A Montana man, Ernie Tertegte appeared in court for fishing without a license and resiting arrests. Tertelgte told the judge “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 the judge, “those men (the arresting officers) were charged by me right back by staging an overthrow of the Constitution of 1789, and the overthrow  Bill of Rights, and overthrow of my rights to forage for food as a natural living person who was in hunger. I was searching for something to put in my stomach as I am recognized to be allowed to by universal law… They violated everything.”

Interesting to note that the Judge ordered him to be removed from the court, but the bailiff did not follow her orders.

Tertelge told the bailiff, “if you touch me you will be violating natural law, do not come near me.”

When the judge told him to “shush” Tertelgte yelled,  “Do not tell me to shut up! I am the living, natural man, and my voice will be heard!”When the judge left her bench, Tertlgte said, “no way, get back here and finish this!”

See video below:

The following two tabs change content below.
Profile photo of Joshua Cook

Joshua Cook

Joshua Cook is a writer and a political activist. He has interviewed many politicians including Rand Paul, Walter Jones, Bob Graham, Trey Gowdy and thought leaders who shape U.S. policy. He is a host of 'Beer and Politcs' on Truth In Media. If you have any tips please email him at joshua@truthinmedia.com. Find him on Twitter @RealJoshuaCook

Reality Check: Donald Trump May Be RIGHT on Birthright Citizenship!

Enter to win $500 of Gold or Silver from Anthem Vault!

Enter below or CLICK HERE for more details.

"Like" Ben Swann on Facebook
  • Dawn

    Our country needs millions more brave individuals like this man. He’s completely correct.

    • Nigel Ciera

      Thank you for your intelligent comment, Dawn!

  • denru

    I guess this IS an issue. If anybody chooses to “live off the wild” and “forage” for their food, then the usual license issue shouldn’t apply probably because he has no money to pay for it much less take the time to worry about having one. On the other side of the coin, regardless whether he was right or wrong, he should have been more respectful to the judge. She didn’t try to do anything but her job.

    • Michael Blake

      respect yeah ok they are the problem and the system.

    • Enufsenuf

      The Nazi soldiers weren’t doing ” anything but their job” either! Are you suggesting that anyone that is ” just doing their job” is entitled to respect? THINK again!

      • Chris

        I was just going to say that. The Nuremberg Trials proved that simply “following orders” does not excuse the actions and/or crimes perpetrated by said orders. Doing one’s job in this respect, a judge, could be categorized similarly.

      • denru

        Last I checked he was still in the U.S. and subject to a fair trial under the constitution he is so fond of quoting. As the rest of us do. That was simply a hearing. He was not put on trial for anything. It was to see if he WAS to go to trial for anything. There is nothing wrong with fighting against unjust laws and their enforcers, but one much choose their battles. People That borderline promote pure rebellion against authority scare me more than the ones who say we should be sheeple and trust the government.

        I do condone he fought for his rights. I don’t condone how he did it. BTW, what Nazis got way with in Germany BEFORE the war would not have even begun here so do NOT compare the U.S. system with Germany.

        • Tom B

          What Constitution?The one that Obama wipes his a$$ with daily?

          • denru

            LOL! Yeah. Probably that one.

    • Herbert Napp

      The fact that you have any upvotes, on this niche site, is terrifying.

    • Tom B

      Respect?The judge should have respect!Your statement is BACKWARDS!Man is not on earth to serve the state!

      • denru

        My point was she did NOTHING to incite this issue. She had no agenda. She just looked at what was in front of her in order to see, in the beginning, if this was something to be taken to trial. He was so focused on his rights he seemed to forget that they WERE being observed. Unless somebody here can explain the law to what it’s SUPPOSED to be and correct my conjecture?

        • Tom B

          The problem is natural law and common law take precedence over ALL laws.People have forgotten that!Now we have Criminal,Tort and Civil.

          • denru

            This would be a great topic then: Discussing about natural law and common law vs. CURRENT law and how it is run. I would like to see this in relation to what just happened here. Let “U.S.” get educated in this matter.

        • Nigel Ciera

          That judge should’ve dismissed that case upon reading it…pure and simple!

  • CriticalThinking101

    Just another story that shows Americans are not free. You cannot even live off the land if you want. Basic needs are shelter and food. Both are highly taxed and highly regulated. You need and and shelter, which is taxed and regulated. You need food, which is taxed and regulated or you need government permission (permit/license) to hunt and fish.

    • Jesse Farmer

      You don’t need government permission. You need to purchase a very inexpensive license, and in exchange, you get roads and trails, search and resuce, and game wardens to keep people from overharvesting and harvesting in unsafe ways (dynamite, gill nets, hooking, etc.).

      A fishing license is like $14. I know that most people commenting here don’t know that, but ya, cry about it.

      Also, food in America is underregulate. That’s why all the GMOs and chemicals and dyes and so forth. You really think Monsanto has it too rough?

      • CriticalThinking101

        I fully understand the intent behind licensing, which varies greatly in costs based on state, but it does not change the fact that shelter (land and homes) and food is overly regulated (often to benefit some business who bought and paid for the politicians) and overly taxed in this country. For the most part, regulations in America are not there to benefit Americans, they are there to benefit the profiteers and politicians.

      • Robert

        Just so you understand this properly because you obviously don’t, those GMO’s you’re whining about were approved by FedGov.

        • CriticalThinking101

          True Story.

        • g.johnon

          well now, that sets my mind at ease. if the fedgov says its good, then it has to be good. right?
          what does not set my mind at ease is all those up votes you got. seriously scary.

          • Robert

            I never stated I supported FedGov’s decisions, I merely was pointing out Fedov created the GMO Monster Jesse Farmer was whining about, while at the same time embracing FedGov’s position of charging me to hunt and fish.

            Reading comprehension while not practiced anymore is still mandatory.

            And the fact you didn’t “get that”, is more scary.

          • g.johnon

            Robert, while you make a wonderful point about reading comprehension you should understand that the key to such comprehension is clarity in the writing.
            and the fact that you don’t get that you dropped the ball on clarity is……well its what it is.
            nice little temper though.

          • Robert

            G.Johnson, if you look at the top of my post you will see who I was replying to and my post would have made more sense to you and we wouldn’t have even had this exchange.

            Also, if you think that is a “temper” you might also have confrontation issues and you might want to get that looked into.

            Now, if you had called me a smartass, that would have been spot on and you would not have gotten this extra tidbit of comment from me, nor would I have disagreed with you because that is what I was being and I posted that to you without an ounce of anger in my body.

          • g.johnon

            ok smartass, it was exactly because of who you were replying to and how you replied that inspired my reply to you.
            while mr. farmer may not understand that, in terms of government issuance, permission and license are the same thing; he actually made a fair point about food regulation, which you do not seem to understand is not the same as government approval.
            while I am not in complete agreement with his statement as I would call it misregulation rather than overregulation, I do respect that he made a cogent point which your reply indicated that you seemed to have missed.
            but I do see where you an I may agree that government approval is pretty much meaningless these days.
            all in all, I think we are on the same side, but I have a suspicion that our paths will be crossing from time to time.

          • Dawn

            I don’t think Robert was defending Monsanto, but rather pointing out the fact that the FDA approved GMOs to be put in our foods unchecked and unlabeled proves that the Federal Gov does not have our best interests at heart.

          • g.johnon

            yep, he cleared that up…finally.

      • WhoCares

        You don’t need government permission, only a license? What the hell do you think a license represents? License is just a euphemism for permission.

        In exchange, you get nothing. Roads and these other things are paid for through other forms of extortion. In addition, you do not have the right or option to choose to build your own roads or hire someone to build roads for you, build your own trails, hire your own search and rescue services, etc. The other stuff is a tragedy of the commons that the government has created on its own. The other crap you wrote is irrelevant.

  • James Hale
    • concerned

      thanks for posting this!

  • Chris

    The very fact that we need a license or permit to do such basic things in America PROVES that we do not have rights. We have not had rights for quite some time; I would bet that probably not even in my lifetime (1990). This is a great example. I need a license to fish, to hunt, to gather food if I have none, to eat if I have no money. If I have no money to buy food then I am obviously not going to buy a permit to fish or hunt. The same is true for demonstrations and protests. We need to acquire a permit to protest. The local magistrate then must approve said permit in order to protest. The very fact that we need to apply for a permit, and then said event must be held under review to be approved, is evidence that our First Amendment right to assembly and redress the government of our grievances is not actually a right at all. Rights are inalienable, they CANNOT BE REVOKED, SUSPENDED, or DENIED – that is the very definition of a RIGHT (if we are to believe that we have rights in America). If I want to protest my government, I apply for a permit to do so, what I am buying into is that my permit could be rejected. My “right” to protest can be DENIED. And often times, permits are denied. This does not make them rights, this makes them privileges by definition. Government cannot offer rights, they do not and cannot hold the power to create rights, rights are given to us by the simple fact that we are alive and that we are human. Government CAN protect those rights. Or, if they so choose, they can deny them and oppress their people. And that is what is happening in America. It is the sad truth that many do not realize. We are not free, we do not have rights, we are politically and fundamentally oppressed if our rights are being treated as privileges. All Americans are indoctrinated into this fantasy world that we can do whatever, be whoever we want; we can be President one day if we so choose. We buy into this idea that we can change the system if we feel it doesn’t work, or if it is “unfair” or unjust. I for one was told all of these things since grade school! Now I am older and can see and, more importantly, I can think for myself. Our rights never existed, we have privileges, guised as rights, in order to give us all peace of mind that we COULD do something if we realllly wanted to. And if you don’t believe me, just try exercising those “rights” of yours. You’ll find out that the police and the government do not honor your privileges at all, and that they are very quick to revoke those privileges from you. All they have to do is bend (sorry, “interpret”) some law, or recite some corrupt law they have already passed, which will always find you in the midst of some sort of illegal action, in order to fine you, incarcerate you, or worse.

    • Jesse Farmer

      Ya, that proves The roads and trails YOU NEED to fish and hunt should magically appear out of Ron Paul’s butt.

      You should be able to machine gun deer in your yard and gill net every stream in the county. That’s liberty!

      Also, be like this guy. Yell at the judge, when you’re clearly and openly in violation of the law. If you like taking a crap in front of 19 other guys.

      Do you even know how much a fishing or hunting license costs? They’re cheap. Real cheap (except for some speciality game,where they should be expensive). In exchange, you get groomed trails, roads, game wardens to make sure idiots like you don’t dynymite lakes (because that’s liberty), serach and rescue when you twist your knee up in the woods and need someone to get your ass out, and so forth.

      Having to pay $14 for a fishing license means there’s no liberty in America. Lol. Ya buddy. It’s an outrage!

      • Robert

        So, do you feel I should have to pay your precious State to hunt and fish on my own property?

        • Aaron

          Apparently that guy feels he needs the gov’t to control how he and others live so you must assume his answer is an astounding yes.

          • Robert

            You are probably correct but I am curious just how much of a Slave to the State he is and demands the rest of us be.

      • CriticalThinking101

        I don’t know about your trails, but the trails I use to access hunting areas were not created or paid for by the federal or state governments. They are old mining trails that were paid for by private businesses that were abandoned. And the trails I use to access fishing areas are the result of many people taking the same path in essence creating a trail.

        • g.johnon

          also, deer and elk create most of the trails in the forests. these are generally the best trails to hunt on.

      • batmanroxus

        We got along quiet nicely before control freaks like you AHole.

    • Ram Jam

      Yep absolutely. One thing PROVES the sum total negated fact of EVERYTHING! Wow. Go get a megaphone and a soapbox you nut.

      You dont have rights? You have the right to act like a douche on this forum right? You have the right to complain to anyone who will listen right? You have the right to choose etc…


      • Nigel Ciera

        Hey, Ram Jam! Shut up, stupid! This man makes perfect sense. Check your United States Constitution and you’ll see that everything that the American government does is not allowed to do. The ONLY thing the American government is supposed to do is protect America and that’s it and nothing else. YOU knew that, didn’t you? There were 400 million sperm in your father’s semen when he ejaculated into your mother’s vagina and YOU got there first? Your father should’ve definitely worn a condom the day you were conceived, you stupid moron. Please get a vasectomy immediately so you don’t breed stupid children in this world!

        • Ram Jam

          “This man makes purr-fect sense”?

          LOL!!!! Wow, birds of a feather flock together right? Too bad you are all….cuckoo birds! HA. I’m hilarious!

      • ModernGeneration

        It’s basic science and logic to classify things based on definitions. If a right is by definition inalienable then one instance of it being alienated demonstrates completely that said “right” is not a right. You should try thinking rationally.

    • Jerry Harlan

      Facts are you really dont need a permit for any of those. However the government does try and trick you. You really dont need a drivers licence either.

  • Miguel Martinez

    Humans are the only animal that pays to live on earth, all other live for free.

    • Ram Jam


      • g.johnon

        got an explanation?

    • Nigel Ciera

      Wow! What a perfect example of a very true statement!

      • Ram Jam

        LOL What a dumb ass you are!

    • Andrew Craig

      Demonstrably false. If you treat a wild animal as economic actor, it has a very high cost of living in terms of manual labor- practically all of its time and resources are spent on mere survival. The human equivalent would be subsistence farming and hunter-gatherer living.

      • Daniel Ros

        The AFFLUENT hunter-gatherer worked on ave about 4 hours a day. Sounds like Eden to me.

        • Andrew Craig

          Nothing stopping you from adopting that lifestyle. Feel free to go try it for yourself.

        • g.johnon

          I assume you can document that those were the true hours worked. or did you mean just the stalking and killing part without the dressing, transporting, preparation, cooking and dodging predators?

          • Daniel Ros

            Go read an anthropology book. You know people who study the history of humans? I’m sure those numbers vary greatly but the AVERAGE hunter-gatheror living in an AVERAGE climate worked 4 hours a day for subsistence. Meaning food, shelter, clothing, tracking, making stone weapons, setting up kill funnels, dressing, transporting, preparation, cooking and dodging sabertooths.

      • Dawn

        But the wild animal does not have someone holding a gun to its head, demanding it give them a portion of what it has gathered or caught. There is no one knocking on the door of a squirrel demanding a percentage of the nuts it’s stored for winter under the threat of being ejected from it’s treehouse…
        There’s a BIG difference.

        • g.johnon

          no, they just have to deal with predators who want to eat them.

  • Klaatu Fabrice Aquinas

    Big problem here. That ‘gold-fringed’ flag does not represent a constitional court. It represents an admiralty or military court. You are under military law or the UCMJ, in a court under that flag. ‘Mountain Man’ should know that, if he is informed as he says he is. Don’t step foot in any court under that flag. It represent the United States. It does not represent the Constitution of the United States of America.

    I really cringe when I see a ‘gold-fringed’ flag in a church sanctuary. No national flag belongs in any religious sanctuary. Another discussion entirely. But in short, a church/synaguoge that displays that type of flag, may as well begin to prepare itself to join the Deutsche Evangelische Kirche.

    • g.johnon

      actually, that was “mountain man’s” point exactly. I thought he made it pretty darn clear.

  • Nate B

    In Missouri, “landowners” — who lease or own more than 7 acres (I think it’s 7) — get a free deer tag, fall turkey tag, and spring turkey tag… and I forget, but there might be a couple more. Anyways, more states should be like this — reward landowners (who, by and large, will be responsible stewards of their resources) by making it very, very easy to legally hunt on their land. Landowners in MO don’t even have to take the “hunter’s safety course.”
    I’m not opposed to conservation. I’d rather it be left in the hands of private citizens or non-profit organizations and not in the hands of the waste-prone govmt, but I think we can find a middle ground.

    • Andrew Craig

      There are some equal protection problems with that sort of scheme. Giving free legal goodies to landowners that the rest of us don’t get generally went out of style with the 1840s.

  • InfowarsMessenger

    man this guy knew his chit big time and slammed those sob;s

  • InfowarsMessenger

    The cop chews gum, that’s what is wrong with these sob’s Aspartaime.

  • batmanroxus

    Good man, reprimanding the disobedient servants. Screw’em.

  • ProofreadPlease

    Does anyone proofread this stuff? How many writing errors can you cram into 4 paragraphs? ugh. Way to detract from the story.

    • Nigel Ciera

      Hey, jackass! Did you “proofread” your own comment? When is it okay to write “ugh.” Shouldn’t that have been Ugh. or Ugh!? Is “Way to detract from the story.” a complete thought? That 6-word statement doesn’t even makes sense on its own. Please stay the hell off the internet, stupid!

    • g.johnon

      you have been woefully distracted by your own priggishness.

  • jabowery

    Libertarians need to think more deeply here. The state of nature is one in which a natural person has de facto rights to fight for his survival — which includes not just his own personal survival but the right to sire and raise children to equally viable adulthood. When I use the word “fight” I mean it: Animals will fight for territorial access for the lives of themselves and their progeny. The Austrian and Lockean schools fail to recognize the situation which arises in nature when an animal is without the means of intergenerational sustenance, and the necessity of aggression in some of those situations. Civilization attempts to ignore this by proclaiming “property rights” as “natural” against “aggression”. This foolishness at the heart of these schools of thought renders them forever vulnerable to collectivists. The way out is trivially obvious: Follow Lysander Spooner’s definition of legitimate government as a mutual insurance company into which men voluntarily invest their natural rights in exchange for shares in and dividends from the company. The premiums paid for property rights take the place of taxes. The dividends take the place of social welfare. The violation of this simple and obvious paleolibertarian construct sacrifices the bedrock principle of liberty upon which civilization is founded for the high purpose of becoming politically impotent against collectivists.

    • Nubby Mcquilicutty

      We dont want to be part of the collective. The collective leaches and steals our hard work for a minimal return, if any. Most have come to the conclusion they would be better of without the collective since the net return is such a net negative participation does not seem worthwhile. Particularly when the collective advocates only for the non-producers and places no value on the producers. Yes some framework is required, but minimal and closer to natural law then the collective is comfy with. I believe this is because deep inside the leaches that make up the majority of the american collective know deep inside they dont contribute and they are effectively losers who could not survive but by the hand of others. That realization is what defenders of the collective are, and will always, run from.

    • jason

      This is probably one of the most eloquent statements I have ever read in an online comment.

    • Ken Simon

      WOW! Beautifully put!

  • Tom B

    Natural law trumps all law.Human beings have a right to exist.

    • Ram Jam

      Say you.

  • Grant

    The first one to exit the battlefield is the one who loses the battle – maxim of law

    • g.johnon

      only if the second one can leave the battlefield.

  • Ram Jam

    Oh my god. You people are nutjobs. “Natural Law”? Ha! Stupid hippies.

    • Nigel Ciera

      Yeah, you keep on thinking that way, jackass! If YOU knew the Constitution you’d know that the ONLY thing the United States government is supposed to do is PROTECT AMERICA! There is nothing in our Constitution that allows anything our government does. No Medicare, no Medicaid, no Social Security, etc. You just keep acting like that smart ass YOU are and you’ll have your damn “right” taken away from you and you’ll find yourself in jail. Grow up, stupid!

      • Ram Jam

        Your sweeping generalizations make you look more like an idiot! You wrote “There is nothing in our Constitution that allows anything our government does.” Yet you really on the same document to allow the government to do what it does? Weird right? Like OMG!

        In closing I like to say a few parting words: Your a moron. I think you should take your own advice and read the constitution in full. Here is a great place to start which handily refutes your shouted arguments. The constitution DOES in fact provide for the protection and defense and WELFARE (no not that one you silly hippie! :) ) of the people.

