6 votes

Mountain Man Arrested in Court For Following Constitution

Mountain Man Found Guilty, Mr.Tertegte Hauled Away in Cuffs.


http://youtu.be/ZPAoEYHmQMc



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Huh?

but the people did not vote someone over them
they thought they were voting in others to uphold their rights

I can't figure out what your point is. Hunting and fishing regulations in Montana go back to the mid 1800s. In what way were the rights of Montana voters in the 19th century not upheld when legislation for wildlife conservation was enacted by duly elected representatives acting consistently with the state and federal constitutions?

deacon's picture

so what

it was not the montana legislature ,it was set up by the montana legislature
the MFWP,which is an arm created without a vote from the people
so it was not voted on for the people,nor was it voted on by the montana gov
and I am sure with a population of less than 1 million now,they had a real problem with over fishing back then
but it does say a lot about sustainability,for the fish and wild life
again I am sure they had over fishing and over hunting with all them people who didn't live there
nice try at twisting my words,and making light of it

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

You can't be serious

it was not the montana legislature ,it was set up by the montana legislature
the MFWP,which is an arm created without a vote from the people

Actually, the first regulations predated the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (and its predecessors), and even predated Montana statehood, so obviously the need for it arose pretty early, which helps explain why they wrote something into the constitution requiring the state government to manage natural resources.

And again, "without a vote from the people" makes it sound like you still don't understand the notion of representative government, and the system of state government created by the Montana constitution.

so it was not voted on for the people,nor was it voted on by the montana gov

Again, representative government. Plus, do you really not understand the idea of a delegation of authority?

and I am sure with a population of less than 1 million now,they had a real problem with over fishing back then but it does say a lot about sustainability,for the fish and wild life

Actually, among the first laws regulating wildlife in Montana was in 1869 when they closed quail and partridge seasons for three years. That sounds to me like they were addressing a problem of over-hunting. That was less than ten years before the passenger pigeon went extinct from over-hunting. You underestimate the ability of people to impact wildlife, apparently.

again I am sure they had over fishing and over hunting with all them people who didn't live there

The overhunting wasn't probably by the people who did live there, actually. Not sure why you think it would have been all the people who didn't live there, but I can't make sense of a lot of what you write.

deacon's picture

all them words wasted

a not anything called proof to back any of it up
All them words,and it means nothing,it is your word
and nothing else

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

typical deacon response to reality

I suspect you respond to any words of wisdom or truth in the same manner.

If it isn't wrapped up in "hey kids here's a shrink-wrapped conspiracy waiting for you to parrot" type of lingo, then you're not interest, are you Deacon?

Go ahead, stick your finders in your ears and say nya nya nya loudly whenever anyone challenges your alternasheep world of internet theorizing. See how far that gets you in life. See how far that gets liberty.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

deacon's picture

you can't figure out my point?

do you honestly think them voters would vote people in if they knew they were going to infringe on their rights?
the state does not own a thing,it does not own the air,water nor the animals
the state as it was written is the people(us)
the state is not above their own people,the people did not give them that right(but it was stolen)by one law at a time(and,i will ad,the state has no authority to create laws)
they were created to uphold the written law,as they were written
now,they might have been duly elected (as you put it) but they do not
represent the people(they do,represent their own owners)and they are the ones who financed their lying campaigns
Now they have laws on the books that even land owners need a license to hunt/fish on their own properties,do you think the people submitted this to be voted on? or do you think this mis managed represented gov did it all by itself?
I say,they usurped authority,and did it all without the peoples consent
D

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Yes.

Do I believe people would vote for representatives that would pass laws that infringe on their rights? Yes. I honestly believe that. Why? BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN FRICKEN DOING IT FOR A HUNDRED OR MORE YEARS!!!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

no idea where you're getting all that

You seem to think you know the will of the voters in the mid 1800s. Based on what? The state constitution, ratified by the voters in Montana in 1889, required the state government to "maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment," and to "provide adequate remedies to prevent unreasonable depletion and degradation of natural resources." Evidently a significant percentage of the voters thought that this was an appropriate thing for their state government to be involved in. You seem to think otherwise. Based on what?

