Ernie Tertelgte Does Not Understand Montana Law

Every once is a while, someone will gain notoriety for litigating their own mala prohibita case in a sensationalistic manner. By telling libertarians and constitutionalists what they want to hear, such persons make fools of themselves and their supporters when they say things that are provably untrue all the while mouthing off to government agents in order to look good for the cameras. Even those who benefit from Leviathan certainly deserve a good scolding, but doing so in the context of litigation (and an incompetent one, at that) only serves to further marginalize everyone else by association who are attempting to secure their Liberty.


Ernie Wayne Tertelgte


You may have of heard of the above-pictured individual, one Ernie Wayne Tertelgte. This is the man up in Montana who was arrested last year on two charges of fishing without a license and for resisting arrest. Tertelgte gained Internet notoriety for yelling at Judge Wanda Drusch that he was a “living, natural man” and not “the corporate fiction” that she and other government agents were allegedly acting upon.

What is not as well known is why Tertelgte believes this to be the truth. If anybody bothered to watch this street rally Tertelgte participated in outside the Three Forks City Hall, you’d see his cardboard protest sign, which read:


Your Natural Name = “Evidence”: “Non-fiction” = Living Free Person; = You Own Your Proper Name, and are Eternal Trustee thru Universal Right to Life Natural Laws;


Any A P P E A R A N C E in A L L C A P I T A L L E T T E R S Of “T H A T” Which is N ever Your N A M E = “P R O O F” = “F I C T I O N” = “P R O P E R T Y,” Invented & C O P Y R I G H T E D (S.S.#) By and For VATICAN CROWN/CAESAR = “G R A N D  I D E N T I T Y  T H E F T;” and You Never, Ever, are “I TSTrustee!

“Render unto Caesar “T H A T” which is Caesar’s; But unto God That which is Life!!”


You see, this is what happens when you believe in the STRAWMAN hypothesis and the corporate UNITED STATES myth; you act like a lunatic in public. Any ridicule you incur from doing so is well deserved, especially so on this subject matter that spews propaganda that is just about as true as the government’s official story on a number of events. Apparently, Tertelgte and those other people at that rally outside city hall have been taken in hook, line, and sinker by the oxymoronic sovereign citizens.

In any case, Tertelgte went on to record a vlog whereby he makes the following claims:


“In Montana, our state law here, which I have right here for direct reference, mandates that every official, regardless of capacity, that holds any office, first, must recite an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Montana, and, that upon demand, any official must produce that evidence of that oath immediately. It should be memorized, they should have it tucked in their pocket, in their wallet, somewhere on them, and any time you as a citizen, an individual, say, ‘You know, I want to know that your office is actual; let me see that oath, let me hear you say it.’ That official, as far as Montana is concerned, is totally required to produce it just the instant you ask for it.”


Tertelgte then goes on to cite his direct reference as “CF 37-61-207,” which he repeats twice and then reads the following exactly:


Oath. Every person on admission shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and The Constitution of the State of Montana and to faithfully discharge the duties of an attorney with fidelity to the best of the person’s knowledge and ability. A certificate of the oath must be endorsed upon the license and a duplicate filed with the clerk.”


After claiming that this was taken from the 2011 edition of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA), Tertelgte continues on with his little tirade, but I hope you’ve realized some immediate problems here. I use this as an example of when someone grossly overstretches whatever the law says in a very limited circumstance in order to suit their own personal agenda.

First, there is no “CF” designation within the MCA that I can find; I think it would be more accurate to assume that it’s a § number. Second, although Tertelgte did correctly read off MCA § 37-61-207, he oh-so-conveniently left out the context of this statutory reference, namely, Title 37 – Professions & Occupations, Chapter 61 – Attorneys at Law, Part 2 – Licensing; in other words, MCA § 37-61-207 is applicable only to attorneys who are licensed to practice law, and you can tell this when it says “Every person on admission,” which presumably means, every person on admission to the state bar of Montana shall take an oath, and so forth (that’s why MCA § 37-61-207 goes on to mention about “faithfully discharging the duties of an attorney;” how could a cop, a bureaucrat, or any other non-lawyer government agent faithfully discharge the duties of an attorney?). Third, and most importantly, there is no requirement in MCA § 37-61-207 for a lawyer, much less any “public official,” that they “must produce that evidence of that oath immediately” upon the demand of any citizen.

Simply put, Tertelgte is completely wrong when he blabbed, that in regards to their oaths of office, that Montana government agents are “totally required to produce it just the instant you ask for it.” Tertelgte negligently overstretched the applicability of MCA § 37-61-207 when he expanded it to somehow mean all government officials, instead of just lawyers, as well as inventing out of whole cloth this totally bogus claim that all these agents must produce a copy of their oaths upon demand. IF there does turn out to be such a requirement elsewhere in the MCA, that’s one thing, but I can say with confidence that there is no such requirement for lawyers, much less any other Montana government agent, to produce such a thing on demand, at least according to MCA § 37-61-207.

