Mountain Man Arrested for Trying to Feed Himself, Owns Judge

[QuickZ06]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=521_1384992875

[ZENemy]

I was JUST watching this Z!

Here is the full, Raw footage.

Kinda intense.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LwR0c-CE5g&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[ZENemy]

"These pontificating power mongering agents of subjugation over the people really are in the wrong on all counts.

This guy hasn't hurt anyone or committed any true crimes. He just wants to be free and be left alone. Therein lies the crux of his sins in the eyes of the establishment. Suffice it to say he refuses to be their sheep and they hate him for that." - Comment.

[WM_in_MO]

The entire system would end overnight if everyone did this.

[ZENemy]

The entire system would end overnight if everyone did this.

This + Jury Nullification = Win

[kcchiefs6465]

This + Jury Nullification = Win
I'd rep you again if I could.

The power is with the people.

[Anti Federalist]

The entire system would end overnight if everyone did this.

Yup.

But here is the problem, and the harsh realization I have come to:

Most people, rather than see this man succeed or even just not care and leave him alone, most people want him destroyed.

They will turn him in and cheer the system as it destroys him.

Most people hate freedom.

[Scrapmo]

Yup.

But here is the problem, and the harsh realization I have come to:

Most people, rather than see this man succeed or even just not care and leave him alone, most people want him destroyed.

They will turn him in and cheer the system as it destroys him.

Most people hate freedom.

Yep. Been saying this for a while.

[kcchiefs6465]

Yep. Been saying this for a while.
Present it in a way to show how it affects them, and you'd be surprised.

[Root]

What's this guy's backstory? Why did he even bother to show up in court? Smart move to walk out when the people in costumes took a break.

[Danke]

I was JUST watching this Z!

Here is the full, Raw footage.

Kinda intense.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LwR0c-CE5g&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Women (and men) in black robes like this will have their day.

[ctiger2]

Most people hate freedom.

Hmm, I think that's only true because they themselves are under the illusion that they're free.

[Scrapmo]

Present it in a way to show how it affects them, and you'd be surprised.

I do. Most people will not look at the way the world is until it kicks in thier door. Most people will say they love freedom until you begin to explain to them what that means, then you see the fear set in. No one is going to ride in and save them, no saftey nets at the expense of someone elses work, and no legislating things that make them uncomfortable. The last one is huge. We live in a nation of control freaks and busy bodies who do not mind the use of violence as long as it is against things they do not like (prostitution, drugs, immigrants, gun owners etc.)

Most people lack the imagination to see how it affects them, even if it is spelled out for them. They either do not care or do not believe. Bottom line is the average U.S. tax payer is dumber than a sack of rocks.

"
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson

[Tod]

Local news station. Comments section includes people who know the man.

http://www.kbzk.com/news/packed-courtroom-for-manhattan-man-accused-of-fishing-without-a-license/?fb_comment_id=fbc_179581128914931_264920_17962455 5577255#f27b3084dcadb08

[fr33]

That man is free where it really matters.

[CPUd]

The video seems to be from a earlier court appearance. This is from 11-20-2013



MANHATTAN - It was a packed courtroom on Tuesday for the hearing of Ernie Tertelgte, a Manhattan man who says he's being wrongly prosecuted for trying to feed himself.

Tertelgte, 52 years old, was arrested on Monday and is accused of fishing without a license and then resisting arrest.

He appeared before the judge via video from the Gallatin County Detention Center, and it was standing room only more than a dozen friends and family members filled the small courtroom.

Tertelgte appeared subdued and respectful before the Justice of the Peace during Tuesday's court session, which went very differently than his court appearance earlier this month, where Tertelgte and Three Forks City Judge Wanda Drusch got into a heated exchange.

Terteltge argued that the court did not have the authority to charge him, citing "natural law."

He told the judge, "You are trying to create a fictitious, fraudulent action." He continued, "I am the living man, protected by natural law."

He then yelled, "Do not tell me to shut up! I am the living, natural man, and my voice will be heard!"

Terteltge then pointed at the flag and said, "That is the Jolly Roger, that thing you call the American flag with the golf fringe around it is the Jolly Roger, and you are acting as one of its privateers!"

When the judge noted that he had pleaded not guilty, Terteltge countered, "I never plead, animals plead, sounds like baaaa, oink oink."

The back and forth exchange continued for a few more moments, and the hearing ended after both the judge and the defendant walked out.

This time, extra law enforcement officers were in court Tuesday and the proceedings happened without any outbursts.

A friend of Tertelgte's told us that he and the others came to court to enforce the Constitution.

William Wolf said, "It's we the people that run this and rule this country, not we the courts, not we the government, and if the people don't start standing up for themselves and for each other, we are going to continue being subjects of this government."

Justice Adams set Tertelgte's bond at $500 and his next court hearing is scheduled for January.


http://www.kxlh.com/news/manhattan-man-in-court-for-fishing-without-license-resisting-arrest/

[dannno]

I was JUST watching this Z!

Here is the full, Raw footage.

Kinda intense.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LwR0c-CE5g&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Wow that was fun can we go again??

[KerriAnn]

Yup.

But here is the problem, and the harsh realization I have come to:

Most people, rather than see this man succeed or even just not care and leave him alone, most people want him destroyed.

They will turn him in and cheer the system as it destroys him.

Most people hate freedom.
I refuse to believe this.

Doesn't it sound familiar? They hate us for our freedoms? ummmm..... no!

They are SCARED. scared shitless.

They fear what they don't understand. They stay asleep and allow others to lead them to think that no one can handle freedom, not even freedom for themselves.

It's stupidity and laziness. Not hate.

[satchelmcqueen]

this guy is how WE need to start handling the courts. the JUST US system must go. we the people are the law, not some court judge at their will. everyone has the right to hunt for food without permission if done so for that cause. its how it was done less than 100yrs ago.

[Danke]

this guy is how WE need to start handling the courts. the JUST US system must go. we the people are the law, not some court judge at their will. everyone has the right to hunt for food without permission if done so for that cause. its how it was done less than 100yrs ago.

Yes, but look at the apologists we have even here at RPFs. I have given up hope.

[GregSarnowski]

The fact that you need a "license" to fish is absurd. I didn't ask them to "stock" the waters. And now you need a license to fish in the ocean!

[Danke]

The fact that you need a "license" to fish is absurd. I didn't ask them to "stock" the waters. And now you need a license to fish in the ocean!

Do native Americans need a license? If not, why?


Why does one owe an income tax? What makes them liable? Fundamental questions that gets to the heart of the matter.

[CPUd]

this guy is how WE need to start handling the courts. the JUST US system must go. we the people are the law, not some court judge at their will. everyone has the right to hunt for food without permission if done so for that cause. its how it was done less than 100yrs ago.

I think it's messed up that the guy is getting hassled over fishing, especially when he seems to have a history with the land, and knows it well. He should never have been in the courtroom.

But advancing freeman arguments in court is a mistake; as we see, they went and got that guy after the video ended, and his next court appearance was a bit different. It only makes the situation worse, never better. He probably could have advanced an argument based on their system and gotten his case dismissed, but once he started with the freeman stuff, that judge knew he wasn't crazy and hit him with contempt. That is what they will do, and when people start filing documents they bought from a freeman site, they will also hit you with punitive damages.

[dillo]

I cant believe he wasnt arrested, without a lawyer they could have locked him up forever.

[DamianTV]

Yup.

But here is the problem, and the harsh realization I have come to:

Most people, rather than see this man succeed or even just not care and leave him alone, most people want him destroyed.

They will turn him in and cheer the system as it destroys him.

Most people hate freedom.

I dont think they hate it as much as they fear the responsibility that comes along with it. The free man doesnt give food away, he teaches those in need how to fish.

[bolil]

Yeah, they may have got him. But when that wrinkle-ridden judge tries to sleep at night, I bet it hears his voice. #Judgepwned.

And I don't usually get all giddy watching an old lady receive a spanking.

[A Son of Liberty]

Terteltge argued that the court did not have the authority to charge him, citing "natural law."

He told the judge, "You are trying to create a fictitious, fraudulent action." He continued, "I am the living man, protected by natural law."

He then yelled, "Do not tell me to shut up! I am the living, natural man, and my voice will be heard!"

Reminded me of this, from 3:00 on:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyoN9V9fCuk

The entire episode should be viewed. It's a shame such truth would likely never appear on mainstream TV these days.



A friend of Tertelgte's told us that he and the others came to court to enforce the Constitution.

William Wolf said, "It's we the people that run this and rule this country, not we the courts, not we the government, and if the people don't start standing up for themselves and for each other, we are going to continue being subjects of this government."

"Enforce the constitution", eh? Go read Spooner, kids.

[mrsat_98]

The entire system would end overnight if everyone did this.

Effectively the wildlife, among other things, was put into a trust by the constitution for "the People" and after the constitution and then "the People" left. Its the states responsibility to ensure there is wildlife left in the unlikely event that the People return.




The fact that you need a "license" to fish is absurd. I didn't ask them to "stock" the waters. And now you need a license to fish in the ocean!

If you need a license undoubtedly you are NOT one of the people just like the Scramuzza case I have floated around here. See Danke's comment below. He is spot on.


Do native Americans need a license? If not, why?


Why does one owe an income tax? What makes them liable? Fundamental questions that gets to the heart of the matter.


I think it's messed up that the guy is getting hassled over fishing, especially when he seems to have a history with the land, and knows it well. He should never have been in the courtroom.

But advancing freeman arguments in court is a mistake; as we see, they went and got that guy after the video ended, and his next court appearance was a bit different. It only makes the situation worse, never better. He probably could have advanced an argument based on their system and gotten his case dismissed, but once he started with the freeman stuff, that judge knew he wasn't crazy and hit him with contempt. That is what they will do, and when people start filing documents they bought from a freeman site, they will also hit you with punitive damages.

His status was misrepresented by the documents that got him there. It appears that he is moving the court to change his status i.e. to one who enjoys the right and freedoms of the Sovereign We the People. Properly plead this is very effective when dealing with honest government, of course 95% of government officials have given the 5 % that are honest a bad name. Hopefully Al Adask will pick up on this.


I cant believe he wasnt arrested, without a lawyer they could have locked him up forever.

[Neil Desmond]

Reminded me of this, from 3:00 on:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyoN9V9fCuk

The entire episode should be viewed. It's a shame such truth would likely never appear on mainstream TV these days.



"Enforce the constitution", eh? Go read Spooner, kids.

This guy's a wreckin' machine!

[Anti Federalist]

I refuse to believe this.

Doesn't it sound familiar? They hate us for our freedoms? ummmm..... no!

They are SCARED. scared shitless.

They fear what they don't understand. They stay asleep and allow others to lead them to think that no one can handle freedom, not even freedom for themselves.

It's stupidity and laziness. Not hate.

I used to refuse to believe it as well, until I got hit over the head with the facts of the matter enough times.

For anything to happen, by anybody, it will require acknowledging that central and immutable fact of human nature.

People want just three things out of life:

To be fed.

To be entertained.

To be allowed to boss their fellow man around.

[tod evans]

People want just three things out of life:

To be fed.

To be entertained.

To be allowed to boss their fellow man around.