        “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
        Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
        common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of
        Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
        Constitution for the United States of America.”
        I’m sure you have heard about this right…?

        • Ram Jam

          Come on guy, you type too slow!

        • Alice

          It would have been better if your parting words were spelled correctly: it’s You’re a moron…not Your a moron.

        • Jerry Harlan

          And that means? You have no clue son

          • Ram Jam

            I’m a GOD DAMN COMBAT VEteran! Jesus is REAL! Praise “Merica!!!

        • Jerry Harlan

          According to article 1 section 8 class 2 thru 9 and 17 you are dead wrong kid. Now grow up and learn all your rights

          • Ram Jam

            I see. I see. Except those things don’t exist. Hate too break it to you but you where taught the socialist version. Are you sure you arent a gay?

          • Jerry Harlan

            Yours would be the socialist version in thinking the state has the power. Are you brain damaged?

        • medic2003

          That’s the preamble, not the constitution. General welfare doesn’t mean people get to sit around on the dole. It just means the re will be laws to make sure people have an equal fighting chance. There are certain enumerated powers granted the federal government by the constitution and all others not specifically mentioned are left to individuals and the states. Welfare is not one of those powers the feds get. If you read the constitution a you tell nigel to do you would know this. The tenth amendment would be a starting point for you. Article 4 section 4 is another. Actually read it. Welfare don’t mean medicaid Jack.

          • Ram Jam

            Thats well and good. We are getting off topic. The end of the day take away story is this: IT DONT DAMN MATTER what you crazies want or think, because your wild ideas will never come to fruition. You are a group of less than a 100 left wing nuts and have no influence and never will. Bury your dreams of a crazy America pal. My condolences for your loss.

          • medic2003

            Lol@ left wing. If you really think that then there is no point in trying to explain it. Either you are about as bright as a box of rocks or you are a paid troll for the gop or the dems. The constitution is what it is and your perception of my political philosophy won’t change that.

        • flashnuke

          Makes* You’re a moron*

        • America Rocks

          Obvious troll is obvious.

        • g.johnon

          you make an all too common mistake. first off, to present the preamble accurately you need to make the first three words magnitudes larger than the rest of the words and understand that they are much larger for a reason. now read the entire thing again, carefully, and you will notice that the preamble does not task the government to do any of those things but puts the burden upon us, which makes we the people the actual government. please note the term “to ourselves and our posterity.”

    • Savage99

      Seems some research and reading might enlighten you as to how we got to where we are today. For instance the writings of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich de Vattel, the Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence, etc.

      Basic human rights (life, liberty and property)

      Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through
      gift or trade so long as it doesn’t conflict with the first two rights.

      Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn’t conflict with the first right.

      Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created.

      It seems reasonable that a man if he so chooses should be able to opt out of all government assistance. But if he chooses to keep the protections given to him as under a social contract it at least should allow him to challenge an unjust law. What is the actual crime if there is no victim? Being hungry and eating a fish seems harmless. I believe the bible (old testament) instructed people to leave the corners of their crop fields for people to take food for themselves if they were hungry, without penalty.

      • CEvonK

        If he opts out, then he should leave the country. If you stay here, you agree to abide by our laws. It’s that simple.

        • Savage99

          If you say he should leave the country, then please explain the Native American Indian nations (Hmm?)

          • CEvonK

            You are completely stupid. They are their own “nations,” and as such, are not “in” our country.

            They don’t want idiots like this either.

            If you live in the US, you are governed by US law. It’s that simple. If you don’t like it, tough tihs.

        • Pat

          I think you’re THAT simple

  • Ram Jam

    Just like hitler and Nazis! UFOS!


    knuckle draggers.

  • Kirk

    Damn right. We need about 100 million more like him!

  • http://clintjcl.tumblr.com/ ClintJCL

    weren’t fishing licenses invented because people selfishly fished everything almost completely out of existence, just like with the buffalo?

    • Jerry Harlan

      No tyrant

      • http://clintjcl.tumblr.com/ ClintJCL

        How do you propose we stop the farming of certain species to extinction? We have lots of problems here on the Maryland Chesapeake bay with corporate trawlers scraping the whole bay bed, killing the eggs just grab a few more hatched ones. And historical examples like the buffalo.

        How do we stop that from happening? Can you answer that?

        • Jerry Harlan

          Are you comparing the individual with a corporation?

          • ModernGeneration

            damn right, perfect question

          • http://clintjcl.tumblr.com/ ClintJCL

            A corporation is comprised of many individuals. Without the individuals that make it up, it’s just a piece of paper.

            So yeah, I guess, in this sense, I am comparing the harm that 1000s of people can do as individuals as being teh same type of harm that a corporation with 1000s of people can do as a corporation.

          • g.johnon

            the difference being that those in the corporation are shielded by the corporation from having to be responsible for their actions.

        • Seth

          Perhaps endangered species. But what if everyone had licenses? Than it would be the same ‘issue’ except everyone would be ‘legally’ allowed to fish to extinction. No, awareness is key, not laws as counter-incentives.
          Besides, not everyone is hungry for fish 😉

          • http://clintjcl.tumblr.com/ ClintJCL

            That’s not how licenses work. Even the licenses doled out the easiest — driver’s licenses — are revoked and suspended when people break the rules. But the point with licensure of hunting is spcifically that you have a certain number of licenses. You really don’t know how deer hunting works at all, do you? You think everyone who applies for a license gets it? That’s not how it works. So an argument you submit about “What if things are how they aren’t” is not a good argument, because that’s not how things are.

        • ModernGeneration

          A person could simply not be allowed to perform commerce activities in the Chesapeake bay area. A corporation has a headquarter that should (or at least could) be run to the ground if they are found harming their communities. If this guy is doing some fishing to get some food on the table you are in the wrong for telling him to engage in your market or starve. It goes against natural law for you to impose that on him. A corporation seeks to engage in your market, so if it wants to do so it has to play by your rules. Simple as that

          • g.johnon

            yeah, simple as that. right up until the corporation pulls out is wallet and starts buying off your rule makers.

    • medic2003

      The buffalo were hunted nearly to extinction because our government wanted to starve out the natives. There was no people being selfish about it. It was the same kind of criminal bs we deal with now. True some game management rules need to be in place to keep people from wiping it all out but you can’t compare that to buffalo. I know people who have killed gabber out of season when they were hungry and had no other way to eat. Would you have them starve? I wouldn’t.

      • http://clintjcl.tumblr.com/ ClintJCL

        I wouldn’t either – but I wouldn’t expect a free pass from the law either. Just as I would prefer a starving homeless person to steal a loaf of bread from the baker instead of starving to death, I would at the same time still believe he would face some kind of consequence were he caught in the act.

        The consequence should be small, given the circumstance. But it’s not tyrannical, as much as it just sucks ass to be poor.

    • Savage99

      If only it were that simple….

      Just a few examples of how it was a little bit more complicated than you suggest. Funny how the government had blood on their hands too. Hmmm…

      “The US Army sanctioned and actively endorsed the wholesale slaughter of bison herds.[5]

      The federal government promoted bison hunting for various reasons, to allow ranchers to range their cattle without competition from other bovines, and primarily to weaken the North American Indian population by removing their main food source and to pressure them onto the reservations.[6] Without the bison, native people of the plains were forced to leave the land or starve to death.
      The railroad industry also wanted bison herds culled or eliminated.
      Herds of bison on tracks could damage locomotives when the trains failed to stop in time. Herds often took shelter in the artificial cuts formed by the grade of the track winding though hills and mountains in harsh winter conditions. As a result, bison herds could delay a train for

      …(Protection) proposals were discouraged since it was recognized that the Plains Indians, often at war with the United States, depended on bison for their way of life. In 1874, President Ulysses S. Grant “pocket vetoed” a Federal bill to protect the dwindling bison herds, and in 1875 General Philip Sheridan pleaded to a joint session of Congress to slaughter the herds, to deprive the Indians of their source of food.[9]

      5 – ^ Hanson, Emma I. Memory and Vision: Arts, Cultures, and Lives of Plains Indian People. Cody, WY: Buffalo Bill Historical Center, 2007: 211.

      6 – ^ Moulton, M (1995). Wildlife issues in a changing world, 2nd edition. CRC Press.

      8 – ^ Page 9 T. Lindsay Baker, Billy R. Harrison, B. Byron Price, Adobe Walls

      9 – ^ Jump up to: a b Bergman, Brian (2004-02-16). “Bison Back from Brink of Extinction”. Maclean’s. Retrieved March 14, 2008. “For the sake of lasting peace, let them kill, skin and sell until the buffaloes are exterminated.”

    • pierzstyx

      No. Fishing licenses exist so governments can have another thing to tax you for. Fun fact: People didn’t just hunt the buffalo for the heck of it. The government actually paid people to go out and exterminate the buffalo. Without government incentve the buffalo would never have been driven to near extinction.

      • http://clintjcl.tumblr.com/ ClintJCL

        Okay, maybe the buffalo was an example I shouldn’t have used because of my own ignorance. But there are other examples of mankind depleting environmental resources like overfishing and the like….So, how would this conversation have gone if I hadn’t brought the buffallos into it?

        • ModernGeneration

          there is a big difference between a man doing it for his families consumption and creating a business out of this with large scale equipment…
          so if a man is excercising his natural right then fine, if hes engaging in commerce on a large scale then thats different
          if laws exist and they go against our natural right, then its not applicable in that case, if they are arresting him for it then they are trying to illegally take away that right from him.

          If a “violation” of an imperfect law is happening and doesnt go against the spirit of a law then its simple: dont enforce it in that case. Don’t try to arrest that man, and if you do and he resists then he is innocent and the arrest was unlawful. That’s how it use to be and how the modern generation is being conditioned to find unnatural.

        • Proto84

          Here is a good example of how the government is supporting natural rights for subsistence in Alaska. There are steep fines for over-fishing. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=subsistence.main

          • Lisa Amador

            I sincerely doubt that one man fishing for a meal would create a dent in the environment. There’s a big difference. It’s not like, if allowed, every man would go out and hunt endlessly. And if man did, he would run out of consumers. Such behavior would have no value. There. That solves your theoretical problem.

        • Ray

          No pierzstyx, you were correct about the buffalo (bison), they were definitely purposely hunting to near extinction by hunters working under the direction of the government. (not sure if the government actually paid them though) Here you go, for future reference:

          “Formerly a staple of Native Americans in the Great Plains region of the United States, the bison neared extinction in the late 1800s after several initiatives reduced the number of bison to but a few hundred.

          Primarily, the removal of the main source of meat for Native Americans meant that they would be more easily persuaded to move to reservations, allowing for increased settlement in the West. The railroads also wanted to see the bison herds thinned to decrease the danger they posed to locomotives in the region, allowing for more efficient and less dangerous use of the rails for transportation. Professional hunters were happy to oblige both the government and the railroads because bison hides were valuable at the time in making commercial items such as robes and rugs.”

      • John

        Yeahhhhhh that’s not true. Fishing licenses do serve as a source of revenue but much of that money goes towards conservation of the fishery. Why let a fishery that brings in money go to shit?

        • Lisa Amador

          Precisely John. Well said. Almost all of that revenue is directed back to conservation and preservation.

          • g.johnon

            I don’t know where you live lisa, but where I live all fines go to the court and are put into a pool that is allotted according to whatever formula happens to be in play at the time. no matter what the fine is for, it is all the same money to the city or county to which it was paid.

    • Guest

      The “people” weren’t to blame for the buffalo. The buffalo were deliberately hunted to near extinction by the U.S. government in an effort to kill the native Americans.

    • g.johnon

      no, like all licenses they were invented for cash and control purposes.
      the overfishing thing, mostly carried out on the high seas by large corporations, was just the excuse used by the “inventors”.

  • Dave M.

    God I wish I lived in a Country that was filled with men and women this educated. The man puts us all to shame.

    • Ram Jam

      I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word “educated”…

      • Cody Garrett

        I think he understands it perfectly.

      • Trip Wire

        The education that Ram Jam refers to, is indoctrination. By no means is true and inspired thought produced by the educational machination of these modern times. Seek out the truth, question all things with boldness. Never allow the law of the times to pervert what is naturally right and naturally wrong. In us all we know right and wrong, we are being taught now that right is wrong, up is down, left is right. Tell me nothing of this education, you fool, you seeker of approval from those who are just as foolish as you are. Let this man be so defended by a natural law, the law that is defined by right and wrong.

      • kagil

        A lot of people think educated means brainwashed to buy into the false systems of money, government, maybe religion..

      • g.johnon

        I think he really does. not so sure about you though,

    • CEvonK

      You do live in a country filled with men and women this educated. It’s an unfortunate thing, but it’s true: ignorance is rampant in the USA.

  • Kurt P


  • Renee Coomes


  • Ren

    Curious how that worked out for him. Would like an update to this story on the outcome of the ruling.

    • Ram Jam

      He went to jail. Source: http://tinyurl.com/myqvgxo

      • D. Allard

        I knew only of these days Id get RR by clicking on a link posted. very funny.

  • Ram Jam


  • Ram Jam

    I volunteer as TRIBUTE!

  • Rob Meier

    This is the same thing as this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55pjFKalOVc
    This guy later was very apologetic. It’s like stepping in a puddle and then realizing its 1000 feet deep.

  • Cochise


  • pcmediahost

    That was extremely impressive, the man needs to be a lawyer.

  • Sonny

    “…the source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A — and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.” -Ayn Rand

    • Lisa Amador

      Fantastic reference. Brilliant.

    • earthswakeupcall

      But you see with Hitler in Office now, we are losing any and all rights.

  • Dave Dementia

    This man is my hero.

  • Dwightmannn

    I wish I knew a lot more about the nuances of natural law. I have always been one to do things the way I see fit, and not to be told to fit into a mold. I too am a free man. . .

    • Andy Halavonich

      You should google Marc Stevens and the no state project. He doesn’t really get into natural law but he does consistently and easily prove that our current system is completely fraudulent even when you use THEIR own rules.

  • Danceswithdachshunds

    If we all tried to rely on foraging for food in the wild most of of us would die because, in most places, there is not enough food in the wild to support so many of us. Even in Alaska where many people rely heavily, some exclusively, on hunting for their food, many species would be threatened if hunting seasons and limits were not imposed and obeyed.

    • pcmediahost

      If we free the slaves, then who will pick the cotton?

      • Danceswithdachshunds

        We have embraced technology and there is no going BACK with the size population our technology now provides. There is nothing in nature even close to the intensive farming and ranching practices that feed all of Lisa’s kind in the cities. Take those away and those city folk would all starve in a few weeks. The ones who escape and try to hunt their food will kill everything leaving nothing in their wake.

        Lisa is thoroughly ignorant of the SCALE of just how many human mouths are fed by our technology and how little food there is in the wild to feed all of them.

    • Lisa Amador

      OMG! That is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a very long time. Nature is not finite. Animals can procreate at rates far beyond our own. The percentage of persons that hunt for food, with or without a license, even if they hunted everyday for 100 years, could not distinguish an animal population that would simply renew itself. Every species adjusts, evolves, or becomes extinct, but that was the whole purpose. A new species emerges. A stronger, cleaner, purer, and more fascinating one after the other, and we prevent that with our need to control everything instead of allowing Nature to take its course based on real circumstances, not manmade or man-controlled. We are not that powerful. We have never been, not at anytime in history, and we never will be.

      • time waster

        He said “If we all tried” and his statement is very true. The animal kingdom cannot replenish it’s self faster than we can cull them with the use of a rifle. Especially if everyone was out hunting for food. Look at the buffalo, the American Elk, the whitetail deer in certain area’s. All would be extinct if the state didn’t intervene. And that was years ago. It takes hundreds of thousands of years for new species to emerge in the wild.

        If the current hunters success ratio was 100%, the big game animals in the US would become extinct. Your statement is entirely false and unsubstantiated.

      • earthswakeupcall

        it is ridiculous to you because you as a trendy libtard are missing the point on how the system tries to make money off people by racking up all the charges they can dream up fool!! 2nd. What you were taught ” Innocent until proven guilty”, Uhmm no you are guilty until proven innocent, other wise they wouldn’t have the upper hand to have your ass handed to you by sending people to prison. Do you realize the US has more people in prison than China and China has millions more people than we do. Wake up to reality and learn more than what you apparently have no clue of.

      • Robert Leverence

        you don’t seem to understand evolution… Traits are not always the most beneficial, neither are mutations.

        • Lisa Amador

          It has been that way for millions of years. Who says traits are not beneficial? Who are you to judge? Why is it humans think they are so much smarter and powerful? Mutations, are almost always caused by man, and my point was for us to NOT meddle with nature.

          • Robert Leverence

            says the girl wearing cloths made from plants, glasses made from metals, and using the internet… You are either a troll or so caught up in your absurd ideals that you do not even realize you are defeating yourself.

            Mutations are not man made.. YOu know fuck-all about evolution please study up on it and don’t listen to what church tells you. Do not bother replying unless you’re asking me what to read

          • Bigd Dv

            Robert, can you site one example of a new species? ie…monkey to man, fish to mammal? you think we “evolved”, prove it. what’s that??? silence? darwin’s theory is just that, a theory. there never has been nor will there every be any proof.

      • earthswakeupcall

        p.s wth does what you wrote have to do with this guy anyway. He should be hunting for food… your comment seems to have nothing to do with the justice and he saved himself a few thousand dollars by not having to pay shark attorneys’

        • Danceswithdachshunds

          It has to do directly with his ‘argument’ about there being some ‘natural law’ allowing him to hunt without a license.

          If he wants to eschew ALL modern tools – then fine, let him live in the wild and hunt all he wants with:
          * no metal unless he mines the ore and smelts it himself = no gun, no knife, no metal fishing hooks, ETC.
          * no store bought clothing, he can wear fur from animals he hunts and or spin and weave cloth for himself from animal hair.
          * no matches, ETC. He has to find flint for himself, (which he’ll need for his arrowheads anyway..), or make an ice lens – whatever.
          * He can grow his own food but .. he CANNOT buy (or steal) seeds from anyone.

          * firewood is his only fuel, (unless he finds oil or mines his own coal…)

          Otherwise this moron is just long on spouting off about ‘natural law’ – and very short on allowing himself to be subjected to it.

          • Carter Rische

            Boy you should read a book or something. Clearly you have no idea what natural law is. It isn’t living without any sort of technology which you seem to think. It is the idea that every person is allowed to live their lives how they see fit, provided that they are not directly disabling someone else from living their’s how they see fit. There are laws of nature. Mostly basic, like this man’s right to catch and eat whatever food he can on his own property. No one should have the ability to tell him he can’t or force him to stop, otherwise THEY are acting outside of natural law. This is where we get the phrase ‘outlaw’. That is exactly what the police were trying to do.

          • kagil

            I don’t understand how permits limit hunting anyway. The costs are not that high- the fact is, it can be hard work. People in general won’t do it even WITH beef prices so high. The money just goes to support more and more government, that in turn have to justify their positions.

