Letter by Chef Jem concerning Wisconsin Dept. of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection and it's action against Vernon Hershberger, a "free inhabitant" on private land "of milk and honey" in Wisconsin.

Date:   7/5/2012 10:16:11 PM ( 12 y ago)

"... the people have all God given Rights and governments exist only to preserve the Rights of the people or the people will establish new government. What you don’t
find (in the Declaration of Independece) is also very important. They have no duty or obligation to government. The only duty that the People have is to throw off despotic Government. Government only exists to protect the Rights of the People. Having done that it must leave the People alone. There are a few things the People must do. They owe allegiance and defense to each other, which they discharge by their allegiance to the country, and they must sit as sovereigns on juries, when capable, to fully preserve their sovereignty.":
http://www.famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Govt/TaxHonestyPersecution/Rivera...

##########################################################

Juries Are Above The Law When They Are Fully Informed!:
http://curezone.org/blogs/fm.asp?i=1994098


#################################################3

Letter to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker on July 10, 2012.

The following was faxed through GotFreeFax.com:

Greetings, Governor Scott Walker!

I am a duly contracted member of a food club located at Grazin' Acres farm near Loganville, Wisconsin.

I am aware that agents of the Wisconsin Dept. of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection have caused personal injuries to Vernon Hershberger by violating Vernon's Common Law Rights (including that of property, privacy), trespassing onto this private farm, disturbing the peace, harassing Vernon (plus harassing other peaceful members of the private food club) and by alleging criminal violations of the State's commercial codes that are without any lawful application to Vernon in light of the fact that he is not farming on property that is owned by and under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. The dates of these trespasses are at least noted in the case that has been filed with the Department of Justice against Vernon and that is scheduled for trial in September. Vernon was recently denied a dismissal of the case supposedly for lack of some basis in Law that the judge can recognize.

This is my Notice that the Law (that the judge apparently overlooked) is the Common Law, the Organic Laws of the United States as well as the Law of contract.

Firstly – in the second Organic Law, The Articles of Confederation, we find "free inhabitants" who are not under the exclusive jurisdiction of government. The “free inhabitant” (See: Article IV) is the Lawful status of Vernon who is a natural-born American, born on the free soil in Ohio, in the year of our Lord 1971. This Organic Law is duly acknowledged as part of “the General and Permanent Laws of the United States” as stated in Vol. One of the United States Code, (2006 Edition).

Furthermore, the Common Law recognizes that individuals are free to live as they choose providing that they do not injury another individual.

The Common Law is well recognized in the Constitution for the United States of America.

Last but not least is the Law of Contract that protects the agreement (from governmental interferences) between all the members of the food club for which Vernon is the farmer. In other words the public is not a party to this contract! Once again, there is no injury to the public in the case. Therefore the case rightfully must be dismissed!

It was on the basis of these most Fundamental Laws that Vernon made a rightful and most righteous motion for dismissal. In addition Vernon was willing to forgive the agents for all their trespasses to date and consider the whole matter settled. Although the judge could apparently overlook both the Fundamental and the Common Law that supports Vernon motion to dismiss, the truth of the matter will become very well known among the people! The Truth is what Vernon has stood for along with all the members of the food club. The truth will win!

The above mentioned departments under your executive authority require your oversight. The livelihood of farmer Vernon Hershberger and well being of the members of his food club are being threatened under color of law. I am appealing to the sacred trust of your oath of office to realize that there are sound reasons to consider the Lawful basis for the legal actions that have been made against Vernon. I pray that you give this matter your best consideration.

Thank you for your consideration.

Cordially,
without prejudice
and without the United States,
By Chef Jem

Later:
"Your fax to Scott Walker, Wisconsin Governor at 6082678983 has been sent successfully. ..."

################################

Update July 15, 2012 -
Just posted the following at David Gumpert's "The Complete Patient" blog:
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/article/2012/july/12/wi-prosecutors-seek-li...


Thank you Mark!

Flooding the region is exactly what immediately came to me upon reading David's article here!

Mark wrote:
"This is the first round. Vernon needs a team...his team needs to work in the court house beside him and outside the courthouse educating the media and the jurors."

I agree!

Re: "Lawyer", Vernon has one now (actually two)! I'm in the process of gaining contact and possibly volunteering some support.

This case certainly can be viewed as a "war". The "war" that I intend to wage is one that is primarily against ignorance. "Jury nullification" alone could possibly win in this instance! Check this out: September 5th is Jury Rights Day!: http://fija.org/


That court house can be the perfect "venue" for the biggest "Jury Rights Day!" anywhere! That could very well attract the media desired! Along with the full acknowledgement of "Jury Rights" can come the farm Rights and all the related food Rights as well. This would be an event that Vernon's "team" could take on.

Later that night -
Now I'm all the more encouraged with this:
"Jury can help prevent ‘raw milk prohibition’ here" By Brian Wickert

Read more: http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/article_79946566-c7ad-11e1-84f2-001a4...


http://fija.org/2012/07/09/jury-can-help-prevent-raw-milk-prohibition/

Now just posted this comment at the Madison.com CT (Capital Times) site:

Thank You, Very Much, Brian!

