Part III: Disrupting the Operation of the Court
This section covers tactics that, while they may occur in the courtroom, may also occur outside of the courtroom, in the presence of clerks, guards and other court personnel. The most crucial step a court can take to prepare for these tactics is to be aware of their potentiality and prepare a plan in advance to either placate or dissuade the patron from acting or to alleviate the effects of the patron's actions.
As the author notes in the discussion of the Trial Court Performance Standards, the responses courts take must be well-considered beforehand, for the parties against which those responses are taken both have a right to the same process as others and represent an unusually active threat to the courts. Civil rights suits by members of these movements, against judges in their personal capacity, are not unheard of. The response a court takes against one of these members might well make the difference whether the judge or other court personnel end up burdened with defending, or at least answering to, a suit against their person. For this, the authors strongly suggest an understanding and appreciation for the goals and methodology espoused by the Trial Court Performance Standards.

Subpart 3.1 - Refusing to Speak / Identify Oneself
A.    Refusal to Identify Oneself
Members of the anti-government movement will often attempt to avoid conferral of jurisdiction onto a court by refusing to identify themselves or denying that they are the person named in a warrant or summons. This refusal may come from any one of or even several of the following bases. Often, anti-government adherents will refuse to come forward simply to waste time, or out of a more general refusal to recognize or submit to the court's jurisdiction.
Some parts of the anti-government movement however, will refuse to come forward on the ground that their name is misspelled, or even because their name is in all capital letters. This particular objection comes from a number of "sources". Some believe that the spelling (or misspelling, or use of all capital letters) of their name is a sign of the movement toward "one world government." Others believe that all capital letters denotes a corporation, and that answering as a corporation subjects them to the illegitimate laws of the American judicial system. Some believe that all capital letters denotes "the Mark of the Beast," or that it is a denotation of a "war name." Finally, some members of the movement believe that they only "own" their first and middle names, and that their last name reveals their family. They use their middle name in place of a last name, or go by their first and middle name "from the family of their last name. Attached to this particular issue may be a desire to be referred to as "Sir" or "Sovereign," because of a belief that this title more effectively conveys their status as a "sovereign citizen." It is the belief of members of the movement that they can file a document renouncing their citizenship to become a nation subject only to their own local common-law, and not subject to the law of their state or the federal government.
Another ground for a follower's refusal to identify himself may be his refusal to recognize himself as a "person." This particular objection comes from what appears to be a somewhat mystical distinction between a "person" and a "human being" according to the anti-government movement's philosophy.
B.    Typical Responses to Refusals to Identify
Obviously dealing with such antics tends to be frustrating and to waste time. For this reason it is very important that the court impose a schedule for filings and appearances, and when the defendant fails to appear or refuses to identify himself, the court should move on. Some courts have had success requiring such defendants to post bond to secure appearances. When the defendant is in the courtroom, but simply refuses to identify himself, the court can ask if anyone else in the court is able to identify him, or use a legal document for ID purposes. If no one in the court can identify the defendant, the judge can warn the defendant of the contempt power. Obviously, where the defendant refuses to recognize him or herself as a "person," the court can do little other than read the definition of "person" to the defendant, note the objection, and move on.
1.     Scheduling — It is virtually unquestioned that courts have the authority to maintain control over their dockets, and to move forward where delay is impractical. Also, as noted repeatedly within this guide, it is one of the primary objections of members of the movement that the law treats them and those like them unfairly. In order to avoid fanning the flames, courts (and indeed government personnel in general) should set their rules and follow them scrupulously, thus reducing the fervor of this particular complaint. Where the court knows or suspects that followers (or anyone, for that matter) will appear before it in a given case and present such problems, the court can best deal with the situation by setting and adhering strictly to a schedule for pretrial and trial proceedings.
2.     Alternative Identification - Where a defendant refuses to identify himself the obvious solution is to find some other way to identify him. The court can ask those present if the defendant is present and if any one can identify him, or a person suspected to be the defendant can be asked to present identification. It is important to keep in mind, however, that many adherents to the movement do not carry identification, especially drivers' licenses, because they refuse to recognize the government's authority to require such licensing.
Where a defendant refuses to recognize himself as a "person" the court can only read the definition of a "person," note the defendant's objection, and move on.
3.    Bonds and Contempt— Where no one in court can identify the defendant and the defendant will not identify himself, the court can do little other than warn those in the courtroom of the contempt power (hoping that the defendant is present). It is at this point that adherence to the schedule becomes critical. The court must then issue a warrant to bring the defendant before it to show cause why he should not be held in contempt and go on with its docket. At least one court filed for such a warrant where the defendant was in the courtroom but refused to respond to his name.
Many courts deal with the problems of getting followers to appear by requiring that they first post a bond securing their appearance. Being required to appear and make this fact known or lose several thousand dollars provides an obvious and significant incentive to a defendant.
As always, where a government official deals with members of the antigovernment movement, it is important to recognize that virtually any response to them may result in lawsuits (often frivolous) being filed against the official in either legitimate state or federal courts or in the follower's own common-law court.

Subpart 3.2 - Silence/Filibuster
A.    Party Chooses to Remain Silent or Party Chooses to 'Filibuster"
Members of the movement will engage in any of a number of tactics to stall, disrupt, or render literally impossible the operation of the courtroom. As part of a general refusal to subject himself to the court's jurisdiction the defendant may refuse to enter a plea. He may refuse to swear an oath on religious grounds before taking the stand, or he may even refuse to say anything at all. In some cases, a party may take the stand in his own defense, and then refuse to respond to questions asked by the other side on cross-examination.
Members of the movement are also known to take the exact opposite tack. They may talk incessantly, refusing to follow substantive or procedural law. A defendant may also respond to simple questions with questions of his own. In at least one case a member of a common-law court actually went so far as to convene his own court in the courtroom, asking the judge questions in response to his questions, ruling on arguments and motions, and generally conducting proceedings pursuant to his court's "rules." 
B.    Typical Responses to Silence/Filibuster
The obvious response to these problems is the use of the court's contempt power. The thorny problem with that response is that, at least with a criminal defendant, there may be serious 5th amendment implications - a defendant simply may not be required to testify against himself where it may incriminate him. Where a criminal defendant refuses to respond to the court, the court may choose to enter a "not guilty" plea on the defendant's behalf. The court also has the option of ordering compliance with the court's rules and taking such actions as may be necessary to obtain such compliance.
1.     Contempt Power - As always, the court has the power to find a party that refuses to comply with its rules and orders. While this power is secure, at least in the criminal context there are issues that must be addressed under the 5th amendment. The most crucial place where use of the contempt power and attendant measures to ensure compliance is where the litigant is proceeding pro se in a criminal matter, and is thus his own attorney, as well. In this instance, the litigant's ability to make objections, question witnesses, and the like is seriously hampered. Here, the court must address very serious Sixth Amendment concerns.
2.     Entering a Plea on the Party's Behalf - Where the militiaman refuses to enter his own plea, the court should enter a plea of "not guilty" on the defendant's behalf. The defendant is clearly not prejudiced by such an action (assuming he is, in fact, present—otherwise there are substantial procedural due process problems), because he may later change his plea if necessary, and a "not guilty" plea affords him the benefit of a presumption of innocence. In other words, the other side must still prove its case in both a civil and a criminal action where the court assumes that the defendant denies the charges filed against him.
3.     Ordering Silence/Compliance With Rules - In either the case where the defendant refuses to speak or the case where the defendant refuses to refrain from speaking, a court is clearly within its power to order, under pain of contempt, compliance with court rules and procedures. Where a defendant chooses to represent himself pro se, this issue becomes more complicated, except that jurisdictions generally allow a court to terminate a defendant's right to represent himself, where necessary. The court should make the requirements clear, and then punish with the contempt power in order to see that those requirements are met. In some cases, more drastic measures may be necessary in order to secure compliance with court rules (see below). In other circumstances a defendant may refuse, on religious grounds, to give an oath before testifying. An oath may be modified for religious witnesses. Generally the oath need only show that the witness intends to tell the truth and that he knows that failure to do so will subject him to a penalty for perjury. 
