2012) (describing the plaintiff’s allegations that the issuance of his birth certificate and social security number created trust accounts containing money that the federal government owed to him). As the Honorable Norman K. Moon explained, such claims—which he described as “equal parts revisionist legal history and conspiracy theory”—are premised upon the belief that prior to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, there were no U.S. citizens; instead, people [**3]  were citizens only of their individual states. Even after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. citizenship remains optional. The federal government, however, has tricked the populace into becoming U.S. citizens by entering into “contracts” embodied in such documents as birth certificates and social security cards.

Bryant, 524 F.Supp.2d. at 758; see also id. at 758-59 (describing further tenets of the “sovereign citizen” movement); accord United States v. Glover, 715 F. App’x 253, 255 n.2 (4th Cir. 2017) (unpublished per curiam decision) (“Adherents to sovereign citizen theory believe in a vast governmental conspiracy governed by complex, arcane rules, according to which sovereign citizens are exempt from many laws, including the obligation to pay taxes . . . .” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The theory that “individuals (‘free born, white, preamble, sovereign, natural, individual common law “de jure” citizens of a state, etc.’) are not ‘persons’ subject to taxation under the Internal Revenue Code” has long been rejected as “completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous.” Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d. 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

[Walby v. United States, 144 Fed.Cl. 1 (2019)]

So the essential characteristics of a “sovereign citizen” are:

1. Born in a state of the Union but deny being a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States”.
2. Deny that there were CONSTITUTIONAL citizens PRIOR to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment.
3. Exempt “from many laws, including the obligation to pay taxes”.

Let’s now DISPROVE each one of the above in the case of SEDM using materials already posted on this site:

1. Not a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States”

We address this subject EXHAUSTIVELY in the following document, and conclude that people born in constitutional states of the Union or naturalized there ARE, IN FACT Fourteenth Amendment citizens:

Why the Fourteenth Amendment is NOT a Threat to Your Freedom, Form #08.015
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/FourteenthAmendNotProb.pdf

2. Deny that there were CONSTITUTIONAL citizens prior to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment

We don’t deny that there were CONSTITUTIONAL citizens prioer to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. There were, in fact CONSTITUTIONAL “Citizens” prior to the passage of that amendment and they are mentioned in the Constitution ratified in 1789. For exhaustive treatment of this, see:

Why You are a “national”, “state national”, and Constitutional but not Statutory Citizen, Form #05.006
https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/WhyANational.pdf

Points proven in the above:

1. Section 4 compares STATUTORY citizens with CONSTITUTIONAL citizens and concludes they are NOT equivalent.
2. Section 4.5 defines what a CONSTITUTIONAL citizen is from the Supreme Court’s perspective.
3. Section 4.6 proves that CONSTITUTIONAL citizen status is NOT voluntary but STATUTORY citizen status is voluntary
4. Section 5 PROVES that that STATUTORY citizen status is a voluntary and avoidable privilege.
5. Section 14 describes all the various techniques that courts like the above court and also administrative agencies use to DECEIVE CONSTITUTIONAL citizens into falsely declaring themselves as STATUTORY citizens. The most important of these is the abuse of the logical fallacy of equivocation to make everyone falsely believe that they are equivalent. Shame on the above court for NOT avoiding such deception and equivocation.

3. Exempt “from many laws, including the obligation to pay taxes”.

Ironically, the COURT and their employer ALSO claims to be “exempt from many laws”, including the requirement of the Fifth Amendment to NOT steal or convert PRIVATE property to a public use, a public purpose, or a public office without just compensation as in the case of Ms. Walby above WITHOUT the need for no STINKING privileges or statutes. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are “self-executing” and require no statutes, and yet the court insists on applying statutes instead of the Bill of Rights WITHOUT the consent of the Plaintiff. By doing so they are engaging in anarchy and literally engaging in criminal identity theft to kidnap the identity of the Plaintiff and transporting it to a physical place where the constitution does not apply as documented in:

Identity Theft Affidavit, Form #14.020
https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/Identity_Theft_Affidavit-f14039.pdf

The following case proves that Constitutional rights need no statutes to enforce:

