I agree with the copper about sovereign citizens; but he needs to pull his head in, and realise that it's his job to enforce laws, not bang on about them like a politician looking for votes. Too much notice is given to unelected public servants these days.

Sovereign Citizens are responding to their instincts.
Just as our ancestors did when they moved in to new territory.
The problem for Sovereign Citizens is that they are too few.
They cannot have a large physical defence mechanism.
They cannot move in to a territory, define its boundaries, and defend it.
Without that kind of control, they will be controlled by another system.
Perchance, the one in which they live?
So in practice, they are wasting their time.
I think it is time for them to enter the real world.
But we could view them as having a hobby which is somewhat weird?
And hobbies are acceptable, even if weird?
So unless there is proof of harmful intent, I cannot see we need worry about them too much.
Provided they comply with the law whilst propounding their odd views.
But to treat them as potentially harmful is a step too far.
The trouble is the authorities represent the majority.
And the majority rules.
Or to state it more accurately, it is the majority of the majority which rules.
So until reason points the way, we are stuck with questionable attitudes.

What else can one expect - is it surprising when an illegitimate body performs illegitimate actions?

It is in their DNA!

Sovereign citizens to me are persons that do not comply to public laws designed to protect every citizen.
We cannot have laws for some and no laws for others. We act as a democratic society. What sort of civilisation would we have if everybody was a so called sovereign citizen.
The closest thing to sovereign citizens in Australia would be Aboriginal as yet it could go back far further.

Dear Doog,

«We cannot have laws for some and no laws for others. We act as a democratic society.»

What you write about society is correct within a given society.

There is just one caveat:
You may not include in your society other people who never consented to have anything to do with you and with your society.

Counting others as if they belonged to your society without their consent, including expecting them to follow your society's laws, is a form of violence and unacceptable brutality.

Laws only apply within a given society: there are no and should be no laws governing people outside your society.

You may then be concerned about the possibility of being attacked by people outside your society that are unaccountable.

Well, if you are under attack then you still have the option of self-defence, thus if necessary you may do what it takes, even kill your attackers.

The distinction is most important, and not just semantic - the focus is on you and not on "them". YOU defend yourself, you do not attempt to fix others, you do not attempt to make them comply with your laws, you do not attempt to bring them to justice - you simply defend YOURSELF and do what is needed for that end and for that end alone.

«What sort of civilisation would we have if everybody was a so called sovereign citizen.»

"Sovereign citizen" is a misnomer - you cannot both be a citizen and a sovereign. It is like eating the cake and having it too.

Others should be able to choose freely whether or not to belong to your society and become its citizen.

«The closest thing to sovereign citizens in Australia would be Aboriginal as yet it could go back far further.»

There is no justification for allowing only aboriginals the "privilege" of choosing to belong or otherwise. EVERYONE should have that choice and have that choice respected.

Sovereign citizens essentially believe in the "Castle doctrine" (you remember the movie "The Castle") the idea that your home is your territory and no one can come into your home without your permission. It's related to the idea of private property. Some have said that the erosion of property rights has an end point of Marxist centralized property ownership. One issue with Marxist centralized ownership was brought up in books like Aristotles "Politics" and Platos "Republic". One of the problems with common ownership of property is that the property isn't respected, and property is seen to come from the magic tree of unlimited common wealth, and free loaders destroy the means of survival. The British Commonwealth was a bit different. Sovereign Citizen's seem to believe that the government (and it's institutions, such as the police) is not immune from creeping corruption and so seek to put limits on these rights, according to natural law or religious law principles. Generally local councils, states, nations have jurisdictions of control. Sovereign citizens believe that there are inalienable rights of the individual and family that constitute their jurisdiction. I don't know what is "right" but I think that Sovereign Citizens have a point. The US seems to be more patient with concepts related to sovereign citizenry such as the right to defend your own land. It interesting that even defending yourself from physical attack in Australia is under threat when those defending themselves are convicted as criminals. Now we aren't allowed even to think certain things, and the government seems to have a say over what we think. Our rights to sovereignty are shrinking fast. Australian law seems to be broken. Perhaps Sovereign Citizens are the good guys rather than the bad. Perhaps there need to be a better police protocol when going into someone elses home.