Posts Tagged NAIS

Wisconsin’s war against agriculture: Fines, imprisonment and property seizure

Jul 27

Posted by admin in Codex Alimentarius, NAIS | 7 Comments

July 23, 2009

By Marti Oakley (Food Freedom)

Paul Griepentrog inside the greenhouse“The first thing they did when they got the authority to write rules … was to grant themselves the authority to conduct warrantless searches. Wisconsin is in the process of coercing farmers and backyard producers … into NAIS, and the accompanying Premises ID program, by threatening to withhold any of the licenses they control.” Paul Griepentrog

In the course of researching various topics, running down leads on information and ferreting out the plans behind the public propaganda used to infringe on one right after another, I sometimes stumble across someone who has so much verifiable information, I am left astounded.  This was the case when I happened across a gentleman farmer named Paul Griepentrog while researching the laws and bills about Premises ID and the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).

I already knew the mandatory law had been bought and paid for in Wisconsin through the use of a USDA “cooperative agreement” to the tune of $35 million.

In a recent interview I asked Paul to answer a few questions about what is really happening to Wisconsin residents who are being forced onto these illegal programs:

Q:  Does the Animal Health Protection Act of 2003 actually authorize the Animal Identification System or Premises ID?

A: There is nothing in that bill giving them authority to create or establish the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).  That law has been misquoted saying that it is the authority for NAIS.  We have repeatedly sent letters to USDA and Tom Vilsack asking him to show the section of that law that gives the authority but he refuses to answer or acknowledge the letters.

Q: Has the USDA, in collusion with the Wisconsin AG department, threatened any farms that you know of?

A: Dwayne Brander on behalf of Dr. McGraw, Assistant State Veterinarian, goes out to farms telling them that if they don’t renew or register their premises in the State of Wisconsin they will file suit against them for failing to comply, using the county DA and calling it a civil forfeiture.

Wisconsin is in the process of coercing farmers and backyard producers in an effort to force them onto NAIS and the accompanying Premises ID program by threatening to withhold any of the licenses they control and would refuse to give the license unless you signed up.

Q: Is there a part of the law in Wisconsin that allows for fines and imprisonment based on the sole allegations of these agencies or representative personnel from USDA or DATCP in Wisconsin?

A: Here is section 95 from the Wisconsin bill implementing the “voluntary” NAIS/Premises ID law:

CHAPTER 95

ANIMAL HEALTH

95.23 Disease investigation and enforcement.

95.23(1)

(1) Authorized inspectors and agents of the department may enter at reasonable times any premises, building or place to investigate the existence of animal diseases or to investigate violations of or otherwise enforce the laws relating to animal health. Any animals or materials suspected of being infected may be examined or tested. No person shall obstruct or interfere with such investigation or enforcement work, or attempt to do so, in any manner, by threat or otherwise.

95.23(2)

(2) Upon request of an authorized inspector or agent of the department, sheriffs and police officers shall assist in the enforcement of the laws relating to animal health.

95.99 Penalties.

95.99(1)

(1) Any person who violates this chapter, or an order issued or a rule adopted under this chapter, for which a specific penalty is not prescribed shall, for the first offense, be fined not more than $1,000; and for any subsequent offense fined not less than $500 nor more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than 6 months or both.

95.99(2)

(2) The department may seek an injunction restraining any person from violating this chapter or any rule promulgated under this chapter.

95.99(3)

(3) A person who violates this chapter or any rule promulgated or order issued under this chapter, for which a specific penalty is not prescribed, may be required to forfeit not less than $200 nor more than $5,000 for the first offense and may be required to forfeit not less than $400 nor more than $5,000 for the 2nd or subsequent offense committed within 5 years of an offense for which a penalty has been assessed under this section. A forfeiture under this subsection is in lieu of a criminal penalty under sub.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Q: Do citizens have the right to demand a full disclosure of the exact laws and basis under which USDA and Wisconsin have charged them?  Is there any defense against these attacks?

A: There seems to be none.  In the cooperative agreement it states all applicable federal laws shall apply.  There are certain major State and Federal Constitutional issues that these laws are in conflict with.

Q: Who exactly is asking for this information?

A: The Department of Agriculture, State of Wisconsin administered by Assistant State Veterinarian, Dr. Paul McGraw; both knowing this has nothing to do with livestock or food safety.  This comes from The World Trade Organization and their trade program OIE. http://www.oie.int/eng/en_index.htm World Organization Animal Health.

Q: Where is the information stored? For what purpose?

A: Initially intake is at state level, and then it moves through forms records management plan.  There are different steps on how they process this information.  From everything I read, a disease outbreak would give state, federal and international interest’s access.

Q: Who is storing the information?

A: Wisconsin Department of Agriculture and then to Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium with (WLIC) as final repository in Canada. The WLIC is comprised of various agriculture groups, breed associations and companies selling RFID tags.

Rep. Obey & Sen. Kohl helped to get WLIC started and moved the data base to Canada.  The head of WLIC initially was Gary Tauchen who is now a Wisconsin representative and sitting on the house AG committee.

In my own case, I have been registered twice after the fire number on my property changed.  Once under the original number and my name and again under the newly assigned number and my farm name; I did not register for Premises ID on either occasion and was signed up without my knowledge or consent.

Q: If the WLIC is listed as the last repository of data mined information, how did files on Wisconsin agricultural properties end up being stored in Canada?

A: WLIC with the help of Rep. Obey and Sen. Kohl although I don’t know for sure how this was accomplished. The intention was to avoid any Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request or open information requests until they passed the 2008 Farm Bill and included a provision in that bill saying that these files would not be available to FOIA requests.

Q.  Who had access to these files when they were outside the country?

A:  We don’t know.  Once it was outside US jurisdiction we had no way of knowing.

