Sovereign citizen tests his theories in practice; is shocked by the results

[Timchik]

(Was considering the Pit, but this doesn't rise to pitworthy...).

A young man named Robert Peterson has learned that the various legal theories he's heard on the Internet may not be entirely accurate.

A brief synopsis of the event is shown here (3.5 minute YouTube video).
The whole unedited sequence is given in four videos starting with this one, but it only provides additional background asshattery to explain the end result. The unedited version seems to be posted by his parents, in the baffling belief that they exonerate their son.

In court to contest a ticket for riding a bicycle without a headlight, a young man decides he's going to video the proceedings. This is apparently a no-no in the Idaho courthouse where he is. He tries a line of Sovereign Citizen, Freeman on the Land mumbo-jumbo ("I don't wish to create joinder with you."), to the restrained bemusement of courthouse workers.
Eventually, he tries to force his way into the courtroom to tape the proceedings, and is tasered, arrested, and is charged with battery and criminal contempt.

Now, I'm generally pretty non-violent, but I have to admit I grinned with satisfaction when he went down. Trying to barge past courthouse security seems a spectacularly ill-advised thing to do, but then ill-advised seems to be this fellow's modus operandi.

Kudos to the security guys - they showed a lot of cool in the face of aggressively persistent ignorance.

[JRDelirious]

Sovereign citizen tests his theories in practice; is shocked by the results

I saw what you did there...




I'd expect that out there in Potatostan there may be quite a few of these Sovereign Freemen Whatchamacallit folk and the court staff's patience must get tested with some frequency.

[runner pat]

Rational Wiki on Freeman. The section on "Freeman Successes" is quite droll.

[Loach]

Originally Posted by JRDelirious

I saw what you did there...




I'd expect that out there in Potatostan there may be quite a few of these Sovereign Freemen Whatchamacallit folk and the court staff's patience must get tested with some frequency.

Don't fool yourself, they are everywhere. The magic word defense is getting quite popular.

[billfish678]

"Potatostan"...I like it!

[pulykamell]

I have to admit, I kinda felt like they got taser-happy a little quickly, but I can't exactly blame them, as they exercised more restraint than I would. Thanks for the laugh.

[TriPolar]

I loved it. And I was born in DC, so I'm a real citizen!

[Zsofia]

I'm absolutely shocked that I've never gotten a reference question about this. Everybody wants to know all about the secrets of the Freemasons (pro tip - they eat a lot of charity breakfasts) and the Zionist Conspiracy, and in true retro spirit the Tri-Lateral Commission. But I've never had one of these sovereignty people!

[Derleth]

Originally Posted by Zsofia

I'm absolutely shocked that I've never gotten a reference question about this. Everybody wants to know all about the secrets of the Freemasons (pro tip - they eat a lot of charity breakfasts) and the Zionist Conspiracy, and in true retro spirit the Tri-Lateral Commission. But I've never had one of these sovereignty people!

Here's the formula:

• A little bit of Common Law
• A little bit of Contract Law and Uniform Commercial Code, which they believe has relevance far beyond what mere mortals consider 'commerce' or 'contracts'
• A tiny sliver of something they think comprises Admiralty Law
• A whole lotta crazy

Put in a blender and add more crazy. Blend for a few minutes. Remove most of the non-crazy, which will be adhering to the sides trying to get away from the crazy. More crazy will jump in of its own accord at this point; let it. Dirty some (legal) briefs with the results. Lose, if you actually attempt to use those briefs in court.

[Spoons]

Originally Posted by pulykamell

I have to admit, I kinda felt like they got taser-happy a little quickly, but I can't exactly blame them, as they exercised more restraint than I would. Thanks for the laugh.

Watch all four videos, if you've got a half-hour or so to spare. It starts at the door of the courthouse, with the security checkpoint. He claims he will send them (guards? the courthouse? the state?) a bill for having to put his belongings, including the video camera, through the x-ray and for stepping through the metal detector. He's trying to take names and asking if the guards accept "full commercial liability."

Then he makes his way into the courtroom. Soon, he attracts the attention of a security guard, who tells him, politely, to stop taping. He refuses, the guard tells him to stop again, he again refuses; and things go on like this for a while. Finally, more guards are called, while one stands in front of him to make sure he's not taping the proceedings. All the while, he's stating various bits of freeman woo "for the record."

