Natural Law vs National Emergency

15 Dec

Ernie Wayne Tertelgte [courtesy Google Images]

Ernie Wayne Tertelgte
[courtesy Google Images]

Keith Johnson is a journalist who writes for the American Free Press.  He recently asked to interview me about a recent court “victory” by a Montana “mountain man” named Ernie Wayne Tertelgte.  You can see an 8-minute video of Mr. Tertelgte’s courtroom conflict at

Because I only use Skype, Keith Johnson couldn’t call me.  Therefore, he sent an email to me that posed some questions concerning the Tertelgte courtroom strategy.

Here’s his email and then my response:

Mr. Adask

Thank you for your timely reply.  I’ve been an admirer of your work for many years.  I regularly read your blog and have enjoyed your radio shows and guest appearances on the Alex Jones Show and Cost to Coast.

I’ve written several pieces for Alex Jones’ Infowars before being hired as a writer for American Free Press, where I contribute one article per week.

I would love to speak with you in person. However, I am at a disadvantage with Skype.  Because I live in a rural part of Tennessee, I am obliged to rely on Hughes Net satellite for my Internet connection.  The nature of my satellite link causes a delay that makes it difficult and–in most cases–impossible to carry on a conversation. As a matter of fact, I had no-service for the most part of Saturday, which is why I’ve been unable to write until now.

If it isn’t too much of trouble, can I submit my questions in writing?

 First, let me set the stage…

I’m currently working on an article about a man in Montana who was recently arrested for fishing without a license and resisting arrest.  His name is Ernie Wayne Tertelgte and he has become an Internet sensation because of his defiance in court.

During a couple of courtroom appearances, Tertelgte argued that they had no authority to charge him, citing “natural law.”

“I am a living man protected by natural law and I have the right to forage for food when I am hungry… You are trying to create a fictitious, fraudulent action,” Tertelgte told Three Forks City Judge Wanda Drusch.

According to the Daily Sheeple, “A heated exchange ensued, and the judge told Tertelgte to shut up. Then he yelled: ‘Do not tell me to shut up! I am the living, natural man, and my voice will be heard!’  Then Tertelgte 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!'”

Here’s more of what he said, according to Raw Story:

KAJ-TV reported that Ernie Wayne Tertelgte was removed from the trial before the jury was selected, amid his insistence that Judge Wanda Drusch had no authority to try him. ‘Why — please, give me an honorable answer — is a British-recognized esquire asking questions in an American courtroom?” Tertelgte asked Drusch. He then refused to follow bailiffs’ instructions to stand up, saying, “If I stand up, I give you recognition,” and saying he was “constrained by the United States Constitution of 1789.'”

Tertelgte also said that Roosevelt created a legal fiction by forcing Americans to register with their birth certificates and that thus was accomplished through the signing of the War Powers Act and the Trading With The Enemies Act and that we fly the War Flag so the Corporation can take property thru Letters of Marque. Tertelgte says the courts are corporations as evidenced by ALL CAPS. He also explains what your all capital letter name means to the government and courts. The way your name is written indicates your status under Roman, and thus Corporate Maritime Law.

My questions are as follows:

1.What does Tertelgte mean by “natural law” and does this give him the right to forage for food.

2.What does Tertelgte mean when he says he’s “the living man.”

3.Did Roosevelt play a part in transforming the courts as Tertelgte describes.

4.Have our constitutional courts been replaced with administrative or Admiralty Law courts.

5.Are the courts corporations

6.What does he mean by calling the judge a British Esquire

7.What is the flag he’s referring to as the Jolly Roger

8.Did the judge violate Tertelgte’s rights by not allowing him to call witnesses

9.Does Tertelgte make valid points or has he erred in some way

•  Your answer to any or all of the above questions would be greatly appreciated. If you prefer to give a brief summary, that would be just as great.

I will include all your answers in my article. This will be printed in our newspaper on Friday. Next Wednesday, it will appear on the Internet and I will send you a link. I’ll also point our readers to your website.

Thank you very much for allowing me to consult with you on this. I could think of no one better qualified to comment on this.

God bless you and yours during this Christmas season.


Keith Johnson

American Free Press

My answers follow:

Hi Keith,

I’ve only seen the original Tertelgte video. There may be other events since then that are relevant but so far unknown to me.  My answers are based only on that first video.

Tertelgte’s original “victory” was superficially impressive but not as instructive and reliable as many suppose because there was a psychological conflict as well as a legal argument.

Like anyone else who’s willing to yell at a judge, Tertelgte is obviously a very strong personality.  The judge was a little old lady used to having everyone say “Yes, mam” whenever she spoke.  It’s hard to be sure whether Tertelgte 1) overpowered the judge with the force of his legal arguments; 2) if he overpowered the little ol’ lady with the force of his personality; or 3) some measure of both law and personality won the day for Tertelgte.

Even Tertelgte seemed to have understood that he didn’t necessarily “win” because of his legal arguments.  When the hearing was over and everyone else was outside congratulating themselves on the victory, Tertelgte insisted in no uncertain terms that they get in the car and get away from the court room as quickly as possible.  His haste to “get out of dodge” suggests that he feared that the judge might regain her composure and authority and order to cops to step outside, grab Tertelgte, and teach him the power of “little old ladies”.

So, we’re left with a victory, but we’re also left to wonder if Tertelgte’s notions on law are, by themselves, as powerful and perfect as some suppose.

• Nevertheless, although I have some doubts about the purity or completeness of Tertelgte’s argument, I believe he’s discovered something powerful by basing his defense on “natural law”.   I’ve never heard of anyone else making a “natural law” argument. For me, hearing Tertelgte do so was a revelation which I intend to study as time permits and apply should circumstances require.


Because I have a strong suspicion that most of the problems we have with government can be traced to the pretext of a “national emergency” that’s allegedly been in force since the banking emergency was first declared under the New Deal in or about A.D. 1934.  I’m told by people who might know what they’re talking about that that “emergency” was supposed to end after two years, but that Congress found it convenient to extend the emergency for another two years, and then another two, and then another, etc.—until, here we are, 80 years later, still living in a seemingly perpetual “state of emergency”.

•  The problem with the doctrine of “emergency” is that it suspends all man-made laws or at least reduces those man-made laws to the status of something like “recommendations” rather than capital-L, mandatory “Law”.

For example, suppose a cop saw me driving 50 miles per hour, in reverse, going the wrong way on a one-way street in a school zone.  Would the cop want to issue me a slew of tickets?  Of course.

But suppose someone was shooting at me, there were bullet holes in my car, and I was driving in reverse in the school zone to avoid being shot.  Would I still be ticketed?  Probably not.  In a “state of emergency,” the Laws are suspended and legal questions becomes one of “what is reasonable” under those emergency circumstances.    Is it “reasonable” to drive 50 MPH in reverse in a school zone?  It is, if someone is shooting at you and you’re trying to save your own life.

Government likes “emergency” because it suspends all man-made laws and/or makes man-made laws subject to “reason”–and government (and/or the rich and powerful best able to hire attorneys) are the ones best able to decide (or argue) what is reasonable.  The government and the rich are freed by the pretext of emergency from absolute obedience to the “Law”. Those who are not in government, or who are not rich and powerful and therefore less able to “reason” can be found guilty of just about anything the government or wealthy plaintiffs allege.

The previous analysis is conjectural.  I can’t say that analysis is absolutely true, but I have no doubt that our current government relies on the pretext of “emergency” to increase its powers and diminished our rights.

•  What’s that got to do with Tertelgte?

Maybe nothing.  Maybe a lot.

After seeing Tertelgte’s “natual law” victory, it occurred to me that the strength of “natural law” (which includes, but is not limited to, the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) may be that natural law is not suspended by the pretext of emergency.  I.e., if someone is shooting at me and I’m driving 50 MPH in a school zone, the traffic laws may be suspended by my emergency, but the laws of physics and biology are not suspended.  If a bullet of a certain mass and velocity hits me, I might die.

Government may normally rely on the pretext of a national emergency to suspend man-made laws like traffic laws or even the Constitution to justify its increasingly tyrannical powers.

However, government can’t rely on the pretext of emergency to suspend “natural laws” because, according the Declaration of Independence, this nation was built on the basis of the “laws of Nature and nature’s God“.  That phrase clearly implies that the “laws of Nature” are God’s laws.  If so, it is “unreasonable” to suppose that God’s laws can ever be suspended–even a declaration by the almighty Congress of the existence of a “national emergency”.  Politicians may use the pretext of an “emergency” to suspend the people’s law (the Constitution) but they can’t use that same pretext to suspend God’s “natural law”.

Tertelgte’s video suggests that by claiming to act under “natural law,” Tertegte claimed an authority that could not be suspended under the pretext of emergency.  As such, his claim of “natural law” may have trumped the court’s reliance on “emergency powers”.