Q:  Are you able to get copies of your personal file from the Canadian data bank?

A:  I was able to obtain the premises information pursuant to the forms records management plan.  To my knowledge I am only the second person to do so.

Q:  We know these programs have nothing to do with tracking animal disease and are actually meant to end competition for industrialized agricultural interests, and to seize control of agricultural lands and livestock….who are the actual players that will benefit from these programs?

A: The big corporate industrialized agriculture operators….Cargill, Tyson, Monsanto and others, because they would see the end to competition and obtain virtually full control over all agriculture.

Q:  Are Wisconsin politicians either state or federal willing to speak to you about NAIS, Premises ID or the fake food safety bills?

A: On the Federal level, Sen. Kohl and Rep. Obey will not take my calls.

(*Writer’s note: I made my own calls to these offices and when I stated what I was calling in reference to, the staffers got really nasty and then hung up)

In fact Sen. Kohl’s staffer, Kim Cates’ husband is on the Agriculture Consumer Protection Citizen board.  He would not even meet with John Kinsman of Family Farm Defenders to discuss the issue.

On the state level are the continuous lies.  These people will say Premises ID has nothing to do with NAIS.  They say this even though they have been shown the cooperative agreement between USDA and Wisconsin DATCP outlining Premises ID as the first step.  They refuse to look at or acknowledge the legal documents.

DATCP had a document on the Wisconsin Legislative information Bureau site saying that the Amish don’t have any problem with this.  If the Amish don’t have a problem with it why are they suing Emmanuel Miller Jr., an Amish from Clark County?

Steve Kagen would not address our concerns and he’s on the US house Ag sub- committee that held a hearing on NAIS and is also involved in the food safety bills and won’t address our concerns even there.  He is working right now to get funding to move Wisconsin into phase II of NAIS which is the mandatory chipping and tagging of all animals.

I will say that Sen. Feingold has been willing to listen to our concerns both in his Washington office and in the state office.

montages photobucketAlthough there is a bill in Wisconsin which would restore voluntary participation I feel it is nothing more than an attempt at political redemption by the same people who passed the mandatory bill to begin with, in that they are fully aware that this bills will be sent to the House Ag committee and never see the light of day.  This is merely political posturing…. The house, senate and government are all controlled by Democrats.  This may be nothing more than a smoke screen while they make mandatory phase II which is the tagging and chipping, which can’t be done unless you have a Premises ID.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Paul Griepentrog shows that, in the end, what was billed and sold to Wisconsin farmers and herders as a strictly “voluntary” system turns out to be a mandatory system operated much like a police state enforcement policy.  There can be no doubt, especially in light of the hyped up investigation and enforcement policies that this law in Wisconsin is less about disease and more about property seizure and forfeiture.

Wisconsin is the blueprint for the remaining states:  what happens there is going to happen to all independent ranchers, farmers and producers across the country if any of these fake food safety bills, or National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is passed into law.

© 2009 Marti Oakley

Tags: , , , , ,

Wisconsin’s war against agriculture: Fines, imprisonment and property seizure

Jul 25

Posted by admin in Codex Alimentarius, Food, NAIS | No Comments

By Marti Oakley (Food Freedom)

Paul Griepentrog inside the greenhouse“The first thing they did when they got the authority to write rules… was to grant themselves the authority to conduct warrantless searches. Wisconsin is in the process of coercing farmers and backyard producers … into NAIS, and the accompanying Premises ID program, by threatening to withhold any of the licenses they control.” Paul Griepentrog

In the course of researching various topics, running down leads on information and ferreting out the plans behind the public propaganda used to infringe on one right after another, I sometimes stumble across someone who has so much verifiable information, I am left astounded. This was the case when I happened across a gentleman farmer named Paul Griepentrog while researching the laws and bills about Premises ID and the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).

I already knew the mandatory law had been bought and paid for in Wisconsin through the use of a USDA “cooperative agreement” to the tune of $35 million.

In a recent interview I asked Paul to answer a few questions about what is really happening to Wisconsin residents who are being forced onto these illegal programs:

Q: Does the Animal Health Protection Act of 2003 actually authorize the Animal Identification System or Premises ID?

A:There is nothing in that bill giving them authority to create or establish the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). That law has been misquoted saying that it is the authority for NAIS. We have repeatedly sent letters to USDA and Tom Vilsack asking him to show the section of that law that gives the authority but he refuses to answer or acknowledge the letters.

Q: Has the USDA, in collusion with the Wisconsin AG department, threatened any farms that you know of?

A: Dwayne Brander on behalf of Dr. McGraw, Assistant State Veterinarian, goes out to farms telling them that if they don’t renew or register their premises in the State of Wisconsin they will file suit against them for failing to comply, using the county DA and calling it a civil forfeiture.

Wisconsin is in the process of coercing farmers and backyard producers in an effort to force them onto NAIS and the accompanying Premises ID program by threatening to withhold any of the licenses they control and would refuse to give the license unless you signed up.

Q: Is there a part of the law in Wisconsin that allows for fines and imprisonment based on the sole allegations of these agencies or representative personnel from USDA or DATCP in Wisconsin?

A: Here is section 95 from the Wisconsin bill implementing the “voluntary” NAIS/Premises ID law:

CHAPTER 95

ANIMAL HEALTH

95.23 Disease investigation and enforcement.

95.23(1)

(1) Authorized inspectors and agents of the department may enter at reasonable times any premises, building or place to investigate the existence of animal diseases or to investigate violations of or otherwise enforce the laws relating to animal health. Any animals or materials suspected of being infected may be examined or tested. No person shall obstruct or interfere with such investigation or enforcement work, or attempt to do so, in any manner, by threat or otherwise.

95.23(2)

(2) Upon request of an authorized inspector or agent of the department,sheriffs and police officers shall assist in the enforcement of the laws relating to animal health.

