I saw the first part of this video years ago and I found it again recently. Of course, on the face of it it appears to be such a great video, but I don't want to get too excited and jump the gun here.

"I am the Living Man protected by Natural Law!"
"Do not tell me to shut up! I am the Living, Natural Man, and my voice will be heard!"
"You are trying to create a fictitious, fraudulent action."
"I never plead. Animals plead - sounds like baaaa, oink oink."

24/11/2013

A Man from Montana who cited "Natural Law" repeatedly as his defence and became famous, after his video went viral, for his continual outbursts and defence of himself against authourity and/or tyranny during court proceedings was found guilty ultimately on two charges of fishing without a license.

According to KBZK, 52-year-old Ernie Tertelgte defended himself in court. The charges were obstructing an officer and resisting arrest, because he was fishing without a license. He argued that "Universal Law" allows him to hunt for food to feed himself.

Being asked or told to be quiet, he said, "I cannot, ma'am, in honour of the Constitution of the United States. I can't allow a man who carries British recognition for the purposes of British ministerial law to continue to persecute me. I have to honour the founders, ma'am. I honour the memory of those who fought and died, that we can be free of this type of thing."

Tertelgte was then ordered out of the court room and two officers told or asked him to stand up - "If I stand up I give you recognition. No - pick me up. I cannot give you recognition."

Becoming a legend in the viral video, Tertelgte was still found guilty and fined $150 for fishing without permission, and was also charged with obstruction, apparently -

From a youtube comment -
Fishing without a license is a civil offense. It's not possible to be arrested for it. Ernie was asked if he had a fishing license and he refused to answer the officer's question. The officer then asked Ernie for ID and he also refused. I have no love for the police, but in this case, it was indeed obstruction.

Apparently, from another youtube comment -
He pled no contest to the fishing without a licence charge and did 25 hrs community service but miraculously a jury found him not guilty at resisting arrest.

Again, from a further youtube comment (not a direct quote) -
Maybe if anyone pretended that he was a "Native" American... what would be the difference then?


https://www.bitchute.com/video/3xPbDc9iJ84C
https://archive.is/FwC3a
https://kirkslawcorner.com



This is what I know as the Jolly Roger -




Is he an idiot, right, confused, or what? Do we all have a right to do as we want peacefully under "common law"? When a government says a forest is the property of that government, in a country which it is supposed to govern, does that government pay property taxes, licence fees, etc., like it forces private property owners to, so they are not actually owners of that property? (Also - why are we the only species who must pay another species repeatedly, whether renting or buying a house through a mortgage - even if we pay 99% of it but not the last 1%, 100% of the house is "owned" by someone else - to live in our "own" home? Yes, we know why.) The things which we need - food & drink, a place to sleep, warmth and comfort - are essential and they should be free, or at least if we work to process (grow, rear) it cleanly and healthily then we should not also have to pay more than that to consume it.

There may be different scales to this - ultimately, we don't want or need BS, but at the moment, we have to wade through the bullshit up to our necks. Are long-gone the days when people could stand up and fight with swords, instead of legal jargon which is made to be confusing deliberately so that we need to rely on someone else, who gets paid, to speak and interpret for us while we don't know if they are being genuine or fucking us, so that we can still live our own lives in our own ways in our own areas with our own peoples, respectively? Well, we as Spiritual Satanists and National Socialists know different means to fight with Spiritual swords... especially now that we all know and are coming to know that the "government" is from an entirely different Planet, so it has no ownership of anything Earthly... but is he correct or is he a fool? What do you think and/or know?

I just want to say that it absolutely astounds me that you posted this today, because I, too, saw this fellow years ago, and I, too, rewatched him today. Not the first video which was pretty stellar, but the follow-up in which he's defending himself against the very same judge and is charged with contempt of court. The coincidence of this, it just floors me, and I know this wasn't some YouTube algorithm that got both of us because I went through a rather specific chain of videos to rediscover the Living Man. I've wondered before if I could succeed where he failed and get away with practically anything on the grounds that I am "the breath of this earth" and that the living sigil that is my identity is never in all capital letters as is often carried out in the corporate fiction imposed upon the land. 'Cause what a coherent, legible argument that is.

