Now that a Wisconsin judge has rejected raw milk farmer Vernon Hershberger’s religious freedom arguments to justify having a witness testify on his behalf, his trial looks likely to go forward as scheduled beginning May 20.
As proceedings draw closer, we will no doubt hear much from the local media that this is a case about about food and dairy licensing, and Hershbergers refusal to obtain essential licenses. Hershberger is accused of four criminal misdemeanors–failing to have a retail food establishment license, operating a dairy farm as a milk producer without a license, and operating a dairy plant without a license (though Wisconsin issues no licenses for raw milk producers). The fourth accusation is that Hershberger violated a holding order from the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP) in June 2010, when he cut the agency tape shuttering his farm store, and resumed serving his food club members.
But the technical legalities of the case fail to convey that, at its heart, this is a political case rather more than a legal case. Most fundamentally, the case is about whether Hershberger has the right to distribute food privately to individuals who have contracted with him, without regulatory interference.
The reason the case is so important politically is that it isnt just about whether Hershberger has the right to distribute food privately, it is about whether all of us have this right on either end of the equation–to distribute food privately or to contract with producers to obtain food privately. If Hershberger is acquitted by the jury of his peers, the shock effects will reverberate throughout the country, and regulators will be forced to re-examine their crackdown on private food distribution. If Hershberger loses, not only could he go to jail for more than a year, but regulators everywhere will lick their chops and go after private food more aggressively than ever.
Among many ironies, this right–to distribute or obtain food privately–is one we and our forefathers all have had for hundreds of years. But quietly and nearly unnoticed, our rulers have steadily infringed on this right over the last fifty years, to the point where they are now asserting that we have no such right, have lost that right via legislative and regulatory changes, and are impudent and wreckless to even think about asserting it, since the times we live in are so much more threatening and dangerous than they once were.
The huge implications, and arrogance, of this government assertion are gradually dawning on growing numbers of people, to the extent that food rights is evolving into a major political issue. The extent to which it is becoming a major political issue may become apparent the week of May 20, when Hershbergers trial opens in the small town of Baraboo, WI.
The trial so far is scheduled to run the entire week of May 20, and include some 70 witnesses. I wouldnt be surprised if it runs longer, given the intensity of the arguments. Hershberger supporters from around the country will be attending the trial, as Gayle Loiselle noted in a comment following my previous post–including Virginia farmer Joel Salatin, California raw dairy owner Mark McAfee (who clearly explained his reasons for coming in a comment following my previous post), Michigan pig farmer Mark Baker, Cornucopia director Mark Kastel, Indiana Sheriff Brad Rogers, Maine food sovereignty activist and farmer Deborah Evans, Los Angeles food rights lawyer Ajna Sharma-Wilson, and yours truly, among many others.
James Taylor sings how Im goin to Carolina in my mind, but lots of people are humming the tune about going to Baraboo, and they are going for real. Make your plans now to attend at least some of the trial. There will be related events and discussions about food rights led by various supporters. The Farm Food Freedom Coalition has been helping coordinate preparations, and several groups and sites are following the trial, including one from Vernon and this and this from supporters. There’s a Facebook page as well with updates about the trial location and related events.
Donations to help support Hershberger’s legal defense can be made at this site.
**
The wild boar conflict being fought by Michigan farmer Mark Baker gets major treatment in The New York Times. Unfortunately, Baker isn’t mentioned, and the farming interests receive minor attention in the article–it’s the hunting preserves and the states contentions about the threats of marauding wild pigs that are the main focus.
**
Two sets of intriguing data: The Centers for Science in the Public Interest says that reports of foodborne illness are down 40 per cent over the past decade. In the meantime, The Wall Street Journal reports that cases of childhood asthma have soared, to the extent that nearly 10 per cent of all children are afflicted. Says the WSJ: Asthma affects about 9% of children in the U.S. under the age of 17, and for many the condition is lifelong. Overall, more than 25 million Americans of all ages have asthma, representing about 8.4% of the population in 2010, up from 7.3% in 2001, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
How mixed up is our public health agenda? Huge public health attention is being devoted to locking up the Vernon Hershbergers of the world for selling dangerous food, when the latest research shows that the raw milk Hershberger produces may well counter childhood asthma. Another reason to plan a trip to Baraboo in support of Hershberger.
