
r/Sovereigncitizen

Sovcit has a bone to pick with her energy company not accepting her nonsense, other sovcits give assvice.
Saw one in the wild today
My 1st sovereign plate sighting today! I thought it was a dealer demo plate or something similar when I first saw it from a distance as I was walking to my car.
a Sovcit called JAG?
Apparently, a sovereign citizen from that stupid Facebook group. I follow called JAG on his local court.
Sovereign Citizen Tries Everything—Supervisor Has ZERO Patience
youtu.beThe definition of 'not bothered', bruv
Right, off you pop then, sunshine. Don't even think about getting out of that car. This is clearly HIS pavement now. Absolute legend.
Borderlands and Boundaries: The Day I Learned What Sovereignty Really Means
I grew up in Bellingham, Washington right up in the northwest corner of the state, where the U.S. meets Canada, and the mountains roll right down to the sea. I’d driven every road within a hundred miles since I was sixteen; this place felt as familiar to me as my own home. I knew where the best views were, where the quiet camping spots hid, and I always thought I understood the line between “here” and “there.” I knew we shared a border, but I never truly grasped how deep, how complicated, and how layered the rules of sovereignty actually are not until that trip last fall, when I learned the hard way that some boundaries aren’t just lines on a map.
I set out early one morning, planning to drive along the western edge of the peninsula, through an area I’d only ever seen from a distance. My regular road maps showed it all as U.S. land, public access, just another scenic drive. What those maps didn’t show were the details: this stretch sits in what’s officially called a 100-mile border zone a legal designation where federal agencies hold enhanced authority under U.S. customs and border protection laws. More than that, this specific land is part of a long-standing international treaty agreement, the 1846 Oregon Treaty, which defined the border along the 49th parallel but here, where rivers and bays twist across the land, the line isn’t straight. Some patches of ground are so-called “practical enclaves”: land that sits physically on one side, but falls under legal and sovereign rules that belong to the other, or is managed under shared jurisdiction.
I turned onto a quiet, paved road marked “Scenic Route,” and drove for about twenty minutes, enjoying the view of the bay. Then suddenly, two vehicles pulled up behind and ahead of me U.S. Border Patrol, and also officers from the International Boundary Commission, the group tasked specifically with maintaining and enforcing the exact terms of our treaties with Canada. They signaled me to stop, and I rolled down my window, confused.
They explained exactly where I was: I had driven onto a stretch of land known as “Segment 27” of the official boundary. Under both U.S. federal law and international treaty, this is a sovereign control area. Even though I was still physically within U.S. territory as most people understand it, this land is governed by strict rules: you cannot enter, stop, or deviate from the designated path without prior permission, because it is used to survey, mark, and preserve the exact border line. Worse, a mile back, I had crossed a small bridge over a creek that, due to an old but still active agreement, is considered an “unincorporated boundary strip” land that belongs to neither country exclusively, but is regulated jointly. Travel there is restricted, and unauthorized entry is treated as a violation of sovereign territory laws, carrying possible fines, vehicle seizure, or even a permanent record that affects future travel across any U.S. border.
I felt my face get hot. I was born here, I’m an American citizen, I never left my home country and yet, I had accidentally broken laws I didn’t even know existed. I told them I had no clue, that my map showed this as public road, that I meant no harm. But they explained: sovereign rights aren’t just about which country owns the land. They are about agreements made between nations, laws written to protect boundaries, jurisdiction, and the shared peace between neighbors. Local maps don’t always show these special zones, because they are governed by federal and international rules, not state or county ones.
I was stuck. They told me I couldn’t go forward, and I couldn’t turn back both directions led through regulated areas. There was no cell service, no way to call anyone, and I faced a serious situation simply from wanting to see a pretty view.
But I didn’t let fear take over. I stayed calm, listened closely, and asked them to walk me through exactly what rules applied, what agreements governed this land, and what my actual rights and options were. I pulled out my phone and showed them my route planning history proof I had planned a normal trip, had no intention of crossing boundaries or entering restricted areas. I asked if there was a legal, permitted way out, and offered to follow every single requirement they had, no matter how long it took.
I also asked questions to understand why these rules existed: I learned that these areas are protected because they define where one nation’s authority ends and another’s begins. Sovereignty means a country has the right to control who and what moves across its land, and these special zones exist to make sure that control is clear, respected, and fair for both sides. Even citizens like me have to follow them, because we are part of that system of law and agreement.
For nearly two hours, we went over official treaty maps, legal boundary descriptions, and the specific regulations from the U.S. Code regarding border areas. I admitted my mistake clearly, showed I understood the importance of respecting sovereign agreements, and demonstrated I had no bad intent. I also offered to provide any information or documentation they needed to clear up my status.
