People often say that sovereign citizens are not dangerous but I beg to differ. The recent conviction of Richard Trevor Sivell, a New Zealand man who used social media to express violent threats against former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, serves as a disturbing example of how extremist ideologies like the “sovereign citizen” movement can fuel dangerous rhetoric. Sivell was found guilty of threatening to kill Ardern and obstructing justice after a judge-alone trial at Tauranga District Court.
Sivell’s threats were made through audio comments on a social media platform linked to Counterspin Media, where he vividly described his desire to build gallows and hear Ardern’s “neck snap.” Referring to Ardern as “Jezebel” and other government officials with derogatory names, such as calling then Covid Response Minister Chris Hipkins a “demon midget” and Director-General of Health Ashley Bloomfield a “Bill Gates clone,” Sivell voiced a desire to see them face extreme punishment, including firing squads or hanging. His statements were not just directed at Ardern but at multiple senior politicians, reflecting a broader animosity toward governments.
In one message, Sivell wrote that “common law” sheriffs would apprehend and imprison Ardern, judge her for “crimes against humanity,” and then execute her. This is a central tenet of sovereign citizen ideology, where adherents claim that governments and courts have no legitimate authority over them, and they believe in establishing their own parallel legal systems.
During the trial, Sivell represented himself, adhering to typical sovereign citizen tactics by challenging the court’s authority and using legal jargon disconnected from established legal principles. He claimed he had “put in a notice of subjugation” and insisted he was only present “to settle matters, clear the accounts,” not to enter a plea or argue his case. Judge Christopher Harding, who presided over the case, dismissed these arguments as “legal gobbledegook,” reflecting the often incoherent and pseudolegal basis of sovereign citizen defenses.
Sivell’s threats were brought to light after an anonymous tip led police to investigate his social media activity. Using an undercover persona, intelligence officers infiltrated the channel where Sivell made these violent statements. Despite Sivell’s denial that he ever directly threatened Ardern or any other officials, the court found that the mere communication of these threats online, accessible to the public, constituted a criminal offense. Judge Harding clarified that the police were not required to prove that Sivell had concrete plans to carry out his threats; the fact that they were made and could be widely accessed was sufficient for a conviction.
Ultimately, Sivell’s threats and his subsequent conviction serve as a cautionary tale about the dangers of sovereign citizen ideologies. What may begin as fringe legal arguments can quickly escalate into real-world violence or threats of violence, especially when these beliefs are amplified in echo chambers like the one Sivell was part of. His sentencing, scheduled for January, will likely bring further attention to the serious legal consequences of engaging in such extremist behavior, underscoring the fact that sovereign citizens are not immune to the laws they claim do not apply to them.