Montana Whackjobs, Part Deaux


Well, one of my readers have gone and done it, meaning he’s gone all whackjob on me, based on my earlier post.  Big surprise there.
Anyway, “Wolf” or “Kriss Wolf” stated that Montana judge Wanda Drusch was being recalled and then provided a link.  The link is to an unannotated internet version of the Montana statutes, specifically the “Montana Recall Act”,  Mont. Code Ann. § 2-16-601 et seq.  Judge Drusch is, of course, subject to recall, but I doubt that the whackjobs are intelligent enough to do it correctly.
“Physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense enumerated in Title 45 are the only grounds for recall.”  Mont. Code Ann. § 2-16-603.
I doubt that they can show any of these, and failure to comply with the statutory requirement are fatal to a recall effort. State ex rel. Palmer v. Hart, 655 P.2d 965 (Mont. 1982).  Further, the supporting affidavit has to contain actual, real assertions that meet one of the grounds for recall.  Basing the affidavit on a misconception of the law is fatal to the petition. Sheehy v. Ferda, 765 P.2d 722 (Mont. 1988).
So Mr. Teen Wolf has “filled (sic) the recall this morning with the Gallatin County elections officer….”  I’m confident that he (or they) will screw this up, especially since he’s already cited the statute incorrectly.  If he made similar mistakes in filing the petition, it will be tossed.
Next he went into the “CUSIP prison bond” BS.  Basically the whackjobs believe that each prison inmate is a money maker for the state by use of this bond.  It’s BS of course, but you can’t argue with a whackjob / idiot.  To paraphrase Mark Twain, they’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.  He then goes on about lack of respect for officers, filing as many complaints as he can, yada yada yada, finishing off with a reference to Nazis and jackboots.


Another Whackjob Sovereign Citizen goes to Court, and Loses


Big surprise, right?

What I also get a kick out of is how the other whackjobs will try and spin the loss.

Ernie Tertelgte apparently believes that he is a mountain man and espouses views typically held by the so-called sovereign citizens.

The first time we hear of Ernie is in 1974, where he shot and killed a bear with his .30-30.  See Annabelle Phillips, The Tale of a Bear and a Lad of 12, THE HIGH COUNTRY, July 3, 1974, at 1.  Well back then he had a hunting license for that bear.

This year he was arrested after a game warden caught him fishing without a license.  But he believes that he’s sovereign and that the officer had no authority over him, so he refused to provide his name and was subsequently arrested for interference (Montana‘s charge for failing to identify) and resisting arrest (big surprise there, too).

So he shows up outside of the court wearing a tri-corner hat (‘cus he’s a patriot), wearing a Hudson Bay Co. capote coat (‘cus he’s a mountain man), and holding a hand-lettered cardboard sign (‘cus he’s a whackjob).

The big basis of his defense appears to be that his name is spelled in all capital letters.  If you claim your name in all capital letters, then of course you are confessing to a capital offense.  Somehow that is connected to 1889 (probably due to Montana gaining statehood then).  If you use the all capital name, you have plagiarized and the Vatican can remove your head from your body, as if you were under Sharia law.  I got bored at the part where he started to talk about lawyers conducting witchcraft and exorcisms, but feel free to listen to it all.

Once inside, Tertelgte, continued his BS, ah, I mean his sovereign citizen argument against the court.

Tertelgte also mentions a Judge Holly Brown and infers that she is a federal judge (she’s a state district court judge) and that he is not liable because he is not a “Federal” citizen.  Of course, this was an arraignment, the judge informed him of the charges and left.  That of course means that it’s part of a Vatican plot, but as “the Living Man” he may disregard state law and “forage” for his food.  So anyway, he leaves, thinking he’s won.

What?  I thought he won?  Oh wait – according to Tertelgte, the Montana prosecutor was administering British law (because attorneys sometimes list “Esq.” after their name).  Anyway, Tertelgte wouldn’t shut up, so the judge had him removed from the courtroom.

Amazingly, after his insightful legal argument, Tertelgte was found guilty by a jury.

Does the fact that he accepted a hunting license at age 12, with his name in all capital letters mean that his life was already forfeited to the Vatican under Sharia law?  Now that he’s been found guilty by a jury?


Police Do a Good Job on Stop – And Then They Seize the Cellphone


Geez guys, you were doing a great job.  It’s still not bad, but it could have been much better.

A guy on a crouch rocket is stopped for speeding, somewhere in Oklahoma.  The officer issues citations for speeding, no insurance, and expired license plates.  So far so good, everyone is calm, no real problems.

Then they advise the violator that they are impounding the bike since the tags are expired over ninety days.  The guy obviously doesn’t want his bike impounded, but initially doesn’t understand that he can’t take care of it at the scene.  Then he starts telling the officers that they are not going to take his bike, and if they do it’s theft of his property.  He also starts spouting some sovereign / voluntaryist BS about the State charging him money for his own property (i.e., he doesn’t want to pay taxes), but that has no real bearing on the issue at hand.