– Samuel Adams
As for the public health agenda? Follow the money. The Mr. Hershberger’s of this world will never induce large sums of money, therefore they are not wined and dined by those in power.
[quote from article]:
“Brabeck believes that nature is not good, that there is nothing to worry about with GMO foods, that profits matter above all else, that people should work more, and that human beings do not have a right to water.”
[end quote]
Link to the rest, here: http://disinfo.com/2013/04/human-beings-have-no-right-to-water-and-other-words-of-wisdom-from-your-friendly-neighborhood-global-oligarch/
Nature is not good? Human beings do not have a right to water??
I’d sure like Mr. Brabeck to prove his statement about GMO’s not being responsible for any illnesses in the past 15 years. I wonder what on earth he is basing this statement on, because I don’t think the facts would prove him out. But even if there was some sort of “proof” of damage from GMO’s (of which we suspect plenty) who would know it? That’s not the sort of thing that would EVER be reported in any way, not by a doctor, not by a mortician – certainly not by “science” because there is no science in the interest of average people. There’s only science bought and paid for by people like Brabeck who need it to say what they need it to say.
I will certainly be following the happenings of the trial online. I’m so glad people like Mark McAfee and Joel Salatin, and David will be there to support him. Winning this case would be a huge step forward for mankind, losing it would be disastrous. The trouble with disasters in the making is that very often the impact isn’t felt, or noticed, until years or even decades later. I hope all who attend will have a magic wand in tow.
LC, you’re right, Gayle and Liz have been key organizers. Part of the challenge, and this is a good challenge, is that there are so many people involved in the organizing effort that it’s nearly impossible to acknowledge everyone.
D, the main event is the trial. Other events, to be announced, will be happening around Baraboo.
We certainly won’t be eager to move back to Wisconsin if we cannot privately coproduce and obtain the foods of our choice…such a basic freedom that we will not give up. I have faith in the jury that will come from the countryside around Baraboo. Many of them were probably brought up on raw milk or other foods PRIVATELY obtained from their neighbor farmers. DATCP knows that too and it’s partially why they are so afraid of a jury.
D, I’ll have more specific info on events as it becomes available, as will some of the other sites I linked to in the post. The theater can accommodate people for discussions and movies after the court lets out.
“Most fundamentally, the case is about whether Hershberger has the right to distribute food privately to individuals who have contracted with him, without regulatory interference.”
The short answer is no. Please let me explain.
The state of Wisconsin and all its departments are corporations. They look like representative government, and have tricked you into believing they are representative government, but they are not. They are corporations.
Statutory law is not *real* law. Statutes are the “laws” of corporations.
If you have *any* voluntary contract with this corporation, you are bound to follow its statutes.
A voluntary contract is something like a driver’s license or a Social Security Number. You are bound to statutory law as long as you have any of these voluntary contracts. Remember, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
But you aren’t supposed to know this. You are taught in (government) school that you are free. You are supposed to believe you are free so that when you go to court, you make an uneducated argument and lose.
BAR attorneys are officers of the corporate court, as are judges. The BAR is a foreign corporation – the British Accredited Registry. “Esquire” is a title of British nobility. These are not relics of times past. The BAR is a real, foreign corporation, and its members take an oath to it. Please remember this.
Do not get me wrong. I DO NOT agree with this charade. I am merely stating the facts as I understand them.
Does Vernon, or any of us, have the right to contract privately at any time or for any reason, as long as the contract is voluntary? Under moral law, natural law, universal law, the answer is YES, OF COURSE. But the corporation masquerading as our representative government is NOT operating under natural law. The deck is, unfortunately, stacked against Vernon. But if we understand the rules, and refuse to play on their court (pun intended) we may stand a fighting chance.
What are the advantages to this system that is in place?
What are the disadvantages to this system that is in place?
Is there a better system than the one delineated?
Is this system a covertly imposed tool of control?
Keep in mind that while there are still societies that are more-or-less isolated and little traveled, that is not the case in large measure; and neither is this travel wedded to, say, petroleum, for when de Tocqueville visited these United States (using ourselves as an example), he decried (or at least observed) the Americans predilection for going there (across the street as it were) on horseback or by buggy when any normal (read European?) person would have walked!
