Scroll Left Scroll Right

60 Minutes Overtime MJ's "manifesto," penned in 1979 1 of 9
Feature Backstage at Cirque du Soleil show "Immortal" 2 of 9
60 Minutes Overtime Angelina Jolie: I would love to live a long life 3 of 9
60 Minutes Overtime Bill Gates on Steve Jobs: We grew up together 4 of 9
60 Minutes Overtime How Bill Gates' school launched his life's work 5 of 9
Feature Jessica Buchanan's long journey home 6 of 9
60 Minutes Overtime Bill Clinton tried to get Led Zeppelin back together 7 of 9
60 Minutes Overtime From soldier to mad scientist: Kit Parker's lab 8 of 9
Gallery Soldiers' Art: What traumatic brain injury feels like 9 of 9

May 15, 2011 6:09 PM

Print
Text

Anti-government "guru" explains doctrine

By: Overtime Staff
Topics: Correspondent Candids

Ever heard of the Sovereign Citizen movement? This week, Byron Pitts introduces the "60 Minutes" viewing audience to an internet-based anti-government group that the FBI lists among the top ten domestic terror threats facing the United States.

Read Byron Pitts' report.

"Overtime" Editor Ann Silvio sits down with Byron to learn more about the movement and hear the backstory of his memorable interview with a Sovereign Citizen "guru" named Alfred Adask -- not to be confused with ALFRED ADASK in all capital letters, the name of Adask's "straw man." As Adask explains in this video (no longer available), many Sovereign Citizens believe that the government creates a "straw man" for every American, and when official documents cite your name in capital letters, it's a reference not to you but to your straw man. That's why Sovereign Citizens often say they aren't obligated to respond to legal notices or utility bills that use capital letters.

Yes, we agree that the "straw man" theory is a hard concept to grasp. If you can explain it, we want to hear from you in the comments below.

230 Comments +

Add a Comment

See all 230 Comments


by donaldbailey02 December 10, 2012 2:12 AM EST: We need to get together & hold hands. This is the solution. Holding hands is he answer.; Reply to this comment


by faro0485 January 19, 2012 9:37 AM EST: Dave Chappelle From Episode 11 from Season 12 of "Inside the Actor's Studio", aired on February 12, 2006:

"The worst thing to call somebody is "crazy". It's dismissive. I don't understand this person, so they're crazy. That's ********! People are not crazy. They are strong people...Maybe the environment is a little sick."; Reply to this comment


by faro0485 January 19, 2012 9:32 AM EST: So where can I watch the full video?; Reply to this comment


by SaddenedAndDisappointed June 13, 2011 9:48 PM EDT: Wow! I look upon the human species from a collective point of view, and all I can really find in my heart to say is - "what a waste". If I had but one wish, I would like to be the last surviving member of "all of us". That way I would at least have the satisfaction of moving on knowing absolutely that all of this cruelty, hatred, and destruction had finally ended. Some say that there is a "god" of one brand or another. Personally, I do not believe this to be the given reality. All I can surmise is that if there truly is a god, he(or she) has got to be the biggest ass-hole in the entire universe!; Reply to this comment

by tugarsbaby June 3, 2011 1:01 PM EDT

God Have Mercy... where do these lunatics come from. Is it just me or does anyone else notice that these crazies are coming out of the woodwork lately. If they TRULY think our government is a bad thing...why, why why don't they get the hell out and NEVER return. I, for one, would be happy to see them go. They reek of idiots like Jared Loughner

Reply to this comment


by faro0485 January 19, 2012 9:31 AM EST: Well if you're an atheist... you would claim "these sovereign citizens are nuts".

"The worst thing to call somebody is "crazy". It's dismissive. I don't understand this person, so they're crazy. That's ********! People are not crazy. They are strong people... Maybe the environment is a little sick." - Dave Chappelle, From Episode 11 from Season 12 of "Inside the Actor's Studio", aired on February 12, 2006, quote on wikiquote.

Your threat to see him dead or rob his land has been noted... just like you robbed the land of the Natives, and the rights of the blacks.

by SaddenedAndDisappointed June 1, 2011 3:30 PM EDT

With respect to the intentionally biased inquiry into the subject mater - **** BYRON PITTS! With respect to their tacid approval of the airing of said inquiry - **** THE MANAGEMENT, PRODUCERS, AND STAFF AT 60 MINUTES! With respect to whomever made the decision to censor my initial submission to this web-site - **** YOU YOU FASCIST-MINDED LITTLE PRICK! As there is no doubt in my mind that this submission will also undoubtedly be censored, previous to doing so, why don't you download a copy just so you can have something(else) to shove up your ass!