C.    Additional Authority
The United States Supreme Court has addressed the issues surrounding the unduly disruptive litigant. The following case is the first clear explication of the principles at stake:
1.    Gagging Party - Illinois v Alien, 397 U. S. 337 (1970).
2.  Removing Party From Proceedings - Illinois v Alien, 397 U. S. 337 (1970) ("a defendant can lose his right to be present at trial if, after he has been warned by the judge that he will be removed if he continues his disruptive behavior, he nevertheless insists on conducting himself in a manner so disorderly, disruptive and disrespectful of the court that his trial cannot be carried on with him in the courtroom").
3.     Generally - see the following:
• Bostic v. State, 531 S .2d 1210 (Miss. 1988)
• People v. Davis, 851 P.2d 259 (Colo.App. 1993)
4.     But See - the following cases limit the court's authority:
•	Spain v. Rushen, 883 F.2d 712 (9th Cir. 1989) (court must pursue less restrictive alternatives before pursuing physical restraints).
•	Jones v. Meyer, 899 F.2d 883 (9th Cir. 1990) (allowing the use of shackles only when justified by need to maintain security, and after seeking less restrictive alternatives).
•	Elledge v. Dagger, 823 F.2d 1429 (11th Cir. 1987) (violation of due process to shackle defendant at hearing without affording opportunity to contest necessity of the shackling). For further discussion of the gagging/shackling response, please see the Bellowes article cited at Note 42, above.

Subpart 3.3 - Demanding "Counsel of Choice"
A.    Party Requests to be Represented by a Non-Lawyer
Because members of the movement reject the legitimacy of the judicial system in this country, it should not be surprising that they also reject the concept of a "bar" of lawyers who do most litigation. In fact, the movement generally suggests that, because the bar is not a state organization, membership in the bar does not confer a "license," but instead confers only membership in an exclusive club. According to members of the movement, proceedings in court are meetings of this private club, presided over by a member of the club, and such proceedings have no jurisdiction over them.
As a result, and in addition to other tactics, members of these movements often seek to be represented by "one of their own," when appearing in court. That is, to be represented by another member of the movement, versed in their interpretation of the law and willing to argue it. Where denied this opportunity the member may attempt to proceed pro se, or may accept representation by a court-appointed attorney with the expectation that this attorney will follow their instructions and make the arguments they wish to make (which includes their "interpretations" of the law). In many cases, either the attorney representing the member will move to be relieved of the case or the member himself will become frustrated with the attorney's refusal to advance his arguments and will seek to remove or replace counsel.
Members of the movement may also seek to be represented by "counsel of their choice." While this argument will often include their desire to be represented by a non-lawyer adherent to their views, it may also be an argument that the court should pay any lawyer they select (not court-appointed). As well, members may attempt to delay the proceedings by selecting an attorney who either cannot or will not represent the defendant. 
B.    Responding to Requests to be Represented by a Non-Lawyer
It is quite clear that the court cannot itself lapse into lawlessness and violate state law by allowing a non-lawyer to practice law for another in the state courts. The court may rely upon several justifications for such a restriction, including the following:
1.     Barratry - All states have barratry laws forbidding the unauthorized practice of law by non-attorneys.
2.    Waiver of Right to Counsel - Courts must exercise extreme caution in presuming that an individual has waived his or her right to counsel.
3.     Pro Se Litigants - the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee a criminal defendant the right to counsel in most cases. The United States Supreme Court has elaborated on this right, to say that "the Sixth Amendment does not provide merely that a defense shall be made for the accused" and that "the right to self-representation - to make one's own defense personally - is thus necessarily implied by the structure of the amendment." As a result, it is quite clear that the defendant himself or herself may proceed pro ye. Though we include this reminder here, the pro se defendant does not actually present the barratry problem because they do not fit the definition of the unlicensed practice of law.