So its not the petroleum, theres something else afoot. And our system of law must be up to the task, in fact, I would say that that is required of us as a free and self-governing people.
Is it possible to be free and self-governing?
Whatever we do do, as a society we cannot abandon the moral laws of the universe (cf. The Abolition of Man by Lewis).
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
Isn’t it a bit late for this? And what would we be able to do that would give us a fighting chance?
The Local Food and Community Self-governance Ordinances that have now been adopted in nine towns across five of the sixteen counties of Maine are a new model for our food freedom. Whether or not they stand the corporate “legal” tests over time – who knows. The success of these Ordinances today lies in their ability to draw many many people, of the most diverse political leanings possible, to a common place – a place where we stand together in solidarity for our Natural Right to raise, prepare, serve, eat and exchange the foods of our choice.
As one of our Maine State Representatives said recently after a rousingly successful public hearing in Augusta on LD-475 An Act To Increase Food Sovereignty in Local Communities “This train is leaving the station. People better get on board or get out of the way.”
during about a decade in the Tax Honesty Movement / DeTax thing, I saw many Pay-triots-for-Profit come along, spinning that yarn, only to be were exposed as con-men, when it got right down to short strokes, in a real court of law. The conmen were shrewd enough not to wind up in gaol demselves, but many of those who payed attention to them, did
For instance: At the opening of Michael Schmidt’s trial in Provincial Court, some guy stood up and started peddling that ‘corporate stuff’. JP Kowarsky gave him very short shrift. Point being : all that crap~ola is for lame-brains who prefer to live in a phantasy… Judges will not entertain it.
the biggest divergence from the objective reality shared by the rest of us, is the notion that “… we understand the rules, and refuse to play on their court …” Yeah, well, ask Russell Porisky about how that worked for him. Maintaining that “they” had no jurisdiction, he refused to show up at the Supreme Court of BC, so the Mounties came out to his house, and gave him a free ride to town, where he sat in gaol, til the appointed time. Eventually convicted and sentenced to 4 years in prison, lately, he’s out on bail pending appeal … still singing that absurd song.
Yes, this “corporate” view is part of what got Rawesome owner James Stewart into trouble, landing him in the clinker for five months. It’s a tempting view to adopt, since there is little question judges are biased in favor of their employers, and rule that way.
Moreover, there is one wild card Lola doesn’t address, and that is the key role of the jury. Juries don’t rule in most cases (civil cases, in particular) but a jury will have the final say in Vernon Hershberger’s case.
Your daddy did you wrong, Watson. He sold you as chattel property to the Crown for trinkets and privileges the day he regis-tered your birth certificate. You think you are your NAME? Then you are ignor-ant of the GAME. Voluntary servitude through fraud is what happens *anytime* you claim the NAME. If you have contracted with the state with the NAME you are in dishonor. Natural Law rules in favor *only* of those in honor.
What I have written is Truth, straight from the mouth of the ONLY Canadian who had a judge bow to him in court, recognizing his sovereignty. Undoubtedly your CV is as impressive.
“Moreover, there is one wild card Lola doesn’t address, and that is the key role of the jury.”
I’m sorry, was I required to address this? I wasn’t *really* discussing Vernon’s case at all – you made that assumption, or extrapolated it upon me. The point I was trying to make, despite D. Smith’s fatalism and Waton’s know-it-all arrogance, is that NO ONE in this “movement” *truly* understands the law, and NO ONE *wants* to know. We acquiesce our sovereignty to others, and then don’t understand where our rights have gone. WE ARE IN DISHONOR. And those in dishonor have no rights.
The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on Earth, and not to be under the will of any legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule. Samuel Adams, 1772
The respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being ruled by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law. Continental Congress, October 14, 1774 (vicinage means local area)
Volumes could be (have been) written about common law and its application, but for us here and now, I think it’s important to understand a few points:
English common law is based on a natural moral code that says that every man should be held to his word, and no man may encroach on another. It presupposes therefore that no man should be punished who does not first harm another.
Because common law is natural (i.e. baked into humankind) the practice of it (meaning the adjudication of disputes by common-law judges) is a continual act of discovery (very important word!) as to how best to apply the law’s great moral pillars in the real world.