Reply to this comment


by RetiredOldDuffer June 5, 2011 7:32 PM EDT: I'm just guessing here, but maybe your initial submission was censored because you demonstrated that you are manifestly incapable of presenting a cogent argument.


by SaddenedAndDisappointed June 8, 2011 9:41 PM EDT: To: RetiredOldDuffer - It is truly unfortunate that you, due to a decision made by people who clearly do not have your best interests in mind, were unable to peruse my initial submission to this web-site. If you had, your response to this particular submission might have demonstrated a slightly more elevated degree of intelligence, instead of presenting a commentary based on presumption and a condecsending attitude. Oh well, I guess that's really nothing new for your kind(the human species). If you need this explained to you a bit more simply, try looking at it this way. You might want to make certain that you are aware of what you are attempting to speak to before you start flapping your gums.


by SaddenedAndDisappointed May 26, 2011 3:07 PM EDT: I had previously left a comment in this forum and now it does not seem to appear. Have I been censored by the "powers that be" at 60 minutes? Just as well, because it really doesn't matter what anyone has to say in these forums, no matter how much or how loud they try to say it. Nothing of any significance is going to change. The human species is on a path, which was forged before our time and which is headed directly towards it's own self-destruction and/or self-extinction, and there isn't anything anyone can do to change that reality. It is certainly not going to happen tomorrow, or next October, or next year. This is something that will come to pass(barring any astronomical catastrophic event) gradually, just as it has proceeded up to this point in time. I am quite certain that there are those who will be quick to use the term "doomsdayer" in regard to these comments, but I can assure you that this is quite simply not the case. This projection is based on hard factual data. As I had stated in my previous comment(which has been removed),it has been reported that the human species utilizes approximately 5% of it's intellectual capacity and I would submit that the current global human circumstance fully confirms this assessment. The world, as humans have allowed it to become, is nothing more than a cess pool of ignorance and all the ills that flow from it. As I had stated in my previous comment, it is unfortunate that it will be your descendants whom will bare the brunt of this state of ignorance, as well as the arrogance which serves to maintain and reinforce it. Oh well, it's like the song says, "for what he never knew - now man's reign is through"! You humans are so unbelievably lost. How tragic. You had the opportunity to achieve true greatness.; Reply to this comment

by RicktheHun May 25, 2011 4:46 PM EDT

I thought the story was amazingly devoid of facts for a 60 Minutes piece, and Byron Pitts did absolutely nothing to improve it. His questions were ridiculous - "What kind of animal?", for example - how does that add to the story? As I said in an earlier post, I don't watch 60 minutes to find out the reporters' opinions. I watch it because it provides hard-hitting, FACTUAL, reporting. This wasn't the case in Pitts' interview. After watching the story, I knew absolutely nothing more about the "sovereign citizen movement" than I knew before the story, with the exception that I now know that the U.S. government is afraid of it. However, things that the U.S. government are afraid of, aren't necessarily bad. For example, they're afraid that it's citizens will stop acting like sheep, and start holding them accountable. They're also afraid that we'll start seeing "lobbyist" as a polite term for "person that bribes government officials". And of course, they're afraid that we'll all see through the sham of a job that they're doing, and elect people that will actually represent the people that elected them. As I said, just because our government is afraid of something, doesn't make it a bad thing.

Reply to this comment


by donaldbailey02 December 10, 2012 2:08 AM EST: I believe the solution is, if we can just figure out a way to get together & hold hands. Holding hands accomplishes much.

by spiderdo32 May 25, 2011 1:03 AM EDT

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

-the rest gets deep. If you are interested in seeing all the comparisons that the treasonous government has done to us go here.
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html -

Arm yourselves America, **** is about to hit the fan. Its just a matter of time.