I must be odd man out again...:o

My three things are;

Family/love

Work/creativity

Left alone

[Kelly.]

i wish this man the best and all the success in the world
keep up the good fight.

[osan]

I'd rep you again if I could.

The power is with the people.

Covered.

[osan]

Yup.

But here is the problem, and the harsh realization I have come to:

Most people, rather than see this man succeed or even just not care and leave him alone, most people want him destroyed.

Precisely so. Why? I think the answer had several components that may vary in application between individuals.

Most people, and I mean MOST - as in very much more than a mere 50.000x% - are compliant in their fundamental fabric. Most of those likely fantasize about being the John Wayne hero-tough-guy but have nowhere near the nerve or drive to actually live it. When they see others doing it, this sorely reminds them of their own inadequacies and they want the source of the rubbing eliminated. Psych. 001 - ultra-remedial human behavior.

Some are simply not brave enough or have had terrible trauma of one sort or another and such men as this raise stress levels and that cannot be tolerated, so the easiest and least stressful reaction is to approve and cheer some third party who is willing to do what you want done but are unwilling to do yourself.

Others are morbidly compelled to their sense of "order". Those disturbing it become the enemy and the objects of venomous wishes and once again the third party thug-enforcer is not just tolerated, not just cheered, but demanded.

Some perhaps have developed some form of chronic and low-intensity Stockholm syndrome, the results being the same as with the previous cases.

The rest are simply so brutally indoctrinated that stepping beyond the metes and bounds of their little cognitive boxes is not even remotely considerable under normal and probably even most extraordinary circumstances. This I have witnessed countless tens of thousands of times where uttering objectively demonstrable truths precipitates the same result as speaking in martian whilst threatening them with a weapon. All it does is bewilder them and, if one persists, freak them out.


Most people hate freedom.

A truer utterance would be difficult to contrive and brings us right back to the notion of the meanings of words and how they have been coopted and corrupted so wildly as to defy one's credulity. Words matter. Language matters. These provide the foundation upon which the framework of conceptual thinking is raised. Without them we are reduced to a status little different from than of any other animal. Therefore words, their proper and intransigent meanings and usage should be understood and every effort made to preserve them. Alas, this last on the list of priorities, if it is even on the list at all. People have been very successfully trained away from an awareness of this truth and from any inclination to care about language in the least, so long as they get what they want when they bark orders into the drive-in window for a Big Mac and fries.

Yeah, we're doing just fine. No worries. Nothing to see here. Move right along.

[osan]

Present it in a way to show how it affects them, and you'd be surprised.

That is the ONLY way to reach most of these sorts. When you can couch the truth of an argument in terms to which they can relate, then you stand what is perhaps the only chance of getting through.

[osan]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Anti Federalist http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=5316249#post5316249)
Yup.

But here is the problem, and the harsh realization I have come to:

Most people, rather than see this man succeed or even just not care and leave him alone, most people want him destroyed.

They will turn him in and cheer the system as it destroys him.

Most people hate freedom.



I refuse to believe this.

Doesn't it sound familiar? They hate us for our freedoms? ummmm..... no!

They are SCARED. scared shitless.

True in some cases, but my observations indicate this to be a very distinct and small minority. They are CORRUPT. They want what they want and thereby choose those beliefs that comport well with desire. The trained characteristics of today's meaner are as follow:



Avarice - want, want, want
Lassitude - will not strive to get what they want, want, want
Cowardice - too timid to face the sometimes harsh realities of life
Corrupt - willing/demanding that third parties secure that which they want want want because they are entitled
Nonaccountability - they bear no responsibility for the results of their thoughts and actions




They fear what they don't understand.

That may be true, but they are adults and cannot evade responsibility for their choices. The difference between the coward and the courageous is not that one experiences fear and the other does not. It is that while they both experience fear one shrinks shamefully away while the other faces his fear and presses on in spite of it.



They stay asleep and allow others to lead them to think that no one can handle freedom, not even freedom for themselves.

It's stupidity and laziness. Not hate.[/QUOTE]

[Pericles]

Precisely so. Why? I think the answer had several components that may vary in application between individuals.

Most people, and I mean MOST - as in very much more than a mere 50.000x% - are compliant in their fundamental fabric. Most of those likely fantasize about being the John Wayne hero-tough-guy but have nowhere near the nerve or drive to actually live it. When they see others doing it, this sorely reminds them of their own inadequacies and they want the source of the rubbing eliminated. Psych. 001 - ultra-remedial human behavior.

Some are simply not brave enough or have had terrible trauma of one sort or another and such men as this raise stress levels and that cannot be tolerated, so the easiest and least stressful reaction is to approve and cheer some third party who is willing to do what you want done but are unwilling to do yourself.

Others are morbidly compelled to their sense of "order". Those disturbing it become the enemy and the objects of venomous wishes and once again the third party thug-enforcer is not just tolerated, not just cheered, but demanded.

Some perhaps have developed some form of chronic and low-intensity Stockholm syndrome, the results being the same as with the previous cases.

The rest are simply so brutally indoctrinated that stepping beyond the metes and bounds of their little cognitive boxes is not even remotely considerable under normal and probably even most extraordinary circumstances. This I have witnessed countless tens of thousands of times where uttering objectively demonstrable truths precipitates the same result as speaking in martian whilst threatening them with a weapon. All it does is bewilder them and, if one persists, freak them out.



A truer utterance would be difficult to contrive and brings us right back to the notion of the meanings of words and how they have been coopted and corrupted so wildly as to defy one's credulity. Words matter. Language matters. These provide the foundation upon which the framework of conceptual thinking is raised. Without them we are reduced to a status little different from than of any other animal. Therefore words, their proper and intransigent meanings and usage should be understood and every effort made to preserve them. Alas, this last on the list of priorities, if it is even on the list at all. People have been very successfully trained away from an awareness of this truth and from any inclination to care about language in the least, so long as they get what they want when they bark orders into the drive-in window for a Big Mac and fries.

Yeah, we're doing just fine. No worries. Nothing to see here. Move right along.

True for the majority, but, as long as enough respond to leadership (and people do) great things can still be accomplished.

[Henry Rogue]

True in some cases, but my observations indicate this to be a very distinct and small minority. They are CORRUPT. They want what they want and thereby choose those beliefs that comport well with desire. The trained characteristics of today's meaner are as follow:



Avarice - want, want, want
Lassitude - will not strive to get what they want, want, want
Cowardice - too timid to face the sometimes harsh realities of life
Corrupt - willing/demanding that third parties secure that which they want want want because they are entitled
Nonaccountability - they bear no responsibility for the results of their thoughts and actions





That may be true, but they are adults and cannot evade responsibility for their choices. The difference between the coward and the courageous is not that one experiences fear and the other does not. It is that while they both experience fear one shrinks shamefully away while the other faces his fear and presses on in spite of it.



They stay asleep and allow others to lead them to think that no one can handle freedom, not even freedom for themselves.

It's stupidity and laziness. Not hate.[/QUOTE]

I would like to add one more to your list.
Justification - an ability to rationalize/excuse any action

[Henry Rogue]

Double post, I have no idea how that happened in this particular case.

[TheNung]

Most people hate freedom.

Honestly, I have to disagree with this. I definitely know what you're saying, but I believe that most people don't hate freedom. I think they legitimately don't know what it is.

[Anti Federalist]

Honestly, I have to disagree with this. I definitely know what you're saying, but I believe that most people don't hate freedom. I think they legitimately don't know what it is.

They know what it is, and reject it, roundly and consistently.

[Scrapmo]

An excellent topic could be made discussing if the general population know what freedom is and would they accept or desire it given the oppurtunity.

[muzzled dogg]

my man speaks the truth

[Saint Vitus]

I would be curious to see what the reaction at RPFs would be if this guy was arrested for fishing on private property. Personally, I think the right to fish, hunt, and sustain oneself trumps private property laws. The right to live trumps everything. But I doubt that is the prevailing wisdom here. In a purely an-cap society, would public fishing and hunting spots be available? This whole issue opens up the entire debate about property, and if true freedom (the right to sustain oneself) could even exist in a completely anarcho-capitalist, complete private property society.

If this guy wanted to fish on private property, he would probably have to pay a landowner. How much different is that than paying for a fishing license? I am living and working in south Texas and there are deer everywhere. I would love to go out and kill deer to eat and sustain myself, but they are all on private property and a lease would cost a lot of fucking money. According to RPFs should I be allowed to go out and kill a deer on someone's private property when I am hungry? Not trying to troll, just asking a serious question. I sympathize with this guy as much as the next person. In my ideal world, I would be allowed to roam the U.S. hunting and fishing to sustain myself. But it's just not possible.

[green73]

This is not going to attract Republican voters

..

[presence]

The power is in the people and the spoken word.


God bless that man.



+rep for first transcript

[Ender]

I would be curious to see what the reaction at RPFs would be if this guy was arrested for fishing on private property. Personally, I think the right to fish, hunt, and sustain oneself trumps private property laws. The right to live trumps everything. But I doubt that is the prevailing wisdom here. In a purely an-cap society, would public fishing and hunting spots be available? This whole issue opens up the entire debate about property, and if true freedom (the right to sustain oneself) could even exist in a completely anarcho-capitalist, complete private property society.

If this guy wanted to fish on private property, he would probably have to pay a landowner. How much different is that than paying for a fishing license? I am living and working in south Texas and there are deer everywhere. I would love to go out and kill deer to eat and sustain myself, but they are all on private property and a lease would cost a lot of fucking money. According to RPFs should I be allowed to go out and kill a deer on private property when I am hungry? Not trying to troll, just asking a serious question. I sympathize with this guy as much as the next person, in my ideal world, I would be allowed to roam the U.S. hunting and fishing to sustain myself. But it's just not possible.

Here is a decent site on an-cap philosophy.

http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html#part4

A true an-cap would not expect the entire globe to be owned by "someone"- that is what gov is today. Open space would be open space.

[mad cow]

Fishing on private property is theft.I am not an an-cap but I do think that most property should be privately owned.
See Article one,Section Eight for the few exceptions to at least Federal publicly owned lands under a Constitutional Republic.

If somebody owns land that the best use for is hunting or fishing and he uses them for less profitable ends,that is his choice. Millions of acres in the southeast owned by timber companies are leased out every year for hunting.And why not?

Were I a millionaire,I would own a 100+acre well-stocked lake for my own enjoyment simply because I'm selfish and I could,but I bet my heirs would either lease it out or sell it.

[Saint Vitus]

Fishing on private property is theft.I am not an an-cap but I do think that most property should be privately owned.
See Article one,Section Eight for the few exceptions to at least Federal publicly owned lands under a Constitutional Republic.

If somebody owns land that the best use for is hunting or fishing and he uses them for less profitable ends,that is his choice. Millions of acres in the southeast owned by timber companies are leased out every year for hunting.And why not?

Were I a millionaire,I would own a 100+acre well-stocked lake for my own enjoyment simply because I'm selfish and I could,but I bet my heirs would either lease it out or sell it.


So a homeless, starving man would have to pay to fish in your lake right? How is that any different than having to pay for a fishing license? And to the post above, I don't understand how there would be open-space in an an-cap society. Why wouldn't people buy up the open space? Who would manage the open-space's natural resources? I'll look into it even further, but I don't see how an an-cap society would solve this guys specific problems.


