Friends of Montana Mountain Man threaten to arrest local judge

By: Joshua Cook
126

A friend of Ernie Tertelgte is in hot water after threatening a local judge. William Wolf, along with an unorganized militia, threatened to citizens’ arrest Justice of the Peace Rick West, who put Tertelgte behind bars for contempt of court after an outburst inside a Montana courtroom that caught national attention.

Benswann.com previously reported that Tertelgte was representing himself on a fishing without a license charge in front of West. His friend, Wolf, told local MTN News that the judge has an ax to grind with Tertelgte: “The animosity between Justice West and Ernie seems to be extreme,” Wolf says.


He explained that the act represented something bigger than just a disagreement. “This is not about arresting a judge per Se, this is about holding him and every law agency to the same standards that they hold you and I to. This isn’t about vengeance; this is about justice.”

Wolf’s words caught the attention of the Gallatin County Sheriff’s Department.”When you start talking about arresting people and kidnapping people, and that’s unacceptable and nothing good comes from that,” explained Sheriff Brian Gootkin who said that threats like this affect West but also his family.

The Sheriff says his office will investigate Wolf’s complaint against West.

“I told him I’m confident that there was no criminal activity by the judge,” Gootkin said.

Wolf said that if the investigation finds no criminal activity, he will drop the issue.

“If something does not go forward in a positive manner, or if they determine there is no probable cause, then the matter’s over,” Wolf said.” We’ve done our duty as best we could do, and we’ve relied on the government to do their duty. And we will be disappointed but we’re not vigilantes,” he said.

The following two tabs change content below.

Joshua Cook

Joshua Cook is a writer and a political activist. His work has appeared on DrudgeReport, InfoWars, Reason.com, WND.com, Breitbart.com, DailyCaller and FreedomOutPost.com. If you have any tips please email him at [email protected]
Support the Truth In Media Project


"Like" Ben Swann on Facebook
  • Jude Rodriguez

    Seems like the Sheriff is a Good guy, but the judges, not so much.

    • Bryan

      NOT! “I’m confident that there was no criminal activity by the judge”

  • http://www.jessereport.com/ Jesse Report

    Thumbs up if you believe the Sheriff won’t even attempt to ‘investigate’ the judge.

    • JGlaze

      “I’m confident that there was no criminal activity by the judge”

      Of course he’s not going to attempt to investigate him. He’s already got his mind made up.

      • Ralph E Berkeypile Jr

        The sheriff said that because the kidnapping of a citizen was committed by the judge with the sheriff’s assistance. Of course the sheriff will not investigate himself for committing a crime.

    • Jimageddon

      Of course he won’t. Sheriff’s are elected and I’m guessing he wants to keep his job. I would at least like to have heard out of the sheriff’s mouth that the “crime” of feeding one’s self in order to keep on living is in fact no crime at all. To me the message that is being sent here is that they don’t care if humans die of starvation as long as the “law” is upheld. Basically laws over life…..not good.

      • Cal

        Sheriff’s are elected.

        CSPOA.org
        To equip sheriffs, peace officers and public
        officials with the necessary information and public support to carry out
        their duties in accordance with their Oaths of Office.

  • Richard

    My 3 new heroes from the last year..

    Edward Snowden, Mountain Man and the guy who crashed the super bowl festivities with his 9/11 take.

    • http://www.jessereport.com/ Jesse Report

      Technically the Super Bowl guy was this year lol But I agree!

      • Richard

        From the “last year” Feb 2013 – Until Feb 2014.

  • Mister E

    Nothing will happen, as the Sheriff’s comments clearly indicate a prejudiced investigation. He’s already stating there is nothing there even before his investigation has concluded.

    So right there, you have more of the government watching out for the government.

  • Scot Hickerson

    This issue with Earnie Tertlegte is fairly minor, but across the nation we have such a huge corruption of DA’s cops and judges enforcing the law to the minute detail against citizens then helping each other get away with murder, assaults, false arrests, malicious prosecutions.. I think that people are getting so fed up that we will see unorganized militias make citizens arrests and take matters into their own hands.

    • Richard

      I’d dare to say that locking up a mountain man for catching 1 fish, is not “fairly minor.”

      • Scot Hickerson

        I agree that it was wrong, but minor compared to Kelley Thomas being beaten to death.. or unarmed people being shot to death. Its a slippery slope and society has let the minor stuff go and which has lead to the major stuff..

  • Chris

    As far as I’m concerned they’ve kidnapped Ernie, so the Judge and Sheriff are already breaking the law. Arrest the Sheriff too.

  • hwt123

    The so called judge is nothing more than an employee to a foreign owned corporation for profit named UNITED STATES since 1871.
    Your name in all capital letters = a “Trust”
    the judge is trustee to the “Trust” , the trust created by the contract named birth certificate…

    http://www.henrymakow.com/the_ficticious_legal_entity_ca.html
    Check this out…
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/106226872/Retired-Judge-Spills-the-Beans

    • Groucho_Lenin

      Total tinhatter bullshit.

      • hwt123

        I am absolutely right , It is time to realize that ” we the people ” were scammed by a banking cabal who incorporated the nation.
        just trace back the laws…
        http://www.usa-the-republic.com/revenue/Britian-Pontiff.html

        • Groucho_Lenin

          “I am absolutely right” Prove it, and not by linking to some guy’s website or telling me to “research it myself.” Your contention, your burden to prove.

          • Jacques

            Well since you’re so sure that this is bullshit, why don’t YOU prove us why it is?

          • John Smith

            That’s not how logic works, Jacques.

          • John Smith

            You can’t prove a negative, Jacques.

        • Quantum992

          It’s not just America hwt. It’s the entire world. They’re going for the whole enchilada.

        • John Smith

          http://www.ssa.gov/international/Agreement_Pamphlets/uk.html

          This may explain to you why the United States and the UK have a social security agreement.

          Or you may just brush it off and continue living in your delusion. Who knows.