      • KB93

        Nature is not finite? Yeah right what you wrote is the most ridiculous thing I’ve read all day, and the rest of your comment doesn’t get much better. Do you know how many people are currently living on our earth? If we could hunt unrestricted their would be many more extinct species, and we have continually hunted animals into extinction despite this. Early man had no law and far fewer numbers and it still didn’t end well for more than one species. And if you really believe that new species will just emerge to take their place you are mad, the rate new species are created via evolution is no where near as quick as we humans could potentially devastate them. Humans are part of nature. Any circumstance we experience is man controlled including a decision to restrict hunting or leave it unrestricted. This is our reality and therefore is a real circumstance. We are so powerful we may even drive ourselves into extinction, likely along with most other species, sparing only cockroaches and a select lucky few. I disagree with everything you said, but I too believe fishing laws are extensive for your average man. The reason for these laws is so that people who set out to catch as many fish as possible, and sell them every day, do not hunt them in a way that would extinct them. This man meant no such large scale fishing, but each catch and kill adds up quickly when taking into consideration just how many others are also catching a fish during that exact moment throughout the region. Sure we may be progressively more outnumbered by a type of fish at one point, but inevitably the amount of fish will dwindle. As their reproduction is slowed by our catches, the number of offspring will be much smaller, which would mean the entire population is getting continually smaller. Final verdict | hunting and fishing laws are necessary for man to sustain itself in the present and in the future, but this man is a boss and shouldn’t get charged for this since you have to pay for a fishing license. This is why our fishing laws are outrageous, as a poor man would starve before he could afford a fishing license and catch himself an essential meal.

        • Lisa Amador

          In a ecological study 1966 by ESA concluded that animal populations, which don’t increase at rates their fertility would allow, and rarely decrease to extinction, are simply stable. The human population has grown continuously since the end of the Black Death around 1400, though the most significant increase has been in the last 50 years. Almost all growth has taken place in the less developed regions, where today’s 5.3 billion population of underdeveloped countries is expected to increase to 7.8 billion in 2050. In 1800 only 3% of the world’s population lived in cities. By the 20th century’s close, 47% did so and by 1950, 83 cities major cities around the world had populations exceeding one million. There was another mass urban expansion in the 1970s and if the trend continues, the world’s urban population is predicted to double in 38 years. So, what impact has it had on our natural resources? Nada. Nothing. Water levels have not decreased as predicted. Why? Because it rains. A lot. With a little ingenuity, cities focused on storing much more of this free commodity. Trees are another example, as the EPA has essentially shut down an alarming number of paper mills. These were private mills on private property, where millions of trees were harvested, cut, replanted, allowed to grow while other acreage was harvested and replanted, and so on. The only know impact to the environment was cleaner air, as younger trees consume much more carbon dioxide, less forest fires, and reusable, recyclable, and ecologically friendly packaging was the predecessor to Styrofoam and the plastic bags that are chocking our oceans. The UN forecasts that today’s urban population of 3.2 billion will rise to nearly 5 billion by 2030, when three out of five people will live in cities. You see? People aren’t occupying more of the planet, they are living on top of each other, clumping together and then complaining that there’s less room. It’s just like us to be so illogical. Meanwhile, animals are relatively unaffected, so are their environments, the ice cap is shifting, not depleting, and nature continues to thrive with or without our help.

          • bill thorton

            lisa, if the power went out, youd be dead in one day.

          • Rhapzodic

            You’re kidding me right? Do you know the word ‘camping’? Or better yet: technological fasting? Albeit somewhat unusual, theres people out there that live without a single electrical volt of power or anything like that. I’ll just stop, I feel bad for putting you on the spotlight of ignorance.

          • bill thorton


          • Rhapzodic

            Man you must some special kind of stupid. For me, and probably most people that go camping, we go POWERLESS. There’s no electricity, no batteries, no nothing. Thats the WHOLE POINT of CAMPING YOU DUMB SHIT. LMAO!

          • bill thorton

            Do you not get it? Millions of people will be without power, which means they will all be trying to do the same stupid shit as you, camp and survive. You know absolutely nothing about survival apparently. Lol special kind of stupid? srsly youre more dumb than a bag of rocks LMAO!!

          • Bob Bullock

            Big increase in population in the welfare community as well, the more children they have the more money they make.

          • g.johnon

            stomp the poor!!! yiiiiipeeee!

          • Heath Bettag
        • Bigd Dv

          i would love you to show me one case of a new species ever.

          • g.johnon

            liger :-)

      • Danceswithdachshunds

        Sorry Lisa – we ARE the top predator and our technology has allowed our population to grow to a size that nature simply CANNOT support! Just in our LOW density country of 300 million people there are only 3.8 million square miles = .0127 square miles = 8 acres per person! I’ll bet you your life that 8 wild acres anywhere will not support you, ( we’ll fence it in and you can have any guns you want but sorry, hunting and foraging only – no farming, no domesticated animals allowed…)

        • zpeebels

          Guess you’ve never heard of Free Range Cattle. Shut up.

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            Oh, so now you are calling a DOMESTICATED animal “wild life”! Pfft!

        • Brian Gulyas

          That is stupid. With 8 acres I will feed lots of people, why in your world does one not farm or domesticate? It is our world Make the most out of it. I Eat lots of food off the land it is better for us as a Planet then to ship across the world for a melon.

          • Danceswithdachshunds

            Do you have ADD, can you manage to stay focused enough to READ my OP of this thread and the one 4 comments up in order to restrain yourself from making totally non sequitur replies?

            Yeah! 8 “FARM acres” will support a lot of people – 8 “WILD acres” (of average condition, no cherry picking – what’s the ‘average’ of Death Valley and western PA?) cannot support even one person. The populations of those Native American Indian tribes who did NOT farm (Sioux, Blackfoot, etc.) were limited to hunting and foraging so their populations were limited to no bigger than what the wild would provide – FAR fewer people per square mile than now. Long before Europeans arrived there were great starvation events associated with long droughts that culled wild herds and also culled the humans who relied solely on them for meat. (and not surprisingly the reason those same tribes were the most territorial and most ferocious warring tribes.. )

      • smeat3

        Like the stronger, cleaner, purer bison that emerged right after we slaughtered them all from train cars? You’re insane.

        • zpeebels

          smeat3, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. American Bison were slaughtered in mass only for their furs. If they were killing them for the sole purpose of food and only doing so when they needed, there would be even more bison now than existed at their peak populations.

          • smeat3

            You’ve missed the point. I know exactly why they were killed. Lisa’s argument that humans are “not that powerful” or that there is a newer, better species just waiting to fill in for our mistakes is completely invalid. Humans are perfectly capable of destroying all eco-systems if we wanted to. (See Iraq, salting the Kurdish marshes) and even on accident (see the American dust bowl). We are that powerful and we buck nature. Allowing nature to take its course with no manmade/controlled influence, is impossible in a world where people exist. Even where we are no where nearby, our pollution effects the planet.
            So yes, your second point is correct. But that’s not what she was saying. Trying to give an evolutionary argument for how little effect humans have if left unchecked/unregulated is completely invalid. Unregulated, we shoot all the bison for furs and bones.

          • http://marcelbrown.com/ Marcel Brown

            We are nature. We have the power to both destroy and preserve. It is both unfortunate and redeeming. But government is no better at saving the bison than free people are. Perhaps if our government would have recognized the claims of the natives then the bison wouldn’t have been exterminated. The same is true today.

          • Rod

            Umm bison are not extinct. There are many out here being raised. Buffalo burgers are awesome. Deer population is out of control here as well. The Government is not helping the people or the animals. They see dollar signs only.

          • http://marcelbrown.com/ Marcel Brown

            Bison are not extinct, but for the purposes of this discussion, as brought up by another, they are virtually annihilated. This shows my point, however, that we people have the power to destroy or preserve. It is because of us humans that bison are now growing in numbers as private ownership has increased their population (after we nearly destroyed them, of course).

          • Brian Gulyas

            We shot them to starve Indians, We did not need the hides. It was to stop a peoples way of life

      • g.johnon

        here in the state of Washington it was open season on the black bear 12 months a year 40 years ago because there were so many that nobody could count them. today, one short season a year because now we can count them.

    • Robert Leverence

      stop making sense, you’re gonna anger the anarchists

    • Lisa Amador

      Who says “we all” want to forage for food in the wild. Despite a substantial increase in population, wildlife has increased by 13%.

      • Danceswithdachshunds

        Yeah, thanks to hunting restrictions and license fees that are used to MANAGE wildlife populations.

        • marko

          right because without regulations everybody would start hunting for their own food… this is a ridiculous statement. first of all, all property should be private, so hunting “laws”
          are determined by the owner of the property… second, farm and factory(yuck i know) raised meat would NOT cease to exist if we lifted your silly regulations that make you feel like you are making the world a better place through force

          • abcdefg

            you’re partially right. what would also happen is that poachers and commercial fishing industries would pillage resources to extinction. corporations would pollute them to infertility killing off vast ranges of species.

            way to many of you take this type of crap too literally. the department of natural resources or whatever its called in your local is not there to prevent individuals from hunter/gathering and providing for themselves within excess. they are there to protect those very resources you’re hoping to provide for you from entities that wish to cause major damage. the fact that some people are too petty to pony up the $20 or so that it cost to purchase a license to help fund these services and want to cry tears of woe about the gubment being intrusive would have few untainted resources to enjoy without these protections.

          • http://marcelbrown.com/ Marcel Brown

            Corporations would not pillage resources to extinction when there is private ownership. The profit motive would ensure they do not destroy their own assets (or the assets of others whom would then be owed restitution). They can only do this when land is “owned” by government and there is no accountability. The worst environmental offenders in history are communist countries and our own government.

          • g.johnon

            then why the hell are they destroying the purchasing power of their own customers?

      • g.johnon

        lisa, you may have a good point, but could you be specific as to since when it increased by 13?

  • Constitution_In_Crisis

    Great job, Ernie! You should have been a constitutional lawyer. This government cannot possibly be legitimate. No legitimate government would declare, as this one has, that it has the ability to abduct and torture anyone captured anywhere – all without charge and without trial – as the 2012 NDAA does. While some might suggest that this man is crazy, perhaps it is the rest of us who are truly crazy for regarding as legitimate something that clearly is NOT!!

    • g.johnon

      it is not legitimate, it’s title 9 admiralty (kings) color of law bullshit that was foisted upon the American people as part of the package when the federal reserve banksters overthrew the republic back in 1913.

      • CEvonK

        You are a moron. He’s being tried under state law, not federal law. Title 9 is federal law.

        You have no idea what you are talking about.

  • CEvonK

    Complete moron.

    • g.johnon

      who? you?

      • CEvonK

        No, you, and all the lunatics who don’t understand how our government works.

        • g.johnon

          oh, me and them. now I got ya. thanks for clearing that up.

          • CEvonK

            You’re a complete idiot.

            So, you son’s an architect.

            Bowing down to building codes established by law to protect people from unscrupulous builders.

            Kow-towing to local landscape design ordinances established to keep the community looking “nice.”

            Sucking up to the local building inspectors who, for the protection of occupants, demand that there be no more than so many 120V outlets on a branch circuit.

            Licking the boots of the AIA and designing buildings in accordance with laws requiring handicapped access.

            You son is, by your own standards, a brainwashed buffoon who stands in the way of people who want to go out and throw up an apartment complex on their own land without following government regulations.

            He’s not qualified to change the law. He’s not qualified to influence the law. He’s only qualified to follow the law, and he only makes a living by following the laws that society has established to provide safe buildings.

            You have raised a son whose livelihood is entirely dependent on following the law the government imposes.

            Yeah, you are a COMPLETE gnikcuf moron.

          • g.johnon

            so much assumption, so little fact. and outstanding examples of convolution.
            keep it coming vonk, this is getting very entertaining.

          • CEvonK

            So, you say your son does not follow the law?

            You are a complete gnikcuf idiot.

          • g.johnon

            I said this where exactly?
            you are obviously a troll and a waste of time. you do not have a law degree as you are not half smart enough to pass the bar exam in any state. run away and squash bugs or whatever you do to entertain yourself.

          • CEvonK

            So, you admit that your son’s livelihood IS based on following the laws established by the state, laws that prevent people from doing what they want to on their own land, laws that require people to construct buildings in accord with the rules set up by the state for protecting people for their own good.

            Relish that: you have raised a tool of the state.

          • g.johnon

            you may well be breaking new ground in convolutional blithering. keep it coming, i’ll make myself some popcorn.

        • g.johnon

          oh! me and them. thanks for clearing that up.
          now, oh wise one, could you perhaps spare us riffraff the time to set us straight on just exactly how our government works?
          sure would appreciate it.

          • CEvonK

            Try getting a law degree. It will disabuse you of a lot of foolish notions.

          • g.johnon

            and will so thoroughly abuse you with so many more.
            so, apparently you have nothing then.

          • CEvonK

            No, I have a law degree, an education in the law. You have a semi-literate understanding of legal concepts, and it shows in your complete lack of knowledge about how your own government works.

          • g.johnon

            thinking back to what my wife once told our oldest boy when he was considering law school. “if you even think about it I will drown you in the bathtub” I am so very relieve that he chose a productive course and became an architect.
            you are just a brainwashed punk with a license to be an asshole. the law you have been trained to understand is the one that allows priggish psychopaths to do theft and murder to the masses without fear of legal recourse.
            you forgot to say what your specialty is, so I will leave it at that.

  • 1rq234tr12t4

    Why does the video have massive sections of missing audio?


    He’s fortunate Aunt Bee was the judge because I suspect any other judge would have ordered a psychiatric evaluation and thrown him right in jail afterward.

    • Ernie McDowell

      He WAS thrown in jail right after…For contempt of court.

    • Reasonable Person

      Most ridiculous exchange I have ever seen! Just no words.

  • Christopher Ayala Menchaca

    Got to love this!

  • Joshua R. Kern

    The audacity of these people to threaten us with imprisonment, violence and eventual murder and expect it to be seen with any kind of legitimacy. $500 fine and/or six months of imprisonment for refusing to obsequiously fawn before the lowliest agents of the state; for fishing. Contempt of court is the most glaringly fraudulent of all charges, the very idea that a man is threatened into showing this evil system the deference is demands.

  • rejected08

    Man of the year award goes to this man.

  • Andy Halavonich

    Why’d my comment talking about Marc Stevens and the No State Project get removed?? Go to markstevens.net to see someone who successfully does what this guy tried to do. If Ben Swann is truly a free and “independent” journalist… he’d interview Marc… Buuuttt… He won’t. What’s that tell you?

    • rae_ekaf

      You are absolutely correct, Andy. Government Indicted.

    • g.johnon

      andy, I have put up a few posts that didn’t get through, I think it is just a glitch (probably user error). at least I hope so.

  • Elli21486

    It seems that the individual known as The Living Man was arrested shortly after leaving the court for Contempt of Court.

    • Ryan Hawley

      how does it seem???? he drove off. he was right also. they can not arrest him for anything

    • Gregory Alan of Johnson

      Provide a link to that please. Thanks.

  • Jen

    Good for him over time the laws have become quite intrusive and it is about time that someone spoke up about it what right does anyone have to say we have to purchase fishing license, hunting license or anything people want to bitch if homeless people are sitting on the side of Walmart begging for food at least this man was trying to get food himself. Instead of us congratulating him for speaking up and doing his best to take care of himself we try to punish him for ” not purchasing a fishing license” who the hell determined we needed to purchase a dang thing so we can eat. If its a license you want then don’t charge us for it who gets the money for these licenses it sure isn’t the fish we are fishing….All these “powerful” people have allowed greed and power get to their head and want to “charge” us for everything. Don’t wear your seatbelt? Charge. Want to fish? Charge Want to hunt? Charge….oh yea and my new favorite…..want to live? Required to insure self……Charge! Freedom my ass!! We are all owned by the government and their laws and unless more people like him speak up its only going to get worse.

    • Heather

      I was ticketed for fishing without a license once. My husband had 2 fishing poles, and his cousin had one. When the DEC pulled up, they demanded the lines be pulled in. Out of frustration, my husband asked me to reel in his other line. I was ticketed for doing what the DEC requested, even when my husband told them that both lines were his, and I was not fishing. I plead not guilty, had a signed, notarized statement from my husband and his cousin to the events, and still lost in court because the DEC official claimed that he saw me fishing from across this huge lake and the judge took his word over my own, my husband’s, and his cousin’s.

      It is a police state. This is just a small example of what BS people put up with just to fish.

    • g.johnon

      what is really unfortunate is that half the people standing outside Wal-Mart begging for food are people who work there.

  • http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

    Well, he’s got my vote for any office for which he cares to run.

    • Shanghai Alex

      Seems as he is a free individual, respecting the liberty of others, too. So he would most probably not be interested in reigning and governing over anyone else, which would be breach of universal law, NAP and common sense of all free men. And he is much more clever than anyone to call him retarded.

  • Brian

    You people need to get out more and see the world, there are so many animals for people to eat. Get out of your liberal dwelling and explore the world more. People who cite with the government make me sick! You people need your head examined for a brain. Wait till Agenda 21 hits here at home, then I will personally come hunt you guys down make you live this way – it’s what you want right? What’s this world coming too, teachers have brainwashed everybody these days with the liberal agenda, my GOD help us!

  • Reasoniam

    There’s more to this story. Like all the errors the judge made regarding court procedures. One was denying Ernie his appointed court representative because he wasn’t a licensed attorney. How many cases have you seen where the omnibus hearing was 2 weeks before the trial where voir dere and the trail and the verdict was all had in one day? And no one crossed examined the state’s witness ? Talk about a kangaroo court!

    • Heather

      In my local (very small) township here in NY, you are issued a court date. If you do not send back the ticket with a “not guilty” plea, the first appearance is to establish your plea. The next appearance is the trial. You can avoid this plea appearance if you send back the ticket to the court with your plea before your appearance, and they will either keep your court date or schedule a later one.

  • hunterson

    Hmmmmm….sounds like this case demonstrates pretty well that a man who appoints himself his own lawyer has a fool for counsel. In this case the Judge sounds pretty foolish as well.

  • Terry

    Seems I remember that many Europeans came here excited because they were previously not allowed to hunt, kill or eat the “kings deer”. Now we are back to where the king owns the deer again.

    • CEvonK

      Not the king, but the people. All the people of Montana own those fish. If Tertgelte wants to take some, he has to follow the rules set by the people of Montana.

  • Craig Myers

    The guy needs to be jailed for disrespecting the court. He could have foraged for food just like every other US citizen is allowed to do, by obtaining a permit and abiding by laws that prevent over-fishing so that all US citizens can forage for fish. He spits in the face of our constitution and all of our rights to forage. Imagine if this lunatic got his way and suddenly every hunter in upstate NY decided they needed 2-3 whitetails a week year round to feed their families….. they would be extinct in a year.

    • Poor Yorick

      Mr. Myers, really? Jailing him for disrespect?! The punishment should not be more than the alleged “crime”. Why not? Backlash. The disrespect for Mr. Tertelgte’s right to feed himself in a way that harmed nobody happened long before the hearing. Do we have such a nice, kind government that it ALLOWS us to do so many things like feeding ourselves? A permit is a request for permission and if not granted stands in the way of the exercise of a right. You then contradict yourself in the wisdom of a permit when you talk about “all of our rights to forage”. Laws and licensing that violate our natural rights are not only unenforceable, they are tantamont to tyranny.

      • Craig Myers

        I don’t consider spitting on our legal system to be a minor thing, though you obviously do. He has every right to feed himself…just like the rest of us…without stealing. It appears you’re completely unfamiliar with fish licencing as you would know its less “permitting” and more “paying your hatchery fees to restock the fish you’re intending to take”. You pay a very low amount that could be gained from “foraging” cans and bottles and it entitles you to fish year round and all the money is applied to programs that keep the fish populated to ensure we don’t over-fish….which you would also know if you were familiar with the system you’re arguing over. You can cry tyranny all you want but as a sportsman I’m here to tell you this country will never allow you to take for free what we pay to sustain.

