"Sovereign Citizens" and Government's Monopoly on Crime

Police close in on Jerry and Joseph Kane, May 20, 2012

Robert Paudert refers to May 20, 2010 – the day his son Brandon was killed -- as the “worst day of my life, ever.” Given that losing a child is the worst thing that can happen to a parent, Paudert isn’t exaggerating.  

Brandon Paudert was an officer in the West Memphis, Arkansas Police Department. At the time Brandon was killed, Robert was the town’s police chief; Brandon’s partner, Officer Bill Evans, was his cousin. 

Until about 11:00 a.m. on that fatal day, Officers Paudert and Evans, who were assigned to the narcotics interdiction team, had maintained surveillance on what they considered to be a “suspicious” rental truck. It turned out that the vehicle wasn’t being used to ferry narcotics; it was filled with household possessions belonging to a pleasant grandmother who was probably puzzled by the unwanted attention she had received from the local police.

Chief Paudert, who had been called to the scene, chided his son and his nephew and told them to “get off their butts and back on the interstate,” where they had a better chance of finding a vehicle carrying contraband – or perhaps a sizeable amount of cash that could be seized and “forfeited.” Crittenden County, where West Memphis is located, has become notorious for this officially sanctioned variety of highway robbery. 

Brandon Paudert (l.), Bill Evans.

A few minutes after hitting the highway, Evans spied a white minivan with unusual license plates and conducted a traffic stop. He called Brandon to back him up as he went to interrogate the driver, 45-year-old Jerry Kane. Within a few minutes a scuffle ensued, and Kane shoved the officer into a ditch. 

Jerry Kane was not a drug smuggler. As an adherent of a loosely organized movement referred to as “sovereign citizens,” he insisted on exercising his freedom to travel without obtaining government licenses, permits, and similar bureaucratic impedimenta. A former long-haul trucker, Kane traveled the country in a minivan organizing seminars in which he taught dubious methods of avoiding foreclosure. 

Shortly before the fatal encounter in West Memphis, Kane had been arrested – and fined $1,500 – for driving without a license in New Mexico. His money was dissipating even as trouble with law enforcement continued to accumulate.

When the traffic stop degenerated into a shoving match, Kane’s 16-year-old son, Joseph, emerged from the minivan armed with an AK-47. Evans reached for his sidearm, but before he could draw he was shot several times. Taking cover behind his vehicle, Brandon got off several shots before he, too, was fatally wounded. Roughly two hours later, the Kanes were killed in a shootout with police that took place in a Walmart parking lot. 

The funeral for Brandon Paudert and Bill Evans was attended by hundreds of police officers from several states. “I hope that no parent has to suffer through what we’ve been through,” Chief Paudert commented a few weeks after that sorrowful observance. 

There is nothing worse than the death of a child, and every parent who has experienced such an unfathomable loss is entitled to sympathy. It’s worth pointing out that there is no record of Chief Paudert extending condolences to Debra Farrow, the mother of 12-year-old DeAunta Farrow, who was murdered by one of the officers in his employ. 

DeAunta Farrow, who was unarmed and was not a criminal suspect, was fatally shot on June 22, 2007 by West Memphis Police Officer Erik Sammis. The twelve-year-old was walking home from a convenience store at about 9:30 PM with his 14-year-old cousin, Unseld Nance. 

Sammis, who was commander of the Special Response Team (the West Memphis equivalent of a SWAT team), had staked out the neighborhood. He and Officer Jimmy Ellis were parked in a dark gray, unmarked pickup truck. They were wearing gray shirts, camouflage pants, and black bulletproof vests. They did not wear badges or other police insignia visible from the front.

As the two boys entered an apartment building, one of the officers saw what he thought was a gun in the waistband of Farrow’s pants. In fact it was a plastic toy. The officers came boiling out of the truck, ordering the kids to hit the ground. According to Nance, neither Sammis nor Ellis identified himself as a police officer. Nance also insisted that Farrow, whose hands were raised and whose toy gun remained in his waistband, “was fixing to get on the ground when they shot.”

Within seconds of screaming at DeAunta to hit the ground, Sammis fired two shots. 

