You give them very little to go on if you keep your mouth closed.
Clinton James, is that you?
There was some valid ones originally. Like a person would record their exchange with the officer, and the officer would tell them to turn off the camera or be arrested, and they would say, "I'm legally allowed to record this". Then eventually a higher up officer would get involved and point out to the rookie that the guy is right and he's legally allowed to record it.
www.abc.net.au
There's an interesting one now where the sovereign citizens have formed a group that they claim is above the law. They have their own "rangers" that wear uniforms and they pretend that their self-made law is the only one that matters. They have been doing some crazy stuff, like sending judges letters that say that the judge is under arrest and needs to present to their rangers for arrest. They're even using it to help parents kidnap children from their ex-partners.
Nutjobs are getting really crazy
Why Scott has gone to 'war' with his ex-partner and her 'delusional cult'
A radical sovereign citizen group co-invented by a fugitive mother is using a fake court to justify attempted child abduction, extortion, and intimidation of court officials.
Of course not, we're convicts, we don't give a damn about them and their laws!
Actus reus and mens rea come to mind for me, when it comes to cases like linked.
But without rules, established or not, you only have chaos.
There has always been some debate over the rule of law when it comes to ignorance, and many states and countries do take non-deliberate ignorance of the law into account. People have actually dodged charges due to this. But the Sovereign Citizens ignorance isn't non-deliberate. They are aware of the law but they believe (falsely) that the law doesn't apply to them. The do truly believe it, but they are aware that the law exists and they are effectively ignoring it without proper legal council.