We can’t know if that hypothesis is true unless the “little old lady judge” tells us, Yes–that’s how she analyzed Tertelgte’s argument.  I don’t even know for a fact that Tertelgte agrees with my analysis.  Nevertheless, that’s my analysis and I’m stickin’ to it–at least for now.

Your questions:

1.  What does Tertelgte mean by “natural law” and does this give him the right to forage for food?

I believe Tertelgte was referring to the “laws of Nature and of nature’s God” found in the “Declaration of Independence.”  How “natural law” relates to “foraging” is unknown to me but may be a function of the first law of nature:  to survive.  If I need food to survive, what law can reasonably prevent me from eating food (fish) that are not owned by another?

It’s not impossible that the doctrine of “emergency” is, itself, based on the “laws of Nature and of nature’s God”.  The “Declaration of Independence” begins with “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another . . . .”

What created that “necessity” for the dissolution of preexisting political bands if not something like an “emergency“? The evidence of that emergency was seen in the Declaration’s list of grievances against King George.  The ultimate rationale for the American Revolution was to protect and secure the God-given, “unalienable Rights” first declared in the Declaration.  Much of the rationale for the American Revolution was implicitly traced to God’s laws and their violation by King George.

It might be argued that the American Revolution was precipitated by a “colonial emergency” what was created by King George’s failure and/or refusal to obey the “laws of nature and of nature’s God.”

2.What does Tertelgte mean when he says he’s “the living man”?

I assume Tertelgte means that he is not a “decedent” or “legal fiction”.  As such, he has access to rights from God which are not afforded to dead persons, artificial entities and/or legal fictions.

3.Did Roosevelt play a part in transforming the courts as Tertelgte describes?

I think so.  As I explained previously, the doctrine of a perpetual “national emergency” reportedly began with Franklin D. Roosevelt in the New Deal during the 1930s.

4.Have our constitutional courts been replaced with administrative or Admiralty Law courts?

Kind of.  But it’s not only true that our constitutional courts have been supplanted by administrative (and perhaps admiralty) courts, it’s also true that we have been “replaced” in the sense that government now presumes us all to be something other than the “people” and living men.

know we are deemed by a multitude of laws to be “animals”.  I presume there are a host of other laws that deem us to be decedents, debtors, and subjects.  All of these presumptions degrade us from the status of “men made in God’s image” who are entitled by that status to access “constitutional courts”.  As something less than “men made in God’s image,” we can be subjected to administrative rather than constitutional courts.

 5.Are the courts corporations?

In at least some instances, Yes.  A couple of years ago, a number of people (including me) investigated (which lists tens of millions of US corporations based on information provided by Dunn & Bradstreet) and found a number of governmental entities–including individual IRS offices and individual courts–that were listed as corporations.

6.What does he mean by calling the judge a British Esquire?

There’s a theory that the modern US court system is based on the British court system, that licensed US attorneys are “esquires”; that “esquire” is a “title of nobility” that’s expressly forbidden by The Constitution of the United States.  There may be some validity in the claim that “esquire” is a (forbidden) “title of nobility”. However, I doubt that there’s much of a connection between the British court system and our own.

7.What is the flag he’s referring to as the Jolly Roger?

If you read up on flags, you’ll find out that the gold fringe around the outer edges of the American flag is not merely a “decoration” but, in fact, signals that the authority, jurisdiction and powers associated with a gold-fringed, American flag are quite different from those associated with a “true” American flag which is “red, white and blue” only–and has no gold fringe.

The gold-fringed American flag is typically associated with the military and/or the President.  If you voluntary enter a court room flying a gold-fringed flag, you are presumed to have voluntarily waived your standing to claim all of the rights that might be associated with a “true” American flag that has no such fringe.

Tertelgte’s reference to “Jolly Roger” is metaphorical but still signals that Tertelgte did not enter the court voluntarily and did not voluntarily waive his God-given, unalienable Rights to transact business in the administrative/admiralty court.

Tertelgte’s reference to “Jolly Roger” is probably intended to imply that he does not consent to be subject to an admiralty court.

8.Did the judge violate Tertelgte’s rights by not allowing him to call witnesses?

In the video I’ve seen, I didn’t notice that Tertelgte asked to call witnesses.  I didn’t notice the judge refuse his request.  Without more facts, I can’t answer your question.

However, if the judge completely refused to allow Tertelgte to call any witnesses, ever, in the trespass case, I’d say it was a violation of Tertelgte’s rights.  On the other hand, if the judge merely refused to allow Tertelgte to call witnesses at a particular point in the hearing where it was not yet procedurally correct to call witnesses–but intended to allow him to call witnesses later–then I doubt that Tertelgte suffered a violation of his rights.

9.Does Tertelgte make valid points or has he erred in some way?

It’s likely that, like all of us, Tertelgte did both.  Some valid (perhaps powerful) points.  Some errors.  None of us are perfect. None of our legal arguments are perfect.  But if you recall the statue of “Justice,” she’s holding a scale to weigh the good against the bad, the valid against the erroneous. You don’t have to be absolutely error-free in your defense to win.  You need only present a defense that has more valid points and less errors than your accuser.  “On balance,” if you’re more right than wrong, you’ll probably win.  If you’re more wrong than right, you’ll probably lose.

I hope this was helpful.



Posted by on December 15, 2013 in Dissidents, Emergency, Natural Law, Nature, Resistance, Video


Tags: , , , , ,

84 responses to “Natural Law vs National Emergency

  1. mrtideman

    December 15, 2013 at 3:38 PM

    So is this hearing stage completely over? or more likely case #________ postponed or continued. My presumption is that the judicial branch here will now contact the legislative branch of government so as to TRY to get jurors who are not voters (but registered vehicle owners?) of so that they can be his peers for the trial on the obstruction of a police officer and resisting arrest charges of that what? bring up to a 6-month sentence if found guilty x 2 = 1 year incarceration to teach him a lesson or lessons by taking #x number of courses in such of in a building they call a “correctional” facility but without such classes be merely just a warehouse! of False Advertising, for one incident!? to result in a taking of his time to that of 365-fold!? That’s against the law of that if it be theft of the fish, then the penalty be some sevenfold $dollar amount of value, as in Proverbs 6:30-31 and Public Law 97-280 (96 Statute 1211) of October 4, 1982 = The Year of the Bible for 1983 & Beyond. Here in N.H. we have an Article 3 in that: ” When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void. ” of was this pond, lake or river stocked with what type of fish? and so somebody “foraging for food” has to get a fishing license ahead of time since they MIGHT catch one of the stocked ones rather than one put their by God or Mother Earth? The Abenaki Native American Indians held a fish-in when their Chief Homer St. Francis was arrested back in the 1980s in Vermont but who I think won the case in the early 1990s, of I even donated to the cause to get a tribal license plate as he claimed a lot of the land in both Vermont and here in New Hampshire. I see that ” Ernie Wayne Tertelgte ” didn’t doff his hat, as that’s what a servant does to his master and not vice-verse to a public servant, of I tried that here in N.H. of to keep my hat on, and which the Balifff didn’t allow me into the courtroom, and so they found me in default of 1st offense driving without a motor vehicle license, of the 2nd offense a misdemeanor of jail time possible (in this case #83-S-313 at The Merrimack County Superior Court in Concord, N.H. in 1983) beyond just a monetary fine, and so they tried that too, but that the 2nd of actually the first case to make it to a (one) courthouse paperwork battle was won by me of actually a dismissal by a nol pros by County Attorney after I cited “The Oregon Law Review” of December 1953, page one in that: a license is a restraint on the individual when you are a proven threat to the public. And so without this proof there be no requirement of to be restrained by a license.

  2. sherayx

    December 15, 2013 at 4:26 PM

    Reblogged this on SherayxWeblog.

    • J.M.

      February 2, 2014 at 1:41 PM

      Reblog this
      Before It’s News < Don't know how to give a link to this site but if I can bring it up anyone can

      Saturday, February 1, 2014

      The self-proclaimed natural man has once again been found in contempt of court and taken to jail.
      Ernie Wayne terTelgte, 52, appeared in Gallatin County Justice Court briefly Monday afternoon for an omnibus hearing. Judge Rick West asked terTelgte to remove his three-cornered hat in the courtroom. TerTelgte refused to do so and launched into his “Natural Man” speech. After asking the defendant to stop speaking three times, West held him in contempt of court and ordered sheriff’s deputies to haul him to jail for 30 days.

