Been watching a lot of Sovereign Citizens In Court videos lately and it is really fascinating both the general magical thinking on display ("I said X therefore you must do what I want") but also just how utterly unprepared these folks are when things go even slightly off their script, which happens a lot because a lot of judges are used to these folks by now.
Like a handful of recurring issues:
A lot of these folks assume there are only two kinds of law, Commercial/Admiralty Law, and Common Law. Referencing ANY other kind of law--statutory, civil, criminal--tends to confuse a lot of them b/c they were So Sure that there were Only Two Kinds
A lot of these folks assume asserting that the court has no jurisdiction over them means that the court has to just let them go/nothing that occurs in the court will have any consequences. They will have various things they cite as why the court has no jurisdiction in their mind, none of which are actual reasons a court might not have jurisdiction, and will then be baffled upon being told none of those are real.
They also assume just stating that their "rights" are being violated means everyone has to stop the trial now. No, it means we note that down for your later appeal, we're still doing the trial. Declarations like that are not a "walk free" card!
They will assert the person cited in the documents (normally their name in all capital letters) is not them but some sort of non-existent corporate strawman. Most judges have found (because again, this is a known tactic by now) the main way to cut this short is to ask if they are representing themselves, because while you CAN represent yourself in court "pro se" that specifically means "for oneself" and you cannot have "pro se" representation that is someone other than yourself. Judges may also cite them responding to their name under other circumstances, such as being seated or coming up when their case is called.
A new favorite I have seen from multiple judges is specifically against the "traveling" defense, aka "Constitution protects right to travel, I was not driving, I was traveling and thus do not need a license/insurance." Namely "what position did you have the transmission in when you were using the vehicle?" b/c pretty much all cars call the "go forward" setting "Drive."
Just the fact that the judge is in charge of the courtroom seems to confuse some of them.
As a side thing, you REALLY feel for the public defenders assigned to these people. Many of them ask if they can remain available if the person comes to their senses and realize they NEED a lawyer (in fact part of representing yourself in the USA comes with the judge stating in a disclaimer that you will not be treated differently from a trained lawyer if you do so, and you agreeing to that). Many are clearly trying to help these people deal with the charges quickly and sensibly ("could we get probation if they promise to get insurance and then return with proof of having done so?" is a common suggestion that many judges seem happy to consider). Some will outright try to explain to the judge who they think their particular Sovereign's guru is and how that is influencing their thinking to try and get the court to understand/sympathize a little. Doesn't usually help much because the Sovereign doesn't WANT help, but it's interesting to see it play out.