      • Richard

        You think the fact that corporations run America is :tinfoiler” stuff? lol

        • Groucho_Lenin

          THIS is total tinhatter bullshit: The so called judge is nothing more than an employee to a foreign owned corporation for profit named UNITED STATES since 1871.Your name in all capital letters = a “Trust”
          the judge is trustee to the “Trust” , the trust created by the contract named birth certificate…

          • Chris

            FWIW, I would have said the govt. spying on our cell phones, email and internet traffic was “tinhatter” 5 years ago…

            Now look where we are.

          • doomgazer

            Groucho, that is a fact. References are listed.

            There are two ‘governments’ and therefore, two Constitutions:
            1. The Constitution for our De Jure Republic.
            &
            2. The Constitution of our De Facto Socialist Democratic Corporate Government.

            The original Constitution was never removed.
            It has simply been dormant since 1871 and is still intact to this day, as was clarified in 1901 per:

            ——— BEGIN QUOTE ———

            Supreme Court Justice Marshall Harlan:

            “Two
            national governments exist; one to be maintained under the
            Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by
            Congress outside and Independently of that Instrument.”

            1901
            (Downes v. Bidwell, 182, U.S. 244)

            ———- END QUOTE ———-

            The
            reason the original Constitution is not binding in Washington D.C. is
            because Washington D.C. is not part of the Republic, a completely
            separate City-State in and of itself. Many folks do not even know
            that Washington D.C. did not even exist formally until it was
            established almost a hundred years later!

            You have to realize there are two entirely separate entities:
            1. Republic for the united States of America.
            Established circa ~1776.
            [note
            the word "for" as well as the uncapitalized U, denoting States as
            plural and separate Republics in and of themselves. This is our De Jure
            Government.]

            2. Republic of the ‘United States of America’.
            Incorporated circa ~1871, reorganized circa ~1878.
            [note the word of, and the Capitalized U denoting a non-plural subject; a singular corporate entity.
            This is our de facto government which is actually not a part of our original republic(s) a.k.a. Washington D.C.]

            Here is some more information:

            The
            year 1776 marked America’s victory in the war for independence. The
            lawful right to re-inhabit is inherent in The Declaration of
            Independence circa 1776. The Declaration, one of our founding
            documents, declares our right to change, alter or abolish any system of
            government that we believe is contrary to the safety and security of the
            American people.

            We currently have a de facto corporation ACTING as Government, known as the “UNITED STATES”.
            (USC 28 Section 3002, No. 15(a) “United States” means a Federal Corporation.)

            The United States was incorporated February 21, 1871
            (16 Stat. 419, Chap. 62, 41st Congress, 3rd Session)

            The purpose being “an Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia” reorganized June 8th, 1878, as “an Act providing a permanent form of government for the District of Columbia” aka US Inc.
            (20 Stat. 102, Chapter 180, 45th Congress, 2nd Session)

            “Location of United States.”
            The United States is located in the District of Columbia.
            (Uniform Conduct Code, UCC9-307 h)

            It is entirely possible and even honorable to waive the benefits/privilages of the de fact government corporation
            Information to that affect can be found at:
            [link to sedm.org]

            Lord have mercy.

          • Draken

            Word of Advice don’t believe everything you read on the internet…

      • hwt123

        Here is your proof you clueless fool … now you go put on the tinfoil thinking cap & read this…

        http://byronwine.com/files/1871.pdf

  • http://www.jessereport.com/ Jesse Report

    The Sheriff says, “I’ve lived through the Freemen before, they wrote the judge bad checks.. seriously? Them are some REAL scary folks!

    • John Smith

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Freemen

      It turned into an armed standoff when the FBI wanted to arrest a bunch of them for various forms of financial fraud. Know what your talking about before you make condescending remarks

      • Ralph E Berkeypile Jr

        The fact that the federal thugs came heavily armed to arrest them for writing on paper wasn’t bad, but that they used arms to defend themselves from maniacs who burn to death women and children is bad. We know how you think Johnny boy.

        • John Smith

          Pft oh please dude.

          FBI came armed because they knew who they were dealing with. A bunch of nut jobs insistent that they don’t need to play by the rules.

          They were robbing people thru fraud. The FBI came to stop them. That’s simple. Thats just.

          • Ralph E Berkeypile Jr

            Oh please! It’s government worshipping like you who think that if it weren’t for endless regulations, all of mankind and nature would die. The FBI thugs camed heavily armed, because they knew that their intended victims would be aware that they’re violent maniacs and wouldn’t just submit like some sheep who I won’t name, but whose initials are John Smith. Not that that’s your real name. You’re a faceless, government worshipping coward who excuses every government crime.

          • John Smith

            >You’re a faceless, government worshipping coward who excuses every government crime

            You really couldn’t have made a more off base evaluation of my political and philosophical beliefs

          • Ralph E Berkeypile Jr

            Your faceless. Your name is most likely fake. Everything you said in this story leans to pro-government. Nope. Wrong again. My statements have a base.

          • John Smith

            Of course I’m “faceless” and John Smith isn’t my real name. Why on earth would I want a trail of comments on websites all over the internet linked to my real name?

          • Ralph E Berkeypile Jr

            It’s very honest to call upon the ghosts of Waco considering that they’re dead due to the criminal activities of the very same psychopaths who came to the woods with guns because someone wrote on paper. The “criminals”, who can’t match the trillions in funny money printing of the federal government, could have been taken individually. They could have been taken piecemeal while going to town to get supplies. They could have been taken in any one of a thousand ways without a major confrontation. That’s how peace officers work. Thug enforcers of government power seek showdowns for publicity and to blame the inevitable confrontation on our rights. There’s an axiom in law that says the super corrupt can’t sit in judgement of anyone else. The US government is totally corrupt, totally criminal, and totally illegitimate. Also, the local government in question appears to be a clear criminal organization.

          • Cal

            You are incorrect.

            Obviously YOU need to read the US Constitution and your state Constitution. Those are what they are LAWFULLY required to follow or be fired and prosecuted for breaking the oath.