95.99 Penalties.

95.99(1)

(1) Any person who violates this chapter, or an order issued or a rule adopted under this chapter, for which a specific penalty is not prescribed shall, for the first offense, be fined not more than $1,000; and for any subsequent offense fined not less than $500 nor more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than 6 months or both.

95.99(2)

(2) The department may seek an injunction restraining any person from violating this chapter or any rule promulgated under this chapter.

95.99(3)

(3) A person who violates this chapter or any rule promulgated or order issued under this chapter, for which a specific penalty is not prescribed,may be required to forfeit not less than $200 nor more than $5,000 for the first offense and may be required to forfeit not less than $400 nor more than $5,000 for the 2nd or subsequent offense committed within 5 years of an offense for which a penalty has been assessed under this section. A forfeiture under this subsection is in lieu of a criminal penalty undersub.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Q: Do citizens have the right to demand a full disclosure of the exact laws and basis under which USDA and Wisconsin have charged them? Is there any defense against these attacks?

A:There seems to be none. In the cooperative agreement it states all applicable federal laws shall apply. There are certain major State and Federal Constitutional issues that these laws are in conflict with.

Q: Who exactly is asking for this information?

A:The Department of Agriculture, State of Wisconsin administered by Assistant State Veterinarian, Dr. Paul McGraw; both knowing this has nothing to do with livestock or food safety. This comes from The World Trade Organization and their trade program OIE.http://www.oie.int/eng/en_index.htm World Organization Animal Health.

Q: Where is the information stored? For what purpose?

A: Initially intake is at state level, and then it moves through forms records management plan. There are different steps on how they process this information. From everything I read, a disease outbreak would give state, federal and international interest’s access.

Q: Who is storing the information?

A:Wisconsin Department of Agriculture and then to Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium with (WLIC) as final repository in Canada. The WLIC is comprised of various agriculture groups, breed associations and companies selling RFID tags.

Rep. Obey & Sen. Kohl helped to get WLIC started and moved the data base to Canada. The head of WLIC initially was Gary Tauchen who is now a Wisconsin representative and sitting on the house AG committee.

In my own case, I have been registered twice after the fire number on my property changed. Once under the original number and my name and again under the newly assigned number and my farm name; I did not register for Premises ID on either occasion and was signed up without my knowledge or consent.

Q: If the WLIC is listed as the last repository of data mined information, how did files on Wisconsin agricultural properties end up being stored in Canada?

A:WLIC with the help of Rep. Obey and Sen. Kohl although I don’t know for sure how this was accomplished. The intention was to avoid any Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request or open information requests until they passed the 2008 Farm Bill and included a provision in that bill saying that these files would not be available to FOIA requests.

Q. Who had access to these files when they were outside the country?

A: We don’t know. Once it was outside US jurisdiction we had no way of knowing.

Q: Are you able to get copies of your personal file from the Canadian data bank?

A: I was able to obtain the premises information pursuant to the forms records management plan. To my knowledge I am only the second person to do so.

Q: We know these programs have nothing to do with tracking animal disease and are actually meant to end competition for industrialized agricultural interests, and to seize control of agricultural lands and livestock….who are the actual players that will benefit from these programs?

A:The big corporate industrialized agriculture operators….Cargill, Tyson, Monsanto and others, because they would see the end to competition and obtain virtually full control over all agriculture.

Q: Are Wisconsin politicians either state or federal willing to speak to you about NAIS, Premises ID or the fake food safety bills?

A:On the Federal level, Sen. Kohl and Rep. Obey will not take my calls.

(*Writer’s note: I made my own calls to these offices and when I stated what I was calling in reference to, the staffers got really nasty and then hung up)

In fact Sen. Kohl’s staffer, Kim Cates’ husband is on the Agriculture Consumer Protection Citizen board. He would not even meet with John Kinsman of Family Farm Defenders to discuss the issue.

On the state level are the continuous lies. These people will say Premises ID has nothing to do with NAIS. They say this even though they have been shown the cooperative agreement between USDA and Wisconsin DATCP outlining Premises ID as the first step. They refuse to look at or acknowledge the legal documents.

DATCP had a document on the Wisconsin Legislative information Bureau site saying that the Amish don’t have any problem with this. If the Amish don’t have a problem with it why are they suing Emmanuel Miller Jr., an Amish from Clark County?

Steve Kagen would not address our concerns and he’s on the US house Ag sub- committee that held a hearing on NAIS and is also involved in the food safety bills and won’t address our concerns even there. He is working right now to get funding to move Wisconsin into phase II of NAIS which is the mandatory chipping and tagging of all animals.

I will say that Sen. Feingold has been willing to listen to our concerns both in his Washington office and in the state office.

montages photobucketAlthough there is a bill in Wisconsin which would restore voluntary participation I feel it is nothing more than an attempt at political redemption by the same people who passed the mandatory bill to begin with, in that they are fully aware that this bills will be sent to the House Ag committee and never see the light of day. This is merely political posturing…. The house, senate and government are all controlled by Democrats. This may be nothing more than a smoke screen while they make mandatory phase II which is the tagging and chipping, which can’t be done unless you have a Premises ID.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Paul Griepentrog shows that, in the end, what was billed and sold to Wisconsin farmers and herders as a strictly “voluntary” system turns out to be a mandatory system operated much like a police state enforcement policy. There can be no doubt, especially in light of the hyped up investigation and enforcement policies that this law in Wisconsin is less about disease and more about property seizure and forfeiture.

Wisconsin is the blueprint for the remaining states: what happens there is going to happen to all independent ranchers, farmers and producers across the country if any of these fake food safety bills, or National Animal Identification System (NAIS) is passed into law.