Finally, once they were satisfied I understood the gravity of what happened, and that I would comply fully, they outlined a very specific, narrow path I could take one that stayed within the only legally permitted travel corridor through that zone. They marked every turn, every sign, and told me exactly what to do if I encountered another official or crossed another boundary marker. I followed every instruction perfectly, checking each point twice, until I was back on a regular, fully public road under normal state rules.
Did I resolve it? Yes, completely. I didn’t just get out of trouble I walked away with a true, deep understanding of what sovereignty actually means. It’s not just about being American, or living here. It’s about the laws, treaties, and agreements that define our land, our rights, and our relationship with other nations. I learned that even for those of us who grew up here, there are layers of rules we don’t see until we cross them and that respect, patience, and a willingness to learn are the best tools you can carry.
I finished my trip, but every time I drive near the border now, I look at the land differently. I see not just mountains and water, but lines drawn by history, protected by law, and held together by agreements that keep us safe and defined. That day didn’t just teach me how to fix a mistake it taught me what it truly means to be part of this country, and to respect the sovereignty that shapes every mile we travel.
Taxman & Robbin' would love this in the tax-break cave
By the way, he responded to me citing Hendrick v. Maryland
This Convicted Felon Gets $1 Million a Year to Sell Obsolete Internet Service. You Pay for It.
Reporting Highlights
Internet Gold Rush: Alaskan companies are getting billions of dollars in public telecom subsidies, yet the state ranks last in internet speed.
Subsidizing a Ghost Town: The federal government pays one company more than $350,000 a year to provide internet to 300 buildings on an island of 80 people.
Operating From Prison: The owner of another company operated his telecom business from behind bars and today gets more than $1 million a year despite faster options for consumers.
Sovereign citizen dummy kicked out of court
youtu.beSovCit:"Driving is an underground railroad process" WUT?
youtube.comSovcit thinks ChatGPT will fix your credit
Or, I guess, you can buy their course
Got another one
Yes I’m on YouTube : https://youtube.com/@kfarr?si=kVFOoxx505GkVNv7
King SovCit?
I’ve covered this guy a few times because he’s trying to be some sort of sovereign citizen guru and he hit me with a gem today
Yes I’m on YouTube : https://youtube.com/@kfarr?si=qziljnLsrxXVfqUo
Coworker is becoming a Sovcit
I need to vent about a guy I work with. I try to avoid him as much as possible, but we work right next to each other so I end up hearing everything going on in his life whether I want to or not.
To give you the backstory, this guy has a couple of DUIs and has already been busted a few times for driving without his court-ordered ignition interlock. Well, he’s currently slated for a jury trial next month for his latest driving without an interlock charge.
Lately, he’s been talking a lot about how he's been "studying constitutional law."
I am 99% sure he is about to try some classic SovCit "right to travel" nonsense at his trial. He already tried to get one of his past DUIs thrown out by claiming the cop pulled him over unlawfully, which didn't work. He's definitely hinting at the idea that making him use an interlock is unconstitutional because he’s just traveling.
I don't think he’s completely fallen down the rabbit hole yet with the fake paperwork and passports, but he is right on the edge.
The trial is next month. If he actually tries to pull this script out in front of a judge and a jury, it’s going to be a train wreck. I'll definitely post an update here after it happens to let you guys know how it went.
Turns out Claiming Copyright in Legislation Doesn't Mean You're Exempt from Income Tax (Canadian Tax Court of Canada Judgment)
“The appellant’s letter is nonsense.” Tax Court of Canada Justice Derksen might be accused of understatement. Go on. Read it.
But it's magic nonsense. That letter includes something so rare, so precious, that I curled up in a ball and giggled. It's pseudolaw that is new.
Well, not necessarily without antecedent. But I'd never thought of this combination. Sure, most of the letter is ancient and boring Strawman Theory, names in capitals or with magic spelling. I am not "a PERSON", but a living man. Yawn. Bleh.
Then there's this:
>... what you are doing is committing copyright infringement, Norman Traversy owns the copyrights to the Canada Income Tax Act.
Errr... wut?
Now, it’s an ancient pseudolaw tactic that you claim copyright or trademark in your own name, and then when a government or bank writes you, you demand payment of $100,000 or so on for each instance of your name for copyright infringement. Same if someone sues you. The Statement of Claim is a breach of copyright.
But ... copyright in legislation? How does that work? Copyright belongs to an author/creator, or to whomever the author/creator sold copyright. And who is Norman Traversy? Maybe he was some government official or minister?