Subpart 3.4 - Verbal Threats Against the Court
A.    Party Makes Verbal Threats Against the Court
Some members of the Anti-Government movement can be scary people. They range from truly non-violent tax protesters and simple farmers or racially intolerant members of the KKK and the Aryan Nations to gun-toting secessionists who both preach and practice violence in order to attain their goals. Threats by the movement, though clearly not always carried out, should be dealt with swiftly and severely. The alleged connection to the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, the sieges at Ruby Ridge and in Waco and the issuance by common-law courts of billions of dollars in false liens and many "death sentences" should make at least two things clear - these people are serious, and they have the potential to be dangerous.
Although it is not as common (yet) as one might expect, members of the movement have been known to issue threats to court clerks and administrators, not to mention judges and jurors. They have been known to "pack the courtroom" in order to intimidate those conducting a hearing or trial. Obviously, the defendant may not be the only militiaman present, and he may not be the only one who is perceived as threatening or making threats. 
B.    Responding to Threats Made by Members of the Movement
1.     Calm/Warning - It is of the utmost importance that both the court and court personnel remain calm and courteous when threats are made. Although it may be difficult to keep this in mind when one feels threatened, overreacting or becoming rude or adversarial plays into the hands of the anti-government movement's adherents. A court should have an established procedure for dealing with such threats, and should adhere to the procedure religiously. At the same time, the court should make clear to the militiaman that such threats will not be tolerated, and that statutes exist for punishing those who attempt to intimidate those involved in courtroom proceedings. Where warranted, additional security is an option, and under sufficient circumstances the courtroom may be closed to spectators.
2.    Contempt - No one would argue that where a person in a courtroom openly threatens a member of the court staff, contempt lies. The use of the contempt power should be used with some restraint, as a finding of contempt will almost inevitably delay proceedings and add additional fuel to the flame.
3.     Report Threats - Threats made against court personnel should be reported to the police as soon as possible, and they should be investigated. While there may be times that a threat is either imagined (having large numbers of people who clearly think that your authority is illegitimate is sufficiently unnerving that small innocuous statements or actions may seem threatening), the very real possibility that such threat may be carried out should be sufficient to justify at least some investigation. Also, there are statutes that may be brought to bear in such circumstances, both general assault statutes and specific intimidation of court personnel statutes, as well as conspiracy statutes where a number of movement members are involved.
4.    Reassure Jurors, Take Extra Safety Precautions - Because members of the movement often proceed pro se, it may be impossible to keep from them a list of the jurors. Because of this, the jury may find themselves being threatened. It becomes important here to provide sufficient security such that jurors can feel safe. In addition, the court should make it clear to the party that tampering with the jury through contact, threats to them, their families, or otherwise, will result in severe sanctions, perhaps including criminal prosecution. The court might also use the option of sequestration to ensure that jurors feel and remain safe and unmolested.
Members of the movement may very well be dangerous. Threats should not be taken lightly, they should be investigated and dealt with in the swiftest fashion.

Subpart 3.5 - Hunger Strikes
A.   Party Begins a Hunger Strike
Many members of the Anti-Government movement view themselves as being at war against a hostile, occupational government. These people refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the law enforcement officers who arrest them, the courts and judges that decide their fate, and the institutions in which they are incarcerated not only after a conviction, but also before and during trial. Where such a member of the movement is held in prison, he considers himself to be a prisoner of war.
In an attempt to gain public sympathy and support (in addition to the desire some of the more extreme groups have to achieve martyrdom), it is not unheard of for incarcerated members of the movement to refuse food and water, to engage in a "hunger strike." Because of the dangers this poses, the state courts are placed in a precarious situation - to force feed the party clearly implicates any of a number of constitutional and civil rights, but to allow them to go without food and water not only threatens their health and welfare, it also attracts unnecessary and unwanted attention to them and their cause. 
B.    Responding to a Hunger Strike
1.     Safeguarding the Party's Well Being - Without a doubt, the courts' response must be to safeguard the party's well being above all. This may even extend so far as to force feed an individual. However, any response must be given serious consideration by the court and the executive branch, due to the likelihood of litigation to arise over the choice the government makes. As with the general tone of this guide, the authors again suggest that the court first take all reasonable steps to accommodate the individual before this becomes an issue.