The design of the Fourteenth Amendment has proved significant also in maintaining the traditional separation of powers 524*524 between Congress and the Judiciary. The first eight Amendments to the Constitution set forth self-executing prohibitions on governmental action, and this Court has had primary authority to interpret those prohibitions. The Bingham draft, some thought, departed from that tradition by vesting in Congress primary power to interpret and elaborate on the meaning of the new Amendment through legislation. Under it, “Congress, and not the courts, was to judge whether or not any of the privileges or immunities were not secured to citizens in the several States.” Flack, supra, at 64. While this separation-of-powers aspect did not occasion the widespread resistance which was caused by the proposal’s threat to the federal balance, it nonetheless attracted the attention of various Members. See Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., at 1064 (statement of Rep. Hale) (noting that Bill of Rights, unlike the Bingham proposal, “provide[s] safeguards to be enforced by the courts, and not to be exercised by the Legislature”); id., at App. 133 (statement of Rep. Rogers) (prior to Bingham proposal it “was left entirely for the courts . . . to enforce the privileges and immunities of the citizens”). As enacted, the Fourteenth Amendment confers substantive rights against the States which, like the provisions of the Bill of Rights, are self-executing. Cf. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S., at 325 (discussing Fifteenth Amendment). The power to interpret the Constitution in a case or controversy remains in the Judiciary.

[City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)]

The Plaintiff in the above case was protected by the Bill of Rights. She didn’t claim any statutory remedies and thus did not WAIVE constitutional remedies under the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine enunciated in the following cases:

1. Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936): This case is often cited as one of the earliest instances of the Supreme Court discussing the principle of constitutional avoidance. The Court stated that it should avoid passing on constitutional questions if the case can be decided on other grounds.
2. Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Construction Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568 (1988): In this case, the Supreme Court applied the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine to avoid deciding a First Amendment challenge to a state statute. The Court interpreted the statute in a way that would not raise constitutional issues.
3. Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005): This case involved a challenge to a federal statute that potentially impacted the equal protection rights of certain groups. The Supreme Court applied the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine and interpreted the statute in a way that did not raise significant constitutional concerns.
4. National Labor Relations Board v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 U.S. 490 (1979): In this case, the Supreme Court applied the Constitutional Avoidance Doctrine to avoid deciding whether certain employees of religious schools were subject to federal labor law, as this could raise First Amendment concerns regarding the separation of church and state.
5. National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (2005): While this case primarily focused on issues related to administrative law and the Chevron deference doctrine, it also touched on the concept of constitutional avoidance. The Court noted that if a statute could be reasonably interpreted to avoid a serious constitutional question, that interpretation should be preferred.

Further, she was not domiciled on federal territory and therefore under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b), the choice of law must derive from her state per the Rules of Decision Act, 28 U.S.C. 1652. ONLY if federal/public property was involved under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution can the choice of law be changed to federal court. No evidence was presented in the case that Walby ever voluntarily donated her private property or earnings to a public use, a public purpose, or a public office and therefore, her earnings REMAIN private and protected by the Bill of Rights (Fifth Amendment) and state law of she was domiciled in the state she was physically in. Thus, the U.S. government was:

1. Avoiding its burden of proving HOW those earnings were lawfully converted with the consent of the original owner from PRIVATE to PUBLIC.
2. Presuming in violation of due process that her earnings were public by not satisfying this burden of proof that they lawfully acquired ownership of the earnings in question.
3. Avoiding its burden of proof that the earnings allegedly subject to tax were “profit” in a constitutional or Sixteenth Amendment sense. The U.S. Supreme Court has NEVER held that “income” means anything BUT “profit”. Earnings from labor are an equal exchange of one property for another that produces no profit and is therefore excluded from taxation under 26 U.S.C. 83.
4. Violating the Fifth Amendment takings clause to keep the property of another in its custody and not “return” it. The court HYPOCRITICALLY on the one hand insists that the Plaintiff above “return” property belonging to IT, but refuses the same obligation to return property it has the needs to be returned to a victim of its own identity theft.

On the last item above, the courts, including the Court of Claims listed above, have held:

It is not their property unless they can prove it was lawfully converted and they obtained lawful title or possession.  Otherwise, they are a mere trustee over someone else’s property.

