"The Complete Patient seeks to provide up-to-date information to develop creative approaches to fight the food authoritarians."

Date:   12/30/2012 6:12:18 AM ( 12 y ago)

Just read: "Six Reasons the Hershberger Raw Milk Case Is Central to Struggle for Food Rights, and Even WI Politics" at:
http://thecompletepatient.com/article/2012/december/27/six-reasons-hershberge...


which includes about 33 comments as of this moment: 2:24 AM.

David Gumpert wrote:
"I've been devoting a considerable amount of time and energy to reporting on the sometimes tedious ins and outs of the upcoming trial of Vernon Hershberger.

Why? What makes this case so important, in my view?

Here are six reasons I see it as being key:

1. It could go a long way toward determining whether Americans will retain the right to privately obtain foods the government may object to."

I disagree. If the case is determined by a jury then the very best determination that the jury can make is to not find Vernon guilty as charged. However, even in this best-case scenario that determination will not be so all-inclusive as to extend to Americans as a whole. Such a determination simply does not have that effect. That is the legal reality. For one, there are 49 other states besides Wisconsin. Also, Vernon is defending himself as an individual, only. There are no other Americans on trial in this case. Neither are the Rights of all Americans on trial in this case. The jury may certainly think that Vernon is one of many Americans yet still keep their focus on the fact that the charges are regarding the state of Wisconsin regulations over it's licensed dairies rather than over "the right to privately obtain food". Neither are the members of Vernon's food club (of which I am one) on trial. If we were on trial then we would have the right to defend ourselves individually. However, the state simply does not have the lawful authority to charge any individual members, as if they are a party to this case, because there is nothing that involves state ownership via a license for the individual members.

David wrote:
The state noted that "...defendant requests that the jury be instructed that 'owners or operators' of a farm are not members of 'the public.'...There is simply no such exception in the licensure requirements of (the Wisconsin statute) or in the definition of retail food establishment..."

Unfortunately, this attempt to more "fully inform" the jury completely missed the mark. There is absolutely no lawful basis for the state to have a legitimate claim against Vernon; however, it has nothing to do with whether or not the "owners or operators" are "members of the public" or not. This was a failed attempt to challenge the lawful jurisdiction for the state to bring any legal actions against Vernon.

The good news is that the jurisdiction can always be challenged, providing that it is squarely made. In order to make the challenge one needs to know the specific reality that is required by the Organic Law as the basis for the state to exercise it's lawful jurisdiction. The "reality" is simply this: the government is required to either posses ownership of the land or have exclusive legislation over that land. According to the Organic Laws the State of Wisconsin must have ownership or exclusive legislation over the land in order to have jurisdiction over what can occur on that land. My first challenge would be worded along the lines of "show me the original land patent that was granted to or purchased by the state that includes all the acreage upon which this particular farm is established". Without ownership my second challenge would be "show me the written law that grants exclusive legislation to the State of Wisconsin over this land".

The Federal government originally issued Land Patents for lands within the Northwest Territory before the territories were admitted as states within the Union. Therefor Land Patents are the original Lawful title to land and unless they were granted or sold to the state they remain privately held. The state can legislate all they want upon what the state owns or what the state has been granted exclusive legislation over. The rest is private land without subjugation to legislative acts.

The best procedure (IMO) is to obtain that original land patent and then submit a certified copy to the court as evidence (along with a demand to show all the government liens against that farmland) that the state has absolutely no reality-based vested interest in the farm! That's the true foundation upon which Vernon could confidently stand his (literal) ground! However, as long as this issue of ownership is not squarely challenged "the state" will presume their legislative codes apply, because the state attorneys are taught that the state consists of all the land from one geographic boarder to the rest and that it exercises exclusive legislation over all of it. (The more land the state can presume it has the more revenue it can collect.) The attorneys are most likely ignorant of the truth of the Organic Law which is all based on actual land ownership. It is fundamental law that one has to own a thing to defend it. That should be the first question in this case: who actually owns the land?

A secondary, but still effective challenge, could possibly be stated as: "show me the contract that obligates me to this state regulation." Even a private land-owner could enter into a contract with the state and obligate himself to their terms. However, as far as I know, Vernon dose not have such a contract with the state. Yet the state acts as if Vernon has some legal obligation to their regulations even though they have yet to produce any such contract with legal obligations. I would say it loud and clear: "Show me the contract!"
Also: http://curezone.com/blogs/fm.asp?i=2021083




 

Popularity:   message viewed 10576 times
URL:   http://www.curezone.org/blogs/fm.asp?i=2020599

<< Return to the standard message view