Montana Mountain Man Arrested for Trying to Feed Himself - - Leaves Judge Speechless

Well, actually he said he was a natural living man. In the (il)legal system, a person is always fiction.

Watch the video again. He starts yelling and says he is, "THE LIVING NATURAL MAN", with spit coming out of his mouth. LOL

What's your point? I'm sure this guy isn't STUPID and will put a LIEN on the BOND of the fake 'Justice' and 'Policy Officer' involved!

Your CORPORATION breaks the LAW every single day, what's new?

The funny thing is you actually think you're on the right side! I know you think you're smart because I SMELL YOU, but I told you I see the RUIN in your future.

There is only ONE true justice system in this Universe, it follows the LAW, not the 'Legal' code.

You still have a choice, COP.

'Natural Person'...look it up in Black's hun..

Special appearance? What the fuck are you talking about? That's Legalese - Look it up in the Legalese Dictionary. Page 89 - Black's Law Dictionary - 5th Edition

You sound like one of those dumb fucks who think they can get away from personal liability by using the stupid strawman UCC1 argument. The UCC is meant for corporations (persons)!! A living man would never dream of mixing natural law with the (il)legal system.

Go smoke another doobie

Lol when they start using eristic responses you know you've won.

You know you're wrong, COP.

Go take your ball and go home, we don't want to play your game anymore.

Good for you!!! You can see it for what it truly is - slavery. I wish the whole world would open their eyes and see the fraud all around them - in everything!! Everything is backwards.

"Just look at us. Everything is backwards; everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information and religions destroy spirituality." — Michael Ellner

again he should 'bond' them for his time, seeings as there was no harm or intent against another, and no witness.. case closed...... why should anyone pay when there is no harm/ foul?.... we are so indoctrinated.....

I like you.

There was no accusing party, period. No case under the common law. DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICED! I'll be seeing you for damages, bitches!

Keep talking. "It's better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." Voltaire

Your mouth is open!!!

All you are supposed to do at a plea hearing is state whether you are guilty or not guilty..... I guess you didn't hear what the living man said about pleas- animals plea - baa, baa. DEFENDANTS (persons) plea, NOT living people!!

That bum fuck, who is obviously ignorant of court procedure, let alone the law,.... The man is all too familiar with court procedure and the only true law that I saw was from that man, not the judge!! As the man said, the judge was participating in FRAUD!!

the ignorance from the goverment cocksuckers is amazing,

the guy screwed up because he first had to file suit in FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, THEY are the ones that have states acting out their little charade. By putting them on notice that YOU ARE REDEEMING lawful money pursuant 12 USC 411 AND have an open court case against siad jurisdiction YOU ARE TELLING THESE COCKROACHES YOU MEAN BUSINESS!

no judge has the balls to defy their corporate master and will run away with their tail tucked between. IT IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHO HAS COMMITTED TREASON AGAINST THE PEOPLE OF THE REPUBLIC SO THEY ARE THE ONES THAT PROVIDE REMEDY, NOT THE STATES, UNTIL YOU PUT THEM ON NOTICE THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF THIS, THE STATE SYSTEM WILL ALWAYS TELL YOU TO POUND SAND.

Only persons are required to obtain licenses. The fish were provided to us by Mother Nature not the government.

Lots of time for that!!

maybe he was showing the 'compassion of his court' ;)

What he told the judge amounts to this - I am not a 'person!!! Find me one "law" that says a man/woman or people cannot fish without a license.

Society = An association or company of persons - Black's Law

Just a matter of time beebee.

Lol I used to think Ordo Ab Chao was ridiculous but i've come to know there is NO other way for a mass awakening.

It's like the Kyballion says about balance...you can put it offf for so long but ultimately god intervenes. There is no LAW but divine law. There must be balance.

Legally speaking, fishing is a commercial activity, for profit. Their statute "law" clearly spells out you cannot "fish" without a license.

Logic dictates if he did not have a "license to fish" wha he was doing cannot be "fishing".

If their statute laws have any force, then he could not have been "fishing" which by statue law REQUIRES a license.

He clearly said he was foraging for food.

It doesn't matter what their 'Officer' charged him with. He further demonstrated that he was acting as the man and was there simply on special appearance to make sure hid legal 'person' wasn't defrauded.

who owns the oceans then?... TEPCO would like to say it's not theirs....... and sucked in.......

very simple no victim no crime. common law common since

No it is not. Section 485(2) makes it very clear that when the courts have lost jurisdiction and have no regained it, then they can issue a summons or warrant. These types of warrants are quite unlawful!!

WARRANTS – LAWFUL OR DEFECTIVE?

