Claire Holland and Pascale Taplin

Conspiracy theories and disinformation impact upon legal practice, and have the potential to cause conflict between parties who have different views on legal rights and personal interests. The term “disinformation” is appropriate to describe conspiracy theories because the actors who amplify conspiracy theories often deploy false information strategically, and with an intent to disrupt legal proceedings or conflict resolution processes. This blog will highlight insights into the nature and impact of Sovereign Citizen narratives and the importance of research informed approaches for legal and conflict resolution practitioners to engage with individuals holding such narratives.

The Sovereign Citizen Superconspiracy

The Sovereign Citizen conspiracy theory holds that government and legal institutions are illegitimate, and that an individual can declare themself sovereign (Berger, 2016).  Conspiracy theories are often adopted and adapted, or ‘localised’ for best fit. In defining Sovereign Citizen conspiracy beliefs Taplin, Holland & Billing (2023) suggest the term ‘superconspiracy’ is helpful as a term that describes how several conspiracies or beliefs can be interrelated into a metanarrative. When individuals share or repeat certain conspiracy theory beliefs, those beliefs can form an individualised narrative that may be adopted into an individual’s identity (Taplin & Holland, 2023). In a recent article published in The Journal of Information Warfare, Taplin and Holland (2023) suggest that,

In order to be considered in research, Sovereign Citizen rhetoric must be defined and distinguished as a discrete social phenomenon. Definitional clarity in relation to “Sovereign Citizens” as a group of people is difficult or impossible to achieve because many people influenced by Sovereign Citizen rhetoric do not subscribe to a consistent set of related beliefs (Vargen & Challacombe 2023). Nor do they always self-identify as holding something in common with others influenced by the same rhetoric. Because they do not constitute a definable group, Sovereign Citizen rhetoric (rather than Sovereign Citizens) is used here. ‘Rhetoric’ is preferred to other commonly used terms such as ‘movement’ or ideology because the disinformation amplified in Sovereign Citizen rhetoric is designed to make an argument— specifically, to delegitimise government and laws.

The question of when and how to counter the influence of Sovereign Citizen narratives is a vexed issue in Australia, where the right to freedom of expression and the right to protest are valued elements of the democratic system. Taplin and Holland (2023) suggest that this right to freedom of expression can be leveraged by individuals or groups and is often used to justify the amplification of Sovereign Citizen disinformation that is spread between individuals and groups (Campion, Ferrill & Milligan, 2021). Research that will assist policy makers, legal and conflict resolution practitioners, and security agencies in articulating the harms caused by Sovereign Citizen rhetoric and to inform the design of effective and strategic policy responses is therefore extremely important.

Sovereign Citizen rhetoric in Australia can be traced to well-documented Sovereign Citizen narratives in the United States (Taplin, Holland & Billing 2023). In the United States, Sovereign Citizen rhetoric emerged from problematic Christian Identity, Patriot, and anti-tax movements and gained momentum in the 1970s (Hodge 2019).

Taplin, Holland & Billings (2023) suggest that Sovereign Citizen rhetoric is diverse, but identifiable by key themes and tropes, including;

1. that government, laws, and institutions of national and global governance are illegitimate;
2. that government and courts are in fact controlled by a group of conspirators who are hostile to the interests and freedom of all other people;
3. that these conspirators take action to trick people into relinquishing their freedom by coercing them to comply with illegitimate laws or regulations; and,
4. that a person can escape this control by doing or saying certain things, including acting illegally.

Risks of the spread of Sovereign Citizen rhetoric

Sovereign Citizen rhetoric has the potential to be weaponised because it triggers an audience based on identity and then narrates an imminent threat to that identity. Sovereign Citizen rhetoric targets Western audiences’ narratives of hyper-individualised personal identity. Central to Sovereign Citizen rhetoric is the primacy of individual freedom as a basic right. Individual freedom is seen as a supreme right. For this reason, people influenced by Sovereign Citizen rhetoric may hold beliefs surrounding a ‘personalised sovereignty’. From the perspective of a Sovereign Citizen, the regulation of his or her behavior by laws of the State (for example, a requirement to pay taxes), constitutes a crime against him or her personally (Taplin and Holland, 2023).  In this way Sovereign Citizen rhetoric manipulates meaning-making narratives by conflating, problematising, and manipulating concepts of personal autonomy, sovereignty, and justice. In this newly narrated reality, the threat becomes any regulation or control, by laws or government, that represses “personal sovereignty”.

