Anti-Government Movement Guidebook
The Anti-Government
Movement Guidebook
The National Center for State Courts
The Anti-Government Movement Guidebook
1999, National Center for State Courts
This guide was developed under a grant. Award No. SJI-96-02B-B-159, "The Rise of Common Law Courts in the United States: An Examination of the Movement, The Potential Impact on the Judiciary, and How the States Could Respond," from the State Justice Institute. The points of view expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute.
STAFF
Managing Editor
Mr. Chuck Ericksen
Acting Executive Director
Institute for Court Management
National Center for State Courts
Contributors and Primary Researchers
Mr. Chris J. Wesser, J.D.
College of William and Mary
Williamsburg, Virginia
Mr. Dov M. Szego, J.D.
College of William and Mary
Williamsburg, Virginia
Project Staff
National Center for State Courts
300 Newport Avenue
Williamsburg, Virginia 22185
(757) 253-20000
Ms. Catina N. Burrell
Senior Administrative Specialist
Ms. Amanda C. Murer
Intern
Research Assistants
Shawn Shurden
Koran Singh
Stuart Turner
Funding Agency
Ms. Cheryl Reynolds, Grant Manager
State Justice Institute
1650 King Street, Suite 600
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
703-684-7618
PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mr. Chuck Ericksen
State Judicial Educator
Office of the State Court Administrator
Olympia, Washington
Mr. Peter Haskel, Esquire
Assistant Division Chief, Financial Litigation Division
Office of the Attorney General
Austin, Texas
Honorable Joanne Huelsman
State Senator
Madison, Wisconsin
Honorable Jeffrey H. Langton
Judge, 21st Judicial District Court
Hamilton, Montana
Mr. Thomas McAffee
Professor of Law
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, Illinois
Mr. Nick Murnion, Esquire
District Attorney
Garfield County Prosecutor's Office
Jordan, Montana
Ms. Cheryl Reynolds
State Justice Institute
Alexandria, Virginia
Mr. Stephan W. Stover
State Court Administrator
Supreme Court of Ohio
Columbus, Ohio
Table of Contents
Preface...... ix
Acknowledgements...... xi
Part I: Common Law and Uncommon Courts: An Overview of the Common Law Court Movement ...... ……………………………...... 1
Introduction...... ……...... 1
The Posse Comitatus...... 3
Avoiding Legal Authority...... 5
"Hidden History" as Justification...... 6
The Posse and the Common Law...... 9
The First Wave of the Common Law Movement...... 15
Decline and Resurgence...... 21
The Future of Common Law Courts?...... …………...... 32
Part II: Tactics in the Courtroom...... 35
Subpart 2.1 - Challenging Subject Matter Jurisdiction...... 36
A. The Gold-Fringed Flag Issue...... …...... 36
B. Typical Responses to the Flag Objection...... …...... 37
C. Additional Authority...... …...... 38
Subpart 2.2 - Challenging Personal Jurisdiction...... 40
A. The "Sovereign" vs. the "Corporate" Citizen....…...... 40
B. Typical Responses to the Personal Jurisdiction Issue.....…...... 41
C. Additional Authority...... 43
Subpart 2.3 - Demanding Use of "The Common Law"...... 44
A. Demanding a Strict Interpretation of "Common Law"...…...... 44
B. Typical Responses to the Common Law Demand...... …...... 46
Subpart 2.4 - Significance of "The Bar"...... …...... 47
A. Refusing to Enter the Bar...... …...... 47
B. Typical Responses to the Bar Argument...... …...... 48
C. Additional Authority...... …………………...... 49
Part III: Disrupting the Operation of the Court...... …...... 51
Subpart 3.1 -Refusing to Speak/Identify Oneself...... 52
A. Refusal to Identify Oneself...... ……...... 52
B. Typical Responses to Refusals to Identify...... 53
Subpart 3.2 - Silence/Filibuster...... 55
A. Party Chooses to Remain Silent or Party Chooses to "Filibuster"...……...... 55
B. Typical Responses to Silence/Filibuster...... ……...... 55
C. Additional Authority...... 56
Subpart 3.3 - Demanding "Counsel of Choice"...... …………...... 58
A. Party Requests to be Represented by a Non-Lawyer...... …..…………...... 58
B. Responding to Requests to be Represented by a Non-Lawyer..……...... 58
Subpart 3.4 - Verbal Threats Against the Court...... ……...... 60
A. Party Makes Verbal Threats Against the Court...... ……...... 60
B. Responding to Threats Made by Members of the Movement..……...... 60
Subpart 3.5-Hunger Strikes...... 62
A. Party Begins a Hunger Strike...... ……...... 62
