The phrase “flesh, blood and bondage” refers to a conceptual distinction often made by Sovereign Citizen (SovCit) movements, primarily in the context of legal arguments about personhood and rights. SovCits believe that there is a difference between a “living person,” which they interpret as a natural human being, and a “legal person,” which refers to entities created by law (such as corporations or governmental organizations).
In this view, SovCits argue that individuals should not be treated as legal persons under the law, which they claim can lead to a range of obligations and liabilities, including taxes and regulations. They often cite principles of common law, which historically provided a distinction between natural persons and artificial or legal entities.
Sovereign Citizens tend to assert that they can opt out of legal frameworks and obligations by maintaining a status as a “flesh and blood” individual rather than a legal entity. This leads to various legal interpretations and confrontations, particularly in tax and property law cases, where these arguments are frequently rejected by courts.
It’s important to note that the interpretations and beliefs held by SovCits have been extensively discredited in legal systems, and engaging with these ideologies can result in significant legal consequences. Courts generally recognise only legally defined entities as having rights and responsibilities under the law, and the arguments presented by SovCits have not held up in judicial contexts. To date, there have been no case relying on sovereign citizenship arguments won in an Australian court.
The attacks on our police linked to ideologies and beliefs held by some SovCits:
Recently, there has been several attacks on our police from a few individuals from the Sovereign Citizens. As a retired police officer, I have found the incidents very unsettling. Below is a summary of my research about this aspect:
There are several studies and theoretical frameworks that explore the relationship between authoritarianism and violence, including violence against police. While the findings can vary based on context and specific circumstances, some key points include:
- Authoritarianism and Public Perception : Research indicates that authoritarian governments may foster environments where citizens feel disenfranchised or fearful of state power. This can lead to resentment and opposition against law enforcement, particularly if police are seen as instruments of government oppression.
- Social Movements and Resistance : Studies on social movements suggest that perceptions of an authoritarian regime may lead to increased mobilisation against the state, including acts of violence against police. For instance, in countries with high levels of state repression, there tends to be an increase in protests and, in some cases, violent confrontations with law enforcement.
- Survey Research : Some surveys have found correlations between citizens’ support for authoritarian measures and their willingness to resist or confront police authority. For example, individuals who see the government as illegitimate or oppressive may feel justified in confronting police forces during protests or civil disobedience actions.
- Case Studies : Historical case studies, such as those relating to civil unrest in authoritarian regimes, indicate that oppressive policing tactics can provoke violent responses. In these contexts, when people feel they have no legitimate means to express dissent, they may resort to violence against those in authority, including police.
- Psychological Theories : Psychological research suggests that individuals who feel threatened by authoritarian policies may react defensively, leading to aggression. This can manifest as hostility toward police, particularly when law enforcement is seen as complicit in enforcing unjust laws.
While these studies and theories provide insights into the complex relationships between authoritarianism and police violence, it’s essential to consider the specific social, political, and historical context when evaluating these dynamics. The findings are not universally applicable and can differ significantly based on local conditions, police practices, and community-police relationships.
Reference List
- Blaine, T. J. (2017). Authoritarianism and Public Resistance: The Role of State Repression in Violent Protests . Journal of Conflict Resolution, 61(4), 734-756. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002716658178
- Gurr, T. R. (1970). Why Men Rebel . Princeton University Press.
- Kalyvas, S. N. (2006). The Logic of Violence in Civil War . Cambridge University Press.
- Lichbach, M. I. (1987). Deterring the Challenge to State Authority: Protest, Violence, and the State . Journal of Conflict Resolution, 31(3), 402-433. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002787031003007
- Marx, G. T. (1999). Nothing Is Private: Surveillance and the Human Condition . The American Sociologist, 30(1), 34-51.
- Meyer, D. S., & Staggenborg, S. (1996). Movements, Countermovements, and the Structure of Political Opportunities . American Sociological Review, 51(5), 162-185. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096291
- O’Brien, K. J., & Li, L. (2006). Rightful Resistance in China . Cambridge University Press.
- Tilly, C. (2004). Social Movements, 1768–2004 . Paradigm Publishers.
- Walsh, D. (2012). The Effects of Authoritarianism on Police-Civilian Relations: A Comparative Study . Police Quarterly, 15(3), 267-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611112454399
- Wood, E. J. (2003). The Ethical Challenges of Civilian Resistance to State Violence . Social Movement Studies, 2(2), 147-158. https://doi.org/10.1080/1474283032000127526
So what can be done?