Regarding the philosophical and political questions you posed, those are a bit beyond my faculties at this point in time, but I will say that most of his argumentation is goofy, i.e., the British law argument he used, and any valid points you could glean from it are heavily shat upon by his potentially mentally ill, xianity-fueled views (There are videos of him breaking down xian theology to an allegedly voluntary audience.). Hence why he decided objecting immediately on the grounds that his living sigil (see: name) is never in all capital letters, was a sound decision. If there is any validity to this guy's philosophy on life, it wouldn't extend to such a radical degree nor would it entail obstinate civil/legal disobedience when dealing with a NS/SS government.

I went on this sovereign citizen quest a while ago and I still don’t know what to make of it. There was this video of a guy explaining how the constitution is actually a set of laws for “them” and that it didn’t apply for us. His channel is thebigsib and I just checked and saw that J-tube hasn’t deleted him yet (hmm).

I remember the main references were blacks law dictionary, he went over the legal definitions of, person, people, and some other words and the definitions were really strange. He explained that judges wore all black because when you go into a courtroom you essentially give up your identity as a natural human being (dying) and you become a “legal person”. Basically under law and lawyerspeak a “person” or “people” does NOT mean human.

I would link to it, but this guy is a major Christian. He had many videos exposing Jews and the Kabbalah but he twisted into a way that was satanic and he was a proponent of what can only be described as Aryan Israelism. I haven’t watched his videos since before being a satanist so like December 2019. It might sound like babble but I was fascinated by it. I would explain more if I could remember. There is a lot of information regarding this stuff if you are looking for it.

Powstanie Pogańskie said:

I just want to say that it absolutely astounds me that you posted this today, because I, too, saw this fellow years ago, and I, too, rewatched him today. Not the first video which was pretty stellar, but the follow-up in which he's defending himself against the very same judge and is charged with contempt of court. The coincidence of this, it just floors me, and I know this wasn't some YouTube algorithm that got both of us because I went through a rather specific chain of videos to rediscover the Living Man.

Click to expand...

I actually wasn't on youtube at all at first. I went on youtube to check comments, but I was on Bitchute, in fact, when I first re-found the video, then I searched online for the phrase "the Living Man", and I found the news article and the second part of the video. I merged the two separate videos together into one video.

I've wondered before if I could succeed where he failed and get away with practically anything on the grounds that I am "the breath of this earth" and that the living sigil that is my identity is never in all capital letters as is often carried out in the corporate fiction imposed upon the land. 'Cause what a coherent, legible argument that is.

Click to expand...

It sounds as if you are being sarcastic in your last sentence there... Am I wrong? Either way - I suppose this is going towards the other posts I have made a few times regarding us being "allowed" to do, or not disallowed from doing, what-the-fuck-ever we want, because we have our own 'code', perhaps inviting other like-minded individuals to join us in our own 'way' and/or creating and 'growing' our own Elementals and incarnating them into Bodies to live as humanoids - as long as we don't hurt Animals nor People nor Satan and His Fellows/Friendlies (friendlies who may actually dislike Humans but who are still friendly with Satan's side). I will not stress that point/question, and I haven't received any replies regarding it (unless I missed them), but this all actually does fit-in with that and draw that out. At the risk of deciding ignorantly for myself - a lack of no answer, or a lack of the answer "no" = yes, perhaps.

Regarding the philosophical and political questions you posed, those are a bit beyond my faculties at this point in time, but I will say that most of his argumentation is goofy, i.e., the British law argument he used, and any valid points you could glean from it are heavily shat upon by his potentially mentally ill, xianity-fueled views (There are videos of him breaking down xian theology to an allegedly voluntary audience.). Hence why he decided objecting immediately on the grounds that his living sigil (see: name) is never in all capital letters, was a sound decision. If there is any validity to this guy's philosophy on life, it wouldn't extend to such a radical degree nor would it entail obstinate civil/legal disobedience when dealing with a NS/SS government.

Click to expand...