B. Responding to a Hunger Strike...... …...... …...... 62
Subpart 3.6 - Attempts to Disqualify the Judge...... 64
A. Judicial Disqualification...... …...... 64
B. Typical Responses to Judicial Disqualification or Recusal.....……...... 65
Subpart 3.7 - Forms of Pleadings...... 67
A. Party Files "Odd" Documents/Uses Antiquated Pleading Forms.....……...... 67
B. Responding to Unusual Documents...... ……...... 68
Subpart 3.8 - Refusal to Sign Documents...... …...... 70
A. Party Refuses to Sign Documents...... …...... ……... 70
B. Responding to a Party's Refusal to Sign Documents...... …...... ……...... 70
PART IV: Tactics Outside of the Courtroom...... …...... …...... 73
Subpart 4.1 - Interactions with the Clerk...... …….……...... 74
A. Appearance at Office/Window/Counter of Court Clerk...... ……...... 74
B. Clerk Responses to Members of the Movement...... ………...…...... 75
Subpart 4.2 - Actions Against Court Personnel...... …...... …………...... 77
A. Service of Process/Personal Suits Against Court Personnel....…...….…...... 77
B. Responses to Service of Process/Personal Suits ...... …….…...... 77
C. Additional Authority...... ……..…...... 79
Subpart 4.3 -Threats Against Court Personnel...... ……...... …...... 81
A. Threats Against Court Personnel...... …...... ………...... 81
B. Clerk/Personnel Responses...... ………...... …...... 81
Subpart 4.4 - Violent Actions...... ……...... 83
A. Members of the Movement Become Violent...... ………...... 83
B. Clerk Responses...... ……...... …...... 83
Part V: Trial Court Performance Standards...... 85
Relationship Between Responses and the TCPS...... 89
Appendix A: Resource Guide...... 95
1. Legislative Responses...... 97
2. Helpful Websites...... …...... 110
3. Listserv...... …...... 111
Appendix B: Movement Sources...... …...... 113
1. Movement web pages...... …...... 115
Appendix C: Movement Documents...... 119
1. Tactics...... ………...... 121
2. Briefs/Filings...... ………...... 147
3. Movement Manifestos...... ………...... 169
4. Of Note...... ……….. 241
Preface
There is a movement afoot in this country today that is made up of disaffected and often dispossessed Americans who are seeking a better way through a wholesale return to their view of the past. This movement has been called many things: the antigovernment movement, the sovereignty movement, and the common law courts movement. Regardless of the name attached to the beliefs and the people who follow them, one common denominator exists: a feeling of despair, rooted in personal and pecuniary loss, and manifested in a new, defiant mistrust and spite for the ways of the current government. This guide focuses on the ways in which followers of these movements impact the operation of our state court systems.
While the commentators have discussed these movements from all angles -ranging from ridicule to outrage to fear - most of the mainstream pundits discount the powerful emotion that drives individuals from the fold of our everyday society and into the ranks of the modem patriots. This guide asks that our state courts not take these individuals and their problems and concerns so lightly. In 1928, Justice Brandeis said:
"Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example."[1]
The people who make up the movements that we are concerned with consistently speak out to say that our government today does not listen, it no longer serves the American people, it exists to serve its own ends. The merits of that argument are not within the purview of this guide. Rather, the authors wish to urge Justice Brandeis's warning upon those who administer our state courts. That is, while we do not advocate an ultra-sympathetic response at the expense of safety and the efficient operation of the courts, we do implore those charged with running our court system to do two things: learn the history behind the beliefs we are seeing spread across our land, and understand that these are not militia members or "Patriots" or "ultra-conservatives," but rather citizens who come before you seeking the same fair treatment that those without any label attached receive.
To that end, this guide is organized in the. following manner. Part I includes an essay that provides a historic overview of the "common law courts" movement. This essay was written by Dr. Mark Pitcavage, a widely traveled lecturer on the "militia movement" and operator of the Militia Watchdog website.
