Sovereign Citizen Thinks No Jurisdiction Will Save Him — Judge Said "Not Today"

A defendant entered the courtroom feeling optimistic that his challenge against the court's jurisdiction would terminate the proceedings altogether. Instead of addressing the criminal charges, however, he insisted that the court lacked jurisdiction, alleging that his rights had been violated, questioning the delays surrounding his bond hearing, and demanding that the charges against him be dismissed. On their part, the state argued that the defendant should remain in custody given the serious nature of the felony charges, the number of cases he is facing, and the public safety concerns. After hearing both parties, the judge dismissed the defendant's jurisdictional argument, explained why the delay of the bond hearing was not enough to dismiss or release the defendant from the courtroom, upheld the felony bonds, adjusted several bonds of different lower-level crimes, scheduled a preliminary hearing, and appointed a lawyer for the next phase of the case. Watch the whole courtroom exchange to see how the judge responded to each statement made and why the case proceeded in spite of the objections by the defendant. What is your opinion? Do you think the judge's ruling was justified, or did the defendant convey reasonable legal interests? LIKE SHARE COMMENET AND SUBSCRIBE THANKSS GUYZZZ