How can I declare independence from the United States and start my own micro nation?

Question

How can I take back my sovereignty from the American government and start my own micro nation?

I've read about starting a foreign company with my name in all caps but I want a lawyer's answer.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. — Dale M, Sep 30 '19 at 00:42

score 54 · Answer 1 · edited Apr 13 '17 at 13:00

54

You are courting seduction by the sovereign citizen doctrine. This is a crackpot legal theory that will get you nowhere. Run away as fast as you can.

See, for example, Can a natural US person hold citizenship while remaining non-juridical?.

See also "Mercedes-Benz Financial (DCFS Canada Corp.) v. Kovacevic, 2009", CanLII. This person fared particularly poorly because his argument relied in part on the UCC, which is a United States model code, but he was arguing in a Canadian court.

Still, even in a US court, he would have lost. See What are "freemen of the land" or "sovereign citizen" theories and do they hold any water?.

edited Apr 13 '17 at 13:00

Community

1

answered Nov 04 '16 at 22:40

phoog

37,212
5
79
127

1

Not following the sovereign citizen movement. I've received none of my data from them and didn't even know about them till this post. – Gabriel Connor Nelson Nov 05 '16 at 01:30
38

@GabrielConnorNelson but the ideas you're asking about have the unmistakable hallmarks: the idea that spelling your name in all caps would have any legal effect, and the idea that you can somehow reclaim your presumed sovereignty. Ask yourself this of the data you've received: can you find any credible evidence anywhere that anyone has ever used these maneuvers successfully? – phoog Nov 05 '16 at 03:47
4

The third reference in your answer read like a thrilling spy-novel. Every word was riveting. My only criticism is that the ending was a cliffhanger with no resolution! Now I'm dying to know how it ended! – Alexanne Senger Nov 05 '16 at 13:59
@phoog - I am NOT a "freeman on the land", but I have personally used a varient of the "exchange for value" technique in a district court in NZ as an experiment on an amount of about US$1000 owed to the court for court costs - and to date - more then 6 years later, without paying, and having interacted occassionally with the court, and I know the court did not loose the docs, court collections has confirmed I do not owe anything - and I never paid a dime - so yes, there is the smallest slither of truth to be found here. (almost all of the theory is bunk though - I relied on statute) – davidgo Nov 05 '16 at 19:04
8

@Mowzer The next chapter in the story is: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2009/2009canlii9423/2009canlii9423.html – Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight Nov 05 '16 at 20:12
@DanNeely: Wow! Thank you! What a good story and an excellent read! That's probably the best thing I've read in months. Lots of ups and downs. Twists and turns. And finally a very satisfying ending. Very fair and just IMHO. I had so many favorite passages. But I think the most humorous was: He stated that he wanted this matter to go peacefully away and he wanted to repair his relationship with his wife. Cudos to Justice Brown. Just amazing. – Alexanne Senger Nov 05 '16 at 21:13
@Mowzer I thought it was rather anti-climatic. Sovereign citizens generally ride the stupid train all the way to being dragged into prison my the cops after failing to surrender and then resume digging a deeper hole for themselves after release. This guy seems to've kept out of trouble for the last 7 years. – Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight Nov 05 '16 at 22:03
Another related Canadian case that goes into great detail about the case law regarding these kinds of arguments: http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html – Ross Ridge Nov 06 '16 at 08:47
Also relevant is the US revenue FAQ about these legal theories: https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-introduction – Paul Johnson Nov 06 '16 at 16:20
1

@Paul Johnson the guy in Nevada gives 'foreign ad' for the amount of taxes he would owe each year. – Gabriel Connor Nelson Nov 07 '16 at 13:40
@phoog I think you mean "sedition", not "seduction" (which is something else). – The Spooniest Nov 07 '16 at 19:03
12