      I don't know which "Monday is meant." Maybe someone "who cares" can help me

      • David Baugh

        February 2, 2014 at 3:16 PM

        Well now, what have we here? What was the proximate cause for the contempt of court? Was it his refusal to remove his hat? Or was it refusal to stop speaking? If it was for refusal to remove his hat, where is the law that requires one to remove his hat while in a courtroom? If there is no such law, then there was no possible contempt of court. If it was his refusal to stop speaking, this could constitute a contempt of court. If he had stopped speaking, and the judge would have ordered him removed for his refusal to remove his hat, then he could have duly informed the deputies that the judge and the deputies were acting against him absent any lawful authority for want of a law requiring the removal of one’s hat in the courtroom, and that they would then be liable to him for damages for making a false arrest and false imprisonment.

      • sherayx

        February 4, 2014 at 10:59 PM

        First of all, a judge can not hold u in contempt, he can not be the judge and jury. And if he does, he has to go through procedure, and do not have any authority to arrest u at that time, if things were the way they should be legally and lawfully.

      • sherayx

        February 4, 2014 at 10:59 PM

        First of all, a judge can not hold u in contempt, he can not be the judge and jury. And if he does, he has to go through procedure, and do not have any authority to arrest u at that time, if things were the way they should be legally and lawfully.

    • J.M.

      February 5, 2014 at 11:42 PM

      @ First of all, a judge can not hold u in contempt, he can not be the judge and jury. And if he does, he has to go through procedure, and do not have any authority to arrest u at that time, if things were the way they should be legally and lawfully.

      Are things the way they should be legally and lawfully? Inquiring minds want to know, Thanks sherayx

      • sherayx

        February 6, 2014 at 12:59 AM

        Whether it is or not, it won’t hurt to know, instead of out right being done, and u believe they have the right, and r right. I can’t believe how naive and dumbfounded we r to what power we have and don’t know it? Inquiring minds want to know, and yes we r learning.

    • J.M.

      February 6, 2014 at 2:55 PM

      @ >Whether it is or not, it won’t hurt to know,
      Well, it HURTS me to KNOW, & STILL SEE WHAT REALLY HAPPENS. You say a JUDGE CANNOT do this & do that. DID YOU SEE WHAT THE JUDGE DID DO ???? How can you say a Judge “cannot” do this & that & yet SEE what the Judge DID.??? Please, dear one, I’m grateful for your concern. I truly am. I was trying to explain to some people one time about something that happened to me in the court system. ALL of them said, “well they can’t do that. Well, THEY DID DO IT. How can somebody do something that they can’t do?? PLEASE !!!

    • J.M.

      February 7, 2014 at 11:53 AM

      @ Feb 6, 2014 12:10 AM by Beth Saboe – Bozeman
      Montana group threatens to arrest judge
      BOZEMAN – A threat made against a Montana judge has some law enforcement officials on edge, but a member of the unorganized militia behind the threat said 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 refers to himself “a natural living man” and who has gained Internet fame for confronting local judges.

  3. Yartap

    December 15, 2013 at 6:14 PM

    Thanks Al,

    What a great view of things. I concur.

    Oh – by the way, the “Declaration of Independence” uses the phase “laws of nature and OF nature’s God” [Emphasis Mine]; not “laws of nature and nature’s God.” I know – just a slip. The laws of nature is God’s will, and the laws of nature’s God are the scriptures or Word of God.

    Alfred Adask, a man of good works. Amen!

    • J.M.

      January 8, 2014 at 4:26 PM

      Your No response says what I needed to know. Thanks.

    • J.M.

      January 8, 2014 at 4:28 PM

      @ >A license to kill, that’s what 007 has.
      Then this the number of guv-co.

    • J.M.

      January 8, 2014 at 4:34 PM

      I don’t know why the response from me as showing below showed up under your comment. It was meant for, Auagen. Sorry about that
      Your No response says what I needed to know. Thanks. <<< this statement was meant for Auagen.

    • J.M.

      February 2, 2014 at 1:43 PM

      Before It’s News (<Website)

      Saturday, February 1, 2014
      The self-proclaimed natural man has once again been found in contempt of court and taken to jail.
      Ernie Wayne terTelgte, 52, appeared in Gallatin County Justice Court briefly Monday afternoon for an omnibus hearing. Judge Rick West asked terTelgte to remove his three-cornered hat in the courtroom. TerTelgte refused to do so and launched into his “Natural Man” speech. After asking the defendant to stop speaking three times, West held him in contempt of court and ordered sheriff’s deputies to haul him to jail for 30 days.

  4. Jim on Oregon

    December 15, 2013 at 7:14 PM

    Alfred, excellent response. It is very difficult to say a lot with only a few words.

    Keith Johnson should be memorialized as a genuine journalist who is actually trying to get to the truth. This case in Montana has been overly sensationalized, in my opinion. Little was gained by Tertelgte’s stand in “court”, as it is clear from the accompanying story that he later appeared in “court” on a Tuesday, where a $500 bail was set and a new trial date scheduled. The story implies that the defendant must have transacted the “bail”. The Mountain Man could only have met this order by accepting the foreign jurisdiction and venue and the “name”. Bail out, and you are estoppeled against all your arguments relating to your organic status, standing, capacity, and lawform outside the fiction. You are now just one of their cattle prodded into the chute to be branded and castrated and later eaten. Never agree to bond or bail.

    He made a good show for a couple of minutes. Hooray for him! The “judge” obviously did not see any benefit to arguing, so let him have his say. This is a court of no record anyway. But now they have got him, and good, as they knew they would.

    Ernie the Mountain Man is toast. Bet on it.

  5. David Baugh

    December 15, 2013 at 8:44 PM

    Hey Al, you and I have spent some time together and so you know I have some knowledge & experience in such matters. To you and your readers I say, hey Y’all I’ve been through this several times before in my humble quest for truth and justice. While I greatly admire Tertelgte’s testicular fortitude and very well founded and articulated legal premises, they simply do not work in a court of law which is enforcing statutory regulatory revenue schemes of taxation such as being compelled to get a “license” to do what without the license, would be illegal. Well, the question is, what activities can be lawfully taxed and regulated by the governments of our own creation? The answer is only certain privileged activities which have a direct effect on the public and are conducted as privileged occupational, business, commercial or public purpose or in a duly designated privileged occupational, business, commercial or public with specific intent for profit or gain at the expense of the public and, or course, the “state” that the people have purportedly established to monitor, control, and regulate such privileged activities, capacities and events. Even though Tertelgte’s arguments have some merit, they are what has been termed as “Patriot Mythology,” and even resulted in American courts developing a plan to overcome them. In Missouri, as in most all states, when you read the source of law you will find that the so-called “common law of England” as existed in the 1600’s is still in effect in America. Further research will tell you that English Common Law was derived from Roman Common Law. There is nothing new under the sun. However, provisions are made to allow “statutory law” to supersede the common law in certain cases, such as the regulatory revenue licensure schemes of taxation the lunatics in the state legislatures dream up and enact in their insatiable quest to be better social planners than Almighty God. I think it was Daniel Webster who once proclaimed that “the legislature is in session and no man’s property is safe!”

    In my research, focusing on the so-called “motor vehicle driver’s license [excise] tax” payment of which is evidenced by a motorist’s possession of a valid driver’s license which is nothing more than a receipt for the payment of said tax and has little or nothing to do with so-called “public safety & security,” I found that the only reason any motorist would need to Title, Register, Insure his “motor vehicle” (defined by federal law as that which is used exclusively for profit or gain on the public highways) was if the motorist was using the “motor vehicle” exclusively for profit or gain on the public roadways. Moreover, I found standing unchallenged U.S. Supreme Court rulings that sustain this fact and law, unfortunately after I had been selectively, maliciously, and vindictively targeted, charged, prosecuted, convicted, sentenced and falsely imprisoned for daring to challenge the state’s authority to arbitrarily tax any and all motorists for doing nothing more than peacefully and responsibly exercising their antecedent, inherent, unalienable rights, liberty & freedom to make use of their private mechanical conveyances or “place travel devices” to transport themselves and their property without being so taxed, monitored, controlled, and regulated. I have yet to publicly share my findings which will, I’m sure once folks understand and implement, will put an end to MUCH senseless and needless government plundering, parasitic bureaucracy downsizing government, restoring our liberty & freedom!

    So, in conclusion, if I had been Tertelgte, i would have first carefully and thoroughly researched and examined the statute to get to the constitutionally limited intent and purpose alleged to have been violated, and then put the charging officer on the stand, and confront him with the statutory law as it was, and is constructed strictly limited by the state & federal constitutions. In such statutes, the term “person” as well as other terms, have specific legal meanings at law which are intentionally deceptive. So, was Tertelgte such a “person” engaged in the statutorily regulated activity, capacity or event requiring him to have the license in the first instance? In other words, was he fishing for profit or gain in some specific privileged occupational, commercial, or public capacity falling under the authority of the state agency that charged him with the offense? Very clever are these quisling pettifogger shyster lawyers who prey upon the unwitting and ignorant for filthy lucre!