2.     Minimize Negative Publicity - As suggested above, martyrdom is a goal of many of the more extremist groups the courts will encounter. As a result, courts should consider this issue before it occurs and have contingencies in place - including establishing a spokesperson for the court, policies governing the use of force feeding, and the like. In order to both deter this particular activity in the future as well as to minimize the ability of the movements to propagandize these occurrences, the court should be prepared to act as reasonably but firmly as possible.

Subpart 3.6 - Attempts to Disqualify the Judge
A.    Judicial Disqualification
As we have explained throughout this guide, members of antigovernment groups, militias and common law courts very frequently attempt to disrupt state court proceedings to which they or their comrades are a party. Our research has shown that they try to delay the course of proceedings, frustrate judges and judiciary staff and otherwise delay proceedings almost as a matter of course. A very effective, and to the court, potentially dangerous, method of accomplishing these ends is to file complaints against a judge.
These parties can file complaints which fall into one of two categories: either the litigant conjures some personal grievance and sues the judge, thus making him an "interested" party, or the person follows the typical complaint route and files whatever kind of general grievance or motion state process allows. Note that the first category, adversarial complaints against the judge, could fall into one of two classes - the complaint could be filed pursuant to a legitimate cause of action (though one without basis in fact) in a state court, or it could be pursuant to an unfamiliar cause of action and filed in a common law court. Obviously, complaints filed in common law courts have no real bearing on the state process, but they are, however, grounds for continued and more severe action in the common law courts. Complaints filed in state courts, however, present a different story. These complaints are legitimate until ruled otherwise, so a judge must proceed with caution.
The second category of complaint is the typical motion for recusal or disqualification. Presuming the member is familiar with or has retained counsel that is familiar with state law, it is likely that they will pursue the typical state remedy in the proper manner. These motions succeed in varying degrees, with the rate of success depending on the state. At this time, approximately fifteen states allow parties to peremptorily challenge judges and ask for their removal. Proceedings involving members of antigovernment groups have seen peremptory actions in many of the states that allow these challenges. On the other hand, the majority of states require a showing of cause for removal or disqualification. Rest assured that members of these groups will find cause sufficient to bring a motion under the appropriate statute. 
B.    Typical Responses to Judicial Disqualification or Recusal
The judicial responses differ according to the laws of the particular state. These responses depend, in large part, upon statutory provisions governing disqualification and recusal, as well as state codes of judicial conduct, constitutional requirements and common law developments. In addition to the particular responses addressed below, it is imperative that judges do not "take personally" these challenges. They are often merely a part of groups' tactics and are meant to harm the process, not the judge. As with all suggested or typical responses, courtesy is urged - for slights against the members will be counterproductive and harm the integrity and efficiency of your court.
1.    Responses to Typical Motions for Recusal/Disqualification
a.	States That Allow Peremptory Challenges - In these states, there is often a combination of rules that govern the procedure surrounding a challenge. Judges should ensure that members follow the proper procedures and that all documents are in order. This is, of course, a matter of integrity of the judiciary - to require proper procedure in all cases - but in the antigovemment context it is also a matter of deterrence. It may be understood that the members will use these challenges in a frivolous way, but without any evidence of frivolity. Therefore, they should be made to strictly comply with the procedural requirements. 
b.	States Which Allow Removal For Cause - Here, an entirely different type of response controls. Unlike the constitutional or-statutory peremptory, these challenges do not imply a right in the party seeking them unless the party makes the proper showing of cause. Again, the first and foremost response must be to retain judicial bearing and courtesy. Unlike the category above, however, judges have more control here, mainly because parties who bring this type of action bear the ultimate burden of showing cause. The courts should treat motions from members of the antigovernment groups like those from any other movement, and require strict adherence to the procedure and burdens the law imposes. 