      • http://www.jessereport.com/ Jesse Report

        “Financial Fraud”.. kinda like the FED and every bank? Maybe the Montana Freemen took it a bit far… not like they were sending Drones to kill US citizens… or causing a housing crisis… you’re right I just make “condescending remarks” remarks.

        • John Smith

          That doesn’t really have anything to do with this but I’m not surprised you would think it does

  • Robert

    Kidnapping is only legal if you are a cop ordered to do so by a judge.

    The moment the judge ordered Tertlegte to be kidnapped, they should have made a citizens arrest of the judge.

    • Cal

      They should have fired him on the spot. He did many things in an unlawful manner.

      That “man impersonating a “Sheriff” either needs to go to CSPOA and learn what he lawfully can and canNOT do. Or be fired! He broke the contract he agreed to when he took that position, as did the judge.

  • Lucas

    That guy (sherrif), he’s talking about kidnapping and keeping people is un- acceptable. Isnt that what the police do everyday for victimless crimes and for revenue generation? What a tool.

    • Steve Morris

      Took the words right out of my mouth.

    • Bryan

      Exactly what I was thinking the instant I heard him say it.

    • Chris

      Silly Sheriff threatening to kidnap someone if that someone threatens to kidnap someone…

    • Buttcrack Obomba

      The disconnect is amazing, isn’t it?

  • Quantum992

    The Sheriff referred to threats to the family. What’s he talking about? Is he talking about the American family? I doubt it. The reference is more likely in the same vein that the mafia uses it. We silly civilians are not part of the family or “made” good fellas.

  • Quantum992

    I absolutely agree about the fishing. If a man’s hungry he should be able to fish without paying the state or asking for permission. If a man tries to take every fish in the stream or way too much I can understand law enforcement getting involved. I’ve been in the situation where I didn’t have enough money to buy a permit and was fined for fishing. I was trying to get something to eat AND GOT FINED by the State. I couldn’t afford the permit and sure as hell couldn’t afford the fine. But they don’t give one single damn. I had one fish on the stringer. A mugger might as well shown up while was I fishing hit me on the head and stole my wallet.

  • Mark Boonstra

    its the peoples right under the US constitution to make a citizen arrest when being under threat of tyranny and criminal behavior

    • Cal

      It is the people’s DUTY as the Militia of the several states to get trained so that they are safer – for themselves and everyone else. Other then that you are correct because the PEOPLE are the MILITIA.

      Read the long one above to find out how to get trained properly so that you can work with others in your state who are taking action to defend their homes, neighborhoods, cities, states, country as the US Constitution REQUIRES of them.

  • Wayne D.

    Can anyone cite a case where a citizen arrest was performed on any government or public official? There may be but I don’t know of one. If it were that easy we could go arrest our Congresspersons for lying to us, not honoring the Constitution, not answering our questions, keeping the corrupt Federal Reserve protected and pandering to any corporation that will send some money their way. They will use overwhelming force to “keep the peace”. I think they must be shamed by public scrutiny and constant pressure. We need to let all those who would subjugate us or kidnap us know that we are sick of it and we do not respect their system. It’s time for some Democracy to restore our Republic. There are no freemen, just free range slaves with liberties that have been granted them by their authorities, I would prefer true Freedom and my birthrights back This is a fascist police state by and for the bankers who enslave us all. Run the banks.

    • Pat in the hat

      Good question.

    • Rudy

      its hard to get a room full of people to decide what to get on the pizza.

  • Jay F

    Their just trying to process him through the legal grinder.
    Trying to keep yourself alive, taking only what you need… $500 fine or 6 months in jail. Try to live off society via welfare and the road is paved for a lifetime of entitlement.

  • http://semperfiwebdesign.com/ Michael Torbert

    At least they’re finally admitting that arrest=kidnap.

  • Alexander

    There may be a reason it’s coming back. Maybe it’s because the law has forgotten, again, it’s duty to the people.

  • Libtardsworstenemy

    I love how the sheriff talks about arresting and kidnapping people as “unacceptable”, but that is what he does for a living….. LOL

  • Wayne D.

    Why wasn’t Jamie Dimon arrested for fraud? Why does Chase Bank still hold the EBT/food stamp contract? They just got fined $13 Bllion for their corruption.
    How can these corporate bankers ruin millions of peoples lives and a man is arrested for fishing for food?

    • Cal

      WE allow it to go on.

      The proverbial “buck” stops with us, “We the People”.

  • Wayne D.

    This reminds me of Randy Weaver and how an FBI sharp shooter shot his wife right between the eyes through a window in the door while holding their baby after being set up by agents.

  • John Smith

    Hunting and fishing permits are meant to preserve the resources so that the society/community may enjoy them for many years to come.

    Permits help prevent the over hunting/fishing of these resources.

    It’s $26 dollars total for all the permits you need to fish in Montana for a season.

    Is that really unreasonable? Public lands and public resources.

    The Judge did nothing wrong. The fact is Ernie acted in contempt of court. He’s a delusional fool (like the many who support him) who can’t understand that “natural law” does not hold any more merit than positive law. Natural law is just as intangible and arbitrary, a construct of rules determined “fair” or “unfair” by people.

    I’m all for anti-authority, I’m all for government accountability, but this case is a ridiculous example of it. The man lives in a society. You all live in a society. The society has rules. Some rules are unfair, some are unjust, and we should work to correct those injustices.

    But having to pay a small fee to take public resources from public lands in an effort to promote conservation and preservation? That’s not unjust. That’s not unreasonable.

    • Wayne D.

      My concern on this issue is not the reason for laws about fishing and their justification but the imbalance of force used to enforce said laws on the common man while the really big fish, the bankers who scam to steal our property and the very prosperity of our country, are too big to jail, they run free to continue their schemes. Injustice and oppression of the common man is the lesson I see here, however much force it requires. Our game and fish and border patrol are relentlessly watching everyone in the woods here in Wa. You have to buy a “Discover Pass” just to go on State land. Every move we make is scrutinized while the incredibly corrupt run free.

      • John Smith

        I agree, we have an issue in this country (and in most countries throughout history, really) of the extremely wealthy being privileged under the law.