    Best wishes Al, my old friend & fellow patriot! As it is written, we shall overcome!

    • casinocourts

      December 15, 2013 at 9:02 PM

      If you wish to hear Ernie explain why he really ended up in court, he explains it in a half-hour interview here: The page takes awhile to load…lots of ads….click on the picture of him to hear the audio. He says he had to get inside the “belly of the beast” so he could get a case number because – for one thing – he wanted to expose the CRIS accounts (Court Registry Investment System)…..

      • J.M.

        February 6, 2014 at 11:08 PM

        @ >If you wish to hear Ernie explain why he really ended up in court, he explains it in a half-hour interview here
        Well I hope you know better by now. IF you invite me to you home, I had better have respect for your rules & regulations. I do not come into your home finding fault with this & that or ANYTHING in YOUR home. Otherwise, you are going to throw me out & RIGHTLY SO WHEN we are in their home & start trying to take over they don’t throw us out, they throw us IN, 3 guesses & the 1st 2 don’t count.

    • messianicdruid

      December 15, 2013 at 9:12 PM

      Hi David, We lost touch about 20 years ago, I’m glad to see you are still kickin’!

      A few weeks ago my wife was having a low insulin episode at about two in the morning and nothing we did would make it come up. We decided to go to the emergency room which was 35 miles away. She told me three times while I was driving that she thought she was dying. Needless to say I was moving fast.

      When we got closer into town I slowed down some, but passed a police car going 66 in a 45. The road conditions were good, traffic was very light to nonexistent. When he pulled in behind me, I turned on my emergency flashers and commented, “Now we have an escort”. I went through a red light because he was right behind me with lights on and there was no traffic in the intersection. My wife says, “He will shoot you”.

      I decided to make a formal request. After passing under I35, I stopped at the next light, put the car in park, rolled down the window, and put my hands out vertically. When the ticketing officer walked up I said, “I have a 58 year old woman here who is having a diabetic episode and I need an escort to the emergency room.” The other officer said, “You should have called an ambulance.” I told him, “We live out in the boonies and an ambulance would still be looking for our house.” The ticketing officer began informing me about my excess speed and running the red light, and I said, “I have been driving for 45 years, I know what I’m doing” – and repeated my request for an escort. Then he says, “Let’s talk about it.”

      I said, “I’m not talking about it, I’m going to the emergency room!” put the car in gear and left.

      Well they let me go and came to the hospital a little later to get my papers and about ten minutes later asked me to sign the ticket, which I refused. The other officer said, “I hope your wife is okay. You did the right thing.”

      What will happen the 19th?

      • David Baugh

        December 15, 2013 at 9:49 PM

        Hey, by your user name I do not know who you are but thanks for your message. Perhaps you can refresh my memory and let me know which of my old friends and fellow patriots you are. When I was falsely imprisoned a friend set up a blog for me: which I have not been using but has my contact information. I would appreciate knowing who you are and look forward to further communication in the interest of liberty & freedom. Hope your wife is OK.


      • palani

        December 16, 2013 at 9:04 AM

        In the case of an emergency the rule is NECESSITY IMPORTS PRIVILEGE.

    • Joe

      December 15, 2013 at 10:28 PM

      “Transport” is a statutory term that means the movement of persons or property for hire. Never say you transport unless you are a party to a contract of carriage.

      • David Baugh

        December 16, 2013 at 8:08 PM

        Well it is true that words have different meanings at law than most folks realize. Each word used in any statute must have some specific meaning as to whom or what it pertains. For example the word “person” is most often used in such regulatory revenue schemes of taxation. This term has numerous meanings in law, including a human being who claims to be a “natural man.” Again, I refer the reader to research the statute and the legislative intent. It is well established that the state legislature has plenary power to enact any and all legislation it deems necessary for the health and well being of the citizens it purportedly serves and protects but such legislation is limited by the state constitution. If you get into a law library, you can do this, plus examine the original legislative intent and purpose for the statute. It is not uncommon for such statutes to be declared unconstitutional, but this will not be done unless challenged by courageous men like our friend Ernie. In my own experience in the cash register courts in Missouri, I even had a judge tell me they were only interested in the money, not justice. Such is the nature of “extra-constitutional statutory law.” In one of my first challenges over the driver’s license issue, the prosecutor filed a motion in limine forbidding me from mentioning or introducing the state & federal constitutions in my case because the statute I was alleged to have violated was a “creature of the legislature and therefore the constitution was not applicable,” and the judge sustained it much to my amazement. So how can this be? Well according to the criminal code, in order for there to have been a crime, there must be a victim. I asked the judge if the charges against me were civil of criminal? He said they were “statutory” but being proceeded upon in a criminal proceeding. Well, this was most perplexing to me. How can one present an adequate defense against a charge that is merely statutory and not criminal where the law requires a damaged party? In our friend Ernie’s case, who was the damaged party? Moreover, is the charge a criminal matter in the nature of murder, rape, or robbery, or is it a purely civil matter? How is it possible to mount an adequate defense without being fully informed of the nature and cause of the criminal accusations with articulate specificity, and particularity and affording the accused an opportunity to confront the alleged damaged party? Can the corporate fiction “state” be a damaged party by an action or inaction of one of it’s creators? I think not. In my own case, I asked the judge at my sentencing whether or not my charges of alleged violations of Section 302,020 RSMo. driving w/o a valid license was a criminal matter like murder, rape or robbery, and he was stunned and then asked me, “Are you asking me?” to which I replied, “Yes, I am asking you.” He shuffled his papers around for a bit and then responded “I can’t answer that question.” Previously I had duly & timely filed my motion For judgment of Acquittal which at sentencing I moved the judge to rule upon at my sentencing. This judge then asked the prosecutor if he had any objection or response to my said motion. The prosecutor said he did not. Thus, on the record, my motion was unopposed and should have been granted. Instead, this incompetent or corrupt (or both) 6th judge in the case spanning three and a half years, shuffled the documents and declared that he would not rule on my motion and leave it to the appellate court should I choose to appeal. In other words, I beat the evil miscreants at their own game but they are sore losers and wicked and evil political usurpers, liars, traitors and thieves who work together to crush the real truth and it’s messengers such as Ernie and myself and others.

      • Jim Madison

        December 22, 2013 at 5:42 PM

        Hi Joe,
        You & I, are in their mind, commercial commodities,brokers, etc., so we are transporting ourselves. Look on your birth certificate,”if you have one,” & see the icon/EMBLEM on it.

    • J.M.

      February 3, 2014 at 8:17 PM

      David Baugh,
      @February 2, 2014 at 3:16 PM
      Well, at least you care. By this I mean, who else cares ? You are the only one who responded. Higher courts have ruled that the “Contempt power” covers anything from a to z. There is a case, where a lawyer was held in contempt of court for not meeting the demands of the court for proper attire. It had something to do with a necktie. I remember the lawyer’s name but I do not remember how to spell it, It’s either Tom Cherryhomes OR Tom Cherryholmes. I saw on this blog where the Supreme Court (forget which state) ruled that the lower court judge acted without authority & his order was invalid but the Supreme Court affirmed the Citation for contempt & jail time served for the defendant not obeying the invalid order because of the lower court’s CONTEMPT POWER

    • J.M.

      February 16, 2014 at 6:14 AM

      David Baugh
      “…………they would then be liable to him for damages for making a false arrest and false imprisonment.”
      Do you mean like in a Title 42 sec 1983 lawsuit? Or, something similar?

    • J.M.

      February 18, 2014 at 1:51 PM

      Thanks David. Really appreciate you keeping in touch. It’s a big help.

  6. ron

    December 15, 2013 at 9:12 PM

    He did an interview with Joyce Riley on Friday December 13. You can listen to the archives if you wish. I love it.

  7. kanani

    December 15, 2013 at 10:35 PM

    Perhaps the Mountain Man was fishing in a body of water stocked with fish provided by one those municipal/state corporations.

    Maintaining fish hatcheries is costly, Mountain Man may have been stealing.

    • pop de adam

      December 16, 2013 at 5:00 PM

      If I raise any type of wildlife and then release it, I imagine any claim to it is forfeit after this fact, after all I intentionally released it. I suppose you might tag or register it if some future claim upon it is likely, this again is on the original owner. Cattle branding is an example that comes to mind.

      We could also suggest these fish stocking people are taking advantage of a body of water that might belong to the commons. In this way they have effectively privatized a public resource.

      This idea of legal licensing and permitting never adequately recognized the fact that it begins with something that is lawful, as in not forbidden, redefines it as forbidden and then hands out exemptions to that which is forbidden. A silly example is: It is illegal to kill people unless you have a license to do so.