Eventually, because he won't quit taping, court proceedings are stopped and the courtroom is cleared. He leaves with all the others, whom he claims are witnesses of this violation of his rights. Then, in the hallway, he produces what he calls a "legal document" allowing him to video courtroom proceedings. (It looks like no legal document I've ever seen issued by a court.) Nobody in authority will pay any attention to it, but they're not stopping him from filming and talking out in the hallway.

Then we get to the "I'm not a person but I am a man," and "born in America in one of the several states" and "not willing to create joinder" stuff, followed by him trying to push his way back into the courtroom, just before the tasering.

After all that, I'm unsure if they got taser-happy a little quickly. They gave him every chance to comply, they were polite and restrained at all times, and they did not prevent him from being in the courthouse or the courtroom (it was just filming in the courtroom that bothered them). He could have stood in the hallway all he liked, and filmed everything out there. But he chose not to. Ultimately, the impression I got was that this guy was going out of his way to be a PITA to everybody who worked at the courthouse.

I did look at some of the other recommendations on YouTube, and they were hilarious! The fact that these people honestly believe this stuff--funny, but scary in a way also.

[Little Nemo]

The guy thought he was Bugs Bunny. He found out he was Yosemite Sam.

[pulykamell]

Ah, thanks for the recap, Spoons and for saving me the trouble of watching it. I'm surprised the exercised as much patience as they did and allowed him to go along his business.

So, what was with the "not willing to create joinder" thing? Does that mean anything out in wooland or is it just his own crazy ramblings?

[Spoons]

Originally Posted by pulykamell

Ah, thanks for the recap, Spoons and for saving me the trouble of watching it. I'm surprised the exercised as much patience as they did and allowed him to go along his business.

Glad to help. Hey, every now and then, we've gotta take one for the team.

So, what was with the "not willing to create joinder" thing? Does that mean anything out in wooland or is it just his own crazy ramblings?

The impression I get from the RationalWiki link posted upthread is that a so-called freeman sees each individual as two entities: a legal person, and a human being. While all freemen admit to being human, it is the "legal person" status that bothers them, as by admitting to being a legal person, they feel that they will then be subject to the laws and other rules that are laid down by governments. In the video, Robert is reluctant to admit to being a person to the courthouse employee, as in his mind, that would create "joinder" between Robert the person and Robert the man, making them one and the same and thus subject to laws and governments.

It wouldn't. In reality, and just as the RationalWiki link points out, "In real law, joinder means joining related cases together, not establishing identity." (Quote from the RationalWiki link.)

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Spoons

In reality, and just as the RationalWiki link points out, "In real law, joinder means joining related cases together, not establishing identity." (Quote from the RationalWiki link.)

Yes; trying to look up "create joinder" I came across the Wikipedia page on joinder.

Joinder is a legal term, which refers to the process of joining two or more legal issues together to be heard in one hearing or trial. It is done when the issues or parties involved overlap sufficiently to make the process more efficient or more fair. It helps courts avoid hearing the same facts multiple times or seeing the same parties return to court separately for each of their legal disputes.

I also got a lot of wacky "freemen on the land" stuff. It's clearly not just unique to this guy.

[gunnergoz]

What happens when you think a lively and stimulating conversation is talking with yourself in the mirror.

[Alan Smithee]

You can see at the end of the first video that he's wearing toe shoes. I think that justifies the tazering tight there. Even Vinny didn't try showing up in court wearing toe shoes.

ETA: Holy shit, I think his mother's wearing toe shoes too! Someone with him is. Are toe shoes a Sovereign Citizen thing?

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by gunnergoz

What happens when you think a lively and stimulating conversation is talking with yourself in the mirror.

See, that's how you create joinder.

[JRDelirious]

Apart from everything, it looks as if they hold to a fascinating interpretation of the establishment of the "legal person" concept vis-a-vis corporate entities, where some elements in the wack community conclude then it must mean that therefore THAT is the only meaning of "person" to whom the laws apply, entirely divorcing legal from natural individual personhood. So this is where all this about corporations being persons leads... to people not wanting to be persons???? Huh?