        Money is power. It is capitalism’s most glaring shortcoming for a society striving for liberty.

        • Waldetto

          Capitalism and government are OPPOSITES! The short comings of government have NOTHING to do with capitalism! It is the government and the application of government law by the government that gives the elite their power, not capitalism.

          • John Smith

            Economics and politics go hand in hand for a reason.

            As long as we’re discussing societies and how they organize resources and authority then capitalism absolutely does have everything to do with the shortcomings of the government.

            To put it simply, capitalism creates an environment where the more money you have the more power you have to both :

            A. obtain the goods and services you want and
            B. Influence others thru money to help them obtain the goods and services they want

            So what it comes down to (VERY simply) is that our government exists in an economic system where people with “more” can give to people who have “less” in exchange for special treatment.

            We can do our best as a society to remedy this corruption thru vigilance and law but it is an undeniable side effect of the economics of our system.

          • guest

            You’re thinking of corporatism.

          • Techgump

            I think you mean Gov’t has to do with the shortcomings o of Capitalism.

            You said it yourself:
            “A. obtain the goods and services you want and
            B. Influence others thru money to help them obtain the goods and services they want”

            But turn around and state:
            “We can do our best as a society to remedy this corruption thru vigilance and law”

            How do you expect to solve the “shortcomings of Capitalism” via law, when the law and more money is the “special treatment” these corporations receive? Hasn’t History been enough for you to see the ideal you hold in your head doesn’t work?

            Our Gov’t exists, economically, off the forced theft of the People, and via the monopoly it holds on violence for the enforcement of it’s (special treatment corporations) laws. It’s not a bottom up system, it’s theft from the middle class, given to the rich in contracts, tax breaks, protection, and special laws preventing competition. The richest place in our nation has turned form Silicone Valley, now to a suburb of Washington DC! Does that not speak volumes?

            A man like Ernie doesn’t stand a chance. Money is power, but how that money is made is what dictates the rightness of that power. I have no problem making a man rich that provides a product I freely purchase. It’s yet another to force me to buy that product. And even another to steal my money so that others may deliver a product/service (or not) regardless of my opinions. That’s the beauty of Capitalism. It’d discerns who will be the master of men based on the value in production via each and our personal choices, not based on the senseless voting of power/money all but outside the hands of the People themselves, and in fact, forced upon them. If we labeled Gov’t anything but Gov’t, it would best be labeled as a violent mob.

          • Cal

            Actually, those who serve are NOT supposed to take any money from anyone for favors granted – that is a felony.

            If we remove cost from running, dump “both” parties – two names one agenda,. dump all machine voting because it is NOT our votes that are counted on it. All counts are REQUIRED to be PUBLIC at every level so that the public can watch them and make sure they are being done correctly. (not in the way, jsut there watching)

            NO MORE FOREIGN NATIONS COUNTING OUR VOTES, hard to get anymore lawful then that. Never mind – First Degree murder done on a weekly basis, though it is being called “assassination powers” which NO ONE here in the USA was ever given.

    • dan

      John’

      may I remind you if you have to get a permit and ask permission from authority YOU are NOT FREE…..and by the way public land is owned by ….the public you and your ‘delusional fool’…who in my opinion has enough sense to disagree with authority that does NOT own or rule HIM….

    • stupidamerkin

      A delusional fool? The text book example of calling the kettle black. Who is the fool here? Let’s have the rest of the story. “natural law” does not hold any more merit than positive law or the Constitution. Apparently this went over your head in this den of corruption called a court.
      The real truth is nothing is ever going to change on any of these issues until the consciousness of the people moves to a higher level.

    • Tom Lacovara

      He actually is NOT wrong, nor is he arbitrary, under the law, it is of no consequence if a monetary sum is or is or seems or seems not “reasonable ” . It is based on jurisdiction. And he argument that the US Constitution has been circumvented. The 14th Amendment, that gives them the jurisdiction that it does is in fact a phony…….a fraud……an UN-Constitutional creation of a second class citizen and created a de-facto government. It was vetoed by President Johnson, and yet a presidential proclamation that props it up is a phony with the Secretary of States signature. Now while you indoctrinated people that know NOTHING about research or that have read none of the documents we have, should not be rendering an opinion. I pray the day Benn calls and asks us so that he can really blow the lid off the heart of EVERYTHING that is wrong……if you harm no one and are not acting in a “commercial” capacity they have no right to arbitrarily “permit” or not “permit” the people to do anything save actually doing something that would directly hurt the overall environment. Like littering…… Actually CAUSING harm. They are out of control with the 25 to 250 dollar regulations that are collected for FOR PROFIT corporations, and debt that comes on the back of us and our future generations. The bankers have a hold…..where do you think the 25bucks go to you idiot? Are you stupid enough to think it goes to make more wittle fishies protected??? WAKE UP

  • Justin Serioulsy Screams

    It isn’t kidnapping. The people rule the government, not the other way around. And yes, if you don’t get what you want, you take it into your own hands if the government has lost the ability to act in a way that is effective and positive for the people.

  • Michael Norton

    This kind of action would force the system to recognize the truth of the matter in law and recognize the proper and correct interpretation of the law. For correct application of law to be recognized in American Society, mass arrests of Judges misapplying the law need to happen regularly.

  • Ralph E Berkeypile Jr

    The only kidnapping which has occurred here is the kidnapping of a citizen by a judge. The judge, in a criminal act, charged a man with contempt, found him guilty, and sentenced him to time in jail.

    A judge can charge a person with contempt, but no judge can sentence anyone to jail absent the jurisdiction to do so. How does a judge obtain jurisdiction? A jury grants a judge the jurisdiction to sentence a person to jail by issuing a guilty verdict at trial. Absent a guilty verdict over the contempt charge, the judge has no power over the man to issue sentence.

    There was no trial, jury, or any lawful due process. The felon in a black robe simply sentenced the man to jail. With the assistance of an armed police officer that’s called conspiracy to commit aggravated kidnapping.

    If that’s not worthy of a citizen’s arrest, nothing is.