        • Poor Yorick

          You are the one talking about “spitting” and claiming that it is being done. There are far more fish and wildlife available to be foraged than that which is managed or stimulated (with questionable efficacy) by government agencies and policies and yet government claims dominion over all of it and wants money for permits for all of it. Do laws and policies really make people moral? Those who will overfish or over- hunt will do so regardless of the law. Those who are able and see a clear benefit can offer a donation instead. A servant government would, in general, be more effective if paid based on performance and that on a donation basis.

        • Free Fishing For All

          By your arguments, it is only through permit programs fish and wildlife remain in a sustainable state to not become endangered or extinct. For thousands of years people have fished and hunted without seriously damaging the population of most fish and wildlife. The government decided to charge a fee as a means to increase government revenue. Hunting and fishing is considered a privilege in the eyes of the government. This is not “spitting” on the constitution but upholding the principles upon which it was established. This man is exercising his natural right to obtain one of the basic needs of life without harming another individual. Another point you made in error is that permit monies are used to fund hatcheries that ensure fish populations stay up for those permitted to fish. Hatcheries only populate popular fishing spots. There are tens of thousands of lakes, rivers, and streams that have been fished for centuries without hatcheries refilling them and yet fish continue to repopulate year after year so your argument that one man fishing to survive will create a slippery slope toward the extinction of fish in this country is beyond absurd. It is socialistic thinking like yours that the government is always right is what is wrong with this country. This man is more patriotic to the fundamentals of this country then you could ever be.

          • Craig Myers

            for thousands of years we didn’t have 7 billion people on this planet…your argument is moot.

    • http://marcelbrown.com/ Marcel Brown

      If you use the word “allow” then you’ve removed the idea of rights. Rights are not for a government (or anyone) to dole out. They are inherently yours or else they are privileges.

      In a truly free society, hunters could not hunt deer out of existence because deer would be living on land that was privately owned. The owners of that land could choose to allow hunters or not. Those that did allow hunters would probably limit the amount of deer hunters could kill because doing so would be in their best financial interests. Only when government “owns” land does it seem that any efforts at conservation are circumvented.

      • Craig Myers

        i didn’t say the government allowed anything, i said this country…as in all the people in it. Also we as a people decide what rights we have so you are wrong. If you aren’t wrong then by all means, show me the document that states what rights we have that wasn’t created by any person.

        • g.johnon

          all of em.

    • g.johnon

      you make some fair points regarding sustaining natural resources, but please don’t call something that requires a license a right.
      as for his disrespect of the court. it is our duty as WE THE PEOPLE to be diligently critical of all phases and levels of government. please show me where the constitution stipulates that contempt of court is a crime and not a defacto duty.

      • Craig Myers

        who said it was stated in the constitution that contempt is a crime?

        • g.johnon

          no one that I know of. you said the man should be jailed for disrespecting the court. same as contempt of court.
          my contention is that the title 9 court should not even exist in the usa. and that contempt of court is not a crime. and the constitution does not expressly give gov the right to make it one.

          • CEvonK

            You are a tihspid. He’s not being tried in federal court.

          • g.johnon

            you actually mad a point. I was meaning title 5 not 9. my bad. guess I am a tihspid afterall. but you are still a troll without a clue.

          • CEvonK

            No, I’m a person versed in the law, while YOU are an ignorant tihspid, who has no clue about what the law means.

          • g.johnon

            fix your meds, really. maybe the nurse will let you have the green jello again.

  • MG

    Just saying Craig, this is one man alone, he wouldn’t have the capability to “overfish” at all compared to the people that are actually overfishing, and plus when has the innocence of humanity become a crime? He obviously needs help and obviously the current system isn’t or has not worked for him, he should be free and have absolutely every right to forage for food, put yourself in his shoes and have a think about whether or not you thought you should have the free right as a person to forage for food or whether you’d have to spend your time first going through a process of getting some ridiculous permit to be allowed to do something that’s natural and free? Corporations out there make billions a year by slaughtering animals, why not poke attention to that instead one individual person starving and in need for food.

    • Craig Myers

      Aren’t we all “one man alone”? … all 5 billion of us? I don’t understand how taking the law into your own hands despite a ridiculously easy permit process constitutes “innocence of humanity”. When this wackjob comes “foraging” in your garden because his “innocence of humanity” entitles him to your carrots, is startled by your curious five year old and accidentally stabs him with a garden tool, it will be a different case of him taking the law into his own hands, wont it? This may be an extreme example but where do we draw the line between “innocence of humanity” and disrespectful criminal needing justice? I have been in his shoes as I started out in this world with nothing at 17 and in a position of needing help desperately and you know what? I got it through the appropriate channels and was able to get on my feet and stabalize all without taking the law into my own hands. As far as “corporations making billions of dollars slaughtering animals”, they are extremely large companies moving seriously large amounts of product so of course they make billions. It’s these same corporations that allow us to have beef chicken and pork at nice low prices. The Mcdonald’s double cheeseburger has won awards for being the most nutritious, calorie packed sandwich for the cost and it doesn’t take long to “forage” for a buck…legally….thanks mostly due to these same corporations.

      • casterofpeals

        when he trespasses on your land and steals from it, he is not within his rights. nobody is arguing that point, and neither is he.

        but going to the gov’t to get permission to do something that is not a violation of someone else’s rights, is the act of a slave.

        we are free men, and gov’ts are instituted among men to ensure it stays that way.

        free men owe the gov’t nothing–slaves get permission slips to exercise freedom. all we are doing, when we go get permission to drive or kill an animal, is paying off a cartel that monopolized force to force money out of us.

        and, if we were truly a free market, it would be highly beneficial for someone to gather a popularly hunted/gathered animal/plant, and multiply it whilst the availability in the wild goes down… ie, farms and ranches. and yes, animals have gone extinct because of hunting, but as society progresses under a free market economy, charity goes up (so long as taxes and gov’t fundings stay low). so i could imagine seeing nonprofit/forprofit conservatories out there where they save these increasingly rare creatures. no need to take tax dollars to do that (as you mentioned in an earlier comment).

        imagine all the species of animals (and human lives!) saved if the world was libertarian!

        • Craig Myers

          I can only imagine the ones that would be lost due to having no financial value and being at the wrong place in the food chain that a process like this would inevitably ruin.

          • casterofpeals

            that’s where you are wrong–there are many conservatories for what i consider some of the dumbest animals to have conservatories for–but, at the same time, i’m glad people are doing it. do you know how much money wealthy philanthropists give to charity each year? do you know how beneficial it is to have “endangered species saver” in your list of what-i-do-because-i’m-stinking-rich when socialists have you branded as satan himself?

            i for one know that the minute i get a steady, good, income, i’m going to start habitats for endangered birds. know why? because i like birds, and that’s my only reason. though it would be a net loss, i find value in that, and there are millions like me… now if only we had a free economy, which would help raise standards of living for all the long haired hippies like me 😀

          • g.johnon

            all the dinosaurs died, and yet here we are.

          • g.johnon

            I wonder if it would actually ruin more people than the system we live in now. hard to think that it could since this one is going down hill fast.

    • g.johnon

      yep, steal a loaf of bread for your family and you go to jail. but rip off the entire country on an ongoing and regular basis and you get reelected.
      land of the fee, home of the slave.

  • Jørgen Fordelsen

    We have the laws of physics which are fixed laws. They derive from the universal law which EVERYTHING is built upon. As men we create things, but we are born with common sense. Common sense and language is much closer to universal law than the fictitious legalese language constructed to be incomprehensible to ordinary people and has nothing to do with common sense and universal law, you follow? This man was handcuffed and dragged out of court Nov. 22. without consent, not allowed to object against that they used legalese language against him who spoke for him self, natural living being, not a property of the state. The prosecutor said; improper injection due do violation of bla, bla ,bla legalese shit that dont have a damn thing to do with common sense and certainly not universal law! I cant believe that judge and prosecutor can be able to live with them selves. Its our universal right to sustain ourself in that matter that we dont hurt others. The man was fishing for food for Gods sake not for export! Someone please unfuck the system!!


    • Craig Myers

      This is the United States. Our forefathers decided what basic principles we would follow and we as a people agree and those who do not are welcome to leave. Common sense tells me when I get arrested to get a lawyer and this gentleman refused one, that was his choice. Common sense also tells me that if everyone fishes and no one helps pay for hatchery programs we run out of fish. To “unfuck the system” as you put it, is to allow anarchy based on personal desires. Common sense says this is why we are civilized…or at least a good part of it.

      • Aaron Nash

        Craig, you talk a lot of common sense. If he was foraging for food I doubt he had the money to retain a lawyer. Seems like common sense to me there. If you would like some more common sense when it comes to the government I’d like to recommend Thomas Paine who wrote such a book.

        • Craig Myers

          common sense knows that the US offers lawyers to those who can’t afford one.

          • Jørgen Fordelsen

            Common sense says treat others as you wish to be treated. Who with common sense would fish more than they needed? And who with common sense would need a lawyer to speak another language (legalese) for them selves if it wasn’t for a system with no common sense? Common sense would allow us to self govern. I’m sorry but the system is F#¤%D, this is where we begin to fix it :)

          • g.johnon

            yep, and buy god them court appointed lawyers are the best that no money can buy.

      • Mengus Dew

        You are a fool. The only reason why everyone fishing for food WOULD become a problem are because there would be too many people or some people fishing too much. If the government didn’t control everything and it was all natural law then natural selection would run it’s course an that would NOT be an

        • Craig Myers

          you are a fool…for not offering any reasonable position and just mudslinging.

    • g.johnon

      some of us are trying jorgan. others just want to be safe.

  • http://rodericke.com/ RoderickE

    This is how to see this: http://rodericke.com/hunger-games-now

  • Marc

    I fought and bled for this country; citizens like this make me proud to say that I did so.
    Do not let anyone take away your rights.
    If you’re hungry and NEED food for yourself or family, go get it as long as you’re not stealing or hurting anyone.

    • Craig Myers

      yeah!!! and don’t bother paying anything towards the hatchery/restock programs in the form of permit/liscencing fees. Everyone should be allowed to benefit from the laws we have in place without having to abide by them.

  • Aj Rossberg

    This guy is my hero. He’s completely right. If you state that you are
    representing yourself as a natural human and not a corporation you can
    legally get away with anything that doesn’t break natural law (basically
    causing harm). The government sees you as a corporation as soon as you
    get a social security card/birth certificate. And in court they are using legalese and
    charging you as a corporation, so you can deny that and refuse to acknowledge legalese and they have no
    charges against you personally. I think if you sign anything though, you
    are acknowledging it and would be charged.

    • Dustin

      Everything you said makes sense, the problem is that the reasoning behind the law itself of requiring a license to hunt or fish is because in the past studies have shown that many species have become endangered or nearly extinct because of high levels of hunting or fishing (by both humans and corporations). Thus, in order to better keep track of the growth or decline of the animal populations, requiring a license and also requiring a set hunting season for certain animals helps organizations to better study and to hopefully create a better cycle in the ecosystem to keep the animals alive and flourishing. Technically, your argument is right in the sense that we don’t have a right to decide what lives and what dies under the thought process of natural law and under the logic of “survival of the fitness.” The problem is that humans are at least smart enough to realize that overfishing, overhunting, over-gathering, etc, can lead to the end of a species entirely, thus there needs to be some level of intervention. I understand the guy’s argument, but if a town of 25,000 people went into the nearby woods and hunted and fished daily for bears, trout, wild hogs, etc… those animals would never have enough time to reproduce to continue a healthy population.

      • Dustin

        And just to show it is not always about something against humans. In Louisiana, the redfish population was nearly killed off in the early 1980s from the “blackened” seasoning boom. Today, the law allows a regular licensed person to catch one to three redfish per day, as long as they are over 12 inches long…. and the law does not allow any commercial fisherman to catch redfish and restaurants are not even allowed to serve redfish (the exception at times is if they are actually personally caught by the owner).

      • Aj Rosenberger

        Well I understand that. I don’t think you should have to pay a separate fee and get a license though. That should be paid for out of taxes or something so that anyone can hunt/gather or even drive as long as they follow the regulations. Those should be rights, not privileges you have to pay for. Anything that an ordinary person needs to survive should not be denied. For example, I made a stupid decision and got an underage drinking and driving ticket when I was 20 which came with a huge fine and a suspended license. Well I still needed to work and had no choice but to drive and ended up with three driving after suspension tickets before I finally stopped. Now I have to pay all of those fines before I can get my license back and it’s extremely hard to get or keep a job when you can’t drive. It’s been almost 6 years and I’m just about to have it paid off. That’s 6 years of my life ruined. That completely violates my human rights in my opinion. Luckily I’ve got things working out finally, but damn. And it’s not like they can actually determine how many fish are being caught by how many licenses were sold either. Some people might only go once a year and some go every weekend or more. They would have to keep an eye on the populations, which they obviously must already be doing, and adjust the regulations as needed. And It’s not like more people will go if they don’t have to pay, People fish whether they can afford a license or not if they really want to. This is all nonsense. If anything the DNR might have to be a little more diligent at first to prove that they will still upholding the laws, but really nothing would be different about it, so I don’t see any reason not to give our rights back. I really wasn’t even thinking about the whole fishing and licenses thing in the first place. Kinda went off on that one. lol I was really interested in this guy because he’s obviously really smart and he’s probably among a very small group of people who can still claim their natural human rights in court.

        • Guest

          Maybe not so much smart in a common civilized way, but smart none the less. lol

  • Adrian

    Very good legal argument and it looks like he won.

    • ReturnOfTheFallen

      He kicked that judge in the teeth repeatedly.

  • T. James Archibald

    This guy is like a retarded Thoreau.

  • Victoria Patro

    What’s with the american flag in the car?

  • g.johnon

    while I admire this man for his brass to stand up to the questionable authority of title 9 (admiralty) courts and stand up for what he believes are his rights, his invocation of natural law has another edge that he is overlooking.
    if he is going to take the natural law defense, he needs to recognize that natural law includes the law of cause and effect (thank you newton) which in this case, translates to the law of supply and demand.
    if all 7 billion of us earthlings were to go willy nilly into the wilderness to feed our families, there would be nothing left to eat within the blink of an eye.
    so, however grudgingly, we need to admit that some form of regulation is necessary to keep up stock. not siding with liberals here as they do a seriously piss poor job when it comes to regulation and the government on boths sides of the aisle is far too prone to regulate according to the whims of it’s most generous campaign donors.
    this is a pretty loaded article. your garden variety can of worms.

    • Greg

      What you say is just nonsense! If all people of the world just would go into the woods for their food, there would be plenty food left. Today we trow away most of the food that we “pick” (buy). It’s MONSANTOand such that does not want us to produce our own, healthy food and we become more and more dependent on the shit they sell us as FOOD. When I was young (30-35 years ago) a carrot was just a vegetable, today it is called “organic food” and I feel like a hippie buying it.

      • g.johnon

        nonsense you say. you believe that our wild resources could withstand the onslaught of all the world’s people becoming hunter gatherers? really? can you make a case?
        and then you mix in producing our own healthy food as if I said I was against that? I am saying that we could not hope to get a sustainable yield from universal hunting and gathering, I am not saying that we should not produce good food. please understand that agriculture and hunter gathering are two way different things and that I was addressing the former and not at all the latter.

        • Kadmael Bailey

          You do know that alone, ALONE, America produces and throws away, enough food for the entire population of the planet? Every single day enough food for everyone comes out of one country, but due to people not being able to pa for it it becomes trash. That should say enough to put your claim to rest.

          • Dustin

            The entire buffalo population in the Midwest was destroyed by the Native Americans, so I think if one group is capable of decimating an entire species, then it makes sense to have some level of regulation. A lot of people are pointing out that huge corporations are wasteful, but you’re forgetting that those huge corporations are not hunting wild animals, they’re farming, so they are creating their own regulations and their own supply and demand with breeding practices in a controlled environment of a farm (of course, these farming practices have shown to be bad for humans, especially farmed fish in polluted waters, but that is for a different discussion).

          • g.johnon

            dustin, where did you get that happy horse crap? the native americans had deep respect for the buffalo and took only what they needed. they sustained the herds for over a thousand years. it was the white man who decimated the buffalo and they did it largely for sport not for food and clothing.
            I would be more than happy to discuss the pros and cons of the corporate world with you in a forum more dedicated to the topic.
            but, briefly, I think they are way more problem than cure.

          • Nate

            Dustin, You are very uninformed of what happened to the Buffalo population. The white man killed the herds, mostly for the skins, and left the rest of the animal to rot. The Natives sustained the herds for thousands of years. I don’t know where you got educated at, but you better go to the library, or watch the movie, “Dances with Wolves.”

          • g.johnon

            little big man would be my recommendation.

          • CEvonK

            Actually, the Siouxan tribes only moved into the North American plains a couple of hundred years before the white people. The Sioux were pushed out of Canada by other tribes. They did not “sustain the herds” for thousands of years.

            But your remarks on the whites’ destruction of the herds are fairly accurate.

          • CEvonK

            You are a complete tihspid. The North American bison population was destroyed by whites, largely in an effort to eliminate the food supply for the native Americans. The native Americans did not wipe out the bison herds.

            Not only are you a tihspid, but you are an historically illiterate person.

          • g.johnon

            yes, I am aware that we produce food in overabundance. it is the many who are not able to pay for it that is the core problem. also the fact that much is destroyed purely to prevent market glutting that would drive the prices down.
            people are starving in apalacia and ten more barge loads of potatoes get dumped into the sea. something is definitely wrong with that picture, but that is a bit off topic as regards natural rights don’t ya think?

          • g.johnon

            excuse me, I should have said it is the fact that people cannot afford to pay that is the problem. I did not mean to make that sound like poor people are the problem.

    • Roger

      G.Johnson, Thank you for your response. I found it thoughtful and unbiased. It immediately made me look at this a different way. Although, I still find my self rooting for Mr. Tertlgte. That’s not to say that your points are not accurate. The only think I would add is that it would be unlikely that all 7 billion of us would go after the fish at the same time.

      • Danceswithdachshunds

        “..unlikely that all 7 billion of us would go after the fish at the same time.” Right, commercial fishing is doing the job for us and most of them must obey catch limits as well or there would not be enough breeding stock left. Left unchecked, commercial fisherman would over-fish, the stock would not recover and then the price of that species fish would skyrocket. Then fishing for that species would intensify to the point of pushing its extinction.

        • g.johnon

          kinda like blue fin tuna.

      • g.johnon

        roger, I,m rooting for him too.

    • Rick Fictus

      We wouldn’t have 7 billion people then. Self-correcting problem. Better than torturing millions of animals on factory farms…

      • g.johnon

        ok, if those were the only two solutions, I would be on your side. I am just not giving up hope that there is yet a better way to go.

      • Aj Rosenberger

        I’ve been thinking the same thing. If the system wasn’t set up the way it is we never would have gotten this over populated. It is good to save all the species’ now that we’re at this point, but we’ve screwed things up, things could have been much better if greedy controlling people didn’t control the world from the beginning. That’s human nature though I guess.