© 2009MartiOakley

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

NAIS/Premises ID….FCLDF takes it to the courts

Jul 24

Posted by admin in NAIS | No Comments

NAIS/Premises ID….FCLDF takes it to the courts

Written by: Marti Oakley – Proud Political Junkie’s Gazette

farmer3_deesA decision by U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, located in the Washington District of Criminals, throwing out a lawsuit brought by Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FCLDF) asking the court to halt the implementation of NAIS, was based on her assertion that there is no federal law and/or, no federal regulation ordering the implementation of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).  FCLDF brought the suit asking for temporary injunctive relief……a move that was good in its intentions but obviously filed too early.  As no law or regulation exists to authorize NAIS/Premises ID and the claims by USDA and Tom Vilsack go unsubstantiated despite repeated requests to produce the authority they claim, injunctive relief could not be granted as no law has been passed …yet,….although multiple legislative assaults are in the works.

I guess this statement in her opinion would answer the question posed to Tom Vilsack and other officials from the USDA, demanding to know under what authority or law NAIS is being implemented and is scheduled to become mandatory.  Turns out, according to Judge Collyer…there is none.  It would also answer the question as to why Mr. Vilsack nor the USDA will respond to the question or even acknowledge it has ever been asked.

It is apparent from this ruling there is no legal, lawful, legislative regulation or statute which allows, establishes or mandates NAIS.   The USDA, using its so-called “rule-making” authority, which is nothing less than illegal law enacted by a non-elected bureaucracy, has simply been the tool to by-pass constitutional rights and liberties in an effort to expand the power and control of not only the agency itself, but also the federal government which has long since exceeded its Constitutional authority and power on many levels.

Since the court has ruled in this way, does this not make the bribes paid to state officials to “voluntarily” implement NAIS , euphemistically called [cooperative agreements]..an act of collusion?  Wouldn’t this also make refusal to comply with state enacted mandates, for which the Judge herself has admitted, there is no lawful basis, a legal protection for farmers and ranchers?  And would this not also include the prohibition on the SWAT team-like assaults being perpetrated in states like Wisconsin which accepted one of the USDA’s multi-million dollar bribes to do a test run on NAIS/Premises ID?

The judge also seemed not to be concerned about the impending loss of private property rights which is an intended result of NAIS/Premises ID; apparently having no judicial problem with livestock owners being referred to as [stakeholders, legally implying they have an interest in but are not the owners of their own property] and land owners relegated to the category of [tenants or managers] again removing them from the rightful legal ownership of the land.

Judge Collyer’s expert legal opinion went on to say that NAIS is “an identification and tracking program developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and adopted by state agriculture departments voluntarily”.  This is a patently false statement by the court.  USDA DID NOT develop the NAIS or Premises ID program.  USDA is simply trying to codify into law Codex Alimentarius and all of its international regulations and standards of which NAIS/Premises Id is a key feature.

Again, paying bribes to state officials to implement what the Judge herself identifies as a non-existence law or regulation should have warranted the halting of any programs regardless of what non-elected agency had launched them into the public domain on behalf of Bio-tech and Codex Alimentarius.

“Collyer continued with….”They, however, completely fail to address Michigan state law, which authorizes the director of MDA to adopt programs such as NAIS compliance for cattle, and plaintiffs’ reliance on federal law is misplaced.”  The Judge does not admit or allude to the fact that Michigan would not have enacted this law without federal interference or encouragement.

The Judge seemed not to consider that Michigan officials had illegally entered into an agreement with USDA, which was the catalyst for the Michigan law, and had accepted monetary assistance, cooperative funding or what is in my opinion, legalized bribery to do so.

The Judge seemed not to be aware of a precedence, (a judicial concept continually invoked by courts when their intended rulings are in conflict with actual law) or, as in this instance totally ignored by the court as it would have rendered the ruling void,  which states:

“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”

“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”
Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

It seems apparent that precedence is only advantageous when it does not conflict with intended encroachment by the government or its agencies.

Although the above opinion is by far not the only opinion of the Courts regarding the illegality of states agreeing to the implementation of what are obviously assaults on constitutional rights and protections, it is the most powerful.

Kudos to Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund for having the courage to mount this lawsuit.

© 2009 Marti Oakley

Tags: , , , , , ,

NAIS/Premises ID….FCLDF takes it to the courts

Jul 24

Posted by admin in NAIS | No Comments

Written by: Marti Oakley – Proud Political Junkie’s Gazette

farmer3_deesA decision by U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, located in the Washington District of Criminals, throwing out a lawsuit brought by Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FCLDF) asking the court to halt the implementation of NAIS, was based on her assertion that there is no federal law and/or, no federal regulation ordering the implementation of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). FCLDF brought the suit asking for temporary injunctive relief……a move that was good in its intentions but obviously filed too early. As no law or regulation exists to authorize NAIS/Premises ID and the claims by USDA and Tom Vilsack go unsubstantiated despite repeated requests to produce the authority they claim, injunctive relief could not be granted as no law has been passed…yet,….although multiple legislative assaults are in the works.

I guess this statement in her opinion would answer the question posed to Tom Vilsack and other officials from the USDA, demanding to know under what authority or law NAIS is being implemented and is scheduled to become mandatory. Turns out, according to Judge Collyer…there is none. It would also answer the question as to why Mr. Vilsack nor the USDA will respond to the question or even acknowledge it has ever been asked.

It is apparent from this ruling there is no legal, lawful, legislative regulation or statute which allows, establishes or mandates NAIS. The USDA, using its so-called “rule-making” authority, which is nothing less than illegal law enacted by a non-elected bureaucracy, has simply been the tool to by-pass constitutional rights and liberties in an effort to expand the power and control of not only the agency itself, but also the federal government which has long since exceeded its Constitutional authority and power on many levels.