From my experiences, it is much cheaper to hunt and fish on government owned land than it is to hunt/fish on private land. The cost of a hunting license and a public permit in Texas in way cheaper than paying for a deer lease. Ive always considered myself libertarian, but this is one issue that I can't seem to reconcile.

My point is, no matter what political system you believe in (anarcho-capitalism or extreme socialism), neither system allows individuals to hunt and fish where they want to for free.

[green73]

I would be curious to see what the reaction at RPFs would be if this guy was arrested for fishing on private property. Personally, I think the right to fish, hunt, and sustain oneself trumps private property laws. The right to live trumps everything. But I doubt that is the prevailing wisdom here. In a purely an-cap society, would public fishing and hunting spots be available? This whole issue opens up the entire debate about property, and if true freedom (the right to sustain oneself) could even exist in a completely anarcho-capitalist, complete private property society.

If this guy wanted to fish on private property, he would probably have to pay a landowner. How much different is that than paying for a fishing license? I am living and working in south Texas and there are deer everywhere. I would love to go out and kill deer to eat and sustain myself, but they are all on private property and a lease would cost a lot of fucking money. According to RPFs should I be allowed to go out and kill a deer on someone's private property when I am hungry? Not trying to troll, just asking a serious question. I sympathize with this guy as much as the next person. In my ideal world, I would be allowed to roam the U.S. hunting and fishing to sustain myself. But it's just not possible.

People are reasonable. I'm sure they could work something out. For example, he can't eat all of the deer before the meat spoils. He could give the rest to the landowner. As for fishing rights, perhaps he can pay that off in a little bit of labor, say, wash the windows.

[Ender]

So a homeless, starving man would have to pay to fish in your lake right? How is that any different than having to pay for a fishing license? And to the post above, I don't understand how there would be open-space in an an-cap society. Why wouldn't people buy up the open space? Who would manage the open-space's natural resources? I'll look into it even further, but I don't see how an an-cap society would solve this guys specific problems.


From my experiences, it is much cheaper to hunt and fish on government owned land than it is to hunt/fish on private land. The cost of a hunting license and a public permit in Texas in way cheaper than paying for a deer lease. Ive always considered myself libertarian, but this is one issue that I can't seem to reconcile.

I'm an Indian and the thought of buying up every square inch of land is insanity to me, as well as the thought that these lands have to be "taken care of". Sure some rules should apply but the land doesn't need us as much as we need it.

I believe in an an-cap society, open land would be open land.

[Saint Vitus]

People are reasonable. I'm sure they could work something out. For example, he can't eat all of the deer before the meat spoils. He could give the rest to the landowner. As for fishing rights, perhaps he can pay that off in a little bit of labor, say, wash the windows.


I hate to play devil's advocate, but he could also wash a few windows and pay for a fishing license.

[FloralScent]

Why did he even bother to show up in court?

I'm sure it was because he didn't want to get Weavered.

[green73]

I hate to play devil's advocate, but he could also wash a few windows and pay for a fishing license.

Yeah, but then he'd be living in a State. (which would also make his situation much more likely).

[brandon]

lmao this dude is a complete crackpot...you guys can't seriously this he's a hero. I sympathize with him and I'm sure he's a good guy... but he's just spewing nonsense.

[green73]

lmao this dude is a complete crackpot...you guys can't seriously this he's a hero. I sympathize with him and I'm sure he's a good guy... but he's just spewing nonsense.

Did you not see my Matt Collins post?

[presence]

lmao this dude is a complete crackpot...you guys can't seriously this he's a hero. I sympathize with him and I'm sure he's a good guy... but he's just spewing nonsense.


get me a transcript

Freeman in Court (http://https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=court+freeman&sm=3)

[dillo]

Wait he fished on private property and you guys are defending him? Are you fucking commies or what? Kudos for him making that judge have a terrible day as Im sure shes trampled liberty more often than not in her career, but theft is theft.

[Henry Rogue]

People are reasonable. I'm sure they could work something out. For example, he can't eat all of the deer before the meat spoils. He could give the rest to the landowner. As for fishing rights, perhaps he can pay that off in a little bit of labor, say, wash the windows.I grew up in a farming community. When I was a kid we would ask people if we could hunt their land. If they didn't have family members hunting it themselves, they would let us hunt it and if we took a deer we would give them some meat. He does raise a question though, the people I asked for permission to hunt, owned the land, but they didn't believe they owned the deer. Who owns the wildlife on the land? Even with all the fences, deer easily move from private farm to private farm. How can anyone own deer that inhabit multiple properties?

[green73]

I grew up in a farming community. When I was a kid we would ask people if we could hunt their land. If they didn't have family members hunting it themselves, they would let us hunt it and if we took a deer we would give them some meat. He does raise a question though, the people I asked for permission to hunt, owned the land, but they didn't believe they owned the deer. Who owns the wildlife on the land? Even with all the fences, deer easily move from private farm to private farm. How can anyone own deer that inhabit multiple properties?

Intuitively it seems to me the landowner owns the wildlife on the land. Let's not make this complicated.

And of course, going back to my first response: I'm sure a lot of landowners would let you hunt or fish, as long as you had asked, no strings. Where I grew up that was the case.

[Henry Rogue]

Intuitively it seems to me the landowner owns the wildlife on the land. Let's not make this complicated.

And of course, going back to my first response: I'm sure a lot of landowners would let you hunt or fish, as long as you had asked, no strings. Where I grew up that was the case.I thought it would make for a fun discussion.

[mad cow]

So a homeless, starving man would have to pay to fish in your lake right? How is that any different than having to pay for a fishing license? And to the post above, I don't understand how there would be open-space in an an-cap society. Why wouldn't people buy up the open space? Who would manage the open-space's natural resources? I'll look into it even further, but I don't see how an an-cap society would solve this guys specific problems.


From my experiences, it is much cheaper to hunt and fish on government owned land than it is to hunt/fish on private land. The cost of a hunting license and a public permit in Texas in way cheaper than paying for a deer lease. Ive always considered myself libertarian, but this is one issue that I can't seem to reconcile.

My point is, no matter what political system you believe in (anarcho-capitalism or extreme socialism), neither system allows individuals to hunt and fish where they want to for free.

Yes,of course.I would have to add that a homeless,starving man would have to pay for fish from my restaurant,cans of tuna from my grocery store and,perhaps with his life,the leftover fish sticks from last nights dinner in my refrigerator that he might desire to remove without my permission at 3 a.m. after breaking into my house.

[RickyJ]

Seriously, what the heck happened here?

[brandon]

You guys are arguing about a hypothetical starving person, meanwhile the crackpot in the OP appears to be obese.

[RickyJ]

You guys are arguing about a hypothetical starving person, meanwhile the crackpot in the OP appears to be obese.

Crackpot or not the Judge clearly let him go on purpose. Was it something he said or that she thought he was a nut and didn't want to deal with him anymore.

[fr33]

I would be curious to see what the reaction at RPFs would be if this guy was arrested for fishing on private property. Personally, I think the right to fish, hunt, and sustain oneself trumps private property laws. The right to live trumps everything. But I doubt that is the prevailing wisdom here. In a purely an-cap society, would public fishing and hunting spots be available? This whole issue opens up the entire debate about property, and if true freedom (the right to sustain oneself) could even exist in a completely anarcho-capitalist, complete private property society.

If this guy wanted to fish on private property, he would probably have to pay a landowner. How much different is that than paying for a fishing license? I am living and working in south Texas and there are deer everywhere. I would love to go out and kill deer to eat and sustain myself, but they are all on private property and a lease would cost a lot of fucking money. According to RPFs should I be allowed to go out and kill a deer on someone's private property when I am hungry? Not trying to troll, just asking a serious question. I sympathize with this guy as much as the next person. In my ideal world, I would be allowed to roam the U.S. hunting and fishing to sustain myself. But it's just not possible.

I think you should ask permission from the private property owner. For fishing you have a better chance at getting permission than deer. It's a less valuable meat and more easily replaced. There's a shit-load of deer on the roads but the people who have a monopoly on roads forbid you to hunt deer.

[fr33]

lmao this dude is a complete crackpot...you guys can't seriously this he's a hero. I sympathize with him and I'm sure he's a good guy... but he's just spewing nonsense.

You guys are arguing about a hypothetical starving person, meanwhile the crackpot in the OP appears to be obese.

What about his rant makes him a crackpot in your opinion? Even overweight people do have to eat. It's probably beneficial to be a little overweight in Montana if you are spending a lot of time outside where it is cold.

[brushfire]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons



Libertarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) and classical liberals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism) often cite the tragedy of the commons as an example of what happens when Lockean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke) property rights to homestead resources are prohibited by a government.[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#cite_note-31)[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#cite_note-32)[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#cite_note-33) These people argue that the solution to the tragedy of the commons is to allow individuals to take over the property rights of a resource, that is, privatizing it.[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#cite_note-34) In 1940 Ludwig von Mises (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises) wrote concerning the problem:

[oyarde]

Do native Americans need a license? If not, why?


Why does one owe an income tax? What makes them liable? Fundamental questions that gets to the heart of the matter.

Why would a Native American need a fishing paper ? Are these the King's fish ?

[oyarde]

All the fishes in my area belong to God & I , but I will share them with crackpots etc :)

[Tod]

An excellent topic could be made discussing if the general population know what freedom is and would they accept or desire it given the oppurtunity.

Say you have a room of a half-dozen people. Each person has one or two habits that a majority of the rest dislike. Before long, all the activities of all the people are banned because everyone voted to outlaw the things that they personally did not like.

[Danke]

Why would a Native American need a fishing paper ? Are these the King's fish ?

I'm a Native American, and they require my SSN for a fishing license to make sure I'm not behind on child payments.

They can take my equipment and boat if I don't have a license.

[osan]

I would like to add one more to your list.
Justification - an ability to rationalize/excuse any action


This is implied in some of the listed elements, but explicitly listing it is not a bad idea.

[osan]

Honestly, I have to disagree with this. I definitely know what you're saying, but I believe that most people don't hate freedom. I think they legitimately don't know what it is.

Oh, they hate it alright, but I agree that they do not know what it is because what they CALL freedom is so very obviously not.

But when they see freedom, absences of proper labeling notwithstanding, most often they promptly freak out in the ways decent people do at the thought of adults raping small children.

Freedom demands WAY too much for the meaner's acceptance - courage, responsibility... oh no thank you very much, say Joey and Janey Meaner.

Their sin is not that they do not know; it is that that do not WANT to know.

[osan]

An excellent topic could be made discussing if the general population know what freedom is and would they accept or desire it given the oppurtunity.

We've been down that road in these forums before... not in a formally explicit manner as you seem here to suggest, but the questions and ideas have been discussed.

Start a thread.

[osan]

I would be curious to see what the reaction at RPFs would be if this guy was arrested for fishing on private property. Personally, I think the right to fish, hunt, and sustain oneself trumps private property laws.

Start a thread.



The right to live trumps everything.

You make a bold assertion but back it with silence. The claim predicates on definitions and context, yet none are given.

I can readily offer an example where what you say is both true and false at once.

The world has gone to wrack and ruin. You live away from the openly dangerous areas, very remote, and are down to your last food resources. There is NO game to be had, but you have a small bed of seedlings - all edible - but which you intend to grow to maturity for food and to propagate. Your immediate future depends upon your success at this small but life-crucual endeavor.

Here I come, starving. I spy the immediately edible fare and decide to act. My right to live now stands in vis-a-vis mortal conflict with your own. You are now faced with the choice of stopping me or effectively surrendering your life to the result of my choice to act. As I see it, being that you hold the prior and original claim on the means of sustenance, you are well within your right to grab yer 12 ga. and send me to Jesus. My right to life does NOT trump everything - certainly not YOUR right to life, which implies your right to the means of sustaining it, which you have chosen to undertake through your efforts at gardening. My right to life does not trump yours and my right to the fruits of my labor trump your right to life. It is clear that the right to life does not in fact trump everything in all cases.

Context speaks volumes and can change the fundamental meaning of just about any proposition one might care to cite.


In a purely an-cap society, would public fishing and hunting spots be available?


This is a fundamentally valid question and it points DIRECTLY to the issue of capacities. In this case, the capacity of the general environment to sustain a population. This is the question that some simply do not wish to face. Oddly, the candy-ass progressives tend to be more realistic on this question than do many others - christians being very notable among the latter.

The facts are clear and require no rocket surgery to comprehend. A given chunk of earth can sustain some maximum number of people. Beyond that, people begin dying for want of the basics for living. Long before that, however, the quality of life begins to degrade; slowly at first but with an accelerating rate of decay as the asymptotic rise in population density kicks into noticeable action.

As I have before made reference, I was once astonished to see an otherwise seemingly rational member of these forums state that he believed the planet could easily support 100 billions and that he looked forward to the day when that many were riding the rock. Assuming I had not mistaken sarcasm as something serious, I can only wonder at what brand of seizure lead to so wild a failure in perspective and reason.

I firmly believe in carrying limits - not just that describing the point at which expansion is no longer materially plausible and extinction even looms as a possibility, but those that define the envelope within which life retains its optimal characteristics in all relevant issues and without which the quality of life begins a slide into the lackluster.

It also seems apparent to me that when populations remain well within the limits of that envelope, the commons remains as a naturally occurring feature of the landscape. This is largely due to better adjustment of the mean individual to his surroundings whereby he is not driven to morbid avarice for more, more, more... all else equal, of course. There is a litany of factors that change under such circumstances, especially when freedom is the cornerstone. For example, in a free world you may claim a territory as your own, but if you cannot defend its bounds from predation then perhaps you have claimed too much - again, all else equal. As the ancient legal maxim states, and here I paraphrase: those who will not assert their rights have no rights. If I claim 1 million acres as mine, a square just over 39 miles on a side, in a free world I would have to have at my disposal the means of defending that claim. There would be no "state" to serve as my bully-boy. If I were very wealthy and could afford the means of defending my claim, then I am well entitled to my fruits. If I am not, too bad for me. This is a very natural and intrinsic limiting mechanism and IMO it is close enough to perfect such that the wayward epsilon is barely worth the mention.


This whole issue opens up the entire debate about property, and if true freedom (the right to sustain oneself) could even exist in a completely anarcho-capitalist, complete private property society.


Yes, it could because people would be limited in certain ways that today they are often not. Of course, one may rightly argue that the advance of technology would inevitably place within the hands of the individual the means of defending his million acres without requiring great wealth even in the absence of "the state" Possibly so - perhaps even probable, but I maintain that when populations are kept to the "right" levels much of the manic morbidity to grab all one can would vanish. I do, therefore, believe strongly in the virtues of self-limitation in those regards.

Do I believe that some subet of a population, perhaps the one calling itself "government", is justified in forcing others to limit their numbers? I cannot say for sure as I can see the arguments clearly from all sides. In the end and when things are pushed to their limits, right will yield to might. This is another one of those truths that some refuse to contemplate, much less accept - in this case the candy-ass progressives, being the bunnies-and-light sissy-boys they tend to be, seem to have this once well covered.



If this guy wanted to fish on private property, he would probably have to pay a landowner. How much different is that than paying for a fishing license?

Fundamentally different. Private property is that to which personal claim of ownership has been made. Contrary to popular belief, the commons is not owned by everybody. It is owned by NOBODY. It is unowned and therefore nobody holds authority to prevent anyone else from fishing in a river, for example. To credibly believe otherwise, one would have to establish the seat of authority for so banning one. Good luck with that one.


I am living and working in south Texas and there are deer everywhere. I would love to go out and kill deer to eat and sustain myself, but they are all on private property and a lease would cost a lot of fucking money. According to RPFs should I be allowed to go out and kill a deer on someone's private property when I am hungry? Not trying to troll, just asking a serious question. I sympathize with this guy as much as the next person. In my ideal world, I would be allowed to roam the U.S. hunting and fishing to sustain myself. But it's just not possible.

Without the commons, you would be SOL on the deer question. With too high a population you might also find yourself in the same straits.

There is great virtue in self-control. That most people refuse to accept this, as judged not by their protestations to the contrary but by their actions, it does not render the virtue invalid. Life is all about choices. We choose to be free, or to be slaves. We choose self control or to have control imposed upon us. We limit ourselves or we do not. There are no guarantees in this life and the actions of others impinge upon us, sometimes unpleasantly, sometimes dangerously. This is part of the weave of the universe. Trying to wish or legislate it away is a waste of time.

[osan]

What's this guy's backstory? Why did he even bother to show up in court? Smart move to walk out when the people in costumes took a break.

An ancient legal precept is that silence after a charge is acknowledgelement of guilt. I am not (yet) sufficiently expert in the fundaments of legal matters (would like to become better at this), but my research has lead me to some rather interesting discoveries, some the truth of which I still seek to establish more securely. Among them is the cited precept, which then raises the issue of the Fifth Amendment, so I have a long way to go. But if you look into the canons of positive law, this idea is clearly stated.

Therefore, the worst things you can do are to fail to appear if you do not know how to avoid appearing, or appear not knowing how to defend yourself properly.

I have been reading about two approaches to this sort of thing, either of which most lawyers will tell you will not work because it cannot work, and so forth. Yet I have read of viewed or heard of case after case where either of these approaches seemingly succeeds. I have raised this question with a close friend, an enormously competent lawyer who works for the Navy. He has acknowledged to me that certain aspects of that which I have read/seen/heard are most definitely true. Others he questions, but has remained open-minded about them. This has been a basis for my continued interest. If HE will not summarily slam the door on something, then there is reason to continue study.

Both approaches are based in contracts, the fundamental differences between the two being matters of how to approach those who threaten you (police, judges, etc.).

That all aside, it is clear to me that there are strict formalities that must be observed, not because they are necessarily right but because men with guns will visit you and put your carcass either in a cage or in the ground if you do not play according to the rules that appear in many ways to me to be arbitrary and capricious. There are many apparentl contradictions and paradoxes in all of this, but I am endeavoring to resolve them as best I can so that I may be well armed in the event that one day down the road I will be called upon by circumstance to defend myself against this at times seemingly randomly insane thing some call "law". But equally, it is as a great riddle whose answer hides in plain sight and my curiosity gets the better of me.

[presence]

for reflection:




An actual settler, without warrant, is so highly regarded, that although the law would deem him a trespasser, on general principles, the act prohibits any deputy surveyor from surveying any settled land, but for the owner of the settlement.

1790 Tench Coxe - Commonwealth v. Tench



The foundation of the American Revolution rested on the premise that Settler's rights trump Grantee's rights.



Personal, possessed property > private, granted property


see also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_title
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settler_colonialism


access to fish and wildlife was "not much less necessary to the existence of the Indians than the atmosphere they breathed" (United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, S. Ct. 662, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1089 [1905]).

[]

The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has consistently upheld the off-reservation hunting and fishing rights of Native Americans.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Hunting+and+Fishing+Rights



The need to fund the new land and indigenous policies in the west is what precipitated the explosive Stamp Act of
1765 and the crisis that followed.
20


What to imperial

officials seemed a reasonable solution to a dangerous set of circumstances
elicited outrage and resentment from settlers. Give
n the content of what they understood to
be their rights
–

that

the empire only existed because they made it with their labor;

that thelands of North America were not the king’s to give or keep; that their rights to expansion

were more important than preserving “hunting grounds” for Indians who weren’t using the
land fully; that the decisions about taxation were made in Parliament

,

not their own colonial
assemblies
–

the proclamation of the end of western settlement hit the settlers where it hurt
the most.

Further, though there had been limited attempts at imposing more imperial
control over the previous century, after settler res
istance, none of them had come to much.
The Proclamation was the first “parliamentary legislation that seriously affected [the

colonies’] internal governance,
”

and the settlers were shocked and offended.
21



http://www.sas.upenn.edu/dcc/workshops/documents/McElderryPennDCC12.5.pdf


This section unpacks the problems and politics of land that confronted the new union
of states, showing how the question of
“the west” and

the

indigenous peoples in it were central to the creat
ion of the new federal
republic and a new legal geography.


Discussions about the status of western lands and the formation of new governments were
taking place in Congress by early 1775, before independence was declared.
25

The terms of
the debate transitioned fairly rapidly from disputes with Parliament about new colonies in
the west to discussion about new (state) governments.
26


Though there was broa
d (though
not absolute) agreement about the desirability of the addition of new states, the western
lands issue was one of the most divisive


that the Framers faced

.
27

[osan]

lmao this dude is a complete crackpot...you guys can't seriously this he's a hero. I sympathize with him and I'm sure he's a good guy... but he's just spewing nonsense.


Upon what do you base this assertion? I see no supporting evidence.

I have been in court several times and I have noted that judges do not tolerate certain behaviors. Yet, this judge did despite her clear and obvious attempts to intimidate him, not the least of methods being to sic the armed men on him - men who usually respond immediately. Upon that order the "crackpot" as you as yet unjustifiably label him, raises his voice very high and in tone of firm and assertive anger and said man with gun keeps his place. Why would that be, especially in a time when such men so readily respond with great and sometimes fatal violence, later claiming like little girls to have felt "threatened"? That bears explanation.

How is it that the judge was apparently unable to move the proceedings forward without the accused's standard expected responses and cooperation? According to the more widespread wisdom, that judge should have clapped the man in irons on a contempt charge as she threatened, yet all she did was flee the courtroom to recess against the loudly and clearly expressed objection of a member of the court (accused). She did not even follow proper formal procedure to hear and rule on the objection, assuming she was within her granted powers to overrule the objection, and I am as yet not clear on whether she in fact did.

As the accused noted clearly for all to hear, the judge abandoned her vessel and he walked out. Why did they not stop him? Again, conventional wisdom leads one to believe that if they were within their powers and if what the accused was outside of his rights, he should have been arrested on the spot for attempting to leave a formal legal proceeding prior to its proper conclusion by the judge. Yet the bailiffs, what appears to be a cop or sheriff's deputy (not sure) and the judge herownself stand in the hallway leading out of the courtroom with cow-eyed looks in their eyes, seemingly impotent to do anything about the events unfolding. Why?

Not saying conclusively that things are what they seem in the video, but that your apparent out-of-hand dismissal is not valid. Your conclusions require evidence and a proper chain of reasoning at the very least in order to be regarded as potentially valid and truthful. Less than this is unacceptable.

Do you have such evidence and reasoning, or are you just talking off the top of your head for reasons not apparent?

[osan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

I do not have time to re-read the TOTC at the moment... have to get my lazy hide up to feed the goats - but the argument is, IMO, flawed in that it is based on assumptions that do not necessarily hold. For example, the assumptions of what constitutes "rational" impetus to drive men such that they will over-graze is very speculative. I can readily see it as holding in some instances. I can equally see it failing with others. The theory is based on assumptions that in turn assume both high-confidence and high-sigma applicability statistical predictions. Even the most fundamental knowledge of statistics reveals that the higher the confidence level, the lower the sigma applicability. To my eyes, the theory of the tragedy fallaciously implies these mutually exclusive statistical characteristics. I may be wrong, but I have yet to see any indication of it.

That said, I once again return to the notion of localized carrying capacities. Forget global environmental concerns and take a region. Unless one is a nomadic hunter-gatherer type, simply "moving" from one place to another is not nearly as easy as the notion appears on the surface. We have even been blessed with very good examples of this that are well enough documented. Take events of WW II in the European theater. Cities bombed into oblivion, advancing fronts here and there. Even under those conditions people REMAINED where they lived. Even as the bombs and armies advanced upon them, most stayed put. And as for those whom the camera documented fleeing - to what place did they go? How did they fare? Whence food and shelter? Those who flooded new areas became a sudden drain on the available resources and it takes no overly imaginative thought experiement to see where this leads.

Take the aftermath of Katrina - all those people out of New Orleans to communities far flung and even with those seemingly small added stresses the people of those communities got sick of the refugees in pretty sort order.

I assert that freedom is tightly tied to localized carrying capacity. Take the differences between cities and rural areas. I live in the boonies. I am able to carry my sidearms where and as I please, for the most part. Charleston is a small city surrounded by endless empty space and sparsely populated suburbs. Even that small space had, until recently, a "home rule" restriction against the open carry of a sidearm in public and a 3-day waiting period to purchase a firearm. St Albans, Dunbar, and a few other towns had the same. The legislature passed and the governor signed into law a bill that normalized gun laws state-wide, eliminating a town's ability to restrict my rights in such matters. This is a rare exception to the normal case where such restrictions are almost always tightened if they are to change at all.

Now consider high-density, sprawling cities such as NY, LA, Chicago, SF, and so forth. Enormously restrictive to the points that effective self-defense becomes illegal for all practical purposes, especially for certain classes of persons. The elderly, unpopular minorities, ex-cons, and so forth.

I do not for a moment believe that this disparity in the respect for rights is not intimately connected with that of the carrying capacities of rural and city environments.

[UWDude]

Nice:

"I am not a registered voter. There can be no trial because it requires a jury of my peers, and your fictitious court only chooses registered voters. Anybody who registers to vote has accepted your fictitious system, and therefore cannot be one of my peers."

[oyarde]

I'm a Native American, and they require my SSN for a fishing license to make sure I'm not behind on child payments.

They can take my equipment and boat if I don't have a license.

And taking your boat , pole , drivers license , passport etc is related to child support in what manner ??

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Watched this for a second time.. this video never gets old.

[Danke]

And taking your boat , pole , drivers license , passport etc is related to child support in what manner ??

I think it might be some Federal law, but in Minnesota, they track one for child support payments using one's SSN. So if you owe, no license to hunt and fish to feed your kids...

[oyarde]

I think it might be some Federal law, but in Minnesota, they track one for child support payments using one's SSN. So if you owe, no license to hunt and fish to feed your kids...

That is pretty lowlife and definately not needed , I am quite sure they would already be tracking employment ,using garnishment and using the State Revenue Dept. I would go as far as to say denial of hunting /fishing license is immoral.In your State and mine it is a way for the poor to supplement groceries for people who really need to.

[nobody's_hero]

Local news station. Comments section includes people who know the man.

http://www.kbzk.com/news/packed-courtroom-for-manhattan-man-accused-of-fishing-without-a-license/?fb_comment_id=fbc_179581128914931_264920_17962455 5577255#f27b3084dcadb08
from that article:

"That is the Jolly Roger, that thing you call the American flag with the golf fringe around it is the Jolly Roger, and you are acting as one of its privateers!"

Seriously, somewhere there is an editor who needs firing.

[devil21]

Wait he fished on private property and you guys are defending him? Are you fucking commies or what? Kudos for him making that judge have a terrible day as Im sure shes trampled liberty more often than not in her career, but theft is theft.

Where are you seeing that it was private property?

[kahless]

I think it might be some Federal law, but in Minnesota, they track one for child support payments using one's SSN. So if you owe, no license to hunt and fish to feed your kids...


That is pretty lowlife and definately not needed , I am quite sure they would already be tracking employment ,using garnishment and using the State Revenue Dept. I would go as far as to say denial of hunting /fishing license is immoral.In your State and mine it is a way for the poor to supplement groceries for people who really need to.

The denial of passports, licenses and tracking of all Americans employment by establishing the "federal new hires database" for child support purposes regardless of whether a person has children or ever applied for or collected welfare was part of the bipartisan so called 1996 Welfare reform Act.

They officially called it the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996" which came out of Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" and passed by Bill Clinton.

[Ender]

I'm a Native American, and they require my SSN for a fishing license to make sure I'm not behind on child payments.

They can take my equipment and boat if I don't have a license.

Are you talking about on reservations or just in general?

[oyarde]

Are you talking about on reservations or just in general?

I doubt he fishes on any of the Res's.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

lmao this dude is a complete crackpot...you guys can't seriously this he's a hero. I sympathize with him and I'm sure he's a good guy... but he's just spewing nonsense.

Looks to me like all the nonsense was coming from the other side of desk. Maybe somebody doesn't like fight fire with fire.

[Dianne]

Fabulous !!! What I have seen, throughout this land, is Judges don't know jack shit about the law. They have no clue of the most minor aspects of statutes.. so this just killed me... these are major things... most judges don't know what an affidavit is, lol.

Cap off and salute !!!!!!

[osan]

Crackpot or not the Judge clearly let him go on purpose. Was it something he said or that she thought he was a nut and didn't want to deal with him anymore.

You need to learn to read people better, methinks. The judge was clearly attempting to intimidate that guy with her threats of contempt charges and putting him into a cell. That is not the mark of a person that's worried about "dealing" with another. It is the mark o someone backed in to a corner and, not wanting to give anything away to the viewing public, silently if not invisibly backed off as a matter of law. If perchance the accused was spot on in terms of what he was doing - or enough so anyhow - do you think the judge is going to sit on her bench and pronounce to the world that he was right and that she must therefore let him go? I don't think so.

Also, some of my readings have indicated that any time a judge calls a recess under such conditions, he does so with the aim of silently and covertly changing jurisdictions. My possibly flawed understanding of this is that as jurisdiction changes, your rights are more tightly circumscribed and your peril increases. I do not yet know is this is indeed true, but in this case it would make sense. Under UCC jurisdiction the accused was kicking her ass to high heaven. She finally gave up and attempted to recess so that she could return after having covertly changed to positive law jurisdiction wherein her ability to trick him into surrendering his rights would have been significantly enhanced. If this is indeed the case, then he did precisely the right thing by leaving after she abandoned the courtroom. My understanding is that you should always object and demand that the business at hand be concluded prior to any recess and that a judge is law-bound to see the matter to its conclusion under the current jurisdiction. Again, I do not know how solid this is - apparently may lawyers (most??) will tell you this is bullshit, but what if they were not trained in these nuances of law? Some of my readings have indicated that lawyers are not much trained in law at all, but rather in formal court procedures - which is plausible.

It appears she did not shrink away from him until her attempts to intimidate, deceive, and cajole him into giving the answers she sought, which would have constituted a grant of jurisdiction over him, she fled. She had men with guns at her beck an call; men who would have manhandled the accused in a heartbeat under "normal" circumstances. She called them to take him to jail and he apparently stopped them dead in their tracks. How is it that he got away with it without getting his ass beaten or shot dead right there in the court? That is a question you need to ask and try to answer. There was nothing to stop them from acting... except, what exactly? The behavior of the judge and the cops made no sense according to conventional wisdom. So what, then, was different? It wasn't fear so far as I could tell. Just didn't want to deal with him? Since when does a judge hold that sort of discretion? What if he'd been up on a murder charge and behaved as in the video? Would the judge just toss up her hands, say fuck it, and abandon the court? How well do you think THAT would go over with the community?

No - methinks something else may be going on there. Not quite sure what it is, but it is definitely interesting. My question to you would be this: what if it is precisely what it appears? What if he defended himself by refusing to play into that judge's hands and won on that basis alone, having denied her jurisdiction and having asserted his rights and his refusal to waive?

One thing, however, that has me wondering was the accused's emphatic insistence that they get the hell out of there with the greatest possible dispatch. Is there something in the law that states if you hang out on court premises you are signaling recognition of jurisdiction? This is the sort of stupid shit you find hidden in law now and again - lots of unobvious stuff. Not saying it is so, just wondering about it. Or was he just not wanting to tempt fate by waiting for the cops to regain what little wits they had to begin with and come after him, this time with weapons drawn and ready?

[osan]

Fabulous !!! What I have seen, throughout this land, is Judges don't know jack shit about the law. They have no clue of the most minor aspects of statutes.. so this just killed me... these are major things... most judges don't know what an affidavit is, lol.

Actually, I am thinking it is precisely the opposite. Judges know a LOT about the law and by that virtue do not want to become targets of a cause for action motion, which could wreck their careers. I think they rely on the general ignorance of the public and their lawyers. When one pops up who knows how to stand his ground, it appears they back right off because they know they are done and do not want to make too much noise so as to attract the wrong sort of attention. They often clear the courtroom, dismiss, and go on with their days.

It's the lawyers, as I understand from some, who do not know shit about the law. They know PROCEDURE and superficialities of law - enough to enable them to apply the procedures properly and to the degree they have been trained. But the depths of law are claimed to be unknown to them by some. If the law is the game some claim, this makes perfect sense in a nation where there exists an apparent vested interest in morbid, compulsive control over ever broader swaths of everyone's lives. Keep them ignorant of REAL law, trick them into contracting with the court through consent, and thereafter you have them by the ovals. It's a fantastic scam for them - just look at how successful it is. Last thing Theye want it the cat out of the bag, but the internet appears to be altering the game in no trivial fashion. :)

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

It was an omnibus hearing.

" (3) The presence of the defendant is not required, unless ordered by the court."


http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/46/13/46-13-110.htm


What did he say when she asked if he wanted a public defender? "What use have I for a voice of ruin?" LOL.

[devil21]

It was an omnibus hearing.

" (3) The presence of the defendant is not required, unless ordered by the court."


http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/46/13/46-13-110.htm


What did he say when she asked if he wanted a public defender? "What use have I for a voice of ruin?" LOL.

He certainly has a way with words, doesn't he?