DeAunta Farrow, shortly before he was killed.

 “It’s a toy gun,” the fatally wounded youngster told Sammis as he bled to death.

Nance was taken into custody and interviewed the same evening by the Arkansas State Police. Sammis, who sought shelter in the protection of the “Garrity” rule – which dictates that disclosures made by a police officer can only be used for departmental investigations, rather than criminal prosecution – didn’t speak for the record about the incident until a month later. 

Roughly five months after DeAunta Farrow was killed, a special prosecutor announced that there was “insufficient evidence” to charge Sammis with a crime. Debra Farrow filed a wrongful death lawsuit that was immediately challenged on the grounds of “qualified immunity” – the incantation deployed by police and prosecutors to shield themselves from the consequences of culpable misconduct. 

In a 2009 ruling, the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, observed that “the officers approached Farrow and Nance without identifying themselves as police officers … the toy gun was tucked in Farrow’s pants throughout the entire confrontation … Sammis only said to drop the gun and get to the ground, and … Farrow may have raised his hand or hands while trying to get to the ground before Sammis shot him twice without warning.”

Since those facts “could establish the excessive use of force,” the court concluded, it would be improper to grant the officers’ request for a summary judgment on the basis of “qualified immunity.” In April 2011, a federal jury in Jonesboro, Arkansas found in favor of Sammis and Ellis, accepting their claim that the summary execution of an unarmed, cooperative 12-year-old who was not a criminal suspect was, in some sense, “reasonable.” 

Erik Sammis's Facebook Profile Photo.

 Sammis, it should be pointed out, was responsible for training other members of the West Memphis PD in the use of deadly force. Chief Paudert described his work in that role as “outstanding.”

 

“It’s tragic, but in my mind, it’s not wrong,” Sammis had told investigators during his belated debriefing in July 2007. “I did what I had to do to survive and protect my partner. I feel confident that any officer in the same position would have done the same thing I did.” 

Here’s an important question: If Sammis was justified in gunning down a terrified, unarmed, compliant 12-year-old, why was it morally wrong for Joseph Kane to shoot an armed police officer who was perceived as threatening his father?

It might be said that the late Jerry Kane was a con artist, and that his previous run-ins with various law enforcement agencies suggested criminal tendencies. Whatever could be said about the merits of Kane’s seminars, there is no evidence that he was a thief. Driving without government-assigned “privileges” may be unwise – as Kane’s experiences demonstrate – but this can’t be described as a “crime” in any rational sense of the word. 

Sammis, by way of contrast, had a lengthy history of violent misconduct, including behavior that can honestly be described as criminal. 

Before finding employment in West Memphis, Sammis was a “gypsy cop” with a predictably troubled record. He had been reprimanded – and then fired – by the North Little Rock PD for making “untruthful statements.” After a short stint in Gould, Sammis was hired by the West Memphis PD. His background investigation noted that Sammis, who was notoriously untruthful and had problems with his temper, would need careful “supervision.” 

In 1998, Sammis unleashed an attack dog on a non-violent suspect. Witnesses described the attack as sadistic and unprovoked. The victim required 75 stitches, and the city government discontinued use of K-9 “officers” because of the episode. A year later, Sammis was suspended for a day without pay after insisting on wearing his “battle dress uniform” rather than a conventional patrol uniform. A few months later he was investigated for “abuse of authority” following a “confrontation” with security guards at a Pilot Truck Stop.

At the time of the shooting, Sammis was facing at least two lawsuits for abusive conduct, one of them growing out of an incident in which he was part of a police wolf-pack that beat and handcuffed a man named Tim Howard. After Howard was restrained, Sammis – according to witnesses – grabbed Howard by the hair and unloaded a canister of pepper spray directly into his face. When Howard’s mother pleaded with Sammis to stop, the officer slugged the 48-year-old woman in the face, and then assaulted Howard’s father as well. Eventually the lawsuit was settled out of court. 

Sammis resigned from the West Memphis PD in December 2007, weeks after the special prosecutor had announced that no charges would be filed against him. 