      • Yartap

        December 16, 2013 at 9:06 PM

        A license to kill, that’s what 007 has.

    • Rog

      December 17, 2013 at 8:46 PM

      He was fishing in either the Jefferson, the Madison, the Gallatin, or the Missouri river. I do not recall if the name of the river was mentioned Each of these rivers near Three Forks is wild. They are not stocked by the State of Montana. These rivers are free flowing with exception of the Missouri which is first dammed at Toston, downstream some 20 or so miles from Three Forks. He was not stealing.

      By the way, those municipal/state corporations are creatures of government and act on behalf of their creator, the de jure government of Montana which acts on behalf of its creators, the people of Montana. Remember the hierarchy. We give the state enumerated powers to act in the interest of the people but government must never, under any circumstances act against its creators unless the accused has harmed another man or his property. Just about everything else government does is in the nature of regulating commerce. Unfortunately, that is all now out the window. Government is now an openly criminal mafia. There are but a few ways that mafias can be disbanded and all of them require violence of one sort or another.

      • Rog

        December 17, 2013 at 9:16 PM

        Correction, the Madison is dammed at Ennis lake upstream from Three Forks. It is not stocked.

      • David Baugh

        December 17, 2013 at 9:48 PM

        Yes! Can the creature become greater than the creator? It is simple: the people who comprise the civil body politic or state were and are the holders of the inherent political power over all internal state government “…and police thereof…” as is stated in the Missouri Constitution (and most others). Now, if this is a political fact, then none of us possess the power or authority to delegate to anyone else any power or authority which would derogate or abrogate our antecedent unalienable rights liberties and freedoms. So how have our mere human public servants amongst ourselves we elect or appoint to run the corporate fiction creature governments of our own creation gained any such political power over us? It is political usurpation, tyranny and oppression committed under color of law in the nature of a protection racket of legalized plunder & extortion! Another term for it is “criminal syndicalism” which, in Black’s Law Dictionary is defined as “organized terrorism!” Too bad most folks do not understand the political facts and have the guts to gather together and put an end to the political usurpation, fraud and theft committed by public servants and force them out of office and compel them to seek honest and productive work instead of being useless nonproductive paper-shuffling government parasites and predatory, plundering government armed thugs!

      • J.M.

        December 31, 2013 at 7:06 PM

        Hi Rog,
        When the revenue raisers asked Ernie to show them his ID, they were fishing too, don’t you think?

      • J.M.

        February 16, 2014 at 5:08 PM

        @ >He was fishing in either the Jefferson, the Madison, the Gallatin, or the Missouri river.

        I don’t think it was the “Madison” river. Isn’t that river a free flowing river where fish are there for any number of reasons? I think some fish are there for our pleasure, if you get my drift. OF COURSE, once we get the stamp of approval documents from gov-co, the god of this world’s agents permission to enjoy same. Yeah, I think that’s how it works.

  8. Anthony Clifton

    December 16, 2013 at 6:05 AM

    self adjudication requires the ability to actually THINK….

    If the world expects to enjoy peace, prosperity and maximum freedom, it is mandatory to understand the forces which have brought our world to the brink of chaos. Let us examine these phenomena in the light of reason and logic

    . Hostility toward a group or people will not solve the problem.

    In fact, the class hatred and class warfare concepts of Marxism are responsible for many of the world’s present woes.
    But we must never again allow a political, ethnic or religious faction to pressure —- “our government” . . .

    into actions which are clearly against the best interests of our nation…. !

    define : Nation

    I saw Carroll Murphy’s portrait of Sam Rayburn….

    it is located on the wall in the stairwell going downstairs to Mr. Sam’s
    personal library…should you go there, randomly peruse the books
    on the shelf, with attention to page 99

  9. palani

    December 16, 2013 at 10:10 AM

    I have heard of DNR officials killing out a lake by dumping chemicals in. They do this to get rid of ‘rough’ species so that they can then restock the lake with the type of fish their sportsmen like to catch. Should this be the case then where in natural law do they establish a right to prohibit you from catching the fish they stocked? After all, they killed all the natural fish out to stock just their variety. And after they have done this should you catch more than the statutory limit of ‘their’ fish they feel justified to seize your boat, your equipment and even your auto. Does the word monopoly have any meaning with these government corporations?

    • kanani

      December 17, 2013 at 6:40 AM

      I knew a couple guys busted for poaching. Their guns were confiscated, almost lost their vehicle too.

  10. George

    December 17, 2013 at 2:56 PM

    Me thinks “Mountain man” made too may mistakes……..Check out Carl Miller, part 1 of 3.

    • Jim Madison

      December 19, 2013 at 10:52 PM

      Me nose he did, but still, my heart goes out to him & more so because I regret to say I also know what is in store next & next etc.. There is not any understanding, mercy, justice in any DEN of iniquity. Understanding Rule 20 of the Supreme Court of the United States should open some eyes. THAT COURT is the ONLY Court in this Country that has JUDICIAL POWER but so far ALL of their decisions,opinions,renderings etc are based on “appropriate legislation” & this is because all the cases submitted are offspring of same.

    • Jim Madison

      December 19, 2013 at 11:14 PM

      To be more precise, Rule 20,v part IV., other jurisdiction.

  11. Peter

    December 18, 2013 at 2:32 PM

    A friend i had once was fishing without a license was cited and his argument was similar to Ernie’s with a twist , he was a member of Pembina Nation with papers and under the Treaty of A.D. 1863. He was compelled to sign contract “under duress”, several weeks later he received notice that case was dismissed!

  12. tim

    December 18, 2013 at 5:29 PM

    I’m happy he got out of there! Good for him!

    • Jim Madison

      December 22, 2013 at 10:59 PM

      He did not really get out of there. Seems to me he took a temporary leave of absence,at best. I wish I knew why he came back.

  13. Ron

    December 18, 2013 at 7:04 PM

    I read most of the above posts as well as the story about the “Living Man”. All of this is interesting and I am fascinated that there are folks who have this knowledge about the “law.” However, it occurs to me that most everyone I know is actually fearful of the “law” (or more precisely, are afraid of law enforcement, the judicial system and the penal system).

    My wife was an attorney and she used to say “bad law makes for bad cases.” I worked in the printing profession and we had a saying about the quality of and/or the lack of quality thereof, pre-press mechanical work…”garbage in, garbage out.”

    After many years of observing and watching things related to the “law”, I have come to the conclusion that most “laws” are illegal. Most laws (as well as regulations or ordinances) throughout America are not written by the elected “law makers”, but are written by individual “special rights/interest groups” who have access (i.e. cash) to gain an audience with “law makers”.

    The handshake (followed by a wink and a nod and a campaign contribution) consummates the deal. The law maker may or may not read or even care about the “law” presented to him. He will weasel it as a rider onto some other bill and it slips through without any debate or even notice.

    I think the Founders of our nation realized that certain kinds of men will always be with us: men who are either corrupt, corruptible, or just plain evil. And because of the innate power of being in the government (i.e. the ruling elite) these men will be drawn to it like a moth to a flame. Scoundrels, liars, thieves, cheats, deceivers, perverts, and miscreants, reprobates and criminals of all stripes will always see the opportunity for plying their trade and satiating their appetites and lusts in politics, which is, after-all, the gateway drug to governmental power through the “law”.

    But the bottom-line is this: “law” is backed by the full power of the state: in short, the enforcers, arbiters, and bureaucrats can and do find a way to nail anyone whom they deem a threat, not to society but rather to their authority. The “full power of the state” I have referred is the power to commit violence without any consequences to the authorities or entities entitled to use said violence against any citizen that is unfortunate enough to catch their attention.

    Now, this is not an indictment of everyone in the “law business.” I know many decent lawyers, judges and cops. But they work within the legal system and have a vested interest in not disturbing the status quo. Yet some do, under the right set of circumstances, go out on a limb and work to bring about justice.

    Unfortunately, in the current state of affairs, one can have all the justice they can afford to buy. Good luck “Living Man”, you stated your case most eloquently and forcefully and I admire you for that…but did you notice that the two bailiffs that handcuffed you and took you away were wearing some mighty impressive hardware on their hips? It is that “hardware” that makes it unnecessary for them to take you or anyone like you seriously. As a matter of fact, you, me and most of us are nothing more than potential hosts for the parasites known as ” the government.”

    • Jim Madison

      December 22, 2013 at 1:07 AM

      Hi Ron,
      You say your wife WAS an attorney. How I wish she would post comments. Or, is possible severe retaiiation a factor? Ask her why there MUST exist courts of no record & I would appreciate immensly your/her answer. I want to see how close our “main” reason is or may be to each other. I venture to say 90% or more cases begin in a court of no record & I think I know why but I am always learning & it looks like I will never learn enough the way things are transpiring in my life, mostly health wise. THANK YOU for your open mind & your comment. Looking forward to reading some more.

