A client of ours who is a QC, asked me what I think of the concept of a "sovereign citizen"; following on from a newspaper article in the West Australian.
I should point out that this is not in principle a legal question. What it is, is a philosophical question; which has at its heart the conundrum of why law is.
A Dunsborough teenager caught speeding on Bussell Highway has been lambasted by a magistrate for "wasting the court's time after claiming she did not consent to the charges as a sovereign citizen.
Phoebe Lee Bennett appeared in Busselton Magistrate's Court this week charged with exceeding the speed limit by more than 10km/h. It is alleged the 18-year-old, above was driving 127km/h in a 110km/h zone on the highway in December, a charge which usually involves a simple $200 fine.
When asked to confirm her identity and whether she understood the charge. Ms Bennett said: "I answer to the name Phoebe of the Bennett family ... I do not consent to the contract as a sovereign citizen."
Taking her answer as a not guilty plea and listing her matter for trial next week, Magistrate Andrew Maughan slammed her freeman sovereign citizen movement as misguided and uninformed.
"Let me give you a quick legal lesson -the nonsense you have just spilled has been considered by the highest court in this country and the highest courts in other countries -it will get you nowhere," he said.
"You are simply wasting your time and wasting this court's time if you're going to rely upon possible conditional argument whether this court has jurisdiction to deal with this matter or not."
Continuing her stance, when the matter was set for trial Ms Bennett asked Mr Maughan if he was asking her to leave, saying if she left the matter would be final.
Unimpressed, Mr Maughan told her should she not attend her trial, it would proceed in her absence, likely resulting in a criminal charge.
Fuelled in part by online sub-cultures, followers of the freeman sovereign citizens movement believe they are only bound by laws if they verbally consent.
- The West Australian, 16th Apr 2021
As someone who has been around the law courts in some capacity over the past 20 years, I have seen the argument of the so-called sovereign citizen before. It started to gain traction after the TEA Party movement kicked off in the United States in 2010 and has become like a rolling snowball of silliness, especially as it has gained more momentum over the past few years. It has probably been helped by the fracturing in confidence of institutions as conspiracy theories have also stated to become a rolling snowball of silliness.
The idea that a citizen is sovereign though, is almost absolute inveterate nonsense. The reason why I say almost, is that there is in fact a set of circumstances where an individual can make a legitimate claim on sovereignty.
Sovereignty in the broadest possible sense is some person, which is either real, corporate, or intangible, who is in possession of the highest power or who is completely independent. Since we are working within the realm of law and law is nothing more than a set of rules and regulations and the ability to enforce said rules and regulations, then the seat of sovereign power is said to lie with or is vested with the abstract concept of "the people" as corporate entity in some countries, and with a ruler in others.
Sovereignty and the force of law, has been since the beginning of time, been made and enforced through the threat of violence.
Looking at the stories of various religions: Yahweh kicks Adam and Eve out of Eden for violating the law, the Jade Emperor kicks the Monkey King out of Heaven and imprisons him in a rock for bringing disorder to Heaven, Greek and Roman mythology is replete with gods being disorderly and being booted from of heaven. In all of this, there is the acknowledgement that law invariably comes as the result of some prime authority having the ability to rightfully enforce order.
The earliest law code that immediately springs to mind is the Code Of Hammurabi; which itself assumes that Hammurabi as someone who is able to command the greatest amount of force, is king. And so it goes.
If you want to be king, you have to be able to command the greatest amount of violent force. The idea of democracy lies in the idea that the great multitude of the demos if provoked, will eventually rise up and kill the tiny majority in charge. This is the reason why military coups actually work.
In English law, the long shadow of history involves various kings being killed (including one having his head removed), and the great multitude of the demos gradually finding their way into power, through entering parliaments. What is a parliament? If is a council of members who have the ability to make laws; which are backed by the threat of violence from the state.
The current string of parliaments which Western Australia and indeed the Commonwealth are part of, follow on from Charles I succumbing to violence and having his head removed and then having a new king installed who is also subject to the great constitution of laws.
The formal document which defines how to make laws, is itself a law. I know that this is going to sound like a piece of inglorious circular logic but it requires a piece of self-referential circular logic to describe this piece of inglorious circular logic. Here it goes:
The thing that tells you that you need to follow the law, is the piece of law that tells you that you need to follow the law.
To wit:
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s5.html
This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State; and the laws of the Commonwealth shall be in force on all British ships, the Queen's ships of war excepted, whose first port of clearance and whose port of destination are in the Commonwealth.
- Clause 5, Operation of the Constitution and laws, Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (1900)
Similar provisions exist in the Constitution Act (1902) of the state of New South Wales where I live and the Constitution Act (1889) in the state of Western Australia where this young lady lives.
The basic principle of the law binding the citizenry because the law binds the citizenry, is unbelievably bootstrappy and reminds me of that section in the Adventures of Baron von Munchausen where he gets stuck in a swamp and pulls himself out by pulling upwards on his own hair.
If Ms Bennett wants to claim that she is sovereign is almost absolute inveterate nonsense but not quite. The claim that she could be sovereign is actually enforceable but it would mean that she would need to raise her own independent threat of violence. In short, I am suggesting that if Ms Bennett wants to claim that she is sovereign, then she should mount a military coup. I do not know exactly how capable she is of doing that but in days of yore, it simply meant raising an army of people armed with swords and clubs. I suspect that in the 21st century, she may need to find a much larger show of force than mere swordsticks. Last century we collectively expended the lives of more than half a billion people in sending nation states to display the answer to that question.
The statement by Ms Bennett: "I do not consent to the contract as a sovereign citizen." is an interesting but highly flawed line of argument. In principle the law doesn't care if you consent to it or not. There is no right at law, not to follow the law. Nor should there be.
As for the question of if a contract exists, it doesn't either. You simply do not enter into a contract with the state. The state's claim as first holder of violence, can actually only relinquish that claim via a subsequent claim as the holder of violence. That either happens through peaceful transition where violence is held back or through violence itself.
This probably helps to explain why the embodiment of Justice is always shown as not only being blind and carrying a set of balances but also wielding a sword.
Of course it makes sense that someone travelling on a public road, in a machine which is capable of killing people, should be subject to the rules of the road. Presumably Ms Bennett has both a driver's licence and has registered her motor vehicle; which means that she already knows that she is subject to the law. Surely if she truly believed that she is a sovereign citizen then she should have refused to
The Lion is the King of the Beasts because the Lion can command the most violence. The Lion has the ability and means to tear all of the other animals to pieces. If Ms Bennett wants to be the sovereign, she has to fight the lion of the state.
No comments:
Post a Comment