The officers suggest that he go inside, that he back off, and he refuses.  Then the officers inform him that if he interferes with the impound, he’ll be arrested for obstruction, which in this case would be appropriate.  Any the violator gets more vocal about the “theft” by the police, etc.

At which point the officer seizes the cellphone as evidence.

Legally, the officers are justified in every action that they took, including the seizure of the phone.  On the seizure, technically a citation is an arrest in Oklahoma, so 43 U.S.C. 2000aa (Privacy Protection Act) would not apply.  There were also exigent circumstances, since the violator was making accusations of criminal conduct on the part of the police and there was a danger that the evidence could be destroyed or altered.  All of that is legal.  The officers should be able to show that they were not committing theft or bullying the violator, and the video would prove that.

But if like most police departments, if the squad car is equipped with video, that should be sufficient.  It’s not illegal, it is not wrong, there were just better ways to handle the cellphone video if there is squad car video.

It doesn’t appear that there was any problem with the individual filming the encounter – not one word was mentioned on that.  The officers also stayed calm throughout, with no threats (despite the claim of the violator, the comments on obstruction were not threats, but were to advise the violator about the consequences of interfering).


Sovereign Citizen at Court: How’s that working for you?


I don’t think I really need to add a lot of commentary – the video pretty much speaks for itself.

This is Why “Sovereign Citizens” Lose in Court

Comments Off on This is Why “Sovereign Citizens” Lose in Court

I was watching a video on RT about sovereign citizens, and the “expert” sovereign citizen, Alfred Adask, was explaining why people are sovereign.  He cited a U.S. Supreme Court case, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793), in support of his position.  Adask noted that the case talked about the sovereignty of the people in regards to their ability to sue the government, specifically a state government of another state, as was provided for in the U.S. Constitution.  It was about the principle of sovereign immunity.  The Constitution said:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;–between a State and Citizens of another State;–between Citizens of different States;–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1 (emphasis added).

The Court found that it had jurisdiction to hear the case, and since the State of Georgia refused to appear, Chisholm was granted a default judgment.

Adask took one small section of the ruling and applied it out of context, and completely ignores that Chisholm is no longer good law.  You see, right after the decision, both Congress and the several States were shocked.  They never thought that a suit by a citizen against the government of a state would be allowed, under the age-old principle of sovereign immunity.  So they changed the law.  The only way to change a section of the Constitution is by amendment, and the Eleventh Amendment was passed by Congress and ratified by the States.  It reads:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.


U.S. Const. amend. XI.
The ruling in Chisholm has been “superseded by statute” or no longer valid.  This has been clearly recognized by the courts.  Comments in those opinions are clear.

  • “The decision “created such a shock of surprise that the Eleventh Amendment was at once proposed and adopted.”  Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 97 (1984).
  • “The Amendment’s language overruled the particular result in Chisholm, but this Court has recognized that its greater significance lies in its affirmation that the fundamental principle of sovereign immunity limits the grant of judicial authority in Art. III.   Id. at 98.
  • “[T]he Constitution does not embrace authority to entertain a suit brought by private parties against a state without consent given….”  In re State of New York, 256 U.S. 490, 497 (1921).
  • “This amendment, expressing the will of the ultimate sovereignty of the whole country, superior to all legislatures and all courts, actually reversed the decision of the supreme court.”  Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890).
  • “[T]he amendment being constitutionally adopted, there could not be exercised any jurisdiction [by the Court], in any case, past or future, in which a state was sued by the citizens of another state, or by citizens, or subjects, of any foreign state.”  Hollingsworth v. State of Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378, 382 (1798).

Had Adask consulted an attorney, he could have avoided making a fool of himself.  It is not enough to know what the words on the paper say, one has to determine if a subsequent court has modified, overturned, narrowed, or otherwise affected the original ruling.  It is one of the basic principles of common law, which is supposedly the basis and the backbone of the sovereign citizen movement.

Of course Adask, a former roofer, has been meddling in the law for years, primarily publishing the Anti-Shyster magazine (at least until 2002).

take that, goliath.

just another day sitting next to the defendant

Hercules and the umpire.



Classical liberalism, criminal laws, the war on drugs, economics, free speech, technology, photography, sex work, cats, and whatever else comes to mind.


Res ipsa loquitur - The thing itself speaks

Chasing Truth. Catching Hell.

A Public Defender's Blog, @normdeguerreesq

The Legal Satyricon

Occasionally irreverent thoughts on law, liberty, tech, and politics.

Legal Writing Prof Blog

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer


General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

How Appealing

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer


General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

Real Lawyers

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

Say What?! Classic Courtroom Humor from Judge Jerry Buchmeyer

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

Judge Bonnie Sudderth

Law Blog on the Texas Rules of Evidence


Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Defending People

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

Preaching to the choir

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

Crime and Consequences Blog

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

Koehler Law

Criminal and DUI Defense in Washington, D.C.

The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

The Volokh Conspiracy

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer


A Group Complaint about Law, Liberty, and Leisure


General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer