For upwards of a decade, Wisconsins small raw-milk producers have been doing battle with the states Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, as well as the courts and politicians. DATCP has refused to allow the farms to distribute milk privately, which they insist is their right under the U.S. Constitution. Gayle Loiselle is a Wisconsin resident who has been in the middle of the battles, both as a member of a herd share and as a political activist. She is due to be discussing the history and politics of raw milk in Wisconsin tomorrow (Thursday) on Wisconsin Public Radio’s Joy Cardin Show at 6 a.m. (Central). In this analysis, she provides insights into the real stakes now before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
By Gayle Loiselle
Three Wisconsin farms now have petitions for review before the states Supreme Court all challenging the legality and constitutionality of contracts between farmers, private citizens and private food groups to acquire or provide fresh unpasteurized milk. The appeals are admittedly long shots, but all concerned decided that the underlying Constitutional principles made the cases worth pursuing before the states highest court.
Two of the cases, the Zinniker and Grassway petitions, were filed on Monday, October 6, 2014. The Vernon Hershberger petition was filed in August, 2014. All three cases are represented by the attorneys of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, Elizabeth Rich and David Cox.
Grassway Organics Farm Store, owned by Wayne and Kay Craig, from New Holstein, WI, filed for Declaratory Judgment against the Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP), maintaining they had all the necessary licensing to provide raw milk to members of their private farm store. However, over the years DATCP has repeatedly changed its interpretation of state statutes and licensing stipulations, ultimately making it impossible for Grassway plaintiffs to comply. Then-Judge Patrick J. Fiedler, agreed with DATCP, that they were in violation of licensing requirements, and ruled against Grassway plaintiffs, as did the Court of Appeals.
Vernon Hershbergers case was tried before a jury, which found nothing wrong with Vernon providing raw milk for members of his private food club. He was found not guilty on three counts of license violations, but was found guilty on a fourth count of violating a DATCP holding order. Because the jury was kept from seeing and hearing all of the facts, Hershberger appealed the guilty count, which was denied.
The Zinniker Plaintiffs, farmers Mark & Petra Zinniker, represent a third model of direct farm-to-consumer business whereby an LLC (limited liability company) purchased the Zinnikers entire herd of cows at market value and paid the Zinnikers to board and manage them. Zinniker shareholders, who are among the plaintiffs, then filed for Declaratory Judgment against DATCP, asking a judge to uphold their rights and declare their business arrangement legal. The motion was denied by the circuit court and the appellate court refused to rule on the constitutionality of their rights, and diverted the issue to license violations. In siding with DATCP, the judges claimed the business contracts were void because the Zinnikers did not have a milk producers license.
Thousands of Wisconsin citizens disagree with the rulings in all three cases. The U.S. Constitutions Ninth Amendment reads The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. It does not say you can sell food from a farm directly to neighbors and community members only so long as you have a license! These citizens maintain they have a constitutional right to choose what they eat, and to choose where that food comes from. And that farmers and citizens have the right to exchange money or work for food, without government interference, and without a middleman, such as food processors or distributors.
In 2010, an unprecedented 800-plus people voiced their opinion at a public hearing in Eau Claire, Wisconsin in support of legislation that allowed for on-farm sales of raw milk, which later comfortably passed in both the Assembly and the Senate, only to be vetoed by then-Governor Doyle.
How can something like that happen, where many thousands of people and their legislative representatives are for something very straightforward like the right to obtain a food of their choosing, and it is denied? It bears drawing on the Declaration of IndependenceThat to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, That veto clearly shows the disconnect between the rights and freedoms of the people and our political system.
Part of the problem is we live in an advocacy-based society that on some level is sincerely concerned about public safety. We have regulators educated by industry-sponsored textbooks that teach nonsense like bacteria are bad and GMOs will feed the world. Moreover, some of these misguided regulators honestly believe they are protecting people. And unfortunately, we also have legislative and judicial systems that are heavily influenced by campaign contributions and personal career goals.
All those factors together have created overreaching government agencies directed by overly emboldened politicians who use overly dependent populations to support an overly entitled industry. Which translates into industry dictating policy, that in turn becomes administrative law, and is then blindly enforced by agencies led by political appointees.
Just to go back in time . three weeks before ex-Judge Patrick J. Fiedler started his new career as a trial attorney at a law firm that represents Monsanto in patent infringement cases, he responded to the Zinniker Plaintiffs motion for clarification saying:
- no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;
- no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;
- no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;
- no, the Zinniker Plaintiffs private contract does not fall outside the scope of the States police powers;
- no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice
According to this absurd ruling we can only eat what the government tells us we can, and farmers can only grow or raise government regulated food. So because a judge with an over inflated idea of his own power said it is so, the authorities are ready and willing to enforce it. To the point of armed raids on peaceful farms.
This acting out of self-imposed power among judges is not uncommon. Ill never forget the shock I felt while sitting in the courtroom during Vernon Hershbergers trial listening to Judge Guy Reynolds admonish the attorneys and witnesses (after the jury was sent from the room) that the words liberty and raw milk were not to be spoken in his court room. According to DATCP and Reynolds, the law required prosecuting Vernon on license violations, and it just didnt matter that facts of the case were specifically about raw milk and liberty.
I have children whose lives I am responsible for, with futures Im deeply concerned about. And I fear for the health of our planet and its ability to provide for us all. To take away peoples right to self- reliance, to live sustainably, to look after their own health; to take away peoples right to be responsible for themselves and their families to feed themselves…is wrong on many levels, and will inevitably result in a weak, sick, ignorant, dependent and easily manipulated population.
So for now, the question of food rights is in the hands of the justices of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The way I see it, the Justices have a choice; cave in to political pressure and deflect the issue as the lower courts have done, or agree to review these three cases on the merits of constitutionality that pits food profit against food freedom.
I’ve been doing my families genealogy off and on since the 1970s and the majority of my ancestors lived into their 80s and 90s. Those that died late teens through their 60s was usually from accidents or things like Typhoid, Rheumatic fever induced heart problems, TB and poor nutrition (death listings state this). There was a few that were killed by the indians and other unsavory types. My dads family didn’t boil their milk.
“I have children whose lives I am responsible for, with futures Im deeply concerned about.” Me, too. So much in this post is so unbelievable yet I know it’s true from personal experience… Americans have strayed far from the Founders’ intent. If the Supreme Court doesn’t uphold the Constitution, things will get worse before they get better. Too many people are awake 🙂
My impression from what I see in stores is that most organic milk brands are ultra-pasteurized milk and less so for conventional milk.
Has anyone seen any actual statistics on this question? If organic pasteurized milk is more frequently sold as high temperature pasteurized milk, it would likly make organic pasteurized milk a higher risk food compared to conventional.
One reason this may be important is that as pasteurization temperatures increase the consumer is at higher risk of death from Listeriosis based on the research conducted in this study:
Responding to Bioterror Concerns by Increasing Milk Pasteurization Temperature Would Increase Estimated Annual Deaths from Listeriosis
Journal of Food Protection, Vol 77, No. 5, 2014, Pages 696-705.
From that journal article:
Conservative estimates of the effect of pasteurizing all fluid milk at 82 C rather than 72 C are that annual listeriosis deaths from consumption of this milk would increase from 18 to 670, a 38-fold increase
(page 703) These changes to the potential for outgrowth have been calculated to increase the risk of death from listeriosis due to consumption of pasteurized fluid milk by approximately 40-fold. Such an increase would have an appreciable public health impact if all milk in the United States were processed according to the increased pasteurization temperature based on the fact that milk is estimated to be responsible for approximately 18 listeriosis deaths per year in the United States.”
I have not seen Organic milk that was NOT ultra-pasteurized in Norfolk,Virginia area or Arkansas. Nor have I seen any cream that wasn’t ultra pasteurized, it is a hit or miss with finding non-ultra pasteurized 1/2&1/2. Organic doesn’t enter the equation here.
My question: When did “conventional” become the norm designation for industrial poisoned food vs the way it had been for thousands of years prior, who created the term and implemented it?
