6
This article was downloaded by: [Florida State University] On: 08 October 2014, At: 07:28 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK International Journal of Forensic Mental Health Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ufmh20 The Sovereign Citizen Movement and Fitness to Stand Trial Jennifer Pytyck a & Gary A. Chaimowitz b c a Department of Psychiatry , University of Toronto , Toronto , Ontario , Canada b Forensic Service , St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton , Hamilton , Ontario , Canada c Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences , McMaster University , Hamilton , Ontario , Canada Published online: 23 May 2013. To cite this article: Jennifer Pytyck & Gary A. Chaimowitz (2013) The Sovereign Citizen Movement and Fitness to Stand Trial, International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 12:2, 149-153, DOI: 10.1080/14999013.2013.796329 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2013.796329 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Sovereign Citizen Movement and Fitness to Stand Trial

  • Upload
    gary-a

  • View
    278

  • Download
    15

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: The Sovereign Citizen Movement and Fitness to Stand Trial

This article was downloaded by: [Florida State University]On: 08 October 2014, At: 07:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Forensic Mental HealthPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ufmh20

The Sovereign Citizen Movement and Fitness to StandTrialJennifer Pytyck a & Gary A. Chaimowitz b ca Department of Psychiatry , University of Toronto , Toronto , Ontario , Canadab Forensic Service , St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton , Hamilton , Ontario , Canadac Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences , McMaster University ,Hamilton , Ontario , CanadaPublished online: 23 May 2013.

To cite this article: Jennifer Pytyck & Gary A. Chaimowitz (2013) The Sovereign Citizen Movement and Fitness to Stand Trial,International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 12:2, 149-153, DOI: 10.1080/14999013.2013.796329

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2013.796329

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: The Sovereign Citizen Movement and Fitness to Stand Trial

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH, 12: 149–153, 2013Copyright C© International Association of Forensic Mental Health ServicesISSN: 1499-9013 print / 1932-9903 onlineDOI: 10.1080/14999013.2013.796329

The Sovereign Citizen Movement and Fitnessto Stand Trial

Jennifer PytyckDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Gary A. ChaimowitzForensic Service, St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and Department of Psychiatry

and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

A sociopolitical movement with strong American roots has been making inroads to Canada, aswell as other major jurisdictions around the globe. The Sovereign Citizen movement supportsa number of unusual beliefs that may be mistaken for psychotic symptomatology. Theseindividuals present with many features which may appear psychotic in nature, including bizarreand paranoid beliefs as well as unusual speech and behavior. Despite this compelling psychoticmimicry, it is the authors’ opinion that the majority are not truly psychotic. Timely recognitionand accurate assessment of Sovereign Citizen patients is crucial in order to minimize harm inthe form of unnecessary treatment and hospitalization, as well as delays in court proceedingsincurred by questions such as whether they are Unfit to Stand Trial. This paper providesa descriptive profile of distinguishing features which may be observed when assessing aSovereign Citizen patient, with an emphasis on clinical presentation, diagnostic challenges,and management-related issues.

Keywords: “Sovereign Citizens,” fitness to stand trial, competency to stand trial, Freemanon the Land

A bizarre sociopolitical movement with strong Americanroots has spread to Canada, as well as other countries withsimilar British colonial roots, including Britain, Australia,and New Zealand (Anti-Defamation League, 2010). The riseand spread of this movement may have broad implications forthe practice of medicine, particularly psychiatry, in these ju-risdictions. Known as “Sovereign Citizens” or “Freemen onthe Land,” these anti-government extremists espouse a num-ber of unusual beliefs, the most pronounced of which is theirconviction that no individual can be governed without theirexplicit consent. They drive without insurance, registration ora license. They refuse to pay taxes. When confronted by po-lice officers, they refuse to identify themselves, resist arrest,and exhibit stereotyped and bizarre speech of a pseudo-legalnature.

