This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In reference to this theory being "widespread," that's hard to prove because I don't think the newspapers or academic journals usually find it worth writing about since they consider it a crackpot scheme, and it gets laughed out of court. But I have known a lot of people who talked about and believed in this theory. It's kinda similar to pseudoscientific or supernatural beliefs like astrology, except this pertains to the realm of law rather than the spirit world. Tisane ( talk) 07:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
The SPLC pins the number of adherents at 300,000. [1] [2] Personally, it sounds to me like the result of a very poorly-worded survey (I would have expected 100,000 at most), but I would still include it. And I just might if no one adds this before I find the time to. -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 00:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
heres a link to a story the refers to this group. i may take the time to add to the article.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk) 16:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
:Not all
anti-government folks have ties to the
redemption movement. The
sovereign citizen movement, for instance, is not necessarily related to it. There are a lot of movements that talk about
individual sovereignty.
Tisane (
talk)
17:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Please, someone, go through the article and either delete or reword any "it [is/has been] held" passive voice sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.172.22 ( talk) 01:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I visited the FBI external site that you propose and wrote them "catch the queen first" - she is sovereign! Why do you criminalize people who want live as sovereign persons? Are we not sovereign? Is it not a real human BIRTHRIGHT ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.226.60.93 ( talk) 21:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
This article is extremely biased and needs to tagged as not neutral. The article makes assertions of this "theory" being fraudulent when it is being practiced every day by thousands of people, peacefully and effectively. It needs to be rewritten by a dispassionate observer, not a government flunkie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.79.70.18 ( talk) 05:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Perhaps you are that dispassionate observer. I'm sure you will find many sources. 203.214.153.106 ( talk) 08:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
This article should be filed under conspiracy theory and tax fraud, not terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.185.54 ( talk) 06:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the above. this article is extremely biassed. the Principle of disowning your legal fiction is perfectly sound in that it has not yet been sucessfully challenged by the authorities. 82.21.207.51 ( talk) 17:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
How about this--If you find me a case of someone arguing this stupid shit in front of ANY real court ANYWHERE IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE, and the Judge says "well, ya got me there: You're a noun!" and finds for the defendant, I will take my own life on a Pay-Per View special and donate the proceeds to your 'straw man' account, or whatever planet you happen to live on at the moment. In the meantime, would you do something else? I think Glenn Beck is on. And this IS my real name. I hope you show up on my porch. ThomasGuyLindenmuth ( talk) 01:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)ThomasGuyLindenmuth.
Mr. Lindenmuth: Thank you for that, when I woke up today I couldn't have imagined I would be thrown into a fit of uncontrollable laughter by a wikipedia talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.123.180 ( talk) 12:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
The redemption movement (or "straw man defense") may have become more popular amongst desperate tax evaders but federal courts have roundly rejected it as an affirmative defense. It appears to be typically presented by pro se defendants (those who represent themselves without formal legal education) who are either misinformed or adamantly opposed to income taxes based on their personal beliefs Wesmontgom ( talk) 12:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
If you can find an instance where this legal tactic has been successful ( I define "successful" as having lead to the exoneration and dismissal of all charges against an accused), have at rewriting it. Otherwise, it's characterization as being a legal defense scam is warranted. People are convicted and sentenced every day after trying to put forth this utter nonsense in court, and leading anyone to believe there is any grounds to these arguments is reckless, at best, and at worst, actively harmful. 75.149.102.241 ( talk) 01:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes they publish those opinions, it would be the court's opinion denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The only time something goes on in Court without being recorded on paper is in an episode of Law & Order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.123.180 ( talk) 12:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Visitor10001: Yes, you are totally mistaken. As in, you are so mistaken I'm not sure where to begin. In short, the defendant would make a motion to dismiss based on his legal arguments; this motion would likely be accompanied by a legal brief in support of the motion, stating the factual and legal basis why the charges should be dismissed. The government would respond in kind and the Court would likely hold oral arguments on the motion. Then, the Court would issue a written opinion stating whether the charges should be dismissed or not and the factual and/or legal reasons for that finding. For federal cases, anyone with access to Pacer would be able to access the Court's written opinion for about seventy-five cents. Reallypablo ( talk) 00:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