“The FBI/DOJ investigation, the Arkansas State Police investigation, the independent prosecutor investigation, and the WMPD internal investigation have all cleared me in this tragic event,” Sammis wrote in his resignation letter. “I am leaving this department knowing that I did the right thing.”

The “right thing,” according to the officials who reviewed the incident, was to shoot and kill an unarmed 12-year-old boy who was not a criminal suspect and posed no threat to anybody. 

As a representative of the State’s coercive caste, Sammis had an unqualified right to kill DeAunta Farrow, and the child had an unambiguous duty to die. The child’s killer is not required to express remorse. The grieving mother isn’t even entitled to official sympathy from the Police Chief who hired that killer, insulated him from accountability, praised his performance, promoted him, and extolled him as a role model to others on the force. 

The only substantive “reform” to occur because of the killing of DeAunta Farrow was a municipal ordinance banning the possession of toy guns.

Owing to the fact that DeAunta Farrow was black, and Sammis is white, the child’s shooting was exploited by Al Sharpton and similar figures in the Indignation Industry’s race-baiting affiliate. One “civil rights” group was conspicuous by its absence: The so-called Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the lucrative quasi-private secret police agency founded by the degenerate fraud named Morris Dees. 

Verna Mae Farrow at her grandson's memorial service.

The DeAunta Farrow case – the murder, by an abusive white cop, of a poor black child -- would appear to be perfectly tailored for a “civil rights” group focusing on issues of poverty and racial injustice. This is especially true in light of the fact that in the years prior to DeAunta’s murder, the West Memphis PD had been hit with a half-dozen lawsuits alleging civil rights violations, and had lost five of them. 

Obviously, West Memphis was a target-rich environment for the SPLC. Yet the group didn’t pay any attention to the town until after Officers Paudert and Evans were killed in an encounter with “sovereign citizens” – that is, political dissidents of a kind who figure prominently in the SPLC-defined official demonology. 

In December 2007, the West Memphis City Council passed a resolution calling on Bob Paudert to resign, along with Officers Sammis and Ellis.

“Why should I resign?” responded Chief Paudert. “I haven’t done anything wrong.”

When Paudert finally resigned in 2011, he treated it as a personal triumph that he hadn’t been “run out of town” by his critics – including, one assumes, the mother of DeAunta Farrow. He was immediately hired by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, a division of the same “Justice” Department that found no “civil rights violation” in Erik Sammis’s killing of DeAunta Farrow. He has become an SPLC-promoted evangelist, touring the country to “make sure others who wear the badge don’t get murdered by a group of domestic terrorists,” in the words of a news account. 

“We as law enforcement officers must recognize this very real threat, so we can protect ourselves,” Paudert said in an SPLC propaganda video. He insists that “sovereign citizens” should be regarded as a pervasive threat to officer safety. This refrain is joined by the SPLC and the FBI, who – by way of demonstrating the “deadly threat” posed by the estimated 300,000 members of the “sovereign citizens” -- point out that eight police officers have died in encounters with people regarded as “sovereign citizens” since 2000. 

Although police agencies diligently record the death of every officer, there is no comparable tally of “the precise number of people killed by the police, and the number of times police use excessive force,” noted Fox Butterfield of the New York Times about a decade ago. An abortive effort was made in the mid-1980s to collect and publish that data, but was quickly discontinued because “the figures were very embarrassing to a lot of police departments,” observed James Fyfe, a professor of criminal justice at Temple University. 

The SPLC describes “sovereign citizens” as people who believe that they alone “get to decide which laws to obey and which to ignore.” Some people thrown into that category have circulated worthless financial instruments; others conduct business in a “peculiar dialect” that is deliberately opaque and understood only by a small, self-selected population. 

If that description were considered accurate, it would be difficult to distinguish the behavior of “sovereign citizens” from that of the exalted personages who call themselves the “government.” Such people take refuge in arcane language to justify law-breaking, including the routine practice of monumental financial fraud involving the public treasury. 

The SPLC accuses “sovereign citizens” of emitting “verbal fog” as a way to distract attention from their schemes. One wonders if anybody with that organization has ever been exposed to the artful gibberish that dribbles down the chin of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke every time he makes a public effort to justify the activities of his criminal cartel. 