A post at David Gumpert's blog: "The Complete Patient" inspired me to seek the FIJA site where I was delighted to find your comment and link to what you wrote here. Jury Nullification is exactly what is needed in this case! Very good to know that:

"Wisconsin courts have recognized that juries have the power to return a verdict of 'not guilty' irrespective of the evidence of the case and the judge’s instructions on the law. Jurors cannot be punished under Wisconsin law for exercising their nullification powers."

Now all that is needed is for all the good people in Sauk County to be fully informed. One way to accomplish that can be though an event on "Jury Rights Day" on September 5th. I have written to a FIJA contact in Wisconsin expressing my interest to encourage an support such an event in Sauk County. I'm excited!

Thanks again Brian!

#####################################################

Aajonus Vonderplanitz writes:

Hi, healthy-food lovers,
The judge denied VERNON HERSHBERGER's jurisdictional challenges with the common judicial protection of the government they protect, which is basically governmental racketeering. Vernon just filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Supplement that will be heard on Wednesday, July 11th as well as the Wisconsin DOJ's motions in Limine to keep pertinent exculpatory testimony and evidence from the jury. As many people as possible should appear to rally for our rights to choose the food we want at the Sauk County Courthouse at Baraboo, Wisconsin. Please arrive at 1 PM with signs and banners.

GCN Live radio talk show host Josh Tolley will be the M.C. and keynote speaker at our Rally for Food Freedom at 1:30 pm. Vernon Hershberger's case hearing is scheduled for 2:30 pm, that is next Wednesday afternoon.

If the DOJ wins for the food-police Wisc. DATCP, our food rights will be fast-tracked out of existence. Will we have to resort to non-peaceful means as our forefathers did against tyranny? Let's peacefully rally while we can.

Please join the rally for our right to choose foods. Bring the whole family and show support for Vernon and Grazin' Acres Farm Food Club, which is support for our own food rights.

If the judge denies Vernon's Summary Judgement, the trial is scheduled for September 25th; please make arrangements to be there for one week to rally and support our food-freedom.

For those who cannot attend, please incessantly call and fax the people listed below, starting Monday July 9th. Fax and tell them that they need to follow our Constitutional right to the healthy food we choose, especially raw milk. Tell government officials to stay out of our healthy food farms, kitchens, pantries and refrigerators. (See below for phone and fax numbers.)

Additionally, the trial for a Minnesota family farmer, Alvin Schlangen, has been rescheduled for September 17th, 2012
http://www.foodfreedomusa.org/food-freedom-usa-press.html



healthfully and appreciatively,
aajonus vonderplanitz, Hon.Ph.D.
Right To Choose Healthy Food, Trust

Call about Vernon Hershberger's case about our food-freedom, especially raw milk.
Ben Brancel, Secretary of Wisconsin Dept of Ag.
Office Phone: 608-224-5012
Office Fax: 608 224 5034

Scott Walker, Wisconsin Governor
(608) 266-1212
Fax (608) 267-8983
govgeneral@wisconsin.gov

Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen
(608) 266-1221
Fax (608) 267-2779

Eric DeFort, Asst. Attorney General
WI DOJ, Special Prosecutor for the County of Sauk
(608)266-8514
Fax (608) 267 2778

Judge Guy Reynolds
(608) 355-3222
Fax: (608) 355-3514

##########################################################

"Criminal Prosecution. Most food law violations are subject to criminal penalties.(219) District attorneys prosecute criminal cases based on DATCP investigations. In food cases, the state is not ordinarily required to prove criminal intent. However, criminal prosecution is typically
reserved for serious or intentional violations.":
http://datcp.wi.gov/uploads/About/pdf/Food_Regulation_Wisconsin.pdf


(219) See, for example, s. 97.72(1), Wis. Stats.
District

###################################################

Update - July 16, 2012 -

Challenge the Jurisdiction of The Court

"... if you appear in a court with a gold-fringed flag your constitutional rights are suspended, and you are being tried under British Maritime (military/merchant) Law. If it seems strange that a court or building on dry land could be administered under Maritime or Admiralty Law, look at US Code, Title 18 B 7. It says that Admiralty Jurisdiction is applicable in the following locations:
1) the high seas
2) any American ship
3) any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the state. In other words, mainland America.":
http://freedom-school.com/the-united-states-is-a-corporation.html


In which case this description of the flag in the court should be noted "for the record" of the court proceeding. The Accused: "Your honor - for the record?"
"Judge": "Proceed"
The Accused: I see that the flag in this courtroom has a gold fringe around it. Is this court administered under Maritime or Admiralty Law"?
If the "Judge" evades answering that question then assert: "Title 18 of the United States Code says that Admiralty Jurisdiction is applicable on any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the state." Does this land meet that qualification? I request the evidence of that and without that proof then this case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

If the judge makes an unfavorable declaration that essentially blocks the full expression of the above then the accused should say: "Your Honor, I object".