    • stupidamerkin

      What ever happened to the grand jury?

      • Ralph E Berkeypile Jr

        The judicial and executive branches illegally took control of them many decades ago.

      • Russell

        It has been revived recently by a nationwide movement! Check it out. http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org
        All 50 states are now participating. NY, PA and FL are leading the way but NJ and a few others are hot on their heels. We need educated, freedom-loving people to join the ranks and help out. This is our chance to restore lawful operation to the courts and the government in a peaceful manner.

  • Waldetto

    ”When you start talking about arresting people and kidnapping people,
    and that’s unacceptable and nothing good comes from that,” explained
    Sheriff Brian Gootkin
    Is he familiar with the term “Irony”? Is he willing to apply his “principles” to himself? To be valid, principles must be universally applied!

    • russell

      Yes the police and other law enforcement kidnap people all the time. Also they storm peoples’ houses in a military fashion and even murder people but it’s all okay because they have badges and uniforms. They will storm the home of a non-violent person just as they did recently in Texas. Even when it would be easier and better to sit down and discuss things in a peaceful manner and act like adults.

      • Ralph E Berkeypile Jr

        I learned of that one. But it had a happy ending. The cop got killed and the grand jury refused to indict the Texas homeowner.

  • Jeff Greene

    The officer spoke of “living in fear is unacceptable” but of course he is referring to the Judge and his family. What a double standard… the citizens must live in fear every day of what law enforcement may do to them for acts that are not in anyway criminal. I guess he doesn’t like it when the shoe is on the other foot.

    Every day law enforcement is guilty of violence or threat of violence against non violent citizens. They are the aggressor and therefore they are the criminals. They steal and they kill. The state threatens violence and acts with violence against non aggressors and they do it with the blessing of “the law” but this is not natural law, it is the laws of corrupt men who seek to destroy liberty and live off the plunder of the productive. They are parasites as all states are and their predation will ultmatley destroy the country.

    • Steve

      Very well said.

    • stupidamerkin

      The only honest jurisdiction and authority these corporate thugs have over the people is force and violence

  • Steve

    Silly Sheriff. Do unto others as they would do to you. NOT. Do not do to others what they are doing to you. UNDERSTAND!

  • stupidamerkin

    The only ones who are allowed to threaten, plunder and harm are those with black robes and their drones with guns, badges and 007 license to protect their and enforce their tyranny. What’s new?

  • Chris Steele

    This is not without president; a man in Scotland successfully arrested a judge after the judge failed to produce his oath of office. Please see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc-FX6KPlyI for more explanation

  • dan

    If we really had a FREE country and also the states in it….this event would not even be inside a building….no injured party…therefore NO crime….just eating and drinking from natural resources…as humans have done for eons…..no black robe needed here nor LEO..plying their trade in a FREE country….imho

    • Cal

      “We” live in a free country as long as WE know what those in both the federal and state can lawfully do. That means KNOWING both the US Constitution and your state’s Constitution as that is the contract they agree to abide by when they take office.

      Break the contract – no more LAWFUL authority because the authority COMES from the US Constitution and state Constitution’s – the contracts.

      Definition of the words “lawfully” and “legal”: “Lawful” – in accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law.
      “Legal” – the “color of law”, “appearance of law”, “pretense of law without the substance of lawfulness”, “misuse of power made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state”.

      You think that is something …

      If you knew your US Constitution and state Constitutions (admittedly I have not read all of them, but have read 23), you would KNOW that there is NO SUCH THING AS Emergency Powers. That power was NOT given to the executive branch, it was not given to the legislative branch, and it most certainly was not given to the judicial branch. Not because they did not recognize an “emergency”. It was written in an “emergency”.

      It was because “emergency powers” are unconstitutional, they are the direct opposite of a Constitution which is created to define a government and what they can do. {PERIOD!}

      Anything
      done in the name of “emergency powers” is criminal in action, and
      worse, makes criminals of the enforcers who might have done this
      misdeed with no knowledge that they were committing criminal acts.
      Yet, they still must be held accountable for those actions because
      they were REQUIRED as part of the contract agreed to when they took
      the office or position they occupy to take this Oath and keep it, or
      one similar to it:

      “I
      do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
      Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
      domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
      that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or
      purpose of evasion; and
      that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on
      which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

      “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
      the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign
      and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
      and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

      Notice that the most words describing exactly what they are to do for the US Constitution before and more inclusive then anything else, including following orders of US presidents and/or orders of those above them or the duties of the position or office they will be occupying.

      Also notice that “obey the orders of the President of the United States” is joined in the same sentence with “and the orders of the officers appointed over me”, that is how low on the priority scale those presidential orders are compared to the US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof it.

      Plus that the “Uniform Code of Military Justice” is mentioned because it requires ONLY lawful orders to be followed.

      Dr. Edwin Vieira: “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides. That is a matter of historical investigation and understanding from which objective results can be obtained…

      The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights… The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights.

      The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution.
      Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.

      … the famous case Norton v. Shelby County, when they were thinking straight about these issues: 1886. The Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

      And that applies to any (and all) governmental action outside of the Constitution…”

      What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They
      are its disabilities (limits put upon it); what it does not have legal authority to do.
      Look at the First Amendment… What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. But HOW does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera.

      “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a disability.

      How do you define, or how would you characterize, a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress, or any other political body? It is by definition a totalitarian government…

      Americans would have had to understand and enforce their Constitution. You notice I say Americans, not the Congress or the Supreme Court, because who is the final arbiter of this document? [holding a copy of the Constitution] It is not Congress, and it is not the Supreme Court. It is “we the people.” Read the thing. How does it start? “We the people do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States”; not “we the politicians,” not “we the judges.” Those people are the agents of the people. We the people are the principals.

      The doctrine is very clear that, being the principals, we are the Constitution’s ultimate interpreters and enforcers. You don’t have to take my word for it. Let’s go back to the Founding Fathers…

      The Founding Fathers were profound students of law and political
      philosophy, their knowledge unequaled by any today. Their mentor in
      that era was William Blackstone, who wrote Blackstone’s Commentaries, probably the most widely read legal treatise of its time, certainly here in the United States. What did Blackstone write about this subject? He wrote, “Whenever a question arises between the society at large and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself; there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to.”

