Sheriff Richard Mack gives an exemplary speech at Baker's Green Acres Constitution Hall.
The Solution to our governmental and budgetary woes does not lie in Washington D.C. The responsibility to restore common sense in our government lies squarely at the local level with the understanding of OUR Constitution. Enjoy...
By: Andrew Mastrocola
Update July 24, 2014
When wisconsin raw milk farmer Vernon Hershberger submitted to the Wisconsin Court System, a jury became his only true hope of remaining a free man. The only problem was the corrupted court system of Wisconsin and the appointed ringmaster, Judge Guy Reynolds. It was under his 'mis'-direction that words like Liberty and raw milk were banned from the courtroom. Documents were redacted as to prevent the jury from getting both sides of the story. Biased as this court was with the evidence suppressed intentionally to favor the State prosecutors and the agricultural industrial complex of Wisconsin, Hershberger was forcefully and coercively entered into their game.
The jury was misguidedly lead into finding Hershberger guilty on the one count of violating a holding order issued by an agency that had admittedly stated, after the raids, that they did not have jurisdiction; but sure were hell bent on destroying this buyers club and family farm. Yet the jury could see through the rest of the evidence and found Hershberger not guilty on the other three counts.
Hershberger started to go at it alone, a man against the system. He argued that he operates a private buying club and that DATCP did not have jurisdiction over the Right to Choose Healthy Food Buyers Club. Eventually the lawyers of the Farm to Consumer legal Defense Fund came to the aid of Hershberger who valiantly had fought the system alone for quite sometime. The FTCLDF attorney, Elizabeth Rich, had been watching from the front row and by her expressions you could see she was well aware the court itself was trying to railroad this raw milk farmer. FTCLDF attorney Elizabeth Rich was the first to step forward and offer her services to Hershberger for the trial he had tried to avert. This trial was going to proceed either by hook or crook. They argued on appeal that he wouldn't have been found guilty had an unedited copy of the state's holding order been placed into evidence, and that the Sauk County Circuit Court wrongly precluded him from introducing evidence to bolster his defense.
Unbelievably the state appeals court rejected all of his arguments. Hershberger was fined $1,000 plus court costs.
Wisconsin Department of Justice spokeswoman Dana Brueck heralded the court's ruling.
"This appeal is not a referendum on the desirability of on-the-farm sales of raw milk products," she said. "Rather, it involves the ways in which a defendant may — and may not — challenge a (state) holding order."
Even with the heavily redacted document, which the jurors admit lead to a misdemeanor conviction, Hershberger was found not guilty last year of three other charges alleging he sold retail food, produced milk, and operated a dairy plant without proper state licenses.
Wisconsin based attorney Elizabeth Rich, Vice President of the FTCLDF, sheds great light upon misdirection the authoritarian government has taken in Wisconsin, with this comment to FoodFreedomUSA.org. "The Court of Appeals decision continues a disturbing trend toward empowering administrative agencies to exercise their authority unchecked. Our courts have placed themselves in a strait jacket that prevents any meaningful review of agency actions. This is contrary to the role of the judiciary as it was conceived by the framers of our Constitution. The holding order in the Hershberger case stated that the dairy products subject to the order were "misbranded" and "adulterated." The order also included the statutory definition of those terms--which states, among other things, that the products were "dangerous to human health." All of that information was redacted from the order that was shown to the jury. We believe the jury should have had the opportunity to review the unredacted order, and that Mr. Hershberger was denied due process of law and prevented from putting on a defense to the criminal charges against him when this information was withheld from the jury. This case is an example of the danger of judicial deference to agency action that has become the norm in this State. Deference to agency action means no discussion of the facts and how the law relates to the facts. The agency has no need to explain its actions and no fear that those actions will be subject to judicial scrutiny. The agency is, in theory, obligated to make its factual determinations based on applicable law--but because the judiciary has ceded its reviewing authority to the executive branch, there is no longer any objective, reasoned evaluation about whether the agency correctly applied the law. We have gutted the checks and balances system so carefully designed by our nation's founders."
Ajna Sharma Wilson, a young, fresh attorney from the left coast of the United States a.k.a. Kalifornia, whom had traveled to Wisconsin to assist the FTCLDF during the trial, had this to say to FoodFreedomUSA.org: "It is not the people of Wisconsin who have spoken in this decision. The food movement won in the eyes of the jury when Hershberger was found not guilty of three counts in this matter.
The decision made by the judiciary in Wisconsin to not review this matter is indicative of the lack of checks and balances that have been allowed by our governmental agencies, legislative and judiciary.
