|
The Real "Raw Milk Controversy" is with the FDA
Every freedom-loving American needs to understand the Organic Laws in order to know what a "free inhabitant" truly is. Then they will be fully-informed enough to "educate" any FDA employee.
Date: 7/31/2014 6:32:33 AM ( 10 y ) ... viewed 1764 times Several months ago I made the following comment at The Complete Patient.com site regarding a noteworthy point there (plus a couple small edits to the following on December 6th).
I appreciate the need "to educate the FDA"!
If we can agree that the FDA is an entity that has been created by Congress then we could have a very interesting conversation; one that I believe could single-handedly redirect the course of the "raw milk controversy" out of the arena of the government whenever and wherever the issue is on free American soil - because the "free American soil" is beyond the proprietary jurisdiction of the United States government! If we want to fully address issues about the Law (as I continually see presented here) then it's imperative that we come back to obtaining a foundational understanding of what the four-fold written Organic Law says and especially regarding jurisdiction. Otherwise we will be endlessly chasing the tail of a legal myth (if we continue to believe that our "rights" and our defense of these rights are all a matter of "the Constitution".
The FDA has absolutely no lawful business within any of the fifty States of the original Union telling any "free inhabitant"[3] anything at all (unless that individual is a lawfully convicted federal criminal - however there are no federal crimes regarding agriculture)! The only reason any FDA "agent" is tolerated by any free American inhabitant is because of mutual ignorance of the Organic Laws[4]. That only underscores the need "to educate" (as mentioned here at this "Complete Patient" blog) however it is the American people who first need to be "educated" about what a real "American"/free inhabitant is because that is something not taught in any of our government school systems!
I'm repeating this term "free-inhabitant" because it is probably the most overlooked phrase in all four of our Organic Laws. It has virtually been hidden because the Organic Law that contains this vital term (as well as the succeeding Organic Law) has been silently separated and disassociated from the first and last Organic Laws. However, from the perspective of "Rights" and the freedom one may enjoy by exercising these Rights - this term is the most potent phrase next to "We hold these truths to be self-evident". I think you'd agree if you knew what free inhabitants know! Only the free-inhabitant knows that they have not surrendered any of their natural-born Rights to be as free from all government whatsoever - just as the American people declared themselves to be with "The Declaration of Independence-1776". The "free inhabitant" is a political status that was fully recognized in the second Organic Law: the "Articles of Confederation -1777" (see Article IV) a part of American Law that continues to be acknowledged in the United States Code today!
The reason knowing the Organic Laws is "imperative" is because government has Lawful limits that are well-defined in the four Organic Laws, however you need to hold the context of all four Organic Laws rather than restrict your focus just to "the Constitution" (referring to "this Constitution" of September 17, 1787). If you disregard understanding the four Organic Laws you disregard the clearly defined written limits of government's jurisdiction to your detriment.
Because of the integral nature of the Organic Law and the necessity to maintain its continuity - the lawful limits of governmental jurisdiction can not be referenced to "this Constitution" alone. "This Constitution" is actually only part of the whole complete edifice. "This Constitution" is wholly dependent upon the other three Organic Laws (all which stand much like four pillars)[1]. The three preceding Organic Laws hold the greater context under which the fourth Organic Law came into existence. The 4th Organic Law extended out of (but not separate from) the second and also out of the third Organic Law (the "Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territorial Government") which was formed by the pre-existing "Confederation" under the second Organic Law. Once the Confederation: "The United States of America" had the proprietary land base to exercise its jurisdiction that necessitated - a form of government for this USA-owned territory. This form and its Lawful basis is the only kind of government that has continued since the Organic Laws were written. It is one that was not replaced by "this Constitution" (aka: "the Constitution of September 17th, 1787").
However anyone (at this Complete Patient blog forum and elsewhere) can say whatever they want about any federal agent! But without the four-fold Organic Law knowledge and the understanding of the governmental proprietary limits I do not expect that there will be any "redirecting" as a result of any of that talk. In fact it appears that if Mark (McAfee - founder of Organic Pastures Dairy in Fresno, California) had his way all the free inhabitant-owned private business would become subject to the Federal Government (as would be the case if a free inhabitant enters any legal agreement with the government)! I'd rather be mistaken about that! Better yet, I would love to see Mark become a fellow student of all four Organic Laws![5]
***
December 6th -
In reading another "appeal" today that arrived from the Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) it now more fully inspires and motivates me to pursue the latest and best realizations (that I've been blogging both here in regards to what may possibly be the most fundamental issue in the apparent "war" against farm fresh milk (AKA Real Milk, AKA Raw Milk). By having WAPF in mind I further realize that their perspective on the "legal issues" in this "war" is most highly informed by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FtCLDF) (that apparently was inspired by WAPF).
