Inside the Home of New Zealand’s Sovereign Citizens

Mike and Jenna, a couple from New Zealand, embody a lifestyle that diverges significantly from mainstream society, identifying as sovereign citizens. This term describes a loose global movement that rejects conventional laws and government authority, and their home reflects a chaotic yet welcoming family life. Amidst the routine of four children returning from school, the couple asserts they are “really quite normal,” despite their unconventional beliefs.

Living in a context that challenges most New Zealanders’ understanding of laws and governance, they maintain a philosophy in which laws are deemed optional, adhering only to those they choose to follow. Mike explains, “We’re just living how we believe,” while Jenna emphasizes that they are not dangerous, merely “weird.”

Their lifestyle choices include driving unwarranted and unregistered vehicles, accumulating overdue rates, and representing themselves in court without legal representation. They have also refused to pay fines resulting from their legal encounters.

Growing Movement with Serious Implications

The sovereign citizen movement is not isolated to Mike and Jenna. Across New Zealand, authorities are encountering similar beliefs, albeit in small numbers. Nevertheless, these ideologies have begun to disrupt local governance and, at times, pose safety risks.

For instance, a case involving a couple from Raglan, Bradley and Michelle O’Donnell, illustrates the potential fallout when individuals act outside the law. They were fined $20,000 for building without council approval, citing an unrecognized authority instead. In another instance, Graham Philip sabotaged a power grid, impacting thousands of residents during lockdowns, claiming his actions were justified under historical legal documents.

The legal ramifications extend to more severe incidents, such as the case of Richard Sivell, who was imprisoned in 2022 after threatening to kill then-Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. His assertion of sovereign immunity was dismissed in court, highlighting the risks associated with these beliefs.

According to Stephen Young, a law professor at the University of Otago, these incidents reflect a broader pattern of what he terms “pseudo-law.” He explains that this perspective interprets legitimate legal frameworks through an entirely different lens, suggesting that adherents view the state as illegitimate.

The Appeal of Sovereign Citizenship

The roots of these beliefs trace back to the United States in the 1990s, where early proponents proclaimed their citizenship as belonging to individual states rather than the federal government. Over time, these ideas have evolved into a movement intertwined with various conspiracy theories, including claims that common or natural law supersedes statutory laws.

Young notes that the allure of this mindset can be both practical and ideological. Individuals facing minor legal troubles often find solace in online communities that promote the idea that compliance with laws is optional. “They go online and find someone saying, ‘you don’t have to do this,’ feeding their mistrust and conspiracy thinking,” he explains.

Despite the apparent absurdity of these beliefs to outsiders, Young acknowledges that they may contain valid critiques of societal issues, such as corporate influence and inequality. “Why can’t people without resources do the same thing as those with huge ones?” he posits, suggesting that the frustrations of individuals like Mike and Jenna resonate with deeper societal concerns.

Nevertheless, the societal costs of such beliefs can be significant. Young warns that when individuals refuse to pay bills, the burden falls on the community. For example, if someone disregards a $3,000 rates bill, it may cost local authorities $20,000 to enforce payment.

While the impact of sovereign citizen beliefs in New Zealand has thus far remained largely bureaucratic, the potential for escalation cannot be overlooked. Young cautions against complacency, referencing a recent incident in Australia involving a self-proclaimed sovereign citizen who was the subject of a manhunt following the fatal shooting of two police officers.

Mike and Jenna reject any notion that they have been radicalized, asserting that their beliefs are simply an extension of their lifelong inquiries into societal norms. Mike reflects on his childhood curiosity regarding authority, expressing a sense of betrayal for having to comply with rules he never agreed to.

The couple, navigating the challenges of parenthood and daily life, maintain that their stance is not about aggression or hostility but rather a firm assertion of personal choice. “We’re just saying no, we don’t consent,” Jenna states.

The onset of the Covid pandemic further intensified the modern sovereign citizen movement. The imposition of health mandates like mask-wearing and vaccination requirements reinforced their skepticism towards authority. Individuals who were already questioning government legitimacy found their beliefs validated during this period, often turning to online forums that fostered a sense of community among like-minded individuals.

Mike and Jenna openly expressed their opposition to vaccines and mandates, emphasizing the belief that public health measures represented an overreach of governmental authority. Their experiences echo those of others who have felt alienated by mainstream society due to their views.

While Mike faces legal challenges from his opposition to police enforcement during protests, he finds solace in the connections he has made within a global community of “free-thinkers” who share his questions and doubts.

A 78-year-old woman, who also identified with sovereign ideas, illustrated the personal costs of dissent. After facing backlash for her reluctance to vaccinate, she distanced herself from family and community, choosing to align with her convictions despite the consequences.

Both stories highlight a broader narrative of belonging and identity, even as individuals navigate the complexities of their beliefs.

Back in Mike and Jenna’s home, the couple continues to embrace their lifestyle, engaging in the everyday chaos of family life. As they navigate their convictions and the challenges of parenting, they maintain that their beliefs do not threaten others; rather, they advocate for personal choice and autonomy.

In the midst of discussions about laws and societal structures, they find common ground on one essential matter: the nutritional value of Nutella, which they agree has none.