In 1998, Richard McDonald said:


“Don’t do emotion, ok? Law, read the law, the law says ‘rebuttable presumption.’ Stick with the law, you can never go wrong. See, if you step off and put your own words into the law, the judge is gonna come down on you like a house of fire.”


That is exactly what this so-called “natural, living man” is doing here; Tertelgte is putting his own words into the law! If you are going to play the reformist game, then you are agreeing to play within the government’s own rules; if you are able to legally subvert them and turn them in your favor, then you can do that because that’s what the government’s own attorneys do all the damn time, but you cannot just fucking make shit up. Tertelgte is attempting to emotionally manipulate you with all of his “natural, living man” polemics, which itself is fundamentally based on the corporate UNITED STATES myth, anyway! I would suggest you take Richard McDonald’s admonishment seriously if you ever want to legally contest the government in its own courts, instead of acting like an incompetent buffoon.

This entry was posted in News & Analysis. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Ernie Tertelgte Does Not Understand Montana Law

  1. Jason says:

    He doesn’t understand a few things, and neither do you.

    • sleepysalsa says:

      What “few things” do you allege that I not understand, precisely?

      • bob says:

        You don’t understand “The Spirit of the Law”, that he is not incompetent or a buffoon, that he should be admired for standing up for his rights when we are living in a time when so many of our rights are being taken away and that your outrage is centered around CF or MCA instead of hearing what he is saying.

        You must be an officer of the court.

        • sleepysalsa says:

          Bob, are you suggesting that the Richard McDonald quote is wrong? If so, then how would you answer Harvey Silverglate‘s question on how is it even possible for the average man is to know the legislative intent of a statutory code in the first place?

        • Allen Curtis says:

          Dear bob,
          He/she is RIGHT about this, AND, that IS, Do not contest the government in its own courts. ITS OWN COURTS. Those Courts ARE their HOME AWAY FROM HOME. If I am in YOUR HOME, I had better abide by YOUR RULES. Get it? I admire Mountain Man for STANDING UP BUT !!! HE STOOD UP IN THE WRONG PLACE.

  2. Matt Bender says:

    MCA § 37-61-207 is not the law enacted by the legislature its code/statute (while there are only 381,517 words in the Obamacare law (that no one read) there are now 11,588,500 words of regulations ). Codes are interpretations of the law and we all know that any law (natural, fundamental, maxim) that requires interpretation is void ab initio (from the beginning) because it can’t mean something different from case to case, man to man (applied differently) nor can it be written but for the average intelligent man (how soon we forget). We do need to go back and start thinking fundamentally, something Ernie is attempting to do but poorly, as no one, no group of neighbors for instance can contract for you, and that is why only those working for government agreed by oath or office (took the money) to accept the Constitutional restrictions to which every “state” is a party. You and I have zero obligation to the contract we are not signatories nor its creators. Are you? Patrick Henry wouldn’t sign because of state rights concerns and Art 1, sec. 8 clause 18 “necessary and proper” meaning anything they want it to mean. Now there’s a binding contract with a meeting of the minds and everything disclosed and specified! Only a greedy desperate man with criminal intentions or a fool would be a party to such a constructed fraud. The fact is no group of men or a “government” can create rights because you are born with them, all those in government can do by the force of violence is pretend to give you privileges at the expense of someone else’s rights (insider stock manipulation). Is the ethic of “do no harm” not fundamental to law? Must not a living man make a (substantiated) claim of (some personal) wrong not some mere complaint (my wife does it daily, though perhaps not unfounded) by a party who derives direct benefit from such enforcement in order for another man to be put in harm’s way, expend his very short life time and money in defense of his right by the very people we wrongly presume are defending those very “Laws of Nature”? While I believe preservation of wildlife is crucial and licensing helps in that instance to prevent exhaustion it was a poor choice with which to champion liberty. Sorry Ernie, if you had been starving I’d be on your side and you’d win but the facts are quite different. Best of luck but I’d consider a palatable exit.

    “All governments…that profess to be founded on the consent of the governed, and yet have authority to violate natural laws, are necessarily frauds.” – Lysander Spooner

    • sleepysalsa says:

      You bring up an interesting idea about the administrative regulations used to enforce the individual mandate. I didn’t mentioned that in “Are You Obligated to Have Medical Insurance?” because I did not think it was relevant at the time (besides the fact that the article was already pretty lengthy just dealing with United States Code, much less the Code of Federal Regulations). In light of the fourth branch of government, perhaps I should write a follow-up on the individual mandate, this time focusing on only the CFR.