I think the basic meaning he has is valid, but maybe he has added a lot of nonsense on top of it, so it is a bit difficult to see the basic message clearly. Still, though - when such a video goes viral, and then people re-watch, re-find or find it years later, and they all love it and it might go viral again, that says a hell of a lot about the citizenry - about their attitudes against (((the establishment))) and how (((they))) are out-of-touch with Humans - both in terms of (((them))) being non-Human aliens, and also in terms of the very essence of "law" and related things being incorrect, like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole - that the Humans are the square peg and the BS "laws" and things are the round hole; we were 'square pegs' Naturally... so it is the round-hole "law" shit which needs to change. (I hope anyone reading this followed that! Lol.)

SouthernWhiteGentile said:

I went on this sovereign citizen quest a while ago and I still don’t know what to make of it.

Click to expand...

"No man is an island."
I think... that is somewhat true. We are independent and can, if we learn how to and then actually do, cater for ourselves and our own. When I come into your house, I have to abide by your rules; if you come to my island, then you do things my way. (Hear that, muslims, j00z, etc.?!) We can leave our 'island' and interact with other people. The jew loves to make people be Tom Hanks in Castaway - locking them up in jail or mental asylums, etc. (I saw just recently Britney Spears not being 'allowed' to make practically any decisions for herself, while I think it also said she has a legal obligation to parent her child/ren. Also seeing the face it showed from her first music video to now, it looks like someone else, and I came across a site in 2019 or before which claimed she was abducted and replaced with a clone or a form of AI android...) So while we're independent and individual, we are also social. There is no one-size-fits-all answer.

There was this video of a guy explaining how the constitution is actually a set of laws for “them” and that it didn’t apply for us.

Click to expand...

Given enough maturity and time, I would like to see how a civilisation or just a national society would work if laws were created for the rulers, rather than the ruled. I stress "enough maturity and time" because some idiots would take advantage and cause problems and things, but eventually when everyone stopped being stupid, then I wonder...

I remember the main references were blacks law dictionary, he went over the legal definitions of, person, people, and some other words and the definitions were really strange. He explained that judges wore all black because when you go into a courtroom you essentially give up your identity as a natural human being (dying) and you become a “legal person”. Basically under law and lawyerspeak a “person” or “people” does NOT mean human.

Click to expand...

I do wonder that, in terms of (((media))) - regarding a random event in computer game Red Dead Redemption 2, you come across these white-gown-wearing followers of this black-gown-wearing leader, that it might be more than just a colour scheme of clothes for who is important and who is just a sheep. As for being a "legal person" - we're just a number to (((the powers that be))). (((They))) deal with the same things all the time, so it's just yet another "here we go again" one, to add a tally to the chart - and get the numbers up for the target which they are given...

As for "person" - there is the jew or it is American, or I expect jewmerican, term "mensch" (German? German jew?) in which lucky larry used the term. In context, when it said it looked like a mensch, it seemed as if it was being disparaging against the Goyim, because the Goyim are stupid, regarding managing and using money properly. So with these 'leader' things - the black gown of judges/barristers, and the black gown of the cult leader, and the derogatory use of "person", all of these things mixed together - I don't know how to finish this point... What does the colour black represent Spiritually, as well? We're not "allowed" in the judge's chamber. Also I think black colour is supposed to be like a power and authourity colour, like in business, as well.

I would link to it, but this guy is a major Christian. He had many videos exposing Jews and the Kabbalah but he twisted into a way that was satanic and he was a proponent of what can only be described as Aryan Israelism. I haven’t watched his videos since before being a satanist so like December 2019. It might sound like babble but I was fascinated by it. I would explain more if I could remember. There is a lot of information regarding this stuff if you are looking for it.

Click to expand...

I might have a look, if you share it. If I do or don't, I think others would.

FancyMancy said:

I might have a look, if you share it. If I do or don't, I think others would.

Click to expand...

https://youtu.be/LRQBy1dGC6s
Here’s the video. You can watch from the start but he gets into specifically the constitution and using the defined words from earlier to explain it at about 18 minutes in. Ignore the Christianspeak it’s irrelevant to the information.

FancyMancy said:

I actually wasn't on youtube at all at first. I went on youtube to check comments, but I was on Bitchute, in fact, when I first re-found the video, then I searched online for the phrase "the Living Man", and I found the news article and the second part of the video. I merged the two separate videos together into one video.

Click to expand...

That makes the coincidence even more astounding, in my opinion. The second video of his ordeal was the first one I had originally watched, and then recently rediscovered. I appreciate that he's more calm yet equally goofy.