During the trial there was so much hidden from the jury, including the true intent of the enforcement agencies to create a hostile environment for this defendant, his family, and private buyers club.
No one deserves to go through what Hershberger and his family have experienced," said Sharma-Wilson
At FoodFreedomUSA we find the answer to this whole mess is that objective truth is above your masters and people alike. Therefore if the people have the truth on their side, we the people are then superior to the masters if the masters do not have the truth. On the other hand if the people do not have the truth, they have no right to rise up against the masters. In brief, if they are right, they have the right. If they are not right, they have no right. And what tells if they are right or not? Neither masters (necessarily), nor people (still less necessarily), but reality, even if masters or people, or both, conspire to smother it. The truth will set you free.
A hot topic: the sale and use of raw milk products.
Charges were dropped against raw milk advocate, Michael Hartmann who was in court this morning battling for what he considers a personal liberty.
Hartmann says,"Everyone has their own lives and it should be up to them to decide what they want."
For Hartmann and his family who were supporting him in court today...it's been a stressful couple of years dealing with this case, but now he's moving forward.
Hartmann says, "Now I can freely work with my customers, my consumers and it's going to make my days a little easier."
"We think that the state was overreaching, trying to impose licensing requirements through the criminal procedure, which they could not do otherwise."
The case opened in 2010, but Hartmann violated his probation...the judge stated in today's hearing the defendant had made a 'good faith effort' and 'no further action' would be necessary.
Even though, Hartmann was free to go, he is still determined to keep supporting the cause.
Hartmann says, "It's not really finished, but it's a real step in the right direction and I think now we have more confidence that we can move forward. They're going to have to respect the rights of the people."
Even though the issue hasn't been put to a permanent rest, the case is still ongoing with the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.
It's still a victory in the eyes of Hartmann.
Hartmann says, "It should be their choice and it should be available without the intervention of the government."
Baer says, "If I make a bang out sauerkraut, I should be able to sell it to you without the intrusion of the state in that transaction."
A sense of humor and a sigh of relief as one case comes to a close.
While illegal in Minnesota, other states allow the retail sale of raw milk.
Around one month and a half ago in mid-May, after a lengthy discussion with a US production team, journalist and 21WIRE founder Patrick Henningsen took the initial steps with Free State Films to create a new documentary film about the Bundy Ranch standoff which took place in Nevada this past spring. Pre-production planning began that day and Henningsen organized a local crew in the US, and spent the following weekend researching and 48 hours editing a concept trailer for the project.
The following Monday, a trailer for the film – with the working title, ‘The Last Rancher’, was released on YouTube and a GoFundMe page was set up to help get the production started. See their trailer here:
The immediate response allowed Henningsen and crew to be on location the following week with director of photography Shannon Bushman and a GMN support bus in Bunkerville, Nevada.
Time was of the essence for two reasons. Firstly, in July and August it can get very hot in the Nevada desert, and September seemed too long to wait, so a window of opportunity was open in June to film at Bundy Ranch. Secondly, even though the federal government left Bundy Ranch on April 12th, as anyone connected to the story will tell you – they could return at any moment. The Nevada location filming is finished and the team has split up to film set-pieces in Utah, Arizona and California. Here’s a production update from Patrick in Nevada…
Let's Talk About 'Public' Land
Conveniently hidden in the noise of the Bundy Ranch standoff is the heart of the issue: property rights and use of government-owned land. With the federal government going on a land-grab spree of late, it's time we have a frank discussion about "public" land.
What is it? Who owns it? What's it used for? What rights do citizens have to use it?
Back in feudal times peasants weren't allowed to forage in the king's forest. Those caught poaching to feed their families were put to death. It was considered stealing private property from the king himself, not the kingdom as a whole, no matter how big his forest grew. No one claimed it hurt other peasants to take from the king. Yet, today, we are to believe that foraging on government land somehow hurts the kingdom.
Some citizens call rancher Bundy a tax cheat, saying he's stealing from taxpayers because he hasn't paid grazing fees on public land. Does this group view public property as profit centers? Do they know they're advocating for the same thing as big oil companies, frackers, Harry Reid's Chinese solar power plant and a host of other cronies who don't give a damn about land preservation? Because these entities dutifully pay their fees for their "right" to use public lands.
I'm not here to stick up for Cliven Bundy. His family claims they've had foraging rights to government land in Utah since 1877. Ironically, that's right around the time that the government violently stole the land from native Americans. So, ancestor Bundy used the government cavalry to do to them exactly what the BLM is doing to him at the behest of Harry Reid's corporate endeavors. I'm just keeping it real.