You can debate what you think judges do or do not know, legally, but the judge in this video showed that they are generally incapable of functioning once things go off the script they are accustomed to. They may have known "the law" at one point but their cushy jobs and repetitive scripts slowly erode from their knowledge. You also saw this with the family court judge in that NV case that just turned away and played with the kid while the mother was being assaulted by the deputy in the courtroom.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

... but the judge in this video showed that they are generally incapable of functioning once things go off the script they are accustomed to.

Oh, definitely. She was probably looking forward to a few more meek people and then a nice lunch break. She started to point her finger. Once you do that, you're already losing control. Even an old banshee like her must know about Youtube and saw she was being filmed. Probably just a little camera shy. Heh.

[devil21]

Raw YT version has well over 400,000 views already.

[CPUd]

The judge knew that he was not a nutter as soon as he started talking about flesh and blood and jolly roger. In that area, they have seen freeman arguments before; that video just causes more people to try the same thing in court, and causes judges to adopt the standard practice for dealing with people who attempt a freeman argument- they will be charged with contempt, and if they file the paperwork they bought from a freeman site, they will also get hit with punitive damages. It is already being done in Alberta.

[heavenlyboy34]

Yep. Been saying this for a while.

+1. Freedom is extremely dangerous and fucking inconvenient. Boobus does not want danger and inconvenience, and he outnumbers us by a huge amount. :(

Exhibit from the YT comments:


Nick Truby (http://www.youtube.com/profile_redirector/104072474638152173895)13 hours ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMtNTYB7qfs&google_comment_id=z12weh4imxn2vdeuh231xrracuzitbox v04)

Just what we need another loud, rude cross between grizzly Adams, and duck dynasty nut case. Im about fed up with these long haired liberals spouting off crap they've read from some discarded law book from 1802. What it boils down to is he was disrespectful to the judge, combative, and looked like a joke in the first place. These jokers wanna talk about lawlessness and how corrupt our system is, but in the meantime they rob our police and courts of valuable time by causing trouble. What idiots :rolleyes:

[UWDude]

comments like that are probably lawyers, paralegals and cops who have a stake in keeping the law overcomplicated.

[kcchiefs6465]

comments like that are probably lawyers, paralegals and cops who have a stake in keeping the law overcomplicated.
They're probably RPF members.

[RDM]

They're probably RPF members.

^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

The judge knew that he was not a nutter as soon as he started talking about flesh and blood and jolly roger. In that area, they have seen freeman arguments before; that video just causes more people to try the same thing in court, and causes judges to adopt the standard practice for dealing with people who attempt a freeman argument- they will be charged with contempt, and if they file the paperwork they bought from a freeman site, they will also get hit with punitive damages. It is already being done in Alberta.


Sure, the Montana Just-Us weaklings are aware of the freemen. The guy never stuttered once however, and the judge showed her lack of composure by pointing her finger and then leaving the room. I'd say the guy was not even required to be there, which is why she just cut her losses. She best start working on better "standardization"--or maybe we should call that "order."

The real x factor in the whole thing might have been the filming. There might have been a severe man handling in the old days, so modern technology sometimes mitigates against that. The real benefit of filming is countering the perverted mentality of shows like COPS. These videos are slowly changing the landscape.

Yeah, the guy might lose his case, but the damage has been done by his disruption. There will be A LOT of people who view that video and not even know the context. They'll just see a man who disrupted order.

I remember something Terry Bressi told me in the middle of his case. He said it's just as important to push back. Pushing back is what gets the wheels turning. That is why it's important to always make the jobs of these people as miserable as possible. They're just human too, so they're subject to stress, ulcers, and many other unpleasantness. There is a reason police have a high suicide rate and beat their wives so much.



Disturb----->Disrupt----->Disorder

[CPUd]

I think the guy being assertive, plus knowing the camera is in there is why the judge got up and walked out, instead of having the bailiffs tackle the guy.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Maybe it's poetically ironic that a simple, raw video can have the same "fuck yeah" effect as the shrewdly edited COPS TV show. I wonder how many embarrassments, mistakes, and downright police screw ups were edited out of that show.

These videos don't get the audience of a high grossing TV show, but this technology is still pretty crude. Nice that mainstream media types are picking up on some of these videos just because the network media needs to compete.

I can't see some bubble-headed TV producer picking up this video though. She probably wouldn't understand half that man's vocabulary. (lol)

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Oh, and to further my diatribe. What kind of filth picks on a homeless guy trying to feed himself? The school admin pansies talk about nonsense like facebook "bullying." Yeah, whatever. How about a bullying case not about the color of eye shadow, but bullying for something important like--oh, I don't know--eating to stay alive, for instance?

Too bad somebody on the way out didn't take a crap on that judge's chair. Wouldn't have mattered though, considering the shit she wallows in every day.

Okay, now I'm done. Well, until I think of something else.

[fr33]

The judge knew that he was not a nutter as soon as he started talking about flesh and blood and jolly roger. In that area, they have seen freeman arguments before; that video just causes more people to try the same thing in court, and causes judges to adopt the standard practice for dealing with people who attempt a freeman argument- they will be charged with contempt, and if they file the paperwork they bought from a freeman site, they will also get hit with punitive damages. It is already being done in Alberta.

It's not really any more ineffective than arguing that you have a 4th amendment or 2nd amendment rights to a judge. "We" have gun laws and reasonable search laws. Had he just stuck with the natural living universal law, he'd have made more sense instead of appealing to be ruled by a document written and signed by dead men that did not seek consent by even those alive when it was written.

[osan]

The judge knew that he was not a nutter as soon as he started talking about flesh and blood and jolly roger. In that area, they have seen freeman arguments before; that video just causes more people to try the same thing in court, and causes judges to adopt the standard practice for dealing with people who attempt a freeman argument- they will be charged with contempt, and if they file the paperwork they bought from a freeman site, they will also get hit with punitive damages. It is already being done in Alberta.

Well then, why is it when she threatened him with contempt and ordered the bailiff to take him into custody did nothing of the sort come to pass. The man was yelling at her, yet no contempt charge.

You make assertions that fly in the face of what you see in the video. Your credibility, if not your sanity, is on the line here.

[CPUd]

Well then, why is it when she threatened him with contempt and ordered the bailiff to take him into custody did nothing of the sort come to pass. The man was yelling at her, yet no contempt charge.

You make assertions that fly in the face of what you see in the video. Your credibility, if not your sanity, is on the line here.

Like I said, I believe the camera being there had an effect on the immediate outcome. It never looks good on camera when the police take someone down. Additionally, after she tells the bailiffs to take him, she goes back to talking to him again, making it appear she was trying to continue; the bailiffs were probably standing there trying to figure out WTF she wants them to do.

The video only shows a part of the story. He was ultimately charged with contempt and is sitting in jail now, until January. Unless he can get someone to bring $500 in gold or silver to pay his bond. I doubt he would try to use worthless paper to post bail.

[devil21]

I think the guy being assertive, plus knowing the camera is in there is why the judge got up and walked out, instead of having the bailiffs tackle the guy.

Court staff wanted nothing to do with him. The history comment at the end? That's not a deputy wanting to tackle him.

[osan]

Like I said, I believe the camera being there had an effect on the immediate outcome.

So what you are implying is that bailiff's now pick and choose which orders from the judge they will obey, whom they will take into custody? Is that what you expect us to believe. She gave a clear and inequivocal order, and yet nobody responded save Mr. Tertegte, who basically read the judge the riot act. Your attempt at explanation makes less than zero sense.


It never looks good on camera when the police take someone down.

Pray tell sir, on what planet do you live? Here on earth, America in particular, police do not give the least damn how they look. There are literally thousands of videos of cops shooting people, dogs, what have you, tackling, falsely arresting, and otherwise manhandling people. Firstly, many believe they act rightly and therefore what they do is no basis for shame. The rest don't care how they appear because they know they will skate because other people with control over men with guns have their backs.


Additionally, after she tells the bailiffs to take him, she goes back to talking to him again, making it appear she was trying to continue; the bailiffs were probably standing there trying to figure out WTF she wants them to do.

She gave a clear order to take him into custody at 4:13 where she says "would you remove him from the courtroom officer" and the bailiff moved to obey as reasonably interpolated by Mr. Tertegte's unequivocal response as he orders the bailiff not to touch him at least twice and he declares that the bailiff will become a debtor if he violates Tertegte's natural, sovereign rights. This stopped the bailiff. If you are correct that said bailiff stopped due to appearances, the question of why remains unanswered. Perhaps the bailiff knows just enough about the law to know he would be on very thin ice if he messes with a man who knows how to navigate the waters of the UCC?


The video only shows a part of the story. He was ultimately charged with contempt and is sitting in jail now, until January. Unless he can get someone to bring $500 in gold or silver to pay his bond. I doubt he would try to use worthless paper to post bail.

And you know this how? I would also ask, since when can you bail yourself out on contempt charges? I have never heard of this before. Contempt charges arise when you displease the judge - will not answer a question, give up a name, etc. - and jail time ceases when you give in or the judge otherwise sees fit to release you. Not saying it is impossible to bail on contempt, but that this is the first I have heard of such a thing.

[UWDude]

They're probably RPF members.

*sigh* You may be right.

[CPUd]

So what you are implying is that bailiff's now pick and choose which orders from the judge they will obey, whom they will take into custody? Is that what you expect us to believe. She gave a clear and inequivocal order, and yet nobody responded save Mr. Tertegte, who basically read the judge the riot act. Your attempt at explanation makes less than zero sense.



Pray tell sir, on what planet do you live? Here on earth, America in particular, police do not give the least damn how they look. There are literally thousands of videos of cops shooting people, dogs, what have you, tackling, falsely arresting, and otherwise manhandling people. Firstly, many believe they act rightly and therefore what they do is no basis for shame. The rest don't care how they appear because they know they will skate because other people with control over men with guns have their backs.



She gave a clear order to take him into custody at 4:13 where she says "would you remove him from the courtroom officer" and the bailiff moved to obey as reasonably interpolated by Mr. Tertegte's unequivocal response as he orders the bailiff not to touch him at least twice and he declares that the bailiff will become a debtor if he violates Tertegte's natural, sovereign rights. This stopped the bailiff. If you are correct that said bailiff stopped due to appearances, the question of why remains unanswered. Perhaps the bailiff knows just enough about the law to know he would be on very thin ice if he messes with a man who knows how to navigate the waters of the UCC?



And you know this how? I would also ask, since when can you bail yourself out on contempt charges? I have never heard of this before. Contempt charges arise when you displease the judge - will not answer a question, give up a name, etc. - and jail time ceases when you give in or the judge otherwise sees fit to release you. Not saying it is impossible to bail on contempt, but that this is the first I have heard of such a thing.

It is what it is.

Unless he made bond, he's still sitting in jail right now on charges of contempt and resisting arrest.

[Tod]

Found guilty by jury

http://www.kbzk.com/news/tertelgte-found-guilty-by-jury/?_escaped_fragment_=prettyPhoto%2F0%2F

[tommyrp12]

Funny the judge refused to give her oath and bond........ maybe not so funny.

In Judicio Non Creditur Nisi Juratis (http://legaldictionary.lawin.org/in-judicio-non-creditur-nisi-juratis/)
In law, none is credited unless he is sworn. All the facts must, when established by witnesses, be under oath or affirmation. Cro. Car. 64.

