Mountain Man’s Justice


The “mountain man” they call him, Ernie Wayne Tertelgte’s curious way of handling charges against him in court has recently raised some eyebrows. Tertelgte was discovered fishing without a license by police and resisted arrest when he refused to stop fishing. A YouTube video of his court hearing is blowing up online:

YouTube Preview Image

Like a corporation, we are all given ‘legal status’ at birth (unless born in secret) and as we age, are regarded as ‘human resources’—you’re a trustee of your own body (the property) to the state (the beneficiary) from that day forward.

The “living man” he calls himself, Tertelgte distinguishes himself apart from the corporate, all-caps, trustee name given to him at birth, and exempt from regulations or policy when trumped by the U.S. Constitution because he receives no government assistance, and pays no taxes, but lives off the land while renting a storage unit that he uses for shelter occasionally.

Tertelgete was bold in his court hearing, seeming to know and understand the law better than most— and refusing to be treated as a criminal for trying to feed himself.

On November 22, Tertelgte was in court, defending himself again.

Tertelgte continued objecting to the charges in this latest hearing until he was handcuffed and escorted out of the courtroom. He was found guilty by jury and another hearing is scheduled for January.

Far from being the raving lunatic statists make him out to be, the mountain man’s argument has to do with sovereignty and the difference between natural rights and legal rights.

Legal rights are rights granted by a governing institution.

Natural rights are what we call ‘inalienable’ rights; or rights that require only that you be a human being and are considered universal and independent of legal systems and government.

Similarly, the concept of being a ‘natural’ person, refers to a physical human being, with natural rights, while a “legal [or artificial] person” refers to a non-human entity that is treated as a person for limited legal purposes,” i.e., corporations.

Many who study this issue point out that any entity that earns money, and buys and/or sells goods and services (or are employed by an entity that does) is subject to policies and regulations that fly in the face of constitutionally-protected natural rights. It is explained that when we reach legal age and obtain a business license, a marriage license or even a fishing license, we waive our rights as natural persons who are perfectly able to do business, marry, or fish without state approval.

Are we abandoning the natural rights fought and died for by past and present patriots, in favor of legal status into which we must conform in order to qualify for tax-funded services and ‘benefits?’

Mountain man thinks so.

What are your thoughts about natural and legal rights?

Tyler Roberts

We Are Change







  • John DaBaptist

    We have to retain our natural rights before we can not turn back and everything you think you own is owned but the state ect. The best slaves are the ones who feed, cloth and shelter themselves but when their “master” wants what is owed to him by his slaves they have to pay up.

  • Randy Wilson

    I’ve read into the soveriegn citizen thing a little.. it’s an intereting study.. when the judge walked out of the courtroom she in effect abandoned ship as courts do represent Maritime Admiralty Law, think we won the revolutionary war? think again, and his case should have been dismissed without prejudice.. doesn’t always work that way in practice though

    • Vrahnos

      I have too.The Admirialty,Maritime laws apply when one has a “bench trail”or arbetration applied to the suspect crime.When the trial is done with a jury empaneled then it is done under consititutional law.So if one has to go to court to do it right the case must be heard by a jury and their desition must be abided by.

  • Not the same old same

    Wow! I think I like the “Living Man”!

  • Jesse Calhoun

    This dude is my favorite guy in the world right now. It is truly an abomination that the state has grown to the point where one cannot fish without permission (a permit) from the government. Do we not have the right to eat? Do we not have the right to speak? Must we have permission to do everything from the government? Natural rights forever.

  • Vrahnos

    The man is right in what he thinks.You have a drivers licens with your full name and picture.When you got that it is also a contract to be able to drive an auto on the roads in our country.When you sighed it it means that you are a party to said contract.So now you are under a bunch of rules that you have to follow or lose the right to use public roads with an auto.

  • StephenWV

    It seems to me that some kind of arguement could be made to a jury to find him not guilty as citizens on a jury have the right and the power to do that despite what any law or judge’s charge to the jury states. It has been done before.

  • StephenWV

    This case indicates that if the food distribution system in this country were to ever breakdown requiring people to hunt and fish out of season to feed their family, they would be subject to arrest and prosecution.

  • Joe

    How could a jury find a man guilt for feeding himself. And resisting arrest? How about resisting tyranny.

  • Charming

    The planet Earth does not belong to any one individual or governing body, it is in affect….everyone’s. Why should we have to pay for a fishing license to fish in a lake, river or stream owned by everyone? He makes a very good point. The governing bodies of America are now ruled by the people and corporations with the money which now equates to the power. If you truly think that you are a free person in this USA, think again…

Pin It on Pinterest

Member Login

Forgot Password?

Join Us