Parts II through IV include a discussion of many of the common tactics used by members of these groups - both in and against the courts - as well as typical responses to each tactic. Part V is a brief introduction to and discussion of the relationship between potential responses to the tactics and the Trial Court Performance Standards ("TCPS"). While not all courts have adopted or use the TCPS, they provide a good framework for making a broader assessment of the relative value of each potential response - because the TCPS value less tangible things as "access to justice" and "equality, fairness and integrity."
The final part of this guide contains three appendices. The first two of those, Appendix A and Appendix B, are general resource guides. These include sample state legislative responses, and links to Patriot, militia, common law courts and other antigovernment websites. Appendix C is a sampling of various "movement documents" -pleadings, essays and articles written by followers of the various movements. These stand less as a comprehensive compilation and more as a general overview - enough to introduce those who have not yet experienced dealings with the movement to the general tone and approach used.
Finally, the authors again ask the reader to consider Justice Brandeis's warning and remember that, when dealing with followers of the various movements, you are, foremost, representatives of the government they see as corrupt and they are, foremost, American citizens. The fairness and dignity with which you treat them from the outset will go a long way toward determining how they respond to you and your court.
Acknowledgements
The Anti-Government Movement Guidebook coalesced out of a grant from the State Justice Institute for the Institute for Court Management course, "The Rise of Common Law Courts in the United States: An Examination of the Movement, The Potential Impact on the Judiciary, and How the State Could Respond" (Dealing with Common Law Courts). On February 5-7, 1997, twenty-seven judges, court clerks, court administrators, and prosecutors met in Scottsdale, Arizona to learn about the so-called Common Law Court Movement (CLC), to develop responses the courts can take to deal with the CLC, and to make recommendations for establishing a curriculum for judicial educators to train judges and court officials on how to deal with CLC activities in their own jurisdictions. The course was very much a working group and sought to bring together individuals who have first-hand experience with CLC activists and who could use their experiences and insights to develop possible responses to the CLC.
Over the course of two and one half days, the participants heard a presentation on the history of the CLC, shared first-hand experiences in dealing with CLC activists, examined how the CLC disseminates its materials and ideology, heard from an investigative reporter who described his experiences attending CLC proceedings, and broke out into work groups to examine CLC-related issues and craft proposals for responding to CLC actions.
The work product of the groups was a set of recommendations and responses the courts might use to handle situations and inconveniences brought on by CLC activists better. These responses and the experience of conducting the course in Scottsdale formed the basis for the NCSC publication. Dealing with Common Law Courts: A Model Curriculum/or Judges and Court Staff: Instructor's Manual a precursor to this latest NCSC publication. The Anti-Government Guidebook.
The authors wish to thank the State Justice Institute for continued funding of the project; Hon. Roger Warren, President of the National Center for State Courts for supporting this project; and Ms. Cheryl Reynolds, State Justice Institute project monitor, for her support and helpful assistance throughout the project.
Acknowledgment is also due to the advisory committee, and especially to the ^f participants of the initial Institute for Court Management course. Dealing With Common Law Courts whose input and experiences with the common law court movement were critical to the formulation of this guidebook.
We would like to express particular gratitude to the following individuals for assisting in reviewing the guidebook and making recommendations on this project: The Hon. Louraine Arkfeld, Tempe Municipal Court, Tempe, Arizona; Ms. Colleen Danos, Court Information Resource Analyst, National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, Virginia; Mr. Rick Neidhardt, Legal Analyst, Washington State Office of the Administrator for the Courts, Olympia, Washington; Ms. Cheryl Nyberg, Law Librarian, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Williamsburg, Virginia, 1999
Part I
Common Law and Uncommon Courts:
An Overview of the
Common Law Court Movement[2]
The verdict of the county court was predictable. Caught driving without a license or proof of insurance. Sherry Scotka received a $350 fine from the Ken" County, Texas, court for each offense. But Scotka, during the stultifying summer of 1993, was anything but predictable. Acting as her own lawyer, she appealed the county court's decision, requesting that the Texas Appeals Court transfer her case to the "Common Law Court of the United States of America." Her argument? That as a "sovereign citizen" she was outside the jurisdiction of Texas law or Texas courts.