Does this mean that land rights only exist for people who can defend property with weapons? It certainly seems that way. To be fair, native Americans never understood "private" property until they were forced to, but they did respect tribal boundaries which they too defended with force.
Historically, property rights were recognized when someone put their labor to the land by building a house from the trees or managing a herd on the fields. The right to use the land became "ownership" and could only be claimed by an individual or a family who worked the land. In the example of feudal times the king displayed ownership the forest because he protected it with force. Significantly, thekingdom did not own the forest because no one could even begin to understand that concept.
Today property ownership comes with very few rights without permission from, or paying fees to, the government. For example, I used to pay around $7000 a year in property taxes for a modest home and three average cars that I supposedly "owned". I also had to buy permits to paint my house, to finish a room my basement, to cut down trees or burn brush in my yard. I paid this money to the kingdom because they claimed a right to my property.
Increasingly people are being prevented from foraging (keeping a garden or chickens) on their own land as if it belonged to the king. It's apparent that when property rights become privileges, the grantor of those privileges becomes the real owner of the land. But what happens when the grantor is a vague collective called the public? A king can be removed, while the "public" cannot.
Is all government land "public"? Of course not. Try hiking around the NSA data center in Utah and see what happens. Try entering Yellowstone National Park without paying the $25 entry fee and see what happens. As a taxpayer (peasant), you have absolutely no rights to that land, therefore you and other citizens are not the owner of that property - but you did pay for it.
The simple truth is if you don't have a right to use the land, you don't own it. Claiming that not paying our fair share for using the king's land (including our own homes) is akin to treason against the kingdom is a colossal mind-control victory for our rulers. People who believe this truly cannot see the chains that bind them.
Well, on a positive note, at least we have all this "public" land to sell real cheap to our creditors when the US economy goes the way of Greece, right?
As we have had the opportunity to reflect on the events that took place between March 26th and April 12th, 2014—we have experienced feelings of concern, confusion, fear, anger, sadness and joy. Our peaceful community has been shaken. In many ways, we are still processing the magnitude of what took place. We ask ourselves so many questions; did the federal government really come into this valley and terrorize our community? Did hundreds of armed forces, in Red Dawn fashion, lock down the hills and valleys of our peaceful home—threatening at gunpoint, anyone who stepped off the paved road, with forceful and lethal action? Did we really see armed forces convoying through the streets of our town, diligently recording names and identities of anyone who glanced wrong or opposed them in any way? Was there really heavy equipment in the form of dump trucks and backhoes, on our mountains, tearing up infrastructure that we have used for hundreds of years, and is vital to our survival? Were we truly in the crosshairs of snipers, and under surveillance by the latest in technological weapons? Did these forces actually point their rifles in the faces of our little children, while beating their unarmed fathers to the dirt and hauling them off in chains? Did they really body-slam our friend, a 59 year old woman to the ground, and sic German Shepherds on our neighbors—even a pregnant woman? Did they actually shock a man multiple times with a 50,000 volt Taser for honorably protecting his aunt, while she gathered herself out of the dust? We reflect in sadness and awe that this could take place in our little town.
The terror of armed men occupying our land will never be forgotten. The feelings of despair of these events will long reside in our hearts. Thoughts of anxiousness that this may ever happen again, will awaken us from our pillows from time to time. During quiet reflection, we may ask ourselves if we did the right thing by resisting. Were we in the right when we acted to safeguard ourselves? When the only response to our multiple pleas for help was silence, when we were left alone to clean our cuts and wounds, did we have a divine right, duty, and obligation to protect our family and ourselves? We recall the many times we pleaded with our local government to protect us; the numerous times we called 911, and begged our Sheriff to send his deputies to assist. Our cries of distress were met with silence. We ask ourselves, “Did we try hard enough to get our local government and law enforcement to act as a buffer and perform their duty to protect and serve?” Were the hundreds of phone calls not enough, or is it just that our elected leaders and Sheriff have forsaken the people in trade for power and money? We whole-heartedly want to believe that our Sheriff would not abandon us, but where has his shielding influence been? Why was he not here to represent and protect the very men, women and children of his county that he swore an oath for? Why did he stand silent and neutral, knowing our community was in terror? What was his motivation of inaction; was it fear of the federal government or political reprisal from powerful politicians?
