Sovereign citizens are a loosely affiliated group of individuals with a complex, anti-government ideology. This encompasses a diverse range of conspiratorial, political, financial, legal and religious theories underpinned by one basic principle: that the law does not apply to them.

Sovereign citizens are known by various other names, including Freemen or Freewomen, Freemen-on-the-Land, Flesh-and-Blood Person, Common Law Adherent, Constitutionalist, Free Inhabitant, Natural Person, Living Soul/Being/Man/Woman and Organised Pseudo-legal Commercial Argument Litigant.

This ideology has traditionally attracted disenfranchised, middle-aged or older males facing bankruptcy, mortgage foreclosure or other financial pressures.² Today’s sovereigns are drawn from different communities and backgrounds, particularly those who are angry at banks and government regulation, as well as con artists and anyone who is attracted to the idea of easy money and a lawless existence. They are recruited by various methods, including alternative newspapers and seminars, but — as for any extremist ideology — the main vehicle for recruitment is the internet, where there is an abundance of enticing websites and social media which effectively acts as an echo chamber for grievances and radicalisation.

Sovereign citizen numbers appear to have risen during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been described as the “perfect storm” for anti-government extremism.³ Governments’ handling of the pandemic and its social and economic impacts reinforced distrust in government agencies and paranoia regarding government interference and control, challenged the validity of laws and increased online exposure to disinformation and conspiracy theories, such as “COVID is a government hoax”. Although none of these conspiracy theories has

any scientific basis, they were espoused by a range of anti-government groups and emboldened sovereign citizens in particular to emerge from relative obscurity to recruit members.

While sovereign citizens present with a variety of eccentric theories that may appear to be delusional,⁴ very few have any major mental illness, in the sense that their beliefs are widely held and reinforced by others in the sovereign citizen subculture. However, vulnerable mentally ill individuals, especially those with pre-existing paranoid disorders, can be drawn to extremist ideologies including sovereign beliefs, which may resonate with their own idiosyncratic views or appear to offer solutions to their disenfranchisement.

Sovereign citizens have their origins in the Christian Identity Movement, a white supremacist, anti-semitic group of religious fundamentalists that emerged in the USA in the late 19th century. All of the movements that have subsequently shaped sovereign citizens have arisen at times of political and economic unrest. Events such as the sieges at Ruby Ridge, Idaho in 1992,⁵ and Waco, Texas in 1993⁶ and the global financial crisis (GFC) in 2007–2008 further de-legitimised government and fostered anti-government extremism.⁷

Sovereigns in their various guises now exist predominantly in the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. The core ideological foundations of the movement have evolved over time from their racist, religious origins to a far more fluid, racially diverse, anti-government, conspiratorial ideology. Australian sovereigns sit on a theological spectrum, from religious extremists to those with no apparent religious affiliation.

Pre-pandemic estimates by law enforcement and civil watchdog groups who track extremist activity suggested there were several hundred thousand adherents in the USA. Their current numbers are likely to be higher but are difficult to quantify. In Australia, sovereign citizen activity has been reported in all jurisdictions but is more established in Western Australia, Queensland and NSW, and their numbers have expanded in Victoria since the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2023, his Honour Magistrate Mark Douglass reported that the NSW Local Court had dealt with over 300 cases in a six-month period, blowing out court lists.⁸ Sovereign citizens have also attempted to enter and influence federal politics⁹ and local government.¹⁰

There is no “typical” sovereign citizen. They are not an organised civil or criminal enterprise. They vary in their level of understanding and commitment to sovereign beliefs and some just cherry-pick certain ideas in a self-serving manner. They do not all agree on the same things, but some of the more commonly shared tenets and conventions are described below. Alternative explanations have also been documented.

While some Australian sovereigns do not identify as sovereign citizens, it is usually evident in their ideas and antics. Many have adopted the federal red ensign as their flag (or the inverted national flag; the sign of a nation in distress) which is flown on their property or at protests. Some post “No Trespass” signs on their property which are particularly directed at State agents. They typically carry sovereign-specific travel documents and inane personal identification cards and they have a predilection for filing bogus, pseudo-legal documents. Templates for these can be accessed on sovereign citizen websites.

Sovereigns can also be recognised by certain buzz words and phrases such as “Am I being detained?”, “Redemption”, “Postmaster”, “Magna Carta rights”, “I don’t fall under the jurisdiction of these laws”, “Lore, not law”, “Do you have a claim against me?”, ”I don’t consent” and “I have diplomatic immunity” (alleging they are diplomats from micro-nations with different laws). They may qualify their signature on documents with the words “Under duress” or simply “TDC” (Threats, Duress, Coercion) and some will omit or place brackets around their postcode (asserting postcodes are a contract with the corporation). Sovereign stationery and official documents may bear self-styled family crests and heraldry. They use “blood seals” and fingerprints in red ink on official documents — their highest form of identification, signifying the cancellation of the bond between the legal and the flesh-and-blood self. Some will affix postage stamps to legal documents, often emblazoned with red ink signatures, implying that the document is legally binding.

Sovereign citizens often first come to the attention of authorities through traffic infringements related to their refusal to conform to road rules, but they have also engaged in fraudulent activities such as tax evasion, credit card scams and impersonating government officials. Other offences include squatting and attempts to assume ownership of unoccupied dwellings, property damage and stalking (usually targeting government officials, both on and offline).

Sovereigns have an underlying capacity to inspire violence and their anarchist dogma and paranoid/conspiratorial mindset lower their threshold for violence. Religious extremist sovereigns may have apocalyptic views (the world is running out of time anyway) or believe that the command of God takes precedent over the laws of government.