OPDC is beginning to develop a MORC system. MORC is a multi- organic raw creamery model. In this model several RAWMI Listed dairies will bottle their raw milk and make their raw dairy products at one centralized common creamery. Each dairy will have its own label that is shared with the MORC. It is intel inside with each farmer a raw milk rock star. OPDC is out of milk and consumers are literally begging for raw butter…CDFA has already approved this plan by design. It is now up to OPDC to work out the details. This is raw milk for the millions. I say millions because we intend on feeding millions with safe raw milk and kick the living hell out of the FDA or any other industrial or government based organization that would be crazy enough to challenge a million moms about their very personal experience with safe clean fresh delicious raw milk. I am serious when I said we were going to build a massive dollar voting market and change this paradigm. My recent experience in Denmark at the IMGC confirms that we are on the right side of nutritional history and all of the PHDs that study raw milk know it also. So to answer you, we are planning on a whole new paradigm of many farms jointly serving many more consumers…but “never commingling a drop of raw milk”. Each organic farmer will have a specialized label that links that product directly to him and his story. This is not outsourcing…this is freedom from industrial suppression of nutritional rights and universal access to safe raw milk for everyone!! We have already done the focus groups…..not one complaint. The consensus…it is genius. Not all organic farmers can run a creamery, drive trucks, manage brands, but most all organic farmers can produce safe raw milk if given training and proper economic incentives.
We got this and know the secret sauce. Low risk raw milk is ours. The future of fluid pasteurized milk is written…it is dying a 4% per year market death.
Carefully produced high quality raw milk will stay sweet in the refrigerator for at least 2 weeks. That has been my experience with milk from good organic raw milk producers in Pennsylvania.
This 2 week stay fresh period is advantageous and long enough such that this New Jersey guy only needs to drive over the Pennsylvania every other week to buy organic raw milk.
If you look at the methods section of this paper: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0082429
That compared organic and conventional milks you will see that organic milks more often tend to be ultra-pasteurized.
Since higher temperatures used for pasteurization increase the risk of death from Listeriosis it would seem that pasteurized organic milk drinkers are in general placed at higher risk.
This is very unfortunate since the pasture feeding requirement for organic dairy production improves the nutritional quality of the milk. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0082429
Rodale spoke the real truth about organic back in 1958 when he said: It is not organic to produce milk organically and then pasteurize it.
Joseph Heckman
That was a total buzz kill.
Commerical milk is pasteurized, homogenized, standardized and supplimented, it comes from commingled milks of hundreds of unknown dairies using, GMO’s, Antibiotics and god knows what else.
The MORC is 100% raw, pasture grazed, farmer labeled with each label having its own direct to source label with no raw milks ever commngled together.
Sylvia….what is your grand plan to effectively provide raw milk to more than just a few priviledged local consumers? What is your future model? I am all ears.
It is so easy to be critical. How about being constructive? A great deal of thought went into this idea and it preserves all of the elements we all cherish and demand.
No commingled milks
All sources and farmers know
All farms tourable and directly connected to their consumers
All milk is RAWMI LISTED and certified organic
All farmers stay small so the raw milk does not come from one huge Organic Corporate Entity!!
Farmers are all paid very well and even share in the brand!!
Is their something else I am missing??
I challenge you to give me a better idea!
Individuals or companies whose sole focus is profit at the expense of healthy food however, have undoubtedly demonized commercial ventures. This does not make such ventures wrong; it merely emphasizes the fact that we must resist the temptation to be greedy and overly controlling.
The MORC plan sounds like a good idea and if I may suggest the products should clearly emphasize the breed or breeds (in the case of mixed herds) of the animals from which the milk was harvested. I personally prefer whole raw jersey milk with a healthy layer of cream on top.
Ken
A bit of genius, on your part, Mr McAffee … like you say : “the free market will tell you everything you need to know” … underscore “FREE”
Not every farmer wishes to provide raw milk to more than the “few” locals they currently do. Not every farmer has a grand plan to expand their operations.
If you or others wish to expand, great, more power to you. Your way isn’t the only way. Don’t be so touchy when someone leans in a different direction.
I wasn’t being critical, I made a very short statement, too bad you took it as criticism.
By the way….raw milk must be profitable to be sustainable or it will be just like commodity milk. A tragic suicide riddled sorry place with no value added or chance for value added. I make no apologies for being profitable or sustainable. The difference being that I truly do listen and care about our consumers,we have a relationship with them and sweat over any price increases we make in the market place. We get plenty of feedback on FB, farm tours, farmers markets and everyone has a chance to blast us ( or thank us ) about choices we make and that includes pricing etc. One thing that I do not apologize for is the investment in safety. It is not cheap and it is not easy….but it is A#1.
So lets say the one dairy in California is going to participate. How will the milk get to your creamery? And will this be sold as milk, or butter, cream and cheese?