      We the people are the Constitution’s ultimate interpreters. (Dr. Edwin Vieira, http://www.constitution.org/mon/vieira_03225.htm )

      The Bill
      of Rights was unequaled in its time in the limits it put upon those
      who would serve within the federal government and the state
      governments and the protections of the people’s natural rights; and
      is still surpassed by none today.

      Enforcement has been the problem.

      Caused by the slow progressive takeover of all media – now a cartel, schools, and even religions – which does not say there is a fault with religions, the faults lie with the those in higher positions there who sold-out. The non support and training of the Militias of the several states being allowed, as if they even ahve that authority – but WE let it happen. This none being bothered to know the US Constitution and our state Constitutions left us pretty much defenseless against the traitors and domestic enemies that began to hold office within both the federal and state governments. Remember, law enforcement and the military are governmental agencies – they work for the government and are paid for by the people whom they and those within the governmental agencies are lawfully required to protect.

      It is only the Militia’s of the several states – made up of the people themselves – that would keep the well-being of the people at the forefront and not “just follow orders” or “just do their jobs”, unlawful though those orders or demands be from their superiors making the enforcers criminals.

      The US Constitution does not allow for those elected or hired to implement or install “emergency powers”. It is not in their job description, the contract they agreed to when they took the governmental office or position they occupy – elected or hired. The Bill of Rights is a list of further restrictions put upon those who serve or occupy governmental positions; the US Constitution defining exactly what they can do, which restricts, forbids anything else that is not specifically listed there. It does not allow for “executive orders” rather it
      forbids them in Article I, Section 1: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Nor does it allow “emergency powers” under whatever pretext those in governmental positions would like to pretend they can use against us.

      The word “All” in Article I, Section. 1 is all inclusive, meaning no one in the executive branch or within the judicial branch may create laws, executive orders, emergency powers, etc. (“All”: the whole, entire, total amount, quantity, or extent of). The word “All” in Article I, Section. 1
      means that neither of the other two branches, nor their “minions”, can make laws, legislation in any way, shape or form. That “power”, “authority” is denied to those who serve within any capacity in those two branches: executive and judicial.

      The entire concept of “emergency powers” was repudiated by the
      Supreme Court, in Panama Refining Corp. v. Ryan and then again
      in A.L.A. Schecter Poultry Corp. v. U.S.(Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation)

      In Schecter, “the NRA attorneys, led by General Counsel Donald Richberg, strongly advocated the use of the ‘emergency powers doctrine.’”

      The Justices did not accept the government’s arguments. . . Speaking
      for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice Hughes also dealt a death blow
      to the emergency powers doctrine. Counsel for the government’s
      opponents relied on [Ex Parte] Milligan, arguing that an “emergency does not increase constitutional power nor diminish constitutional restrictions.”
      Yielding to their appeal, the Chief Justice retreated from the
      near-endorsement he had given the emergency powers doctrine in [Home Building & Loan Association v.] Blaisdell: “Extraordinary
      conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power,” he declared. The Court conceded that such conditions might well require extraordinary remedies, but that did not “justify action which lies outside the sphere of constitutional authority.” Those who acted under
      authorization of the Constitution, the Court said, were not free to
      transcend the limitations upon the power that it granted merely because they believed that more or different power was necessary.

      • Cal

        “The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution.
        Outside
        of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has
        no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no
        existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.”

        Shouldn’t we put in a REAL, LAWFUL Constitutional government and fore those treasonous scums and domestic enemies of the USA? WE do NOT need a “legal fiction” destroying our nation, our natural rights, our states, etc! It is past time to start removing (FIRING) those who have broken the contracts they agreed to.

  • Stephanie Auguste

    I hope that they do a citizen’s arrest of this judge, and I hope that other judges and law enforcement types who are not upholding the US constitution take note of it. I also hope that it sets off a movement of more citizens’ arrests across this country. Lord knows we need it…

    • Cal

      Removal, not arrest unless the judge has broken the oath of office lawfully required to get into that position. Then it is a crime.

  • BambiB

    Wait… the sheriff has not conducted any investigation yet, but he’s “confident” that the judge has done nothing wrong? Does the sheriff approach all investigations that way? Does he start out a murder investigation with, “I’m sure there’s no crime here, that the prime suspect is not guilty, but I’ll check it out”?

    How does he EVER get a warrant if he has to say to the judge, “I don’t think they did anything wrong, but give me a warrant anyway”? He’s already expressing an opinion about the judge’s actions without knowing ANYTHING about the case!?

    A sheriff with that attitude should resign. He’s not impartial.

    • Cal

      “A sheriff with that attitude should resign. He’s not impartial.”

      Exactly.

    • Tannim

      AKA, Incoming Whitewash.

    • LocalHero

      They’re all Freemasons. They protect each other.

  • Kerry

    Interesting that arrest is a threat…

    This cop needs arrest himself for libel and defamation for add so much that was never said to a simple statement of arrest alone.

  • russell

    Everyone needs to join the movement to restore the courts to lawful operation. http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org
    This movement is operational in all 50 states now. Some are further along than others but it will take the people to make it work.

    • Kai

      Thanks for the info. Contacted my local coordinator.

  • Cal

    “”When you start talking about arresting people and kidnapping people,
    and that’s unacceptable and nothing good comes from that,” explained
    Sheriff Brian Gootkin.”

    Actually the militia of the several states does have lawful jurisdiction according to the supreme law of this land, the US Constitution and ALL that is in PURSUANCE THEREOF IT:

    Who are the Militia: All able-bodied Americans plus those lawfully allowed to be here – excluding “public servants” – from age 18 through age 60 are the
    Militia of the several states.

    US Constitution, Article 1, Clause 15 requires of the congress: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and REPEL INVASIONS”.