One of the basic tenets of common law is that punishments are aimed at restoring the wronged party. Justice cannot be enjoyed otherwise.
Political law, on the other hand (which is what America has fully converted to), is simply a body of made up rules–no discovery of moral truths required. All that is necessary for political law is that an official or group of officials has deemed it so. Political law therefore is often meddlesome, based on cultural or intellectual fads, or written to promote some sort of imagined economic expediency.
Political law therefore does not necessarily care whether someone is harmed who did not first harm someone else, so to a modern criminal-law judge what matters is not what is morally right or wrong, but only whether a law has been broken. Consequently causing harm does not always indicate a crime while punishment can legally be meted out to someone who has not harmed anybody at all. When harm does result in punishment, the court tends to behave as if the State was the wronged party–the State collects fines and then jails the criminal (the cost of which the harmed person is in part forced to shoulder!).
So, in my opinion, Lola is right, and so is Gordon. If there was any vestige of common law left in America, all of us could, by exercising our common-law rights, enjoy the liberty of leading harmless lives, including the establishment of mutually agreeable arrangements with our neighbors. But there is nothing left of common law in America anymore, nor hardly a soul with even the slimmest knowledge of it (including, amazingly, the importance of common law in the establishment of our government).
Our problem is extremely fundamental, and ironically, because we cannot muster the knowledge or will to demand that the fundamental problem be fixed–to demand in essence that statutory law be severely pruned and common law principles be re-instituted–we try to fix each of political law’s many ugly consequences by demanding even more political law, only of the sort that suits our desires. Attempts to tweak the system help cement it into place.
David is indeed right when he says, Among many ironies, this right–to distribute or obtain food privately–is one we and our forefathers all have had for hundreds of years. He is also right about the power of juries–jury nullification may be the last vestige of common-law in America, and of course officials are doing their best to destroy even that.
Who ever thinks that defiance of state law is smart has much to learn.
The ultimate power and success is building a market that is so big and so strong that power shifts….this power comes from the power of the people and their dollar voting. The ultimate pay back is success.
How is success measured? No recalls, super happy healthy families that love raw milk, food safety data that is beyond regulatory reproach, hugs from healthy kids….less asthma, the money to fund research or what ever is needed….an FDA on its knees, security for the family farm…That is true success in my book. The crazy notions based on James Stewarts free man philosophy sure worked well didn’t it??
The calculations are easy….just look for who has the guns….enough said ….math done.
And really, I’ve seen no one say one single thing that could involve the rest of us to “change” anything. We can show support by being there, we can supply quiet activism by giving money etc., but likely it won’t “change” anything. The only possible change will be up to the jury, and thank the lucky stars for it, because you surely wouldn’t want a judge making this decision, would you?
You’re right about the law – no one understands it and no one wants to and ain’t that the dyin’ truth. Even the people who work with it every day don’t understand it because of the twists and turns it can take.
Qu’est-que-c’est WE ARE IN DISHONOR?
I agree, it is indeed of the sort that suits our desires and any attempt to tweak the system will certainly help cement it into place.
What more can be expected of people who believe they are a product of a mindless universe where a personal omnipotent loving creator is viewed as an obsolete and irrelevant myth? They are indeed masters of their own currently evolved relative morality.
Ken
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Stop_the_loss_of_plant_biodiversity.php
In November 2012, DG SANCO (the EU Directorate responsible for health and consumer affairs) issued an updated draft proposal for a new Plant Reproductive Material (PRM) Regulation which will replace numerous directives in favour of the large seed houses preventing gardeners and farmers from exchanging seeds and growing heritage varieties. DG SANCOs proposals fly in the face of the recommendations of the EU Agricultural and Environmental Directorates who stress the policy proposal will result in the loss of plant biodiversity as well as affecting the rights of the grower. Despite the views of the other EU Directorates, DG SANCO is now pushing for a vote in favour of their proposals.
This is a major threat to the future of Garden Organics Heritage Seed Library and its network of enthusiastic and dedicated growers who are helping to preserve long lost varieties of plants that our ancestors grew for food. Many of these plants may have characteristics that are needed for future plant breeding in order to adapt to new pests and diseases and climate change.