      With regards to your comment, “Codes are interpretations of the law and we all know that any law that requires interpretation is void ab initio because it can’t mean something different from case to case, man to man, nor can it be written but for the average intelligent man,” I am currently unsure as to whether that is true or not. Whenever I’ve been subjected to a traffic stop by a “peace” officer, it has always ended with them issuing me a traffic ticket, which alleges I “violated” a section from the Texas Transportation Code. Even if you were right, I doubt that’s going to convince a member of the Standing Army to just let me off with a warning, especially if you consider how many of them act under color of law. Also, considering the prevalence of legalese, I doubt your observation would have any sway with those with invested interests in perpetuating the monopoly on the practice of law by way of government licensure.

      On a fine note, I am surprised to hear you advocate on behalf of the very licensing that Tertelgte was arrested for. I think it is obvious for any lover of liberty that Tertelgte neither created any tort nor breached any contract, so therefore his actions, at worst, were mala prohibita. My only criticism of Tertelgte extends to MCA § 37-61-207, not the charges the government sicced on him.

      • Brian David says:

        I am glad to see that people are starting to really discuss the law again, but the problem becomes the use of Babylonian codes and the Roman legal system that is used to usurp the Most High Gods laws that if observed and seriously sought to understand you will in time learn how to live free. The Kingdom of God is the only free government system based on Gods laws, statutes, judgments, and ordinances. Legalism always goes with financial institutions for the means of extracting ones energy or wealth by fraud, fear, intimidation, manipulation, deception, etc.

        The United States has always been a corporation by U.S.C Title 28 and was used to usurp the royal propriety’s of King George. Anyone that has ever study the London company, East India company, Plymouth company, Virginia company, etc. can see how they used the revolutionary war to bring the colonies into a union called the United States, just like the European Union, the Soviet Union, etc. which are all corporations for the purpose of trading. These corporations sit on top of nations like America and Russia, etc. This system is called Mystery Babylon the Great and is seated in Washington DC. It is time to get back to the laws of the Most High God and prepare to come out of this Babylonian system.

        John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

        The word world is orderly arrangement. Jesus was a free man and was not apart of the Roman system of legalism or Corbin.

        • Kyle Rearden says:

          Correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t the “corporate UNITED STATES” myth been already debunked due primarily to a lack of evidence for its thesis?

          • Are you saying that US Code is a myth and that the commerce clause does not exist? This is very biblical as to Babylon which trades with merchants and sits on top of Nations. Today we call them corporations, not so much as merchants. But it is the same idea, these corporations throughout the world have trading agreements and contracts based on banking systems for trade, whether it be services, goods, currencies resources, slaves, etc.

            Corporate law deals the formation and operations of corporations and is related to commercial and contract law. A corporation is a legal entity created through the laws of its state of incorporation, treating a corporation as a legal “person” that has standing to sue and be sued, distinct from its stockholders.

            Black’s Law Dictionary defines a corporation as “an association of shareholders (or even a single shareholder) created under law and regarded as an artificial person by courts, “having a legal entity entirely separate and distinct from the individuals who compose it, with the capacity of continuous existence or succession, and having the capacity of such legal entity, of taking, holding and conveying property, suing and being sued, and exercising such other powers as may be conferred on it by law, just as a natural person may.”

            2Peter 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

            From G4123; avarice, that is, (by implication) fraudulency, extortion: – covetous (-ness) practices, greediness.

            From G1722 and G4198; to travel in (a country as a pedlar), that is, (by implication) to trade: – buy and sell, make merchandise.

            Revelation 18:2-3 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

            Navigable servitude is a doctrine in United States constitutional law that gives the federal government the right to regulate navigable waterways as an extension of the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the constitution. It is also sometimes called federal navigational servitude.

            The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate “commerce . . . among the several states.” In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that this power extended to regulation over navigable waterways, which were an important hub of transportation in the early years of the Republic.

            United: participle passive Joined; made to agree; cemented; mixed; attached by growth.
            Citizen: In the United States, a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise, or the qualifications which enable him to vote for rulers, and to purchase and hold real estate.

            Commerce: Intercourse by way of trade and traffic between different peoples or states and the citizens or inhabitants thereof, including not only the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities, but also the instrumentalities and agencies by which it is promoted and the means and appliances by which it is carried on, and the transportation of persons as well as of goods, both by land and by sea.

            Franchise: A special privilege conferred by government upon an individual or corporation, and which does not belong to the citizens of the country generally, of common right. It is essential to the character of a franchise that it should be a grant from the sovereign authority, and in this country no franchise can be held which is not derived from a law of the state. In England, a franchise is defined to be a royal privilege in the hands of a subject. In this country, it is a privilege of a public nature, which cannot be exercised without a legislative grant.

