As sovereigns, we do not have to jump through their hoops to reclaim out sovereignty. All we have to do is start acting like one. That means you hold your own court in which you are the tribunal. The opposition's only way out of you sitting in judgment of them is to request a jury trial, and you get to pick the jury. They do not get to participate in picking the jury and you do not allow anyone who calls himself a U.S. Citizen sit in judgment of you, because they are subjects and beneath the sovereign.

Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time. "Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided." Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.

The burden is always upon the court to prove jurisdiction, even though most judges will tell you it has it without proving it, he is required to prove it. "The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction." Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.

The problem the judge has is people are sovereign and as such cannot be subjected to their codes without his individual consent. "In our country the people are sovereign and the Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship. Our Constitution governs us and we must never forget that our Constitution limits the Government to those powers specifically granted or those that are necessary and proper to carry out the specifically granted ones." (emphasis added) AFROYIM v. RUSK, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)

Here is the case that specifically says that people are not "subject to law". "Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts." YICK WO v. HOPKINS, 118 U.S. 356 (1886)

So the correct next action for someone to do after being sentenced is to challenge the jurisdiction of those who attacked him. If he had an attorney, that attorney needs to be included as a defendant. The reason being, the attorney intentionally withheld pertinent information that could have stopped a conviction, like challenging jurisdiction for example. Like letting the client know that he is a ward of the court and a ward is "an infant or one of unsound mind".

If there was jail time involved, I would include a request for damages of $50,000 per days, since that is the status quo for wrongful imprisonment. Things will not change in these untied states until it starts to cost them too much to continue their attacks against the people and we start hanging traitors.