The West Memphis "Special Response Team."

The SPLC depicts “sovereigns” as lawless people who are primed to kill and utterly remorseless in dealing with those they regard as enemies. If this is the case they’re guilty of mimicking the government they despise. 

Disinterested application of the SPLC’s definition would lead us to conclude that Barack Obama is the most dangerous “sovereign citizen” on the planet, given his assertion of the power to imprison or kill anybody on the face of the earth. The SPLC’s zeal for the sanctity of the law, and its compassion for “people of color,” didn’t inspire the organization to protest the presidentially ordered murder of 16-year-old Yemeni-American  Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was killed by a CIA-operated drone.  

Decades ago, the immortal Albert Jay Nock pointed out that a public functionary who calls himself an “official” will routinely acts that any objective, moral observer would describe as crimes. Such a person can do such things “without any sense of responsibility, or discomfort, simply because [he acts] as an official and not as a man.” In this fashion, “once could commit almost any kind of crime without getting in trouble with one’s conscience” – or with the public, once it has been properly indoctrinated regarding the mystical concept called “authority.”

 

“Sovereign citizens” supposedly believe that acts of force and fraud are transmuted into justice when accompanied with the proper conjurations. How would that differ, in principle, from the behavior of the governing “officials” on whose behalf the SPLC labors? If "officials" can commit acts of aggressive violence, on what moral basis do we condemn similar behavior on the part of private individuals who declare themselves "Sovereign" as well?

When a “Sovereign” kills a police officer, the SPLC – speaking on behalf of the entire police state apparatus – commands us to mourn and rend our garments. When Officer Erik Sammis guns down a 12-year-old African-American, or Barack Obama slaughters an Yemeni-American teenager with a drone-fired missile, the SPLC maintains a reverent silence in the face of what it must regard as the sacramental exercise of the government’s transcendent authority – while it quietly adds names to its ever-expanding roster of dissidents and heretics.

Dum spiro, pugno!

If This is "Christian Patriotism"....

 Bob Revere is the Mayor of Mount Columbus, a one-stoplight town in the Rocky Mountains. As a young man, Bob fought in the Vietnam War. He was proud to see his only son, Tom, enlist in the Army, but ambivalent when the 20-year-old was sent to fight overseas. Those misgivings were amplified by the fact that Tom was newly married, and his wife Kari was expecting the couple’s first child.

Just weeks before Tom’s first combat tour was to end, the Revere family (which by that time included Kari and the newborn grandchild, Christian) was visited by a U.S. Army Notification Team. This is how Kari learned that she was a widow. Driven by grief from her hometown, Kari relocates to California to raise Christian as a single mother.

Fourteen years later, Kari and Christian return to Mount Columbus.  The young man is understandably determined to learn why he had never known his father.

“What did my Dad die for, Bob?” Christian asks his grandfather.

“That’s what happens in war,” is Bob’s quietly evasive reply.

“No – I mean why did he die?” Christian persists.

That question leads Bob Revere to ponder the perverse inversion of nature described by Herodotus: “In peace, sons bury their fathers; in war, fathers bury their sons.”  Why is it, as he comments to a friend, that young men and women are dying overseas, yet “our rights are being taken away, one by one”? He concludes that the country he loves is descending into tyranny because “we’re letting it happen.”

This epiphany motivates Bob to take an inventory of his convictions. He had often pondered the irony that the freedoms he once enjoyed are evaporating despite “the sacrifices of those who fight for our country.” Now he understands why James Madison described war as the most dreadful of all enemies of liberty, and warned that “no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

Most importantly to him, Bob suddenly understands that the reflexive jingoism of many American Christians brings disrepute to the faith they profess, and the Name of the Lord they revere.

“Have you ever noticed that the mere mention of ‘Jesus’ nowadays seems to rub people the wrong way?” Bob muses to a friend. “Well, I’m very tired of not standing up for what I believe in.”

“I had been a coward – passive, and even selfish,” Bob reflects. “I had kept thinking about my son. Now is the time to honor his sacrifice.”