Pursuant to common law principles, from which Canada and United States laws are generally derived, and specific to the International Bill of Human Rights, an arrest must be compliant with all aspects of due process of law, which include, but are not limited to:

1) A lawful warrant, issued and authorized by a lawfully-positioned Officer of the Court, supported by his/her Oath of Office and sworn affidavit of truth, so attesting under the pains and penalty of perjury.

2) This must be supported by a sworn Complaint, made by a man or woman alleging to have been injured by the actions of the entity who is the subject of the Complaint, supported by a signed and notarized affidavit, so attesting under the pains and penalties of perjury.

No victim = No Complaint = No crime = No lawful warrant = No lawful grounds for arrest.

Canada’s Criminal Code (CCC) §485 (2): Summons or Warrant – Where jurisdiction over an accused or a defendant is lost and has not been regained, a court, judge, provincial court judge or justice may, within three months after the loss of jurisdiction, issue a summons, or if it or he considers it necessary in the public interest, a warrant for the arrest of the accused or defendant.

CCC §485 (2) is in violation of the International Bill of Human Rights. Any warrant issued under these circumstances is a defective warrant and is proof the court has lost jurisdiction. The consequences of making an arrest with a defective warrant could be life imprisonment for kidnapping (CCC §279).

As all warrants are for the legal titleholder of the trust, i.e.: trustee, and man is the equitable title holder, i.e.: beneficiary, the warrant could not possibly be for a man. The warrant is for the one with the claim against the trust account, i.e.: the court, Crown, prosecution.

Case law indicates the gravity of “arrest without jurisdiction.”

State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260.
"An illegal arrest is an assault & battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault & battery."

Housh v. People, 75 111. 491
"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter."

Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I
These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority & transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force & violence."

I was simply pointing out the logical and syntax fallacy of the statue.

Federal definitions define "fishing" as commercial, for profit harvesting of aquatic animals and requires a license.

If fishing "requires" a license to do, then whatever he was doing, factually could not have been "fishing".

Wipe the cobwebs from in front of your eyes because they are obstructing your vision. A living, natural man is not the same as a natural person. Oh, wait a minute. Maybe the cobwebs are not in front of your eyes. Maybe they're inside your brain preventing you from properly comprehending what you are seeing/reading. I have not heard of any cure for a constipated mind.

Every law is man-made. Even the legal gibberish many Freemen spout is man-made. They are simply trying to replace a set of rules that has been made up and developed over centuries with one they have just made up themselves. Unfortunately for them, the centuries-old set of rules is recognised by the vast majority of the population and the entire judiciary.

Now you're getting into it BeeBee!

It's fun desparaging the tards!


Never let these morons tell you YOU AREN'T a Goddess!

No but seriously, 'Natural Person' is just as appropriate as saying 'man' or 'woman'.

[link to thelawdictionary.org]

There is but ONE LAW. The rest is nothing but 'Legal' code.

"Agree quickly with thine adversary".

He could simply agree with the Policy Officer on the exact wording of the statute.

"Officer does the statue clearly spell out that in order to be "fishing" one is required to have a "fishing license"?

The officer would have to agree.

Then he would simply agree on the record that "fishing" requires a license and therefore, what he was doing could NOT have been fishing because he does not have a license to fish.

When 2 adults AGREE law is made and in the mouths of 2 or 3 wintnesses shall all truth be established. The court would be bound by the agreement of the OFFICER and the man, he could not "fish" without a license, therefore he was not "fishing".

Even using their own laws, it is easy to befuddle their attempted crimes.

Agree with thine adversary implies agree with him that no CRIME was committed.

Use LOGIC & REASON to YOUR advantage, NOT theirs. So if you have AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES before the 'judge' gets involved that they have NO CAUSE OF ACTION nor any SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, you have AGREEMENT of the parties before it even starts.

Agree with thine adversary!

I know what Black's says about 'natural person' Henry Campbell Black was severely reprimanded by many of his peers for including the word "natural" to define a type of "person" They told him it was an oxymoron. The word "natural" is an adjective describing the "person" It's no different that saying a "black ball" or "tennis ball" or pigskin ball." They are still all balls. The same holds true for the word "person" No matter what type, it is still a person/fiction. Black's says:

Person. In general usage, (street language), a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include ......... corporations, trustees......

No doubt you know that the definitions change from one edition to the next in the dictionary of Legalese. Adding the term "natural person" was a very clever trick to convince people they were "persons" If indeed human beings and persons were one and the same, then there would be no need to include Article 16 in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights where it says we have the right to be recognized as a 'person' before the law That pretty well admits we are not persons in any way shape or form.