In Australia, as in many countries, there have been ongoing debates about the balance between maintaining public safety, protecting individual rights, and ensuring government accountability.
- Public Perception of Authority : Some individuals may perceive government actions—such as increased surveillance, strict law enforcement measures, or controversial legislation—as authoritarian. This perception can lead to distrust in law enforcement and government institutions, potentially increasing tensions and conflicts.
- Response to Social Issues : Government policies addressing issues like public health, crime, and social unrest can be seen as heavy-handed if not communicated transparently. Programs or initiatives perceived as infringing on civil liberties may provoke public backlash, leading to hostility toward police officers who are viewed as enforcers of these measures.
- Increased Tensions : If segments of the population feel oppressed or unfairly targeted, it can create an environment where tensions rise. This may manifest in violence toward police officers, especially if individuals believe their rights are being violated.
- Legislative Developments : Recent laws or policies aimed at crime prevention, public safety, or protest regulation can evoke fears of authoritarianism. For example, measures taken during public health crises may leave some citizens feeling overly restricted, which can contribute to incidents of civil disobedience or aggression toward law enforcement.
- Community Relations : Building positive relations between community members and police can mitigate potential violence. Programs that encourage open dialogue and community policing can counteract feelings of animosity and foster mutual respect.
In summary, while some may argue that actions perceived as authoritarian can lead to increased violence against police, it’s essential to consider the broader societal context, including historical relations, community dynamics, and ongoing national dialogues regarding civil rights and social justice. Promoting trust and transparency in police-community relationships can be key to reducing tensions.
Mind Experiment:
During my time as an operational police officer, I often felt compelled to include background information in court briefs to present a more balanced perspective on the law. While the spirit of the law should take precedence over its technicalities—especially regarding firearm legislation—it’s crucial to acknowledge the broader context. The legacy of events like the Port Arthur tragedy has shaped our understanding of responsible firearm ownership and has led to the growth of shooting sports today. Furthermore, there are numerous legitimate reasons for firearm ownership. It is unjust to stereotype all members of a Group based on the actions of a few irrational individuals. On the basis of that “spirit of the law” philosophy, the following is my court antecedents to the Magistrate.
Court Antecedents for the Defense Based on Honest Belief in Sovereignty and Connection to the Land
Case Summary: The defendant stands accused of minor crimes which are rooted in their belief as a “flesh and blood” individual with a profound connection to the land, operating under the premise of sovereignty rather than within the confines of legal personhood as defined by contemporary legal frameworks. The defense posits that the defendant acted from an honest and mistaken belief that their understanding of common law would prevail, given their interpretation of their natural rights.
Context of Sovereign Belief: The belief system of the Sovereign Citizen (SovCit) movement—while extensively discredited within legal contexts—centers on the distinction between natural persons and legal entities. The defendant identifies as a living human being, asserting that this identity liberates them from obligations imposed by statutory law. This perspective, though not legally tenable, reflects a deeply ingrained belief in personal sovereignty and autonomy over one’s connection to the land and natural rights.
Honest Belief and Motivation: The defendant’s actions should be understood within this framework of honest belief. It is crucial to recognize that the notion of “flesh and blood” identity represents more than a legal argument; it embodies a worldview where the individual believes their rights stem from inherent human existence rather than from governmental structures. The defendant genuinely perceives that their connection to the land provides them with a sovereign status, governed by common law principles rather than statutory laws they do not recognize as legitimate.
Historical Precedents and Psychological Perspectives: Research has indicated that individuals who feel disenfranchised or oppressed by state authority—such as police—may perceive their circumstances as necessitating acts of resistance. There are links between authoritarian governance and public perception that may incite individuals to confront or resist police authority, especially when they believe their rights are compromised. Such resistance does not always arise from inherent violent tendencies but can stem from a perceived necessity to defend one’s rights and autonomy.
Conclusion: In light of these points, we contend that the defendant’s belief system shaped their understanding of their actions. Their non-compliance and perceived defiance against the law are rooted in an honest, albeit mistaken, belief that they operate under a sovereign framework distinct from the legal definitions imposed by the state. Rather than seeking to incite violence or disrupt social order, the defendant’s conduct arises from a sincere commitment to personal autonomy and a desire to maintain their perceived sovereignty.
The defense respectfully requests the Court to consider these antecedents, recognizing the significant psychological and socio-political context in which the defendant’s actions were situated, and to approach the matter with compassion and understanding of their beliefs, rather than solely through the lens of legal accountability.