This article should not use the term 'myth'. I'll admit a lot of this stuff sounded like crazy talk when I first heard it... but research changed that. 24.79.72.133 ( talk) 21:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as no one could provide proof that this had ever been used successfully, and the recent additions were blatant POV pushing, I took it upon myself to revert recent additions. I also advise the contributors in question to take a look here before trying to start an edit war. -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 16:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
The article does NOT have that nice unbiased read to it. It seems to automatically discount the whole idea and makes many value based assertions that. Before discounting the sovereign concept it might be a good idea to read the Popular sovereignty page. This concept is in fact the grounds for this "movement". And even if the IRS, FBI, and courts supposedly condemn these arguments does not necessarily mean the core concept is not true. The so called "Redemption movement"
Sovereign citizenship seems to be the core issue that Redemption theory is based on, NOT popular sovereignty, which is the (generally accepted) legal idea that by ratifying the U.S. Constitution in 1788, the people delegated their collective sovereignty to their state and federal governments in. Sovereign citizenship theory is distinct from popular sovereignty: it argues that giving up one's legal sovereignty (and agreeing to the "social contract") is each individual's own choice. Some adherents maintain they are only subject to the jurisdiction of their State of residence, others believe they can only have claims or charges brought against them under the common law (yet, they tell us that somehow, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has sneakily and fraudulently enabled both Federal and State governments to bring criminal charges in Federal admiralty and maritime courts.) Wesmontgom ( talk) 13:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
The opening line by itself is loaded and fails to give an unbiased perspective of the movement itself. In fact it immediately tries to conjure up the idea that "these people are CRRRRAZY". From what I know of the movement most people support the idea of Popular sovereignty and that governments derive their powers from the governed. Last I checked that isn't really a conspiracy theory. However, they do put forth the idea that that sovereignty has been taken away from the people. One way this can be verified by consulting a recent edition of Black's Law Dictionary. The concept is no longer there under the definition of sovereignty where it did exist in Bouvier's Law Dictionary in 1859.
The Redemption movement asserts that this sovereignty has been circumnavigated by the US GOV setting up a Fictitious entity for you at birth (most assert that it is a type of trust or combination of trusts). This way the LEGAL ENTITY of the GOV can assert its control over this LEGAL ENTITY. They usually site that this LEGAL ENTITY can be recognized with the ALL CAPS name. Since there isn't any justification for putting a proper noun in ALL CAPS accept for things that aren't living, like LEGAL ENTITIES (corps., tusts, llc etc.) and on TOMBSTONES of dead people.
ehhhhh I'm going to stop there. I'm not saying I agree with Redemption Movement theory. But I don't discount it and throw it out the window and treat it like trash just because I disagree and that seems to be how this article has been written. I do agree that people are making a lot of money selling schemes and getting a lot of people in trouble and that people should be warned. HOWEVER, there are other people out there researching for themselves trying to figure out what is going on and having success with SIMILAR theory.-- yahooshua ( talk)
Out of curiosity, what similar theory is that? I expect that people tend to dismiss this theory because it doesn't make sense realistically (why should my neighbor be able to opt out of the civil and criminal justice system?) or because they are a lawyer or work in the law and they realize that every precept advanced by this theory would be viewed by any court as being completely without merit. Wesmontgom ( talk) 13:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
11:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a really awful article, but I think the fundamental problem here is that you can't provide a rational description of a topic that certainly seems to be quite seriously crazy. I suppose it can be dismissed as 'mostly harmless', but it seems both symptomatic of the dysfunction of the American political system, and it has potential for motivating some serious craziness above and beyond the arrests and imprisonment of the believers. For these two reasons, it seems worth coverage in Wikipedia, but it is unclear to me how such a topic can best be handled. In historical terms, there have been many similar movements, and while there is clear consensus now on their craziness, that was not the case when they were growing and in some cases becoming dangerous... (The Shakers are extinct, right?) Shanen ( talk) 05:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Two police officers were killed in West Memphis by some sovereign citizens (who were killed in a shootout with police in a Wal-Mart parking lot later that same day). The Southern Poverty Law Center is providing a video to law enforcement to aid them in dealing with these potentially dangerous people. Indiana, of all places, is having some problems with them, too. "Sovereign citizens" there are unsuccessfully attempting to avoid property taxes and also using bogus credentials trying to avoid traffic tickets. The courts are ruling against the sovereign citizens every time in every case.