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by JRDelirious

Apart from everything, it looks as if they hold to a fascinating interpretation of the establishment of the "legal person" concept vis-a-vis corporate entities, where some elements in the wack community conclude then it must mean that therefore THAT is the only meaning of "person" to whom the laws apply, entirely divorcing legal from natural individual personhood. So this is where all this about corporations being persons leads... to people not wanting to be persons???? Huh?

No, that's not where corporate personhood leads. The sovereign citizen movement would be quite contentedly and ignorantly spewing their idiocy without the concept of corporate personhood.

[voltaire]

Originally Posted by Alan Smithee

You can see at the end of the first video that he's wearing toe shoes. I think that justifies the tazering tight there. Even Vinny didn't try showing up in court wearing toe shoes.

ETA: Holy shit, I think his mother's wearing toe shoes too! Someone with him is. Are toe shoes a Sovereign Citizen thing?

Yeah, I noticed that, too. But it was the younger kid (brother?) with him that was the other person wearing toe shoes, not his mother.

Which leads me to how (even though I admit to some schadenfreude watching him get tazed) I can't help but try to feel some sympathy for the poor deluded kid. To be that indoctrinated into the freeman stupidity so young, I imagine that he had to have been raised that way, or else why would his mother be going along with it? If he was also home-schooled, it's not that surprising he has no idea how the real world works.

[Spoons]

Originally Posted by JRDelirious

Apart from everything, it looks as if they hold to a fascinating interpretation of the establishment of the "legal person" concept vis-a-vis corporate entities, where some elements in the wack community conclude then it must mean that therefore THAT is the only meaning of "person" to whom the laws apply, entirely divorcing legal from natural individual personhood. So this is where all this about corporations being persons leads... to people not wanting to be persons???? Huh?

It's true that for legal purposes, corporations are treated as legal persons, but I don't think that's what the freemen are referring to. Rather, they are splitting hairs as to wording in various constitutional and legal documents and statutes. Let's take a look at a few:

Originally Posted by U.S. Constitution, Am. V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury....

Originally Posted by U.S. Constitution, Am. XIV, s. 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside....

We see "person" in other constitutional documents as well. Example:

Originally Posted by Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 11

Any person charged with an offence has the right....

Emphasis added by me in all examples. Note that these examples (few as they are) all use "person." This indicates to me, as a Canadian citizen, that if I am in the US, I can count on the protections of the Fifth Amendment if I am arrested. And, as per the Fourteenth Amendment, I (as a non-US-citizen) can also become a naturalized US citizen in, say, Colorado; and if I do and continue to live in Colorado, then I am both a US citizen and a citizen of Colorado. Similarly, as per the Canadian Charter, American citizens (and all non-Canadians who run afoul of Canadian law in Canada) have the protections laid out in that document's s. 11.

In short, "person" is, for the purposes of constitutional rights, a handy way to make sure that those rights are extended to everybody, citizen or not, who may need them.

Contrast this with other sections of the same documents:

Originally Posted by Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 3

Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote....

Originally Posted by U.S. Constitution, Am. XIV, s. 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States....

Again, emphasis added by me for both examples.

Here we see a difference between plain ol' "persons" and "citizens." Regardless, this is the kind of difference that the freemen look for. Legally, there is a difference between "persons" and "citizens" in constitutional documents, as I have demonstrated; and it is this difference (among others) that it seems to me that the freemen are hoping to exploit. Unfortunately for them, they seem to have the entirely wrong idea about the respective words' meanings and the reasons for using them.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Alan Smithee

Are toe shoes a Sovereign Citizen thing?

Sheeple may submit to foot consolidationism but a Free Man upholds the rights of each sovereign toe.

[Robot Arm]

Oh, those kind of toe shoes. I thought you meant these.

[Princhester]

I think these freemen are completely correct in their beliefs.

I am absolutely free. I am free to do whatever I can and want to do, bounded only by physical constraints and, as I am honourable, my own consentual contracts with others.

I am free to break laws. I am free to pay no tax. I am free to resist as I am arrested. I am free to say whatever I want in court.