To answer your question, MORC has different levels of farmer participation. Class 1 requires full RAWMI listing and etc and farmers recieve additional premiums for fluid raw milk. Class 4 participants would still be required to be state authorized but would recieve less for milk because it’s use is to make butter and cheese having dramatically reduced pathogen risks. Milk would arrive at Opdc MORC creamery on our new Westmark stainless tanker. Just arrived last week brand new, made especially for our use. We operate 20 trucks and picking up milk along with its delivery is all a part of our future MORC business model. There is much more to come with MORC. Our website will be launching an entire educational series about this with an emphasis on introduction of our new farmers
Based on your statement to Silvia that, All milk is RAWMI LISTED and certified organic, do you mean only all milk destined for fluid consumption, or should I assume that the class 2, 3 and 4 milks would be RAWMI listed as well? If the latter, why the price discrepancy in your statement to Mary for the class 4 milk, since they have to jump through all the same hoops in order to achieve RAWMI status?
I understand that you are scrambling to satisfy demand, and I dont have a problem with your MORC plan other then to query your price discrepancy if indeed you are using only milk from RAWMI listed herds. However, if your intent is to use milk from non-RAWMI listed herds in you creamery or dairy plant, such a move may arouse the ire of some of the germ-focused folks that participate on this site, irrespective of whether its going into butter and cheese.
Ken
Ken
Our goal is for all MORC partners to be Listed. We have some fine details to work out. At this time we see ourselves partnering with only RAWMI Listed organic dairies. There should be no price differences.
We sent out 72 letters explaining our MORC operations and inviting partners. The calls are coming in now. One of the interested potential partners are the young generation of the Steuves. Yes….the old Alta Dena family. If anyone knows raw milk they do. In fact they mentored me a few times. They have one of the nicest organic dairies in the USA with huge pastures and located only about 1.2 hours away. We have dairies calling from 4.5 hours away. Distance is a factor, but more importantly is the attitude and aptitude of the dairy family. A sign hangs above the Steuves Dairy entry saying” The milk of human kindness is not pasteurized”. So true.
When our partners are selected…there will be plenty of transition training, inspections, audits, Listing activities, website work, label approvals, and detail refinement. This is early…but we are pioneers and believe in transparency as much as bpossible. With the collapse of pasteurized milk…the MORC could very well be a new national model. That is my intention and goal.
Not sure what you have been reading or where you get your current I formation. In order for a dairy to sell legally into stores, insurance and proof of low risk is a mandate. RAWMI listing is the only option at this time for retail raw milk especially under the extremely tight regulatory control required for MORC operations. Sure, raw milk can be sold with out RAWMI but that is not a plan I prefer.
I would beg you to inquire with Charlotte Smith or Shawna Barr , Susan Munoz or even Christine Anderson. All of these Listed operations are cow shares and operate under constitutional rights provisions.
RAWMI tries it’s very best to serve all in its mission to lower raw milk risk, educate, and improve access to raw milk for people that want it.
I hope this un baffles you. Perhaps it is because I live in CA with legal raw milk and it is no longer a battle ground state for raw milk. CA is a market building state with an agenda to prove how raw milk can and will become a normalized universally accessible whole food for everyone.
What Mark says is true. Of the 7 currently LISTED RAWMI farms, 2 are dairies licensed for retail sales and the rest operate privately. The RAWMI mentorship community benefits raw milk operations of any size and all legal statuses…private, licensed, exempt, etc. Working with RAWMI has been a huge boon to us as a community-scale herdshare. You are welcome to contact me by email if you have questions. kidcreekpastures@gmail.com
According to Mark if one accommodates into his or her protocol the regulatory systems accepted disease/illness paradigm and produces what regulators deem to be a safe raw milk product then inroads will be made with respect to raw milks overall acceptance and availability therfore affirming our right to purchase and sell it.
Now I dont totally disagree with that stance considering the current social environment and attitudes with respect to the cause of and solutions for illness and disease. That being said however we all know that raw milk availability is not so much about safety but rather about monopolizing the dairy industry for the sake of maximizing control over the wealth that a fundamental food such as raw milk can generate. History has demonstrated that if the monopilizers (tyrants) of this world cant figure out a way to achieve their self-serving, biased objective via one method then they will figure out another way.