It sounds as if you are being sarcastic in your last sentence there... Am I wrong? Either way - I suppose this is going towards the other posts I have made a few times regarding us being "allowed" to do, or not disallowed from doing, what-the-fuck-ever we want, because we have our own 'code', perhaps inviting other like-minded individuals to join us in our own 'way' and/or creating and 'growing' our own Elementals and incarnating them into Bodies to live as humanoids - as long as we don't hurt Animals nor People nor Satan and His Fellows/Friendlies (friendlies who may actually dislike Humans but who are still friendly with Satan's side). I will not stress that point/question, and I haven't received any replies regarding it (unless I missed them), but this all actually does fit-in with that and draw that out. At the risk of deciding ignorantly for myself - a lack of no answer, or a lack of the answer "no" = yes, perhaps.

Click to expand...

I was indeed being facetious, but not in regards to what you're referencing, as I don't think I read those posts nor does it seem like anything I would immediately object to. I was more poking fun at the way the Living Man talks, with my idea for trying to justify anything using Living Man logic being inspired by these YouTubers who originally had the thought. Now, their example was using Living Man logic to cut the line at Chipotle - because who, frankly, can tell the Living Man that he must wait in line for his burrito when universal law dictates he has the right to food when he is hungry? It's a bold move, but naturally wouldn't be effective in application. I found myself wondering if there actually are instances in which someone could use this type of logic to get away with certain things, without being a Native American like that one comment pointed out.

I think the basic meaning he has is valid, but maybe he has added a lot of nonsense on top of it, so it is a bit difficult to see the basic message clearly. Still, though - when such a video goes viral, and then people re-watch, re-find or find it years later, and they all love it and it might go viral again, that says a hell of a lot about the citizenry - about their attitudes against (((the establishment))) and how (((they))) are out-of-touch with Humans - both in terms of (((them))) being non-Human aliens, and also in terms of the very essence of "law" and related things being incorrect, like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole - that the Humans are the square peg and the BS "laws" and things are the round hole; we were 'square pegs' Naturally... so it is the round-hole "law" shit which needs to change. (I hope anyone reading this followed that! Lol.)

Click to expand...

I feel like I do follow what you're getting at, it's just how muddied his message becomes by his rhetoric; it's an extreme muddying. 'Cause it's not even the fact that he believes some crazy shit on top of the fact that he's trying to use a vague interpretation of "universal law" to get out of charges for fishing without a license and resisting arrest. It's the fact that he feels the need to object to someone calling him his legal name due to his personal philosophy on what constitutes an identity/name, which is so far removed from the actual case that any meaningful point can't be made as he's charged with contempt and removed before he can make one. Let's admire this absolute beaut of a quote for a moment:

Riley: Mr. Tertelgte has been charged with two misdemeanor offenses, which we'll be trying today.

Living Man: I must object, I am not the name that he is referring to. I am the Living Man. The name that Mr. Riley refers to, ma'am, is held by the state in all capital letters and is identified by the state on the state's driver's license, ma'am. I am not the all-capital fiction, I am the Living Man, whose mark is that of life. It is called a signature and the nature of that sigil, ma'am, is the living person, it is never in all capital letters.

Click to expand...

...I mean, come on. Imagine if someone posted something like that here. It goes back to how the poor rhetoric bogs down the clarity of his message, certainly. But when he's also using the court as an opportunity to make these other points that have absolutely nothing to do with the case, that his name/identity is his living physical form or something and not his legal name, it's hard to take any sort of solid, unified message from him that we can all agree that that's what he's saying.

There's also where a person would stand on the issue that was being discussed, i.e., should people be required to have a license to hunt and fish. I don't personally know how I feel about the efficacy of licenses - but I do know that it's important that hunting and fishing activities be, in some way, encouraged and monitored responsibly, so that populations are not hunted to extinction as has happened, and so the inverse of an exploding population threatening biodiversity doesn't happen (Hence why people are encouraged to hunt deer and squirrels.). I simply don't know at this time if licenses are effective in doing this, and I'm naturally inclined to distrust any current organizations, governmental or otherwise, out there dedicated to this purpose.