The scars of this traumatic event will heal over time. We hope our community will eventually return to a sense of normalcy. We fervently hope and pray that these heavy-handed tactics will not be used on us or any other American ever again. We wonder if our hopes will be in vain; will they return? Will they come back with greater force and more cunning tactics than before? Will our Sheriff keep his oath this time, and use his lawful forces to stop them, or will the people be left to their own protection? Will the good people of this nation yet again have to come running to the rescue of a neighbor? Will veterans, retired police force, churches, businesses, families and individuals have to unite once again to confront these acts of governmental terror upon the American people? Will our local government rouse themselves from disaffection and intervene—protecting the people? Will they stop fearing to do the right thing and come to the realization that the people are more important than a government agency? Will they fight for the rights of the state and her people? They must stop putting personal gain and advancement in front of the rights of citizens. They need to recognize, that as our elected representatives, they have more power than those governing in brute force, as they have the might of the people of this state backing them. With that power we invest in them, they have the obligation to safeguard our livelihoods, combat forces of fear, and protect our lives with their own.
A few weeks ago, our community was in a state of innocence and naivety. We felt safe and mostly kept to ourselves. We thought the world’s problems would only affect us through television, and could be shut off with the push of a button. Our innocence has left us now, we have experienced first-hand the breath of force upon our necks. We have gasped in desperation as our lives and agency were threatened. Our cries have been ignored by our guardians in the next room. We faced a choice—either lie down and submit helplessly in defeat, or bite, scratch, and fight until help would come.
We are eternally and profoundly grateful for the many heroic neighbors who heard our desperate cries and crashed through the windows to rescue. We additionally thank the thousands that came from every States in this great nation, and stood in front of raised guns in our defense, and for the hope that those same guns would never come to their doors and their families. We are grateful for those that arrived with pen and camera, those that arrived with faith and prayers, and those that arrived with fist and gun. The variety of support from all walks of life has shown that this was an event that truly touched the good hearts of many Americans. We cannot thank you all enough—you have restored our faith in the goodness of the American people.
Our message to all, is that it is time to make things right. It is time to adhere to the supreme law of the land—The Constitution of the United States. It is time to understand right, stand for what’s right, and do whatever it takes to make it right. We must continue the vision of our Founding Fathers in preserving the freedoms of the American people and the sovereign rights of the States. A nation can never abandon its fate to an authority it cannot control. Men must decide if their rights and freedoms are God-granted or are assigned by a federal government. We believe in the rule of laws and sustain a limited government. May God bless us to protect this sacred instrument.
The Bundy Family
David Knight should be the Journalist of the Year.
April 13, 2014
In an epic standoff that Infowars reporter David Knight described as being like “something out of a movie,” supporters of Nevada cattle rancher Cliven Bundy advanced on a position held by BLM agents despite threats that they would be shot at, eventually forcing BLM feds to release 100 cattle that had been stolen from Bundy as part of a land grab dispute that threatened to escalate into a Waco-style confrontation.
Mainstream Media LIES About Federal Standoff
Michigan Assistant Attorney General Gets Cocky with the General Public and Sits on His Hind End During the Pledge of Allegiance
Via the ShadyGroveFarmUP youtube channel
The Assistant A.G, Martin tells the audience that the court was adjourned last week by the judge because 'he (the judge) was concerned for my (AAG Martin's) safety".
Bagaduce Farm Facebook comment:
"Boy, they just don't make arrogant butt-brains quite like they used to.
Dirty Harry: your inappropriate verbal attack on a most polite Mark Baker reveals exactly how intimidated you and the rest of your career bureaucrap buddies are. You simply can't take the pressure of dealing face-to-face with The People can you.
Get used to it Harry. We The People are standing up to you and making our voices heard, louder and louder - at courthouses, at rallys, on the phone, in letters and emails, in internet posts and especially in choice video clips like this one. What a performance.
Yes, we see you Harry, and across the country we ALL see you - the Biggest Looser on a loosing team."
There will be a hearing on Friday, February 21, regarding the DNR/AG’s motion for dismissal. If you are in the area please show up to support Mark Baker and his family
Due process of law is being put to the test in Michigan. A county sheriff remains derelict in his duty.
Stay up to date with all the latest information by visiting bakersgreenacres.com
Stand with Bakers Green Acres!
Constitutional scholar, Michael Badnarik, shares his knowledge of the Constitution, Rights, Freedom, and Liberty in this exciting interview on the radio show Love, Guns, and Freedom. Radio host Luca Zanna interviews Michael Badnarik for the first time in over a year. Michael has been off the circuit for a little while but it is great to hear Michael give an interview once again. Take the time to listen to this vital information on how you can regain your lost Rights. Badnarik and Zanna help you understand the US Constitution, the concept of Freedom, Rights vs Privileges, why you need the Second Amendment, and the coming second American Revolution.
Support Food Freedom
Help End the War on Family Farms