    • Allen Curtis says:

      Matt Bender,
      Justice James Wilson said in, Chisholm v. Georgia
      I shall have occasion incidently 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.
      MAN, fearfully and wonderfully made, is the workmanship of his all perfect CREATOR: A State; useful and valuable as the contrivance is, is the inferior contrivance of man; and from his native dignity derives all its acquired importance. When I speak of a State as an inferior contrivance, I mean that it is a contrivance inferior only to that, which is divine: Of all human contrivances, it is certainly most transcendantly excellent. It is concerning this contrivance that Cicero says so sublimely, “Nothing, which is exhibited upon our globe, is more acceptable to that divinity, which governs the whole universe, than those communities and assemblages of men, which, lawfully associated, are denominated STATES
      Let a State be considered as subordinate to the PEOPLE: But let every thing else be subordinate to the State.
      Remember Benjamin Franklin’s response when asked what have you wrought? He said, “a Republic IF you can KEEP IT”. I do not hear anything anymore about a Republic but I sure hear a lot about our DEMOCRACY, don’t you?

  3. Tom Speed says:

    ‘An Essay on the Trial’ by Jury by Lysander Spooner. The most STUNNING read that exposes modern law & their show Trials!




    FOR more than six hundred years – that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 – there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.

    Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a “palladium of liberty “- a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government – they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.

    But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them. ”


    The Oaths of Judges

    As further proof that the legislation of the king, whether enacted with or without the assent and advice of his parliaments, was of no authority unless it were consistent with the common law, and unless juries and judges saw fit to enforce it, it may be mentioned that it is probable that no judge in England was ever sworn to observe the laws enacted either by the king alone, or by the king with the advice and assent of parliament.

    The judges were sworn to “do equal law, and execution of right, to all the king’s subjects, rich and poor, without having regard to any person;” and that they will “deny no man common right;” [5]] but they were not sworn to obey or execute any statutes of the king, or of the king and parliament. Indeed, they are virtually sworn not to obey any statutes that are against “common right,” or contrary to “the common law,” or “law of the land;” but to “certify the king thereof” – that is, notify him that his statutes are against the common law; – and then proceed to execute the common law, notwithstanding such legislation to the contrary. The words of the oath on this point are these:

    “That ye deny no man common right by (virtue of) the king’s letters, nor none other man’s, nor for none other cause; and in case any letters come to you contrary to the law, (that is, the common law, as will be seen on reference to the entire oath given in the note,) that ye do nothing by such letters, but certify the king thereof, and proceed to execute the law, (that is, the common law,) notwithstanding the same letters.”

    Where it is considered that the king was the sole legislative power, and that he exercised this power, to a great extent, by orders in council, and by writs and “letters” addressed oftentimes to some sheriff, or other person, and that his commands, when communicated to his justices, or any other person, “by letters,” or writs, under seal, had as much legal authority as laws promulgated in any other form whatever, it will be seen that this oath of the justices absolutely required that they disregard any legislation that was contrary to “common right,” or “the common law,” and notify the king that it was contrary to common right, or the common law, and then proceed to execute the common law, notwithstanding such legislation. [6]

    If there could be any doubt that such was the meaning of this oath, that doubt would be removed by a statute passed by the king two years afterwards, which fully explains this oath, as follows:

    “Edward, by the Grace of God, &c., to the Sheriff of Stafford, greeting: Because that by divers complaints made to us, we have perceived that the Law of the Land, which we by our oath are bound to maintain, is the less well kept, and the execution of the same disturbed many times by maintenance and procurement, as well in the court as in the country; we greatly moved of conscience in this matter, and for this cause desiring as much for the pleasure of God, and ease and quietness of our subjects, as to save our conscience, and for to save and keep our said oath, by the assent of the great men and other wise men of our council, we have ordained these things following:

    “First, we have commanded all our justices, that they shall from henceforth do equal law and execution of right to all our subjects, rich and poor, without having regard to any person, and without omitting to do right for any letters or commandment which may come to them from us, or from any other, or by any other cause. And if that any letters, writs, or commandments come to the justices, or to other deputed to do law and right according to the usage of the realm, in disturbance of the law, or of the execution of the same, or of right to the parties, the justices and other aforesaid shall proceed and hold their courts and processes, where the pleas and matters be depending before them, as if no such letters, writs, or commandments were come to them; and they shall certify us and our council of such commandments which be contrary to the law, (that is, “the law of the land,” or common law,) as afore is said.” [7] And to the intent that our justices, shall do even right to all people in the manner aforesaid, without more favor showing to one than to another, we have ordained and caused our said justices to be sworn, that they shall not from henceforth, as long as they shall be in the office of justice, take fee nor robe of any man, but of ourself, and that they shall take no gift nor reward by themselves, nor by other, privily nor apertly, of any man that hath to do before them by any way, except meat and drink, and that of small value: and that they shall give no counsel to great men or small, in case where we be party, or which do or may touch us in any point, upon pain to be at our will, body, lands, and goods, to do thereof as shall please us, in case they do contrary. And for this cause we have increased the fees of the same, our justices, in such manner as it ought reasonably to suffice them.” – 20 Edward III., ch. l. (1346.)