Declaration of independence
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

Reply to this comment


by Otipemsiwak June 1, 2011 5:26 AM EDT: Glad to see so many people making intelligent, lawful references regarding this subject. Here is a response to a comment by 'balkanbobby' and others who make similar comments, which is on the regular 60 Minutes site (totaling 447 comments to date for that site): I notice you do not make any reference, specific or otherwise, to the source of the information you reference in your comments, such as, you say, "I Found the definition of 'sovereign people'...," yet you do not reference the source of the 'definition' you found.
How about referencing some law, such as appellate court decisions (case law), law dictionaries, and the like?
Here are some references on this subject from such (Notice: the Fair Use Doctrine applies to all material referenced here):
Bouvier's Law Dictionary:
SOVEREIGN. . . . 2. In the United States the sovereignty resides in the body of the people. Vide Rutherf. Inst. 282.

SOVEREIGNTY. . . . 2. Abstractedly, sovereignty resides in the body of the nation and belongs to the people. But these powers are generally exercised by delegation.

. . . 4. Strictly speaking, in our republican forms of government, the absolute sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation; (q. v.) and the residuary sovereignty of each state, not granted to any of its public functionaries, is in the people of the state. (q. v.) 2 Dall. 471; and vide, generally, 2 Dall. 433, 455; 3 Dall. 93; 1 Story, Const. §208; 1 Toull. n. 20 Merl. Reper. h. t.

US Supreme Court decisions-case law:
Juliard v. Greeman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884)
Supreme Court Justice Field, "There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States... In this country, sovereignty resides in the people, and Congress can exercise power which they have not, by their Constitution, entrusted to it. All else is withheld."
Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44, 7; 8 S. Ct. 568, 2 L. Ed. 2d 603 (1958)
"...in our country the people are sovereign and the government cannot sever its relationship to them by taking away their citizenship."

Perry v. U.S., 294 U.S. 330 (1935): "In the United States, sovereignty resides in the people... the Congress cannot invoke sovereign power of the People to override their will as thus declared."

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886): "Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law... While sovereign powers are delegated to... the government, sovereignty itself remains with the people."

"The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state." 153/n re Merriam, 36 N.E. 505, 141N.Y. 479, affirmed 16S. Ct. 1073, 163 U.S. 625, 41 L.Ed 287; 20 CJS, Section 1785.

Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89 -- People of a state are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his prerogative. -

It would most likely behoove you to read and study the founding documents of this country (obviously spiderdo32 apparently did)--the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as amended 1791. The first 10 amendments are the Bill of Rights, which does not grant the rights to the people, but provides for the upholding of the people's God-given, individual, unalienable Rights by the public servants via the public servant's oath of office to support and defend the Constitution(s)--US, and state for state public servants--which is required of them prior to them entering their office. They are also required to have valid bonds in place in order to have their job. And learn the difference between a 'democracy' and a 'constitutional republic' -- the differences are specific and significant. Do you know which type of government was established for the United States of America by the founders? You would if you'd read the founding documents referenced above. Did you know that the term 'democracy' is not found in any of said founding documents referenced above?
Peace & Blessings ...


by 1Amish May 24, 2011 9:27 PM EDT: Governments have committed genocide. In this case is what Alfred could have meant. However, this is a flawed argument. When the Jews were killed by Nazi Germany, if they had weapons and resisted, there would only have been carpet bombings. When world government decides to eliminate people, they will do so. Don't give them a reason to.; Reply to this comment

See all 230 Comments

Popular Now in 60 Minutes Overtime

recommended

Follow 60 Minutes Overtime

Most Popular on CBS News

Stories More »

Videos More »

America's #1 News Program, Now on your iPad Download Now »

Recently on 60 Minutes

Michael Jackson's lucrative legacy
The Michael Jackson brand is alive and well-paid: the pop legend has made more money in death than he ever did alive. Lara Logan reports.
A Face in the Crowd: Say goodbye to anonymity
Even if your picture isn't on the Internet, computerized facial recognition makes it virtually impossible to keep your "faceprint" private. Lesley Stahl reports.
Afghan children on a long and perilous journey
Thousands of mostly teenage boys have fled their country to embark on a 10,000-mile trek to Europe in search of a better life. Anderson Cooper reports.
North Korean prisoner escaped after 23 brutal years
Born in a prison camp, Shin Dong-hyuk describes how three generations of a family are incarcerated if one family member is considered disloyal. Anderson Cooper reports.

60 Minutes on Facebook

Anti-government "guru" explains doctrine

Report offensive content:

E-mail this comment to a friend.

Follow 60 Minutes Overtime

48 Hours iPad App