      • Ron

        December 23, 2013 at 9:26 AM

        I apologize for not making it clear that my wife is deceased (cancer, 2010), hence the “past tense” use of the verb “was”. I do wish she were here to make comments, for her understanding of the law was matched only by her understanding of the natures of men.

        I think she would see through the hubris, affectation, pride and bluster of the one party is response to the callousness, oppression and arrogance of the other party. Two wrongs do not make a right, but three left turns will suffice to bring us to the point.

        She was concerned about the usurpations of the governors of the rights of the governed. Alas, she did not live long enough to observe the lengths to which our “rulers” have gone to reduce the people to subjects instead of citizens. I do believe she would have had much to add to the debate and would have made her case in a reasonable, logical and effectual manner.

        Good day, sir.

    • Jim Madison

      December 23, 2013 at 10:10 PM

      Please forgive me for not knowing what the “was” meant. I took it to mean she was either retired, or decided not be a lawyer any longer. I lost my wife also. Some of the government ruthless goons killed her. Both our wives really have the greatest blessings imaginable awaiting. I am convinced of this. But this would have to be “divinely revealed” to & for anyone to understand. There is not any comfort in these words for anyone who is not aware of this as I am. I wish there was something I could say to make a difference but I do not know of anything. PLEASE continue to comment.You have a clear understanding of at least some truth. It seems most people do not have a knowledge of ANY. I do not expect a comment to my/this response to you so please don’t feel obligated. I read your first comment every day.

      • Ron

        December 24, 2013 at 12:35 PM

        There is no need to apologize. I do agree with your sentiments and do think you are correct that the Understanding will be “divinely revealed” to anyone who searches for it.

        Throughout the Gospels Jesus not only encouraged the people to have faith but exhorted them to increase their “understanding” of the Word. God is a mystery and, therefore, cannot be known. But God has provided us with the means and the will (if we choose, by utilizing our “free will”) to know the full measure of what He intends us to understand. Religion is man’s attempt to explain the Mystery of God but is impossible because God is the Mystery and, therefore, beyond man’s comprehension and mental limitations.

        The evil I referred to is not the Hollywood portrayal of evil or the petty greed and ill-will of the common man, but it is the darkness that the purveyors of all things ungodly and unrighteous have let loose upon the earth.

        There are truths and there is the Truth…it is up to each of us individually to search these out and differentiate the degree to which they are applicable; this is possible for man through “discernment” given us by the Holy Spirit and are given validity because of our devotion and love of God.

        Jesus Christ provided us with the means to reach Understanding by releasing us from the need to have “holy intercessors” in the form of a “priesthood”. The Sanhedrin, the overly legal and religious body that demanded obedience and submission to its authority, was comprised of non-Levitical priests (as they were appointed by the Heroditan kings, based on laws imposed on the Jews during the occupation of Alexander the Great) and were, therefore, the illegal and corrupt occupiers of the Temple. Jesus demanded a return to the Mosaic law (vis a vis, only men from the tribe of Levi could serve as Temple priests) and had no truck with the shenanigans of a usurping bunch of self-important holy bureaucrats in the form of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

        Today, as it has always been, certain men have crept in unawareness (Jude) and have led many astray by corrupting God’s Law, Natural Law and have deceitfully replaced them with a corruptible Man’s Law. The Gordian Knot of the co-mingling of these three legal systems cannot be untangled. This leaves us with the choice to endure the knot or simply cut the knot and let the severed pieces fall where they may.

        Merry Christmas.

    • J.M.

      February 27, 2014 at 2:29 PM

      Shalom, Ron,

      IF you, Ron, receive this message, & if I’m not asking amiss, I am asking for your intercession/prayer for me that “God’ will give me the correct understanding, wisdom,etc., & strength to proclaim his “way of life for his people” to live by. What to do & what not to do. In other words, I do not want to deceive, mislead, or say ANYTHING that is contrary to what “God” says. Intercede for me in this regard. Shalom

  14. Yartap

    December 18, 2013 at 7:53 PM

    As reported by Paul Joseph Watson of, “a Fox affiliate did a feature story on the off-grid lifestyle of a Cape Coral, FL woman (Robin Speronis) she was almost immediately hit with an eviction order from the city” … “because she was not dependent on city water or electricity supplies.” With support from residents for Speronis, the city has back off a little.

    But the city has said that, “If she can prove that she can sustain her life, herself and her home WITHOUT electricity and running water; then both parties MIGHT be able to come to some solution.”

    This story was reported by many news outlets, in order, to help this woman. But what grabbed my attention was the blatant propaganda spouted of the lame media. They described and defined “Living Off the Grid” as living WITHOUT electricity and running water. This was further compounded by the city’s statement (above), too.

    Yet, the media showed that the woman had electricity (solar), bottled propane and running water (rain water collection and storage). “Living Off the Grid” means not having and using a municipal or private monopoly utility service.

    Finally, the city says that she must PROVE to the city’s satisfaction. The GAUL of those bastard! The burden of proof lays with the city, not her.

  15. Ummer Farooq (@faro0485)

    December 19, 2013 at 5:19 AM

    The peace of God and paradise be for you all from above,

    an update had been made, and it seems he was arrested and charged.

    By the way Alfred, what’s your take on a guy named Karl Lentz and his website and videos mentioned here

    • Adask

      December 19, 2013 at 7:38 AM

      I don’t know anything about Karl Lentz. I have no opinion.

      • J.M.

        December 25, 2013 at 9:59 PM

        Any so called National Emergency or ANY kind of emergency does not justify TYRANNY. The Constitution was adopted during DIRE times & no emergency is an excuse to disregard & violate its provisions. Remember, we had the war of 1812 too. The Constitution was honored at that time. I consider being at war a time of emergency. It certainly is not picnic time. It is exactly as Justice Wilson predicted. He said, in pertinent part, “I shall have occasion incidentally to evince, how true it is, that States and Governments were made for made for man; and, at the same time, how true it is, that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and, at last, oppressed their master and maker.”

        He has a little something to say about those servants DEGRADING their Master & Maker too & I think it fits MOOA EXACTLY.

        He said,> “Even in almost every nation, which has been denominated free, the state has assumed a supercilious pre-eminence above the people, who have formed it: Hence the haughty notions of state independence, state sovereignty and state supremacy. In despotic Governments, the Government has usurped, in a similar manner, both upon the state and the people: Hence all arbitrary doctrines and pretensions concerning the Supreme, absolute, and incontrolable, power of Government. In each, man is degraded from the prime rank, which he ought to hold in human affairs: In the latter, the state as well as the man is degraded.”

        DEGRADED ? YES !!! like in Man or OTHER ANIMALS. It is not a national emergency cause, it is a despotic government Satan inspired cause.

      • J.N. Garinger

        February 29, 2016 at 8:00 PM

        Adask; I just today 2-29-16, found your site. So far “I love it”, great info. I`ve been trying to print some articles so I can share them with friends who “won`t” get on the internet. I can not get anything printed !! Is there a reason for this “on your end”? It could be in my end as I`ve had some trouble with “Big brother” breaking into my home & putting programs in my PC. ! Thanks.

      • Adask

        March 1, 2016 at 2:17 AM

        There’s no “problem at my end” in the sense that I have tried to obstruct making copies of my articles. However, there may be a “problem” that’s been imposed by WordPress. I have seen text that I’ve cut and pasted from my own blog that turns into a black or dark drown mass that covers the entire section of text I’ve cut. I suspect this is the dark brown base color for my blog getting tangled up with the text I’ve cut and pasted to a file on my desktop.

        I’ve gotten around the problem by selecting all of the text that I’ve pasted into a file on my desktop to the “Clear Formatting” button that’s found on Word for Windows. When I “clear formatting,” the black or brown “mass” disappears and I’m left with pristine text.

        I haven’t thought about that problem for several years. Perhaps I should change my blog’s “theme” so as to make downloads less problematic. I’ll have to think about it.

        Thanks for your compliments.

        Thanks for reading my blog.

  16. Peter

    December 19, 2013 at 1:57 PM

    He mentioned that only an animal pleads, as in oink oink and moo! Was he essentially claiming not to be an animal for the record and an actual man with dominion over the animals? Is there any signifigance with the British Aristrocrat having abandoned the ship? .

    • J.M.

      December 25, 2013 at 10:08 PM

      Hi Peter,
      Beg & plead mean the same thing in a den of iniquity. This is my opinion & we both know what opinions are like. Sometimes someone’s opinion is true though. Someday they will plead to us.