    Other statutes of similar tenor have been enacted as follows:

    “It is accorded and established, that it shall not be commanded by the great seal, nor the little seal, to disturb or delay common right; and though such commandments do come, the justices shall not therefore leave (omit) to do right in any point.” – St. 2 Edward III., ch. 8. (1328.)

    “That by commandment of the great seal, or privy seal, no point of this statute shall be put in delay; nor that the justices of whatsoever place it be shall let (omit) to do the common law, by commandment, which shall come to them under the great seal, or the privy seal.” – 14 Edward III, st. 1, ch. 14. (1340.)

    “It is ordained and established, that neither letters of the signet, nor of the king’s privy seal, shall be from henceforth sent in damage or prejudice of the realm, nor in disturbance of the law” (the common law). – 11 Richard II., ch. 10. (1387.)

    It is perfectly apparent from these statutes, and from the oath administered to the justices, that it was a matter freely confessed by the king himself, that his statutes were of no validity, if contrary to the common law, or “common right.”

    The oath of the justices, before given, is, I presume, the same that has been administered to judges in England from the day when it was first prescribed to them, (1344,) until now. I do not find from the English statutes that the oath has ever been changed. The Essay on Grand Juries, before referred to, and supposed to have been written by Lord Somers, mentions this oath (page 73) as being still administered to judges, that is, in the time of Charles II., more than three hundred years after the oath was first ordained.

    If the oath has never been changed, it follows that judges have not only never been sworn to support any statutes whatever of the king, or of parliament, but that, for five hundred years past, they actually have been sworn to treat as invalid all statutes that were contrary to the common law. ”

    And what… you think all that got replaced by a system of ‘Voting’? You think a ‘Majority’ or even a Minority for that matter, constitutes ‘law’? 🙂 NOPE! But that’s what Government WANTS you to think!


    Limitations Imposed Upon The Majority By The Trial By Jury

    The principal objection, that will be made to the doctrine of this essay, is, that under it, a jury would paralyze the power of the majority, and veto all legislation that was not in accordance with the will of the whole, or nearly the whole, people.

    The answer to this objection is, that the limitation, which would be thus imposed upon the legislative power, (whether that power be vested in the majority, or minority, of the people,) is the crowning merit of the trial by jury. It has other merits; but, though important in themselves, they are utterly insignificant and worthless in comparison with this.

    It is this power of vetoing all partial and oppressive legislation, and of restricting the government to the maintenance of such laws as the whole, or substantially the whole, people are agreed in, that makes the trial by jury “the palladium of liberty.” Without this power it would never have deserved that name.

    *** The will, or the pretended will, of the majority, is the last lurking place of tyranny at the present day. The dogma, that certain individuals and families have a divine appointment to govern the rest of mankind, is fast giving place to the one that the larger number have a right to govern the smaller; a dogma, which may, or may not, be less oppressive in its practical operation, but which certainly is no less false or tyrannical in principle, than the one it is so rapidly supplanting. Obviously there is nothing in the nature of majorities, that insures justice at their hands. They have the same passions as minorities, and they have no qualities whatever that should be expected to prevent them from practising the same tyranny as minorities, if they think it will be for their interest to do so. ***

    There is no particle of truth in the notion that the majority have a right to rule, or to exercise arbitrary power over, the minority, simply because the former are more numerous than the latter. Two men have no more natural right to rule one, than one has to rule two. Any single man, or any body of men, many or few, have a natural right to maintain justice for themselves, and for any others who may need their assistance against the injustice of any and all other men, without regard to their numbers; and majorities have no right to do any more than this. The relative numbers of the opposing parties have nothing to do with the question of right. And no more tyrannical principle was ever avowed, than that the will of the majority ought to have the force of law, without regard to its justice; or, what is the same thing, that the will of the majority ought always to be presumed to be in accordance with justice. Such a doctrine is only another form of the doctrine that might makes right.

    When two men meet one upon the highway, or in the wilderness, have they a right to dispose of his life, liberty, or property at their pleasure, simply because they are the more numerous party? Or is he bound to submit to lose his life, liberty, or property, if they demand it, merely because he is the less numerous party? Or, because they are more numerous than he, is he bound to presume that they are governed only by superior wisdom, and the principles of justice, and by no selfish passion that can lead them to do him a wrong? Yet this is the principle, which it is claimed should govern men in all their civil relations to each other. Mankind fall in company with each other on the highway or in the wilderness of life, and it is claimed that the more numerous party, simply by virtue of their superior numbers, have the right arbitrarily to dispose of the life, liberty, and property of the minority; and that the minority are bound, by reason of their inferior numbers, to practise abject submission, and consent to hold their natural rights,- any, all, or none, as the case may be,- at the mere will and pleasure of the majority; as if all a man’s natural rights expired, or were suspended by the operation of a paramount law, the moment he came into the presence of superior numbers.