At some point it might be nice to rewrite and expand this to something like Redemption and Sovereign Citizen theory - as far as I can tell both these movements' beliefs are so similar that they're practically interchangeable. -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 13:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
"Under the theory, a man or woman can perform commercial assignments by means of an asset called a bill of exchange that can be spent out[clarification needed]"
Clarification? Where the fuck are you going to find that? Did you read the sentence? There IS no clarification as these people live in a different mental plane than the rest of us. Just the fact that it makes no sense to you means that you're (probably) not as insane as they are. Leave it at that. ThomasGuyLindenmuth ( talk) 00:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)ThomasGuyLindenmuth.
The sentence itself is quite unclear. Is assignments the same as activity? A link to an explaination of a bill of exchange would help or a better in text description. What does spent out mean? If it just means "spent" as in what you do with cash then drop the out. I don't know the subject well enough to edit but the clarification is still needed whether the subject is bonkers or not. 94.197.7.130 ( talk) 16:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I took it upon myself to remove a few of the opening sentences due to no references cited. Please keep all edits under Wikipedia's guidelines in the future. THanks. Visitor10001 ( talk) 06:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the term Conspiracy Theory is way out of line. This is sending the wrong message. What exactly is the "Conspiracy"? Anyone? Visitor10001 ( talk) 08:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to add the following text to the article.
Its adherents sometimes call themselves "sovereign citizens", though this term could more likely be attributed, as Robert Churchill states, to the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Anti Defamation League itself, in their attempt to gain credibility.
Black's Law Dictionary defines a "Strawman" as " A 'front'; a person who is put up in name only to take part in a deal. Nominal party to a transaction; one who acts as an agent for another for the purpose of taking title to real property and executing whatever documents and instruments the principal may direct respecting the property. Person who purchases property for another to conceal identity of real purchaser." Visitor10001 ( talk) 08:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The WP:Lead had some major problems concerning WP:NPOV which I made a first attempt to address. It was also not fully encompassing of the entire scope of the article because it alarmingly left out mention that followers had been convicted for serious crimes. Please comment and post civil suggestions for improving it further and addressing other concerns about the lead. Sincerely, Veriss ( talk) 05:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The entire article is vulnerable to POV debates primarily because of continuing poor to non-existent sourcing and citations. For the article to maintain it's current tone and point of view, the assertions need to be fully sourced and properly cited. There may also need to be a new section for the opposing viewpoint allowing the supporters of this theory to present their sourced and properly cited case separately. Please discuss how to improve this situation in a civil and constructive manner. Sincerely, Veriss ( talk) 05:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
It did our friend in for fraud. -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 05:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Lenin and McCarthy is section blanking without consenting the discussion group. Seems to think that he is the authority on this topic. I would beg to differ. It just goes to show that this article is severely biased towards his or her opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visitor10001 ( talk • contribs) 06:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing extraordinary about the consequences of a properly filed UCC 1 financing statement. The consequences being, none. I am going to place this text back in the article, as it seems the person who removed it was mistaken, and was acting in haste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visitor10001 ( talk • contribs) 02:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Visitor10001 ( talk) 06:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I want the definition for strawman in the actual article, not way down in the references section were no one will see it. I have yet to hear a reason why this was moved in the first place. And I feel that there is definitely some WP:BULLY going on here, or should I say some Esquire:BULLY going on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visitor10001 ( talk • contribs) 06:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Could some editor point me to where Wikipedia has stated that the Anti-Defamation League, and the Southern Poverty Law Center are valid sources? I want to see this for myself. Again, I want to see the text or policy where Wikipedia has stated that the SPLC, and the ADL are 'good to go' as a reliable source. Nobody in their right mind would trust these 'orginizations', so I find this very very very hard to believe. Visitor10001 ( talk) 03:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
See this recent article [3] and this analysis [4] - both might be useful as sources (in both articles or a merged one). Dougweller ( talk) 07:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
after looking at this page [ [5] Noticeboard], I see that other editors are suggesting that since the ADL and SPLC have a 50% approval rating, it should be (though it isn't :P ) required that their statements be confirmed by another trusted 3rd party publisher. Is this too much to ask? If so, could that be because there are no other reliable sources who have made claims such as the ones put forth by the SPLC and the ADL? If so, doesn't that mean they are ALL ALONE IN THEIR ASSERTIONS? If so, shouldn't they be considered self-publishing? If so, shouldn't they be removed from Wikipedia because they are making ridiculous claims? Visitor10001 ( talk) 10:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I am going to add in some other text from the Buhtz article. This should help to show what the Redemption Movement is about ACCORDING TO AN ACTUAL REDEMPTIONIST.