  17. Lyndon

    December 19, 2013 at 4:11 PM

    Like almost all of you out there, this man Ernie slipped himself into jurisdiction right from the beginning and kept himself there. Enough with the stunts people, you all need to learn all of the fundamentals of what is going on first. Ernie only knows a good part of it and it shows.

    • Jim Madison

      December 20, 2013 at 9:08 AM

      Lyndon, Hello, out there
      Like playing baseball in an enclosed basketball “court.” If he keeps on, he is going to be forced to take psychotropic medicine as “theY” say to get his mind right. How tragic. I noticed his demeanor changed a lot in the followup appearance. But,bless his heart for at least trying & doing more than most people would do. I did just about the same thing about 21 years ago, except my “appearance” was in jail attire as I refused to voluntarily appear.Tolt-umm I was not subject to their yellow fringed flag quasi martial law jurisdiction.Spent 60 days in jail for that brilliant remark. Ernie said “Jolly Roger” & maybe that’s true but I don’t believe it is. At least a Federal Judge in “TX” said it was not a jolly roger. flag. It is the same flag used by the “UNION, aka FEDERAL troops in the so called civil war. I was & still am for the CONfederal aka Confederate States position/stand/purpose I say this using the “pro-con” for/against meaning. pro-for.con-against.

      • Lyndon

        December 20, 2013 at 11:42 AM


        While i also respect this man’s courage, he fails with words. The artifacts about the room, the attire, the positions of the people, while interesting and sometimes important, are mostly suggestive, but, foremost, it is your written words which will dispel the words of your adversaries. All of you must first learn that court is not a place; court is a relationship to endeavour.

    • Jim Madison

      December 20, 2013 at 11:11 PM

      @ > “ALL OF YOU.” I must be one of the “all of you” so be more specific & tell me what you know I have failed to do in my hard knock learning experience. That is, unless it is too tedious. However,”they” for the most part apparently look the other way when they see me coming. This is only locally though. I’m sure I would see the prior oppression repeat itself in another county in another State of the United States Federal Guv-Corp(se). Thanks in advance for any specific advice.

    • J.M.

      December 27, 2013 at 9:43 AM

      @ you all need to learn all of the fundamentals of what is going on first.

      Ok, where is a good place to start in your opinion ?

  18. Cody

    December 20, 2013 at 1:08 AM

    That’s a mere presumption, Lyndon. Check it out in Black’s. Also check out ‘distributive’ vs. commutative justice and strict liability.

  19. palani

    December 20, 2013 at 8:57 AM

    October 10, 1297

    … that our justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other ministers, which under us have the laws of our land to guide, shall allow the said charters pleaded before them in judgement in all their points, that is to wit, the Great Charter as the common law[*] and the Charter of the forest, for the wealth of our realm.

    Most people will read the above paragraph and zone in on ‘the Great Charter’ without paying any regard to ‘the Charter of the Forest’. There is an entire world of law which can be found in Manwood’s Treatise of the Forest which might be found online here

    For example we only know of the deer as a male (buck) or female (doe) yet a forest is a privileged place only for a Hart (male deer) a Hind (female deer) Hare Boar and Wolf and none other. In a Chase you shall only find a Buck Doe Fox Matron or Roo. In a Warren are Hare Cunnie Pheasant and Partridge.

    So what is the difference between a Hart and a Buck? Only that the Hart is fit game for the king while common folks take Bucks. If the king hunts the Hart out of the forest then it magically transforms to a Hart Royal and if the king makes an announcement that everyone else is to not kill this particular animal then it becomes a Hart Royal Proclaimed.

    What is the difference between a forest and a chase? A forest has particular laws, has a metes and bounds description, been perambulated (perimeter has been walked), has particular officers and particular courts while a chase has none of these things.

    Manwood describes a territory as a piece of land that attaches to a municipality. This is why the District of Columbia was created … as a municipality to which territory would be attached.

  20. Peter

    December 20, 2013 at 1:28 PM

    What did he mean by”prime evidence standing”?

    • Jim Madison

      December 21, 2013 at 7:22 PM

      Peter, Hi there,
      The Video picture tells me what it means.. He IS standing & it’s evidence of what happens when we bite off more than we can chew.

      • Jim Madison

        December 21, 2013 at 7:24 PM

        P.S. Remember you can’t rollerskate in a Buffalo herd? This is what he was trying to do.

  21. Peter

    December 20, 2013 at 2:02 PM

    They hate the man who teaches justice at the city gate and detest anyone who declares the truth Amos 5:10———

  22. Jim Madison

    December 21, 2013 at 6:47 PM

    @ >They hate the man who teaches justice at the city gate.

    CITY HALL too. Maybe the city gate THEN, was city hall. Who knoweth ?

  23. Gary Lee,

    December 21, 2013 at 9:24 PM

    I would say, (perhaps because I may be naive) that he apparently knew enough to claim to be a ‘living man’, etc., but not enough to know who the codes actually apply to: Persons. Dave knows. ; ) ” I am a living man” is apparently not the same as “I am not a ‘person’, as defined in the law. At the end of all this sillyness is the principle of ejusdem generis (see way below), which says that you can’t mix apples and oranges in statutory construction, so everything in a sentence or paragraph must be the same, for example, “person” and “corporate entity”. See a pattern here? So, as Marc Stevens would ask: What evidence do they have that the constitution and the codes apply to me? Answer is simple:NONE. You can hang yourself, as he did here, by submitting to their jurisdiction, but it would seem they can’t hang you without your help (“under-standing”, or properly, “standing under” the charges).

    Note the definition of “State”, a subject which Alfred has dealt a lot over the years, wherein they tell you outright (ejusdem generis) that the State of California (as opposed to the California Republic) is included in the territories or District of Columbia (CA). Seems to confirm Alfred’s {this State theory.

    ” Person”, as defined in the State of California Fish and Game Code:
    67. “Person” means any natural person or any partnership,
    corporation, limited liability company, trust, or other type of

    “State”, as defined in same code:
    83. “State” means the State of California, unless applied to the
    different parts of the United States. In the latter case, it includes
    the District of Columbia and the territories.
    SECTION 630-637.9
    632(b). The term “person” includes an individual, business
    partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other legal entity,…
    11405.70. “Person” includes an individual, partnership, corporation, governmental subdivision or unit of a governmental subdivision, or public or private organization or entity of any character.

    SECTION 3479-3484
    3482.1. (a) As used in this section:
    (1) “Person” means an individual, proprietorship, partnership, corporation, club, or other legal entity.
    SECTION 1235.110-1235.210
    1235.160. “Person” includes any public entity, individual, association, organization, partnership, trust, limited liability company, or corporation.
    175. “Person” includes a natural person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business trust, corporation, limited liability company, or public entity.
    470. “Person” includes a natural person, firm, copartnership, association, limited liability company, or corporation.
    305. A “driver” is a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.
    56. “Person” means an individual, corporation, government or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, or other entity.
    (30) “Person” includes an individual or an organization. (See Section 1102.)
    Section K:
    TITLE 26 U.S.C., SECTION 7343
    IN PART:
    Part O: Title 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7343.
    Part P: United States Code Congressional and Administrative News
    Part Q: Sections derived from other sections.
    Part Q(17): Section 7343 is derived from:
    Part O:
    Title 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7343.
    TITLE 26, Subtitle F, CHAPTER 75, Subchapter D, Sec. 7343:
    Sec. 7343. Definition of term “person”
    The term “person” as used in this chapter includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a
    member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty
    to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.

    “Person”, as defined in Uniform Commercial Code/federal codes:
    United States Code
    § 7. “Person” or “persons” defined
    The word “person”, or “persons”, wherever used in sections 1 to 7 of this title shall be deemed to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of either the United States, the laws of any of the Territories, the laws of any State, or the laws of any foreign country.

    United States Code
    § 12. Definitions; short title
    (a) The word “person” or “persons” wherever used in this Act shall be deemed to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of either the United States, the laws of any of the Territories, the laws of any State, or the laws of any foreign country.