Our freedom to choose is entrenched by God. The constitution was merely set up in order to reinforced and protected that human quality. It appears however that the constitution has failed in this endeavor and has otherwise been manipulated by tptb in order to satisfy their agenda.
So where do we go from here?
My belief is that freedom to choose the food we eat or the medical care we get is of paramount importance and our struggle in defense of that right will persist as long as human beings continue with their self-righteous, controlling, and manipulative ways. It is an ongoing struggle; it always has been and always will be.
Whether or not a solution to this conundrum will be achieved via human effort alone remains to be seen. We can rationalize this issue until we are blue in the face. In the end however it ultimately boils down to our freedom to choose.
Like Tomm I will continue to drink my milk raw, uninspected, and untested and there aught t be no reason why those of us who wish to do so, can do so without reprisal. If the rest of society chooses to follow a different path, albeit one that is leading them towards an unhealthy precipice, then so be it.
Ken
I saw this last week — someone I’ve known for decades who swore that raw milk was dangerous and should be banned — upon seeing test results from a neighbour’s farm, he did a 180 and now drinks their milk. A free-market choice, a consumer who wants his milk tested and wants to see those results.
There should be choice in the market place. Let’s have both be legal, and let the free market decide.
Maybe the scale you projected is scaring those who post on TCP. To supply 1 million regular customers, my arithmetic suggests you’ll need at least 30,000 cows (1 litre per person per day, one cow giving 30L/day means each cow supports 30 consumers. 1 million/30 I think is 33,000). Each day your dairy will be accepting around 30 times 30,000 litres, i.e. back to 1 million litres (1000 tonnes). I think you’ll need around 24 more tankers……I think the idea has a lot of merits, but if you have 60 500 cow dairies supplying milk, packaging 60 (or actually many more) identity-preserved products daily might drive the staff a little nuts.
John
Gayle and Ken,
As a member of the RAWMI Executive Advisory Council, I’d like to say that I don’t see RAWMI’s approach as somehow denigrating food rights. Mark has a concentrated focus on safety standards, and getting as many dairies as possible to adopt the RAWMI standards. I think Shawna says it well, that RAWMI has a specific, narrow niche. But as she also points out, a number of the RAWMI dairies are operating privately, without any kinds of permits, and using RAWMI standards and protocols to help ensure their safe operation.
I can’t speak for Mark or for RAWMI, but I suspect if any RAWMI members are challenged legally for supplying raw milk to members of their community, RAWMI will be there providing active and aggressive support, based on their rights to distribute raw milk privately. I would certainly push for that.
Michael Schmidt”s appeal this year was the final nail in the coffin of the idea of food rights or food freedom being a Charter right in Canada. I agree with you: the constitution failed.
Its great to hear that the program will potentially provide active and aggressive support for its members whose rights are challenged legally. Raw milk producers and consumers certainly need all the help they can get.
If you dont mind me asking, has their been any discussions on how you would deal with such legal challenges especially in states outside of California where its members may be subject to greater and more aggressive legal scrutiny?
In describing the Nourishing Liberty websites philosophy Liz Reitzig begins with a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr who states, On some positions, Cowardice asks the question, Is it safe? Expediency asks the question, Is it politic? And Vanity asks the question, Is it popular? But Conscience asks the question Is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must do it because it is right.
Liz goes on to state, In the new normal, we have we have the power to create a place where there is no self-appointed authority that judges and determines what others may or may not eat. And if I may add, what is and is not safe!
It appears that Mark is on a mission to institutionalize the RAWMI initiative? He needs to be very careful in how he goes about this process, especially with respect to how he treats those who take a different path and are not in line or refuse to fall in line with the plan.
Ken
As to whether or not Ontarians allowed the process is debatable.
It was the instability of farm income and prices, largely due to government trade and cheap food policies that led to early efforts at organizing co-operative agricultural marketing ventures which eventually grew into attempts by some producers’ groups to achieve compulsory, centralized marketing through boards. The federal government set the stage for the establishment of such boards in the early 1900s
Initially the boards were administered by temporary government agencies. Eventually the provinces followed suit with their own mandates. The first Canadian producer-controlled agricultural marketing boards were introduced in British Columbia in the late 1920s.
In 1976 the constitutionality of the entire federal-provincial scheme was challenged in the Ontario court of appeal, which upheld validity of the act. The above decision was then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada who ratified the Ontario court decision.
