Mountain Man vs The Courts

(Ernie Arrested for Contempt in Dist. Court)

I have seen this video making its rounds around social media and the Internet for over a week many times. "Mountain man," Ernie Wayne Tertelgte, was ordered to appear in front of a judge for fishing without a license when a license is required to fish in the area he was fishing in. So, why then is this video "headlined" in news feeds across the world? Many are saying he "showed" the judge and "exposed" the system for the "fraud that it is" and the "criminals" who work in it. Sadly, most of the people promoting this video call themselves "patriots." These same patriots tout themselves as people who would lay down their lives for the living U.S. constitution at the "drop of a hat," but apparently, they do neither read nor comprehend the fine print of what they support.

One of Ernie's arguments to the Courts is that he is not the "fiction" (all capital letters of his name) owned by the State and cited by the Court, however; he is the "Natural, Living Man" who was fishing for food and is in court on "special visitation." This is a common argument in the "sovereign citizen" / "freeman" movements. The reason the Courts detained him is not because he plead guilty or no contest to charge(s). Ernie was simply a belligerent party to the Courts and was held in contempt because he would not respect other parties with any sort of discipline or self-control. The judge warned him multiple times.

(Gavel & U.S. Constitution)

Next, Ernie decides to "uphold" the U.S. constitution by "dis-respecting" both the presiding judge and the prosecutor, "Mr. Riley." How does he "dis-honor" the judge? He requires "proof of an oath and bond" or "contempt of court has already been established." If the judge did not hold an oath and bond in order to preside over a criminal case, they wouldn't be presiding over and hearing the case, period. How does he dishonor Mr. Riley? Mr. Riley is an attorney-at-law imposing a misdemeanor charge on Ernie and because Mr. Riley holds the title of british nobility as an "esquire" (Esq.), Ernie believes Mr. Riley has no authority to act in the Courts of the United States on behalf of Britain (BAR = British Accreditation Regency). Ernie is not a party to the constitution, so he must either "go to peace" or else.

Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution for the People of the United States reads:

"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."

What does this mean? It means that the title of nobility behind Mr. Riley's name is not granted by the United States as outlined in the constitution. If the United States is limited in the titles that it can grant, then the United States is not sovereign - it is still a debtor-nation to the Britannic Crown as it has been since the days of the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783. Nobody learns this at school as evidenced by the commonplace annual celebration of "American Independence" on the 4th of July. Welcome to the matrix!

(Signing of the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783)

Ernie does not understand his contracts, and thus his relationship, with the State of Montana nor does he understand his relationship with the United States, let alone the history between the United States and Britain. If he did, he would be conducting himself as a professional and looking to peacefully settle with the Courts in accordance with their grievance. Had he "gone to peace" he could have found himself with a license fishing to his heart's content. Instead, he chooses to be both ignorant and belligerent through his arrogance. If any of us were a presiding judge, none of us should ever put up with such nonsense and allow the "order in the Court" to get out of the control.