Many is the time, as I have sat in solitary confinement, that I have rejoiced at the thought that I am free to do whatever I can and want to do, bounded only by physical constraints and, as I am honourable, my own consentual contracts with others.

The physical constraints of prison cells sure are kind of limiting, though.

[septimus]

In a way, the Freeman has a point: Why should he suffer the onus of "personhood" that other animals do not suffer, just because he's Homo sapiens ?

Perhaps he should be allowed to renounce his personhood, and acquire the legal status of, say, raccoon, dog, or catfish. Letting the SPCA rather than justice system deal with him would be cost-effective.

[Mnemnosyne]

While the legal crazy is of course crazy, the use of a taser there is ridiculous and a little frightening to me; people seem far too willing to accept the use of these things. There were numerous officers present; how annoying he might have been doesn't justify the use of a taser to subdue him when he wasn't violent and appeared to be in no danger of causing harm to anyone. Physically restraining him would have been more than adequate, and by the looks of it, not particularly difficult (it seems likely he would have shouted more "legal" nonsense, but not fought back). Add the fact that the event took place in an area where he had already been checked for weapons, and the officers had no plausible way to think he would pull out a dangerous weapon if they attempted to simply apprehend him physically.

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Originally Posted by Mnemnosyne

While the legal crazy is of course crazy, the use of a taser there is ridiculous and a little frightening to me; people seem far too willing to accept the use of these things.

Oh, I fully support his right to sue them for damages; I merely ask that -- upon serving process on their ALL-CAPS personas and finding himself a courtroom where the flag is minus a gold fringe -- he of course agrees to call the whole thing off so long as each would-be defendant simply refuses to consent to the proceedings.

[septimus]

There seem to be many recent examples of unnecessary tazering, but this one seems less clearcut. I won't necessarily defend this tazering, but wonder what the bailiffs should have done instead. Two bailiffs were dedicated to physical blocking his path; if he had stayed there, taunting them for five hours, should the taxpayers afford ten man-hours to block him? Just before the tazering it appears "Robert" tried to shoulder his way past the bailiffs. Should they have let him continue to do that, perhaps wrestling with him?

Perhaps an arrest for "disturbing the peace" was appropriate, but the camera dissuaded that route?

My questions aren't rhetorical; I really wonder how he should have been dealt with.

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by septimus

There seem to be many recent examples of unnecessary tazering, but this one seems less clearcut. I won't necessarily defend this tazering, but wonder what the bailiffs should have done instead. Two bailiffs were dedicated to physical blocking his path; if he had stayed there, taunting them for five hours, should the taxpayers afford ten man-hours to block him? Just before the tazering it appears "Robert" tried to shoulder his way past the bailiffs. Should they have let him continue to do that, perhaps wrestling with him?

Perhaps an arrest for "disturbing the peace" was appropriate, but the camera dissuaded that route?

My questions aren't rhetorical; I really wonder how he should have been dealt with.

He was dealt with in the proper manner. He attempted to force his way into a courtroom, disobeyed direct, legitimate orders from an officer of the court, and previously announced his intention to disregard the law. Alternative solutions were to beat him senseless or shoot him with a real gun. Someone who announces that they are going to willfully disregard all laws is very dangerous. To be clear, he did assault the bailiffs, he was committing a violent crime, and there's no reason to believe he wouldn't continue to commit violent crimes based on his declaration that he was not bound to obey the law.

[elbows]

He's one guy, they are many, what would have happened in the days before tazers?

They'd have wrestled him to the ground and cuffed him, while he spewed his crazy, that's what.

Don't misunderstand me, I understand that cops take on a lot of injuries in just such circumstances. They are not obligated to get hurt, by any means. But as stated up thread, he'd been cleared for weapons.

Perhaps they didn't want to risk damaging the camera, in a scuffle, or thought it could be used as a weapon against them?

[Hello Again]

Originally Posted by elbows

He's one guy, they are many, what would have happened in the days before tazers?

They'd have wrestled him to the ground and cuffed him, while he spewed his crazy, that's what.

Right. And maybe dislocated his shoulder or broke his elbow or cracked a couple ribs in the process. I don't know why people imagine that physical scuffles are safer for the scuflee than a nice zap. They aren't.

At any rate, officers of the law must use reasonable force, not minimum force.