@TheSpooniest I know what sedition is, and I meant seduction. I obviously didn't mean it in the sexual sense. I mean that the rhetoric is seducing the OP into a belief that he is somehow able to free himself from the jurisdiction of the US. – phoog Nov 07 '16 at 19:05
@TheSpooniest while materials advocating use of the sovereign citizen doctrine might be seen as seditious, I think sovereign citizens are generally peaceful enough that this view wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. Also their general lack of credibility tends to make a charge of sedition somewhat incongruous. – phoog Nov 07 '16 at 19:23
3

By the way, there are a very small number of cases where "sovereign citizens" prevailed in the judicial system, generally because the State made some error or decided to drop an issue in the interest of justice. But it's important to understand that none of the long list of crazy legal arguments that they make has ever prevailed in a court of law and they are frequently sanctioned for making frivolous arguments. (Link goes to "tax protestor" arguments, but there's a lot of overlap and the merits are comparable.) – David Schwartz Nov 07 '16 at 19:56

Alexanne Senger · Answer 2 · 2016-11-08T02:12:57.643

43

Unfortunately for you, as long as you remain physically inside the borders of the United States you will be subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States and whatever other state, county, city or town (each with its own separate body of law) you are also located at the time. (FYI: This multi-level jurisdictional framework is called federalism and is rooted in the founding of the United States and the creation of the U.S. Constitution).

I think your best option is to explore the possibility of renouncing your American citizenship and explore relocating to somewhere like the Pitcairn Islands (in the South Pacific). Last I read, they were giving away free land in an effort to populate the island. There are only about 50 people living there so you might be able to work out a deal.

Taken from their website:

http://www.government.pn

With a population of only around fifty, the people of Pitcairn are descended from the mutineers of HMAV Bounty and their Tahitian companions. Pitcairn Island is approximately 3.2km (2 miles) long and 1.6km (1 mile) wide with the capital Adamstown located above Bounty Bay and accessed by the aptly named road, "The Hill of Difficulty".

They are apparently still a British Colony and, therefore, subject to British Law. But there is a United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization that might be helpful in obtaining independence.

FYI, the tale of the mutiny of the Bounty has been retold countless times and offers an intriguing and unique backstory to the origin and founding of the nation of Pitcairn.

Wikipedia

edited Nov 08 '16 at 02:12

answered Nov 05 '16 at 14:22

Alexanne Senger

9,866
2
29
60

I read somewhere or other that an American millionaire once tried to buy (from the British Crown) the sovereignty of an uninhabited islet near Pitcairn, and was rebuffed. – Anton Sherwood Nov 05 '16 at 23:10
1

@chell: and the county? ;) – user189035 Nov 06 '16 at 09:58
7

Given that Pitcairn's legal system recently affirmed that it is subject to British oversight I highly doubt that any attempt to set up a micronation there these days would get you very far. – Periata Breatta Nov 07 '16 at 15:05
1

@PeriataBreatta: The article you cite notes the U.K. has never formally claimed the Pitcairn Islands. It is conceivable that an individual could offer the Pitcairn government sufficient value (e.g., a small population of new arrivals (particularly female), plus, say, earth moving equipment, construction skills and labor) to induce the Pitcairn government to sell a piece of the Island, however (arbitrarily) small, and recognize that sold piece as an independent nation. If the U.K. never disputes the sale, the purchaser could, indeed, have a new micronation. Or at least a claim of one. – Alexanne Senger Nov 08 '16 at 00:02
In the wake of the presidential election, Forbes has published an article with a fairly good overview of the process of renouncing US citizenship: http://www.forbes.com/sites/binghamjamison/2016/11/10/contemplating-renouncing-your-u-s-citizenship-to-avoid-a-donald-trump-presidency-not-so-fast/#8f1ec6a3e384 – phoog Nov 10 '16 at 16:31
@Mowzer Note that one of the men convicted in that trial (Steven Christian) effectively was the Pitcairn government at the date of the trial. If the Pitcairn government had the power to make such an offer, he would also have had power to grant himself immunity from prosecution. It was decided that he didn't, and hence therefore presumably could not also grant the same to anyone else. – Periata Breatta Nov 11 '16 at 03:45
@PeriataBreatta: All due respect. But I have not discussed anything about immunity from prosecution. – Alexanne Senger Nov 11 '16 at 04:01
1