    EJUSDEM GENERIS. Of the same kind.
    Bouvier’s law Dictionary, 1856
    Rule of ejusdem generis, which holds that where general words follow enumeration of particular classes of persons or things, general words will be construed as applicable only to persons or things with same general nature or class as those enumerated, applies whether specific words follow general words in a statute or vise versa; in either event, general term or category is restricted to those things that are similar to those which are enumerated specifically.
    People ex Rel. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Com’n v. Smith, 31 Cal.Rptr.2d. 488 (Cal.App. 1st 1994)
    “Ejusdem generis” provides that where general words follow specific words in statutory enumeration, general words are construed to comprise only objects similar in nature to those enumerated by preceding specific words; likewise, where specific words follow general words in statutory enumeration, doctrine is equally applicable, and restricts application of general term to objects similar to specific
    Carriere v. Cominco Alaska, Inc., 823 F. Supp. 680. (D. Alaska 1993)
    Principle of “ejusdem generis” provides that general statutory term should be understood in light of specific terms that surround it.
    U.S. v. Parker, 30 F.3d. 542 (C.A. 5th Va. 1994)

  24. Jim Madison

    December 21, 2013 at 11:27 PM

    Gary Lee,
    Yes, & we also have > noscitur a sociis.< Tell me, in your opinion, or knowledge, why we have courts of NO record. There is not any merit to anything we present (< pre-zint ) to courts of no record, not even affidavits. My suggestion to those who feel they must appear regardless in these no record courts should ask the magistrate if he/she will grant a stay of execution pending the outcome of a trial de-novo IF he/she pleads no contest. (as their is not any appeal available from a no record court). The solution for freedom from oppression, I believe lies in common law writs. The problem is, I know of one court & one only that has judicial power & that is, the top court in this country. I am studying now on how to petition that court in the first instance per Rule 20, Other Jurisdiction, Supreme Court of the United States. Our status had better be right, to start with. I filed an affidavit re same in the county clerk's office. It will be exhibit A or # ONE.. People with Birth certificates or S.S.N. need not apply.

  25. Gary Lee

    December 24, 2013 at 2:26 PM


    I have no idea what a “court of NO record” is, but I think I know this: I do not go into courts, as they only have jurisdiction over ‘US citizens’ and in the District of Columbia, where the entire UNITED STATES is located, along with all the federal territories conveniently named close enough to the several states of the Union to convince the sheeple that they live in those federal territories (STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CA, for example) which is also located in the District of Columbia.

    I would never go willingly into a private corporate court, and if I was illegally, or unlawfully dragged into one, I certainly would never “plea”, and would object to the judge making a plea for me, acting as judge, jury and executioner. I am not within their jurisdiction, as I am not a member of their corporation, and have not agreed to their corporate rules. All licenses, registrations, SSN card, etc have been returned to the State and feds, and any such contracts cancelled or terminated.

    I collect NO benefits from, nor do I use any services of the corporate UNITED STATES or its corporate subdivisions STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SONOMA, etc.

    If I understand correctly, there are two “Supreme Courts”: The Supreme Court of the United States and the United States Supreme Court, one being the court as set up by our Founding Fathers and the Constitution, and the other being the supreme court of the District of Columbia, a court of equity, quietly slipped in to replace our original Supreme Court, a court of law. I believe one must be aware of who you are dealing with when dealing with the supreme court. As with the Constitution, there being two, one for the perpetual Union styled The United States of America, c.1791 AD, with 13 amendments, and one which looks virtually identical, for the UNITED STATES, located in the District of Columbia (c. 1871) with a different 13th amendment (slavery)26 amendments, or somewhere about that, again which has been conveniently substituted for the real Constitution somewhere back there around 1870s, when all the federal territories (States) with names conveniently close to the states of the Union also seemed to get their constitutions, also suspiciously near-identical to the Constitutions of the several states. California’s 1849 Constitution has 11 amendments (none related to corporate “codes”), but the 1879 federal territory (CA) constitution added Tax and Revenue Code, Penal Code California Commercial Code, etc., all of which apply only to “corporate entities”.

    If you are contemplating taking anything to the supreme court, might be worthwhile to know which supreme court you are dealing with, as I don’t believe the ‘real’ Supreme Court is anywhere to be found today, only the fascist corporate court of the private corporation UNITED STATES.
    Iit is a pretty big mess that has been created for their political goals (200 year plan hatched in 1814 to bring the whole world under control of one government), and, short of being somewhere besides ‘Here”, it is difficult to see how we are going to get this back where it belongs, unless one hell of a lot of ‘US citizens’ become ‘Americans’ again, and replace this GovCo, as the Declaration of Independence and Jefferson pointed out so many times.

    I’m no armchair scholar, so I can’t debate these things with anybody, but I can read and educate myself to the laws that still exist in this country, on which this country’s government was formed, and I try to know what would tend to put me under the jurisdictions of today’s courts of equity, and simply stated: I am not the corporate entity the judge is going to call, and will not answer to or for that ‘NAME’, nor would I ever ‘understand’ (stand under, or accept) the ‘charges’ made against the NAME. My family has been on this Continent since 1600 AD, way before the government, and way, way before the Government (GovCo), so I am standing up for the sovereignty granted by King George III to Americans and their posterity, up to ( and maybe even after) my demise.

    First question in a court of equity should probably be “has jurisdiction been alleged?”. No jurisdiction, no charges, unless you want to willingly ‘recognize’ that they may have some kind of authority over you, and they do not have that authority unless you give it to them. Of course, as with any political, self-serving mechanism, they may take it at gunpoint. Then, you have to decide what you really stand for. I, like many, will die a free man: “Give me liberty, or give me death”.

    Be thoughtful about how you allow yourself to be sucked into THEIR game, playing in THEIR courts, trying to get what you believe is justice under a system THEY have quietly usurped and replaced with THEIR OWN look-alike system, but which serves only THEIR agenda.

    I never ceases to amaze me, the rantings and ravings of ‘patriots’, who are working INSIDE of the corrupt system, still believing they are working within the system as it was set up by the Founding Fathers. They seem to have NO idea the system has been replaced, and if it is pointed out to them when they are ranting and raving, they are in complete denial and get pretty upset.

    This won’t get fixed until a lot of Americans pull their heads out of the sand and accept responsibility for their own liberty and freedom. As Mary Elizabeth, Croft would say : know who you are. : )

    • J.M.

      December 24, 2013 at 10:03 PM

      Thank you,Gary Lee,
      @ “know who you are”

      It’s seemingly impossible to get the “enemy” to know who we are. When I am asked “why don’t you carry Identification & I say I know who I am so why do I need to carry ID? That’s when the do do hits the fan. Also, when we say, “I am not a person as “DEFINED” in the statute,(ordinance,etc) ALL they hear are the words > “I am not a person.” They DON”T SEEM TO HEAR “as defined.” Personally, I do not have a problem with the word person, PER SE. If you get a chance, check out Supreme Court of the United States Rules 17 & 20 Part 4 (IV) other Jurisdiction, & let me know what you think. Thanks again !!! I would be most grateful for anyone to tell me their thoughts etc re:same.

    • J.M.

      February 6, 2014 at 11:19 PM

      I have no idea what a “court of NO record” is,
      Enuff said. Do you know what a trial de novo is?

  26. palani

    December 24, 2013 at 3:41 PM

    One should also be aware in the papers called ‘pleadings’ or even ‘motions’ that the abbreviation ‘SS’ does not stand for ‘sworn and subscribed’ but rather scilicet or ‘to wit’ and establishes the place and venue of the action. If you are not where you intend to be then best be explicit with where you are.

  27. J.M.

    December 24, 2013 at 9:15 PM

    Hi palani

    I like the one that ends with,”None but lawyers can understand such a definition and none but lawyers want to.” I believe it is the third one down.

    Believe it or not, the following is the opinion of Justice Eakin, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

    A groom must expect matrimonial pandemonium
    when his spouse finds he’s given her a cubic zirconium
    instead of a diamond in her engagement band, the one he said was worth twenty-one grand.
    Our deceiver would claim that when his bride relied
    on his claim of value, she was not justified
    for she should have appraised it; and surely she could have,
    but the question is whether a bride-to-be would have.

    The realities of the parties control the equation, and here they’re not comparable in sophistication;
    the reasonableness of her reliance we just cannot gauge with a yardstick of equal experience and age.
    This must be remembered when applying the test by which the “reasonable fiancée” is assessed.
    She was 19, he was nearly 30 years older; was it unreasonable for her to believe what he told her?

    Given their history and Pygmalion relation, I find her reliance was with justification.
    Given his accomplishment and given her youth, was it unjustifiable for her to think he told the truth?
    Or for every prenuptial, is it now a must that you treat your betrothed with presumptive mistrust?
    Do we mean reliance on your beloved’s representation is not justifiable, absent third party verification?
    Love, not suspicion, is the underlying foundation of parties entering the marital relation;
    mistrust is not required, and should not be made a priority.
    Accordingly, I must depart from the reasoning of the majority.

    Porreco v. Porreco, 811 A. 2d 566 – Pa: Supreme Court 2002
    Justice EAKIN, dissenting.

  28. Dave

    May 27, 2014 at 1:24 PM

    your first question is worrying and reflects a state of mind that you yourself do not even realise the state that we are living in. your question reads…”is it legal……. “. You should be asking yourself “is it illegal…etc”. hope you work this out.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s