The “Sovereign Citizens” represent a well-establishedanti-government movement in the United States (Anti-

Address correspondence to Jennifer Pytyck, MD, 1001 Queen StreetWest, Unit 3-4, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M6J 1H4. E-mail: [email protected]

Defamation League, 2010). In addition, they appear to havegained a substantial foothold in Canada (CBC News, 2012),with several recent court decisions rendered high-lightingthe particular strategies employed by individuals attempt-ing to apply Sovereign Citizen-related techniques to bothcriminal and civil proceedings (Meads v. Meads, 2012; R. v.Duncan, 2013). Recent reports have also suggested inter-national spread to other large jurisdictions which are basedon analogous legal systems, including the United Kingdom(Benchmark, Judiciary of England and Wales, 2012), Aus-tralia, and New Zealand (Anti-Defamation League, 2010).Sovereign Citizens express a number of seemingly bizarreand paranoid beliefs in several domains and thus may ap-pear acutely delusional. As the movement continues to gainpopularity in Canada and elsewhere, increased numbers ofits followers will likely present to the attention of physi-cians, particularly but not necessarily only in the domain ofpsychiatry.

While the Sovereign Citizen movement has been receivingincreased media attention over the past year, they remainunreported in the medical literature. They present with many

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

28 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 3: The Sovereign Citizen Movement and Fitness to Stand Trial

150 PYTYCK AND CHAIMOWITZ

features which may appear psychotic in nature, includingbizarre and paranoid beliefs as well as unusual speech andbehavior. However, despite this deceptive psychotic mimicry,the vast majority are not truly psychotic.

We briefly review the cultural origin and history of the“Sovereign Citizen” movement. We describe two recent casesof “Sovereign Citizen” patients encountered in the contextof court-ordered Forensic Psychiatry assessments in Canada.We provide a descriptive profile of distinguishing featureswhich may be observed, in our experience, when assessinga “Sovereign Citizen” patient, with an emphasis on clinicalpresentation, diagnostic challenges, and management-relatedissues.

CULTURAL ORIGIN AND HISTORY

“Sovereign Citizens” have existed in the United States in var-ious incarnations for many decades (Southern Poverty LawCenter, 1998). In brief, the Sovereign Citizen movement isbelieved to have found its original roots within the ChristianIdentity or Christian Patriot movement, a religiously-basedgroup which, held strong views on a variety of topics, includ-ing the supremacy of the Caucasian race. In 1970, a strongproponent of this group, William Gale, combined tenets ofthe Christian Patriot ideology with those of the growing anti-tax movement to create a vigilante group called the “PosseComitatus,” or “power of the county.” In essence, the PosseComitatus denied the authority of the reigning system ofgovernment, established their own “common-law” courts,elected their own officials, and declared themselves indepen-dent citizens.

The strength of the movement waxed and waned overthe course of the ensuing decades, tending to find increasedmembership during times of financial difficulty. Currently,the popularity of this movement has led to resurgence inthe United States, possibly propelled by the recent economicrecession. While the number of practicing Sovereign Citizensin the United States is unknown, estimates place them in therange of 300,000 members (Southern Poverty Law Center,2010). They have been manifesting more frequently to lawenforcement officials, occasionally in the context of violentacts, which have led them to be identified as a domesticterrorism threat by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI;Counter-terrorism Analysis Unit, 2011). Once entering thelegal system, they may be referred to psychiatry due to thebizarre nature of their beliefs, speech, and behavior. Theability to recognize “Sovereign Citizen” beliefs in patientspresenting for psychiatric assessment is crucial in order toappropriately identify, assess and manage these individuals.

CASE STUDIES

We describe two cases of “Sovereign Citizens” referred bythe court to Forensic Psychiatry services for assessment of

their Fitness to Stand Trial. This project was approved by thelocal Institutional Review Board.

Case Study #1

Patient A, a 47-year-old male, was referred for evaluationof his Fitness to Stand Trial after being arrested, releasedon bail, and then reincarcerated for Failure to Appear incourt. He had no previous criminal record. He had originallybeen arrested for refusing to submit to a breathalyzer testafter being found asleep in an idling car. Upon arrest, he re-fused to identify himself to police. In court, he demonstratedmarkedly uncooperative behavior, informing the Judge: “youhave no jurisdiction over me.” He refused to cross the bar inthe courtroom and repeatedly attempted to enter his birthcertificate as key evidence.

Upon initial assessment, this man presented as agitated,anxious, and disorganized. He made numerous odd state-ments with a paranoid overtone, stating “the Judge is entic-ing me to accept indentured servitude,” and indicating thathe had been “kidnapped under protest, threat, and duress.”There was a recurrent pseudo-legal connotation to his utter-ances, and many of his statements initially appeared to bepsychotic co-optations of established legal terminology.