Unfortunately there are to many men and women in suites, robes, and gowns calling the shots in this country and the same probably holds true in the States.
Ken
Ken, there has been no discussion that I am aware of about how RAWMI would react to legal challenges in states where the legal and political pressure on food rights has been most aggressive. (And I wouldn’t assume it might not be aggressive in California–after all, it used two raids to put Rawsome Food Club out of business and went after a number of small dairies with cow shares in recent years.) However, my assumption is that RAWMI would expect to play more of a back-up role to the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, which has been there for farmers of all stripes, including those who have resisted based on conscience.
Gayle, I’m not sure it is an either-or situation. The fact that RAWMI is doing its thing doesn’t prevent more organizing to push legislators and judges on food rights. If anything, RAWMI is helping improve the overall safety track record that provides data to counter the fear mongering among the opponents that raw milk is terribly dangerous and producers reckless. But beyond that, I’d say it’s up to food rights proponents to keep getting more and more people engaged on the rights issue, which is a big part of what you and others have been doing by spotlighting the appeal process now moving forward in Wisconsin. The organizing challenge varies from state to state, because the regulatory situation varies from state to state. Wisconsin is a particularly onerous situation, and sometimes I think it is difficult for people in places where the rights issue is less urgent–in places like California and Pennsylvania, for example–to fully appreciate the problems in states like Wisconsin.
Gayle, I squirm too. You know if you look at the advisors to RAWMI listed on their website, you’ll see Bill Anderson, who used to post in this blog. He’s the guy that didn’t think it was safe for people in cities to consume raw milk. He’s a true believer in anything government controlled microbiology textbooks teach. The only problem is, the government is not an independent third party when it comes to raw milk, the powers that control government behind the scenes have a vested interest in seeing it made illegal, as I and others have pointed out.
People who have blind faith in uninvestigated sickness claims made by the government, media and medical cartel are a threat to us all. Consumers do greatly outnumber producers as you say. Hopefully the sane voices in raw milk, such as Ken, Rawmilkmike, and others will not be drowned out by those trying to monopolize the raw milk scene with their revisionist theories of thousands of years of raw milk history.
Our country is now run by corporations. Those who don’t believe this – please don’t vote – you aren’t smart enough. Any citizen running a corporation that steals our choices regarding foods and other freedoms and rights we have is technically as restricted in making those choices as we are – and thus to be a shareholder or board member, exec or mgmt in a corporation and force YOUR decision upon me is more illegitimate than my choosing my own foods. They do not know that my body hates unripe (green) bell peppers, but loves the red, orange, and yellow bells. My body hallucinated on 2 Darvons when i was in the army, you may have food allergies and sensitivities that you know and which they never can – as they force THEIR ($$$$ induced) choices upon people in the name of safety. Well, look at the science. Is there any system on the planet that fosters pathogens like a CAFO? Maybe a high level biohazard lab?
Interestingly – the Prez of the US, Congress, the fed judges, most sheriffs, when i joined the military – we ALL had to swear an oath to defend the constitution of the USA against all enemies foreign and domestic. This is key, so think on that for a second. This is done because we are only the United States of America if we obey the constitution – the highest law of the land. This means that when “judges” like Fiedler destroy our constitutional rights they are treasonous and technically need to be placed – not on trial – but in front of a tribunal. When found guilty of treason they are to be killed, not put on parole, not thrown into a country club resort, not quietly retired – but shot.
This won’t happen because most of congress is just as much a political prostitute as “judge” Fiedler and they do the Will of the Wealthy as often as possible in their damage to we the people.
I’m convinced that what you present here are truly vital, life-learning experiences with these three situations that are dealing with the legal realm in “America’s Dairyland”. The legal process in the particular cases referenced here remind me of “Alice in Wonderland”. However, if one only considers the State of Wisconsin and its legal system as a kind of “Wonderland” then I don’t think that this kind of mind-set will provide a full “graduation” from these important learning experiences. In this analogy we might ask “what does Alice bring into the experience”?
“Three Wisconsin farms now have petitions for review before the states Supreme Court … all concerned decided that the underlying Constitutional principles made the cases worth pursuing before the states highest court.”
I think most all of us at this “forum” would all agree that the key phrase here is “the underlying Constitutional principles”. This is precisely the point from which a “full graduation”, one that is obtainable and that can finally offer deep “resolution” not only for the private individuals concerned with these three cases but for every other American concerning any legal contest where governmental agencies come against private Americans who are going about their own private business on their own land.