@Mowzer No, but it is relevant. The ability to determine who is subject to prosecution is usually considered a key factor of sovereignty. It seems, therefore, that at least de facto, Pitcairn is not a sovereign state, whatever they may claim, and therefore they do not have the ability to grant sovereignty to anyone else. A formal claim is irrelevant - in practice, the British govenment exercises authority in Pitcairn and would continue to do so for anyone else relying on the Pitcairn governments' claims of independence. – Periata Breatta Nov 11 '16 at 04:17

Dale M · Answer 3 · 2016-11-06T00:46:22.203

29

You can't.

This was decided definitively by the American Civil War - if a state can't leave, you certainly can't. There is no provision in the US constitution that allows for any part f the nation to leave.

Of course, you can renounce your citizenship and leave.

edited Nov 06 '16 at 00:46

answered Nov 04 '16 at 22:31

Dale M

208,266
17
237
460

Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on [meta], or in [chat]. Comments continuing discussion may be removed. – Dale M Feb 14 '23 at 19:29

score 22 · Answer 4 · answered Nov 06 '16 at 15:32

22

You simply claim whatever you want. Getting other sovereigns to acknowledge your legitimacy is a more difficult problem. The solution is typically to gather followers, amass armies and enforce your claim as required. The US succeeded in this in the Revolutionary war. The Confederate States ultimately failed in the U.S. civil war. But the idea is the same.

answered Nov 06 '16 at 15:32

Patrick87

4,243
17
28

1

I know plenty militia that are as sick of the united States municipal corporation I am. I'd rather not take that direct action and start civil war. – Gabriel Connor Nelson Nov 06 '16 at 18:46
1

@GabrielConnorNelson Only a madman would want a war. However, wars are sometimes necessary. – Patrick87 Nov 06 '16 at 22:49
1

@GabrielConnorNelson Without a war, why do you suppose the United States would let you refuse to abide by its laws? – user253751 Nov 07 '16 at 00:04
1

@immibis because our laws are for those that consent to be governed. I no longer consent. – Gabriel Connor Nelson Nov 07 '16 at 00:07
11

@GabrielConnorNelson Assume for a moment that was possible. That would mean you were no longer protected by the same law, so what prevents them from shooting you? The price of ammunition? In fact, what prevents them from handcuffing you, reading you your "rights" (even though you no longer consent to having them), and taking you to a small room locked from the outside? – user253751 Nov 07 '16 at 00:10
1

@immibis homeland security can already do that regardless and without reason to anyone. What's your point? – Gabriel Connor Nelson Nov 07 '16 at 00:13
3

@GabrielConnorNelson My point is that even if it is possible to renounce your "government contract", and you do so, it changes absolutely nothing about your situation. – user253751 Nov 07 '16 at 00:16
@GabrielConnorNelson Why do you suppose Homeland Security is not arresting you right now? – user253751 Nov 07 '16 at 00:17
1

@immibis I'd have diplomatic immunity and be able to build a self sufficient facility without all the regulations in the way. – Gabriel Connor Nelson Nov 07 '16 at 00:18
Let us continue this discussion in chat. – user253751 Nov 07 '16 at 00:19
16

@GabrielConnorNelson: diplomatic immunity is given to particular (and recognized) officials of a government with which a different government wants to deal. It can be revoked, and staying within the state which has revoked recognition is usually followed by arrest. Given that you would be the only citizen of your state, and thus are obviously an agent of that state, you arrest, trial, and eventual execution for spying would be recognized as legally just in most countries. – jmoreno Nov 07 '16 at 01:42
4

