I understand that they're wildly different situations, but this is the same thing people said about Videla. Speaking of which, go watch Argentina, 1985!
Wait so he's a sovereign citizen but so involved in us politics that he decided to raid the capitol? I don't understand how these guys can pick and choose which parts of being in a country they want
and does a law review on it and tears his arguments to pieces
I'm not sure there's much value in that.
Simplifying things, law is one of the two:
Just what it is in fact. A result of the balance of power in the society. No hard connection to justice or what is right. Then sovereign citizens are of course wrong, only they are not using this meaning.
Some system which allows anybody to defend themselves when they are right (that meaning personal, pun intended, sovereignty as in never being obliged to obey anyone), with them never owing anybody anything to which they hadn't agreed, etc. Irresponsible people often say this is what law is, not really meaning it. Some gullible people either believe that or think that it should be that. The former are sovereign citizens, the latter are ancaps and other natural law proponents.
For 1 - he doesn't care, for 2 - you can't.
I sympathize with that subculture, it's definitely nicer than "citizens of USSR" in Russia or "citizens of the Reich" in Germany.
I love it when judges call them on this shit. There was a ruling where a judge made a point of how THE CAPITALIZATION OF WORDS somehow was supposed to be special, but it's not.