“A claim against the United States is a right to demand money from the United States.   Such claims are sometimes spoken of as gratuitous in that they cannot be enforced by suit without statutory consent.     The general rule of non-liability of the United States  does not mean that a citizen cannot be protected against the wrongful governmental acts that affect the citizen or his or her property.  If, for example, money or property of an innocent person goes into the federal treasury by fraud to which a government agent was a party, the United States cannot [lawfully] hold the money or property against the claim of the injured party. ” 

[American Jurisprudence 2d, United States, §45 (1999)]

__________________________________________________________________________

“When the Government has illegally received money which is the property of an innocent citizen and when this money has gone into the Treasury of the United States, there arises an implied contract on the part of the Government to make restitution to the rightful owner under the Tucker Act and this court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

90 Ct.Cl. at 613, 31 F.Supp. at 769.”

[Gordon v. U.S., 227 Ct.Cl. 328, 649 F.2d. 837 (Ct.Cl., 1981)]

__________________________________________________________________________

California Civil Code

Section 2224

“One who gains a thing by fraud, accident, mistake, undue influence, the violation of a trust, or other wrongful act, is, unless he or she has some other and better right thereto, an involuntary trustee of the thing gained, for the benefit of the person who would otherwise have had it.”

__________________________________________________________________________

“The United States, we have held, cannot, as against the claim of an innocent party, hold his money which has gone into its treasury by means of the fraud of its agent. While here the money was taken through mistake without element of fraud, the unjust retention is immoral and amounts in law to a fraud of the taxpayer’s rights. What was said in the State Bank Case applies with equal force to this situation. ‘An action will lie whenever the defendant has received money which is the property of the plaintiff, and which the defendant is obligated by natural justice and equity to refund. The form of the indebtedness or the mode in which it was incurred is immaterial.“

[Bull v. United States, 295 U.S. 247, 261, 55 S.Ct. 695, 700, 79 L.Ed. 1421]

So the court is an ANARCHIST that claims an exemption from the constitution, which certainly fits the statement used to describe “sovereign citizens” when is said “3. Exempt from many laws”.

Further, saying that one is “exempt from many laws” is really sloppy and fails to recognize exemptions BUILT IN to the current system. Below are many examples:

1. People who don’t buy gas are exempt from gas taxes.
2. People who don’t engage in a statutory “trade or business” franchise are exempt from taxation on that type of earning.
3. People who don’t commit crimes are exempt from the criminal laws.
4. People who don’t have a driver license are exempt from the CIVIL statutory malum prohibitum franchise provisions of the vehicle code of their state.
5. People who don’t get married are exempt from the provisions regulating licensed marriage.
6. People not in possession of government/public property are EXEMPT from any obligation to “return” it to its rightful owner or to obey any civil regulations pertaining to the use of such property enacted under Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution.

Aside from all the above, SEDM takes the following position on what laws our COMPLIANT members are subject to:

1. Subject to all CRIMINAL laws affixed to the territory they are standing on, whether they consent or not. Committing a criminal in fact constitutes CONSTRUCTIVE consent to accept the punishment for doing so.
2. Subject to the English common law protecting the territory they are physically situated on within the exclusive jurisdiction of a constitutional state. See:
   Rebutted False Arguments About the Common Law, Form #08.025
   https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/RebuttedFalseArgumentsAboutCommonLaw.pdf
3. Must honor and obey all contracts and commitments they had the LEGAL CAPACITY to enter into with PRIVATE humans not exercising any governmental function.
4. Must honor any commitments connected with their VOLUNTARY choice of CIVIL STATUTORY domicile. However, no one can be FORCED to accept or receive the “benefit” of such a domicile or of being a CIVIL statutory “Taxpayer” and if they are, it is SLAVERY and THEFT. See:
   Why Domicile and Becoming a “Taxpayer” Require Your Consent, Form #05.002
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/Domicile.pdf

It therefore cannot be said that SEDM Members are “anarchists” by any means. See:

Problems with Atheistic Anarchism, Form #08.020
SLIDES: https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/ProbsWithAtheistAnarchism.pdf
VIDEO: http://youtu.be/n883Ce1lML0

Beyond the above list of laws our members ARE subject to, they LAWFULLY retain complete autonomy as human beings protected by the Bill of Rights operating in an exclusively private capacity. Such rights may be not alienated per the Declaration of Independence, which is organic law, even WITH consent. The Declaration says such rights are unalienable. The limitation is that such rights must attach to the LAND within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Constitutional state. That is why the Constitution identifies itself as “the law of the LAND”. HOWEVER, not all places are protected by the constitution, such as:
1 Foreign countries.
2 Federal territory within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the national government.