The most appropriate way to honor Tom, Bob decides, is to become a peacemaker. He commits to living the Golden Rule both as a private individual and, as Mayor of Mount Columbus, in his public capacity. Those who follow Jesus of Nazareth cannot commit or condone aggressive violence. 

For the first time, Bob understands that it is obscene for American Christians to send their sons overseas to kill people who have never harmed or threatened us in any way. He begins to speak out in opposition to Washington’s wars abroad and its escalating assault on what remains of liberty at home. 

Invoking the ancient Christian principle of sanctuary, and the Jeffersonian principle of interposition, Bob announces that Mount Columbus will be a refuge for members of the U.S. military who, for reasons of conscience, refuse to participate in criminal aggression overseas. He also makes it clear that his municipal government – including its police department -- will not cooperate with the enforcement of the USA PATRIOT Act, the “indefinite detention” provisions of the NDAA, or any of the myriad enactments through which the regime in Washington is making war on the American people. 

Predictably, this attracts the attention of the media, and provokes severe official reprisals. Bob is fired by the City Council. The charity mission his family runs is shut down by the health department for contrived and patently bogus reasons. After making an impassioned public speech from the roof of his shuttered mission, Tom is led away in handcuffs and spends Christmas in jail. 

Bob Revere is the central character in the new film “Last Ounce of Courage.”

 The foregoing quotes attributed to Bob were taken directly from the film, in which the character takes what we’re told is a heroic stand against the secularization of Christmas. 

Although the character did end up in jail, it was for actions quite different than those described in the narrative above. Rather than repudiating the Warfare State, the character of Bob Revere unabashedly embraced it -- while promoting facile acts of public piety that did nothing to advance the substance of the Christian faith.

We’re invited to believe that a small-town mayor who sets up a huge Christmas tree in the town square, and puts a large cross inscribed with the phrase “Jesus Saves” on a rescue mission that he owns, would provoke a national scandal and wind up disgraced, thrown out of office, and behind bars. 

Much of the film is a melodramatic riff on the “War on Christmas” theme promoted by Fox News blatherskite Bill O’Reilly (who has a cameo). It’s true there are people associated with the puritanical Left who would love to use the power of the State to extirpate Christmas celebrations – just as their counterparts on the statist Right would make such observances mandatory. 

In the universe we inhabit, however, there is no way that a mayor who behaved as Bob Revere did in the film would have the kind of trouble he experienced. That kind of treatment, however, would quickly befall a mayor who acted on his Christian faith by confronting the Warfare State. In fact, as a recent essay in Small Wars Journal illustrates, the Pentagon is preparing mount a full-spectrum military onslaught against any municipality that rebels against the imperial Capital. A real-life Bob Revere who became a genuine Christian statesman would quickly be designated an “unlawful enemy combatant” and murdered by way of a drone strike. 

If the producers of “Last Ounce of Courage” had been interested in creating an authentic drama, rather than a risible work of militarist agitprop, they could have told the story of Rev. Clarence Waldron, a theologically conservative Christian whose real-life sufferings were at once similar to, and much worse than, those experienced by the fictional Mayor Bob Revere. 

In October 1917, the execrable Woodrow Wilson, had managed to maneuver the U.S. into World War I, commanded churches across the nation to commemorate an event called “Liberty Loan Sunday,” during which collection plates would be circulated to gather a war offering on behalf of the government.

At the time, Waldron was pastor of the First Baptist Church in Windsor, Vermont. Like many other theologically conservative Protestants, Waldron was devoutly opposed to American involvement in the European war. 

To his eternal credit, Waldron defied Wilson’s demand that he decorate the sanctuary of his church in the imperial colors and sing the “Star-Spangled Banner.” Rather than offering a homily on the supposed virtues of state-licensed murder, Waldron preached the Christian gospel. The offering taken in his congregation was used to provide for the ministry and the needs of the poor. 

The consequences for Waldron’s peaceful non-cooperation were swift, predictable, and severe. 

As Vermont historian Mark Bushnell relates, following the service a mob swarmed Waldron in front of the church and forced him to swaddle himself in the flag and sing the National Anthem.