This EU Directive, if approved, will result in a ban on future such activity unless every seed is registered and has an annual license paid for each variety. In the case of Garden Organic, with as many as 800 this could result in the charity having to spend around £800,000 (1,243,208.90 US) per year. If this directive is applied it will also mean gardeners will not be able to give seeds to their friends unless they are registered and licensed.
Ken
Common law does still exist. The fundamental problem is that the vast majority of people do not see that there are two worlds now. Common law does exist in the natural world. If you try to break a natural law , there will be consequences. There is also the world of commerce which is an invented fictional world. All relationships in the world of commerce are contracts. Under common law , we have an obligation to honor the contracts we make. When we use a legal name we are telling everyone else that we are playing the game of commerce and we have an obligation to play by the rules(contracts). We are still free to choose not to use the legal name.In that case we are under no obligation to follow the rules of commerce having no contracts to honor. We are still bound by common law , but avoiding legal contracts relieves us of those obligations. Can we go back and forth between these two worlds? I hope the answer is yes,but we have to always be aware which one of the two worlds we are in at all times.
Let’s see if you’re grown-up enough, to come up with the name of the Pay-triot for Profit, who’s been mis-leading you with this utter nonsense: Roger Elsvick? No, he’s still sitting in prison. David Wynne Miller? No, I outed him a decade ago as the conman he was. Robert Menard? I saw him go by last week … still spining the same yarn. Mister Menard’s forte is, comedy, not law. You’ll notice that his “students” are infamous for crashing and burning when they hit the brick wall, in a real court of law
the kindest thing I have to say is : you’re about 15 years behind me, on this learning curve.
If common law still exists, it does so only as a technicality, with the exercise of its privileges so heavily laden with difficulties and dangers as to be of little or no practical value. We do occasionally hear of a brave soul who has stood his ground on common-law principles, sometimes even successfully. But lifting the corner of those stories often reveals an extended and extremely painful period of harassment by officials, lost time, lost money, sometimes even jail time–far too costly an affair for anyone with daily responsibilities to others, especially when the cultural and legal aftermath assures only more of the same next time. Fighting those battles is for loners and heroes, not for family men.
What we need of course, to live as free men safe from invented jeopardy, is common law that is common, and not in continual competition with an immensely powerful system designed to hinder its application. I don’t know how to get there from here, but I suspect that a good start would be widespread education in common-law history, particularly its relevance to the founding of America. (Don’t know how that is going to happen either.)
Unfortunately for you, sir, you are wrong on all counts. The man in question is Wilfred Keith Thompson, who has done 28 days in solitary confinement for daring to challenge your pedophile/drug running/murdering QUEEN. He is now free from all entanglements, and is sharing what he has learned – the hard way – of how your beloved QUEEEN and POPE have sold you into slavery for profit via your birth certificate. You’re DEAD – Cestui Que Vie – didn’t you know?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzjv20sC5CY
Mr. Thompson, minus the fraudulent birth certificate NAME, does an almost-nightly radio show. Assuming you have a sincere interest in the matter, please let me know when you plan to call into his show; you can continue this conversation with him, and get his information straight from the horse’s mouth.
When people generally take the responsibility to question authority and to assure that authority observes the limits to it set down in the law, people who hold positions of authority will begin to realize that they do have limited authority. All that needs to happen is that we ask the right questions when authorities try to overstep their authority. Pick the small battles. With a little practice you will be surprised what power you have. Family men have a responsibility to their children to fight these small battles otherwise their children will face much bigger ones.
What does it mean to be a good citizen? We live in a society where authorities are used to everybody being “cowed” by their authority. We don’t have to be confrontational, we just need to ask the right questions and know something about what the laws say.Don’t ask a question you don’t already know the answer to. When I was young I “lived” in a barn for a time. I was threatened with a large daily fine for violating an ordinance that said no one could “live” in a barn in that neighborhood. My response was that I would not “live” in the barn if they could define the activity that was forbidden more precisely . Could I eat in a barn? Could I sleep in a barn? Could I breath while I was in the barn? Just asking those questions made it obvious that the rule was too vague to be enforceable. We got to this place by not asking questions.We can get out of it by asking questions. I think you will be amazed at how often regulations are poorly worded,vague or contradictory and also you will be amazed at how often authorities try to make up the law or interpret it incorrectly. Being a good citizen means to prevent this overreach by asking the right questions. This is the most important daily responsibility we have to others. When we don’t take this responsibility seriously we get what we now have. A mess for our children to clean up.