Since the court has ruled in this way, does this not make the bribes paid to state officials to “voluntarily” implement NAIS , euphemistically called [cooperative agreements]..an act of collusion? Wouldn’t this also make refusal to comply with state enacted mandates, for which the Judge herself has admitted, there is no lawful basis, a legal protection for farmers and ranchers? And would this not also include the prohibition on the SWAT team-like assaults being perpetrated in states like Wisconsin which accepted one of the USDA’s multi-million dollar bribes to do a test run on NAIS/Premises ID?

The judge also seemed not to be concerned about the impending loss of private property rights which is an intended result of NAIS/Premises ID; apparently having no judicial problem with livestock owners being referred to as [stakeholders, legally implying they have an interest in but are not the owners of their own property] and land owners relegated to the category of [tenants or managers] again removing them from the rightful legal ownership of the land.

Judge Collyer’s expert legal opinion went on to say that NAIS is “an identification and tracking program developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and adopted by state agriculture departments voluntarily”. This is a patently false statement by the court. USDA DID NOT develop the NAIS or Premises ID program. USDA is simply trying to codify into law Codex Alimentarius and all of its international regulations and standards of which NAIS/Premises Id is a key feature.

Again, paying bribes to state officials to implement what the Judge herself identifies as a non-existence law or regulation should have warranted the halting of any programs regardless of what non-elected agency had launched them into the public domain on behalf of Bio-tech and Codex Alimentarius.

“Collyer continued with….”They, however, completely fail to address Michigan state law, which authorizes the director of MDA to adopt programs such as NAIS compliance for cattle, and plaintiffs’ reliance on federal law is misplaced.” The Judge does not admit or allude to the fact that Michigan would not have enacted this law without federal interference or encouragement.

The Judge seemed not to consider that Michigan officials had illegally entered into an agreement with USDA, which was the catalyst for the Michigan law, and had accepted monetary assistance, cooperative funding or what is in my opinion, legalized bribery to do so.

The Judge seemed not to be aware of a precedence, (a judicial concept continually invoked by courts when their intended rulings are in conflict with actual law) or, as in this instance totally ignored by the court as it would have rendered the ruling void, which states:

“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”

“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”

Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

It seems apparent that precedence is only advantageous when it does not conflict with intended encroachment by the government or its agencies.

Although the above opinion is by far not the only opinion of the Courts regarding the illegality of states agreeing to the implementation of what are obviously assaults on constitutional rights and protections, it is the most powerful.

Kudos to Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund for having the courage to mount this lawsuit.

© 2009 Marti Oakley

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

NAIS – Interview with Linda Faillace

Jul 22

Posted by admin in NAIS | 2 Comments

National Animal Identification System (NAIS)

Written by: Bill Suydam, Editor, Health Spectator

An interview with Linda Faillace, author of Mad Sheep

The National Animal Identification System is another of those government ideas that sounds so right on the surface but goes so wrong in the implementation details. Basically, it is a nationwide registration system for animals and the sites where they are kept. It has been causing a major uproar within the farming community, as it is a burden to small farmers, among others.

It will affect you too if you keep any sort of farm animals such as chickens, sheep, goats, horses, etc.—but if you do, you undoubtedly already know this.

We’ve been preparing a piece on this subject, but in the process we came across this video that gives you an excellent summary of what’s involved. So we thought we’d provide a video introduction, then look to converting our investigative reporting to a background article or editorial.

Most of our readers have probably never heard of NAIS. If you fall into that category, the video below will be a real eye-opener. The presenter is Linda Faillace, author of Mad Sheep:The True Story Behind the USDA’s War on a Family Farm, who knows a thing or two about dealing with the USDA as a small farmer.

Tags: , , , , , ,

National Animal Identification System (NAIS)

Jul 22

Posted by admin in Food, NAIS | No Comments

An interview with Linda Faillace, author of Mad Sheep

UDSA NAZIThe National Animal Identification System is another of those government ideas that sounds so right on the surface but goes so wrong in the implementation details. Basically, it is a nationwide registration system for animals and the sites where they are kept. It has been causing a major uproar within the farming community, as it is a burden to small farmers, among others.

It will affect you too if you keep any sort of farm animals such as chickens, sheep, goats, horses, etc.–but if you do, you undoubtedly already know this.

We’ve been preparing a piece on this subject, but in the process we came across this video that gives you an excellent summary of what’s involved. So we thought we’d provide a video introduction, then look to converting our investigative reporting to a background article or editorial.

Most of our readers have probably never heard of NAIS. If you fall into that category, the video below will be a real eye-opener. The presenter is Linda Faillace, author of Mad Sheep:The True Story Behind the USDA’s War on a Family Farm, who knows a thing or two about dealing with the USDA as a small farmer.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

NAIS Listening Sessions: Can a Monsanto Administration Really Hear?

Jul 13

Posted by admin in NAIS | 2 Comments

Image at www.batag.com
By Rady Ananda

Scrap NAIS; decentralize the food industry

The hottest topic in agriculture is NAIS – the proposed National Animal Identification System. Using embedded microchips and mountains of paperwork, the federal government plans to create a database that tracks every animal in the nation. Independent producers and privacy advocates adamantly oppose the plan.

From May 14th thru June 30th, the USDA held “listening sessions” in fourteen cities across the nation. USDA asserted it wants “to engage stakeholders and producers to hear not only their concerns about [NAIS], but also potential or feasible solutions to those concerns.”

USDA hoped the listening sessions would provide a forum where stakeholders could help devise a NAIS that producers could live with. Instead, ranchers and farmers want the entire NAIS plan scrapped. Over 1600 people attended these sessions, with 500 testifying. Eighty-five percent of those who spoke condemned NAIS.

Listening Session Quotes

Darol Dickinson, longhorn cattleman from Ohio, believes the USDA plan is being forced on producers, despite objection.