BE WARNED: This text is not in harmony with Wikipedia's unspoken policy a la never give credit to anything that was stated by someone who later on broke the law, whether or not it had anything to do with the idea they were quoted with purveying .
The text will read..
Redemption movement proponent Barton Buhtz has written that when a UCC form is processed by a states UCC filing office, it becomes a public legal record/fact and that those who have filed UCC-1 Financing Statements correctly have not broken the law. Buhtz states that no court can dispute the validity of a properly filed UCC-1 financing statement. Buhtz claims that negotiable instruments, properly written and presented by a true Secured Party can lawfully, and legally be handled via local financial institutions by the
Secured Party through the Secretary of the Treasury as well as ledgered by the financial institution via the
Treasury Tax and Loan (TTL) account. Buhtz makes it clear that the UCC Redemption Process is not merely a get rich quick' scheme, and also warns of potential imprisonment for those who fail to follow the law in regards to this process
I propose 3 days to rebut this proposal, on the grounds that it is legally invalid, NOT ON THE GROUNDS THAT BUHTZ MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN JAILED AS A RESULT OF THIS PROCESS, because for all we know, he may have been jailed for being in contempt of court, or some other silly code or statute that the judge felt was necessary in enforcing!!!!! Yours Truly,
Visitor10001 (
talk)
11:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Why is "alleged American conspiracy theory" alleged in there? Is there some doubt this conspiracy theory actually exists? If so the article doesn't seem to mention that. If there is no doubt, then surely it's a conspiracy theory not an alleged one. The fact that it's complete nonsense as with many conspiracy theories doesn't change the fact it is one. Nil Einne ( talk) 16:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not your lawyer or counsel, and because of this, the editors should refrain from the urge to "protect the readers" from themselves. Thank you. DAdvocate4u ( talk) 07:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it's possible that the fascination with The Wizard of Oz may have stemmed from the (fanciful) claim that the story was an allegory on populism, particularly with regard to the gold standard and the surrounding controversy. This "analysis" of Oz was first published in 1964, so I don't know how that lines up with the history of this movement. The idea has been pretty well debunked, but nonetheless it remains popular as an urban legend. One place to start looking into this idea might be this Straight Dope article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.196.90.242 ( talk) 22:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
http://www.irs.gov/irb/2005-14_IRB/ar13.html
This is a little more concise and vernacular, I think. Gets very specific, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.47.126 ( talk) 16:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Where does this figure come from? Is it a real amount that can be found in some arcane government text, or is a pure fabrication? In either case, what's the text of the original source of the claim/myth? Doing a very brief search on my own, I found this "According to one theorist, it is a pledge that was made for each birth certificate in the amount of $630,000 (another pegs it at $1,000,000)." So basically, it's a number pulled from thin air. My point is that it would be nice to explain in the article where that figure came from. As things stand in the article, it's just a number with little context or meaning, yet it seems to be fairly important within the 'movement'. Coinmanj ( talk) 18:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
There are questions popping up on Quora.com about how to find where on the stock market your birth certificate strawman is being traded!? This is apparently a new twist, alleging that with your real "birth certificate number" you can find where your mortgaged self is being bought and sold. Anybody got a more solid link that that, or am I the only one who's spotted this new wrinkle in bullshittery? -- Orange Mike | Talk 02:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I wonder if there might be a better title for this article than "Redemption movement." While redemption has at times been attached to fringe movements, it is not a movement in itself, just a type of con. Lodi v. Lodi strongly suggests that the strawman gimmick wasn't even Elvick's invention, but might have circulated as a kind of criminal folklore before he picked it up. In contrast Reconstruction-era redemption was a movement. The FBI, IRS and ADL use the term "redemption theory" which it seems might once have been the title used here. Why it would have been moved to its present title is not clear. 2601:642:4600:3F80:5D3D:DAC:7BA8:B95B ( talk) 16:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
That'sHedley has twice reverted edits that I have made ( example) with the explanations: "this article refers to sovereign citizen content" and "change of meaning." I admit that I changed the meaning of the opening sentence, a problem that I have attempted to address, and of course the article refers to SC content regardless of the changes, but that does little to explain the revert.