2.     Responses to Civil Actions Filed Against Presiding Judge - This tactic is discussed throughout, for members of these movements seem to repeatedly use the courts to redress their grievances - real or imagined. The response to this tactic depends on what type of action is filed. For actions filed in the common law courts themselves, judges should be aware that, while the action threatens no legal liability, the penalty may be a bogus lien, involuntary bankruptcy or other censure of the offending judge. For any action taken by a member against a judge, the first step should be to notify court security and the authority in the executive branch. The judge should also consult legal counsel in order to determine the complaint's validity and strategize individual responses. Again, we stress that this should not become personal - the attack is against authority and the system, generally not against the individual judge.

Subpart 3.7 - Forms of Pleadings
A.    Party Files "Odd" Documents/Uses Antiquated Pleading Forms
Members of the movement adhere to what they consider to be the "common-law." The common law in their terms is not necessarily the sort of judge-made law that the legal community typically would consider to be common law, but instead is a hodgepodge of Biblical quotes and doctrines, misplaced quotes from cases, leftover concepts from early legal doctrines, self-serving readings of the Constitution and other sources of law, definitions from long out of date legal dictionaries, and Blackstone's conception of "natural rights." As a result of this misshapen body of law, adherents to the movement often file what amount to massive and frivolous or irrelevant pleadings, motions or other documents. They will attempt to argue bias and "illegality" on the part of each part of the trial process, the judge, the prosecutor, the jury, even the bailiff. They may file actions against the judge or the prosecutor in order to have them disqualified. It is also common for them to file a motion for sovereign immunity on the grounds that they are a foreign nation, or to file a motion to dismiss based on the fact that they are not subject to the court's jurisdiction on bases varying from the UCC to violations of various constitutional rights (many members of the movement have tried to have traffic citations dismissed on the grounds that they violate the constitutional right to travel, for instance).
In addition to filing documents that are simply irrelevant or contextually inapposite many adherents to the movement file documents that seem antiquated or even outdated, or use legal language and Latin that is just uncommon if not unused today. Many, in "resurrecting" the common law, apparently feel that the modes of pleading and the legal terminology used gives their filings greater legitimacy. Some even refuse to recognize most of the changes made in the law since the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, under the argument that the Fourteenth Amendment impermissibly reapportioned the balance of local/state/federal power. They will argue the Bible, cite the Magna Carta, file writs of Quo Warranto to have the judge or prosecutor removed, or attempt any of a number of other motions or filings to make proceedings slow, to disrupt them, or to render them entirely impossible.
The truly insidious problem with this tactic is that it is not uncommon to find, buried within the morass of useless drivel, a pleading, motion, or argument that is not only tenable, but even valid, and perhaps even a winner. Members of the movement often hope to get a "hook" by filing a huge document with one valid motion or pleading in it, expecting the judge to be too frustrated or busy to find it. Also, in filing what appear to be antiquated types of motions and pleadings, followers may very well know at least one part of the law better than those who regularly practice it legitimately: a number of states specifically reserve all causes previously existing at common law, and virtually any state may have simply failed to preclude a cause that did exist under common law. In essence, the adherents may have found a way to use the law against itself. 
B.    Responding to Unusual Documents
Members of the movement are American Citizens, regardless of their views of the American legal system. Because of this, they have the same rights that anyone else has to their day in court. This, in conjunction with case law that seems to require courts to construe pleadings (especially those filed by pro se litigants) broadly in order to effectuate the purposes for which they were intended, makes it clear that courts should deal very carefully with odd pleadings filed by members of the movement. While it is beyond doubt that the court has the authority to throw out worthless or incomprehensible pleadings, or at least to require that they be amended, such actions should be taken with the recognition that they are likely to fan the flames, and may even result in both lawsuits in legitimate courts and lawsuits in the movement's own common-law courts.
1.     Explain Court Rules and Adhere to Them - As always when dealing with the movement, it is important that the court set forth and adhere strictly to the "rules of engagement." The court should make clear what is expected/required of the parties, and make clear the standards and time restrictions for pleadings and motions, as well as the option of amending or correcting defects in pleadings. Where the rules or schedule are violated the court should make a ruling or issue a sanction (or both) and move on.
