antagonistic behaviour (e.g., sending
hundreds of letters of protest to the
government). Legal difficulties can
occur, particularly in jealous and
erotomanic types (American Psychiatric
Association, 2013, Section 297.1
Delusional Disorder: Associated
Features Supporting Diagnosis).
Although Associate Chief Justice Rooke’s
lengthy and detailed decision does not mention
the possibility of some of these individuals
having this disorder as a clinical condition, his
comments about their behaviors are in line with
aggressive and disruptive behaviors described in
the DSM. As Rooke indicated, “In the United
States, Sovereign Men are notorious for their
violent conduct, intimidation of state and court
personnel, and their misuse of legal processes to
engage in ‘paper terrorism’” (2012, para. 181).
While the Canadian Sovereign Men seem to be
less violent than their American counterparts,
their behaviors still are close to those of the
Americans on a continuum of problematic and
disruptive actions.
One other frequently mentioned personality
disorder in relation to some antigovernment
people is paranoia. Two researchers of the far
right indicate that
Paranoia is characterized by
guardedness, suspiciousness,
hypersensitivity, grandiosity, centrality
and isolation, fear of loss or autonomy,
projection, and delusional thinking.
These lead the paranoid to incubate a
powerful sense of uniqueness. Thus,
many left-wing cults that now exist each
insist that they alone (hallelujah,
comrades!), understand the dynamics of
capitalism and are the anointed nucleus
of a future mass revolutionary party.
(Tourish &Wohlforth, 2000, p. 31)
Paranoids, therefore, “feel deeply discontented
[but] are reassured that the problem lies, in every
respect, with the external world rather than
themselves” (Tourish &Wohlforth, 2000, p. 32).
This perspective, therefore, on the Freemen,
Sovereign Citizens, and similar antigovernment
groups locates their origins in the disoriented
minds of individuals rather than the social
frustration and anger over institutional betrayals.
In a movement as diverse as are the Freemen
and Sovereign citizens, probably examples exist
that support either interpretation.
Conclusion
Although OPEC litigants and related extremist
antigovernmentalists have no chance of
receiving legal recognition from any country in
which they operate, they are important to study
in part because they reveal a segment of the
population that is profoundly alienated from
society. In the United States, for example, these
people share a deep distrust of federal
government with other groups such as the
libertarian, Republican-leaning Tea Party
members the former military Oath-Takers (who
usually are soldiers who believe that their
military oath to defend the Constitution carries
over to a civilian obligation to resist illegal
federal activities [Sharrock, 2010]) and Patriots
and militias (who are preparing for a war with
the government [Larizza, 1995–1996 Smith,
1997 Stern, 1996]). At some point, such
virulent opposition to one’s nation potentially
disrupts if not undermines government’s ability
to rule. The judiciary suffers damage law
enforcement becomes even more dangerous
normal commerce and banking is disrupted and
otherwise ordinary people waste portions of
their lives studying and producing what one
Ontario judge called “all manner of absurdity
and silliness” (ODonnell, 2013, n. 4). Their
efforts do nothing to address what very well may
be legitimate and egregious actions on the part
of the state and its agents, since they come
across to most people as having left the normal
range of reality—an interpretation that, at times,
might even be correct in a psychiatric context.
If, in their best moments, these litigious,
extremist antigovernment movements identify
very real, governmentally involved social
political, and economic injustices, their
ineffective but disruptive and often threatening
rhetoric and actions simply allow officials to
dismiss them.
12 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015
hundreds of letters of protest to the
government). Legal difficulties can
occur, particularly in jealous and
erotomanic types (American Psychiatric
Association, 2013, Section 297.1
Delusional Disorder: Associated
Features Supporting Diagnosis).
Although Associate Chief Justice Rooke’s
lengthy and detailed decision does not mention
the possibility of some of these individuals
having this disorder as a clinical condition, his
comments about their behaviors are in line with
aggressive and disruptive behaviors described in
the DSM. As Rooke indicated, “In the United
States, Sovereign Men are notorious for their
violent conduct, intimidation of state and court
personnel, and their misuse of legal processes to
engage in ‘paper terrorism’” (2012, para. 181).
While the Canadian Sovereign Men seem to be
less violent than their American counterparts,
their behaviors still are close to those of the
Americans on a continuum of problematic and
disruptive actions.
One other frequently mentioned personality
disorder in relation to some antigovernment
people is paranoia. Two researchers of the far
right indicate that
Paranoia is characterized by
guardedness, suspiciousness,
hypersensitivity, grandiosity, centrality
and isolation, fear of loss or autonomy,
projection, and delusional thinking.
These lead the paranoid to incubate a
powerful sense of uniqueness. Thus,
many left-wing cults that now exist each
insist that they alone (hallelujah,
comrades!), understand the dynamics of
capitalism and are the anointed nucleus
of a future mass revolutionary party.
(Tourish &Wohlforth, 2000, p. 31)
Paranoids, therefore, “feel deeply discontented
[but] are reassured that the problem lies, in every
respect, with the external world rather than
themselves” (Tourish &Wohlforth, 2000, p. 32).
This perspective, therefore, on the Freemen,
Sovereign Citizens, and similar antigovernment
groups locates their origins in the disoriented
minds of individuals rather than the social
frustration and anger over institutional betrayals.
In a movement as diverse as are the Freemen
and Sovereign citizens, probably examples exist
that support either interpretation.
Conclusion
Although OPEC litigants and related extremist
antigovernmentalists have no chance of
receiving legal recognition from any country in
which they operate, they are important to study
in part because they reveal a segment of the
population that is profoundly alienated from
society. In the United States, for example, these
people share a deep distrust of federal
government with other groups such as the
libertarian, Republican-leaning Tea Party
members the former military Oath-Takers (who
usually are soldiers who believe that their
military oath to defend the Constitution carries
over to a civilian obligation to resist illegal
federal activities [Sharrock, 2010]) and Patriots
and militias (who are preparing for a war with
the government [Larizza, 1995–1996 Smith,
1997 Stern, 1996]). At some point, such
virulent opposition to one’s nation potentially
disrupts if not undermines government’s ability
to rule. The judiciary suffers damage law
enforcement becomes even more dangerous
normal commerce and banking is disrupted and
otherwise ordinary people waste portions of
their lives studying and producing what one
Ontario judge called “all manner of absurdity
and silliness” (ODonnell, 2013, n. 4). Their
efforts do nothing to address what very well may
be legitimate and egregious actions on the part
of the state and its agents, since they come
across to most people as having left the normal
range of reality—an interpretation that, at times,
might even be correct in a psychiatric context.
If, in their best moments, these litigious,
extremist antigovernment movements identify
very real, governmentally involved social
political, and economic injustices, their
ineffective but disruptive and often threatening
rhetoric and actions simply allow officials to
dismiss them.
12 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 6, 2015