Powstanie Pogańskie said:

I simply don't know at this time if licenses are effective in doing this, and I'm naturally inclined to distrust any current organizations, governmental or otherwise, out there dedicated to this purpose.

Click to expand...

My attitude about that is that these licenses and permissions are just yet another way to control people. Not to put too fine a point on it - the license fee, which is money. It's like yet another tax. "You wanna do stuff? Give me money, Goy."

There is a lot of money spent to maintain these public fishing areas. Patrolling, cleaning garbage, maintaining the environment, removing invasive species, protecting local species, even breeding and reintroducing more of the local species into areas where the population was damaged.

It's also very common in many areas for Game Wardens to go to fish farms and get several thousands of fish in a tanker truck, then drop these fish into lakes, streams, and rivers. They do this with trout, bass, and other species. Then the fishermen catch these fish that were put there.

All of this costs money. And 100% of this money comes from fishing licenses. The state government pays a lot of money to support the fishing, so each fisherman who is recieving these benefits, they pay their fair share by buying the license. If you got rid of fishing licenses, the entire system would collapse.

It's also a way to keep track of how many people are fishing, so they can estimate the way that the fish populations would be affected. So they know which populations are healthy, and which populations are getting low. They do surveys to track fish populations, and if the number of fishermen is high enough to damage that population, they would change the rules and lower the number of those fish that you are allowed to take. Or say that you aren't allowed to catch that fish for a couple years, until the population recovers.


If you just let everybody catch all the fish they want, and hunt all the animals they want, then there wouldn't be anything left.

Ol argedco luciftias said:

There is a lot of money spent to maintain these public fishing areas. Patrolling, cleaning garbage, maintaining the environment, removing invasive species, protecting local species, even breeding and reintroducing more of the local species into areas where the population was damaged.

It's also very common in many areas for Game Wardens to go to fish farms and get several thousands of fish in a tanker truck, then drop these fish into lakes, streams, and rivers. They do this with trout, bass, and other species. Then the fishermen catch these fish that were put there.

All of this costs money. And 100% of this money comes from fishing licenses. The state government pays a lot of money to support the fishing, so each fisherman who is recieving these benefits, they pay their fair share by buying the license. If you got rid of fishing licenses, the entire system would collapse.

It's also a way to keep track of how many people are fishing, so they can estimate the way that the fish populations would be affected. So they know which populations are healthy, and which populations are getting low. They do surveys to track fish populations, and if the number of fishermen is high enough to damage that population, they would change the rules and lower the number of those fish that you are allowed to take. Or say that you aren't allowed to catch that fish for a couple years, until the population recovers.


If you just let everybody catch all the fish they want, and hunt all the animals they want, then there wouldn't be anything left.

Click to expand...

It's for reasons like this that I wanted to focus on that, because I do think I see Fancy's point that there are a number of bullshit laws that are either ineffective or genuinely designed to be a hindrance to us in some way, especially in society's current state. It then becomes a matter of assessing the law's stated purpose and its efficacy in achieving it. I just didn't, and still don't, have the actual numbers to back up certain claims, but all the regulatory purposes you mentioned are indeed performed and quite important. I got to learn some of the sampling methodology firsthand through estimating our campus pond's crayfish population, and it's quite possible I'll try to make a career out of related work.

Another point that can and has been made about the Living Man is, he makes use of this definition he has on universal, natural law, which he explains trumps federal law which in turn trumps state law, and then he continues with legalese after, only minutes ago, criticizing the use of legalese. He's this rather bizarre blend of an anti-government sovereign citizen with a hippie flair, and a self-declared expert on law who nevertheless places some value in that law. He speaks of corporate fiction and fictitious, fraudulent actions, but relies on much of the same to argue some of his points. I'd like to know what the difference is when he uses legalese and when others do it that makes theirs corporate fiction, but when you've got a guy who communicates like this, there's no guarantee you'll get anything coherent, let alone accurate.

The idea that you need a license for fishing is ridiculous. I understand hunting licenses, as hunting requires weapons and just being able to aim and shoot does not mean you can handle a weapon, but fishing... that's utterly ridiculous.

International Maritime Law where something like uppercase names are property and lowercase names (companies) have value


(!?!??!)+\-