the Complete Patient website is a forum for conversation about REAL MILK, so I’m going to leave off tangling with your ( all-too-obvious ) pain body. suffice to say : I’m the guy who layed the private Information, which led to Provincial Court Judge David Ramsay, getting convicted of abuse of public trust*, then being sent to Dorchester Penitentiary, where he died. So preserve us all from the low blows – so typical of neo-phytes at your stage of conspiracy-ology – in which anyone who doesn’t completely agree wit’ you, is all-of-a-sudden “on the side of the enemy”.
Lady, you have a lot to learn …. quitting projecting your own arrogance on to moi, would be a good start
* Ramsay was found guilty of treating young women who appeared before him, leniently, in exchange for sexual favours. This was only the very tip of the ice-berg, of the paedophile ring which Jack Cram PROVED, existed within the Court Services Branch of the BC so-called “Justice system”
I thought the charges filed against him were above what a magistrate could handle?
During the DeTax thing, I was in the gallery in Provincial Court of BC, 3 times, when judges sent people away for a psychiatric evaluation, for spouting that same crap~ola. If we know one thing for sure, it’s that it doesn’t gyve with what the rest of us call “reality”
“”The State is a fiction”, eh?” Is it not? Pray tell, please point to it, to where I can touch it, taste it, feel it. The jack boot thugs? They are mere mortals, stupidly believing they are the fictitious “state”. The State does not exist, only in mind and by voluntary consent. Stop giving it your permission and energy, and it disappears like the proverbial vampire it is.
When you were in DeTax court, did you have a: birth certificate, driver’s license, marriage license, passport, bank account, credit card, or had you signed anything with the birth certificate NAME, indicating you believed it was you? Then you were in fraud, and the court knew it. Ignorance is no excuse. If you could put a reign on your ego, your “Id-Entity” and LISTEN, you may get the answer you seek. Or is it your objective to keep us in the dark, in fraud, and in slavery?
I’m not going to hold yr hand while you get up to speed. Suffice to say that my friend, David Kevin Lindsay is the expert on this topic, and that I went through a 10 day trial with Sandra Gibbs on the failing-to-file issue, in which she put forth a brilliant argument re: “the all-caps Name”. The judge just kindly told her to “move on”. Point being : it does not fly in their little box.
Dentist Eva Sydel tried your approach : refusing to acknowledge the power of “the State”. When the Vancouver Police arrested her, she said “which Person do you want?” To which the officer replied “they told us you”d say that.” At the end of her trial, Judge Myer was inclined to let her off the hook, but she kept on defying him, yapping-away in his face about “the Name”, so he sentenced her to 3 years in the penitentiary. For some hard cases, the sound of big steel gaol door is what it takes to convince them “the whole world lies in the power of the evil One’
But in all of this, Mister Watson has missed the bigger picture. Not one thing I have said is incorrect. And I never claimed that the courts would look upon this favorably and that it’d be cure-all for your problems; I said it was RIGHT (vs. wrong) – moral and in accord with universal law. Simple rule: know who you are and STAY OUT OF THEIR COURTS.
As for you, Mister Watson, now that you know his NAME (again), go find Mr. Thompson and you can discuss this with him. I have nothing more to say to you. And if want my help in contacting him, learn to say “pretty please”.
Came time to put up or shut up, and you’ve got a handful of nothin’ … I don’t have time to waste on every sorry puppy. I bet that – IF he even exists! – there’s a real good explanation why he wound up in that situation … babbling the Winston Shrout lingo, as they led him away.
Where I came in was = warning those involved in the REAL MILK movement, to avoid the Pay-triots-fr-Profit shysters, ie, the guys whose Kool-Aid you’re drinking
Or do you really, really expect me to give out the name he uses today, or his contact information? And pray tell, what will you do with it? Your intentions are not sincere, no. Anyone can see your soul is black as your tongue is forked.