[compromise]

Pcosmar, is that you?

[tommyrp12]

no

[brushfire]

Funny the judge refused to give her oath and bond........ maybe not so funny.

In Judicio Non Creditur Nisi Juratis (http://legaldictionary.lawin.org/in-judicio-non-creditur-nisi-juratis/)
In law, none is credited unless he is sworn. All the facts must, when established by witnesses, be under oath or affirmation. Cro. Car. 64.

I think she had to abandon procedure in order to get this guy.

[osan]

I think she had to abandon procedure in order to get this guy.

This would seem fodder for appellate court. The whole deal seems pretty rotten.

[devil21]

Another video of his court adventures with that judge. Not sure where it fits in the timeline of his case though.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=703_1385224413

[heavenlyboy34]

They're probably RPF members.
:eek: mind. blown.

[devil21]

They're probably RPF members.

What do you mean by that? The statist types that troll around here?

[compromise]

What do you mean by that? The statist types that troll around here?

Yeah, those types really piss me off.

[kahless]

Found guilty by jury

http://www.kbzk.com/news/tertelgte-found-guilty-by-jury/?_escaped_fragment_=prettyPhoto%2F0%2F

Video 3/3, 45 seconds in. Was it really necessary to handcuff him in the backroom while he watched the proceedings. :rolleyes:

This is a case where many lacked basic common sense and decency. The arresting officers should have just let it go, gave him a warning and backed off. Was it really worth arresting him in front of his kid. What bunch of dicks in uniform all the way around.

There was money and time wasted on this, the taxpayers should be pissed. The jury should have been pissed that they had to take time for this nonsense and sent a message by not convicting him.

If the Judge had any common sense she would have dismissed it. I guess the costume and sitting on the bench, the power trip clouds the judgement.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

They took him out of the chair. They took him out of the room. They couldn't take his dignity.

[kcchiefs6465]

What do you mean by that? The statist types that troll around here?
Yes.

[QuickZ06]

Well, he got hauled off today. Free country........

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=703_1385224413

[devil21]

Interesting to note that none of Alex Jones' media outlets peeped a word about this man's videos or the concepts behind them, even while they were going viral.

[bolil]

Interesting to note that none of Alex Jones' media outlets peeped a word about this man's videos or the concepts behind them, even while they were going viral.

AJ is too busy self promoting. He has lost me as a fan. maybe he doesn't like seeing in the flesh that thing he pretends to be. Disgusting all around. AJ, MSM, the whole fucking lot of it. Guy fishes, gets put in rape cell.

Did RP channel pick this up? I'll be no more kind towards Ron's pay to see channel than I am towards AJ's free material. Montana state government: Fuck you, and your fucking wasted-on-naughts paradise. I hear alotta shit blathered about CHicago, atleast CHicago is on the level with their people. "We are a bunch of crooks; pay us and we won't hurt you." Montana rendition, "We are a bunch of free human beings, free to fucking turn the other head and free to put others in fucking prison. Big sky, indeed. Big, vapid, fucking, place. "Smoke a pack a day" right? Please do, expedite your own fucking departure.

And Ron Paul is trying to turn a buck selling subscriptions to his channel. I hope someone cracks the site and releases everything for free. Practice what you preach, or lose more support. Mine's fucking gone.

THought it was about education, Ron, not fucking money. You woke me up and now goodbye. Your son is a sellout.

I disown the state. Montana taking lessons from the cities. Very nice.

[kahless]

...ANd Ron Paul is trying to turn a buck selling subscriptions to his channel. I hope someone cracks the site and releases everything for free. Practice what you preach, or lose more support. Mine's fucking gone

THought it was about education, Ron, not fucking money......


I think he saw what Beck did with his paid service which is just preaching to the choir. Big mistake if you are trying to reach people.

I do not agree with some one hacking him but clearly he could reach more people if his site was free. I wonder how many people are subscribing, maybe he would have reached more people funding a free site through donations.

[A Son of Liberty]

I think he saw what Beck did with his paid service which is just preaching to the choir. Big mistake if you are trying to reach people.

I do not agree with some one hacking him but clearly he could reach more people if his site was free. I wonder how many people are subscribing, maybe he would have reached more people funding a free site through donations.

As far as I know, other than book revenues, the only thing funding the many operations Ron presently has under way is the pay channel. I'm fine with it.

[compromise]

And Ron Paul is trying to turn a buck selling subscriptions to his channel. I hope someone cracks the site and releases everything for free. Practice what you preach, or lose more support. Mine's fucking gone.

RPF logic: As he advocates helping small businesses through free market economics, Ron Paul is failing to practicing what he preaches by setting up a small business....wait, what?

[devil21]

AJ is too busy self promoting. He has lost me as a fan. maybe he doesn't like seeing in the flesh that thing he pretends to be. Disgusting all around. AJ, MSM, the whole fucking lot of it. Guy fishes, gets put in rape cell.

Did RP channel pick this up? I'll be no more kind towards Ron's pay to see channel than I am towards AJ's free material. Montana state government: Fuck you, and your fucking wasted-on-naughts paradise. I hear alotta shit blathered about CHicago, atleast CHicago is on the level with their people. "We are a bunch of crooks; pay us and we won't hurt you." Montana rendition, "We are a bunch of free human beings, free to fucking turn the other head and free to put others in fucking prison. Big sky, indeed. Big, vapid, fucking, place. "Smoke a pack a day" right? Please do, expedite your own fucking departure.

And Ron Paul is trying to turn a buck selling subscriptions to his channel. I hope someone cracks the site and releases everything for free. Practice what you preach, or lose more support. Mine's fucking gone.

THought it was about education, Ron, not fucking money. You woke me up and now goodbye. Your son is a sellout.

I disown the state. Montana taking lessons from the cities. Very nice.

I agree with you about AJ and have thought he's been co-opted for a while now. I don't agree with most of the rest of your post regarding the Pauls though.

[osan]

Interesting to note that none of Alex Jones' media outlets peeped a word about this man's videos or the concepts behind them, even while they were going viral.

This can be said of all of the most-likely-controlled-opposition. Consider that sad little clown Beck - he spews and rants endlessly but never ever touches upon the real issues. All his blather revolves around the constitution and very standard views of how things should be. He yaps "freedom", but only from a very scripted, tacit definition of the term. He sucks the police missile endlessly, as well as those of all the other standardized icons of supposed and presumed authority. It's a joke, only not very funny.

This failure to address substantive, if alternate truth is the clear indicator to me that either these people are incompetent or compromised.

Either way, they are of tightly circumscribed value on their best days.

[austin944]

Does anyone have more information on this Mountain Man -- what's his background, how he lives, what he believes? He seems like came from another century -- like a Thoreau reincarnated.

Somehow I think he would have nothing to do with the liberty movement. This guy is an island unto himself.

[osan]

Somehow I think he would have nothing to do with the liberty movement. This guy is an island unto himself.

Do these two statements not contradict each other? Is being an island unto oneself not the epitome of personal liberty?

[devil21]

Does anyone have more information on this Mountain Man -- what's his background, how he lives, what he believes? He seems like came from another century -- like a Thoreau reincarnated.

Somehow I think he would have nothing to do with the liberty movement. This guy is an island unto himself.

Take with a grain of salt but I read elsewhere that he actually was "in the system" up till a few years ago. Search around for his name and bankruptcy and you can find some background.

[austin944]

Do these two statements not contradict each other? Is being an island unto oneself not the epitome of personal liberty?

Maybe, but somehow I can't envision this guy associating himself with any political movement. I think he just wants to be left alone by the state, whereas those in the liberty movement still retain a connection to state power.

Anyways, here's a video of the guy giving a speech and explaining himself a bit more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IGxH3IKedM

I can't say I understood much about what he was saying, except around 5:35 to 6:15, and 10:14 was pretty good. He starts talking about the Federal Reserve at 14:20, didn't understand that either.

[kcchiefs6465]

And Ron Paul is trying to turn a buck selling subscriptions to his channel. I hope someone cracks the site and releases everything for free. Practice what you preach, or lose more support. Mine's fucking gone.

THought it was about education, Ron, not fucking money. You woke me up and now goodbye. Your son is a sellout.

I disown the state. Montana taking lessons from the cities. Very nice.
GTFO. Ron Paul charges 10 dollars a month. I doubt he even has but a few thousand subscribers. The program is probably hemorrhaging money and you talk this bullshit about "turning a buck." It isn't a program to educate people. It is a news source for those already educated. Consider it like the CNN of truth. Production isn't free, the man isn't a charity, and for the most important point, the quality of the episodes is well worth the money (and recognize that I say quality knowing full damn well it skips and stutters throughout the entirety. Instead of wanting to concave my head in, after eye twitchingly watching propagandist whores on the news, I can go to a place that speaks of the real issues). Come to think of it, you aren't losing anything regarding education by not subscribing. The interviews are epic, the quality of what he is speaking about is great, but if you want to be educated (not saying you aren't), coming here would better serve you. If a drone were to watch his program they'd probably have a truth stroke.

If it offended you that much, that you are unable to access his material, you could have just PMed me. I'd pay for your subscription if I were sure of a way that you wouldn't be able to access my card information (nothing against you, but I'm sure you understand my concerns). A lack of anonymity is my only issue with his model.

And as to Rand Paul, he is his own man. Comparing him to Rothbard or Ron Paul or whoever isn't going to suffice. He has his own views ultimately which are in line largely with libertarianism. He is trying to accomplish something... shitting on his image isn't necessarily productive. I have often times disagreed with his votes, his stances, and mainly his rhetoric. He is the only chance this country has, though. And I'm not saying that out of some blind misguided patriotic sense of obligation to maintaining a system of oppression and tyrannical rule... I'm saying that knowing the outcome of this; That is, this world will burn if people do not take heed and change their ways. Any efforts towards changing the masses and their thought process of what ultimately could be ascribed to be evil, should be welcomed. If I were a Senator, I'd shout from the floor until they gagged me. But then again, I'm not a Senator, I could never be a Senator, and if by some selling of my soul I became a Senator, I would be subsequently impeached immediately. So instead I play the role afforded. I educate on a small scale with the hopes that those I speak to start to see things in a different light or that they take it upon themselves to educate another. All avenues should be praised. Rand Paul is the best Senator in American history. It really isn't even a comparison.

[oyarde]

As far as I know, other than book revenues, the only thing funding the many operations Ron presently has under way is the pay channel. I'm fine with it.

I was hoping he would re open his coin shop......

[CPUd]

Does anyone have more information on this Mountain Man -- what's his background, how he lives, what he believes? He seems like came from another century -- like a Thoreau reincarnated.

Somehow I think he would have nothing to do with the liberty movement. This guy is an island unto himself.

He's made public statements in the past, at what were probably city council meetings. He is opposed to attempts at conservationism and in particular, federal agencies' management of public wildlife areas.

[kcchiefs6465]

He's made public statements in the past, at what were probably city council meetings. He is opposed to attempts at conservationism and in particular, federal agencies' management of public wildlife areas.
I would imagine it may be because he is read on the scams of the Government Land Office, the fallacies of the Endangered Species Act, and the fact that the federal government seized millions of acres of land under false auspices and flat-out lies. In fact, what, some 230 million acres worth.