Then you say things like "the state has no authority to create laws," and "they were created to uphold the written law,as they were written" -- the paragraph is so garbled it's hard to figure out, but do you mean that the state legislature was created not to enact laws, but to uphold laws that were already written before the state was formed? What laws, written where? In any case that's not what the state constitution says, obviously, in Montana or any other state, so whatever you have in mind it's not how the state government was intended to work at the time it was created.

You later write (about hunting/fishing licenses) "do you think the people submitted this to be voted on?" but obviously the answer is no because that's not how the state government was set up by the state constitution, in Montana or any other state. Are you saying you believe all legislation should originate by being submitted by the people? By what, a referendum and majority wins? Where are you getting all this?

yep that's his misunderstanding alright

typical of sovereigns, they would forsake all the protections of principle that come with having a republic, all for the mob rule of a true democracy. They call it anarchy, but in reality, it would be a vote on anything and everything, all the time, where the unfortunate result would be that the Dancing witht he Stars addicts will then run roughshod over any principle left and the Constitution will then be what liberals call a "living document" and what Constitutionalists call a "dead document."

I remember Rick Santelli (the guy who coined "tea party" with his on air rant from the stock exchange) saying something profound and mature when he was asked what he thought of the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare constitutionality. He said he didn't like it but he believed in "pragmatic process."

If we live in a Republic, we have to accept that sometimes we don't get what we want, and have to respect that law anyway. That is lost on sovereign citizen types, but as a Constitutionalist/libertarian/minarchist, it is entirely appropriate.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

deacon's picture

my rubbery friend

you are a LIAR
and this isn't the first time you have been called out for it
show me in any post i made that claimed I was into the sovereign citizen
You cannot,because I haven't studied it that much
and you wonder why most here,and probably in your own life outside of the
internet do not even engage you,nor even believe the tripe you spew
They know you like most here and that is a LIAR
but isn't that what lawyers do,lie through their teeth? why yes it is,and seeing most lairs want to be judges,the judges are known for their lies themselves

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

you defend it endlessly

and you attack anyone who criticizes it...

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

deacon's picture

you needs meds

you are a fraud,liar and a deceiver.
you also try projecting what you are and what you have said onto others
I have attacked no one,you are the name calling troll here
and as i have asked SHOW ME,but you failed to do so,as your words are lies
they cannot be defended
lets go have a look at your posts here,shall we? and what did we find?
oh,attacks on people, fed up with your system of injustice
here is what you defend tooth and nail
http://one-heaven.org/lexica/en/define/justice.html
justice...look it up...I dare you
here is another

http://one-heaven.org/lexica/en/define/human%20being.html

and yet another
http://one-heaven.org/lexica/en/define/person.html
I could go on,but choose not to,you just aren't worth it
have a nice trolling day

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

I think you've got that backwards

admit it, whenever I post something about sovereign citizens, you come calling with a bunch of ad hominem attacks. If you're not a sovereign citizen enthusiast, why is that? And then there are your own posts on the matter, linking to youtube vidoes ont he subject at intermediary sites such as stormfront and icke forums. Need I remind you of that?

So, no I don't think I'm misunderstanding you. I don't think I'm misrepresenting your posting history. If you don't want to be called a duck, then don't make posts defending ducks, and don't persecute everyone who criticizes duckness. It's simple. Stop quacking.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

deacon's picture

well then

prove it,afterall you being a liar,you know full well
one needs proof(evidence)
I have seen none,have you?
show me,you cannot,as there isn't any
and this is why,you cry,as you have no proof
but nice try again,you turner of truth
But,for all to read on the DP,you are worthy of stormfront,this is why I
gave you them links,can't handle it? to bad,so sad
but for all to read on the DP,bring up my posting history about them (sovruns)
including all youtube videos i posted concerning said topic and also include
for future posterity the link of my comment as to why I gave you them 2 links
please do so,i beg you

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

you're ridiculous

you want me to prove you posted things, that you posted, and that you admit to posting? why? I don't need to prove that. I'm not claiming anything that is debated or debatable.