    If such be the true nature of the relations men hold to each other in this world, it puts an end to all such things as crimes, unless they be perpetrated upon those who are equal or superior, in number, to the actors. All acts committed against persons inferior in number to the aggressors, become but the exercise at rightful authority. And consistency with their own principles requires that all governments, founded on the will of the majority, should recognize this plea as a sufficient justification for all crimes whatsoever.


  4. William says:

    Tertelgte’s facility with the law and his rhetorical ability are not at issue. The average citizen, and even the writers of this website have lived too far from, and too long without natural liberty to be able to recognize what is at stake. People have become accustomed to a lifestyle in which they rely, directly or indirectly, on others for the materials of subsistence. What was once a choice, to trade self-reliance and the associated uncertainty and scarcity of natural providence for interdependence in society and the stability and surfeit it provides, has become compulsory.

    The natural, God-given right to life is the wellspring from which Tertelgte’s rights flow. This spring has been diverted such that civil man, his industries and institutions, now stand between natural Man and God, and that men who are willing and capable of subsisting are denied that right because natural subsistence denies Leviathan its blood tithe. All shall be commoditized, all shall be capitalized, and all shall participate. The same machinery underlies laws preventing ex-felons from hunting by restricting their access to “dangerous weapons.” The Law does not live in section and subsection, it does not reside in courthouse or judge. The poet is closer to the law than the lawyer. If you have become accustomed to your comfortable cage, if the yoke of the computer keyboard and the commute are not galling to you, fine, but reconsider your belief that Tertelgte “makes a fool of himself” when expressing the liberty of the spirit that dwells in him.

    When the judge seeks confirmation that Tertelgte resides at a given address, and he responds that he lives in his body, he is stating a truth to which most people have become numbed. There was a time when people participated in the social contract while fully remembering the natural law that creates and sustains life – that time is over. We have accepted the delusion that life and the sustenance thereof comes at the hands of the state, and that our laws govern natural processes. We believe our lives belong to the state and that our living is conferred upon us by the state. Those believing this are the fools, and the Tertelgtes of the world, as emotional, inarticulate, and unnuanced they may be, have the Law written in their hearts.

  5. White Owl says:

    The bottom line: No man needs permission to forage for food on land or at sea. not from another man nor any government agency.

    • sleepysalsa says:

      Agreed, but that is besides the thesis of this article. My argument here is that Tertelgte made a very specific falsifiable claim about what the MCA said. Thankfully, to his credit, he did provide the exact source citation. Unfortunately, when I double-checked it, I found it to be at odds with his extraneous pontification about what it actually means.

      I only wrote this article so it would serve as a warning to everyone (including myself) to avoid this kind of mistake. Remember, you and I are dealing with a monopolistic statutory and administrative law, not a more polycentric form of law as it used to be during the early republic when everyone was a state citizen (even after the ratification of the 14th Amendment) whose natural liberties were recognized and respected by their respective state constitutions. Tertelgte could have argued from the position (with regards to his “status” or “standing”) as a Montanan, that is, a Montana state citizen, as defined in the Federal Style Manual; yet, he didn’t do that, did he?

  6. jeff says:

    I read these comments in their entirety. Most of the arguments have been made so there is not much to say except this:

    “Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime. Tell a man he cannot fish and you owe him fish for life.”

    This case is not the only example of this issue. Many people run into zoning laws when trying to plant agriculture or create their own irrigation systems. And with that I will leave you with some Tool:

    “The universe is hostile, so impossible. Devour to survive, so it is, so its always been.”

  7. tom says:

    You don’t always have to look at the law. People need to look at morals more.

  8. ericd53 says:

    I don’t understand why this wasn’t just thrown out of court in the first place. To me, it seems like a huge waste of time and money. I believe we have far more important things to focus efforts on than one guy fishing without a licence. I don’t understand why a guy fishing with his son would be approached in the first place.

  9. Caroline says:

    I almost feel sorry that you are so empty on the inside. I say almost because you probably have enough money to do whatever you want in life. You should be thanking Ernie for giving you a reason to write this pointless article, not calling him an incompetent buffoon. Nobody cares about your dull opinion, whoever wrote this. I just stumbled on this page because of Ernie, like most people. You can quote laws all you want and make corrections and clarifications and still no one gives a damn. What YOU are doing is absolutely pointless–pointing out the flaws of his defense. White Owl says it best. End of story. “Oh, but THIS law says…” “The thesis of this article…blah blah blaaah”. I hope your books/knowledge/law degree/money make you feel safe at night. And when the author of this article inevitably responds to my comment, be assured I will never look at it. I hope it sounds super impressive and intelligent though, because that’s all you got to cover your ass.

  10. Kyle Rearden says:

    I agree with you, Caroline, about one statement of yours, that, “You can quote laws all you want and make corrections and clarifications and still no one gives a damn.” As Larken Rose has mentioned time and again, especially regarding his dealings with the IRS, that the government does not, by and large, follow its own laws. Oddly enough, Stefan Molynuex advises his listeners and viewers to keep paying their taxes, and the Free Staters up in New Hampshire keep telling their audiences that “peace is the way” and “don’t advocate violence.”

