An interesting case this week is that of Michael Wallravin, a sovereign citizen. He was found guilty of 2nd degree robbery and attempted 2nd degree robbery and received a sentence of 25 to life as he had two prior strikes. In this particular case, he is appealing on the basis that the trial court erred in a number of areas, but of specific interest is his claim that he was found competent without substantial evidence for the court to do so.
Throughout the proceedings, he was doing the same things that sovereign citizens do: demanding proof of court’s jurisdiction, stating repeatedly that he did not consent, insisting that he represent himself, refusing to participate in court-ordered psychiatric evaluations, sending contracts and invoices to the court officials (in this case, in the amount of $4.5 million) for alleged violations of contracts, attempting to copyright his name, and repeatedly claiming that he “does not comprehend.”
These are all very common behaviors among sovereign citizens in court.
The crux of the appeal was essentially this: Does his behavior which, on the surface is bizarre, irrational and unusual, constitute mental illness?
Even though both court-appointed mental health professionals were unable to give their full opinions because he would not participate, they noted, based on what they could observe, that he had no known mental health history, he was alert, fully oriented, had no intellectual limitations, was coherent, and very organized and intelligent. The court also noted that his behavior was consistent with sovereign citizen ideology and that of constitutionalists. They reiterated that these beliefs are not in and of themselves indicative of mental illness.
Here is the key element of the decision which ultimately formed the basis for the judgment of his conviction being affirmed by the judge: “He understood the nature of the criminal proceedings but disagreed with the court’s authority to conduct them. He was not unable to assist counsel, but chose not to do so.”
It’s very important that the court made this distinction. They are affirming that it was a choice based on free will.
I’ve seen similar rulings when it comes to sovereign citizens and the issue of mental illness. Very rarely are they deemed mentally ill (and thus incompetent) despite what many people consider to be bizarre behavior. Generally, in cases where a sovereign citizen is considered mentally ill, it is because they have a long history of being mentally ill and their symptoms (might include but) are beyond the traditional behaviors one would typically associate with sovereign citizens.
It seems that the court and mental health professionals are correctly assessing cases involving sovereign citizens when it comes to the issue of mental illness. For the majority of cases, sovereigns understand the nature of proceedings, but are simply disagreeing with them; they are making an informed choice; albeit unwise ones.