When you claim that sovereign citizen stuff works in court, or - when you functionally do the same thing by attacking one who asks for "proof" that it works, that is quite a different situation. Sorry if that offends you, really.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

deacon's picture

wrong again turner

i asked you for evidence i posted what you claimed i did
as of late,you haven't,so therefor,it did not happen
3,or was it 4 times i asked you you to post
your claims,and you failed,now why? IT DIDN'T HAPPEN and i am done responding to your stupid tactics
I will,for the better of all involved just downvote everything you put to print
I admitted to nothing,as it would be hard to admit to doing something that wasn't done,and you you twister of everything that was good,roved it all,by your own silence

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

WTF?

who is "turner?"

and given that you admitted to posting the stuff, and even admitted to posting an explanation of why you posted the stuff, it clearly happened and no proof is necessary. You've made several posts attempting to back away from it since then. But hey, you come on all strong attacking me for having a discussion with you. Grow up and don't take it so personally if people post something you don't agree with - and especially if you can't handle your own post being criticized, which is apparently the case.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

deacon's picture

WTF,yourself

I asked you 4-5 times now for proof
this was not an admission of guilt
what I did say "i gave you 2 links"
and I told you why,you are worthy of them
But again you fail and have nothing of value to offer
you came spouting off how I did this and that,but when confronted
did exactly what i knew you would do,and that is nothing
you offer nothing,as this is what you are about
you have nothing as you are empty
I will add,it was all you attacking everyone on here who had a different idea than yours
you yourself projected your own stupidness onto others with the name calling and snide remarks,and if you remember my slippery one, I was the one who tried to help you.
But,you wouldn't hear any of that
so just go sit on a sharp one,I am done talking to you,you just aren't worth the time of day
And I certainly want the likes of you anywhere near me

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

I'll give you a chance to clarify your position

are you really claiming that you didn't post what I said you did? It seems that you are the slippery one, or one who wishes he were slipperier, because you've backtracked in this thread from "didn't do it" to "I did it but I meant something other than what was posted." Even in this post, you're intentionally vague, perhaps trying for both. You wanna confirm what your position is before I blast your phony diatribe to smithereens?

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

deacon's picture

slippery idiot

I have asked you what,5 times now for your damned proof
and yet you come back with your last sentence "your phony diatribe"
Here let me help you,open another DP tab,click on my acct here
copy the series of numbers and letters from the browser,click back to where you want it copied,final step PASTE IT
this is exactly what i did when you LIED about me giving you them 2 links
(you do remember that,right?) I copied that,what 4 times just for you
You have been given your mission,so be at it
have a nice trolling day

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

sticky fellow -

When you roll around in poop all day on the internet, it will stick to you and cause you to smell bad.
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3131808

There, the post where you linked to Icke and Stormfront. Not me, but you. So, your posts which tend to state or imply you didn't do so are false.

Then, there are your posts where you try to say it isn't what it looks like. Well. I disagree. First of all, you didn't "provide me links." Rather, you were in a back-and-forth with NowOrNever. So, you provided the forum with your links or provided NowOrNever with your links, but you didn't provide them to me.

Both NowOrNever and I pointed out your strange choice of an intellectual source. You immediately disappeared for nearly an entire day trying to formulate a response. You then said "you 2 didn't really think i was going to post any links from real sites,did you?" and began your attempt to distance yourself from the stuff you really believe.

But here is the thing, you knew those sites had those posts about strawman theories AT THAT TIME. To know that you had to read those forums. One was of a tubby conspiracy nut called Jordan maxwell, who you've cited other times. He's the guy that tells people that they are "water products" because there is liquid in the mother's womb, ergo, admiralty jurisdiction somehow! I bet you buy that one as well!

Look, we've caught you, the more you deny it the more it perpetuates. No one is misrepresenting you. You linked to stormfront and icke for the proposition that there is a strawman, in the midst of an argument with two other people, NowOrNever and myself, who said there wasn't. You even state in your post "here is what i mentioned above" demonstrating you were totally on board with it.

So, stop lying, it;s obvious and pathetic.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

deacon's picture

that's all you got?