The risk to vulnerable audiences is that Sovereign Citizen narratives, which may be spread through social media and popular platforms of information sharing within target audiences, can create problematic ingroup and outgroup divides (Taplin, 2023). Sovereign Citizen rhetoric has the potential to influence individual behaviour by manipulating meaning-making and suggesting law abiding citizens have an uniformed view of the world and legal actions of the State are personal affronts to individual freedom.

What is the best way to engage with individuals who believe in conspiracy theories?

Further research is required for how best to engage with Sovereign Citizen rhetoric, with particular attention paid to the safety of all participants in the conversation and with an understanding of the enduring nature of conflicts to an individual’s core identity. Research has been conducted into the best ways to rebut science denialism (Rutjens & Veckalov, 2022; Schmid & Betsch, 2019). Testing conversational approaches and communication responses to other conspiracy theory contexts is an important future focus. There is increasing attention in the media of interactions between self-declared Sovereign Citizens and members of the Australian Police Force. Subsequent legal proceedings and interactions between Sovereign Citizens and the court system has highlighted numerous challenges in how Sovereign Citizens interact with the court and accept (or not) legal outcomes (see for example State of New South Wales v Kiskonen (Preliminary) [2021] NSWSC 915).

Grant Lester (2005), Consultant Psychiatrist at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health, described the pathology of vexatious litigants and suggested guidelines for judicial officers to manage difficult complainants (summarised and further discussed in a paper deliver to the Queensland Magistrates’ State Conference in 2022 by Judge Glen Cash), which could be applied to Sovereign Citizens:

1. ‘First do no harm.’ The aim should be containment of the issues. This would entail not trying to change a Sovereign Citizen’s mind about ‘the system’ (including about the injustice of the legal system), but minimizing harm to proceedings by redirecting focus to the matter at hand.
2. Be prepared Sovereign Citizen litigants are typically volatile, feel victimised, and seek vindication. Be prepared by providing information about Sovereign Citizen narratives and typical modus operandi.
3. Adherence to rules and procedures will assist in the aim of containment.
4. Ensure formality. This might differ in practitioner’s preferences for running conflict resolution processes.
5. Be fair. Litigants may appear hyper-competent, but they are in truth overwhelmed by the court process. Cash J’s point reminds us to maintain empathy and patience in explaining process and procedure. This becomes particularly important when confronted with uncomfortable worldmaking narratives that position the practitioner as either villainous or a victim. Maintaining focus on the matter at hand is imperative
6. Maintain focus. Keep the discussion on track.
7. Silence is golden. Silence can be the best and only way to allow a person to speak their piece in a process before moving onto a more relevant topic. This approach has benefits but also risks. At times allowing a person to speak in full also provides other attendees a better opportunity to assess the broader narrative and all its implications. But silence also may have costs and risks, where a Sovereign Citizen confuses other participants (particularly where they appear “hyper-competent”). Determining when and how to best to use silence can only be made in-situ, and judgement of appropriate interventions improves with practice. Responding professionally and adhering to established procedures assists in building trust in process, organizations, and staff.   
8. Set boundaries and time limits. As practitioners we cannot always “control the limits” as suggested by Cash, but we can set parameters while facilitating processes and discussions. When discussion gets off-track we can confidently ask process participants to remain focused on the matter at hand.
9. Keep a thick skin and do not personalise the encounter. This one may be difficult in some circumstances – in one case in Canada a Sovereign Citizen threatened to behead the Judge in accordance with her understanding of the law under the MAGNA-CARTA! Cash’s advice not to allow an encounter to become personalized is key. Personalizing accusations of villainy is a common ‘tactic’ of Sovereign Citizens, who may accuse practitioners of all manner of terrible things. Conflict resolution and legal practitioners deserve a safe workplace, and there is no argument for normalization or acceptance of abusive behaviour. That said, improving one’s understanding of the Sovereign Citizen worldmaking narrative allows practitioners to understand the context of this behaviour, and might inform a sophisticated response that avoids further personalisation.

These suggestions could be further tested into frameworks for officers of the State and individuals who will potentially engage with Sovereign Citizens. Engagement with Sovereign Citizen rhetoric calls for education on citizen responsibilities and understanding that you cannot ‘opt out’ of the legal system in which you exist. However, the problematic views of many self-identified Sovereign Citizens that has led some to engage in behaviour that undermines the democratic and legal foundations of our country are clearly a rising concern. This is a topical area ripe for further research.