[Bosstone]

Originally Posted by elbows

He's one guy, they are many, what would have happened in the days before tazers?

They'd have wrestled him to the ground and cuffed him, while he spewed his crazy, that's what.

What would have happened in the days before GPS?

Someone trying to find an unfamiliar location would have stopped at a gas station and asked directions or looked at a map, that's what.

I'm not sure why, when technology is available to quickly and safely subdue someone, they should be obligated to use a method that carries a similar amount of risk to the aggressor (the electrical shock has a possibility of doing bad things to the target, but so does getting dogpiled by a bunch of officers while physically resisting).

[Chimera]

Originally Posted by Mnemnosyne

While the legal crazy is of course crazy, the use of a taser there is ridiculous and a little frightening to me; people seem far too willing to accept the use of these things. There were numerous officers present; how annoying he might have been doesn't justify the use of a taser to subdue him when he wasn't violent and appeared to be in no danger of causing harm to anyone. Physically restraining him would have been more than adequate, and by the looks of it, not particularly difficult (it seems likely he would have shouted more "legal" nonsense, but not fought back). Add the fact that the event took place in an area where he had already been checked for weapons, and the officers had no plausible way to think he would pull out a dangerous weapon if they attempted to simply apprehend him physically.

Attempting to physically restrain him poses a greater risk of injury both to him and to the officers required to take him down. It also potentially poses a higher risk of being deemed 'excessive force'.

Now I will admit I thought the officer was a bit quick on the tazer, but they'd already been a bit too patient with this clown and it was time for the proverbial 'slap in the face' to wake him up to reality.

[Chimera]

Beyond all that, I vote for a sentence of 60 days, with a mandatory tazering after every meal.

[Muffin]

An appropriate action would have been to arrest him without zapping him. He was not causing bodily harm, and it did not appear that he would imminently cause bodily harm (that's the policy used where I live, ymmv). As in pull out the tazer, direct him to stop, and then cuff him.

The appropriate time to zap him would be up the ass during the strip search.

[Lanzy]

Originally Posted by runner pat

Rational Wiki on Freeman. The section on "Freeman Successes" is quite droll.

Well, that was a quick read.

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by Muffin

An appropriate action would have been to arrest him without zapping him. He was not causing bodily harm, and it did not appear that he would imminently cause bodily harm (that's the policy used where I live, ymmv). As in pull out the tazer, direct him to stop, and then cuff him.

The appropriate time to zap him would be up the ass during the strip search.

He assaulted the bailiffs. The part with the strip search is a good idea though.

[arseNal]

Absolutely this tazering is warranted, otherwise we'd have been denied "Let the record show that you just battered me, and you're using AAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGH!!!!"

[Muffin]

Here is the sort of policy that we have in Kanukistan:

3. 1. 1. The CEW must only be used in accordance with CEW training, the principles of the Incident Management/Intervention Model (IM/IM) and when a subject is causing bodily harm, or the member believes on reasonable grounds, that the subject will imminently cause bodily harm as determined by the member’s assessment of the totality of the circumstances. See also ch. 17.1.

NOTES:
1. In accordance with sec. 2., CC, bodily harm is defined as any hurt or injury to a person that interferes with the health or comfort of the person and that is more than merely transient or trifling in nature.
2. Members’ actions must be reasonable and the force used must be necessary in the circumstances. Members must fully and accurately report and articulate their actions. Supervisors/managers will ensure all reporting requirements are complied with and appropriately evaluate all interventions to ensure compliance with RCMP directives.

3. 1. 2. All members must recognize that any use of force entails risk.

3. 1. 3. Where tactically feasible, members will use de-escalation techniques and/or other crisis intervention techniques before using a CEW.

3. 1. 4. Where tactically feasible, members will issue a verbal warning so the subject is aware that a CEW is about to be deployed.

I realize that the laws and policies we have here are different from those in the video's jurisdiction. If the matter had taken place here, policy would have been violated (1) because the nutter was not causing bodily harm, (2) there was no indication that the nutter would imminently cause bodily harm, (3) arrest was not used as in intervention to the bodily harm (not that there was any in the first place), and (4) there was no verbal warning given prior to the deployment of the taser.