@GabrielConnorNelson Seeing as you don't seem to have found the chat: Why do you think the government will treat you as if you have diplomatic immunity? Just like saying "I'm my own country!" doesn't stop a policeman shooting you in the head, neither does saying "I have diplomatic immunity" stop a policeman shooting you in the head. If a policeman does shoot you in the head then the consequences for them and you don't depend on whether you claim to have diplomatic immunity. – user253751 Nov 07 '16 at 02:35
12

@GabrielConnorNelson Your argument is that the US will let you refuse to abide by its laws for the simple reason that you choose not to abide by them. That is nonsense. If it were true, then only the very stupidest people would be in jail. Anybody else would just get themselves excused from any crime by asserting that they do not consent to the law before committing their criminal act. – David Richerby Nov 07 '16 at 09:14
17

@GabrielConnorNelson Diplomatic immunity isn't something you just get by saying "I no longer consider myself a US citizen"; it's something that is granted by the US government to certain representatives of a country that they recognise and wish to have smoother dealings with. Law exists because the country who set them can enforce them. It's a two-way deal: the nation requires you to follow the law, and in return, they let you live there, be protected by their army, police, etc. People who choose not to abide by the law are called criminals, not micronations or sovereign citizens. – anaximander Nov 07 '16 at 09:58
2

@GabrielConnorNelson: do illegal aliens have diplomatic immunity? Because that's what you'd be. – RemcoGerlich Nov 08 '16 at 12:24

score 11 · Answer 5 · edited Nov 05 '16 at 18:18

You could have a chat with 'Prince' Michael Bates of the Principality of Sealand. In September 1967 his father, 'Prince' Roy Bates, did something similar to what you appear to have in mind.

In international law, the most common schools of thought for the creation of statehood are the constitutive and declaratory theories of state creation. The constitutive theory is the standard nineteenth-century model of statehood, and the declaratory theory was developed in the twentieth century to address shortcomings of the constitutive theory. In the constitutive theory, a state exists exclusively via recognition by other states. The theory splits on whether this recognition requires 'diplomatic recognition' or merely 'recognition of existence'. No other state grants Sealand official recognition, but it has been argued by Bates that negotiations carried out by Germany following a brief hostage incident constituted 'recognition of existence' (and, since the German government reportedly sent an ambassador to the tower, diplomatic recognition). In the declaratory theory of statehood, an entity becomes a state as soon as it meets the minimal criteria for statehood. Therefore, recognition by other states is purely 'declaratory'

If you can make any real sense of the above quote then you are a more dedicated man than I. As far as I can tell, the general idea is that if you can find (or construct) any land that is not already claimed, you may claim it. But whether or not your independent 'nation state' is recognised by others is discretionary. Even without recognition, at that point, you're probably in a position to avoid being under the duress of your birth nation so long as you don't physically reside there.

@AntonSherwood: It seems to define "declaratory theory" by saying what is is not (constitutive theory). And as a student of Political Science, the only theory we bothered with is constitutive theory. That's for a simple reason: everyone who counts, including all UN member states, subscribe to the constitutive theory. There's no hard consensus on exactly which states to recognize (Israel/Palestine etc) but that's details. Declaratory theory if anything is academical. — MSalters, Nov 07 '16 at 13:37
@MSalters Transnistria exists. If you travel to that territory, you'll have to worry about the rules and restrictions that Transnistrian authorities put on you. That's not academic. — prosfilaes, Nov 08 '16 at 03:15

score 11 · Answer 6 · answered Nov 08 '16 at 09:33

Leave the USA

If you want sovereignity over a piece of land, then you would need to figure out how to handle anyone else who claims sovereignity over it. The government of USA is currently claiming sovereignity over all its territory and (as far as I know) is not willing to negotiate over it. As long as you are on USA soil, they are free to ignore any declarations, assert their claim of sovereignity, and enforce their laws on you without your consent. The answer to "How can I take back my sovereignty from the American government?" is "make them", and forcibly making the USA government to do that is left as an exercise for the reader.