This patient was given a provisional diagnosis of Psy-chosis Not Otherwise Specified (Psychosis NOS), likely aDelusional Disorder, and was admitted to the Forensic Psy-chiatry Unit on a Treatment Order. The patient refused tosupply contact information to gather collateral information.However, previous records indicated he had been seen brieflyin the outpatient psychiatry clinic several years previous withparanoid ideation related to occurrences in his workplace.The provisional diagnosis at that time was a Delusional Dis-order. He had no other history of psychiatric contacts. Hewas medically well and taking no medications. There was nohistory of substance abuse, save for occasional alcohol use.

While an inpatient, repeated interviews eventually led toelucidation of Patient A’s belief system, particularly its sharednature with many other individuals. The identification of thispatient as a member of the Sovereign Citizen movement per-mitted rapid clarification of the seemingly bizarre nature ofhis utterances. He continued to perseverate about the impor-tance of the birth certificate and the need for this to be enteredas formal evidence in his trial. He voiced numerous paranoidideas related to the court, feeling they had deliberately pre-vented him from obtaining his preferred lawyer. He alludedto conspiratorial beliefs that the hospital was colluding withthe courts in order to prolong his case and permit the courtauthorities more time to “cover up their mistakes.”

He was treated with oral antipsychotic medications inthe form of Risperidone M-tabs up to a daily amount of5 mg. This medication had minimal impact in dissipatinghis distorted and paranoid beliefs, although his thought formappeared more organized and he appeared to be experienc-ing less subjective distress. Indeed, he presented on the unit

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

28 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 4: The Sovereign Citizen Movement and Fitness to Stand Trial

THE SOVEREIGN CITIZEN MOVEMENT 151

as confident, entitled, grandiose, and narcissistic. Ward staffperceived him as highly intelligent and rational, until he wasprompted to discuss his numerous paranoid beliefs whichranged far outside the purview of the Sovereign Citizen ide-ology to encompass many other common beliefs of a con-spiratorial or paranoid nature (i.e., “conspiracy theories”).He also described a strong interest in numerology, as wellas homeopathic and natural medicine. He admitted to a longpreceding history of social isolation and solitary pursuit ofarcane knowledge.

While Patient A did not abandon his strongly held para-noid and referential beliefs with respect to the court and le-gal systems, he eventually became more willing to cooperatewith the team and to participate explicitly in the assessmentof his Fitness to Stand Trial. He admitted that his previousrefusal to participate explicitly was entirely volitional. It be-came clear that, while he might not choose to address his legalmatter in the expected fashion, this was not due to a lack ofunderstanding of the court proceedings. He was returned tocourt and released on bail.

Case Study #2

A 50-year-old woman, Patient B, who had no previous psy-chiatric history, was referred for assessment of her Fitnessto Stand Trial. Similar to Patient A, she had no previouscriminal record. She had also been arrested and charged withoffenses related to failure to comply with various proceduralregulations, having been pulled over by police due to invalidregistration of her vehicle. She was then found to be drivingwithout insurance or a driver’s license. Patient B refused toidentify herself and resisted arrest. Once brought to jail, shedeclined to be searched; her prolonged refusal resulted in herremaining in the admitting area for three days’ time beforethey finally waived the procedure.

The police transcript of Patient B’s arrest indicates that shemade several utterances implying her adherence to SovereignCitizen beliefs, stating “I refuse to provide my identity, undercommon-law I don’t have to.” Due to her bizarre and unco-operative behavior, Patient B was referred for psychiatricassessment.

As part of the referral, photocopies of handwritten notesby Patient B were provided. These notes were exemplaryof the dense and bizarre legal diction commonly found inSovereign Citizen communique. A sample excerpt is as fol-lows (initials are used in place of given names):

“GOOD FAITH NOTICE”“PB” of the C-Family, Creditor of This Record-Public In ThisMatter At Hand for and in This Public Record”“I, “PB” of the C-family as the Creditor in this Instant-matter-at-hand petition (as a child of The Almighty God, Jehovah –who is my witness, with his son, Jesus Christ the ReigningKing in Heaven and Advocate pertaining to this Instant-matter-at-hand . . . The Living Woman, All Rights Reserved,“PB” of the C-Family.