This evening I reviewed the FtCLDF "mission" as a primary reference for understanding FtCLDF and especially in regards to the legal status of our American farmers, growers and the like plus all of us whom FtCLDF refers to as "consumers". The following appears to be the “Mission” statement of FtCLDF to which I wish to highlight a couple phrases for reference in a commentary that I am intending to make regarding this mission.
Mission -
"The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) is a 501 (c) (4) non-profit organization whose members are joining together and pooling
resources to:
Protect the constitutional right of the nation's family farms and artisan food producers to provide processed and unprocessed farm foods directly to consumers through any legal means.
Protect the constitutional right of consumers to obtain unprocessed and processed foods directly from family farms and artisan food producers.
Protect the nation's family farms and artisan food producers from harassment by federal, state, and local government interference with food production and/or food processing.
The objective of FTCLDF is to defend the rights of sustainable family farms and artisan food producers to make their products available to consumers in a manner that protects, preserves and enhances the environment and its natural resources, products that include but are not limited to meat and meat products, poultry, eggs, raw milk and raw milk products, fruits and vegetables, lacto-fermented foods and beverages, prepared foods, and bread and other baked goods directly to consumers without a license or permit."
My two "high-lighted" phrases are:
"constitutional right of the nation's family farms and artisan food producers" and - "constitutional right of consumers".
To sum this up the FtCLDF mission is primarily focused on the "constitutional right" of farmers and their family farms, artisan food producers as well as consumers.
Although I think it could go without saying that I am committed to supporting the Rights of these farmers, producers, consumers (as well as all other Americans who have any involvement with real food production and its distribution from farm to table) nevertheless it's best to declare this now regarding the so called "constitutional rights".
Also -
I'd like to invite real dialogue about the true nature of "constitutional rights".
I am presenting a perspective that wholly agrees with the necessity to know and assert our "inalienable Rights" - and - to know where Rights truly originate from. The very first mention of "Rights" in the Organic Laws of the United States of America is in the first Organic Law: The Declaration of Independence in the line:
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are create equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ...".
The second Organic Law known as the "Articles of Confederation" acknowledges these "unalienable Rights" with reference to "free inhabitants" who choose to live free of government intrusion.
The third Organic Law known as "Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territorial Government" allows government to tax what it owns.
The fourth Organic Law makes permanent what was originally intended as a "temporary government" under the previous Organic Law. The fourth Organic Law is commonly known as "the Constitution" but better identified as "the Constitution of September 17, 1787" (AKA "this Constitution"). Like the preceding Organic Law - it pertains to what government owns as that is the lawful basis for the government's proprietary jurisdiction!
I am unwilling to confuse and/or compromise the truth of our natural-born/Creator-given, unalienable Rights with what is purported under "color of law" that is so commonly referred to as "the Constitution" when free inhabitants are not party to that!
"This Constitution" has a very limited foundation that is restricted to the property owned by the United States of America". Don't enlarge those limitations by assuming that you are a subject (as the early Americans had freed themselves from being subjects to the King) to another "king" who furthermore is not Lawfully bound to uphold anything in "this Constitution"! If you are a natural born American living in one of the fifty American free States then all the propaganda about "this Constitution" as the source of your rights and/or their protection is inapplicable to you and your freedom! If you know and understand where Rights originate from and how the first two organic Laws acknowledge these Rights then you'll realize that we have all been lied to about our so called "Constitutional rights" ever since we went to government elementary school!
***
December 8th 2014 -
I am a student in the Organic Laws Institute and Dr. Ed Rivera is my professor. He says: "Any person, man or woman subjects himself or herself to government force by creating a written record of a sworn admission to government power or a personal presence on government property."
People voluntarily invite the governmental powers-that-be into their lives by way of their signature on government issued legal forms. They have been doing this for well over a hundred years(2) without hearing the elder voice of their former generations who still knew what the Lawful limits were of governmental intrusion into their lives. The situation now is to the point where there is little (if any) thought put into the act of what one is doing with their unconditional "admission" by way of their signature!
***
December 9th, 2014 - "Every interaction we enter into is about commerce and contracts."
"... It is just business. We are dealing in commerce. The life we live today has been re-directed, mis-directed and we have lost our perspective based on how we are educated in the school systems across America.
We are educated to be tax payers and cusip numbers. Every interaction we enter into is about commerce and contracts. The Founding Fathers at the least wanted us to learn and understand what commerce and contracts are about."[6]
***
December 19th, 2014 -
Private purchase of farm goods in one state that are brought home in another state is not "commerce". And certainly not if there is no "profit" involved from "bringing home the bacon"! Commerce is about profit. Are mothers who bring home unprocessed farm fresh milk making a profit if it's from a farm on their neighboring state?
