What is perplexing about the 'sovrun' movement is how ill-prepared most people are to respond to its legal positions. Aside from this and a few similar sites, there are not many people legally competant to rebut their positions. I was surprized a couple years ago when Vincent Bugliosi was in Vermont on a book tour. A sovereign got up to present his position, also to challenge Bugliosi's conclusion regarding the Kennedy assasination. The only thing the former prosecutor did was to ask how much income we are talking about to ascertain whether it was in the government's interest to exact its legal percentage. No response to the legal nonsense of the sovereign. Most of us have no formal legal training in our K-16 educations. So when these nincompoops present their theories, derived partly from Bible-centered paranoia, partly through impractical and false legal theory, and partly from political spin, it becomes hard to counter them especially one on one.
'There are two kinds of injustice: the first is found in those who do an injury, the second in those who fail to protect another from injury when they can.' (Roman. Cicero, De Off. I. vii)
'Choose loss rather than shameful gains.' (Chilon Fr. 10. Diels)