Sheriff Donnie Harrison – Wake County, North Carolina

Article IV, Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

I apologize for not posting this video earlier. To be honest, I was too angry after his “speech” and made myself calm down for a few days before making a decision. My initial decision was not to post any video from this meeting because I did not want to make Sheriff Harrison look bad. I promise to be more objective in the future.

David DeGerolamo

More about the Sovereign Citizen “Threat”

Plugin by: PHP Freelancer
This entry was posted in Editorial, Elections and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Sheriff Donnie Harrison – Wake County, North Carolina

  1. Everyone who votes in NC and every other State is a United States citizen. This Sheriff was elected by United States citizens and represents United States citizens. “United States citizen” status was created in 1866 and unconstitutionally coerced into the United States Constitution through the Reconstruction Acts of 1867.
    The Federal Courts have ruled “The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States,” US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957.
    Sheriff Donnie Harrison is correct. My question is “Why would anyone want the United States citizen status created by Congress and unconstitutionally coerced into existence?”

  2. tmedlin says:

    I would like for someone to explain the difference and between an anarchist and a sovereign citizen.

    • There is little difference between anarchist and sovereign citizens. They both have self centered humanist world views. In other words the individual is the author of law, verses the society/ body politic uses their representatives to implement laws of consent.
      They differ in how to implement a society that incorporates their world view. Since there has never been an anarchist society or a sovereign citizen society in the history of civilized society, they disagree with each other on how to resolve differences between every individuals concepts of how the society would work.
      I believe that both of these world views would break down quickly to the world view of the individual who believes and can implement that might makes right -- The biggest guy with the biggest gun wins.

      • tmedlin says:

        thanks, John. That’s pretty much what I was thinking, but can you expand a little on how they differ with regards to implementation?

        • John Ainsworth says:

          I have had extensive dealings with both anarchist and true sovereign citizens. Both of their positions are purely ideological and tend to be touted as a “free thinking” ideology. Both ideologies play off of peoples desire to do and act in any manner that they believe to be acceptable as long as it does not harm others. These views do not take into account several issues (1) What is harm, (2) how do individuals remedy wrongs, (3) what if a wrong I want addressed is considered a non-offence to others (4) who or what is the author of law- God, man, some form of natural law. There are several others

          I addressed a group of hard core sovereigns/anarchist in New Hampshire in January. There were at least 3 anarchist group leaders there. For the sake of brevity I can only touch on the multiple problems of their concepts.

          Some claimed that “natural law” would be their guide. They stated that all humans have a common knowledge and understanding on what is right and wrong that they would operate off of.

          My counter to their concept was their foundation does not pan out in reality. (1) if murder is universally understood so that there is no conflict on it- then where does abortion fall? If someone kills my son on their property who is there to investigate whether it was self defense or murder? Most Anarchist believe in no organized government and since sovereigns are responsible to redress wrongs to them it falls on them alone to search out the matter- that is if their son was under the age of consent or over the age and in fact his own sovereign. I guess under international law the son might be considered conquered and therefore there can be no redress. (2) if natural law is their guide then does homosexuality fall within or outside of what is natural (all 4 groups represented believed in gay rights) (3) Who decides at what age a girl can marry? Natural law would say after the time of her starting her cycle, whether that be 14, 12 or 10 years old. Or should we pick so un-natural age such as 16 or 18? And who should decide? If some sovereign/anarchist chose to marry off his daughter at 10 years of age, who would have a right to say he is wrong. (4) What is consensual sex and where can you have it? Is sex with a consenting 12 year old (with the consent of their parent) lawful? After all who is harmed? Can groups of people have open sex in public places -- it is both natural and harms no one.

          What we see from just a few examples is there is a need to come together and define our culture as to what is acceptable and not acceptable behavior.

          Societies are created to insure their stability, culture and longevity. Anarchist and sovereigns do not fall in this category. They are concerned with self and not posterity.

          To be fair I can understand why these philosophies are becoming popular. They appear to be based out of frustration of our present situation of national and state usurpation and criminal subjugation of all Americans. I say we need to address the usurpations and get back to a lawful society of freeman with the enjoyment of their well established rights. -- This takes about 4 hours to explain.

          I consider myself a Constitutionalist and freeman of North Carolina organized under the Constitution of 1776 where the sovereignty reside in the political body of freeman of North Carolina and not in” individual sovereigns”, “free man on the land”, “sovereign citizen”, anarchist etc.