    The more duplicitousness I’ve witnessed, the more I question whether political dissidents are sincere in winning any of their freedoms back. My greatest fear about the alternative media is that it would eventually become nothing more than the Internet version of the mainstream media, and sadly, I’ve written about the signs which strongly suggest just that. The same people who tell you to blindly “follow the law,” the next day will tell you “we’ve got to have a revolution!,” before then saying “we need to reach out to law enforcement and the military.” Inconsistency when publicly advocating for liberty ensures nothing but a guarantee for tyranny to reign supreme in the hearts and minds of the indoctrinated tax serfs.

    Neither the government nor Tertelgte is above reproach, but seeing that you have already made up your mind, I have no desire to convince you otherwise. Any such effort on my part would additionally be fruitless, because as you yourself stated, “And when the author of this article inevitably responds to my comment, be assured I will never look at it.” What I hope, though, is that any of my readers take note and become more cautious of those who worship the ground some Messianic figurehead walks on, lest they be falsely decried as controlled opposition.

    • morgan says:

      The words in your article that you wrote Dont have no meaning to a man of the the lord ..they are backward an upside down to true Christian have advance yourself I can see ..but for who . an why …you must ask yourself ..can you skin a buck or run a trot line to feed thy self ..if not get some experience …your intelligence an in-depth veiws an article u publish for money.. To live your satainic lifestyle in the environment that was given to us the citizens.. by mind games tricking us from reality .. As the evil is spued threw TV an radio. . it is coming to its end ..we are awakeing.. I teach my family only not to waste the brain by not thinking ..think is the hardest task a man will achieve in life.fuck schooling. It is thinking for you If it isn’t good for everyone it not good for me….sorry but to me it seems u have seem to be trapped in the world that was already thought out .. god bless an remember its not to late to ask for him to be accepted in your heart an ask him for forgiveness

  11. Pat says:

    Isn’t it fun to ridicule a man who simply wishes to be left alone?

    Mr. Tertelgate had a valid point in his basic right to breathe air, to drink water, and to feed himself.

    This is not something that is “conditional”. You can try to say it is – but it’s just not. You can try to say it is and back up your position at gunpoint. Sure.

    As interesting as all this is – it points us all back to the origin of the problem. The origin of the problem is Human Slavery.

    Do a bit of research into how Human Slavery is inflicted and who benefits from that arrangement and you will become enlightened.

    The most basic form of Human Slavery is theft of labor. If you perform labor for which you have not been compensated – they either you “donated” your labor or it was stolen from you. If you are forced to perform labor for which you are not compensated – you are a “Slave”.

    We are all slaves under this system. If you have been forced into a position where you have to use “Federal Reserve Notes” and derivatives – it is an objective fact that a significant portion of your labor is “Stolen” from you through the mechanism of Manipulated Currency Valuation. One of the simplest mechanisms by which this is done is “Inflation”. Sure, we all think we know what Inflation is….but if, collectively we did know – we would put a stop to it today.

    Inflation is a monetary scam. Inflation is an intentional swindle. You see, there are 2 main ways of stealing from someone:

    1. You can steal their property. When you steal someones physical property, they tend to notice due to its absence, or
    2. You can steal their labor.

    How do you steal someones labor? There are 2 main ways of stealing someones labor:

    1. You physically enslave them, or
    2. You cause an intentional devaluation of their currency so that for every actual hour they worked – the money they were paid is worth less than before. This is the same end result as being underpaid for labor performed.

    Many people seem to have a hard time visualizing how this works. Perhaps that is why it’s been going on for so long. Here is a simplified explanation of the scam:


    Please take out a dollar bill from your wallet. It says “ONE” on it. Roll it up into a cylinder.

    Make the diameter of the cylinder about 1 inch wide. Imagine you had a bottom on it and a handle on the side. There is your “ONE DOLLAR CUP”. Lets say it can hold a certain amount of sugar or grain or tobacco or whatever can fit in there.


    Lets say your job pays you one of these cups per day. Or one of the cups per hour. Or 20, 30 or 40 of these cups per hour.

    What if someone could make your “ONE DOLLAR CUP” smaller by remote control – using their invisible hand?

    Go ahead and reduce the size of the cylinder of your rolled up dollar bill. Instead of 1 inch in inch diameter, make it 1/2 inch. How much stuff fits in there now? Half as much.

    But look at the outside of the bill. What does it say on there? It still says “ONE”. It doesn’t say “ONE-HALF”.


    Wait a second. Lets say you work an 8 hour day and that pays you 100 of these cups that were originally 1 inch in diameter. So what ever can fit into those 100 cups you just made is what you can trade your days labor for.

