There are many things, but sometimes the difference between political theory and and the sovereign citizen movement is slight.
The one that sticks out most is the upper and lowercase nonsense, as well as the idea of secret accounts in our names by the federal govt. Also what stood out was the denial that a state has [criminal] jurisdiction over a person through their statutes. It reeks of the strawperson fringe of the movement warped by bizarre delusions.
What also stood out sounded like the classic lien fraud committed by sovereign citizens also known as paper terrorism.
As far as not knowing that the legislature represents the people, is something a reasonable disenfranchised person may argue. But it is still a shared belief with the sovereign citizens. The distinction between an ordinary person is that it is more likely to be a simple belief or spur of the moment rhetoric, whereas a sovereign citizen would more likely hold onto the belief at a delusional level.
Questioning a courts jurisdiction is common for sovereigns to do, but is also a valid legal strategy-especially when a court doesn't have jurisdiction. The distinction here is that the sovereign citizens claim to not know that a state has criminal jurisdiction over people.
Invoking the UN as part of a conspiracy in US law is also not a healthy sign of mental health-it is delusional in nature. But such delusions are not exclusive to the sovereign citizens movement.
There are over 250 bonds created with my social security number and when I paid a bill using the Federal Reserve of Atlanta as the routing number and my social security number as the account number it came up as the Bureau of Public Debt. When FDR took the gold they set up Treasury Direct Accounts for people's social security number and baby bonds are created from that if you have the ss number and the person's signature such as a job application or a credit card application.
the sovereign citizen is an oxymoron. a freeman is an individual sovereign and belongs to he, himself and a citizen is a man who belongs to a nation or enterprise set up to rule him. like the romans. you wanted to be a citizen you had to jump through hoops and pay taxes but there were rewards. you didn't have to become a citizen but you were left without protection. for a man that wants to be left alone to make his own way beholden to none that is the def of a freeman. sovereign and citizen are two different things. they don't go together like peanut butter and chocolate.
You asked for examples that the document reference stuff from the sovereign citizens playbook, and i provided them. Your disagreement of law is irrelevant to what you had requested.
Article 3 of the constitution, section 2.
Article 1, section 7
The legislature, who represents the people, has the ability to pass bills, the executive branch (the sovereign) can then sign them into law. Once they are [federal] law [or equity issued from a federal court], the judiciary branch then has jurisdiction for those who violate the law.
Just because you say that the you in capital letters is a corporation, not a person, doesn't make it so nor does it deny the courts of their jurisdiction over a person or a corporation. Even the UCC capitalization provision doesn't legitimize a corportaion, the optional capital letters provisions applies to warrentees-and capital letters alone will not save a warrantee. And even if you were a corporation, the federal courts still has jurisdiction where the united states is a party or other provision of article 3 in a federal or civil claim against a person or corporation. That means that the federal courts has jurisdiction over a person, regardless if they hide behind the shell of a corporation, when there is probable cause to believe they have violated federal law. They will nail, oh will they nail, a person whose only defense appears to be that he is a rogue person of his own corporation.