2.     Make Clear Rulings - The court should not hesitate to reject motions, pleadings, or arguments that have no basis in law or fact. Where the court chooses to do so, it should make the basis for this ruling perfectly clear. This serves at least two purposes: first, it makes it easy for higher courts to uphold the court's judgment against the party, and second, it takes away the argument by the movement that the court's action was lawless and arbitrary. It is important, especially where dealing with members of the movement, that clear rulings are given in all contexts, admissibility, validity, denying or upholding motions, etc.
3.     Thoroughly Consider Documents and Arguments - Nothing is more frustrating than getting a massive stack of documents, most of which are irrelevant and all of which are nearly incomprehensible. Still it is important that the court take note of and consider carefully the documents filed by the parties. Again, it is a common tactic for the movement to file documents with one valid document or even one valid argument hidden inside, in order to create reversible error and tie up the court system. Also, because causes of action must be construed so as to effectuate their intent, a motion that is invalid or antiquated may be similar enough to a valid motion that the court should either substitute for the party or offer the party the opportunity to amend. Finally, in some places, what looks like an invalid mode of pleading may actually be statutorily preserved—it may in fact be valid. It is best to deal with members of the movement as fairly as the system allows, so as to take away their ability to point to flaws in seeking support.
4.    Give Opportunity to Cure Defects in Pleadings - Virtually all systems of procedure allow for amendment of pleadings; the federal system, for example, is extremely permissive in allowing amendments. The court should allow the party to amend its documents to make them valid where it looks like this is possible. Furthermore, the court should attempt to follow case law in construing the arguments so as to effectuate their intent, at least where this intent has some basis in law and fact. Members of the movement should not be denied the opportunities to amend that non-members are given, this is exactly what some followers point to in support of their conspiracy theories.

Subpart 3.8 - Refusal to Sign Documents
A.    Party Refuses to Sign Documents
Members of the anti-government movement, in addition to refusing to submit to the court's jurisdiction, may also refuse to sign documents, orders, pleadings, etc. that they receive in connection with a case. Alternatively, they are known to sign such documents (and their driver's licenses) with "UCC 3-501 without recourse" (or some other statement and citation, usually to the UCC) in the signature line. In either case, legal proceedings often require such signatures to continue, and failure to obtain such signatures can waste significant amounts of time for both the court and the parties involved. 
B.    Responding to a Party's Refusal to Sign Documents	
In many cases, a party's refusal to sign a document can bring a legal proceeding to a halt. Where handled improperly, the way a court deals with such a refusal can provide the error needed to get a holding reversed, and can give the anti-government movement ammunition to point to in its criticism of the American Judicial System. Because of this a court should go to great lengths to not only treat the party fairly, but also to make certain that the record reflects such efforts.
1.     Consequences - As always, the court should make the rules and the penalties for their violations clear to the parties, and when the rules are not adhered to, the court should issue a ruling or sanction and move on. Where a party refuses to sign documents, there is no exception to this general rule.
2.     Acquiescence - Generally, where a party signs a noncommercial document with "UCC___ without recourse" or "rights reserved" it is clear that this has no legal effect. Those terms are simply not legally operative in such contexts. In some cases, where to do so would not affect the rights or privileges of the parties in any way, the court may simply allow the party to submit the signed document with the UCC "qualification." Provided that it can be shown that the consequences of such action have been explained to the party and he clearly understands the ramifications, it may very well be easier to allow such legally irrelevant addition to the signature than to provide the militiaman with the opportunity to spout his doctrine and enter his politics into the proceedings.
3.     Contempt/Bonds - The contempt power certainly reaches those incidences where a member of the movement refuses to receive a document, or where he refuses to sign a valid legal order. Again, the reasoning behind the ruling should be made clear, and the party should be made aware of the consequences of his actions beforehand. Some courts have had success using cash bonds where members of the movement have refused to sign promises to appear at future hearings. This technique might be adaptable to requiring members of the movement to follow through with discovery orders, requests to appear, etc.