When assessed by the Fitness Team, Patient B indicatedthat she would “not comply with this procedure.” She refusedto answer any questions pertaining directly to the court sys-tem. However, she did voluntarily discuss a number of othertopics, including her beliefs and her recent experiences. Itbecame clear that she shared a number of beliefs with Pa-tient A which are considered typical of the Sovereign Citizenmovement, including the belief that it is one’s right to optout of the rules and regulations of conventional society. Shereferred to herself as the “Executrix, creditor and grantor ofthe Estate,” i.e., the Estate of her own name. She alluded tothe significance of the birth certificate, stating “we are allsold into slavery.”

Similar to Patient A, Patient B’s utterances held a paranoidundertone. She referred to “labyrinths of fraud” which shehad discovered through her “investigations” of the mortgagecrisis. She believed her son had been murdered by police asa result of these inquiries and that she herself was in danger.

While Patient B refused to participate explicitly in theassessment, it was felt that she had indirectly demonstratedher ability to meet the minimum cognitive requirements to beFit to Stand Trial, as well as giving no indication of sufferingfrom a mental disorder which would render her Unfit.

DISCUSSION

Clinical Presentation and Identifying Features

Sovereign Citizen patients are most likely to present to psy-chiatric services, primarily in the context of court-orderedForensic assessments. The inherent nature of the SovereignCitizen belief system leads these individuals to collide fre-quently with the legal system, often in the context of minorcharges involving failure to comply with various regulationsand protocols. Upon arrest, the unusual and idiosyncraticspeech and behavior of these individuals may lead themto be identified as psychotic. They may continue to refuseto cooperate with legal proceedings such as body searchesor fingerprinting. They are likely to conduct themselves incourt in an unexpected fashion, uttering bizarre phrases of apseudo-legal nature, refusing to cross certain physical bound-aries and repeatedly attempting to enter their birth certificateas an exhibit of pivotal importance (explained below). Theymay inundate the court with copious handwritten paperwork,containing bizarre and obfuscatory diction, rife with appro-priated legal terminology. Repetitive or stereotypic elementsin the use of this language emerge with multiple contacts,evidencing the formulaic nature of the Sovereign Citizenlexicon.

Beliefs

The crux of the Sovereign Citizen belief system is the con-viction that they are able to withdraw their consent to be gov-erned, repudiate their identity as a conventional citizen and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

28 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 5: The Sovereign Citizen Movement and Fitness to Stand Trial

152 PYTYCK AND CHAIMOWITZ

thus reclaim their sovereign rights (Southern Poverty LawCenter, 2010). If they do so successfully, they believe, theywill remove themselves from the authority or “jurisdiction”of the courts and police. They may reclaim their indepen-dent status explicitly and formally; for example, by writing acarefully worded letter to government officials revoking theirnational citizenship. Alternatively, they may simply adopt thebehavior of a Sovereign Citizen, without making an officialdeclaration of such status.

Aside from the libertarian connotations of the sovereigncitizen belief system, there is an inherent conspiratorial orparanoid aspect. Sovereign citizens believe that governmentofficials, as well as members of society’s regulatory bod-ies and systems, are fully aware that they are infringing onthe rights of the populace by deliberately concealing theirability to withdraw their consent to be governed. Further-more, American Sovereign Citizens believe the current sys-tem of law in the United States is utterly illegitimate, hav-ing been, through decades of faulty amendments, insidiouslysubverted by corrupt government officials in flagrant viola-tion of the original Constitution (Anti-Defamation League,2010). Given this overarching illegitimacy, Sovereign Citi-zens believe that they are not obligated to follow the dictatesof the current governmental system. Rather, they considerthemselves bound to follow only the precepts of “common-law” or “God’s Law,” which they believed formed the originalbasis for the original, legitimate government system.