The appeals court did not look upon her request with favor, noting that she could not even show that the "Common Law Court of the United States of America" existed.[3] This was not the first time that the Court of Appeals had faced this sort of peculiar argument. From the Texas hill country had come a rash of such claims in the past several years, all from strangely similar cases: traffic violations, foreclosures, frivolous suits. Brought to court, the defendants, usually operating prose-that is, defending themselves-would demand that the case in question be removed to the "Common Law Court for the Republic of Texas." Finally, in 1992, the Appeals Court noted officially that there was no such thing. "We hold," said the court, "that the Common Law Court for the Republic of Texas, if it ever existed, has ceased to exist since February 16, 1846 "-in other words, when Texas state government was organized. It was then that the defendant changed the transfer reference in her pleading to the "Common Law Court of the United States of America," although interestingly the address on the legal documents remained the same.4transfer reference in her pleading to the "Common Law Court of the United States of America," although interestingly the address on the legal documents remained the same.[4]What the Texas appeals court was just beginning to perceive were the beginnings of a movement created by recalcitrant self-proclaimed "sovereign citizens" determined to wrest control of their lives back from all forms of government or authority. Appearing first in isolated spots in Texas and Florida, the notion of "common law courts" soon spread to Kansas and other farm states, then quickly across the nation. The "common law court movement," as it has somewhat clumsily come to be called, now exists in some form in every state in the country. In some states, activity is minimal; in others common law courts are a serious nuisance; in some, they are a plague on the judicial system.
Although featured on television shows like "20/20," common law courts did not really breach the public consciousness until the spring of 1996, when FBI agents surrounded a frigid eastern Montana farm to wait out two dozen recalcitrant tax protesters that locals dubbed "freemen." In reality, however, common law adherents had been active for years in different areas across the country. Frustrated county clerks knew of the strange filings made in their offices; puzzled policemen encountered confrontational motorists pulled over for homemade license plates; irritated lawyers discovered that bogus liens had been placed on their property by court opponents. But there was little public awareness or understanding of the movement. The media reported that Oklahoma City bombing suspect Terry Nichols had declared himself a "sovereign citizen," but treated it as a random, bizarre act by a right-wing extremist, not as an action by someone consciously part of an ideological movement.
Few people knew then that these activities were not just isolated phenomena. Fewer still, even today, understand that they are not just part of some movement, but that this movement has a much longer and more active history than most people ever suspected. The "common law court," so called, can be traced back nearly two decades as a form of right-wing social protest, with roots stretching back still farther. What common law court activists do and say today often seems strange and incomprehensible to the average person, but their deeds and words possess a coherent internal logic and are part of a very conscious overall ideology.
Understanding the origins of common law courts and why their members act the way they do will increase our understanding of them and assist in developing strategies to combat them effectively. That is the purpose of this overview.
The Posse Comitatus
The common law courts and sovereign citizens are the direct ideological descendants of the Posse Comitatus; any attempt tounderstand the common law courts must start with the this group. The Posse, though, is not necessarily an easy entity to understand. On one level, the Posse was a right-wing extremist organization with a more or less definable beginning. In 1969 a retired dry cleaner named Henry "Mike" Beach (a former member of the 1930s pro-Nazi group, the Silver Shirts) formed a group called the Sheriffs Posse Comitatus. In California, William Potter Gale started a similar organization, the United States Christian Posse Association, around the same time. From these beginnings, branches formed in other areas of the country, numbering around 80 or so by the mid-1970s. The farm crisis of the early 1980s, for reasons that will be explained below, caused membership to rise greatly, particularly in the plains states.
From the start, the Posse caused problems for local, state and federal authorities. As early as 1974, Thomas Stockheimer, head of the Posse in Wisconsin, was convicted on charges of assaulting an Internal Revenue Service agent. Indeed, the normally placid state of Wisconsin became a hotbed of Posse activity, due to leaders Stockheimer, James Wickstrom and Donald Minniecheskie. In northeastern Wisconsin, Wickstrom-who styled himself the "national director of counterinsurgency" of the Posse and liked to conduct paramilitary training-established the "Constitutional Township of Tigerton Dells," a "township" that consisted of a compound of trailers on a farm lot. From there Wickstrom waged a war against local authorities that resulted, in the mid-1980s, in the eventual destruction of the "township" and Wickstrom's arrest (one of many). In other states as well, most notably Kansas, Posse members repeatedly clashed-with resulting deaths and injuries-with local authorities.