Sovereigns in North America particularly have engaged in acts of extreme violence, including murder, bombings and terrorist acts,¹¹ which have predominantly targeted police and court officials. Germany’s sovereign citizen equivalent, the Reichsbürger Movement, plotted an armed attack to overthrow the German government in 2022.¹² While to date, Australian sovereigns have been mostly non-violent, there has been an increase in threatening rhetoric and aggression, including violent protests,¹³ arson attacks,¹⁴ attempted kidnappings¹⁵ and assaults on police.¹⁶

Sovereigns more often engage in “paper terrorism”, bombarding courts with frivolous legal actions against the State, primarily aimed at sabotaging the despised, “illegitimate” court system and intimidating their victims. They issue “fee schedules” — fines against State agents and occasionally private citizens which often involve outrageous sums of money — and file encumbrances or liens against the personal property of State agents to secure a debt the property owner supposedly owes them.

Sovereign citizens are mostly self-represented in court, or are represented by other sovereigns,¹⁷ pleading not guilty and appealing adverse judgments. They are typically belligerent, combative and disruptive, particularly when sovereign co-ideologues accompany them in court. Most understand the law but choose to reject it. They may refuse to give their name or step into the courtroom, on the grounds that this would be entering into a contract with the corporation.

They will often challenge judicial authority, claiming the judicial officer has not taken a valid oath or affirmation, and they engage in rambling declarations and inconsistent, esoteric, discredited and bizarre legal arguments that may be peppered with biblical quotes and Latin phrases if they can remember them. They may also attempt to arrest judicial officers, since they have their own “common law courts” on- or off-line, in which they try their enemies such as judges in absentia and issue fake arrest warrants served by “common law sheriffs”.

First, it is important to recognise the sovereign citizen, from their words, arguments, documents and/or behaviours, and the basis for these, however absurd. Familiarity with their arguments, preparation, patience and courtcraft strategies can reduce the spread of sovereign citizen beliefs and their harmful impacts.

If you suspect you are dealing with a sovereign citizen, whether or not they acknowledge it, you should alert other court officials and court security given their potential for aggression and disruptive conduct. Do not allow them to bring their own court reporter. If they don’t identify as sovereign citizens or freemen, don’t argue the point. Imposing labels will only aggravate them.

Consider in advance your organisational policies, your responses to their arguments and your contempt authority. While their competence may be questioned, they generally have the capacity to understand court proceedings, whether or not they accept their legitimacy.

Sovereigns will besiege you with legal jargon, as if reading from a script, which can be confronting and challenging. Try to remain calm, professional and task oriented and don’t try to comprehend the incomprehensible. Keep in mind that this is largely aimed at creating separation between themselves and you, as the “State agent”. Be mindful also of their basic premise: that neither you nor any court official has legitimate authority over them. Don’t debate or engage with nonsensical arguments. You will not change their minds, and getting caught up in their rhetoric will only escalate the situation. It is also possible that they or their colleagues will be recording you and it will be posted on social media.

Interrupt their monologues, as protracted discussion of these ideas risks legitimising them. Court cases involving sovereigns are time consuming and frustrated prosecutors may be tempted to dismiss the case, but this is viewed by sovereigns as a win and an incentive to persist in these strategies. Also, frustration with their pseudo-legal arguments has led to error and the failure to recognise legitimate legal points.¹⁸ Despite sovereign claims to the contrary, there is no known case of sovereign citizen arguments ever succeeding before a criminal or civil court.¹⁹

Provide clear and concise explanations of the relevant law and processes and be clear and precise in your rulings, as they will exploit any ambiguity.

If their statements or behaviours are not consistent with sovereign citizen beliefs, consider a mental health assessment by a forensic psychiatrist familiar with the ideology to exclude a treatable mental disorder.

Retain any pseudo-legal documents served by sovereign citizens, including fee schedules and arrest warrants, and forward these to the relevant authority, in accordance with your organisational protocols. Lawyers and notaries should not be giving any credibility to false or fictitious pseudo-legal documents that serve no legal purpose.

Don’t dismiss sovereign citizens as mere cranks. They can be threatening and occasionally violent, and may attempt to sue you, arrest you and issue liens which are costly and time-consuming to fight. It is important to consider personal protection measures, preferably before you first encounter a sovereign citizen. The best prevention strategy is to remove, as far as possible, all personal information from the public domain. This includes obtaining an unlisted phone number and post office box and ensuring all subscriptions are sent to your work or post office box address. Do not allow professional registration bodies to publish your private address and consider silent electoral enrolment. Ensure you have strict privacy settings on any social media accounts and if you own property, suppress your personal details from the land register.

Take threats seriously and seek advice. Any escalation in threats or hostility, or unwanted approaches and other intrusions, should trigger referral to court security or other action according to your organisational protocols, particularly in the presence of any of the following: a known history of violence, weapons ownership and/or access, any evidence of research (eg indicating they know your home address or your children’s school), suicidal threats and/or “last resort” or “end-of-tether” language: “I’m at my wit’s end”; “this is my only option”; “… my final chance”.

There is compelling evidence that sovereign citizen numbers are increasing, both in Australia and abroad, reflecting the current political and economic climate. These individuals engage in a range of activities from passive rejection of government authority and paper warfare, to acts of serious violence. While there is no typical profile for a sovereign citizen, they all share a sense of alienation and deep distrust of government and so-called agents of the State.

Sovereign citizens adhere, to a greater or lesser extent, to eccentric theories. While their statements are illogical, if not frankly bizarre, they are seldom delusional or have any diagnosable major mental illness. However, their ideology can attract vulnerable, mentally ill individuals. Establishing fitness to stand trial and differentiating presentations that are entirely consistent with sovereign citizen beliefs from those that suggest an underlying mental disorder may require assessment by a mental health professional conversant with this subculture. While preventative strategies are key, concerns for personal safety are an indication to seek further advice.