Marti Oakley w/ Paul Griepentrog  (c) copyright 2010

All Rights Reserved. Contact for permission to reprint or distribute in any form. 


Although the administrative agencies may seek to derive authority through the Emergencies Powers Act vis- a -vis:  Wickard v. Filburn their failure to procure parity prices voids their authority.

“What is being attempted here is the creation of a fiction of law which the FDA will attempt to enforce under the color of law, all the while knowing they have neither legal nor statutory authority to do so.  The assumption is of course, the public is totally unaware that this is an unlawful action and will simply comply out of ignorance of their rights.”


This is the opening volley by the government whose intent it is to totally bypass S.510 and HR 2749 and implement what these attorney’s listed below must know to be a legal fraud on the American public. The stage show that has been ongoing regarding the passage of these two fake food safety bills and numerous others has been conducted to divert attention away from the actual project being finalized under the Obama “Food Safety Working Group”.  This group is in no way concerned with food safety, but rather with attempting to create a crisis where none exists then to exploit it for corporate profiteers.


FDA Authority to Regulate On-Farm Activity

Vanessa K. Burrows

Legislative Attorney

American Law Division


Summary Recent concerns regarding fresh produce contaminated with E. coli or Salmonella have brought attention to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s regulatory authority. Some advocates have requested new FDA food safety regulations, including rules that would regulate activity on farms. One question is whether the FDA has the authority to regulate on-farm activities. H.R. 1108 and S. 625, which would authorize the FDA to regulate tobacco products, would limit the FDA’s authority to regulate activities on certain tobacco farms. However, it appears that the FDA has the authority to regulate at least some on-farm activities related to other food products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Public Health Services Act.  In 2004, the FDA issued a proposed rule governing safety procedures for shell eggs, which would be its first comprehensive on-farm regulation. Legislative proposals, including H.R. 912, H.R. 3624, H.R. 5620, H.R. 5904, H.R. 6581, S. 2077, and S. 3385, also address the FDA’s role on farms._____________________________________

What was omitted from the above summary, was that the FDA did not at any time ever possess the Constitutional authority to interfere with or to regulate private agricultural commerce and trade, and does not, even now, possess such authority.  Furthermore, any enabling statute must conform to Constitutional authority and provisions to be valid. 

The FDA, and the O’Neil Institute for National and Global Health Law, along with numerous other titled and compensated professionals, working group partners and special interests, assembled by the Obama administration assumed there were none to few of us out here, aware of this lack of lawful authority; we are aware. 

Citing numerous invalid laws, proposed rulings and protocols which substantially affected and abrogated individual rights and liberties, from the past, will not make lawful that which was invalid and void at its inception. 

The claim of the O’Neil Institute and the Congressional Research Service indicated that the FDA and USDA have the authority to implement protocol without legislative authorization citing the enabling acts creating these organizations.  What has been omitted here is an objective standard of reasonableness, which requires officers, legal representatives and agents purporting to speak for the government or one of its corporate agencies to have a reasonable knowledge of what the law prohibits.

Although their selective assertions, a clear failure of the Four Corners Doctrine, are correct in law they failed to address the requirements that a rule or regulation of a public administrative agency should not invade the field of legislation, nor may it create or affect substantive rights. In addition, such a rule or regulation should not be in violation of constitutional provisions, powers or enumerations; if an administrative rule conflicts with an unambiguous statute or a clear expression of legislative intent, the rule is invalid. 

C.J.S. § 172:  Was it the intent of Congress in 1938 to grant authority to FDA to conduct warrantless raids and searches on farms such as the raid on the farm owned by Dan Allgyer?

There is no enabling statute or authority which has any enforceable authority outside of the Federal zone i.e. the District of Columbia, insular possessions and territories and enclaves owned by the corporate Federal government. This does not include the interior geographic boundaries of the lands known as the (50) united yet sovereign states. By its own admission and standards, the corporate federal government engages state governments in the very same way they do any other “foreign” state.  Each state government is “foreign” to the corporate federal government. 

Corporate cooperative agreements between corporate federal and state agencies and the accompanying bribe money (cooperative funding) cannot make legal that which is not lawful.  USC Title 7, Agriculture, may be legal, but; it is not lawful and is prohibited by the Constitution and is outside the scope and authority of the federal government. 

As an example: We just made corporate financial corruption legal by bailing out and failing to prosecute or penalize those who committed the corruption.  The question remains:  Was this LAWFUL?  No. It was not.  A legal opinion is not necessarily a lawful opinion.

Even under the Administrative Procedures Act, which allowed the creation of so-called “federal agencies”, a fraud has been committed on the states.  Every agency created and unlawfully empowered to make their own rules (law-making) is an unconstitutional ceding of congressional power and authority on both the state and federal levels.   Even in light of these contract agreements with the accompanying bribe money, corporate state agencies cannot bind the sovereign citizens of a state to any agreement which abrogates or violates their rights within the Constitution, either state or federal. 

What is being attempted here is the creation of a fiction of law which the FDA will attempt to enforce under the color of law, all the while knowing they have neither legal nor statutory authority to do so.  The assumption is of course, the public is totally unaware that this is an unlawful action and will simply comply out of ignorance of their rights.

Agriculture, Title 7 USC, is non-positive law.

Agriculture laws cannot be revised, codified or enacted into positive law as agriculture is not in the enumerated powers of the federal government in its relationship to the states. 

It can be cited as prima facie evidence, meaning only that it exists but cannot be used to rebut or to bring criminal charges. Neither can it be used as basis for implementing, agreeing to or in any other way foisting international agreements and standards on to the states. 

Title 1 USC Section

 204. Codes and Supplements as evidence of the laws of United States and District of Columbia; citation of Codes and Supplements

In all courts, tribunals, and public offices of the United States, at home or abroad, of the District of Columbia, and of each State, Territory, or insular possession of the United States—

(a) United States Code.— The matter set forth in the edition of the Code of Laws of the United States current at any time shall, together with the then current supplement, if any, establish prima facie the laws of the United States, general and permanent in their nature, in force on the day preceding the commencement of the session following the last session the legislation of which is included: Provided, however, That whenever titles of such Code shall have been enacted into positive law the text thereof shall be legal evidence of the laws therein contained, in all the courts of the United States, the several States, and the Territories and insular possessions of the United States.  (Emphasis Mine) 

The FDA is an autonomous corporation, operating independently and for profit, and cannot arbitrarily bind the states to any agreements, instruments, regulations, or statutes, harmonization agreements, trade agreements or corporate takings; just as an autonomous corporate state agency cannot accept bribe money to implement what are euphemistically called “business plans” of corporate federal agencies which abrogate the rights of lawful sovereign citizens.



  1. Fiction of law: 
    1. An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented.
    2. The act of inventing such a creation or pretense.

     Law. Something untrue that is intentionally represented as true by the narrator. 

      2.     Color of law:  The appearance of a legal right. 

The act of a state officer, regardless of whether or not the act is within the limits of his or her authority, is considered an act under color of law if the officer purports to be conducting himself or herself in the course of official duties.

Under the civil rights act of 1871 (42 U.S.C.A. Section 1983), color of law is synonymous with State Action, which is conduct by an officer that bears a sufficiently close nexus to a state so that the action is treated as though it is by the state.