One necessary challenge for every “Alice” who finds herself in a kind of “Wonderland” of nonsensical legal absurdities is for Alice to begin looking in the mirror and consider certain of her long-held cherished beliefs about the true nature of that “underlying” foundation that she believes she is standing on. One of the first things that Alice will need to realize is that what she believes about the “Constitution” (and the like) is what government has taught her since she was a really little girl. She was taught how to look at the “Constitution” – as if it were the source of all her rights and the basis for her protection against whatever may impinge upon those rights. After all:
The U.S. Constitutions Ninth Amendment reads, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
In believing that then it appears to follow that:
“ These citizens maintain they have a constitutional right to choose what they eat, and to choose where that food comes from. It bears drawing on the Declaration of Independence, That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ”
I sincerely appreciate that at least two of the four Organic Laws of The United States of America have been mentioned here! I wish to suggest that the problem lies in the government’s education of “little Alice” and that fact that the government conveniently omitted the other two Organic Laws! But don’t just take my word for this. You can get a copy of “United States Code” volume 1 and look at the contents page. You will find: “Organic Laws of the United States” listed and under that all four Organic Laws are listed with page numbers where you can read the full text of all four Organic Laws that stand in front of all the Codes!
Although government schools do not teach the full importance of all four Organic Laws both individually and as a whole “Alice” will naturally want to know their full importance just as soon as she realizes that in one of the not-so-well-known Organic Laws she will find her true standing as a “free inhabitant”!
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it. ”
There is another option to altering or abolishing. This other option is my one reason for commenting here. However the option is only available under the Lawful status as a “free inhabitant”. That option means not claiming the status of “citizen” of that government and thereby not governed by such. It is an option that the government does not teach, will not teach, denies it exists and therefore will not acknowledge anyone on. Yet it exists and there are plenty of individual Americans who live as such. I am one of them!
Still one may ask “If the government doesn’t recognize it then what good is it?” The good is the same good that every “Alice” should already know (one way or another) as “self-evident”: “We hold these truths to be self-evident …”. It is another thing that government does not teach little Alices and Alexes. Why does “Alice” look to any outside “authority” when there is real authority within her and within everyone one of us who has the ability to “hold these self-evident truths”? There is a gap between what government teaches and where we need to be standing and government will not resolve that for us! And most truthfully – it is none of their business!
I can’t expect that this comment box can sufficiently allow for a reeducation of fundamental American Law, the knowledge of which was fully intact within the American psyche up until the fourteenth Amendment when “citizens of the United States” became an option for the former slaves. Although that status appears to be passionately embraced by most Americans it is actually. Lawfully foreign to both the “free inhabitants” and the several “State Citizens”. Alice wasn’t taught the differences in the lawful nature of status among these three in all her school daze however, she could do her own due-diligence now and get up to speed on that! If Alice was willing to do that she also could educate herself about “proprietary jurisdiction”.
If Alice only knew that government is Lawfully limited in its jurisdiction according to its “proprietary jurisdiction” as that is exclusively based what government owns then Alice could ask herself “Am I on government property or am I in any way, shape, or form doing business with government? Alice doesn’t ask her self questions like these because she was educated by the government to only think a certain way and to believe everything that government says as if it fully applied to her! Any one knowing the truth of this could ask: “Does government own Alice?” If I were asked this I’d respond by asking “Is Alice in the military”? If she is then essentially yes, she is considered to be “government property” now. Do Wisconsin farmers wear “dog tags” around their necks?
I love our American farmers and I am literally in debt to some of the very best of them! I wish only the very best for them and for the rest of us however there essentially is a hidden gap when they enter the court room and that gap has not been addressed. Not only can the government nor address it the attorneys can not as well!
For more information on the Organic Laws my very very best recommendation is The Organic Laws Institute. You can sign up here for an introduction.:
http://organiclaws.org/
I also blog on the Organic Laws and related issues at my CureZone blog.
Chef Jemichel
Blog: Son of Truth of Self:
http://curezone.us/blogs/f.asp?f=402
Chef Jemichel
Blog: Son of Truth of Self:
http://curezone.us/blogs/f.asp?f=402
Dreamchild
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089052/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice%27s_Adventures_in_Wonderland