Sovereign Citizen Tries “Man on the Land” Trick — Judge DESTROYS Him

Added: 2026-05-27

[00:00:04][music] [music] >> Mr. Moore?

[00:00:23]Sir, I think you're you're the last one on the calendar this morning.

[00:00:29]Today's courtroom hearing turns into complete chaos when a man tries to use classic sovereign citizen arguments to avoid responsibility in court. Instead of simply answering the judge's questions, he insists he's not actually Sherman Moore, but merely a beneficiary of that name. Yeah, it gets weird fast.

[00:00:48]The judge quickly realizes what's happening and patiently tries to determine one simple thing. Is the actual defendant present in court or not? But the more the man talks about entities, living man, and man on the land theories, the deeper he digs himself into trouble. What makes this case so fascinating is that the defendant truly believes he's outsmarting the legal system. Meanwhile, the judge calmly dismantles every argument piece by piece. And by the end of this hearing, the strategy completely backfires in a way the defendant clearly never expected.

[00:01:24]Mr. Moore, do you come forward, sir?

[00:01:29]What?

[00:01:30]That's your attorney right there. Yeah.

[00:01:32]I object.

[00:01:34]Right.

[00:01:36]Oh.

[00:01:37]Good. My client appears as he's got this matter.

[00:01:40]Okay.

[00:01:42]Are you Sherman Moore? I am not.

[00:01:44]>> You're not. Okay.

[00:01:46]And so, are you appearing on Mr. Moore's behalf?

[00:01:50]Yes. Okay.

[00:01:51]>> I am am yes, here for that matter to handle the matter that's in at hand. Okay.

[00:01:58]And are you an attorney, sir?

[00:02:01]I am an attorney uh in fact for the said name at at hand here. Okay, so you are an attorney representing Sherman Moore?

[00:02:12]Yes, I will be handling the uh case for for Mr. Moore. Okay. And are you licensed by the state of Washington to practice as an attorney? I am not licensed or a bar member or lawyer or anything of the such, but I am here as a beneficiary executive for the said name.

[00:02:30]Okay.

[00:02:32]Okay. Um let me before I respond, let me see if the city takes any position. Mr. Gunderson, is the city taking any position on um the representation of Mr. Moore in this matter? I actually I don't even know if you're appearing on behalf of the city in this matter.

[00:02:50]Good morning, Your Honor. Will Gunderson, prosecuting for the city.

[00:02:53]Your Honor, the city does typically appear for the contested hearings in which officers have been subpoenaed.

[00:03:01]Um Was an officer subpoenaed in this matter? Yes.

[00:03:06]Your Honor, the officer is present.

[00:03:09]Uh Officer Berglund is here. Uh I'll Your Honor, my position at this point is to request a short continuance in this case.

[00:03:20]The basis being I rely on the judicial information system or JABS.

[00:03:24]Review that information relevant to the particular case within the last 20 minutes.

[00:03:30]The JABS database has gone down.

[00:03:35]And do >> see that now?

[00:03:37]Do you take a position on the uh representative of Mr. Moore um appearing in his stead uh this morning for purposes of the hearing? Your Honor, ultimately the city defer to the court on whether or not the individual present is allowed to act on behalf of the defendant.

[00:03:59]Um I I To cut to the chase, your honor, this sounds like it might be a sovereign citizen type of situation.

[00:04:09]Um I don't know if the individual that is seated here is in fact the defendant or if he is a completely separate person, separate and apart from the defendant that was pulled over at the time the citation took place.

[00:04:25]Uh so, that is a a red flag, so to speak, or a question mark that does get raised in the city's mind, uh for which the city does believe that a further inquiry by the court may be appropriate.

[00:04:35]Uh but, ultimately, your honor, with regards to any representation, um city will defer to the court. All right.

[00:04:42]Thank you, Mr. Gunderson.

[00:04:44]Um so, sir, I'm going to ask you to identify yourself for the record, please.

[00:04:48]>> I am one of the people. The prosecutor immediately recognizes this as possible sovereign citizen behavior. And honestly, that tells you how common these arguments have become in courts around the country. The entire strategy here is based on separating the real man from the legal name on paper. That's why he keeps refusing to identify himself as Sherman Moore. The problem? Courts have rejected these theories over and over again. And notice how patient the judge stays. He gives the defendant multiple chances to clarify who he is, but every answer just creates more problems.

[00:05:22]I'm sorry? One of the people. Okay.

[00:05:25]Um are you or have you been previously named or identified by the state of Washington as Sherman Moore? I am not Sherman Moore.

[00:05:35]Okay. The entity in which you speak of.

[00:05:38]And are do you have any relationship to Sherman Moore? I am just a beneficiary of that name.

[00:05:44]Okay.

