Stop consenting to their jurisdiction.
If you don't challenge jurisdiction immediately and without fail you have granted your consent.
Here is one of the two fellas I have found that are making a lot of sense.
He has made headway by not letting the judge get off topic, often the judge will act as the lead prosecutor and that violates your due process rights by demonstrating the judge's bias toward the prosecution. The judge is supposed to presume you innocent and until facts are entered into the record to prove jurisdiction all he should do is look to the prosecution and ask then what they have, when they have nothing he should dismiss the charges, but don't expect that to happen, you will probably have to appeal and on the appeal the state will drop the charges for some other reason so they don't have to let the others in the courtroom know that they too can withdraw their consent to jurisdiction by standing up and asking for the evidence.
The other fella is Eric Whoru, he has been arguing from this perspective since '64, if you challenge jurisdiction the prosecution has to prove it from the records already in existence, if you don't challenge jurisdiction then you have consented to it and are subject to whatever they do to you.
So, if you are forced into court immediately stand up and say, 'What facts have been entered into evidence to support jurisdiction.'.
There are none, and they will try to get you off subject, just object to anything they say as non responsive and stick to the fact that in the absence of facts supporting jurisdiction their rules say that jurisdiction does not exist, facts not in evidence are presumed not to exist.
Absent jurisdiction all else fails and you should be released.
Do this yourself, no lawyer can/will do it for you.
Prepare now so that when the time comes you won't be too scared by the guns being pointed at you to do it.