Perhaps the most bizarre component of the Sovereign Cit-izen belief system relates to their conceptualization of thesignificance of the birth certificate. Sovereign Citizens as-sert that, at some point in the United States’ history, pos-sibly when the Gold Standard was abandoned in 1933, thegovernment began backing the value of the American dol-lar using its citizenry as collateral (Southern Poverty LawCenter, 2011). At that time, the government began issuingbirth certificates as external representations of the collateralvalue of each individual’s projected lifetime earning capa-bilities. Thus, the birth certificate became, in effect, a “trustaccount” or “bond” representing each individual’s monetaryvalue. Sovereign Citizens believe that each of these “trust ac-counts” is initially funded at birth with a set amount varyingbetween $600,000 and $20 million. The funds within thesebirth certificate bonds are then traded by the government onthe international bond exchange, unbeknownst to the individ-uals whose labor is pledged as collateral for the bonds’ value.Thus, Sovereign Citizens believe, the populace is unwittinglyenslaved for life to the State.

However, the Sovereign Citizens believe they can use thisvery principle for their own benefit, through an act called“redemption” in which they divide themselves from the cor-porate “straw man” created in their name by the State at theirbirth. By redeeming themselves from their “straw man,” theybelieve they can harness the funds within their birth certificatetrust account for their own personal use. For example, theycan discharge their debts and financial obligations, including

rent, credit card debt and mortgage payments, to the State, bydirecting them to disburse the funds from their secret birthcertificate accounts. They will often attempt to do so in courtby submitting a copy of their birth certificate inscribed withthe words “Accepted for Value.”

Speech

Sovereign citizens rely heavily on the use of stereotyped andscripted language in order to evade what they perceive as de-liberate attempts to confuse their flesh-and-blood selves withtheir corporate entities or “strawmen.” If they use the pre-cisely correct assortment of words at each appropriate junc-ture, they believe, they will be able to avoid prosecution forcrimes, as well as to discharge their debts and obligations tothe government. Thus, the bizarre content and syntax of theirspeech and written documents may, beyond all other features,implicate them as suffering from a psychotic disorder.

“Delusion” vs. “Extreme Belief”?

The above-described body of Sovereign Citizen beliefs, uponinitial appraisal, may well appear to be purely delusional innature and quality given their essentially persecutory basis,as well as the frank bizarreness of their breadth, depth, andbehavioral expression. Yet, they are shared among many in-dividuals and thus, within their own narrow social context,may be considered culturally-normative. Previous attemptshave been made to develop a systematic approach to thedelineation and differentiation of extreme beliefs, such asreligious and faith-based beliefs, from delusions. While norigorous and unequivocal system has been (or likely can be)developed, some principles for a general approach to mak-ing such a distinction have been suggested (Golding, 2007;Pierre, 2001). Strategies include the consideration of otherdimensional elements with respect to the quality and natureof the beliefs themselves, including the level of convictionwith which they are held, the degree to which they are pre-occupying the believer, and their extent (Pierre, 2001). It hasalso been suggested that the presence or absence of otherassociated features may be helpful indicators; for example,the presence or absence of a prodromal phase, concomitantdeterioration in social or occupational functioning, and sub-jective distress due to the beliefs (Golding, 2007).

Using the above principles to guide our analysis in thecase of patient A, we remark upon the absence of a prodro-mal period, as well as the relative preservation of social andoccupational functioning (that is, relative within the contextof his recent legal difficulties). While the patient’s degree ofpreoccupation with his beliefs was quite substantial at thetime of assessment, this had likely been amplified by theirsalience in the context of his immediate legal situation. Hisdegree of conviction was strong, but not absolute. The beliefsthemselves appeared to be entirely egosyntonic for PatientA and, indeed, a highly treasured and guarded source of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

28 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 6: The Sovereign Citizen Movement and Fitness to Stand Trial

THE SOVEREIGN CITIZEN MOVEMENT 153

individualistic pride and self-appraised superiority over hisless-enlightened peers.

In the case of patient B, due to the limited nature of oursingle clinical contact with this individual, relatively lessinformation was available to inform a similar analysis. How-ever, there was no clear evidence of a prodromal period andshe had, in fact, managed to develop and sustain a career as anartist and literary figure of some modest international repute.There was clear evidence of her preoccupation with her be-lief system, as evidenced by her copious writings. However,as with Patient A, it appeared likely that her recent legal diffi-culties had served to greatly amplify the immediate salienceof her beliefs.