You may have better success claiming sovereignity somewhere else, there are territories worldwide that are less interesting to others and where your claim of sovereignity is less likely to be contested.

score 10 · Answer 7 · edited Nov 05 '16 at 15:49

10

While I wholeheartedly agree with others who have said "you can't", and it is practically true, and the "All Caps" thing is definately BS, you can, theoretically start your own Micro-nation. The difficulties will be finding a place which is not governed and getting recognition of other nations.

(Tongue firmly in cheek) — Maybe you can find a barge somewhere, build an island, or do a deal with Mars One.

edited Nov 05 '16 at 15:49

feetwet

21,795
12
80
175

answered Nov 05 '16 at 05:41

davidgo

3,480
12
25

I have no issues going to Mars. As long as I don't have to deal with our current systems. – Gabriel Connor Nelson Nov 05 '16 at 13:04
4

Problem is there is no way for anyone not very quallified to get there. (Mars One is a scam). Would finding a large piece of land in the middle-of-nowhere and subsistence farming it without interacting with the outside worldscratch your itch? I found there is nothing like working land with older tools to make me value just how valuable being linked to society is. – davidgo Nov 05 '16 at 18:55
8

I'm told that the Convention on the Law of the Sea forbids private parties to build islands, presumably to prevent a repeat of the Minerva Reef attempt. – Anton Sherwood Nov 05 '16 at 23:09
9

I think another difficulty will be defending yourself when the pirates show up (and I'm serious). Unlike Captain Phillips if you're not a citizen you can't call their military to rescue you. – gman Nov 06 '16 at 07:05
Mars One is not an option, either. – SJuan76 Nov 07 '16 at 13:16
6

Buying a boat and living off the sea is probably the most viable solution. Technically you'd be a pirate, and you'd be on your own dealing with other pirates, but it's a big ocean. And as long as you don't harass anyone else, chances are that no navy is going to bother sinking your ship. You're not going to have internet, obviously, or any of the other benefits of modern life. – MSalters Nov 07 '16 at 13:42
@AntonSherwood - given that the US is not a signatory of that convention, it isn't clear that any restrictions it imposes apply to a US citizen, even if they are outside of US territory. – Periata Breatta Nov 07 '16 at 15:13
3

@MSalters - "You're not going to have internet, obviously" ... you may not be able to get high speed broadband, but there are services available. – Periata Breatta Nov 07 '16 at 15:18
1

@PeriataBreatta: Aware of those; the problem isn't technical. Since he wouldn't be flying a national flag, he'd probably have issues creating a legally valid contract. – MSalters Nov 08 '16 at 07:59
Sealand isn't a barge: it's a structure sitting on the seabed. – David Richerby Nov 08 '16 at 13:40
@MSalters "Buying a boat and living off the sea is probably the most viable solution. Technically you'd be a pirate" No you wouldn't. Not unless you started attacking and/or robbing people. "Since he wouldn't be flying a national flag, he'd probably have issues creating a legally valid contract." The point of being sovereign is having your own legal system. – David Richerby Nov 08 '16 at 13:42
1

@DavidRicherby: The problem with a contract is that you need two parties. Even if he's his own sovereign in his own legal system, InmarSat is quite unlikely to enter a contract with him in his own legal system. Even stronger, InmarSat is going to insist that you declare your nationality from a limited set of options. – MSalters Nov 08 '16 at 15:38
@MSalters Good point. For some reason, even given the obvious context, I didn't consider that a corporation (especially a multinational corporation) is unlikely to agree to be bound by a legal system created by the other party to the contract. – David Richerby Nov 08 '16 at 15:41
@DavidRicherby Why not? They do this all the time, starting with their very creation, when they open new offices, when they bid on government contracts... – Michael Hampton Nov 08 '16 at 18:24
1