The autonomy and self government described above is further explored in:

1. Unalienable Rights Course, Form #12.038
   https://sedm.org/LibertyU/UnalienableRights.pdf
2. Enumeration of Inalienable Rights, Form #10.002
   https://sedm.org/Forms/10-Emancipation/EnumRights.pdf

The SEDM Member Agreement, Form #01.001, affirms that we are subject to all the laws our members are subject to:

1. SEDM Member Agreement, Form #01.001, Section 1: General Provisions
   
   “6. I am a physical man or woman and not a civil statutory “person”.   My legal “domicile” is either within a de jure state of the Union and outside of federal territory, or within the Kingdom of Heaven on earth.  My King, my Savior, my Lawgiver, my Judge, and my ONLY CIVIL protector is the God of scripture, and not any vain man or earthly government.  The only law that protects me is the law of the Bible, the Constitution, the criminal law, and the common law.  I may not bow down to nor serve any other false gods, including governments or civil rulers, because this is idolatry.  See the link and quote below for the reasons why this is:”
2. SEDM Member Agreement, Form #01.001, Section 1.2: Purpose of Joining
   
   2. I do not seek sovereignty for any of the following reasons:
   [. . .]
   .3 As an excuse to engage in violent, harmful, or criminal behavior.  We believe that everyone should be accountable and responsible for the harms they cause to others under the concept of equality of all.  In a civil context, that accountability is the common law and NOT the civil statutory law.
   2.4. As an excuse to reject ALL man-made law and thereby be an anarchist.  We think that sovereignty can only truly exist among a people who:
   2.4.1 Are accountable under God’s laws at all times.
   2.4.2 Do not pick or choose which subset of God’s laws they are accountable under.  Its ALL (lawful) or NOTHING (anarchy).
   2.4.3 Are accountable under the criminal and common law of the country they are physically present within, regardless of their civil status or domicile.

CONCLUSIONS

So as you can see, the above court ruling CONFIRMS:

1. We DO NOT satisfy any of the criteria for “sovereign citizens” the Court of Claims above lays out.
2. We DO NOT seek to be superior or unequal to anyone or even to any government. This is even reflected in our definition of “sovereign” at:
   SEDM Disclaimer, Section 4.20: Sovereign
   https://sedm.org/disclaimer.htm#4.20._Sovereign
   The above EVEN acknowledges that we and our members are SUBJECT to the criminal law and the English common law under the rules of equity.
3. All we seek is equality of treatment in regulating the use or “benefit” of our PRIVATE property by the government as the Plaintiff attempted to do above. In fact, in every interaction with any government our members use the SAME “rulemaking” authority with OUR private property that the government uses to implement the entire Internal (to the GOVERNMENT) Revenue Code, which is Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution. This is further exhaustively explained in:
   Why the Federal Income Tax is a Privilege Tax Upon Government Property, Form #04.404
   https://sedm.org/product/why-the-federal-income-tax-is-a-privilege-tax-on-government-property-form-04-404/
   Anyone who claims that THEY can use the laws of property to enslave us as a Merchant and yet deny us the EQUALITY OF TREATMENT that permits us to do the same thing to the government with our PRIVATE property is a hypocrite, an elitist, and a sophist.
4. We do not claim to “exempt” from any tax. In fact, the ONLY thing we seek is “EXCLUSIONS” rather than “exemptions” as described in:
   4.1 SEDM Member Agreement, Form #01.001, Section 1.1, Item 13
   https://sedm.org/participate/member-agreement/
   4.2 Excluded Earnings and People, Form #14.019
   https://sedm.org/Forms/14-PropProtection/ExcludedEarningsAndPeople.pdf
5. We exist and were created to FIGHT anarchy, not to promote it.  The greatest proponent of anarchy is not us, but governments of all kinds, as exhaustively proven in:
   Your Irresponsible, Lawless, and Anarchist Beast Government, Form #05.054
   https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/YourIrresponsibleLawlessGov.pdf

Our site contains MUCH more exhaustive treatment of why we are not “sovereign citizens” as the court described above in:

Rebutted False Arguments About Sovereignty, Form #08.018
https://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/RebFalseArgSovereignty.pdf

Lastly, we have NEVER seen any court attack or undermine ANY of the discussion in the above document. Their silence is telling.