2601:642:4600:3F80:80FC:12CB:6E21:D6E2 ( talk) 22:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In reference to this theory being "widespread," that's hard to prove because I don't think the newspapers or academic journals usually find it worth writing about since they consider it a crackpot scheme, and it gets laughed out of court. But I have known a lot of people who talked about and believed in this theory. It's kinda similar to pseudoscientific or supernatural beliefs like astrology, except this pertains to the realm of law rather than the spirit world. Tisane ( talk) 07:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
The SPLC pins the number of adherents at 300,000. [1] [2] Personally, it sounds to me like the result of a very poorly-worded survey (I would have expected 100,000 at most), but I would still include it. And I just might if no one adds this before I find the time to. -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 00:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
heres a link to a story the refers to this group. i may take the time to add to the article.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk) 16:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
:Not all
anti-government folks have ties to the
redemption movement. The
sovereign citizen movement, for instance, is not necessarily related to it. There are a lot of movements that talk about
individual sovereignty.
Tisane (
talk)
17:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Please, someone, go through the article and either delete or reword any "it [is/has been] held" passive voice sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.172.22 ( talk) 01:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I visited the FBI external site that you propose and wrote them "catch the queen first" - she is sovereign! Why do you criminalize people who want live as sovereign persons? Are we not sovereign? Is it not a real human BIRTHRIGHT ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.226.60.93 ( talk) 21:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
This article is extremely biased and needs to tagged as not neutral. The article makes assertions of this "theory" being fraudulent when it is being practiced every day by thousands of people, peacefully and effectively. It needs to be rewritten by a dispassionate observer, not a government flunkie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.79.70.18 ( talk) 05:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Perhaps you are that dispassionate observer. I'm sure you will find many sources. 203.214.153.106 ( talk) 08:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
This article should be filed under conspiracy theory and tax fraud, not terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.185.54 ( talk) 06:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the above. this article is extremely biassed. the Principle of disowning your legal fiction is perfectly sound in that it has not yet been sucessfully challenged by the authorities. 82.21.207.51 ( talk) 17:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
How about this--If you find me a case of someone arguing this stupid shit in front of ANY real court ANYWHERE IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE, and the Judge says "well, ya got me there: You're a noun!" and finds for the defendant, I will take my own life on a Pay-Per View special and donate the proceeds to your 'straw man' account, or whatever planet you happen to live on at the moment. In the meantime, would you do something else? I think Glenn Beck is on. And this IS my real name. I hope you show up on my porch. ThomasGuyLindenmuth ( talk) 01:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)ThomasGuyLindenmuth.
Mr. Lindenmuth: Thank you for that, when I woke up today I couldn't have imagined I would be thrown into a fit of uncontrollable laughter by a wikipedia talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.123.180 ( talk) 12:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
The redemption movement (or "straw man defense") may have become more popular amongst desperate tax evaders but federal courts have roundly rejected it as an affirmative defense. It appears to be typically presented by pro se defendants (those who represent themselves without formal legal education) who are either misinformed or adamantly opposed to income taxes based on their personal beliefs Wesmontgom ( talk) 12:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
If you can find an instance where this legal tactic has been successful ( I define "successful" as having lead to the exoneration and dismissal of all charges against an accused), have at rewriting it. Otherwise, it's characterization as being a legal defense scam is warranted. People are convicted and sentenced every day after trying to put forth this utter nonsense in court, and leading anyone to believe there is any grounds to these arguments is reckless, at best, and at worst, actively harmful. 75.149.102.241 ( talk) 01:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes they publish those opinions, it would be the court's opinion denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The only time something goes on in Court without being recorded on paper is in an episode of Law & Order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.123.180 ( talk) 12:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Visitor10001: Yes, you are totally mistaken. As in, you are so mistaken I'm not sure where to begin. In short, the defendant would make a motion to dismiss based on his legal arguments; this motion would likely be accompanied by a legal brief in support of the motion, stating the factual and legal basis why the charges should be dismissed. The government would respond in kind and the Court would likely hold oral arguments on the motion. Then, the Court would issue a written opinion stating whether the charges should be dismissed or not and the factual and/or legal reasons for that finding. For federal cases, anyone with access to Pacer would be able to access the Court's written opinion for about seventy-five cents. Reallypablo ( talk) 00:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