    Insurrections can be those within our government not keeping the contract they agreed to. When the federal congress does not do it’s duty as required because it is corrupt, then the states can call on their Militia. But when both the states and the feds are either ignorant – dumbed down schooling – or corrupt traitors and domestic enemies the Militia can do the duty required of it which is to:

    Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
    Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which is constitutional laws ONLY),
    Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
    “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

    Clause 16: “To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
    the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.

    The US Constitution guarantees to each state its own “Republican form of government” because the states were NOT giving up their powers, only creating an entity to handle specific things like foreign affairs and making sure that the states traded freely amongst themselves. It is every state’s Militia that is the ONLY Constitutionally assigned force to “counter Invasions” and “Domestic Violence” within our nation.

    Judges ONLY get to remain in their position if they use “Good Behaviour”. When they break their contract and their oath they not only are NOT using “Good Behaviour”, but they are committing crimes.

    Alexander Hamilton: “I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this – that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be
    controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government…but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding”.

    James Iredell, 1st North Carolina convention: “When Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.”

    US Constitution, Article III. Section. 1: The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…”

    Not for life, they can keep it as long as they are doing their duty as layed out by the US Constitution and keep their Oath(s).

    Tucker’s Blackstone, Volume I, Chapter 1 regarding how the Oath applies to the judiciary: “But here a very natural, and very material, question arises: how are these customs or maxims to be known, and by whom is their validity to
    be determined? The answer is, by the judges in the several courts of justice.
    They are the depositaries of the laws; the living oracles, who must decide in all cases of doubt, and who are bound by an oath to decide according to the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.
    Now this is a positive law, fixed and established by custom, which custom is evidenced by judicial decisions; and therefore can never be departed from by any modern judge without a breach of his oath and the law. For herein
    there is nothing repugnant to natural justice;…”

    The judicial branch of the federal government is not in place to “interpret” the Constitution of the United States of America, but to decide if a law, bill, treaty, case is IN PURSUANCE THEREOF – they are to make sure that they are following the US Constitution.

    They can be fired for breaking the contract, for not using “Good Behaviour” as the law and contract requires!! Actually they must be fired when they are not using “Good Behaviour” as required of them.

    Thomas Jefferson: “…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…and their power is more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such
    tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”

    Alexander Hamilton: “Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.

    Why is it important that “We the people” understand the difference between judges who use “Good Behaviour” in the courtrooms and those who do not?

    So many believe only those in the government decides what happens and if they – in all three branches are good or bad. But here in America, the people are supposed to decide directly and indirectly through various means – though the last few decades it has been much ignored even in the courts. Many have also forgotten that the courts were to be an independent branch enforcing the US Constitution, under no type of coercion from either the executive or the legislative branches.

    The judicial was set to be totally separate from, and not under the power of, either the executive branch or the legislative branch. They were to be an independent branch that was taxed with the duty of making sure that the other two branches, plus the states, actions were “in Pursuance thereof” the US Constitution. They were to make sure that laws did not encroach on the people’s unalienable natural rights in any way. The courts were not given the power to make the decisions of guilt or innocence – that power is left with the people.

    Many have forgotten that the courts were set up to be directly under the influence of the people; as jurors. “We the People” are directly the decision-makers of the guilt or innocence of our neighbors, and of the laws presented to us as jurors.

    We are also the final decision makers on if judges are using “Good Behaviour” in the courtrooms or not; not the executive or legislative branches; nor is the judicial to decide it’s guilt or innocence itself. “We the people” are the final
    arbitrator of the decision if the judges within OUR courtrooms are using
    “Good Behaviour”.

    In the courtrooms as a jury, the people are the ones who lawfully decide a case brought against a person. More importantly they are to decide if the law is a good law or not as a jury. A sanctioned doctrine of trial proceedings wherein members of a jury disregard either the evidence presented and/or the instructions of the judge in order to reach a verdict based upon their own
    consciences. Basically the jurors are the judges of both law and fact.
    Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of “Not Guilty” despite any belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury nullifies a law that it believes is a “bad” law.

    Once a jury returns with a verdict of “Not Guilty,” that verdict cannot be questioned by any court, plus the “double jeopardy” clause of the Constitution prohibits a retrial on the same charge.

    Early in US history, judges informed jurors of their nullification right. The
    first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: “You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge both the facts and law.”

    And “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in
    controversy.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

    John Adams: “It is not only his [the juror’s] right, but his duty…to find the
    verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”

    “though in direct opposition to the direction of the court” is “We the people” deciding the court, prosecutors, lawmakers were all wrong. So why would anyone think that the final decisions over a judge using “Good Behaviour” would be left to anyone else?

    Samuel Chase: “The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.”

    • Draken

      Did you see the part that said this was an ‘unorganized militia’?

      That to me would imply that it is not state sanctioned, so the majority of what you posted would not apply here.

      • Lee Wickman

        Organization level is subjective. They fit the legalese for militia.

        • Draken

          If not authorized by a State, they are not a militia, they are a private group of citizens. This is not subjective or objective, this is common sense. Where does it say that they are a State Militia? Again without State Authority to act much of what was said above is merely rhetoric.

          • Lee Wickman

            The SCOTUS has defined the National Guard as “military”. The Federal government, and most state governments, define three kinds of militias in their legalese. One of them is the non-sanctioned, private citizen kind. They have the power of citizens’ arrest, as anyone does. I’m sorry if you didn’t know that.

          • Draken

            If you would please provide the case names and citations to the SCOTUS decisions in question. Obviously I have a deficiency in this area, and would like to learn more.

            My problem is more then just classification and much of my original comment is that private citizens are not bound to the same constitutional requirements as State and Federal Actors. Individuals have little to no claims against each other for the failure to Mirandize citizens, nor are citizens held to the same standards as police agencies. Where the Courts have held that evidence obtained by private parties can be excluded from proceedings if there is evidence that the Government encouraged the citizen to unconstitutionally collect the evidence, I highly doubt that such citizen courts are going to adhere to the same Federal Rules of evidence.

            I’m not against holding Judges accountable, but I do fear when citizen militias decide to take matters into their own hands.