[CPUd]

I would imagine it may be because he is read on the scams of the Government Land Office, the fallacies of the Endangered Species Act, and the fact that the federal government seized millions of acres of land under false auspices and flat-out lies. In fact, what, some 230 million acres worth.

That, plus he seems to have spend a lot of time on the ground, so when the feds come into the town to try to sell their programs, he calls BS on them.

[Tod]

http://freepatriot.org/2013/11/24/mountain-man-terteltge-reclaiming-ones-natural-rights-from-the-state/

[kcchiefs6465]

http://freepatriot.org/2013/11/24/mountain-man-terteltge-reclaiming-ones-natural-rights-from-the-state/
Thanks for posting.

My interest in the subject has been piqued.

[mczerone]

The initial video was painful. That wasn't a conversation. Neither the Judge or Mountain Man listened to each other or spoke in a language that the other would accept.

Let this be a lesson to those who believe in "sovereign man" mumbo-jumbo: the court doesn't care if you spout meaningless soundbites about "universal law" or the fringes on their flag. They throw people in cages for a living, and if you can't talk to them like people to convince them why they shouldn't, it doesn't matter what the "truth" is.

[oyarde]

lmao this dude is a complete crackpot...you guys can't seriously this he's a hero. I sympathize with him and I'm sure he's a good guy... but he's just spewing nonsense.

Late at night in early Autumn , when the wind blows , if you say " crackpot , crackpot , crackpot" , sometimes Oyarde will appear with freshly poached fish for dinner,:) lol

[phill4paul]

The initial video was painful. That wasn't a conversation. Neither the Judge or Mountain Man listened to each other or spoke in a language that the other would accept.

Let this be a lesson to those who believe in "sovereign man" mumbo-jumbo: the court doesn't care if you spout meaningless soundbites about "universal law" or the fringes on their flag. They throw people in cages for a living, and if you can't talk to them like people to convince them why they shouldn't, it doesn't matter what the "truth" is.

It doesn't matter HOW he spoke to them. The only language theye understand is compliant recognition of theire authoritay. It's not his fault that theye have been allowed to get to this point.

[mczerone]

It doesn't matter HOW he spoke to them. The only language theye understand is compliant recognition of theire authoritay. It's not his fault that theye have been allowed to get to this point.

I disagree. He brought up at one point the past court decisions that said that he wasn't a taxpayer or citizen or whatever. He could have cogently explained his position that he isn't bound by licensing requirements because of X. I do admire his demeanor - that he wasn't treating the judge as anyone special, and there's even a place for cutting her off in conversation to make a point.

But the BS about legal fictions, capitalization, gold fringe, etc. was just off-topic and alienating.

There was a way to assert legal independence without that crap, and without ending up in a cage at the end.

[fr33]

The initial video was painful. That wasn't a conversation. Neither the Judge or Mountain Man listened to each other or spoke in a language that the other would accept.

Let this be a lesson to those who believe in "sovereign man" mumbo-jumbo: the court doesn't care if you spout meaningless soundbites about "universal law" or the fringes on their flag. They throw people in cages for a living, and if you can't talk to them like people to convince them why they shouldn't, it doesn't matter what the "truth" is.
Had he used the judge's language and been obedient, we would not be talking about him or ever heard about him or his charges. People all around the country do what you are suggesting and they end up paying fines or going to jail completely unnoticed by the general public.

[phill4paul]

I disagree. He brought up at one point the past court decisions that said that he wasn't a taxpayer or citizen or whatever. He could have cogently explained his position that he isn't bound by licensing requirements because of X. I do admire his demeanor - that he wasn't treating the judge as anyone special, and there's even a place for cutting her off in conversation to make a point.

But the BS about legal fictions, capitalization, gold fringe, etc. was just off-topic and alienating.

There was a way to assert legal independence without that crap, and without ending up in a cage at the end.

Sure there is. Assert your legal independence, without that "crap", pay your fines and fees and possibly not end up in a cage.

[jtstellar]

not sure why we keep alcoholics around to degrade the intellectual integrity of this board, but oh well.

[kcchiefs6465]

not sure why we keep alcoholics around to degrade the intellectual integrity of this board, but oh well.
This is hilarious.

[mczerone]

Had he used the judge's language and been obedient, we would not be talking about him or ever heard about him or his charges. People all around the country do what you are suggesting and they end up paying fines or going to jail completely unnoticed by the general public.

He already did an interview on Free Talk Live last year. His struggle was already known, and keeping his arguments sane (even while refusing to use "legalese" or following the judge's cues) would have done more for him in the moment and would have done more for credibility of his stances.

It's like an argument between a statist and a libertarian about the righteousness of NASA. The libertarian can make the moral argument, or the economic efficiency argument. But if the libertarian augments those arguments with a diatribe about how the moon landing was fake, the whole argument was pointless and any observers would dismiss his sane points along with the crap.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I've never been homeless, but maybe would have some conflicting thoughts. I've settled on the idea that you can't really run away, but some environments are better than others. If a place is my home, then why should I let myself be run off? On the other hand, why even bother to play their rigged game? Just leave.

Guess there are always other factors too, such as the means to leave, ties to the area, etc.

What would people here do? Leave? Stay? Not a big deal, but just wondered.

Now that I think about it--I'd just leave. I'm sort of a gypsy (living in a lot of places) and am not really a citizen of any place. I just live on earth. Big deal.

[Tod]

More news on ernie tertelgte


Tertelgte cited for contempt, sentenced to 30 days and fined $500


BOZEMAN - Ernie Tertelgte of Manhattan is in jail after a confrontation with a judge on Monday.
Tertelgte, 52 years old, gained internet fame in November 2013 after challenging a judge in court over a fishing violation.
Tertelgte is accused of fishing without a license and appeared in court on Monday for a status hearing on the misdemeanor charge.
MTN News was the only media outlet inside the courtroom, but in a surprise move, the judge ruled that cameras would not be allowed - and then the hearing was over nearly as soon as it started.


more at link
http://www.kxlh.com/news/tertelgte-cited-for-contempt-sentenced-to-30-days-and-fined-500/



Confrontation with judge sends Tertelgte back to jail


BOZEMAN - A Manhattan man is back in jail after another confrontation with a local judge Monday.

Ernie Tertelgte, 52, appeared in Gallatin County Justice Court for a status hearing on a charge of fishing without a license and resisting arrest. But the routine hearing ended with Tertelgte in handcuffs and his supporters in disbelief.

The hearing opened with a request by Justice of the Peace Rick West that Tertelgte remove his signature three point hat in the courtroom. Tertelgte repeatedly refused and protested loudly. Justice West asked him twice to stop yelling and held him in contempt when Tertelgte did not comply.
Justice West sentenced him to 30 days in jail and a $500 fine.


more at link
http://www.kbzk.com/news/confrontation-with-judge-leaves-tertelgte-back-in-jail/

[Tod]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RLHsH7XAkc

[kahless]

I feel safe now that those without fishing licenses are behind bars for 30 days. Good use of taxpayer dollars. :rolleyes:

They are hiding their illegal action by not allowing cameras. No video also prevents the liberty movement from using the video as a propaganda tool. Predictable.

[osan]

I feel safe now that those without fishing licenses are behind bars for 30 days.

The judge feels safer.

[ClydeCoulter]

"If you can't beat 'em with intellegence, club 'em"

[UWDude]

30 days in jail and a $500 fine for wearing a hat in the free-est nation on Earth. LOL

[Tod]

Wolf seems to have backed down....

Comments below article.....oolala


Citizens threaten to arrest local judge, law enforcement on edge
A threat made against a local judge has law enforcement on edge.

But, as MTN's Beth Saboe reports, a member of the unorganized militia says his group is not out for vigilante justice.

"This is not about arresting a judge per Se, this is about holding him and every law agency to the same standards that they hold you and I to. This isn't about vengeance; this is about justice," William Wolf said.

Wolf is a friend of Ernie Tertelgte, a Manhattan resident who calls himself "a natural living man" and has gained internet fame for confronting local judges.

more at link..


http://www.kbzk.com/news/citizens-threaten-to-arrest-local-judge-law-enforcement-on-edge/#!prettyPhoto/0/

[Tod]

This is from the comments below the article, written by Mr. Wolf.


It is strange that the sheriff talked of kidnapping and such but failed to mention that I had already contacted the FBI, the US Marshalls office, the MT Attorney Generals office and Marty Lambert the GC district attorney, and that I clearly stated that this would be an arrest under Montana Code Annotated 46-6-502 and had contacted a US Marshall on Monday, January 27, 2014 about being available to be in Bozeman should an arrest be affected.

This was also explained to the FBI that very same day and this video of sheriff Gootkin was made after my hour long conversation with the sheriff. This has nothing to do with the Freemen, this has everything to do with the violation of USC (U.S. Title Code, look it up) Title 18 Chapter 13 Section 241.

This type of comments by the sheriff, I consider, inflammatory. It was made clear in video's by this TV station, to the FBI, to the GCSO, MT. Attorney Generals office and the GC District attorney's office in a direct conversation with Marty Lambert that it would be an exercise of MCA 46-6-502 and the judge would be immediately taken into custody by a US Marshall.

I am tired of the agents of the law attempting to paint the exercise of a citizens arrest as a vigilante, Freeman type event. When the citizens have only the government to rely upon to investigate their own, we have a serious problem where the citizen of this nation are denied their fundamentally protected rights.

I have asked the FBI to investigate this matter, I will be filing with the various government agencies to have rick west removed for numerous civil right and code of ethics violations, HOWEVER, for the sheriffs office to state that we made threats against this man and his family is down right false and a discredit to all those in uniform.

A lawful citizens arrest is allowed under Montana law and within certain limits anyone can be arrested and presented to the nearest law agent. My phone records will show that I spent 15 minutes on the phone with a US Marshall in Billings concerning his availability to be present to take custody of the judge should that arrest be necessary. He was polite and knew the MT law and told me the procedure, which was followed, in filing a complaint.

For the sheriff's office to say that "if you don't get what we want doesn't allow you to break the law" is down right misleading and all the video and saved email will prove this. I am highly disappointed in this matter and now am concerned that I will be a target of retaliation by the law agencies or judiciary for wanting to exercise my rights under Montana law in order to protect the populace of Montana from further possible abuse.

The sheriff statement that they are "confident that there was no criminal activity by the judge." worries me as they are only an investigative arm and a citizens complaint has been lawfully brought forward to both the FBI, US Marshalls office, Attorney General office and the local law agencies and for this statement to be made indicates that a full investigation by the local law agents might not be given its best and full attention.

I have to ask each of you reading this.....DO YOU WANT A FAIR TRAIL WHERE YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE NOT VIOLATED? If so the please demand a fair investigation into this because, your family member might be the next one in front of this judge and they might end up in jail.

Your freedom, your protected rights, your state laws....if we live in fear of the law, then we are nothing more than slaves. Is that what you want for you family.

[fr33]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADVBZtHvURM

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADVBZtHvURM

Abandoning nationality and checking out of the game. Nice video. Thanks.