This article should not use the term 'myth'. I'll admit a lot of this stuff sounded like crazy talk when I first heard it... but research changed that. 24.79.72.133 ( talk) 21:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as no one could provide proof that this had ever been used successfully, and the recent additions were blatant POV pushing, I took it upon myself to revert recent additions. I also advise the contributors in question to take a look here before trying to start an edit war. -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 16:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
The article does NOT have that nice unbiased read to it. It seems to automatically discount the whole idea and makes many value based assertions that. Before discounting the sovereign concept it might be a good idea to read the Popular sovereignty page. This concept is in fact the grounds for this "movement". And even if the IRS, FBI, and courts supposedly condemn these arguments does not necessarily mean the core concept is not true. The so called "Redemption movement"
Sovereign citizenship seems to be the core issue that Redemption theory is based on, NOT popular sovereignty, which is the (generally accepted) legal idea that by ratifying the U.S. Constitution in 1788, the people delegated their collective sovereignty to their state and federal governments in. Sovereign citizenship theory is distinct from popular sovereignty: it argues that giving up one's legal sovereignty (and agreeing to the "social contract") is each individual's own choice. Some adherents maintain they are only subject to the jurisdiction of their State of residence, others believe they can only have claims or charges brought against them under the common law (yet, they tell us that somehow, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has sneakily and fraudulently enabled both Federal and State governments to bring criminal charges in Federal admiralty and maritime courts.) Wesmontgom ( talk) 13:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
The opening line by itself is loaded and fails to give an unbiased perspective of the movement itself. In fact it immediately tries to conjure up the idea that "these people are CRRRRAZY". From what I know of the movement most people support the idea of Popular sovereignty and that governments derive their powers from the governed. Last I checked that isn't really a conspiracy theory. However, they do put forth the idea that that sovereignty has been taken away from the people. One way this can be verified by consulting a recent edition of Black's Law Dictionary. The concept is no longer there under the definition of sovereignty where it did exist in Bouvier's Law Dictionary in 1859.
The Redemption movement asserts that this sovereignty has been circumnavigated by the US GOV setting up a Fictitious entity for you at birth (most assert that it is a type of trust or combination of trusts). This way the LEGAL ENTITY of the GOV can assert its control over this LEGAL ENTITY. They usually site that this LEGAL ENTITY can be recognized with the ALL CAPS name. Since there isn't any justification for putting a proper noun in ALL CAPS accept for things that aren't living, like LEGAL ENTITIES (corps., tusts, llc etc.) and on TOMBSTONES of dead people.
ehhhhh I'm going to stop there. I'm not saying I agree with Redemption Movement theory. But I don't discount it and throw it out the window and treat it like trash just because I disagree and that seems to be how this article has been written. I do agree that people are making a lot of money selling schemes and getting a lot of people in trouble and that people should be warned. HOWEVER, there are other people out there researching for themselves trying to figure out what is going on and having success with SIMILAR theory.-- yahooshua ( talk)
Out of curiosity, what similar theory is that? I expect that people tend to dismiss this theory because it doesn't make sense realistically (why should my neighbor be able to opt out of the civil and criminal justice system?) or because they are a lawyer or work in the law and they realize that every precept advanced by this theory would be viewed by any court as being completely without merit. Wesmontgom ( talk) 13:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
11:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a really awful article, but I think the fundamental problem here is that you can't provide a rational description of a topic that certainly seems to be quite seriously crazy. I suppose it can be dismissed as 'mostly harmless', but it seems both symptomatic of the dysfunction of the American political system, and it has potential for motivating some serious craziness above and beyond the arrests and imprisonment of the believers. For these two reasons, it seems worth coverage in Wikipedia, but it is unclear to me how such a topic can best be handled. In historical terms, there have been many similar movements, and while there is clear consensus now on their craziness, that was not the case when they were growing and in some cases becoming dangerous... (The Shakers are extinct, right?) Shanen ( talk) 05:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Two police officers were killed in West Memphis by some sovereign citizens (who were killed in a shootout with police in a Wal-Mart parking lot later that same day). The Southern Poverty Law Center is providing a video to law enforcement to aid them in dealing with these potentially dangerous people. Indiana, of all places, is having some problems with them, too. "Sovereign citizens" there are unsuccessfully attempting to avoid property taxes and also using bogus credentials trying to avoid traffic tickets. The courts are ruling against the sovereign citizens every time in every case.
