With the recent Cliven Bundy imbroglio (see here), the focus in the public eye has been on the groups of individuals who believe that the Federal Government lacks any kind of moral and/or legal legitimacy.
Lost in the mix is that there are numerous individuals possessed of the same beliefs about State governments and legal processes. Some of these individuals are also hostile to Federal powers; others may not have even got that far.
Stephen L'Abbe is one such individual. He believes that the state of Idaho is an improperly constituted corporation that has no legal jurisdiction over him. As a result, when he was cited for speeding in Boise, he refused to pay the citation fee and contested it in court. He lost. He then appealed to the District court, citing numerous legal and procedural claims, which were all dismissed, as the District court affirmed his conviction.
L'Abbe then appealed to the State court. The court has also dismissed his appeal. However, rather than simply stamping "Denied" on a terse document, the court instead has documented in detail the reasons why, no, the court system in Idaho is legitimate and does have jurisdiction over Stephen L'Abbe. The entire carefully written decision is here. As the document explains in part:

...state governments existed before the creation of the national government, are repeatedly referred to in the U.S. Constitution, and their power and capability are continuously referred to in federal court opinions.

I always have problems determining whether individuals like Stephen L'Abbe are sincerely of the belief that governments and their legal systems are illegitimate, or whether they are simply anarchists and/or scofflaws whose underlying belief is that the laws do not apply to them. I leave it up to the reader to draw his or her own conclusions.