It is important to understand what "regulate commerce ... among the several States" means. Ed Rivera states: "The basis of federal government control is not government power such as the power to regulate interstate commerce between the States of the United States."[7]
The key for this understanding is in knowing what the actual proprietary jurisdiction is "between the States of the United States". Dr. Rivera solved this by showing his students what government owns and especially by clarifying the phrase "United States" as the territory subject to the exclusive legislative control of Congress.[8]
Because "agriculture" was defined at the time (of "The Federalist") as "[t]he art of cultivating the ground; tillage; husbandry, as distinct from pasturage," it would not have been considered a form of commerce, trade, sale, or intercourse. Indeed, said Hamilton, "between agriculture and commerce," there existed a "rivalship." Hamilton conceived of the power to regulate commerce as "national," whereas "the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature... are proper to be provided for by local legislation."[9]
***
January 5, 2015
Received another email from Weston A. Price Foundation re: Failures of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans
I linked to the letter by "Healthy Nation Coalition" that "Details Persistent Failures of Dietary Guidelines for Americans"[10]
One probable "key phrase" caught my attention: "the general public". This phrase is used in the “United States Code”:
Title 7-AGRICULTURE
CHAPTER 84-NATIONAL NUTRITION MONITORING AND RELATED RESEARCH
SUBCHAPTER III-DIETARY GUIDANCE[11]
What does the federal government mean by “the general public”? I checked a glossary of terms[12]
However, Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Fifth Edition says re: Public - “… it has been defined or employed as meaning the inhabitants of a particular place …”. Also the term: “general” in Black's: “… relates to the whole kind, class, or order.”
Bouvier Law Dictionary re: Public says: “… in the U.S., it is common to refer to … policies of the government as public.”
I offer the term “United States citizen” (aka US citizen) instead of "general public" as US citizen is referred to in legal terms. IMO the term “general public” when used by the federal government and concerning the “United States” can only pertain to United States citizens who live on lands that are owned by the United States of America and subject to the exclusively (proprietary-based) legislation of Congress.
If we realize the lawful limitations of government and most especially regarding who and what is subject to the exclusive (proprietary-based) legislation of Congress then "Dietary Guidelines for Americans" would be better clarified under the title of:
"Dietary Guidelines for United States citizen/Residents in Washington DC and on Territory or Other Property Owned By or Subject to the Exclusive (Proprietary-based) Jurisdiction of the United States of America".
(To December 5th, 2015 "the 11th Day of Christmas with 11 Pipers Piping")
***
Notes:
(1) See "Four Pillars of Constitutionalism by Richard H. Cox, Ph.D.
(2) By 1912 school children were being taught the government's version of American history and American law through co-mingling two critically distinct legal phrases under that of the "United States" in instances when the Lawfully most applicable term is the "United States of America".:
http://www.bullittcountyhistory.com/bchistory/schoolexam1912.html
(Another historical marker was the new financial scheme that came into existence 101 years ago. "In 1913, during a Christmas Recess, the (banking) Cartel bribed enough Congressmen to pass the Federal Reserve Act.":
http://scannedretina.com/2014/11/27/rod-class-exposes-state-governments-are-franchise-branches-of-federal-corporation-posing-as-government-of-the-american-people/
That Act of Congress transformed the nation's financial reality in more ways than this single blog post can begin to list.)
[3] See: "free inhabitant" in Article IV of the first "constitution": The Articles of Confederation (1777).
[4] Due to the government education system that falsely teaches the replacement of The Articles of Confederation by the Constitution of September 17, 1787.
[5]
http://thecompletepatient.com/article/2014/july/30/fda-becoming-internationally-isolated-raw-milk#comment-31830
[6] http://scannedretina.com/2014/08/17/ucc-1-308-formerly-ucc-1-207/
[7] http://organiclaws.org/eds-blog/affordable-care-act-tax-laws/
[8]
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/work-in-progress/article-iii-court-by-ed-rivera.html
[9] http://www.constitution.org/lrev/bork-troy.htm
[10]
http://www.westonaprice.org/press/healthy-nation-coalition-details-persistent-failures-of-dietary-guidelines-for-americans/
[11] Found at:
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title7-section5341&num=0&edition=prelim
[12] and it does not include: “general public”:
http://uscode.house.gov/faq.xhtml
*******************************************
Keywords:
raw milk, American law, proprietary jurisdiction, United States government, Organic Law, free inhabitant, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Constitution, ed rivera, organic laws institute, commerce, freedom, fda, commerce, rights
*******************************************
– The FtCLDF Board of Directors:
Pete Kennedy, Esq., - President - ? ( - See Taaron Miekle):
pete@farmtoconsumer.org;
Elizabeth Gamsky Rich, Esq., - Vice President and Assistant General Counsel;
Sally Fallon Morell, - Secretary;
John Moody, - Treasurer;
Kaayla T. Daniel, Ph.D. - Board member:
kaayla@drkaayladaniel.com;
Judith McGeary, Esq. - Board Member:
judith@farmandranchfreedom.org;
Taaron Miekle -
LinkedIn says: “President at Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund”;
Winton Pitcoff - ?
LinkedIn shows his board membership under “previous”;
David G. Cox, Esq., - General Counsel
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites! Print this page
Email this page
 Alert Webmaster
|