At some point it might be nice to rewrite and expand this to something like Redemption and Sovereign Citizen theory - as far as I can tell both these movements' beliefs are so similar that they're practically interchangeable. -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 13:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
"Under the theory, a man or woman can perform commercial assignments by means of an asset called a bill of exchange that can be spent out[clarification needed]"
Clarification? Where the fuck are you going to find that? Did you read the sentence? There IS no clarification as these people live in a different mental plane than the rest of us. Just the fact that it makes no sense to you means that you're (probably) not as insane as they are. Leave it at that. ThomasGuyLindenmuth ( talk) 00:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)ThomasGuyLindenmuth.
The sentence itself is quite unclear. Is assignments the same as activity? A link to an explaination of a bill of exchange would help or a better in text description. What does spent out mean? If it just means "spent" as in what you do with cash then drop the out. I don't know the subject well enough to edit but the clarification is still needed whether the subject is bonkers or not. 94.197.7.130 ( talk) 16:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I took it upon myself to remove a few of the opening sentences due to no references cited. Please keep all edits under Wikipedia's guidelines in the future. THanks. Visitor10001 ( talk) 06:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the term Conspiracy Theory is way out of line. This is sending the wrong message. What exactly is the "Conspiracy"? Anyone? Visitor10001 ( talk) 08:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to add the following text to the article.
Its adherents sometimes call themselves "sovereign citizens", though this term could more likely be attributed, as Robert Churchill states, to the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Anti Defamation League itself, in their attempt to gain credibility.
Black's Law Dictionary defines a "Strawman" as " A 'front'; a person who is put up in name only to take part in a deal. Nominal party to a transaction; one who acts as an agent for another for the purpose of taking title to real property and executing whatever documents and instruments the principal may direct respecting the property. Person who purchases property for another to conceal identity of real purchaser." Visitor10001 ( talk) 08:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The WP:Lead had some major problems concerning WP:NPOV which I made a first attempt to address. It was also not fully encompassing of the entire scope of the article because it alarmingly left out mention that followers had been convicted for serious crimes. Please comment and post civil suggestions for improving it further and addressing other concerns about the lead. Sincerely, Veriss ( talk) 05:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The entire article is vulnerable to POV debates primarily because of continuing poor to non-existent sourcing and citations. For the article to maintain it's current tone and point of view, the assertions need to be fully sourced and properly cited. There may also need to be a new section for the opposing viewpoint allowing the supporters of this theory to present their sourced and properly cited case separately. Please discuss how to improve this situation in a civil and constructive manner. Sincerely, Veriss ( talk) 05:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
It did our friend in for fraud. -- Lenin and McCarthy | ( Complain here) 05:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Lenin and McCarthy is section blanking without consenting the discussion group. Seems to think that he is the authority on this topic. I would beg to differ. It just goes to show that this article is severely biased towards his or her opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visitor10001 ( talk • contribs) 06:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing extraordinary about the consequences of a properly filed UCC 1 financing statement. The consequences being, none. I am going to place this text back in the article, as it seems the person who removed it was mistaken, and was acting in haste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visitor10001 ( talk • contribs) 02:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Visitor10001 ( talk) 06:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I want the definition for strawman in the actual article, not way down in the references section were no one will see it. I have yet to hear a reason why this was moved in the first place. And I feel that there is definitely some WP:BULLY going on here, or should I say some Esquire:BULLY going on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visitor10001 ( talk • contribs) 06:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Could some editor point me to where Wikipedia has stated that the Anti-Defamation League, and the Southern Poverty Law Center are valid sources? I want to see this for myself. Again, I want to see the text or policy where Wikipedia has stated that the SPLC, and the ADL are 'good to go' as a reliable source. Nobody in their right mind would trust these 'orginizations', so I find this very very very hard to believe. Visitor10001 ( talk) 03:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
See this recent article [3] and this analysis [4] - both might be useful as sources (in both articles or a merged one). Dougweller ( talk) 07:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
after looking at this page [ [5] Noticeboard], I see that other editors are suggesting that since the ADL and SPLC have a 50% approval rating, it should be (though it isn't :P ) required that their statements be confirmed by another trusted 3rd party publisher. Is this too much to ask? If so, could that be because there are no other reliable sources who have made claims such as the ones put forth by the SPLC and the ADL? If so, doesn't that mean they are ALL ALONE IN THEIR ASSERTIONS? If so, shouldn't they be considered self-publishing? If so, shouldn't they be removed from Wikipedia because they are making ridiculous claims? Visitor10001 ( talk) 10:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I am going to add in some other text from the Buhtz article. This should help to show what the Redemption Movement is about ACCORDING TO AN ACTUAL REDEMPTIONIST.