“They’ve conveyed to us that we have no right to oppose them. They’ve told people, ‘This is going to happen.’ That doesn’t sit well with independent thinking people, especially ranchers and farmers.”

Dickinson spoke at the Harrisburg, PA listening session and conveyed on Carl Lanore’s radio show:

“I told them that their ‘option’ reminded me of being an old herd sire – being pushed down an alley with an electric prod, and somebody mentions to the herd sire, ‘How do you want to be castrated – with a dull knife, with a burdizzo or an elastic band?’ And the answer, of course, is none of the above.”

One group opposing NAIS, the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, urged Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to re-focus the nation’s animal disease and food safety efforts on several alternatives including:

  • Decentralize the livestock industry and encourage local, diversified farms, which would increase animal health, food security, and food safety;
  • Increase inspections of imported animals and agricultural products and bar the entry of animals from countries with known disease problems; and
  • Improve enforcement of existing laws and inspections of large slaughterhouses and food processing facilities, including unannounced spot inspections at those large facilities.

Image at Salon.com
Mike Callicrate, an independent cattle producer, is not at all happy with NAIS. He firmly believes that the best way to protect the food supply is to enforce existing laws and go back to unannounced inspections of factory farms, slaughterhouses and meatpacking plants.

“Today, USDA, in protecting the biggest and dirtiest meat plants, continues to block trace-back of pathogens to the source plant, a very easy and inexpensive measure that could improve food safety tomorrow.”

He blames the 2002 E. coli contamination of 20 million pounds of ConAgra beef on lack of inspections.

“USDA has done nothing to address the problems in the big packing plants where E. coli is systematically put into our meat daily while trusting these big profit-driven companies to self inspect under the HACCP hoax.”

HACCP is the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points plan whereby meatpackers and processing plants inspect themselves. They determine where the most likely places of contamination would occur and design mitigation techniques. The plan is then submitted to the USDA for approval, but enforcing it is left to the companies themselves.

At the Loveland, Colorado listening session, Kimmi Lewis of the Colorado Independent Cattle Growers Association said, “This country is free because we are allowed to own private property.” If it’s tracked by government, it’s not private.

At the Harrisburg, PA listening session, horse breeder Barbara Steever called the USDA “disingenuous” for saying that NAIS will be used to control the spread of disease. To make her point, Steever then asked some hard-hitting questions:

  • “Why, then, are you lowering import restrictions to allow cattle in from Mexico that has bovine TB?
  • Why are you trying to bring in cattle from Argentina that is known to have a reservoir of FMD (foot-and-mouth disease)?
  • [Why are you allowing] cattle over 30 months of age from Canada, that have a higher risk of BSE, and disallowing private businesses from testing for BSE in response to their clients’ needs?
  • Why are you moving a high security disease containment facility into the middle of cattle country?”

madcow (300 x 374)One of the strongest speakers, Rhonda Perry, operates a livestock and grain operation. She spoke on behalf of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center, representing 5,600 families. Reiterating above concerns, Perry adds:

“We see industrial livestock operations all over this country that have created incredible environmental, health and food safety concerns.”

Perry points out that none of today’s food safety issues are caused by independent family farmers. She challenges the USDA to increase competition as a strategy to increase food safety. Bust the monopolies and decentralize food production, “instead of looking at this unproven, ineffective, anti-farmer, corporate-driven program of NAIS.”

Others pointed out that NAIS violates our Constitutional rights, including religion. Amish and other religious communities reject implants and biotechnology.

Several dozen videos from the NAIS listening sessions have been posted at YouTube.

Interestingly, the USDA held no listening sessions in Wisconsin, where NAIS has been made mandatory. Farmers there are furious with the bureaucracy and have been warning the rest of the nation. In NAIS Smackdown: The gloves come off, R-Calf lists a better set of food safety proposals instead of NAIS.

Biggest Danger to Food Safety is a Centralized Food System

Safe food spokesperson, Michael Pollan, has long warned us that a centralized food system is uniquely vulnerable to disease and even to a terrorist attack. Also, because concentrated animal feeding operations require the use of antibiotics to keep the herd alive, superbugs with antibiotic resistance are becoming more common.

In the film, Fresh, Missouri natural hog farmer Russ Kremer shares a personal tale of how he almost died from contracting a monster form of strep. The experience convinced him to exterminate his entire herd and start over with a natural herd.

tom-vilsackThe USDA has a long history of using regulations (like HACCP) to protect Big Ag, instead of consumers and small producers. President Obama appointed Tom Vilsack, the “biotechnology governor of the year,” as Secretary of Agriculture. Obama also appointed Monsanto’s Michael Taylor to head the new Food Safety Working Group.

Astute writers and activists caution that even if NAIS is defeated, animal tracing is being snuck into pending legislation, such as HR 2749.

Independent family farmers will have a tough row to hoe trying to convince a Monsanto Administration to do right by small farmers. As they plead with a corporate-owned federal government intent on globalization, the American people may be their best ally.

Buy fresh, locally grown food. Support free range and organic farmers. Yes, healthy food costs more up front. But you save it on the back end, needing fewer doctor visits or pharmaceutical drugs to deal with the diseases (obesity, diabetes, cancer) caused by factory food. You’ll also contribute to your local economy and a healthy environment.