See: 4 U.S.C. Chapter 1 - The Flag, subsection 1. Flag; stripes and stars on, Part I - Design of the Flag, Section 1. "The flag of the United States shall have thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white, and a union consisting of white stars on a field of blue." There is no mention of any gold fringe! If you see a flag with a gold fringe around it in a court room (or wherever) then that is not the flag as described here in the United States Code.

"If the government wants to assert" their claims "then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof ... under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution."
http://freedom-school.com/the-united-states-is-a-corporation.html

Also:
"You must NEVER retain or hire an attorney, a state officer of the court, to speak or file written documents for you. Use an attorney (if you must) only for counsel and advice about their 'legal' system. If you retain an attorney to represent you and speak in your place, you become 'NON COMPOS MENTIS', not mentally competent, and you are then considered a ward of the court. You LOSE all your Rights, and you will not be permitted to do anything herein.

The judge knows that as long as he remains in his office, he is backed by the awesome power of the state, its lawyers, police and prisons. The judge will try to force you to abandon your Sovereign sanctuary by threatening you with jail. No matter what happens, if you remain faithful to your Sovereignty, The judge and the state may not lawfully move against you. The state did not create the office of Sovereign political power holder. Therefore, they do not regulate and control those in the office of Sovereign. They cannot ascribe penalties for breach of that particular office. The reason they have no authority over the office of the Sovereign is because they did not create it and the Sovereign people did not delegate to them any such power.

When challenged, simply remind them that they do not regulate any office of the Sovereign and that their statutes only apply to those state employees in legislative created offices. This Sovereign individual paradigm is explained by the following U.S. Supreme Court case:

'The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights.' Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 47 (1905).

Let us analyze this case. It says, 'The individual may stand upon his constitutional Rights.' It does not say, 'Sit on his Rights.' There is a principle here: 'If you don't use 'em you lose 'em.' You have to assert your Rights, demand them, 'stand upon' them.

Next it says, 'He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way.' It says 'private business' - you have a Right to operate a private business. Then it says 'in his own way.' It doesn't say 'in the government's way.'

Then it says, 'His power to contract is unlimited.' As a Sovereign individual, your power to contract is unlimited. In common law there are certain criteria that determine the validity of contracts. They are not important here, except that any contract that would harm others or violate their Rights would be invalid. For example, a 'contract' to kill someone is not a valid contract. Apart from this obvious qualification, your power to contract is unlimited.

Next it says, 'He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers for an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property.' The court case contrasted the duty of the corporation (an entity created by government permission - feudal paradigm) to the duty of the Sovereign individual. The Sovereign individual doesn't need and didn't receive permission from the government, hence has no duty to the government.

Then it says, 'His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the organization of the State.' This is very important. The Supreme Court recognized that humans have inherent Rights. The U.S. Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) does not grant us Rights. We have fundamental Rights, irrespective of what the Constitution says. The Constitution acknowledges some of our Rights. And Amendment IX states, 'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain Rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.' The important point is that our Rights antecede (come before, are senior to) the organization of the state.

Next the Supreme Court says, 'And [his Rights] can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution.' Does it say the government can take away your Rights? No! Your Rights can only be taken away 'by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution.' 'Due process of law' involves procedures and safeguards such as trial by jury. 'Trial by jury' means, inter alia, the jury judges both law and fact.

Then the case says, 'Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law.' These are some of the Rights of a Sovereign individual. Sovereign individuals need not report anything about themselves or their businesses to anyone.

Finally, the Supreme Court says, 'He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights.' The Sovereign individual does not have to pay taxes. If you should discuss Hale v. Henkel with a run-of-the-mill attorney, he or she will tell you that the case is 'old' and that it has been 'overturned.' If you ask that attorney for a citation of the case or cases that overturned Hale v. Henkel, there will not be a meaningful response. The OUTLAWS have researched Hale v. Henkel and here is what we found:

We know that Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1905 in the U.S. Supreme Court. Since it was the Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts of the land, until another Supreme Court case says it isn't. Has another Supreme Court case overturned Hale v. Henkel? The answer is NO. As a matter of fact, since 1905, the Supreme Court has cited Hale v. Henkel a total of 144 times. A fact more astounding is that since 1905, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all of the federal and state appellate court systems a total of over 1600 times. None of the various issues of this case has ever been overruled.

So if the state through the office of the judge continues to threaten or does imprison you, they are trying to force you into the state created office of "person." As long as you continue to claim your Rightful office of Sovereign, the state lacks all jurisdiction over you. The state needs someone filling the office of "person" in order to continue prosecuting a case in their courts.

... Do not sign their papers or cooperate with them because most things about your life are private and are not the state's business to evaluate. Here is the Sovereign peoples command in the constitution that the state respect their privacy: Right of privacy -- Every man or woman has the Right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into their private life except as otherwise provided herein. ..."

##############################################

"The New Decriminalization Battle Over…......... Raw Milk?"
By: Monika Janczuk-
http://www.wisrawmilkassociation.com/



 

Popularity:   message viewed 3801 times
URL:   http://www.curezone.org/blogs/fm.asp?i=1960169

<< Return to the standard message view