The judge certainly characterized it as a sovereign citizen argument.

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/JaredFogle.pdf

However, if you ask me, the only line quoted from the motion doesn’t support that.

Here is the quoted line.

“whether a judicial judgment is lawful depends on whether the sovereign has authority to render it.”

Here is what the judge followed that line up with in his decision.

“If Fogle is now claiming to be “sovereign”, the Seventh Circuit has rejected theories of individual sovereignty, immunity from prosecution, and their ilk.”

While the filing by Frank Edwin Pate may or may not make a sovereign citizen type argument, nothing in the text quoted from the brief supports that contention or the suggestion that Fogle is claiming to be “sovereign”..

Even prisoners have access to legal research tools, don’t they? You’d think that he’d be able to look up “sovereign citizen” and see that courts have consistently rejected it.

“Defendant Jared Fogle’s frivolous pro se Motion to Correct Clear Error Pursuant to Rule
52(b), Dkt [110], is denied.”

Pro Se.

Enough said

The mechanism of general anesthesia is unknown*. So I find it strange that they say that something causes general anesthesia.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_general_anaesthetic_action