Shortly thereafter, Waldron was evicted from his position as pastor, in large measure because of suspicions regarding his "loyalty" to the "god" revered by adherents of the Social Gospel -- the American State.

In December 1917, Waldron – who had never committed a crime against anybody -- was indicted by a federal grand jury for violating the Espionage Act. Passed the previous June, that measure imposed prison terms of up to 20 years for any act or statement perceived as willfully obstructing "the recruiting or enlistment service of the U.S."

The specification against Waldron was that "he had once been heard to say 'to hell with patriotism.'" As Waldron admitted on the stand, he had uttered those words -- in condemnation of Kaiser Wilhelm's regime in Germany.

"If this is patriotism," a disgusted Waldron had told his acquaintances after describing Wilhelmine Germany, "to hell with patriotism."

Waldron was convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison, eventually serving a little more than a year behind bars. Of the roughly 1,000 Americans convicted under the World War I Espionage and Sedition Acts, Waldron was the first to be imprisoned exclusively for his religious beliefs.

Veritas Entertainment Company, which produced “Last Ounce of Courage,” describes itself as committed to the promotion of “Family, Faith, and Freedom.” Wouldn’t a production company claiming that high and noble calling be interested in dramatizing the official persecution of Rev. Waldron? Probably not, given that Veritas – like the Megachurch-centered variant of Protestantism that produced it – is devoted to evangelizing on behalf of the Warfare State. 

In the April 26, 1917 issue of Christian Century – published shortly after war was declared on Germany – contained the following lines composed by William P. Merrill that encapsulate the bellicose nationalism of “Progressive Christianity”: 

The strength of the State we'll lavish on more, than making of wealth and making of war; We are learning at last, though the lesson comes late, That the making of man is the task of the State.

“Last Ounce of Courage” is advertised as a Christian film. In fact, it promotes a variety of pagan nationalism similar to that peddled by Kaiser Wilhelm’s government. To understand this cynical bait-and-switch, it’s useful to examine the film’s final act.

Bob’s grandson, Christian, and several other high school-age students decide to sabotage the secularized Winter Play, a genuinely bizarre opus involving a visitation by space aliens. Without informing their drama teacher – whose elongated sibilants and fey manner make him a stereotype worthy of “The Producers” – the students stage an unauthorized dramatization of the Christmas Story from the Book of Luke.

After the rebellious students recite the familiar Christmas benediction “Peace on earth, good will to men,” Christian strides onto the stage and introduces the last video postcard his father had sent from Iraq, which is projected on a large screen. 

“The people over here can’t even celebrate Christmas,” Tom insists by way of explaining why he had left his wife and son to wage war on the other side of the globe. (No mention is made, naturally, of the role played by the U.S. Government in fomenting the persecution of Christians in the Middle East.) As Tom attests that his mission has been worth the suffering he and his family endured, he is killed on camera by an artillery strike.

After Christian brings out a United States flag, the same audience that had greeted the Nativity play with mild amusement and sedate enthusiasm rose to its feet in tribute to his father’s sacrifice. 

This moment, which plays like a communion service, encapsulates the moral message of the film: The “true” meaning of Christmas is found not in Christ’s promise of redemption from sin, but in the supposedly redemptive violence carried out by the armed emissaries of the Imperial State. Permanent war is our natural condition; killing and dying on behalf of the State is the highest and holiest calling.

“Last Ounce of Courage” is targeted at Republican-aligned Evangelicals who insist that Islam is a doctrine of warfare disguised as a religion. On the evidence of this film one would be led to believe that this description applies to Christianity. The film could be considered a photographic negative of “Joyeux Noel,” the exquisite French film depicting the 1914 Christmas Truce. Its core audience – assuming it finds one – would be the kind of pious, church-going militarists who booed Ron Paul’s invocation of the Golden Rule during last January’s Republican presidential debate in South Carolina. 

To paraphrase Rev. Waldron: If this is Christian patriotism, to hell with it. 

Note: This is a re-edited and clarified version of the original essay.

Dum spiro, pugno!