    What if by the time you got home from work, your 100 one-inch diameter cups were suddenly only ½ inch in diameter? Wouldn’t that mean that you just worked your same 8 hour day for half-pay?

    Where did the other half go?


    What if somebody could do that to you? What if somebody could manipulate the value of what you use as money – by remote control? Using their invisible hand?


    The above theoretical example of the dollar bill cylinder works great when working with finely divided granular substances.

    What about big things like cars or land? What about intangibles such as “Labor”? You might want to have a more universal measure of value that can be traded for a given amount of labor or a given amount of a commodity.

    So unroll that dollar bill cup you made.

    What if people just started using these slips of paper as money? What if the value of that slip of paper could be changed by “remote control” by someone who wants to swindle you? By using their invisible hand?


    So your dollar bill cup gets smaller. Who benefits?

    This scam favors the banks. If your money buys less, that means more of it has to be devoted to basic necessitates and less is available for other things. It also means that a certain percentage of people will have trouble repaying bank loans.

    Outside of Israel, bank loans charge interest payments above and beyond the loaned amount. So it you borrow $100 – you owe more than $100 back. Unless, you’re in Israel and you are of the Israeli faith.

    Think I’m kidding?

    I’m not.

    Charging interest in so inherently evil that it’s actually illegal in many places. Places like Israel.


    People of the Israeli national faith MAY NOT Charge Interest from others of the Israeli national faith in Israel. It is against the law. The Torah states that it is forbidden for people of the Israeli national faith to charge interest from fellow people of the Israeli national faith (Leviticus 25:37).


    “Interest” is any time a person gets back more than they loaned, whether it was pre-arranged or not. Not only is it forbidden for the Borrower to give the Lender back more money than what was loaned, but he must not give anything extra as a result of the loan.

    What about business loans?

    There is a certain kind of a loan in which Mr. A gives, let’s say, 100 dollars to Mr. B, of which 50 are a loan and 50 are an investment, in order that Mr. B take all of the money (all 100) and do business with it.

    The profits will then be split 50-50. This is permitted under certain conditions, even though the only reason why Mr. B is doing business for Mr. A is because he loaned him the money (which apparently, is forbidden because it is interest).

    Two possibilities in which it is permitted are:

    If Mr. A pays Mr. B a set amount for doing business for him.

    Or: They agree that Mr. B has a choice to either pay Mr. A a set amount for whatever profit is made and Mr. B can keep the rest — or just give Mr. A half of the total profit.


    This latter condition is mostly used today. It is proper to write up this agreement in what is called a “Shtar Iska” (Permission For A Business Venture). A copy of this text can be found in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, chapter 66.

    A Shtar Iska is displayed on the wall in most banks in Israel.

    In any case it is permitted to borrow and/or lend from a non-Israeli national faith person with interest, so many observant people of the Israeli national faith prefer using banks that are owned by people who are not of the Israeli national faith for this matter.

    Now, those were the rules concerning people of the Israeli national faith taking interest from other people of the Israeli national faith. So, what are the rules concerning people who are NOT of the Israeli national faith?

    The rules are: It’s perfectly fine to screw over people who are NOT of the Israeli national faith.

    To be clear: It is OK to charge interest to people who are NOT of the Israeli national faith because -people who are NOT of the Israeli national are viewed as slaves.


    So perhaps now you understand a tiny bit more about what Mr. Tertelgate is standing against.

    I’m quite sure he knows all about this.

    Do you?

    And if you do – what are YOU doing about it(other than talking sh%t about a brave man)?

  12. Allen Curtis says:

    @ Mr. Tertelgate had a valid point in his basic right to breathe air, to drink water, and to feed himself.
    You & I, & undoubtedly at least some more people agree, BUT, those with the might, aka, POWER, disagree, & we all know that might makes & says what is wrong & what is right. And, as Walter Cronkite would say, that’s the way it IS.

  13. Jack says:

    The only ones serving to “further marginalize everyone else” are dishonest imbecilic boot lickers like yourself! For those of us with some education and understanding of these matters, you are not clever enough to fool. Ernie spoke the truth, regardless what tricks and loopholes those in power use to thwart him.

    As the US is not a monarchy, Mr. Tertelgte is correct in refusing to recognize people who claim to hold such office. Furthermore, Mr. Tertelgte is correct about Natural Law as it trumps Humanities Law every time when a human being dies, as there is no appeal to death.

    And please for the love of all that is holy and good, stop pretending to be educated. You haven’t even a grasp of the English language nor grammar. Saying things like, “You may of heard”… you mean ‘may HAVE heard’, genius?

  14. Ernie is a great man with undeniable knowledge. I’m a long distance truckdriver who plans on meeting this man one day. He truly is a man that speaks facts on our courts,lawyers,politicians,etc. Ernie,you are a special man who I admire and want to meet. Thanks Ernie for what you teach an average individual like me.john Meeks jr.zephyrhills,florida

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