  3. tmedlin says:

    David, what is it about what the sheriff said that made you so angry? Is it because he says he would go through the court system to fight against laws he considers unconstitutional? Is it that he refers to sovereign citizens as those who believe they should pay not taxes, obey no laws, kill LEO, etc. ? When he was challenged about whether or not someone who carries the constitution, or has a bumper sticker, or attends a protest falls into that categoty, the category of domestic terrorist, he says, “no”. I’m afraid that people may be reading things into what he said, that just weren’t there. I know for a fact that was happening at Mocassin Creek. Because people are so upset with what is going on with the government, they tend to talk past each other instead of TO each other, focusing on certain words, and ignoring others. For example, people were screaming at his attorney, that the right to keep and bear arms is a God-given right, and “absolute” right -- which I think is bullshit. I believe the God-given right is to self-defense and the 2nd amendment is the means by which that God-given right is protected.

    • I can’t speak for David, but my own issues with the Sheriff are that he is not presenting an honest picture of who sovereign citizens are and what the real threat is. The sovereign citizen citizen movement has been around for about 15 years, tax protesters for over 50 years and people who believe that the federal government operates outside of the constitution for 150 years. See attached LEO training video click here

      The sheriff clumps all of these people into the group that are the greatest threat in America today and claims that people that have these beliefs are killing “police officers, highway patrolmen and Sheriffs throughout the nation”. I know of only one instance. He needs to provide facts concerning this alarmist statement.

      He admits that they are not providing adequate training to LEO’s of the differences between Americans with different complaints against governmental usurpations. This leads to LEO’s labeling any “anti-government” behavior as a serious sovereign citizen threat. THIS COULD SOME DAY BE YOU.

      This situation intimidates people to either accept all usurpations for fear of being labeled a “sovereign citizen” “anti government” threat when in fact they have legitimate complaints. Americans should not be chilled out of their right to correct usurpation-not just complain about them.

      I say train LEO’s accurately and have open debate on all complaints, not confusion and intimidation that leads to and supports continued usurpations.

      • tmedlin says:

        I understand. It seems to me that different types of people are using the term to describe different people, and this war over the use of that term, could very easily get people killed.

        There is a very strong libertarian movement in this country, and I think some people might be equating libertarian, with sovereign citizen, with tea partier, with Neo-Nazi, with militia, with minutemen, with occupier, because the common thread between those groups (and I’m sure several more) is the distrust of the federal government, which has started filtering down into the state and local governments.

        I, too would like to see better training of LEO’s; but I don’t know that there’s enough time to do that, before everything falls into chaos. And I think the average Joe doesn’t take the time to figure out the difference, either, because, afterall, Dancing With the Stars is about to come on. 🙂

        I guess the bottom line is, people need to be careful with their rhetoric and perhaps someone who is interested should draw up a document explaining the difference between the different groups that appear to be lumped in together under the anti-government umbrella and send it to Donnie Harrison and explain the concerns. Write it down, so it can be read, and re-read, so there’s no confusion about the dangers we’re discussing here.

  4. Diogenese of Wake County says:


    Didn’t you get any footage of Beavis to post along with this video?


  5. tmedlin says:

    One final thought regarding the video -- the very last statement by Donnie Harrison is correct -- There is no ABSOLUTE right to the 2nd amendment, otherwise he would have to allow felons to have guns. There IS an absolute right to self-defense, THAT, in my opinion, is the “god-given” right that people need to refer to, instead of the 2nd amendment. There IS a difference between God’s law (or natural law) and man’s law.

    • John Ainsworth says:

      There might not be an absolute right but there is a constitutional limitation of the national government. They are constitutionally forbidden from “infringing” upon the people’s right to keep and bear Arms. Infringing is clearly happening and it is unconstitutional and criminal.

      • tmedlin says:

        I agree with you; and the constitution sets forth the remedy -- it goes to court, to the highest court, if necessary. That doesn’t mean I always agree with the outcome (like Obamacare) but there are still remedies available for the people. Obamacare can still be overturned if enough people wake up.

  6. Rich says:

    Sovereign citizens..i have never known them to run around shooting cops..but a bad one here or there does not make them all the same..
    this Sheriff is brainwashed, maybe he should retire or drink some more kool aid..

  7. Pingback: FREE NORTH CAROLINA… DHS: Are You Willing to Die for Your King? I Am Willing to Die for Mine. Posted: 05 Apr 2013 05:46 PM PDT | Jericho777's Blog

Comments are closed.