http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MyhDusFMOQ
Printable View
Now this is my kind of American. In a packed courtroom, 52-year-old Ernie 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.” Charged with fishing without a license and resisting the arrest for fishing without a license, Mr. Tertegte says he’s being wrongly prosecuted for trying to feed himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by allodial
http://conservativepost.com/mountain...nding-himself/
DENVER, CO. A Wyoming man seeking to overturn rulings by a Wyoming federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in favor of the U.S. Forest Service in a dispute over whether his land may be used as a federal trail today received notice that his petition that the Supreme Court of the United States review the rulings was granted. Marvin Brandt, of Fox Park, claims title to a railroad right-of-way and a road that accesses his property. The land claimed by the United States was used as a railroad right-of-way from 1904 until 1995 when the railroad abandoned it; all tracks and ties were removed by 2000; thereafter, the Forest Service abandoned what was once a road. The Wyoming court, over Mr. Brandt’s objections, ruled the Forest Service retained a reversionary interest in the railroad right-of-way pursuant to two federal statutes and that the Forest Service did not abandon the road. A three-judge panel upheld the ruling in September 2012 and then refused to rehear the case. http://www.mountainstateslegal.org/n...w#.UrfyqrvnbIU
Freeman Shuts down the court Judge abandoned the court http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m839K97KJ5Q
Nothing wrong with enjoying the fruits of nature.
I was to request deletion of the thread favoring it for an analysis for where he may have gone wrong since he appeared for the second case after the "judge' abandoned the room and was then after further analysis found guilty--although there was divergent evidence. In a sense it was a win --at first.
I have restored the video link in the first post. As indicated, I would have preferred this to be moved to a discussion about Refusal for Cause and appearances. With the judge leaving the courtroom, perhaps they re-invited him the second time. Seems he made an appearance-appearance the second time: they summoned an entity and he appeared. As I've mentioned many times "summoning" is one of the most fundamental spells in magic, witchcraft--even in fantasy role playing games. This is not to suggest summoning to always be evil or unlawful. Something to consider nonetheless.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqKi1Tmv43Q
Related: Apparitor.
This seems worthy of analysis especially with respect to refusal for cause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by allodial
In the first vid the judge gives the answer why he failed.
They almost always do, but when one is in that situation the mind races to fast and misses the obvious.
Often they do. Perhaps you can explain?Quote:
Originally Posted by walter
Sure thing
There are many mistakes he did.
But one sticks out big time.
0:15 Judge "but your here in court today"
0:26 mtn. man "I am here"
0:42 mtn. man claims the NAME
0:46 mtn. man agrees to civic address and judge says "alright"
1:13 judge says Mr. mtn. man was here
1:57 judge says he was charged
2:16 mtn. man agrees he was charged
3:18 judge "but your here"
3:27 judge "you are here"
4:42 judge "you are here"
4:45 mtn. man " i am here"
4:46 judge "right"
5:33 judge "you are here"
5:36 mtn. man " i'am here"
see the trend?
As long as he answers to the surname its game over.
He forfeits the NAME, he claims he is not the NAME, but then says he is their to protect the NAME.
Why protect something that you are claiming is not yours?
He should have got a psychiatric evaluation.
The short of it is that the mtn. man appeared to the summoned NAME.
File your abatement,jurisdiction challenge, bond or what ever else you want to and then stay at home.
Appearance of any kind is still an appearance.
Same shit happened to me before I got the picture and then I stopped going.
Game ended, nobody to play with.
You pretty much got it. However, special or restricted appearances are not the same as general appearances. Likely he was seen as riding the fence.Quote:
Originally Posted by walter
The NAME and the word you go hand in hand. I believe I picked this attachment a few days ago from here on another thread.....maybe not....but it's worth posting ....from pg 2 of the attachmentQuote:
Originally Posted by walter
Quote:
In “law”, this word “you”, is properly utilized in all ordinary legal discourse when
addressing the singular mind (or the single party with volition) within the plural-nature construct of a PERSON. The PERSON being comprised of a man that answers for, or is
liable for that PERSON, and the corporate entity that IS that PERSON. In this sense,
addressing a PERSON, as “you”, is actually as close to a proper use of the word “you”,
as anyone could imagine.
Touché !Quote:
Originally Posted by walter
Minor oversight - The judge also stated "you signed this document". They (courts) only see persons and if "mountain man" signed in blank, well then.
Ah yes. As usual powder makes a most excellent point.Quote:
Originally Posted by powder
Years ago there was this Judge Judy TV show (still on i think) and there was this night club owner who was being sued.
The man told Judge Judy that he was not the night club and the plaintiff got the wrong party because the plaintiff sent the letter (document) addressed to the night club and not the night club owner being him.
Judge Judy asked him if he opened the letter that was addressed to the night club?
He said yes.
Judge Judy said there is no difference then your the night club.
As ag manic posted earlier on this thread:
The PERSON being comprised of a man that answers for, or is
liable for that PERSON, and the corporate entity that IS that PERSON.
Here is a man that challenges jurisdiction a proper way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=OUSoH5ISco8
Its to bad that they will always dismiss the case with some other technically to prevent case law precedent.
Actually, the proper way to challenge jurisdiction is on paper ONLY. There would be no video recording of that available on youtube or vimeo....Quote:
Originally Posted by walter
i agree with you there,Quote:
Originally Posted by powder
I too agree, bring in the news media for full coverage. A 2014 New Years resolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by powder
“defendant” includes a respondent to an application;
I found that in Canada's copy write act.