One single post of mine?
One after I told you I didn't trust you
one after I told you why.
One after I told I would not give you names of people
i personally know who drive without a license,plates nor ins.
The same post where I tried giving you some friendly advice
about why NO ONE took you serious
And yes,the conversation was between myself,you and the other guy
not just between and him,so yes I gave you crap,just like you gave others here
the same deal
And i disappeared for a day? really man?
I have a life beyond the DP,and I live it,hey look ^^^^...I disappeared last night,I must have gone to bed,Oh wait,I must have needed time to formulate yet another plan lmao
Whom is this we,that caught me? Could it possibly be,that mouse in your pocket?
The fact remains,on that topic,I was asking questions,as I have only delved into that subject,but you feel free to think ANYTHING AND WHATEVER YOU WANT
The greatest majority here don't look at my as a liar,but they do you
and with good reason,one makes a life of lies,and lives them,and then there's me
I seek truth,and ask questions when I need clarity
Maybe I should bump that whole post,and let the ones who want to see how it all transpired see it
Now dear chicken plucker,can you explain your low reception compared to say MINE? I bet I can,but can you?
Can you explain why very few people here take what you say as truth? I can
so just blibber blibber,blabber blabber away
What I do do,is back all (well most people) who want to fight corruption
But you keep on keepen on
But again,your type,are the ones who I want no where near me, I GOT ENOUGH USELESS EATERS TO KEEP ME OCCUPIED FOR A LIFE TIME
have a nice trolling day

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

ye, okay

so you think you are more popular at this site. Big whoop. First, I disagree, and point out that most people probably don't read every back and forth, especially when one of the parties is spewing obvious crap which is either insanity or disinfo (that would be you). Second, who cares? A majority of the Nazi party liked to exterminate Jews. A majority of the democratic party would like to have socialism full blown. A majority of police would like to arrest you for your thoughts. I gave up on popularity contests a long time ago, junior. Integrity is what matters. Get some, it's cheap.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

what he says may be pro-liberty

but it isn't pro-Constitution as it doesn't invoke any Constitutional principles. But to the extent he is doing what he thinks is right, and trying to prevent incursions against common liberty for doing things like "fishing", I guess that is admirable.

I just have a great deal of processing it when he vents his anger by citing imaginary legal concepts.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

deacon's picture

isn't it the lack

of const principles that is addressed?
and by the lack of const principles,i mean fed and states
all authority is to the people first,then to the gov's
it is not the other way around
governments are not brought into existence on their own,it is the people who have the power and the authority over it all
the gov's are only there to do the peoples bidding,and to uphold the const as it is written
But this not what has been going on,what has been going on,is a total usurpation of rights and and authority
The people are not to be under the states or the fed gov,afterall,they work for us(supposedly) so we are their employers
No congress has never been given the authority to create laws against the people
and no judge should ever be given free reign to have an opinion of what laws mean

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

You're as clear as mud

Under the Constitution, this kind of thing is left to the states. Fishing licenses, resisting arrest charges, assaulting an officer charges, contempt threats...none of these are colorable Federal jurisdiction issues.

Given that these issues are left to the states, you look then at the Montana Constitution and the applicable law, and whether it was lawfully enacted and applied. I am unaware of anyone making a fact specific argument that the Montana statutes at issue here were unlawfully enacted. (Other than the meaningless "statutes don't apply gibberish" which is just that).

Your statement that "Congress has never been given the authority to create laws against the people" is just flat wrong. Congress is the legislative branch of government. Your having made that statement makes it clear that, while you are very interested and enthusiastic about liberty, you're not up to speed on what the founding fathers had in mind.

If I could make a suggestion, if you want to be effective in pushing for liberty, you need to understand not just what you want, but you need to understand how the system was designed to work (which though imperfect is far better than what we have) versus how it does work. If you focus on that and lay off the sovereign citizen kiddie theories for awhile, you will be able to discuss it more effectively.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

All due respect, DDW,

I wasn't talking to you unless you want to admit to having 2 screen names.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

Sorry!

I just thought it was ironic that in response to Chicken's unrebutted list of things that he's saying you misunderstand about the Constitution, you posted something that appeared to be based on a misunderstanding of the tenth amendment. I should have let Chicken point that out on his own. Sorry!

I'll second that and I'll quote Ron Paul

that when States exercise the powers reserved to them, "sometimes they get it wrong."

While states' rights are a good thing, there is nothing preventing a state, especially a large state with lots of tax revenue, say like California and New York, from going full authoritarian on your a$$. The Constitution is not a perfect document. What makes it remarkable is that it inherently recognizes that decentralized power is good, that the individual is more important than the collective, and that government is inherently bad and must only be tolerated for certain core functions. We are so far from that now, I would be happy to see a return to these values.

But there's nothing preventing a state, under States' rights theories, and under permissive Constitutionality rulings from State and Federal courts, from becoming a full-blown police state, or close to it.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

the people dealing with him . . .

look foolish--

they don't know what to do with him--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--