Please and thank you will get you further in this world than your rampant hostility, at least in mine. I owe you nothing. Does it hurt your ego that there is something that you do not know, or are you sincerely trying to save the poor souls here from my fallacies? You have done nothing to prove me wrong, just talked for talking sake.
I don’t know you, and I don’t know that your words or experiences are true. I’m supposed to take your words as sincere when spoken from a forked tongue? Why, because you (heart) raw milk? The unweened! No wonder the juvenile mind! But I am expected to validate a stranger? Too funny!
Ora, well said about civility. Thanks.
If I would have known at the beginning of my mess how to move the court to a court of record, I don’t believe I would have spent any time in jail. Once you move to common law, the attorneys can no longer speak as they do not have first hand knowledge of the facts. They cannot sign a verified claim while representing another entity, real or fiction. People are starting to learn this and it has been most useful in getting children back from CPS.
Lawyers are not here for us. Same with “judges”. They all have a superseding oath to uphold the bankruptcy of United States.
@Gordon–Why don’t you leave. Many of us are tired of dealing with disinformation agents like yourself. We do what works despite your ill-informed ramblings. And, yes, the DA tried to send me to a psych eval. He was unable to do it because I had the court in the proper jurisdiction.
When you learn where the power comes from, common law, you will find a not so negative life. I pity you Gordon.
Let me tell you a very short “story”. I learned how to utilize the UCC. I recorded a UCC-1 Financing Statement with the Secretary of State. I then took a copy of it into my employer. I stopped at the first office door in the HR Department that I came to. The kid in there had no clue what to do with it so he suggested we go to the HR Director’s office. We went in and the kid handed the UCC-1 to the director, she took a look at the doc, looked at him, looked at me, then back at him and told him that I was tax exempt and he should take it to payroll to stop withholding. I had not said a word through this entire ordeal. Can I prove it to you? I don’t know. About all I could do is send you a scan of my paystub with no taxes taken out.
Many, if not all, of our cases are sealed. You won’t find our stuff on PACER either. Can you imagine what would happen if everybody found out how to handle themselves in court and how to change the jurisdiction?
Everything Lola said is true. Problem is that we have been using that defense in the wrong venue where they make the rules up as they go along. Now we know to change the jurisdiction to common law which changes the roles of the actors in the theater of “court”.
Anyone who leans-in to such occult practices, deserves everything they get. Meaning – the terminus for the IRS’ raliway, is prison. good comic relief can be found on the Quatloos website
those Patriot Nut job scams appear to work, because the lag between the moment the sucker crosses the threshold into that fantasy, and when the IRS catches up, is about 3 years. Conman Russell A Porisky counted on that lag … he could boast that his method ‘was working” … which it did. Until it didn’t. Now RevScam is methodically auditing every one of the 800 dunces whose info. they found in his residence, executing the Search Warrants
“test all things : hold fast to that which is true”
What a wonderful testimony : Bilbo, you ONLY spent = what? = 4 months in gaol? Your’s is exactly the false premise which conman, Big Daddy Russ Porisky, used to spin his yarn for 10 years = that he’d “changed the jurisdiction”. Absolute Horse-shit. When he’d served their purpose, the Powers-that-Be lowered the boom on him, and he got 4 years in the penitentiary. With hindsight, it’s perfectly obvious his operation was allowed to go on as a “honey-pot” = luring local “tax protesters” so they could be identified.
Have a nice milk.
I didn’t come here to win friends and influence people. My job is : challenging Americans to awaken to the fact that we’re living under communism. Then, to point out how the individual ought to cope with it, while we go through the Prodigal Son phase of the national cycle. Things are going to get a hell-of-a-lot worse, before they get better
the raw milk issue is only the outworking of the 6th plank of the Communist Manifesto : industrial-ization of agriculture.
what I saw in the Tax Honesty Movement, and the (so-called ) Pro-life thing, was : pew-warmers and dilettantes, such as those who inhabit the state- licenced churches = who want only “half a pound of God” … just enough to solve their own immediate problem, but not so much that they have to get serious about root causes. They hate guys like me who come along with ‘strong meat’, demanding they grow up.