    • Jørgen Fordelsen

      It would never be a problem, infact it would be much better for us to have control over sustaining our selves in stead of letting greedy corporations control our food supply. We are already as many people as we are and make enough food to serve 12 billion people. One third of all fish taken out of the ocean goes to making fishmeal and oil for farming, guess what; fish. If people only took what they needed instead of corporations trying to make as much money as possible of everything, we would be way better of than we are to day. Besides who would stack up on too much fish anyway, kind of smelly after a wile :) And by the way natural law and law of cause and effect are fixed laws and cannot be changed opposed to legalese bullcrap which can be changed to suit who’s or what ever purpose. Please check this short animation of overfishing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6nwZUkBeas&utm_source=buffer&utm_campaign=Buffer&utm_content=buffer169b5&utm_medium=facebook

      • g.johnon

        thank you Jorgen, can you give me some ideas on where to go for good information on this? I would very much appreciate a place to start.
        and thank you for the little film. very eye opening food for thought.

      • Tommy

        sorry to tell you mate but there are people that take too many fish all the time. if you look into reports from the wildlife and fisheries officers all over the world there are always greedy people that take too much or take undersized fish. if too many people do this on a regular basis then it can cause problems with having enough breeding sized fish to sustain a good population of fish. but at the same time there are too many commercial fishermen that take more than they should. such as these companies that make fish oil or krill oil supplements. also the super trawlers that rape the oceans for profit. so we do need regulations on the amounts and the sizes of fish that are taken. one of the ways to regulate this is to require licensing of people to fish to supply money to hire fisheries officers. and restocking of fish.

        • Jørgen Fordelsen

          Well then we would not be ”in control” of our food supply we would be out of control. And as we both imply we are already out of control because the control are in the hands of the big corp. Natural law implies that you do no harm to others which equals that you have no more right for more food, wealth or what ever. As of to day some have everything and some have nothing, spot the difference? Natural law regulates its self with the same amount of responsibility equally for all, opposed to todays system where some dont have to take responsibility and their cause causes someone else’s effect. e.g. Western consumption over eastern exploitation. Of course we’ll have to make a quantum leap from where we are to day but thats sort of part of evolution, and it should be about time we moved forward from this system that destroys our world, it desperately needs rebuilding! Common sense would govern all :)

    • sexforus

      We get our cancer causing food from government subsidized conglomerates and the chances of what you describe happening is about the same as the Idiot in the White House actually defending the The Bill of Rights.

      Your parlor game scenario is beyond implausible.

      Here is a parlor game scenario that isn’t so implausible however and has a wonderful out come, 100 mile wide comet strikes earth center mass wiping out mankind.

      Problems solved.

      • g.johnon

        so what, are you like suicidal and just too afraid to do it unless the rest of the world goes out with you?
        or are you one of those wonderous folks who look at mankind as a cancer on the earth and think we are something evil and separate and from nature? hard to tell which.

        • Robert

          I didn’t “read” into that as being suicidal as much as I did fed-up.

          As to your point, humans are of nature, government is not.

          Government is man made and its working definition is coercion, government is man made fiction and nothing more than one group of people ruling over another group of people, who without fail enslave us to the whims of their government.

          It is why Inalienable Rights are inalienable and not transitory, to stop that shit from happening.

          • g.johnon

            ok, all well and good there. but you forgot to explain why you think it would be wonderful if a comet wiped us all out.

          • Robert

            Fair enough.

            I didn’t feel I needed to go into detail on that point because I cannot begin to think what the poster was thinking BUT a comet destroying man kind wouldn’t be “suicidal”, it would be a natural occurrence.

            Now, whether or not the poster thinks that is a wonderful out come or not, I have no idea.

            Again, it read to me like they were just fed-up about the whole “scenario” thing you and others were doing, hence his “plausible” comment in that regard.

  • mrL

    natural law might work if he was using a stick/branch off a tree with a string from a horse or something “natural”… and about the regulation, i came from a place where there is no hunting/fishing regulation, when i was living there, the fish were plenty, moved to america and came back after a decade, the wild fish population just diminished… it is sad because i love to go fishing, and i had lots of fun doing it back then, now, it is a joke to ask someone there to go fishing… for the wild ones that is…

    • g.johnon

      maybe we should define natural here. seems to me that if it isn’t natural, it doesn’t exist. yeah, new can of worms there I know. but how is a beaver dam any more natural than a skyscraper?

      • CEvonK

        Because it’s built by animals, moron, not by people.

        • g.johnon

          ah, so animals are natural and people are not. that is your contention counselor?

          • CEvonK

            Wow, you really are a stupid fothermucker.

          • g.johnon

            okee dokee.

  • Chris Seekell

    This is nothing new at all. The man is obviously part of the Sovereign Citizen Movement. He committed the violation on purpose in order to open a court case where he will now attempt to file thousands of pages of “legal documents” claiming that the court has no jurisdiction over him. Thousands of people have been doing the same thing for decades. They believe, without any evidence, that the entire US court system is run by the United Kingdom.

    While it is definitely true that fraud exists in the Federal Reserve, Courts, and US Government, his specific accusations are baseless and his attempts to prove them will be futile, as they have been in decades of similar cases.

    • g.johnon

      yeah yeah, he went fishing on purpose!! it was no accident at all I tell ya!
      gawwwwd ah mighty, the sovereign citizen movement!!?? what kind of dark mind could think of such a thing?
      if you look at it in the right light, there is plenty of evidence. this country is run by those who run the federal reserve (just for brevity) and those who run the federal reserve are based in the City of London. it is misleading to think that the uk itself is the culprit as its people are in the same boat we are (victim).

      • Chris Seekell

        Did either of you do a second of research before responding? I’m not sure if this comment system will accept links, so I will just tell you to actually research the Sovereign Citizens Movement and look up interviews with the “Natural Man” where he talks about his intent to be cited/arrested on purpose.

        “g.johnson” should also learn how to type.

        Also about being “gutless”, did I not just end my comment with, “….it is definitely true that fraud exists in the Federal Reserve, Courts, and US Government.” Did you even read that part?

        • g.johnon

          i am familiar with the sovereign citizen movement and the amount of demonizing and discrediting that the mainstream media has dumped upon them. sounds like you were just the target they were going for.
          if you are going for this man using a similar tactic as the natural man, hell who knows? and what difference does that make?
          as for my typing, it is what it is and I sympathize with whatever affliction you may suffer that makes it hard to understand written things if capital letters are not used.

          • Chris Seekell

            I don’t listen to the mainstream media. Why do you think I am here? I am repulsed by the mainstream media.

            The Sovereign Citizen Movement has been unsuccessful. It is merely made up of people trying to avoid restitution and get rich quick, in vain.

            I find it hard to take someone seriously who doesn’t even respect the rules of language.

          • g.johnon

            well then, where did you get the “information” you provided on them?
            perhaps we should discontinue this discourse between us and simply agree to disrespect each other remotely.

          • CEvonK

            No. You continue the discourse. You act on your ignorant beliefs. We will watch the government squash you for the lunatic you are.

            We like having laws because we recognize that the alternative is complete anarchy.

          • g.johnon

            it is not a question of having laws or not, but a question of too much ridiculous law
            complete anarchy? as in “of the people, by the people and for the people”? you say it like its a bad thing.
            ok then, here is the deal. you keep calling me all those wonderful names and I will just let you keep talking.
            lets see who digs the deepest hole.

          • CEvonK

            LOL. You are a moron. “Not a question of having laws, beut a question of too much ridiculous law.”

            So, you agree that we can have laws.

            Yep, you’re a moron.

          • g.johnon

            you are a troll, you have no law degree and your meds are definitely off.

          • CEvonK

            Sorry, dilhole, but I am making student loan payments large enough to buy a decent house in every state but CA — I am a doctor of law. In fact, Last night, I played Hearts with 1% of the law school deans in the nation. We had a great time.

            You, on the other hand, are completely legally illiterate buffoon.

          • g.johnon

            seriously vonk, I am sorry for messing around with you. I did not realize the severity of your need for professional help.

          • CEvonK

            By all means, go ahead with your nonsensical beliefs that the government has no authority over you. Please act on those beliefs. It will be amusing to watch you get squashed like a bug.

          • Robert

            And there we have it folks, a Slave to the State wanting to kill anyone who opposes their enslavement to it.

          • CEvonK

            Yeah, you’re a stupid fothermucker.

          • trolleater

            You suck the Obama Dick? DOES IT TASTE LIKE CHOCOLATE?!?!?!

          • TrollEater

            you use the term Anarchy while having no idea what is actually means. You are the ignorant idiot

          • Robert

            You use the word Anarchy but you obviously do not know what it means.

            Anarchy plainly means, without leaders – all other definitions were used to pervert the plain meaning of the word and that is what defines the Tools of Tyrants.

            The first recorded history of that word was written in the context of having no leaders and had and still has nothing to do with that which you assume it does.

          • CEvonK

            Anarchy is society without enforceable rules. It is rule by only brute force. There is no such thing as having no leaders, since under anarchy dispute resolution can only be accomplished by someone taking the lead and using brute force to assert dominance.

            You live in a fantasy world and have no idea what you are talking about.

    • daddyksinger

      After reading your comment I can’t tell if you’re really knowledgeable of the law(s) or just another gutless one that just goes along with what your government tells you.

    • Aj Rosenberger

      Most attempts at this are futile, but you gotta give em props for trying. Somebody has to start somewhere if we’re ever going to get things on the right track.

      • CEvonK

        No, you don’t have to give him props for trying. You have to laugh at him for being a lunatic.

  • MTBway2B

    What the hell does this have to do with the Hunger Games?

    • anon1984

      It Has to do with the hunger games because in the “districts” you are not allowed to look for food or hunt for food. Look into agenda 21. It’s pretty much a plan for a hunger games type life that the UN has been working towards.

      • MTBway2B

        Because the UN has sway over our domestic policy? And are we banning game licenses now? Because I’m pretty sure one can go buy a shotgun at Walmart, send a check off to DNR and be well on your way to harvesting your own protein. If he wasn’t obviously trolling the courts with his “natural law” agenda then he could’ve avoided the whole kit & caboodle by just getting a fishing license. It’s not that hard.

        And do you mean this Agenda 21?

        • CEvonK

          “Agenda 21” lunatics are just stupid people. They are timorous conspiracy theorists who have no ability to comprehend the world around them.

          • TrollEater

            Why is it that everyone always thinks this way up until the tyranny is on top of them. Being vigilant and questioning government practice is what keeps liberty alive. Your way sounds more like ‘let the government do as they want with us, they wouldn’t do anything to wrong their people…. right!?”…. Thank god their are people willing to fight to keep our government in check.

          • TrollEater

            There not Their* whooops

          • Robert

            Free People Choose, Slaves Obey and it is blatantly obvious CEvonk prefers the latter.

          • CEvonK

            And stupid people like TrollEater and Robert are conspiracy theorist nutcases who do not understand what the UN Agenda for the 21st Century says.

          • Robert

            I am well aware of what the UN Constitution States, as it “says” nothing and if you want to be dictated to by the UN, fine, I get you enjoy being a Slave to The State but nothing states I have to be and until you Statist Pigs kill me with your beloved State Police I will continue spreading the truth about freedom and not your distorted perversion of it.

          • CEvonK

            “UN Constitution.” LOL. Roll on, lunatic, roll on.

    • Ben

      Because it sounds dramatic and gets more hits on google

  • jaimes

    Why did he get inside a corporate symbol (car) instead of walking or climbing a mountain to go away?

    • g.johnon

      aww come on, now getting into a car marks us as corporate sympathizers? I thought it just meant we wanted to get home sometime before next month.

      • CEvonK

        He acknowledged the right of the government to license vehicles, to require safety features, to tax the roads, to tax the vehicle, to tax the fuel the vehicle runs on.

        You’re a gnikcuf idiot.

        • TrollEater

          Having a car isn’t a natural right. Idiot.

          • CEvonK

            The particular question isn’t whether it’s a natural right, but whether by using the car he acknowledged the right of the government to set laws governing his conduct.

    • Tony Meeker

      Don’t be a dumb ass.

  • Kimberly Nix Murray

    Why were the arresting officers not looking for illegal immigrants to arrest? Surely, there are many illegal aliens in Montana or how about arresting real criminals. Give me a break! The man was hungry and he went fishing for food. The arresting officer’s need to be arrested for not having any common sense!

    • Stuart

      Why the hell are you talking about illegal immigrants? Why are you bringing up an entirely outside issue… actually now that I think about it it isn’t all that unrelated. The division of land by abstracted political borders is also something that goes against the natural order of the universe.

    • Jorge Uribe

      Kimberly… smh- Please go find some common sense of your own,

      • unwillingtoyield

        Like Oh My God…. They weren’t looking for illegal immigrants for the same reason they weren’t looking for idiots like you, bank robbers, rapists, murderers, or any other morons. You need to be arrested for walking this earth stupid.

    • Cameron

      Yes Montana is all illegal immigrants *heavy sarcasm implied* – they all come from Canada *more sarcasm* your lack of common sense – I can feel my brain sells falling off cliffs.

      • Cameron


        • g.johnon

          you do understand that this site has an editing feature, right?

    • g.johnon

      because the gummint sent all the good jobs overseas and are allowing immigrants to flow into the country to dilute the labor pool and ultimately evaporate the middle class threat (to them).

  • Johnny Cirucci


  • Patrick
    • CEvonK

      Because he was guilty.

      • Robert

        Of what, arguing that Natural Law should supersede the Legal Fiction that your precious State represents?

        • Ben

          No, of fishing without a license and resisting arrest. “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” and all that jazz.

          • Aj Rosenberger

            But if this guy has established his natural rights in court before, as he said he has, than fishing licenses no longer apply to him, and the officers had no right to arrest him and it should have been dropped. I’m thinking the only reason he ended up being charged was because he signed a not guilty plea, and by signing anything you acknowledge that you are representing yourself as a corporation. That’s how they trick you with their legalese.

          • CEvonK

            What a bunch of malarkey.

            We have laws. They form the social contract. You want to live outside the social contract, go somewhere else that isn’t part of the social contract. All this “natural law” Bee Ess is just that, Bee Ess.

            We don’t recognize “natural rights.” All the rights we have come from the Constitution, our social contract. People like Tergtelte (and other idiot “Freemen”) are living in a fantasy world and gnissip in the wind (and it’s blowing back all over them.)

          • RP

            In case you haven’t noticed, the Constitution is currently being shredded by the gov’t that’s in charge of upholding it. I was never consulted about any “laws” that are imposed on me nor did I enter into any “social contract”. Rights are NOT gifts from the gov’t. Does the gov’t own those fish? I think not.

          • CEvonK

            You enter the social contract by remaining within the country. You can leave both the country and the social contract. Good luck finding a better one.

            Rights are established by the Constitution, which was created by the people. The state of Montana owns the fish in the name of the people of Montana. They issue licenses to monitor, control, and develop the people’s resources. The people elect representatives to the Montana state legislature to make the rules by which they are governed.

            People who don’t understand those basic concepts need to go back to 6th grade Civics class for remedial instruction.

          • Robert


            Rights are established by Natural Law, your artificial construct is what the REAL problem is and if you can’t understand that you need to go back to your Whipping Post and be a good little Slave to the State.

          • CEvonK

            Really? Where does natural law establish the right to vote?

          • Robert

            You state that like voting is a big deal and makes a difference.

            I assure you it isn’t and it doesn’t, save in the minds of the Slaves to the State who impose their whims upon others.

            We come from a natural state of being and there is nothing but your artificial construct that states we must give up those natural rights because we entered into this “social contract” you keep bragging about that none of us signed up for.

            Just because we are forced to register a new born as property to the State doesn’t make it justifiable, to the contrary it makes it coercion and since when is coercion ever been a legal thing to do?

            Your ideology is akin to two starving wolves and a well fed lamb showing up to vote on what is going to be for dinner.

            The ideology I am referring to is arming the lamb and giving it the right to contest the vote.

          • CEvonK

            What a bunch of utter tripe. What you are arguing for is anarchy and brute force.

            Nobody is the “property of the state.” That’s lunatic conspiracy theorist nonsense.

          • bb

            Try again, social contracts, huh ? That can be avoided as well, under Without Prejudiice U.C.C. 1- 207 ( Uniform Commercial Code, Vol. 1, Sect. 207) – One reserves the right to refuse to perform under any contract and / or commercial agreement that one did not enter knowingly voluntarily and / or intentionally and furthermore does not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract and / or commerical agreement. There are 3 types of law here. Common Law, equity law, and admirality/ maratime law. The U.S. has been under admiralty/maratime law for quite a while and the courts refuse to speak of it.

          • CEvonK

            Utter yretihspid.

          • bb

            You best think again pal, the rights do NOT come from The Constitution of the United States, The Constitution of the United States was created to PROTECT the natural rights of everyone. If you are as naive as you are dumb, you are in a world of hurt, Pal !!! If you want to go the paper route bud, then fine, we’ll go that way. Do you remember a document called The Declaration of Independence ? You may want to read it again ! It clearly states in the Preamble (if you know what that is ?) `When in the course of human events , it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve their political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the seperate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the seperation. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’ So, tell me, where dd you learn law and history at ? the Fredrik Engels and Karl Marx school of communisim or did the current presiident teach you personally ? I know that I would have one hell of a fun time for you in a court pal. Not only for a violation of the Bill of Rights, also for violaton of Title 42 United States Code Section 1983 for civil deperavation of rights as well, along with harassment !!!

          • Robert

            It is those who imposed this “social” contract and legal fiction, all of which are artificial constructs onto Free People and never allowed them to opt out of it, that need to go and find another place to live, as they have done enough damage to our Inalienable Rights.

            You argue in circles quite a bit, you really need to learn how to Critically Think but more importantly, think for yourself.

          • Robert

            The phrase isn’t “give” it is, “render” there is a difference.

            In context, the saying is thoroughly ambiguous. The word ‘render’ means ‘give back.’

            The lesson is, ‘It’s Caesar’s coin–go ahead and give it back to him. Everything belongs to God. What is owed to Caesar? Nothing.’

            I am not going to get into theology or any debate about the Story but just wanted to point out that many people miss the lesson as to mean, “Even Jesus was for taxes” because He wasn’t ACCORDING to the lesson.

      • correctionist

        troll people like you suck


    …I like Eric Tertegte Natural Man Political Party 2016 , as we are all governed by God the father, his Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit so repent and be saved .

    • CEvonK

      Funny — God’s not mentioned in the Constitution.

      • Rhapzodic

        Funny, the only factual thing that we may know is that the papers used by the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were made by hemp…yet it is illegal.

        • jwhitehawke

          Illegal by who? Whoever decided that doesn’t affect MY life and liberty.

          • Rhapzodic

            Illegal by pharmacuetical companies that are feeding you pills and medicine that are supposedly helping you in longevity but in actuallity, it is the very reason why the average age is 80. It wouldnt affect your life and liberty because you are a sheep! Ha ha?

      • jwhitehawke

        It does in the Declaration of Independance…… and where’s the humor in that?


        “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
        We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

        • CEvonK

          Yawn. Not in the Constitution.

      • Doug Bo

        A little history lesson for you… I’d draw it in crayon so you could understand it, but alas, on the internet I cannot.
        The Declaration of Independence cites the Creator as the One who provides us our “inalienable rights.”
        The Constitution doesn’t give us those rights, it sets up the legal precedent and the legal system in which those rights are protected .
        The Constitution, in it’s entirety, is solely and clearly a result of the facts, assertations, and proclamations of the Declaration.

        Ergo, the Constitution doesn’t have to “mention” God, as the document on which it’s predicated does that explicitly.
        I used a lot of big words there. If you want, contact me privately, and I’ll get you an Amazon gift card, with which you can purchase a dictionary.

        • CEvonK

          A little Constitutional Law lesson for you: The Declaration of Independence has no validity with regard to our legal system.

          That’s a really basic thing one learns in Con Law I.

          The Constitution is the sole basis of our legal rights.

          Save the money you were planning on spending on the gift card, and put it toward the cost of a law degree.

          • Doug Bo

            the only thing you’ve taught me, intellectual amoeba, is that you’re not above posting comments online to announce to the world that you’re a lawyer, and boost your ego. The lesson? That you’re fairly insecure, and need validation.
            As for your intended lesson, I’m well aware of that. If you’d take a second and step back from the tree, though, you might see the forest. My comment makes the point that the Constitution’s entire existence is based on the Declaration of Independence… The Declaration is the WHY of our fight for Independence and the Constitution is the RESULT of our winning that Independence, as well as our document that’s used to protect the rights we fought for. In the question of whether or not God is relevant to the Constitution, I’ve made my case.
            I’ll wait here, as patiently as I can, until you understand that you’ve not invalidated my claim and begin to understand what point I was making to begin with.
            Please, if you’re going to take a while on that, do let me know so I can make a light snack to hold me over or something.

          • Doug Bo

            I always love when someone who doesn’t have a valid response to a rebuttal tries to change the conversation entirely. The Declaration having any “validity” with our legal rights was never part of the discussion. The discussion was whether or not God and the Constitution had any connection. I made that case, rather clearly and indisputably, so what do CeWanker do? Changes the discussion and then says I’m wrong… on an argument I hadn’t made.
            Sure sign of your opposition’s weakness…

          • CEvonK

            I didn’t waste my time reading your asinine comments.

            God has nothing to do with the Constitution. The Constitution ignores God entirely.

            You cannot prove that God has anything to do with the Constitution unless you can first prove that there is a God, which you cannot do.

          • CEvonK

            “. My comment makes the point that the Constitution’s entire existence is based on the Declaration of Independence…”

            My legal studies are the basis of my informed commentary, while your lack of the same is the basis of your uninformed commentary. You have an opinion, but no backing for it. I don’t comment on medical issues because I have no qualifications in that area. You should take a lesson from that.

            The Declaration was drafted before any formal iteration of the United States existed. It has no legal validity — it merely expressed sentiment, not law enshrined as the governing document of the United States of America. The nation that came into being immediately after the Declaration was organized under the Articles of Confederation, which was no great success as a system of governance for the nation, but which also did not contain any reference to God as the source of human rights.

            And while the Declaration stated ALL men are created equal, and enjoy the rights of life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness, the Constitution diverged greatly from these principles and perpetuated the systems of chattel slavery and distaff disenfranchisement — systems that are entirely in opposition to the principles stated in the Declaration.

            A Declaration espousing universal equality of man cannot be the source of authority for a Constitution denying the same.

            The Constitution’s existence is based upon the ratification by the states of the Constitution that was submitted to them, not on the Declaration, which stated the colonies’ justification for separating from England. The Declaration established no form of government it merely stated peoples’ reasons for separating themselves from their current government. It did not bring the Constitution into being.

            The Constitution does not mention God because God was relevant to neither its creation nor its implementation. In fact, as the First Amendment shows, religious law is anathema to the Constitution, a decision made by the people who adopted the Constitution.

          • Doug Bo

            I didn’t waste my time reading the entirety of your comment, for that’s precisely what it would be. I’m going to try to simplify this for you yet more- and this will be my last exchange with you.
            You’ve spelled out quite clearly that the Declaration has “no legal standing.”
            That’s all well and good. I provide you, however, with two challenges.
            First, show me where I ever even remotely said that it did. (Good luck)
            Second, explain to us why you “changed the goal post” as it were, as the initial discussion revolved solely around your comment, and I quote: “Funny- God is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.”
            That, dear moron, was the question- not whether or not the Declaration had any standing in court.
            My response to you (that I now thoroughly regret like I’d regret asking directions from a three year old) was to show that the Constitution WOULDN’T EXIST were it not for the Declaration…and the intent of said Declaration. Because the Constitution is a result of our winning the fight over the objections mentioned in the Declaration, it doesn’t need to reiterate that which was already established.
            So, when you can show me where I ever even once claimed that the Declaration had any legal standing
            and/or when you can explain to us why you suddenly started backpeddling and changing the argument into something that it never was, you might… just might.. get another response from me.
            In the meantime I’m going to go wash my truck for the third time today. At least that way I’ll be doing something productive.

          • Doug Bo

            Just as a reminder:

            “CEvonK LIBERTYUSA

            • 4 days ago
            Funny — God’s not mentioned in the Constitution.
            ^that was the topic, you can re-read my response if you’d like. Moron.

          • CEvonK

            “My comment makes the point that the Constitution’s entire existence is based on the Declaration of Independence…”

            Your words, not mine. Wrong for the reasons previously mentioned.

    • Nononsense

      can you explain how your religion is right and all others are wrong, god didnt found this country people did, god was created by people who need to believe in a higher order you think 2013 people would see that there is no god and no savior for the us especially, no one will be save we die , our energy is transferred to another form of energy, our conciousness is gone we rot end of story, all these people saying theyve seen the light, while they died, and were revived, were under the influence of DMT which your body produces as you die leading to hallucinations, a calm etc, its nice to believe everyone youve known whos died is in heaven but if you notice everyone thinks their friends and family are in heave if youve read the bible most of humanity will go to hell, and using “holy water” and “repenting” wont save us think of all the major mistakes every human makes that would send them to hell and apply that possibillity to everyone youve ever known whos dead, if there is a heaven you most likely wont be seeing some of them their if not most. especially as jealous, unforgiving, and vengeful god that you believe in.

  • Robert

    How those who FEEL (because Critically Thinking hast nothing to do with anything in their world) that Legal Fiction is somehow more powerful than Natural Law is truly perplexing and absurd.

    Government is artificial and its laws oppressive.

    The individual should therefor be considerably more powerful than governments artificial legal fiction and it comes down to us (the individuals) discovering how it is that we can demonstrate our authority over those who impose their wills and whims upon us with their artificial construct, again that being government.

    I get all the killing government does and all the cancer it has created (tests run during its two world wars and currently tainting our food supply), the debt government has amassed, genocide it waged (Native Indians, Aborigines, etc) is very much real, however it is only that way because we allowed their pseudo system of ruling individuals with their Bully Pulpits to do so.

    Those laws don’t represent the people, they represent their corporation because FedGov IS a corporation and one that has also amassed a Standing Army so large it could literally murder at will and it does.

    Pushing back the Tide of Tyranny that has rolled up on the Shores of Freedom is going to require people understanding that government, the artificial construct of the Ruling Class begins with understanding just how it came to rule over us.

    We should not need elections or referendums or any other controlled mechanism to free ourselves from government, we just need the courage to stand up and say NO we will not obey your artificial man made nonsense and remember that Slaves obey, Free People choose.

    • Aj Rosenberger

      Wow, couldn’t have said it better myself. Spread the truth my friend.

    • CEvonK

      What a crock of tihs.

      You live here, you are subject to our laws. Violate them, and you get squashed. Suck on it, moron.

      • Freedomrevived

        if you believe in all of our laws, which i doubt you know even 10% of them, you most likely do something illegal everyday without knowing it. Its almost to the point you cannot move to another country because they dont want american, our citizins are ignorant our government is corrupt. if you dont realize your useless and people like you are the number one reason our country doesnt change, petitions dont work, action does, complaining doesnt work, action does get it, your ignorance the plague of the american people is killing us and stripping our rights, the right to bear ares, to free speech, is often taken away because too many people like you infest our country, the ones with any brains do what they can together to try to change things while people like you sit and accept the loss of all of your rights get ready little guy, because soon this will people a total police state and youll probably be facing the barrel of a government gun wishing you had done something before it became too late, if you believe in the biggest warmongering country in the world, the largest corporation owned government, a country thats officials dont even know the price of a gallon of milk, you need institutional help. your government doesnt protect you it hinders you, your government doesnt help you it kills you off, wake up or dont the country doesnt cre about people lke you and neither does the government

        • Nick Veritas

          We moved to Ecuador over a year ago and love it here. The government here is less of a police state than in America so far… in reality. on paper, this is a socialist state with limited freedom of press. the best part is that Ecuador is not a target for WW3 and it is food independent. The second best thing is the cheap cost of living here.

      • Robert

        You obviously know nothing about the factual history that makes up this country or what The Legal Fiction is.

        Because if you did that comment would have never come to rest between your ears where a brain normally resides.

        By the way the founders didn’t “believe” in Slavery anymore than the people who invented it and where it is still practiced to this day, that would be Africa and Egypt and much of the entire Middle East.

        In modern terms Human Trafficking is a form of Slavery but not one this country invented and much like before and after The American Revolution very few percentage of the population part took in the practice, remembering only 8% of this country even owned slaves, the majority of the population were farmers as we were founded as an Agrarian (used as an adjective and not a noun) Society not an Industrialized one and those Farmers couldn’t afford slaves.

        Black people owned slaves as well and it turns out the percentile was about the same as the white folks who owned them, right around 7% of free blacks owned and sold other Africans in the Slave Trade.

        Ironically enough people like you want us to be Slaves to the State because you are incapable of governing yourself, feeding yourself and judging by your comment, thinking for yourself.

        Enjoy your Rations of Slavery but FREE us from your Slave-State-of-Mind and do not vote or procreate, there are enough Slaves to the State as it is and does nothing to promote freedom.

        • CEvonK

          “The Legal Fiction” = idiotspeak.

          • Robert

            The simple fact you don’t know or understand what the Legal Fiction is, speaks volumes to your ignorance on the subject.

          • CEvonK

            “The Legal Fiction” is a term used by sovereign citizen idiots to support their psychotic legal theories.

            I can tell that I’m talking to one.

          • Robert

            Odd you would make such a statement because the very system of governance that you embrace, Statism has been using the term dating back to the early 1400’s.

            You don’t read any relevant history do you?

          • CEvonK

            You are not smart enough to understand the difference between “a legal fiction” and “The Legal Fiction.” Which is probably why you don’t understand why only stupid people speak of “The Legal Fiction.”

          • Robert

            Well at least now you are admitting it exists and isn’t “idiotspeak.”

            So, seeing how you are obviously clueless in the study of legalese I will break it down for you.

            If I am typing to fast for you to keep up, step away from the monitor and go back to that coloring book you got your history lessons and Law Degree from.

            Lets start with the definition of “legal.”

            It is an adjective of or relating to law and having a status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact.

            Now lets look at the definition of “fiction” in the context of its usage in this term.

            It is an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth.

            The whole LEGAL system is a set of rules created by the government, which is an artificial construct, of a town, state, country, etc

            In short legal fiction, is nothing more than a rule assumed to be true something that is clearly false.

            The fact that you seem to think government and its laws are natural speaks volumes to your single digit IQ.


        So if someone lives in America, he is obligated to be a slave?

        • Robert

          Apparently so Sean Thomas.

          Those who would rather be enslaved to government than free from it, think in circles instead of critically.

          Sad and pathetic all at .

  • Drew R

    This man is my new hero. Haha, I love when people can deconstruct the veneer of authority and talk down to cops and judges! An accurate perspective sometimes if you ask me.

    A 500 dollar fine for trying to catch a fish, something mankind has done regularly for millenia. Imagine what the Founders would think of this..

    • CEvonK

      Nobody gives a damn about what the Founders would think. Their time is long past, and their ideology is not sacred.

      They believed in slavery. They believed that women shouldn’t vote. There’s no reason for us to be bound by their beliefs.

      • Rhapzodic

        With that logic: does that mean, because our Founders loved growing hemp and marijuana, it is illegal today?

      • Masonjar

        Your ability to speak freely is outdated since it is not on parchment paper.

        • CEvonK

          You have obviously never read the Constitution. Let me point you to the First Amendment:

          “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
          prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
          speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
          assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      • libertarian that is concerned

        Bitter much?0 You are also wrong and have tunnel vision. Happy Thanksgiving.


        How many countries can you name that did not practice some sort of slavery or serfdom in the 18th century? The fact that the founding fathers did does not discredit them.

        • Jojo the dancing blue collar s

          Slavery is still prevalent. Especially in the US. The working stiffs are the slaves just like the welfare class. You do what you are told or there will be consequences. And you dumbasses keep voting for it.

        • CEvonK

          It proves that their beliefs about the nature of the social contract are not sacrosanct, and that they legitimately can be challenged. Times change, and so can the social contract.

          • SEAN THOMAS

            No human beliefs can be sacrosanct, but the honest critic must challenge their ideas rather than the time in which they lived.

            Our current culture is based purely on the love of money and that might makes right. Such a system can only lead to war, slavery, and chaos.

            Is this what you want to replace our DOI and BOR?

          • CEvonK

            The Declaration of Independence expresses sentiments, but is otherwise meaningless. It has no legal authority.

            No part of the Constitution is sacrosanct, not even the Bill of Rights. The Constitution, itself, recognizes this through the provision for amendment.

            Might does not make right, but right oftentimes has to be enforced with might. That’s why our government has the power to use force, police force, military force, economic force.

          • SEAN THOMAS

            Well, my brother, may you always be on the kind end of a gun!

      • Doug Bo

        I love when libtard nitwits like you bring up the issue of slavery.
        You should research your own party, seems most of the democrats voted against ending slavery, where the conservatives voted for it.
        Oops… the facts, you fricked them up.

        • CEvonK

          LOL. Which does not disprove my assertion that there is no reason for us to be bound by the Founders’ beliefs.

          Their time has passed. Their world has passed. Rigid obeisance to (your presumptions about) their beliefs is folly.

  • LibertyPatriot

    No legislation, Federal, State, county or city are applicable to ‘free will men and free will women.
    The name on a ‘birth certificate’ is the name of the legal fiction – legal identity. Such a legal identity attached to the body of a man or woman is called a ‘Natural Person’. Natural person is a slave status imposed upon a human body,  identity – person. This transforms the body of a free will mind (of a man or woman) into a ‘corporate entity’. Governments cannot deal with ‘free will men and women’ – our true status in Creation.

    “Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial person. The imaginary, having neither actuality nor substance, is foreclosed from creating and attaining parity with the tangible. The legal manifestation of this that no government as well as any law, agency, aspect, court, etc., can concern itself with anything other that corporate, artificial persons and the contracts between them.” Penhallow vs. Doane’s Administrator, 3 US 54, 1 L.Ed.57, 3 Dall. 54 (179

    • Chris Jackson

      I heard in another video, you can go to fidelity website and enter some numbers off your birth certificate and see how much you are actually worth. this is sick. the government traded us as pawns for the debt on America. it if you figure it out, you’ll know what I mean

  • LibertyPatriot

    The present system of so-called justice makes traitors, murderers, kidnappers, unlawful confiners, assaulters, extortionists, mobsters and thieves of ALL men or women acting as Popes, royalty, politicians, presidents, governors, lawyers, judges, court clerks, police, prison guards, etc. There is no other catagory in which to place them. This is the ugly Roman system that has been imposed upon America and the other countries of the former British Empire, all in accord with the Popes of Rome and the British Monarchy.

    • Constantine Bleys

      What did I just read?

      • Guest

        I was thinking the same. Somebody left our a few verbs. LOL.

        I think his heart is in the right place, it’s his ability to describe in words how he feels that is lacking.

  • Jacqueline.meyers1960

    Bravo!!Good for this man.We all have a right to forage and cultivate our own food.

    • Gale Lett

      Not much longer if the government has anything to do about it. They have been taking steps, albeit small ones at first so as to not bring too much attention to it, to curtail our ability to be self sufficient. In some states it is now illegal to collect rainwater, plant a garden or hunt and fish. They do not want us to be self sufficient, they want us totally dependent on them. He who control the food, controls the population.

      • Mark Albiar

        This is true. In California, you cannot collect rain water for gardens and such, even the farmers have their water allocated by the state. It’s crap. This government has gone too far.

        • DezzNutz

          yup STATE approved, which means you have to pay for it when it would have been free otherwise…its called Crony capitalism or “Corporatism”, which is NOT FREE MARKET

          • Guest

            that is not crony capitalizing. get over yourself.

    • DezzNutz

      Not with the GOVT wielding power over us via the EPA and the FDA, etc. The EPA has made it so wood burning stoves are illegal, so the ONLY way to heat yourself is to us a govt approved source you HAVE TO PAY FOR, as in gas, electric, etc…Corporatism is NOT Capitalism and it is KILLING our country

    • NotRepubOrDem

      Apparently you have not been reading much more than NYT or WaPo headlines for your news of the nation. Keep a garden in your front yard as you’ve done for years in Florida? No longer. It’s illegal. Want to collect and store rain water? Already illegal in some areas too – you have “interfered” with the natural flow of protected water. Want to be a wheat farmer and set aside some of your wheat for your own personal family’s use? Illegal (Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)).

      Sorry. While you were sleeping so soundly, your rights have been carefully chipped away, and the thin sliver left is about to break. And unfortunately it’s long past when the American dumbmasses will wake up, unite, and have the power (or capability) to take back what used to be their country. This guy may be certifiable, but just step back, look carefully at his logic, and explain why ANY person that merely wishes to provide for the basic nourishment of himself and his immediate family should need “permission” to do so, or pay some bureaucrat’s salary.

  • R.A christian

    wow, awesome! a little UN-orthodox but powerful non the less! a homeless man has the courage to do what most of us wouldn’t risk (myself included). I love how she could only revert to the textbook and what she had in front of her. when she was losing by logic and human truth she just reverted to violence as is usual for the government. I hope they leave him alone but I fear the monster will have to make an example so everyone can go back to black Friday and there iPhone purchases before the economy shuts down again!! GO BACK TO BED AMERICA- YOUR GOVERNMENT HAS FIGURED OUT HOW IT ALL TRANSPIRED!- the late great Bill Hicks.

  • Tj Menard

    Love it! <3

  • Drewbie

    It would be awesome if you as the writer would cite the topics the man is talking about. Without that, the man sounds like another ignorant disrespectful man in a courtroom. If there is factual evidence behind what he is saying, then it is your job as a journalist to inform the people of what the story is. I shouldn’t have to rely on a random commenter with an unconfirmed identity to show myself and other readers the true meaning of this post and the video. Please don’t post things to get a reaction, that’s not the point of what this site, and I would assume it is not the view of Ben Swann, to post provoking videos to incite emotions in an audience that then has no foundation for an argument when someone asks to clarify what has happened. Please don’t leave readers unarmed of knowledge.

    • Doug Bo

      Wait, so just to clarify you want cited references to prove that he does, in fact, have the right to feed himself?
      Ron White is correct… you can’t fix stupid.

      • Lamont AykayayCiti Montgomery

        Lol good one

    • Teressa

      Please don’t leave readers unarmed of knowledge…. maybe you shouldn’t keep yourself unarmed by not looking into this subject on your own.. of course common sense would help you on this journey…

    • Robert

      If he has a pulse he is alive. If he is alive he needs nourishment to live. That’s all the evidence you need if you have even below average intelligence.

    • Lamont AykayayCiti Montgomery

      I see what you are saying so I gave you an up sign and you’re right the writer of this article should have explained ernie T’s position more clearly. I have been studying law for a few years so I have more understanding of where ewt is coming from. I recommend that all of us should study or laws more carefully so that we will understand what’s going onand not just label those who want to be free as terrorists.

  • Tiz Liz

    Impressive–push back against the State who believes that they own and regulate God’s resources—mankind included.

  • Nick Veritas

    i would love to see a followup to this! the guy is likely in jail by now.

    • Nick Veritas


    • Nick Veritas


      i wonder if he is still in jail or if he paid the fines?

    • Lamont AykayayCiti Montgomery

      I commends him for standing his ground under God. These judges are all fake as he mentioned, it’s all commercial. Judges don’t even have a proper oath of office and when more people take the time to find that out we’ll all be better off. FREE ERNIE T!!!

  • Nick Veritas

    he is arrested: http://youtu.be/RbVWY_dQQoc

    i wonder if he paid the fine or is still in jail?

  • Chris Jackson

    This only goes to prove we are in the end times.. absolutely horrific.

  • B

    Just wait a minute here…how can you claim one man has a right to forage for food, but another doesn’t have the right to forage for food and then sell it? If this man gets his way, then it should open the door to no one needing a license to take as much fish and wildlife as they want. They should just throw away any concept of licenses, because it would be discrimination. And then we’d have all these people exhausting all the fish and wildlife resources, leaving them all extinct.

    Think about the precedent this would set.

    • Robert

      Those who live off the land are far fewer than those who embrace State Subsidized Food Conglomerates.

      If “anyone entity” is raping the land and its resources it sure as hell isn’t the individuals hunting and fishing it.

    • DezzNutz

      Another liberal idiot who thinks humans and the govt can “control” Nature. its utterly laughable

      • anonymous

        like i needed the government to hold my hand while i walked through a national park while the government was shut down. same park before during and after the shutdown. i seen more park rangers during shut down then i did before and then they were gone again

    • Grizzly Ironbear

      To adhere to a nation’s rules, laws, and by laws, you must a citizen of said nation. He is not of the United states, and therefore not applicable of said rules, laws and by-laws. He operates under his own will as a natural citizen, much like the native american.

      • Edgar

        So foreign tourists don’t have to follow the laws?

        • Grizzly Ironbear

          Technically no, they don’t. They can simply claim that they are not of the land, and barring murder or other crimes, be deported to their country of origin, This man, living as a natural citizen of the land, can’t be deported to another country as he is of the existing land. So the governing judges and law makers for the country of United States of America. Same thing as the Native indian, they ONLY have to answer from their own form of government barring murder or the like.

      • Lamont AykayayCiti Montgomery

        It is refreshing to see so many knowledgeable intelligent people on this thread and the dumb ones are the few, so refreshing

    • Richard L. Ghue

      Yep and if he needs food, by his reasoning he should just forage right on into anyone’s home or any store he sees and just take what he needs.

      • Guest

        No silly, that would be stealing. Taking from someone’s home or store is stealing. Taking from the wild (woods/stream/nature) is foraging. Get it?!

      • I prefer to buy my food

        Common sense would prevail there, don’t be stupid.

      • Lamont AykayayCiti Montgomery

        Really? Is that really the same?

      • JefferyHaas

        Of course, because in their minds, YOUR HOME is part of “the statist empire” and you are in conflict with natural law which also grants him the right to “take the land you occupy because it is his right as a MAN UPON THE LAND” (more codespeak)…these morons can spew this crap 24/7.

        And if you ever get a chance to see how they WRITE, it’s an even bigger eye-opener. They have a special “super duper ultra secret” way of using colons, capital letters, titles and obscure phrases which they BELIEVE “neutralizes” ALL U.S. laws as if by magic because they and only they have the secret decoder rings which unlock the natural law which puts them above you on the food chain. (at least, in their minds)

        It’s a fundamentalist philosophy and, as such, it’s a form of mental illness.

    • I prefer to buy my foid

      Idiot, this man is just living life as people did early last century. People could just forage for what they need, People today should be able to hunt free, if they can prove it is for personal consumption, those who hunt for profit should be limited, and licensed.

      • Lamont AykayayCiti Montgomery

        Amen to that. And what they don’t understand is that is the law this man was following the law and the coppers who stopped him are the ones ignorant of the law

    • Linda Williams

      He said He is on;y allowed what he needs for one meal at a time, concerning the fish.

  • WaKeUP

    I’d rather anyone hunt their food, then collect welfare. just sayin.

  • Nonya busi

    He has a valid point although he clearly was trying to use complicated terms (shows his confusion to law language and his situation) and was unsuccessful further losing credibility. We just like any living creature should be able to naturally feed ourselves and not have to beg or starve (ie. natural law). You don’t see us citing a Bear for not having a license to hunt or fish. However, our own species has caused an overpopulation issue that would exhaust natural resources if they are not properly managed. This management of natural resources is the reason for the fees and requirement to get a license (totally $90.00 hunting and fishing bow and all in state fee then $15-30 for an animal tag, just fishing $30.00) to help cover the cost. So in a way we are helping Mr. Tertelgte continue his desired way of life to have that natural ability to pour-age for food by not allowing “overpopulated America” to kill of all species. I would suggest that Mr. Tertelgte find a natural way to create value (ie. trapping or selling of meat and furs) like many others in his situation do. He will then be able to pay the fee that helps us manage natural resource thus helping himself stay alive, and not have to embarrass himself or deal with legal situations. Keep in mind if you’re approached by a Warden its only good to show that you did pay your license fee don’t challenge and ask why and try to put things on the defensive.

    • Robert

      Natural Law (noun) A law or body of laws that derives from nature and is upon human actions apart from or in conjunction with laws
      established by human authority.

      What you defined, is not Natural Law.

      Also, how many people do you know who even know how to fish or hunt wild game, skin their meal or can their own vegetables for that matter?

      This notion that billions of people are going to take to the woods to get their food is preposterous.

      The reasons for the laws and fees are to further control us while controlling our food supply, not to preserve it for anything.

      It is a control mechanism by the State.

      • I prefer to buy my food

        I know THOUSANDS of people who can hunt and grow their own food, apparently you are a moron, raised by morons, it is common sense how to field dress an animal, try not to cut the organs… And the People I know are doctors, lawyers, business owners, and alot of other professional people, as well as blue collar people.

        • Robert

          Apparently you too have a reading comprehension problem, nonetheless.

          You personally do not know THOUSANDS of people and certainly not those on this topic.

          Unless you are Superman and or not human because the average person only KNOWS about a hundred people.

          You may know a large group of people who knows someone who knows someone, as you described but personally know them, that is highly suspect.

          Also, hunting and fishing is simply NOT just a sport, which many who oppose the practice continually make an argument for.


Those who oppose hunting and fishing want to eliminate all dominion and interference with wildlife and animal life. 

          They want to close access to all lands for such purposes. Including lands owned by hunters.

          Their strategy is to divide and vanquish.


It is a way of life for many and a method of obtaining food that is NOT processed with hormones, anti-biotics, or confined in small areas.

          Many hunters who choose to live this life style own their own property and those who don’t typically hunt those properties as hunters and anglers tend to “hang” with each other.

          I will repeat myself for the sake of you understanding what I posted to the comment I commented on, “This notion that BILLIONS of people are going to take to the woods to get their food is preposterous.”

          I would also like to point out that while there are 23.7 million hunters in this country not all of them actually go hunting just because they register doesn’t mean that either.

          Hunters in America represent the largest well educated, well armed group on planet earth.

          Just as another POV, there were 600,000 small and large game registered hunters in the woods in MI in 2010 and not one person was killed.

          I am not sure if you are aware of the fact that during WWII Japan’s highest ranking naval officer, Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto studied for many years in America, graduating from Harvard University.

          There is an oft-repeated quote attributed to him regarding the possibility of any nation taking a war to American soil, “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”

          So stop thinking The Hunting Game is all about hunting it also a real good reason we have never been invaded and over run and is why the Statists have chosen to do away with armed citizens by oppressing us with their never ending anti-gun regulations and closing down our access to natural food resources.

          • Nonya busi

            Again…you assume to know things. If you truly knew this person you would have a reasonable chance of arguing that they may or may not know thousands of people. I have personally seen many real life friends knowing a few thousand of people on facebook (truely knowing them). I can say though threw my profession I know of tens of thousands of hunters and fishers in my state alone. We have a name in the real world for people that assume things, and they definitely have little or far less chance of survival. Where do you find your knowledge or is it just assumed? In addition, I am a survival hunter myself, but that brings me to another statement of the rush factor some folks have when addicted to hunting. Did you have any knowledge of this or….I will be entertained to see your reply.

          • Robert

            I assumed nothing.

            The average person only knows roughly one hundred people.

            I also did include in that statement that, it is possible to know someone who knows someone but a single person cannot personally know thousands of people, it is humanly impossible and no “Facebook Friends” do not count either in the context of that which I was referring.

          • jordan

            Robert, you are clearly the only person involved in the above comments who is not delusional. Thank you for eloquently stating your position on this subject.

          • Robert

            Thank you Jordan but “eloquent” is not a word I would have chosen as I am far from that.

            Articulation is the best any of us can hope to achieve.

            I only wish articulating points of view on such topics would make people Critically Think instead of relying on their emotions, Circular Reasoning and knee jerk reactions to the indoctrination they received via our Government Run School Programs and the EXTREMELY bias college academia courses that is perpetuated at the college level by those who would rather be enslaved to the artificial construct governemnt is, instead of being free from it, sadly and apparently even that will not change the brainwashing that has taken place over the last century or so.

          • Robert

            To your other points about hunting and survival and the “Rush” factor, I have been hunting all of my teenage and adult life and at the age of 50 I have yet to meet anyone who got addicted to the “Rush” of killing something.

            I have seen numerous times people never going back out again because the feeling they got from taking an animals life was just too much for them to deal with and I respect that but what I don’t respect are those very same people condemning me for being able to feed myself, family and others without the interference by government just because they somehow FEEL what I am doing is wrong.

            I also know hunters and anglers who just can’t stomach the cleaning process but again I have never met any hunter who got a “Rush” from killing something.

            That would be akin to someone coming home from one of the many Unconstitutional Wars the State wages after having killed someone and not feeling remorse, they are the ones that should scare the shit out of everybody.

            To the contrary I do know anglers who do get a huge adrenalin rush from landing a fish.

            To the point of survival, not many in these days and times would make it past the third day and probably die of thirst shortly afterward, hence them being no threat whatsoever to the Wild Life Population.

            Those of us who hunt to put food in the freezer and on the table also do so to help those who are less fortunate and are struggling to exist in the confines of the artificial construct that is government controlled food programs.

            We are not Trophy Hunters and nothing goes to waste and that which we cannot consume ourselves is left behind for the coyotes and the vultures.

        • barihappy

          I think the point trying to be made here is there is probably an overwhelming majority (although not provable) that don’t have these skill sets. Let’s face it, we don’t normally here of all of Chicago running around with fishing poles trying to get their supper. Technology and government have seen to that.

      • Nonya busi

        If you had no produced source of food you would do what ever you needed to in order to get feed that includes any other human. Natural law and your definition is oddly worded since natural is intending to say what comes natural to human nature and is not in conjunction with human laws (but sometimes can be), and further did you see in my statement anything saying that I was defining it or even suggesting that I defined it. This simply was my opinion from a direct position that holds that type of knowledge dealing with resource management. Your argument is without merit but great grammar. Where in history can you point out that government uses methods of control on animal food resource, or any real examples at all. I suggest you study global and economic issues to get some incite on these sort of issues. Believe me when I say if we could let anyone get out there and hunt most (as you clearly stated) don’t know how, and history has proven without managing resources people will kill at will and not properly use the resources taken.

        • Robert

          To your first point, you wrote, “We just like any living creature should be able to naturally feed ourselves and not have to beg or starve (ie. natural law).”


It would be the “in other words” part of that sentence where you defined the term.

          Also, that is not my definition. It is the definition given to it before people trying to pervert its meaning did so.

          I will not bother you with the fact that that throughout Antiquities, kings most definitely controlled the Food Supply and killed ANYONE who didn’t have permission to kill said game from said king, nonetheless.

          I will however point out a time closer to the one we live in that directly answers your question about me pointing to a time when food supplies were controlled.

          In 1963, 170 member countries within the framework of the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Program established by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations and the World Health Organization (WHO) got together and did the very thing you think isn’t happening or has never happened.

      • Logic

        No. That isnt the reasons for these laws and fees.

        In some cases, yes, the government intends on increasing revenue. I’ll concede that.

        But on the whole, do you honestly believe the REGULAR people who compose the state regulations concerning hunting are thinking to themselves “Oh boy this will show those pesky citizens who’s REALLY in charge here.”

        Because if you honestly believe that’s whats happening I’m not going to waste any more time replying to you’re delusions.

        Governments are sometimes problematic. Governments are sometimes corrupt and abusive. When you make a big deal out of a situation like this then you make yourself look crazy and wrong when you may otherwise have a few good points related to other practices.

        • Robert

          So, it’s your contention that by the man made artificial construct created to manage something that is natural, that being nature, makes it “just” to prop up that artificial construct for the over bloated oppressive and unnecessary corrupt bureaucracy that comes from it and that individuals must give up their Inalienable Rights to hunt and gather food, in order to perpetuate the over bloated oppressive and unnecessary bureaucracy created by “the legal fiction” — is that about right?

          Before you try and tell me, hunting and gathering is not an Inalienable Right, you might want to validate that because most states recognize it as a right and not a privilege.

          Ironically enough the states that don’t are and have been governed by those is the legislature who believe Statism should be The Law of The Universe because imposing the State’s will on free people is always better for freedom. <– Insert Much Sarcasm)

          • Logic

            No, it is my contention that we need licenses to provide some regulation and oversight to the hunting of animals so that the public may go on enjoying the hunting and fishing of these animals for many years to come.

            I think its fair to charge a nominal fee to if it helps cover the costs of the overhead for licensing.

            I don’t think its just in a philosophical sense for the government to use that revenue for something unrelated.

            So this $8 fishing license this guy didnt want to pay for sits just fine with me.

    • JefferyHaas

      The “language” he was using was “code-speak” used by “sovereigns”.
      Sovereigns are anti-government idiots who view ordinary cops as enemies of their so-called “natural law” and hundreds of cops get gunned down in cold blood every year when they pull these whack jobs over for driving cars with home made license plates.
      (see, they don’t believe in driver licenses or license plates either, more of a very long list of things they don’t believe in)

    • JefferyHaas

      Asshats like Tertelgte are known to shoot game wardens on sight.
      Same with cops, firefighters, anybody who works for the government.

  • Richard L. Ghue

    He’s a POS sovereign shitizen. Another domestic terrorist group that have no respect for the rights of others.

    • exterminateliberalism

      Apparently you don’t either. You have forgotten that, in America, we have the right to live as we see fit. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Its not for you to decide how a person that is not you, is too pursue their own happiness.

      • dlws8607

        How ironic (or moronic) that a person who goes by “exterminateliberallism” would make the post you did. I guess that right only applies to CONservatives.

  • Richard L. Ghue

    The man lives in Manhattan. Low rent district there huh?

    • Elliot

      your judgment is only holding you back, richard.


    Remember, remember, the fifth of November,
    The Gunpowder Treason and plot.
    I know of no reason why the Gunpowder Treason
    Should ever be forgot.

    We do not forgive
    We do not forget
    United as one
    Divided by zero
    We are legion
    We are Anonymous

    Join Anonymous as we march up to the front gates of the white house in protest or our corrupt government for various reasons November 5th 2014. No mask required, just suggested for solidarity and safety.

    • Robert

      That would be akin to joining a Commune for Freedom and advertising its location on a billboard in some over crowded government oppressed city.

      The best way to defeat Statism is stop it at the Steps of our Legislation because that is how it has gotten a foothold in our country to begin with and is why 47% of this country are wanting to return to a Constitutional Government and why so many others would simply do away with “government” all together, seeing how all it ever does is oppress Individual Liberty, wage Unconstitutional Wars, taxes us without representation, extorts our wealth from us, detains us illegally, manipulates the markets and the currency, forces us to pay to hunt our own food supply on our own lands and wants to take away our rights to defend our property and creates “Free Speech Zones”.

      Think about this while you’re “chewing” on the above, DC cops murdered an unarmed woman who accidentally ran into a fence at the White House.

      Do you really think The Statist Pigs are going to allow anyone who opposes their Statist Ideals march anywhere near their coveted House of Ill Repute?

  • JD

    FYI that was Deputy Sheriff Stan Lenic.

  • Daniel

    The guy sounds like a resentful bitter old man who is a touch too
    paranoid… a hippy whose world view has failed him. He sounds like he
    is created drama out of nothing. He does not sound like an innocent defending himself against a violation of his liberties.

    • Ingersoll

      you are not aware of the Constitution and it’s true meaning. The Gov’t does NOT have the authority to keep this man from feeding himself. He was not fishing for commercial purposes, he was pursuing his right to life, Read the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Then go on to the Federalist Papers and the Anti Federalist Papers before you judge this man.

      • Lamont AykayayCiti Montgomery

        Thank you. .. They have no idea what you are talking about and most don’t even understand the constitution let alone the federalist papers, but it’s good to know someone does

  • http://politicoid.us/blog/a-brief-discussion-on-education Kir (Politicoid)

    Good for him. It truly is amazing that we must pay for a license, which then “allows” us to obtain food, something we need in order to survive.

    • Logic

      The license this man didnt want to pay for costs $8.

      You don’t need a license to obtain food. You need a very inexpensive license to obtain food from public land where other people also may want to obtain food in an effort to ensure that the location remains a public place for people to obtain food for a very long time to come.

      Bad government.

      • http://politicoid.us/blog/a-brief-discussion-on-education Kir (Politicoid)

        It does not matter if it cost $0.01 The idea that we need a license in order to obtain food, and yes, obtaining food from public land is still obtaining food.

        • Logic

          So you’re just going to deny the very practical purpose the licenses serves?

          Given that you live in a society of 300 million people on a planet with 7 billion people you’re going to deny that we need some loose regulations to insure our limited resources aren’t overtaxed by our overpopulation?

  • robert

    the people of this country should NOT have to have a license to catch kill or obtain wild food its just another way for the govt to make money and CONTROL WHAT YOU DO

    • JefferyHaas

      If you make use of taxpayer provided infrastructure to access the land or water where you get your food, you need to pay a license fee.
      Taxes and fees are a normal part of life in the civilized world.
      The year is 2013, not 1789.

      • Patriot 1789

        False. Gas taxes pay for infrastructure used to get to the places of public land. That would be a double tax. One should not have to pay to forage for personal or to provide the family with food regardless of income or what not. This man was put on trial to prove a point and he made his point clear and valid.

        • JefferyHaas

          No, he didn’t, and he’ll be hauled right back in.
          And again and again and again and again and again.
          And I guarantee you, ALL you “sovereigns” will get wiped out one by one, till you’re extinct.
          You’re outsmarted, out-gunned and outnumbered.

          • RhetoricalQuestion

            The vitriol and cowardice you exemplify in your statements here seem to indicate you eat bowls upon bowls of stupid for breakfast. I hope useful idiots like you get a clue before you become no longer useful.

            Oh, and the Somalia metaphor, not a wise one. Proof you licked it off MSLSD’s boots.

          • Robert

            There are 43.8 million of us and growing and if you think we are out gunned and out smarted, you are truly delusional.

            You are however validating what those of us who know what the proper definition of freedom is have known all along, Slaves to the State like yourself are willing to trample over and kill anyone who opposes your Statist Ideology.

            Nothing knew to those of us who embrace freedom as we have read the history that has sided with your notion of murdering innocent free people.

            Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and all the other 200 Control Freaks of Nature murdered over a quarter of a billion free people combined, all in the name of their brand of Statism.