            Where this is an extreme example, my fear is from the lynch mobs of the deep south. They claimed that they were concerned citizens out to take justice for themselves. Well there may have been some truth to that, but odds are more likely they were racists who wanted to put the fear of the White man into blacks.

            Now I have no evidence that the Freeman group above is in anyway that kind of organization, but anytime that ANY group says that they don’t like the courts thus they are going to create their own courts… Well I think back to the extreme example above and I can’t help but be afraid.

            I don’t trust these individuals to be any better stewards of the Constitution the the current ones, but at least with the currents ones I know what I’m getting.

          • Lee Wickman

            “Where this is an extreme example, my fear is from the lynch mobs of the deep south. They claimed that they were concerned citizens out to take justice for themselves. ”

            Militia-type groups come in all shapes and sizes. One is the NRA-led organization of blacks for self-defense in the south. Others were Malcolm X-type gun clubs, and the Black Panthers (The NRA failed the Black Panthers, but that is another story). Your neighbors may have a gun club, where, if they talk about anything related to politics, one could easily call them a militia. There were both “called up” and completely volunteer militias on the west coast during WWII.

            Some of them virulently hate the government. They, rightly, see tyrannical governments as the worst threat to humanity and to themselves. They are not wrong in providing for a possible alternative.

            Anyone is corruptible, but I would wager anyone willing to somewhat buck the status quo to uphold the Constitution is more trustworthy then the warpigs we have today. You can hardly do a worse job. Don’t hate your neighbors for willing to go farther than you are comfortable with. Its their fundamental and necessary American right.

            http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

            The top of page 2, is what you want to read. The held opinion about the nature of militias.

            http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

          • Lee Wickman

            Its not personal, but you’re obviously either a liberal or a neo-con, I have the stomach for neither. But the legal definitions are clear.

          • CheeseheadDJ

            You clearly do not know what a Militia is or who might belong to a Militia to do .. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.

          • Draken

            First scroll down a little bit farther, you’re a little behind on the conversation. Second yes you’re right I have been using a different definition for Militia than others – apparently to my detriment.

            Websters defines a militia as:
            1) a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
            b : a body of citizens organized for military service

            2) the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

            I’ve been using 1a versus 2. The key for me would be the word ‘organized’ which for me would implicate State involvement, or charter.

            Citizens are not required to honor your Constitutional rights. You can’t sue me nor I you for violating your 1st Amendment rights. Now there are limitations, for example defamation, false imprisonment etc, but these are a civil issues, not a Constitutional one.

            The above post by “Cat” is largely filled with language about the rights of the people. Well private groups, private militias have no duty to protect those rights. They are not Constitutional bound to honor anything. That I why I commented, to say that private actors are not bound by the Governmental restraints of the Constitution.

            If you read farther Mr. Wickman and I have already established that I lack full understanding of the definition of Militia, I’ll admit to that. But my statements as to private versus public actor are correct and I stand by them.

  • EndCorruptCorporatocracy

    Wolf said, “We’ve done our duty as best we could do, and we’ve relied on
    the government to do their duty. And we will be disappointed but we’re
    not vigilantes.”

    Well, you best get used to ALWAYS being disappointed then–if you’re not willing to pursue vigilante action in correcting miscarriages of Justice. (Sorry, bro, but that’s the truth of it. This is a game of bluff; if they keep calling our bluff, we will continue to lose.)

  • http://www.joshuascottmccullough.com/ Josh McCullough

    I never really thought of it until I saw the original court room video a while back. Why can’t a person fish without a license? You need a license to gather food? It actually makes no sense. Also the fact that you have to PAY for the privilege to gather food – from waters that nobody can truly “own”…just weird. I do support fish & game enforcement for those who poach or take unnecessary amounts from local resources. But a guy just trying to catch a fish for dinner doesn’t deserve to go to court or be locked up! Ridiculous!

  • Leo

    2 things…

    The Sheriff says that “When you start talking about arresting people and kidnapping people, and that’s unacceptable and nothing good comes from that”, So it’s okay for the Gov. to kidnap but not citizens to make citizens arrest?

    All in the same sentence the sheriff said that there would be an investigation, AND, “I’m confident that the judge did not do anything illegal” Proof that he has already made up his mind, so how exactly will that “investigation” go?

    • Ray

      good points

  • Adam Compton

    Sheriff condones kidnapping and locking people in cages… Does it for a living. SMH!

  • jack

    no threat has been made. a lawful citizens arrest has been issued. this sheriff has no idea of the law we live under. are we ruled by consent or by force, only one is legitimate.

  • hwt123

    We will remain slaves until “We the people” come to realize that the rule of law in the REPUBLIC under the Constitution of the United States FOR America is different then the one for the CORPORATION named
    Constitution of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
    Common law is the rule of law, not corporate created statutes…
    We were scammed by a international banking cabal in 1871…
    http://byronwine.com/files/1871.pdf

  • Gabriel Alan King

    “Arresting”… “kidnapping”… “threatening”….

    ISN’T THAT WHAT THEY DO TO US ?

  • Calvin Raven Eagle

    Sounds the head of the BADGE GANG has his head up his ass denouncing folks arresting folks and rationalizing his defense of a potentially corrupted judicial position, while he then in essence brags about ARRESTING fellow Americans in another scenario.. HOCUS pocus, SHIFT the FOCUS…!

  • Robert Timsah

    Screw the law.

  • Son of Liberty

    I hate the law i wish they take that judge out like the dog he is.

    • William Keith Lopez

      the judge is a woman.

    • Lance Johnson

      So, what you mean to say is, the bitch she is.

  • CheeseheadDJ

    They need to leave that Mountain man alone he is just trying to survive in the wild in fact they need to leave us all alone, I am a law and order man but I am not a POLICE STATE man… Now I wonder if that Sheriff & that Judge go golfing together ??

    • David_Smith

      You have to understand the police states of America put a senior citizen gardener in federal prison and relieved him of a couple hundred thousands of dollars because he sold a harmless orchid not using the proper form. We’re at that point.