Same with the dabblers regurgitating all the “Freeman on the land” non-sense, like it’s THE silver bullet. what you’re seeing In the vitriol directed at me lately, is, how cranky they get with someone pointing-out the obvious = all that Patriot Nut Job stuff only gets you deeper in the mire
their insults don’t bother me … I’ve been insulted by experts!
Any time the IRS contacts me I just ask them for a signature on a document stating what they believe I have done wrong. To this date they have not done that.
I’m sorry you misunderstood when I told of my tax exempt status. That was not my intention when I went to the HR dept. They are the ones who told me that I was tax exempt. I went in there for a different reason [which is my business, not yours] and was pleasantly surprised at the directors reaction.
Yes, many people are out there promoting scams to take other peoples money. Everyone needs to do their own due diligence.
For my 2 1/2 months in jail–I was awaiting sentencing. I did not do everything up to, and including, the trial correctly. I learned, while I was sitting, how I should have done it. You would have had to be in the courtroom during sentencing so you could SEE their reaction and how what I did affected the outcome. The MINIMUM sentence was a year in prison. If that was what the “judge” was BOUND to give me, according to statute, why didn’t he? It was, actually, quite surprising. It was a good learning experience.
My calling is to “expose the unfruitful works of darkness” also. I hope the severe sarcasm and negativity leaves you soon. You sound like you could have some useful information to share. Instead of slamming people, have you found anything positive?
http://www.examiner.com/article/pennsylvania-judge-sentenced-to-28-years-prison-for-selling-teens-to-prisons
1. Define terms,
2. cite sources,
3. state facts,
4. make your argument,
5. write carefully,
6. and see to it that attacks against the person are absent.
I would characterize the result of following these points a reasoned argument. Whether or not the argument would be easy to follow rests elsewhere (the material &c. e.g.).
As a rule it takes time to execute what I outline above. It nearly rules out “dashing off” a point of argumentation. Believe me, I respect your time. Whoever and wherever you are, it’s the same 24 hrs. per day as I get and that is not much for any of us, in a real sense. Please bear in mind that when these points are thrown to the wind, then for me anyway, the result quickly becomes uselessly indecipherable. And uselessly indecipherable means that I gloss over the garbage you fools write. oops. So you know.
just sayin
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
As the young Bart Simpson wisefully said: Have a cow. Or share your neighbors unless it’s against the law, then challenge the stupidity of the law. And so on as Mr. Vonnegut might say, now that he’s dead… I may have linked this before but it’s worth a second try http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060908
another positive thing I did = on the way out of the tax protest morass = was, at my trial for failing-to-file, put silver and gold coins in as exhibits, thus compelling the RevScam agent to admit under Oath – speaking on behalf of the Minister of National Revenue – that the tax due on a transaction in which such a coin is tendered, is the FACE VALUE of that coin. For instance ; a pre-1967 Cdn silver dollar is declared at one dollar, for purposes of filing a return of income. Other than having 2 sets of books, and outright lying, hard money is the ONLY means of coping with the progressive tax on income, which Karl Marx called for in his Communist Manifesto. Which is why the collectivists hate bi-metalism, so much
my penchant for severe sarcasm and negativity is something I just can’t help … like the queers who are “born that way”.
Read the Bible, and ALL of it. You’ll notice that, along with an adamantine forehead for dealing with the blowback, my hot, prickly, non-compromising style is one of the hallmarks of the prophetic type. With the stiff-necked Israelites ( whom we Caucasians are) it nearly always takes that verbal ‘2 by 4 alongside the head’ to get their attention.
There are no “privileges” exercised in common law. Only rights. Corp US members are the ones who have privileges, that can be revoked at any time with no due process of law. Fighting these battles is also for family men, unless of course, you don’t really care about your family. It would be wonderful to live as free men safe from invented jeopardy. That is why we fight the wrongs done by the corporation.
I get my information, most of it, from the son of a lady who was an IRS auditor for 23 years. She, and her son, are not “patriot nut-jobs”. She, I’m sure, would consider you to be the one who is gullible. The IRS is NOT a “government” agency. And, yes, income taxes are voluntary. If you are “gullible” enough to fall for their wording, then, yes, you will pay. It’s careful research and education that will take care of that problem.
Now, we have the IRS backing up what I’ve been trying to tell you.