            Enjoy your Rations of Slavery and when you get the chance to murder free people I am sure you will have a warm and fuzzy feeling inside, much like FedGov did when it murdered the millions of Native American Indians who stood in its way of furthering its Statist Agenda, by marching out the Union Federal Army upon them, putting them in concentration camps, raping them and ultimately putting them on Reservations like cattle.

          • JefferyHaas

            ROFLMAO okay Robert! Forty-three million sovereign “men upon the land”, oh my God that’s a knee slapper.

          • JefferyHaas

            Yeah Robert, apparently only a hundred of you managed to make it to the coup in DC the other day.

          • Robert

            Who said anything about a coup d’état?

            I was “talking” about you Statist Pigs needing to murder 40 plus million free people to satisfy your addiction for Controlling everyone’s lives, money and property beyond the degree in which you already do.

            I am sure you will enjoy raping and murdering the women and the children as well, history demonstrates Statist Pigs do that too.

            I do have to ask, what is it about freedom you Statists despise so much?

            Is it you can’t govern yourself?

            Do you need Big Brother to hold your hand while you piss all over our Inalienable Rights?

            Or maybe you just like the thought of murdering 40 million free people and raping the women and children, which ever it is, it is truly disturbing and disgusting.

            I can assure you, there is no cure for that which ails your kind, save digesting a pill laced with cyanide, nonetheless.

            Free us from your Slave State of Mind.

    • JefferyHaas

      It’s amazing how you idiots seem to be able to make up crap which, in your minds, become law “as you speak it from your mouths” but a representative government made up of elected local, city and state officials don’t get any recognition from you because you believe in some ridiculous fairy tale about gold fringe on a flag.

      Guess what, jackass, there ARE things that you and I do which the government – ANY government – gets to control, in every country on Earth except one: SOMALIA.
      Move there…NOW.

    • Logic

      Its simple.

      Hunting and fishing permits have a practical purpose. That purpose is to stop the people of a given area from killing all the animals in a given area. You have a right to hunt and you have a right to fish, no one is denying you that. But unlimited hunting and fishing could very easily lead to OVER hunting and fishing.

      And the other people who live in a local area have the right to not see their local ecosystem killed by a minoirty of hunters.

      Do governments sometimes charge high fees for these permits in an effort to raise revenue? Yes.

      Is that the case in this situation? No. The permit this guy didnt want to pay for costs $8. Thats not extortion. Thats beyond reasonable. He’s a bum.

      This isnt about a controlling or abusive government. This is a good example of what government is actually good for. You have to get it through your head that you live in a SOCIETY and other peoples concerns and rights come into play.

  • Leslie

    If we had not hunting laws, we would have eradicated the buffalo (as we nearly did) and many other species that are hunted into oblivion.

    • Robert

      Contrary to the “Story” you have been told about the buffalo, the ultimate “savior” of the buffalo was not the government, but the free market before government made it a Not So Free Market.

      Furthermore, the North American bison herd was already falling below replacement levels before “evil “white hunters arrived.

      May I suggest you do some reading on the topic before making such a statement and do a little research on the time-period of which you are posting about?

      Like for instance, how the Plains Indians were already slaughtering an estimated 450,000 bison a year and how they didn’t actually “use” every part of the bison or research how they would “Box Burn” the herds and the infamously known, “Jumping” method they used.

      Historians and Archeologists have supported this data for over three decades now.

Now, one could argue and they rightly do, it was the expansion of the European settlers that caused this because contrary to popular myth, the Plains Indians desired Trading with the settlers and their over hunting of the bison was their answer to doing that which they did, Mass Slaughterings.

      Up to that point they were mostly gatherers and not so much hunters, save for the deer and small game they sought for clothing and protein to supplement their nut supplies.

      The Free Market saved the bison because inevitably those Europeans no longer desired bison fur or meat and the Plains Indians stopped the mass hunting techniques as they were no longer needed.

      Also, you have to remember The Union Federal Army slaughtered untold amounts of Native Indians, which contributed to the decline of the slaughtering of the bison as well.

The Great Dust Bowl was also another “Gift” from FedGov because they paid people to go out west to farm the land, had they not done that we would still have those beautiful fields of wild grain.

      Critically Think, instead of thinking about it in a circle.

      • Gale Lett

        “Tales told by pioneers concerning the immense numbers of buffalo seen on the plains were a severe tax upon one’s powers of belief. A Col. Dodge described a herd 50 miles wide that required five days to pass a given point. Gen. Phil Sheridan (1831-1888) traveled for 120 miles through a continuous herd, packed so densely that the earth was black, and the train was compelled to stop several times.

        The next spring a train on the same track was delayed at a point between Fort Marker and Fort Hayes, Kans., for eight hours, while an immense herd crossed the track. “As far as the vision could carry, the level prairie was black with the surging mass of affrighted buffaloes rushing onward to the south.”

        With buffaloes existing on the plains in such incredible numbers in the 1860s, their utter disappearance from the southern plains in the 1870s, and from the more northern region in the early 1880s, was truly an amazing circumstance. It was due in the main to the activities of the hide hunters who left their trail of desiccating carcasses and bleaching bones throughout the whole vast region roamed by the buffalo millions.” From http://deltafarmpress.com/livestock/buffalos-decline-tragic-part-national-history I don’t know where you got your information but you are painting a very damaging image of the Native Americans who did kill great numbers of buffalo, but not nearly on the scale of the white Europeans.

        • Robert

          The Myth of the Plains Indians is just that and unless you have a source better than the one cited, I will stick to what archeologists and historians have to “say” on the subject and the myths.

          I was clear about WHY the Plains Indians possibly did what they did, nonetheless.

          This notion Indians were a peaceful people is so distorted I cannot begin to explain to you to what degree it has been perpetuated.

          They were a Warrior People. They invaded other tribes and murdered and took slaves just like every other nomadic tribal warrior people throughout man kinds existence on this planet.

          Were there tribes that weren’t as aggressive as other tribes, absolutely but the notion they were all Peace Loving Campfire Hippies is not only absurd, it is flat out a lie.

          • Gale Lett

            I’m not saying they were not warlike, that would be unrealistic. What I am saying is that they were more in tune with their surroundings and knew better than to exploit their resources because they depended on them for their very existence.

          • Robert

            That is the point Ms. Lett, they did do JUST that because they too wanted to be apart of the Trade that was happening around them, contrary to popular myth.

            And to that point, it was the federal government that put an end to their nomadic ways.

          • Gale Lett

            Yes, but this was only AFTER the arrival of the white Europeans. To say the incursion of the Europeans to this country did not have a detrimental affect is irresponsible in the extreme.

          • Robert

            Ms. Lett, I never put the the devastation on the American Bison solely on the Plains Indians.

            I simply stated, it was a combination of multiple factors and the decline of the bison’s population happened prior to the Pacific Railroad being completed and eye witness accounts are not the “End All or Be All” of accurate history and it was the Free Market, before FedGov made it not so free that saved the bison’s hides, literally.

          • Gale Lett

            Well of course any time on race invades the country of another it is going to have a catastrophic affect on the native population regardless of which race it is or what country. I am fully aware that these events had to happen, it was inevitable. But to blame the near extinction of the buffalo on one factor only is ludicrous. As you said there were multiple factors involved.

          • Robert

            Truly Ms. Lett, I mean you know disrespect but the fact you can clearly state that which I have stated about it being a Joint Effort and then “go on” in the manner in which you are, is beyond me and quite honestly a bit suspect.

            I am not here to shed or expose your White Guilt, you can wear it proudly on your sleeve if it makes you feel better and you are certainly free to do so.

            I am here to try and articulate to those who are willing Slaves to Centralized Government, the devastating consequences of their actions and what that truly means to man kind.

            History is clear on what happens when Centralized Government and Centralized Banks become the Way of life.

            My only hope is for people to understand that if man kind is going to survive as a free people, repeating the history of allowing Government to rule over us is not the way it is going to happen.

            Free People Choose, Slaves obey and Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely.

          • Gale Lett

            I don’t know how this diverted from the subject at hand to an anti government rant but as for my “White guilt” I have nothing of the kind as I am part Native American. As for you anti government sentiments I would have to say I agree with you on this. Our own government is a prime example of what happens when a government is allowed too much power with a population that has become too ingrained with the idea they are going to take care of them. Nothing could be further from the truth. We mean nothing to them, except for what we earn them. We are worker ants, nothing more. We are expendable. We continue to feed the monster, which gets fatter as we grow thinner. Unfortunately, people have become too apathetic, lazy and out of touch to care much anymore. Which will be our downfall.

          • Robert

            It wasn’t rant it was stating fact and the White Guilt comment came about because of the suspicion I was having for you not grasping what I had stated, even though you clearly must have because you refrenced my comment, that clearly stated it was a combination of many things.

            What you never openly admit is what archeologists have discovered, the Plains Indians were already decimating the bison herds way before the Pacific Railroad was completed.

            As for your Native American Heritage I can personally make no apologize for what the Union Federal Army did to your ancestors, I will leave that for the Statist Pigs in FedGov to do, for those atrocities are theirs and theirs alone.

            Your ancestors do have my deepest felt condolences but condolences hardly matter at this point I would suspect.

            To the point of ‘how this became an anti-government thing’, Freedom has ALWAYS been under attack by government.

            So I am not understanding how you have come to the conclusion it was anything but an anti-governmental thing?

          • Gale Lett

            I don’t understand why you continue to want to turn this into an argument. I said I agreed with your anti government statements. Let’s just leave it at that.

          • Robert

            I was replying to your comment Ms. Lett, there is a difference.

            I wasn’t trying to turn this into an argument, as I need to make no argument.

            The Plains Indians were already decimating the bison herd before the Pacific Railroad was complete and FedGov’s Centralized Army decimated the Plains Indians.

            Case closed.

          • Gale Lett

            Invading any country is tantamount to rape. It is a very invasive and brutal thing.

          • Robert

            So, do you feel the same way about all races of people who have invaded other people and their “land” or just White Europeans?

            If so, you just lost any cred in knowing anything about how man kind came to live in the regions on this planet where they did.

            It was how man kind came to rule over the people, CENTRALIZED CONTROL, which is the whole basis of the articles original content and my argument against CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT and its artificial construct and Legal Fiction.

            Do you think for one moment that any of that conquering would have happened had people been free to govern themselves and not forced by the more powerful Centralized Control of the Artificial Construct?

        • Doug Bo

          That’s a very well-written, descriptive passage. One problem- Buffalo roamed in herds, regardless of their population numbers. Ergo, even with thinning (that’s a present tense word) numbers, there would still be massive herds to be seen. That large herds were witnessed is only proof that in those specific places, at that specific time, THAT herd still existed. The sighting of one large herd does not prove, or disprove the existence of other large herds. You can’t say that because you saw one large herd, the earth was still full of them, or that their numbers weren’t declining.
          If you’re going to try to make an argument, at least use ones that aren’t debunked in ten seconds with the smallest effort of critical thinking skills. A few of us still have those. Just saying.

          • Gale Lett

            If you had bothered to read it all the way through to the end it clearly says “From….and giving the url for the site I found it on. Not my words, someone else’s and is merely referencing first hand accounts of the early settlers. So good luck debunking what so many have said actually happened, like you were there.

          • Doug Bo

            I did read it through to the end, and I was well aware that they weren’t your words. This is why I referred to is as a “passage.” Google can give you the definition of that word, since you seem not to know it.
            However, even if I had misunderstood the author, that doesn’t negate the argument I’ve made.
            There exists no need for there to be thousands of buffalo for someone to witness a herd of fifty buffalo. There only needs to be a herd of fifty buffalo for someone to witness a herd of fifty buffalo. The point I’m trying to make here (which really isn’t that hard to grasp, I don’t know why you’re struggling with it) is that evidence of one herd is not evidence of a non-declining population so I don’t need to “debunk” what so many have said actually happened. In fact, I believe they saw these herds. But herds themselves are not proof of a healthy population. Until there’s only one buffalo, they will roam in herds… and people will see them doing so. But seeing ONE herd is NOT proof that their population wasn’t already declining.
            Gah, this is NOT that difficult to understand. :-/

          • Gale Lett

            Bit of a superiority complex I see. Seems to be pandemic in the male population.

          • Doug Bo

            …to accuse me of having a superiority complex with a comment that’s dripping with a sexist (if not blatantly feminist) undertone is ironic, at best. Especially since ‘superiority’ is the base for any ‘ism’. Hi Pot, my name’s Kettle. It’s nice to meet you.
            (okay, I lied, it really isn’t nice. It’s rather boring, actually.)

          • Daniel Olson

            Obviously the herds are diminishing right before our very eyes.. we went from at least several herds covering at least several square miles (each) to your 1 herd of 50. Interesting that you wouldnt use a herd numbered in the thousands to make your opinion seem valid. The thought process which recognizes that observing 1 herd must consider the possibility that it may be the ONLY one, must also recognize that seeing 1, 5, or even 500 herds must allow for the possibility that there could be more. Using that as an argument to support either view is invalid. If you saw only 1 herd of 50 in your entire lifetime that might tend to support your view better. But we can reference the records of personal accounts whether by laymen or researchers. Assuming there were far more avg citizens observing these creatures, en mass, throughout much of the territories, than say “official buffalo bean counters”, its hard to comprehend that the entire national population of buffalo were dwindling primarily from the Native Americans who hunted them out of necessity. It is FULLY believable that certain pockets of the species might be decimated due to over-hunting, when coupled with other natural enemies or disasters.

          • Doug Bo

            passage: noun “a portion or section of a written work; a paragraph, verse, etc.: a passage of Scripture
            To wit, my saying “That’s a very well-written, descriptive passage
            I swear, I waste far too much time trying to give elementary English lessons when I’m trying to have discussions. Seriously, don’t you people pay any attention in grade school?

      • Doug Bo

        Why should she actually do some reading, and study up on the topic? The National Geographic channel, Discovery Planet and The History Channel tell her all she needs to know and they’re not even remotely biased, not at all!
        *sarcasm drips*

  • Jeana Roper

    I have to say I agree ..

  • JefferyHaas

    Are you kidding me? This is Ted Kaczynski’s cousin.
    This is one of the nutjob “sovereign citizens”, and I guarantee you this won’t end with a dispute over a fishing license, it will end with a few dead cops because these idiots don’t recognize any nation whatsoever.

    • Robert

      No, you are doing a fine job of that all on your own.

      Kidding yourself, that is.

      • Richard L. Ghue

        If he were your neighbor, you would see. The sovereigns have a record of harassing anyone near them, taking what they want and filing bogus harassing litigation when they don’t get it. You might come home one day and find “no trespassing” signs on your own front door. They are nutjobs.

        • Robert

          The only people I see and read about doing that which you are describing are the Statists.

          I have seen and read about Statists taking private property from people, putting people to death who were innocent, storming peoples homes, killing their pets and then apologizing because they had the wrong house.


I have heard the Statists claim tasers are non lethal devices and yet over a thousand people have been killed with them over the pass 8 years. The Statists are not discriminatory with their use of them I will give them that, seeing how they have killed the elderly, the young, the mentally handicapped and every race of people with their new found non lethal toys.

          I have witnessed Slaves to the State call Crime Stoppers on people who had never committed a crime, save maybe having upset the caller at some point who didn’t like the way the person dressed or music they listened to.

          I have seen judges get busted with narcotics and walk away free, while people of no judiciary connection to the State do 10 years for possession of the same amount of narcotics and it being the same substance.


I have seen and read about Law Enforcement Officers abusing their authority to the point of taking human life with ZERO accountability and or punishment for having done so.

          I have witnessed sovereign country after sovereign country be bombed into oblivion by the ever revered State and the Slaves to it cheer them on all in the name of Statism.

          But I have yet to see “sovereigns” put No Trespassing signs on someone’s private property.

          The “nut jobs” Mr. Ghue are the ones who willing give up their freedom to become Slaves to the State.

        • heinrich6666

          The idea that this is guy is significantly more insane than anybody else is a joke.

          • http://hempshare.org HempShare

            Thank you.

            The Zombifried in America seem to confuse “employed” with Sanity. Funny part is they CANNOT give up their Inalienable Rights…even if they want to. Nor can they be taken away. The Judge & Bailiff are aware of this because IT IS THEIR BUSINESS TO KNOW THE LAW.

            Zombifried comments here from from Armchair Soccer Moms & Dads who get their: Sports Traffic & Weather from the former “News Actors”.

        • http://hempshare.org HempShare

          Look in the mirror.

  • Mr Ghue

    Sovereign citizen terrorist member…http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Citizen_Movement

  • Mr Ghue

    The New York Times reports that cases involving so-called
    sovereign citizens pose “a challenge to law enforcement officers and
    court officials” in connection with the filing of false notices of liens
    — a tactic sometimes called “paper terrorism.” Anyone can file a
    notice of lien against property such as real estate, vehicles, or other assets of another under the Uniform Commercial Code
    and other laws. In most states of the United States, the validity of
    liens is not investigated or inquired into at the time of filing.
    Notices of liens (whether legally valid or not) are a cloud on the title of the property and may affect the person’s credit rating.
    Notices of releases of liens generally must be filed before property
    may be transferred. The validity of a lien is determined by further
    legal procedures. Clearing up fraudulent
    notices of liens may be expensive and time consuming. Filing fraudulent
    notices of liens or documents is both a crime and a civil offense, a

    • Mr Ghue

      From the wiki link…

  • Daniel Olson

    Sorry, old man you still come off as crazy. I agree with the fishing license thing: you cant force someone to purchase a fishing license to feed themselves. If your going to fight the system and lose (and you will) at least try to make the system look crazier than you are.

    • jwhitehawke

      He should be on food subsidies and welfare…. living in govt housing. Screw him and his ‘natural right’ to forage for food. I HATE these idiots that think they can be independent of government. Next think you know he’ll be exposing himself in the woods taking a piss.

    • http://hempshare.org HempShare

      Dan when you become Conscious & Aware you too will realize how ignorant your post is. Not speaking out is Treason.

      • Daniel Olson

        Thanks for assuming i’m not conscious or aware. I didnt say dont speak out.. although i dont understand the rhetoric: “not speaking out is treason” (Treason against who or what?) There is a way to fight the system, but it requires guts/activism AND finesse/ reason. This man did not present well or respect the court..
        Furthermore, while i believe in legalization of pot, I’m unlikely to find much common ground with someone who uses a marijuana leaf for an avatar. You and I think on completely different wave lengths. I’m about solutions…

        • http://hempshare.org HempShare

          Treason against Rights. When one does not say: “I have a right to forage for food”, they are subject to the laws of the Policy Enforcer. It is really quite simple. Laws that violate Human Rights are an International Violation, and in many cases Unconstitutional. Here he has a Constitutional Right of Social Justice, and a Human Right to Food. For him to sit idle and be incarcerated he commits Treason against His ‘Self’, and is convicted in a Court of Their Laws. One must be Conscious & Aware of Reality to comprehend the concept of ‘Self’ which is where Natural, Universal, & Inalienable Rights come from.

          • Daniel Olson

            Agreed.. but speaking out and speaking out effectively are not the same thing. If the goal was to win his argument… I’m not so sure he fared well. I don’t know if reason would have worked in the court… some judges are too close minded. But the same scenario with representation of someone who is versed in law and recognized by the court could have had a better outcome for him.
            I see this as a bigger constitutional issue. Requiring hunting licenses or fishing licenses should only be required if someone is “harvesting” for profit. If the laws effectively say you cannot provide for yourself without paying the fee, thats a problem anyone should recognize.