[00:05:46]Um well, the problem that we have here is that at this point based upon the record that I have before me, sir, you are not authorized to represent Mr. Moore as an attorney in this matter because you are not a licensed attorney by the state of Washington.

[00:06:05]And at this point in time based on the record, Mr. Moore has not appeared in >> Oh, he's right here, sir. Sherman Moore is right here. The name in which you speak is right here, sir.

[00:06:15]I well, that for the record, you're holding up a piece of paper.

[00:06:21]Yes, the document, Sherman Moore, the entity in which you speak of, and one in which you tend or this court intends to charge.

[00:06:30]So, I am just a beneficiary of said entity.

[00:06:34]That is all. And that's why I'm here.

[00:06:35]So, basically, I'm trying to find out the nature of said charges that pertain to said name. Sir, certainly.

[00:06:44]>> Is this a criminal or a civil matter is what I'm trying to figure out here, sir.

[00:06:47]>> This is a civil matter. So, Sherman Moore or an individual identified as Sherman Moore uh was issued an infraction here in the city of Lakewood on September 5th, 2024, and was ordered to respond to the issuance of that infraction, which it appears that he did, and requested a contested hearing in which he is asking to challenge the evidentiary sufficiency of the information relied upon by the issuing officer who issued the infractions or the issuance of those infractions.

[00:07:24]But, by requesting that hearing, Mr. Moore or the individual who is issued the infraction named Sherman Moore indicated that he would appear in person as a living person here in court. And the problem that I have at this point in time is that based upon the record that I have before the court, Mr. Moore has not appeared as a living, breathing human being in this court in response to his request for a hearing.

[00:07:57]I am simply just a man on the land that is here on behalf of that name as the beneficiary for that name. I understand that.

[00:08:06]But at this point >> There's a claim being made. So, therefore, like I said, I'm just here to understand the nature. You say it's a civil, so there where is the verified complainant for said charges? The verified complainant is the city of Lakewood represented by the attorney on behalf of the city who is seated in the courtroom to your left appearing down to my right. And Mr. Gunderson, I'm just going to ask you to formally identify yourself for the record. Thank you, Your Honor. Will Gunderson, prosecuting for the city. I am licensed to practice law in the state of Washington. My bar number is 46991.

[00:08:45]So, the plaintiff in this case is the city of Lakewood. They are appearing here this morning through counsel or this afternoon through counsel. It also appears that the officer who issued the infraction to Mr. Moore is also present in court in response to the subpoena that was issued for his appearance. It appears that the only individual who has failed to appear for this hearing is the respondent Sherman Moore.

[00:09:10]And so, at this point in time with the matter having been on the calendar at 10:30 a.m., it's now 12:04 p.m.

[00:09:19]Um, given that Mr. Sherman Moore has not appeared in person for this hearing pursuant to the rules for infractions in Washington courts, the court will find that Mr. Moore has failed to appear and will enter a finding of committed to each of the five infractions. Even after the hearing ends, the defendant still doesn't understand what happened. He complains about not being allowed to cross-examine witnesses, but from the court's perspective, he effectively chose not to appear. That's the irony in so many sovereign citizen cases. The person believes they're protecting their rights, but they often end up giving those rights away by refusing to follow normal legal procedure. And by the end, everyone in the courtroom seems to understand that except him.

[00:10:09]And I believe that concludes our court's calendar for today. So, thank you all very much.

[00:10:16]At this point in time, the court will be at recess.

[00:10:22]Understood, Judge.

[00:10:25]Oh, yeah. I'll do it in the uh Yeah. All right.

[00:10:29]Court is in recess.

[00:10:38]You may be seated.

[00:10:42]So, are we continuing or was Hm?

[00:10:50]Based off of what grounds of what?

[00:10:55]Mr. Moore did not German Moore is here. I am the man of the Moore German of the Moore family. I am not the entity in which you speak of.

[00:11:08]What?

[00:11:09]What kind of charade show is going on here?

[00:11:14]So, what happens now? Uh I have to file an appeal?

[00:11:20]Okay. Okay.

[00:11:22]So, I'm being railroaded.

[00:11:27]So, the officer never had to show or anything basically on the on the basis that So, the witness to this opinion had never had to I never got to cross-examine.

[00:11:46]This case perfectly shows why sovereign citizen arguments almost never succeed in real courtrooms. The judge stayed calm, explained the rules clearly, and focused on one simple issue, whether the defendant properly appeared for his hearing. Instead of challenging the actual infractions, the defendant focused entirely on man-on-the-land theories and separating himself from his legal identity. In the end, that strategy completely failed, and the court entered findings against him on all five infractions. Cases like this are fascinating because they show the clash between internet legal myths and actual courtroom procedure, and reality usually wins. If you found this case as shocking as we did, make sure to hit that like button, share your thoughts in the comments, and don't forget to subscribe for more jaw-dropping courtroom breakdowns.