No, it is "definitely" – Peter Mortensen Nov 09 '16 at 11:47
@AntonSherwood: I looked up Minerva Reef; why exactly is that something people would want to prevent a repeat of? – Sparkette Apr 19 '18 at 15:19
@flarn2006 “People” in general probably wouldn't mind more Minerva Reef projects. States, on the other hand, collectively don't like anything that could facilitate secession from their system. If a similar project ever succeeds, start your stopwatch and wait for Washington to call it a haven for drug smugglers / money launderers / child slavers … – Anton Sherwood Apr 20 '18 at 23:42
@AntonSherwood Why would a state consider moving there (or to a similar place anyway) to be secession? It's nothing more than emigration. If I were to move out of the United States to any traditional country that exists now, the US government wouldn't call that "seceding", even if the country I'm moving to isn't a member of the United Nations or anything like that. Why would that be any different if it's a place like Minerva Reef? Either way it's just someone leaving US jurisdiction and going somewhere else; beyond that point why does the US government have any reason to care what happens? – Sparkette Apr 22 '18 at 02:06
@flarn2006 It's secession from the system of states. The sovereign states collectively are an oligopoly; they tolerate the existing competition because it can't be avoided, but don't want their business disrupted by the possibility of a large number of new competitors. – Anton Sherwood Apr 22 '18 at 02:51
@AntonSherwood: Ah, I understand. Not saying it's a good thing though; tyranny never is. But thanks for explaining; I actually thought I replied to you already, hence the delay. :p – Sparkette May 30 '18 at 19:51

score 6 · Answer 8 · answered Nov 08 '16 at 11:39

Not only will you need to find unclaimed land (unless you want to wage war); you may also have trouble renouncing your US citizenship. I was sure that the government can refuse to let you go until you pay all owed tax; but all proof I could find for that was a non-official web site claiming that "if a court determines that you are expatriating to avoid paying a tax or taxes, they can force you to stay against your will".

But it is official that by renouncing your citizenship you give up all privileges while you retain many duties towards the government or other citizens. Among others you will still be subject to criminal prosecution and military service and be forced to pay owed tax and child support.

score 2 · Answer 9 · edited Nov 10 '16 at 00:42

You can try, but prepare to face the consequences.

The "only" thing you need is to be acknowledged by other countries. Having the support of at least one of superpowers, territory and population is often not enough - see Taiwan, Somaliland, Kosovo, South Osetia...

There's no unclaimed continental territory. Everything is either claimed or proclaimed the international, free territory (Antarctica). So you'll need to claim the rights to some part of other country (see Crimea). You'll be almost surely proclaimed terrorist and fighted to death, so make sure you have enough manpower and weapons and international support before you can do. If you can find some success stories other than Crimea and Kosovo, see the history of Texas. They first colonize a part of Mexico territory, then (with support of United States) proclaimed independence (to finally end up as one of the US states).

You could claim some uninhabited islands, but it won't be anyway easier. As an independent nations, you have, by international maritime law, claims to exclusively use the maritime territory around your new state, which would otherwise be international territory of all nations. Don't expect them to appreciate that fact, with the exception of the nation you choose to be your patron, and give her the rights to exploit "your" territory for the protection. And don't be surprised if you get bombarded in some unfortunate accident during "maneuvers" on the "international" territory. See Spratly Islands to see how serious the things can be.

The easiest way would be to simply buy a part of some other country's territory, maybe some almost uninhabited part of Siberia? Or Canada? A few (hundred) billion dollar should be enough. As long as your new country is useful (as tax paradise for the richest, for example), this deal might even be respected in the future.

Or maybe you could finance the expedition to the Mars, and buy a permanent space base there. The international law considers all the space as the international territory, which cannot be claimed by any state, however, international law change, so once the other nations acknowledge the sovereignty of your newly formed state, so will be it. You'll need a bit more than a funny few billion dollar to achieve that, though. But the option is open.

How can I declare independence from the United States and start my own micro nation?

9 Answers9

Leave the USA