BE WARNED: This text is not in harmony with Wikipedia's unspoken policy a la never give credit to anything that was stated by someone who later on broke the law, whether or not it had anything to do with the idea they were quoted with purveying .
The text will read..
Redemption movement proponent Barton Buhtz has written that when a UCC form is processed by a states UCC filing office, it becomes a public legal record/fact and that those who have filed UCC-1 Financing Statements correctly have not broken the law. Buhtz states that no court can dispute the validity of a properly filed UCC-1 financing statement. Buhtz claims that negotiable instruments, properly written and presented by a true Secured Party can lawfully, and legally be handled via local financial institutions by the
Secured Party through the Secretary of the Treasury as well as ledgered by the financial institution via the
Treasury Tax and Loan (TTL) account. Buhtz makes it clear that the UCC Redemption Process is not merely a get rich quick' scheme, and also warns of potential imprisonment for those who fail to follow the law in regards to this process
I propose 3 days to rebut this proposal, on the grounds that it is legally invalid, NOT ON THE GROUNDS THAT BUHTZ MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN JAILED AS A RESULT OF THIS PROCESS, because for all we know, he may have been jailed for being in contempt of court, or some other silly code or statute that the judge felt was necessary in enforcing!!!!! Yours Truly,
Visitor10001 (
talk)
11:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Why is "alleged American conspiracy theory" alleged in there? Is there some doubt this conspiracy theory actually exists? If so the article doesn't seem to mention that. If there is no doubt, then surely it's a conspiracy theory not an alleged one. The fact that it's complete nonsense as with many conspiracy theories doesn't change the fact it is one. Nil Einne ( talk) 16:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not your lawyer or counsel, and because of this, the editors should refrain from the urge to "protect the readers" from themselves. Thank you. DAdvocate4u ( talk) 07:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it's possible that the fascination with The Wizard of Oz may have stemmed from the (fanciful) claim that the story was an allegory on populism, particularly with regard to the gold standard and the surrounding controversy. This "analysis" of Oz was first published in 1964, so I don't know how that lines up with the history of this movement. The idea has been pretty well debunked, but nonetheless it remains popular as an urban legend. One place to start looking into this idea might be this Straight Dope article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.196.90.242 ( talk) 22:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
http://www.irs.gov/irb/2005-14_IRB/ar13.html
This is a little more concise and vernacular, I think. Gets very specific, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.47.126 ( talk) 16:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Where does this figure come from? Is it a real amount that can be found in some arcane government text, or is a pure fabrication? In either case, what's the text of the original source of the claim/myth? Doing a very brief search on my own, I found this "According to one theorist, it is a pledge that was made for each birth certificate in the amount of $630,000 (another pegs it at $1,000,000)." So basically, it's a number pulled from thin air. My point is that it would be nice to explain in the article where that figure came from. As things stand in the article, it's just a number with little context or meaning, yet it seems to be fairly important within the 'movement'. Coinmanj ( talk) 18:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
There are questions popping up on Quora.com about how to find where on the stock market your birth certificate strawman is being traded!? This is apparently a new twist, alleging that with your real "birth certificate number" you can find where your mortgaged self is being bought and sold. Anybody got a more solid link that that, or am I the only one who's spotted this new wrinkle in bullshittery? -- Orange Mike | Talk 02:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I wonder if there might be a better title for this article than "Redemption movement." While redemption has at times been attached to fringe movements, it is not a movement in itself, just a type of con. Lodi v. Lodi strongly suggests that the strawman gimmick wasn't even Elvick's invention, but might have circulated as a kind of criminal folklore before he picked it up. In contrast Reconstruction-era redemption was a movement. The FBI, IRS and ADL use the term "redemption theory" which it seems might once have been the title used here. Why it would have been moved to its present title is not clear. 2601:642:4600:3F80:5D3D:DAC:7BA8:B95B ( talk) 16:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
That'sHedley has twice reverted edits that I have made ( example) with the explanations: "this article refers to sovereign citizen content" and "change of meaning." I admit that I changed the meaning of the opening sentence, a problem that I have attempted to address, and of course the article refers to SC content regardless of the changes, but that does little to explain the revert.
2601:642:4600:3F80:80FC:12CB:6E21:D6E2 ( talk) 22:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)