Same thing here. Sovereign/Freeman types live and breath their right to chose common law over statutory law although they seem to know little about either. I've been to a number of tax evasion and counselling fraud trial, both statutory offenses, where the accused has kept insisting that he be tried under common law.
I can't recall ever getting an explanation from any of them about their love of common law but I think I can guess why. One of their foundation beliefs is "no harm, no offense", the position that they haven't broken any laws unless they can be proven to have actually harmed someone. This is extremely common in traffic offenses such as not having car insurance or not having a driver's license. These are statutory laws. They even use this for tax evasion defenses on the basis that no individual was actually harmed if the government was cheated of revenue. But statutory offenses aren't based on the concept of harm, just whether or not the individual did the offense as written in the statute. However torts, common law offenses, require harm.
A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a civil wrong[1] that causes someone else to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act.
The person who commits the act is called a tortfeasor. Although crimes may be torts, the cause of legal action is not necessarily a crime, as the harm may be due to negligence which does not amount to criminal negligence. The victim of the harm can recover their loss as damages in a lawsuit. In order to prevail, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, commonly referred to as the injured party, must show that the actions or lack of action was the legally recognizable cause of the harm. The equivalent of tort in civil law jurisdictions is delict.
Legal injuries are not limited to physical injuries and may include emotional, economic, or reputational injuries as well as violations of privacy, property, or constitutional rights. Torts comprise such varied topics as automobile accidents, false imprisonment, defamation, product liability, copyright infringement, and environmental pollution (toxic torts). While many torts are the result of negligence, tort law also recognizes intentional torts, where a person has intentionally acted in a way that harms another, and in a few cases (particularly for product liability in the United States) "strict liability" which allows recovery without the need to demonstrate negligence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort
So driving without insurance or without a license cannot be an offense in common law since you never harm anyone by doing either. If you have an accident and it's your fault then the offense is negligence. So you can, under Sovereign beliefs, quite legally do whatever you want regardless of statuory law unless you actually harm someone.
- 