FILMS

Several recent documentaries discuss the difference between natural and factory food production. In addition to The World According to Monsanto, be sure to see the films below (these are my reviews):

FOOD, Inc. Exposes Horrors of a Centralized Food System
 Fresh: How We’re Supposed to Eat
 Our Daily Bread a Radically Silent View of Factory Farming

~~

Rady Ananda’s articles have appeared in several online and print publications, including three books. She graduated in December 2003 from The Ohio State University’s School of Agriculture with a BS in Natural Resources.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

NAIS – A Way to Control Rural Population

Jul 12

Posted by admin in NAIS | No Comments

By Pat Kopecki

Source: Wilson County News

July 7, 2009

Agriculture leaders, as well as farmers and ranchers, are watching the outcome of the many congressional bills that are being discussed on Capitol Hill. They question whether farmers and ranchers will survive if additional permits and taxation are implemented. Two of the issues currently being discussed are the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) that is included in House Resolution (HR) 875, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009, and the probable taxation of cattle by means of changes in the Clean Air Act.

Those who have followed the NAIS controversy may have read editorials written by Henry Lamb, chairman of Sovereignty International Inc.

“The NAIS is an important part of controlling the rural population,” Lamb said.

Lamb, in a June e-mail interview, explained how NAIS opponents have linked the identification program to Agenda 21.

Lamb said, “NAIS is not a direct result of a specific recommendation set forth in Agenda 21. It is consistent, however, with the policy goals and recommendations of Agenda 21, in that the concept emerged from committees of the World Trade Organization, and was quickly incorporated into the ’sustainable development’ concept which requires government planning and control.”

“NAIS will be devastating to small farmers, ranchers, homesteaders, and all livestock animal owners,” Lamb said. “The regulatory burden is economically unbearable, but this is only a symptom of the basic problem: NAIS ignores the Constitutional guarantees of privacy and security from an intrusive government (Fourth Amendment).”

Lamb has produced several videos on the NAIS issue and sustainable development, which can be found on Sovereignty’s Web site. In one, Lamb addresses how the government may enter private property, citing data from the American Planning Association publication titled, “Growing Smart Legislative Guidelines.”

“The model legislation contained in this book [“Growing Smart Legislative Guidelines”] provides many ways for government officials to enter private property and impose fines, and in some cases, actually ‘take’ private property without just compensation,” Lamb said. “One of the great concerns about NAIS is that once private property is registered in the program, no one knows what rights the federal government may have to the property. Since there is no law yet, nor any published regulations, no one can know what rights the USDA may claim. It is reasonable to conclude that they would claim the right to enter the property to ensure that animal counts and other information has been reported accurately,” Lamb said.

Lamb foresees that NAIS will aid in the implementation of the cattle gas tax being discussed under the proposed changes in the Clean Air Act because of the April 17 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finding regarding greenhouse gases.

“NAIS, if implemented, will give government absolute control over the production of all livestock products, not only by permits and punishment, but by direct taxation as well. With every livestock premises and every livestock animal tagged and reported to a government database, it would be a simple matter to levy a tax on every animal — such as the EPA’s recently proposed flatulence tax — and enforce collection of the tax by direct confiscation, if necessary,” Lamb said.

In another video regarding NAIS, Lamb mentions Kansas State University, which conducted the cost benefit analysis of the NAIS program. He identifies this university as the same university that received a grant for the establishment of an animal identification center. Lamb believes this “constitutes a conflict of interest.”

The public who closely watched the NAIS hearing sessions across the nation, including one in Austin, may have noticed how the government tried to use the consensus method.

In the video, “Sustainable America … A New Consensus,” Lamb explains that consensus is not an agreement, but the absence of an expressed opposition.

Lamb said that the USDA “set out to ‘listen’ to individuals in the morning, and hold break-out sessions in the afternoon conducted by trained facilitators to achieve ‘consensus’ around seven specific questions.

“We [the Sovereignty group] were able to inform and educate local grass-roots leaders in every city as to how to avoid the ‘consensus’ process and take control over the meetings. These folks were extremely successful and completely overwhelmed the USDA,” Lamb said.

Lamb warns the public in a March 14 press release titled, “Lawmakers trash the Constitution,” that the government will make NAIS mandatory through HR 875 or a similar bill.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

USDA Urged To Heed Producer Testimony and Scrap The National Animal Identification System (NAIS)

Jul 9

Posted by admin in NAIS | No Comments

Posted : Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:24:37 GMT
Author : Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund
Category : Press Release
News Alerts by Email ( click here )
Press Release News | Home

FALLS CHURCH, Va. – (Business Wire) The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund is urging the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to actually listen to and honor the comments offered by the nation’s livestock producers during the USDA’s multi-city listening tour on the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) and scrap the program.

“A common thread that ran through much of the testimony at the USDA hearings was that existing prevention and tracking programs for animal diseases together with state laws on branding and the existing record-keeping by sales barns and livestock shows provide the mechanisms needed for tracking any disease outbreaks,” said Pete Kennedy, acting president of the Farm-To-Consumer Legal Defense Fund.

“NAIS is simply not needed,” he added. “The USDA continues to confuse industry support for efforts to identify and eliminate animal diseases with support for NAIS, despite the fact that some 80 percent of the people who testified during the hearings testified against USDA’s animal identification program,” he said.

Kennedy’s comments came as the USDA wrapped up its 14-city listening tour with a session in Omaha last week. During the tour more than 1,600 people attended listening sessions; almost 500 people testified; and more than 400 of those stated their opposition to NAIS.

“Even the U.S. Congress has grown impatient with the NAIS,” commented Fund board member Taaron Meikle, “with Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro calling continued investment in USDA’s NAIS ‘unwarranted.’ ”

De Lauro’s comments came in a release explaining the cuts in the 2010 Agriculture Appropriations Bill her subcommittee recommended.

Instead of pouring more money and effort into NAIS, the Fund is urging Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to re-focus the nation’s animal disease and food safety efforts on several alternatives including:

  • Decentralizing the livestock industry and encouraging local, diversified farms, which would increase animal health, food security, and food safety;
  • Increasing inspections of imported animals and agricultural products and barring the entry of animals from countries with known disease problems; and
  • Improving enforcement of existing laws and inspections of large slaughterhouses and food processing facilities, including unannounced spot inspections at those large facilities.

