“Dishonor in Commerce”

Sovereign citizens use the phrase “dishonor in commerce” to challenge the legitimacy of contracts, debts, and the commercial system in general. However, it’s a misuse of a legal concept and ultimately holds no weight in real courts.

Here’s a breakdown of why they use it and why it’s wrong:

• Sovereign citizen belief: Sovereign citizens believe the entire commercial system, including banks, credit card companies, and the concept of debt, is inherently fraudulent. They view any agreement or debt as a “dishonor” forced upon them..
• Goals of using the phrase: Sovereign citizens hope to achieve a couple of things with “dishonor in commerce”:
  
  • Negate obligations: They believe it somehow nullifies their responsibility to repay debts or honor contracts.
  • Disrupt the system: They aim to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the commercial system and confuse those they owe money to.
• Why it’s wrong:
  
  • Misunderstanding Commercial Law: “Dishonor” has a specific meaning in commercial law related to negotiable instruments like checks [1]. It signifies a situation where a check cannot be cashed due to insufficient funds. Sovereign citizens often misunderstand this concept.
  • Fabricated Defense Against Debt: They believe “Dishonor in Commerce” can be applied broadly to any debt and that claiming it somehow absolves them of their financial obligations [2, 3]. This has no legal basis.
  • Harassment of Creditors: Sovereign citizens might use this phrase in communications with creditors as a harassment tactic. They hope to disrupt the collection process and create confusion with nonsensical legal arguments [2, 4].
  • False Challenge to Legitimate Claims: Sovereign citizens might use “Dishonor in Commerce” to argue that the creditor themselves has acted dishonorably, making the debt illegitimate. This is a baseless attempt to shift blame and avoid responsibility.

Important Points to Remember:

• Misusing “Dishonor in Commerce” doesn’t eliminate debt or financial obligations.
• Creditors and courts will recognize this as a sovereign citizen tactic and focus on the validity of the debt.
• Repeatedly claiming “Dishonor in Commerce” might be seen as harassment and have legal consequences.

Citations:

• [1] Cornell University Law School: Legal Information Institute: Negotiable Instruments [“Negotiable Instruments.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negotiable_instruments.] 
• [2] Anti-Defamation League: The Sovereign Citizen Movement [You Are Being Redirected…, www.adl.org/resources/glossary-terms/sovereign-citizen-movement.] 
• [3] Southern Poverty Law Center: Sovereign Citizens https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/moorish-sovereign-citizens]]
• [4] FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin:
  Sovereign Citizens: A Growing Domestic Threat to Law Enforcement https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/featured-articles/sovereign-citizens-a-growing-domestic-threat-to-law-enforcement