Q: What happens when someone says in court? 1. I do not consent to these proceeding? 2. Your offer is not accepted

A: If someone were to make those statements in court, here is what would likely happen:

1. Saying "I do not consent to these proceedings" would not have any legal effect. Court proceedings are compulsory and do not require the consent of the parties involved. The judge would likely inform the person that their lack of consent is irrelevant and order the proceedings to continue.

2. Stating "Your offer is not accepted" also has no legal meaning in this context. Court proceedings are not considered an "offer" that can be accepted or rejected. The judge would probably disregard this statement entirely.

3. Claiming not to consent to being "surety for the case" is a sovereign citizen tactic that has no basis in actual law. The idea that participants are "sureties" is a misunderstanding of legal terminology. The judge would explain that the concept does not apply.

4. Demanding that a "bond be brought forward" is another sovereign citizen myth with no legal validity. No bond exists and the court is not required to produce one. The judge would state this is not something the court can or will do.

In general, if someone said these things in court, the judge would recognize them as pseudo-legal sovereign citizen arguments that have been consistently rejected by the courts. The judge would likely caution the person against using such tactics, explain they are invalid, and insist the proceedings will continue regardless.

If the person persisted with these arguments and disrupted court, they could potentially be found in contempt of court. But in most cases, the judge would simply move the case forward after clarifying the statements have no legal effect. Ultimately, these sovereign citizen claims do not actually impact the authority of the court or legal proceedings.