The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, along with six of its members from Michigan, last year filed suit in the U.S. District Court – District of Columbia against the USDA and the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) to stop the implementation of NAIS. An amended complaint was filed in January 2009 with the Fund adding a member from Pennsylvania as a Plaintiff.

The MDA has implemented the first two stages of NAIS – property registration and animal identification – for all cattle and farmers across the State under the guise of its bovine tuberculosis disease control program. MDA’s implementation of the first two steps of NAIS was required, in part, in exchange for a grant from the USDA.

The Fund’s suit asks the court to issue an injunction to stop the implementation of NAIS at both the State and Federal levels by any State or Federal agency. If successful, the suit would halt the program nationwide.

About The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund: The Fund defends the rights and broadens the freedoms of sustainable farmers, and protects consumer access to local, nutrient-dense foods. Concerned citizens can support the Fund by joining at www.farmtoconsumer.org or by contacting the Fund at 703-208-FARM (3276). The Fund’s sister organization, the Farm-to-Consumer Foundation (www.farmtoconsumerfoundation.org), works to promote consumer access to local, nutrient-dense food and support farmers engaged in sustainable farm stewardship.

Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund
Taaron G. Meikle, 703-537-8372
taaron.g.meikle@gmail.com
or
Cummings & Company LLC
Brian Cummings, 214-295-7463
brian@cummingspr.com

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

NAIS ~~~ the Purchase of Policy

Jul 9

Posted by admin in NAIS | No Comments

Here is a new article by Darol Dickinson that really tells what is going on with the political payola being passed around. Shows where the bribes have gone. Funny how the people up there giving glowing endorsements to NAIS at the listening sessions are the same ones who have received large bribes, er “grants”, whatever. -K

“Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves; every one loveth bribes, and followeth after rewards;” Isaiah 1-23

Political Bribery and Collusion

Here is a link to the USDA spread sheet for NAIS bribes—- sanitized as cooperative agreements. These are the funds received by tribes, states, government employees and companies who promise to enroll properties for USDA. Listed is only a scintilla of the cost. Every veterinarian, county extension agent, and ASCS office employee has been coerced to distribute NAIS literature and “speak kindly” about enrolling. The real cost is well above published data required by law. There are millions being spent monthly. Check it out at (http://www.usaspending.gov/index.php)

The National Pork Board got their trough filled with $800,000. That is why USDA tapped them for the emphatic NAIS report to the Subcommittee hearing March 11. The hogs are bought. In the funeral business these are called “rental pallbearers.” (Not about friendships, just money for the moment.)

FFA got $359,995 to sign up their kids before they could show at fairs. The hesitant children who refuse are considered rebels and malcontents.

American Angus Assn got $594,585 to hammer the horns off their members. They also used the $$ to hammer enrollments from non AAA member Angus clients of AAA members who did not surrender to NAIS.

The Holstein Assn made a bold strong testimony at the hearing. They stuck $1,754,428 in the milk bucket so they were glad to brag about NAIS before Congress. Their milk drinking political wing National Milk Producers Assn stuck $1,027,000 in the milk tank from USDA. That is why dairies were forced to enroll property or they could not sell their milk. They closed down numerous Amish dairies with this dirty heartless trick.

Indian tribes are numerous to have coins placed in their teepees? USDA cut deals with tribal leaders and automatically listed tribe members who had livestock. The cost of Indian bribes are much lower than those for the pale face; just a few bottles of fire water keeps history from changing. Once again the government shafts the Indians. (Some Indian tribes have tribal managed herds so every tribe member receives a percentage of the income. This would let every tribe member unknowingly be enrolled in NAIS.)

USDA alleged that the 2008 cooperative agreements would be calculated on achievement. There would be larger payments for more properties surrendered and less if the recipients did not perform. Oops! USDA forgot the oversight part again and each one got full amounts.

Massachusetts has a 227% property sign up. The Ag Census reports that the US has over 3,910,022 farms that qualify to enroll in mandatory NAIS. USDA says there are 1.4 million. Therefore, when they get 100% sign-up there will be another 200% left freely roaming the barn yard. By real numbers they have 9.7% signed up now, not 35% as USDA falsely, under oath, told Congress. If you removed the Indian “bribe” enrollments the USDA has about 4% of the US properties “volunteered.” How sad the USDA has become? Every one should be so ashamed of this expensive dismal branch of the government.

Bribery is not always frugal when spending other people’s money. In fact this project has wasted truck loads of tax money. The cost per person enrolled for NAIS property is a putrid fact. The sickest is Rhode Island with an expenditure of $169,520 and only 15 people surrendered. Alaskan farmers cost $3,083 each. California $708. Connecticut $1,994. Hawaii $1,085. Montana $1,452. New Mexico $695. Wyoming $1,119. Vermont $5,776. Those who spend other’s money, in the case of NAIS, have had amateur supervision from USDA with the appearance of no remorse.

The Washington DC wealth distributors have given USDA a $138,000,000 property sign up budget and more is on the way. As the spread sheet shows, some $40 million is concealed. As a fungible issue this may involve homes in the islands, company planes or “ladies of the night.”

We live in a day that bribes, campaign donations, and cooperative agreements are highly respected in nearly every association, tribe, and government office. USDA uses subject’s tax money to bribe universities and USDA outlets to demand specific performances. Few government offices have the courage to refuse a nice sweet bribe regardless of the smell of Machiavellianism.

NAIS is the farm issue of the hour. USDA has been to the vault to drink the Kool-Aid. You, the enforced ones, call your enforcers and remind them —- an election is coming. Don’t fund one penny to NAIS!! Stop this scam now!!

“In whose hands is mischief, and their right hand is full of bribes.” Psalms 26-10

Tags: , , ,