Nope. He’s a pseudolaw personality (for example see MacKinnon v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 201) who is hooked in with the fake Indigenous groups and courts that have been expanding in Canada (for example see R v Pickton, 2020 BCSC 1200) with COVID-19 pandemic mitigation resistance angles.
So, we have someone who arbitrarily seems to have claimed copyright in legislation, and - presumably - that then means no one can make reference to or use legislation in some way, so poof! There goes the Income Tax Act.
Naturally I was intrigued. That led down two paths. First, what is the copyright status of things created/written by the Canadian government. Why, that’s specifically covered in the Copyright Act, RSC 1985, c C-42, Part -1, section 12:
>12 Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, where any work is, or has been, prepared or published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to Her Majesty and in that case shall continue for the remainder of the calendar year of the first publication of the work and for a period of fifty years following the end of that calendar year.
So, copyright in all legislation automatically vests with Canada. Norman is an interloper! Or, since the first Canadian Income Tax Act (then the Income Tax War Act) dates to 1917, then the ITA is public domain. But that’s no basis for Norman to claim copyright.
But it gets better.
I mused ... what if Norman had gone to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office and started registering copyright in legislation. You see, there isn’t much screening of filing a copyright registration, unlike trademarks and patents which are an involved process. Quick search on the CIPO copyright engine and ... oh dear. There are a set of copyright registrations for Norman Traversy:
- 1173152 - Justice for Canada
- 1194165 - Freedom Convoy, The Freedom Convoy
- 1221632 - Dreadnaught
- 1230302 - Bill C-15: An Act Respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
No Income Tax Act. But Traversy does seem to have seized copyright (on paper) of the legislation that implements the often-discussed UNDRIP Treaty.
In reality this is meaningless, because that legislation dates to 2021, so within the 50-year absolute copyright period. Still - comical and neat!
What does it mean, though, pseudolegally, that Traversy has copyright? No idea.
Back to the Justice Derksen decision. This relates to tax matters that date to the mid 2000s. The taxpayer, Jeffrey Curran, claimed tax credits relating to mining and mineral development expenses. Until 2025 that litigation inched along in the Tax Court of Canada as a group of appeals with a lead case to decide the matter. Pretty typical of how the TCC works. It is cost and resource effective to run a small subset or single lead case then apply the result to a cluster of largely identical tax disputes.
But the test cases were discontinued. Ultimately almost all were settled in some manner. Curran is an exception. Curran had a lawyer who withdrew in 2025, and afterwards Curran represented himself.
I’ll let Justice Derkman continue the narrative:
>... Now on his own, the appellant had choices to make. And the appellant made bad ones. Instead of attending the examination for discovery that the Crown had scheduled for December 3, 2025, to be held virtually and on a date that the appellant had confirmed was suitable, the appellant adopted a pseudo-legal stance.
>... The appellant fails to appreciate that he commenced this proceeding, not the Crown. It was his appeal to prosecute. He has not done so. Although this Court should be slow to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution, or for failing to attend an examination for discovery—and especially where there are extenuating circumstances—a slow pace is not warranted here. Sometimes pseudo-legal theorists require a swift and decisive response. For this reason, and as discussed further below, the appellant’s appeal will be dismissed.
Curran sent the attached letter, with a fingerprint in red ink.
But Canadian courts are not exactly enthused about these ideas:
>... As Associate Chief Justice Rooke stated in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571, Courts will not tolerate pseudo-legal arguments, misconduct, or tactics. Such behaviour is an abuse of process ...
>... Too much ink has been spilled on pseudo-legal arguments, or what are commonly referred to as “organized pseudo-legal commercial arguments.”
>... The appellant made a calculated decision by sending his letter dated November 24, 2025, to counsel for the Crown. He even made the effort to send it by registered mail and then followed up to confirm delivery. I have no reason to believe—and especially now that at least five months have since passed—that the appellant intends to correct course. Instead, the appellant has disengaged from his appeal. His actions amount to a deliberate abuse of the Court’s process. And this is not a time for second or third chances.
>... In the circumstances, I am exercising my discretion and will dismiss the appellant’s appeal. Costs are awarded to the Crown, and payable by the appellant, in the fixed amount of $1,500.
FAFO.
And that, my friends, is how you deal with pseudolaw litigation. Though I do disagree in a small way. I like spilling ink about pseudolaw. Somebody has to here in Canada. But I quite understand how courts are thoroughly sick of it.
Here’s the judgment: Curran v The King, 2026 TCC 79.
It's classy.