ppjg-48By: Paul Griepentrog

Copyright (c) 2009 All rights reserved without exception
Tell a Friend

_________

surrender_forever_sHaving attended the trial of Pat and Melissa Monchilovich at Balsam Lake, I found it more like viewing a site being cleared by a bulldozer.  Judge Molly GaleWyrick cleared the path for Wisconsin’s Department of Agriculture to further its agenda of an alleged disease control program.   The Media in their true slanted fashion picked away at the obstructions around the edges, avoiding the hard facts like stones.

I had arrived at Pat’s house before the trial to find a young family supported by the community via phone calls and a helpful sister in law waiting to baby sit.  Pat was understandably nervous, as a way of life he had come to know for generations was being threatened. 

During the proceedings the Judge indicated that Pat and Melissa should have made their arguments in an administrative hearing not in her courtroom.  Interesting thought, as the original motion to dismiss voided by the Judge was based on the failure of DATCP to provide just such a hearing. 

When Pat raised the point of not having a premises on title, the Judge turned to the assistant district attorney Moria Ludvigson for an explanation of what Pat was saying, “he must mean that there isn’t a 911 address where the cattle are kept” Moria replied. 

Sorry folks, ignorance of the law is no excuse, in that the authorizing statute didn’t define premises the common definition applies.  Black’s Law indicates that a premises, doesn’t exist unless defined on title.

Is what in effect has occurred in this conviction is that law now rises from fiction?

Could the creation of a premises, without substantiation on the title deed invoke a taking without due process? 

Could it be the reason only a monetary forfeiture was given is that the court lacks authority for action in rem.(1) ?

Is the premises registration program something more than it appears?

Certainly all these are valid issues for appeal.

DATCP officials under questioning by Judge Jon Counsell certainly where not able to substantiate the validity of the disease claim, nor was food safety or protection from terrorism allowed as cause.  Is there a hidden agenda here of a greater scope? 

Agriview’s article was based on an interview with Donna Gilson, DATCP official and member of the Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium.  WLIC has representatives from the tag manufacturers on the board holding patents to the NAIS system as well as the RFID tags. Tag companies hold patents on RFID tags to be used in the 840 program,  Dr. Paul McGraw testified to the USDA developing the 840 system for COOL at the evidentiary hearing of Emanuel Miller.  Unless rebutted McGraw’s testimony will stand as fact.

Time to connect the dots

  • USDA profits alongside the tag manufacturers, and DATCP goes along empire building.  Nice racket, but let’s go one possible level further, the potential exists for the merger of multinational corporations to combine, to,
  • possess intellectual property rights to grass fed raw milk production,
  • retain these rights in a proprietary setting,
  • protected under the TRIP agreement,
  • have on the board an owner of the Oracle database, which houses the premises registration information.  
  • Could they not then extract royalties from all those producing raw milk from grass fed stock based on the data mining achieved by premises registration?

Out of that rabbit hole Alice!!!  Too much for a simple man standing on the land, such as myself. 

After the trial, folks milled around outside the courtroom dis”cussing” the situation.  Duane Brandner appeared on the scene.  Compliance officer for DATCP, he is the one sent farm to farm informing people they are to be charged although no protective clothing is worn by Duane and his accomplices while visiting these properties to prevent disease spread.  He held out his hand and said “How are you doing Paul?” I refused his handshake and stated that I wouldn’t shake hands with a government official that had entered my property without a warrant.  My hypocrisy only goes so far.

I raised the question of the validity of the disease control claim pursuant to the testimony given at the Emanuel Miller hearing.  Duane countered as to how the NAIS system would make it easier for him to do his job tracing disease and cited an example of a recent TB situation in dairy cattle brought in from out of state.  Manuel Bahr piped up and stated “Yeah, easier for you, at our expense”.

I questioned Duane about dairy cattle being brought in from Canada with RFID tags and how I had heard the tags were being removed and that when the cattle are sold, the markets weren’t checking for the required tattoos in the ear, because the cattle are being sold under US Country of Origin affidavits.  To which Duane replied “Yes I know but dairy is big business in this state”, with that he hung his head and left. 

So, dairy cattle from Canada with an in place RFID system are being sold to consumers as US beef.  I guess NAIS only works when it profits the right people.  

The words spoken by DATCP inspector Edgar Salsbury decades before still ring true, in regards to the application of the law “I work for an outfit that screws the little guy, and lets the big guys get away with murder.”

As a side note:

It seems as if I’ve offended some folks involved with the anti NAIS movement.  To quote Carl Barnes “If you can’t motivate them, irritate them, they’ll heal”, and Kenny Fox chair of R-CALF’s animal id committee, “that’s what we like about you Paul, you don’t care who you have to walk through to get the job done.”

__________
action in rem (in rem). 1. An action determining the title to property and the rights of the parties, not merely among themselves, but also against all persons at any time claiming an interest in that property; a real action. [Cases: Action 16. C.J.S. Actions §§ 10-12, 66, 69, 71-72, 74-77.] 2. Louisiana law. An action brought for the protection of possession, ownership, or other real rights in immovable property. La. Civ. Code arts. 3651 et seq. 3. Louisiana law. An action for the recovery of possession of immovable property. La. Civ. Code art. 526. — Also termed (in Roman law) actio in rem; actio realis; real action. Pl. actiones in rem. See IN REM. 4. An action in which the named defendant is real or personal property.

Cite as: BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 31 (8th ed. 2004)