Indeed, in the case of those with Sovereign Citizen–likebeliefs, assessment within a forensic psychiatry context isitself likely to represent a substantial confounder, in thatmany individuals may appear episodically more preoccupiedwith their legally-focused beliefs due to immediate situa-tional factors. Indices such as pre-arrest social and occupa-tional functioning, baseline level of preoccupation, and theegosyntonic or egodystonic nature of their beliefs may serveas more useful indicators in assessing whether an individualwith Sovereign Citizen–like beliefs has strayed beyond mereextremist beliefs towards the frankly delusional end of thespectrum.

CONCLUSIONS

Members of the Sovereign Citizen movement hold a numberof seemingly-bizarre but, within their own group, culturally-sanctioned beliefs. As their membership in Canada as well asother analogous jurisdictions worldwide increases, they willpresent a mounting challenge to the courts and legal systemin general in terms of their management. Concomitantly,they are likely to provoke a growing number of psychiatricconsultations, particularly court-ordered fitness assessments,prompted by the grossly bizarre speech and behavior whichthey typically exhibit in the court setting.

Sovereign Citizens, both self-identified as well as thosewith Sovereign Citizen–like beliefs, present unique chal-lenges with respect to psychiatric assessment, diagnosis, andmanagement. It is the authors’ contention that the major-ity will prove to be neither psychotic nor Unfit to StandTrial. Their beliefs may appear delusional in nature, but areshared within and sanctioned by a large group. Furthermore,when defining the purview of the term “mental disorder,”the DSM-IV-TR itself specifically excludes deviant behaviorof a political nature, as well as conflicts that are primarilybetween the individual and society (American PsychiatricAssociation, 2000). As discussed above, general principles

outlined by previous authors (Golding, 2007; Pierre, 2001)may be of assistance in gauging whether a particular individ-ual with Sovereign Citizen–like beliefs has crossed over fromthe realm of extreme but subculturally-normative beliefs tothat of true delusionality.

The case of Sovereign Citizens can be viewed as a fas-cinating example of psychotic mimicry, which clearly il-lustrates the importance of exploring the sociological andcultural context of an individual’s beliefs before concludingthat they suffer from a psychotic disorder. The majority ofthese persons are not likely to respond to antipsychotic med-ication, nor will they benefit from court-mandated hospital-ization. Thus, timely recognition and accurate assessment ofSovereign Citizen patients is crucial in order to minimizeharm in the form of unnecessary treatment and hospital-ization, as well as delays in court proceedings incurred byquestions such as whether they are Unfit to Stand Trial.

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical man-ual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington DC: Author.

Anti-Defamation League. (2010). The lawless ones: The resurgence of theSovereign Citizen movement. August 9, 2010. Available at http://www.adl.org/learn/sovereign movement/sovereign citizens movement report.pdf. Accessed June 26, 2012.

CBC News. (Feb. 29, 2012). Freemen movement captures Canadian po-lice attention, Available at: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/02/29/freeman-movement-canada.html. Accessed April 5, 2013.

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Counterterrorism Analysis Unit (2011).Sovereign Citizens a growing domestic threat to law enforcement.FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. September. Available at http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/september-2011/sovereign-citizens. Accessed June 26, 2012.

Golding, J. (2007). Evaluations of adult adjudicative competency. In R.Jackson (Ed.), Learning forensic assessment (pp. 75–108). New York,NY: International Perspectives on Forensic Mental Health.

Judiciary of England and Wales. (2012). Nonsense or loophole? Benchmark,57, 18–19.

Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571.Pierre, J. M. (2001). Faith or delusion? At the cross-roads of religion and

psychosis. Journal of Psychiatric Practice, 7(3), 163–172.R. v. Duncan, 2013 ONCJ 160.Southern Poverty Law Center. (1998). Roots of Common Law: An interview

with an expert on the Posse Comitatus. Intelligence Report. Issue 90.Available at http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/1998/spring/roots-of-common-law. Accessed June 26,2012.

Southern Poverty Law Center. (2010). “Sovereign” Citizen Kane. Intel-ligence Report. Issue 139. Available at http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/fall. Accessed June26, 2012.

Southern Poverty Law Center. (2011). Violent and Dangerous: America’sSovereign Citizens Movement. Available at http://www.opposingviews.com/i/violent-and-dangerous-america-s-sovereign-citizens-movement. Ac-cessed June 26, 2012.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

28 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014