The Commission for Complaints against the RCMP released a report on taser use yesterday, noting that taser use has dropped significantly over the last three years. The report is worth reading, for it gives many examples of appropriate and inappropriate use.

[TriPolar]

Awww, you guys are so nice.

[Muffin]

I'm thinking that tasers should be built into the seats in the House of Commons, for use by the Speaker.

[C K Dexter Haven]

Just to note that Cecil has addressed some of this: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...or-value-on-it

[Muffin]

Originally Posted by TriPolar

Awww, you guys are so nice.

There had been some deaths caused by tasers that led to the police (and the Complaints Commission) to take a hard look at taser use. Like most new technologies, it has taken a bit of time to establish and hone best use practices.

From what I can see, the ongoing work on policies and training has led police being better able to identify those more at risk of being injured or killed by when zapped, and it has led to police becoming better aware of how to avoid getting to the point of having to zap someone. It is taking some time and a lot of effort to dial it in when it comes to the new tool, but the efforts are paying off. It is a matter of getting the job done safely without using excessive force.

[Sailboat]

Originally Posted by Chimera

Attempting to physically restrain him poses a greater risk of injury both to him and to the officers required to take him down. It also potentially poses a higher risk of being deemed 'excessive force'.

While I am not in any way inclined to defend this "Freeman on the Courtroom Floor," the flat assertions of fact above are the sort of thing generally amenable to citation of statistical proof.

I'd be interested to see some.

[Hello Again]

Originally Posted by Sailboat

While I am not in any way inclined to defend this "Freeman on the Courtroom Floor," the flat assertions of fact above are the sort of thing generally amenable to citation of statistical proof.

I'd be interested to see some.

UK Study:
We found officer injury rates associated with M26 deployment were lower than those for CS spray and baton use. Subject injury rates were lower in M26 deployment than in deployment of CS spray, batons or police dogs.
http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.c...199-9/abstract

[silenus]

Originally Posted by TriPolar

Alternative solutions were to beat him senseless or shoot him with a real gun.

I would have loved to have seen the former. Woo-woos like this clown need to get smacked with the clue by four that is reality more often.

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by elbows

He's one guy, they are many, what would have happened in the days before tazers?

They'd have wrestled him to the ground and cuffed him, while he spewed his crazy, that's what.

Don't misunderstand me, I understand that cops take on a lot of injuries in just such circumstances. They are not obligated to get hurt, by any means. But as stated up thread, he'd been cleared for weapons.

Perhaps they didn't want to risk damaging the camera, in a scuffle, or thought it could be used as a weapon against them?

Tazering someone causes much less harm than wrestling them to the ground does. It really was the best outcome he could have reasonably hoped for.

[Muffin]

Originally Posted by Hello Again

UK Study:
We found officer injury rates associated with M26 deployment were lower than those for CS spray and baton use. Subject injury rates were lower in M26 deployment than in deployment of CS spray, batons or police dogs.
http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.c...199-9/abstract

I should certainly hope that subject injury rates for zappees are lower than people who are sprayed, clubbed or bitten. There is nothing in the video that indicates that an arrest would haved required the use of force in the first place. A more appropriate response to the attempt to push through would have been to pull out the taser, warn the idiot, and arrest him without using it unless he resisted to the point of it seeming that he would imminently cause bodily harm. Get 'er done, but don't over do 'er.

That being said, if ever a fucktard deserved to be zapped in the ass just for being an ass, this one was it.

[Dewey Finn]

The part of his argument that didn't make any sense to me (Well, none of it makes sense, but this part in particular) was when he denied being a US Citizen and claimed only to be a citizen of Idaho and didn't recognize the authority of the Federal Government. But wasn't he in a municipal or state courthouse? So even if you accept the loony arguments about the Federal Government, the state or municipal courts still are valid, right?

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by Dewey Finn

The part of his argument that didn't make any sense to me (Well, none of it makes sense, but this part in particular) was when he denied being a US Citizen and claimed only to be a citizen of Idaho and didn't recognize the authority of the Federal Government. But wasn't he in a municipal or state courthouse? So even if you accept the loony arguments about the Federal Government, the state or municipal courts still are valid, right?

That's the only part that didn't make sense to you?