Marti Oakley (c)copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved


He violates the statute not merely because he has a bad purpose but because he acts in defiance of announced rules of law. He who defies a decision interpreting the Constitution knows precisely what he is doing. If sane, he hardly may be heard to say that he knew not what he did. Of course, willful conduct cannot make definite that which is undefined. Willful violators of constitutional requirements, which have been defined, certainly are in no position to say that they had no adequate advance notice that they would be visited with punishment. When they act willfully in the sense in which we use the word, they act in open defiance or in reckless disregard of a constitutional requirement which has been made specific and definiteScrews v. United States , 325 U.S. 91 



The typical constitutional tort action involves an individual who has been injured by the action or inaction of a government official. The individual plaintiff will argue that the government should be liable for the injury because its conduct violates some constitutional provision. There is also tortious interference as a remedy.


The situation in Wisconsin today is rife with mountains of evidence of the acts of state personnel knowingly violating not only state but federally protected rights to property and commerce.  These actions have caused a loss of trade, ended family businesses, harassed and terrorized families and individuals and have been perpetrated under fictions of law and the color of law by individuals who believe they can violate anyone’s rights as long as they claim they work for the state and that they can do so with immunity for their actions.  We believe otherwise. 


The evidence of tortious interference ending or restricting the Constitutional right to trade freely with the intent to benefit:


  • Including trespass to land and,
  • To engage in a lawful business free of government interference,
  • By erecting administrative codes and statutes, meant to disrupt or end your right to engage in business and trade, and creating,
  • Autonomous corporate agencies empowered to unlawfully create laws injurious to the sovereign citizens to benefit corporate contractors and donors,
  • To construct barriers to the rights to engage in a lawful business and the use of agency personnel to harass, terrorize and prosecute private individuals to force compliance to statutes, codes and regulations intended to erect barriers to trade and the free flow of commerce by anyone other than approved corporate special interests.  
  • Violating the 4th Amendment against warrantless searches or seizures,
  • Ending the right to due process and judicial review
  • Claiming they need no proof or evidence of wrongdoing or disease; only a belief

Incorporated state agencies, and that includes every agency you can think of, and their employees, agents, department heads and/or anyone else acting on behalf of the corporate agency, who, by their actions, violate or act to abrogate your protected state or federal constitutional rights are personally liable for those actions.  The notion that these employees in whatever capacity they may be acting are somehow immune from civil prosecution and liability is false; these individuals have a fiduciary duty to know when they are violating your rights and can be held personally liable for knowingly misrepresenting not only their agency but their authority. 




 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights


Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.


Please note the last sentence of this USC 42:  For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.(end quote) As this last sentence referenced makes clear; these Acts of Congress (in this case, creation of corporate federal agencies constructed to avoid Constitutional prohibitions) can only be applied to the District of Columbia as the federal government has no authority to enter into, to regulate, or interfere with agriculture within the geographical land boundaries of the states.  


The creation of a corporation euphemistically called a “government agency” for the sole purpose of abolishing, or violating Constitutional protections must be questioned:  Are they in fact a corporation or, are they a government agency?  These entities cannot lay claim to both definitions.  They must be one or the other; one being corporate “for profit” and able to contract privately, or they must be public service and free of contract interference especially against the public trust.   


The bribing of corporate state agencies by corporate federal agencies to implement and enact the violations of Constitutional rights should be addressed under the RICO statutes. 


Section 1983 of USC 42 offers a federal remedy against incursions claimed under the authority of state laws.  These incursions or actions, perpetrated against the rights secured in the state and federal Constitutions are acts of intended injury and harm to the individual.  The federal courts have a duty to protect the people from unconstitutional action under the color of state laws, “whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial”. (Mitchum v. Foster)


In Monroe V Pape (1961) It was established that even though state officials were acting under the color of law, it was not necessary to show any authority had ever been inferred via usage, custom or state law. 


Allegation of facts constituting a deprivation under color of state authority of the guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizures, contained in the Fourth Amendment and made applicable to the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, satisfies to that extent the requirement of § 1979. Pp. 365 U. S. 170-171.


Monroe V Pape made clear that just because an individual hides behind the color of state law, the misuse of power, one claimed to be possessed by virtue of state law or as is the case now, by virtue of statutory claims is not sufficient; the individual is reasonably expected to know what the law prohibits and when they are intentionally violating the rights and liberties of the individual.  It is because of this expectation of reasonableness that officials cannot claim they did not know and were not aware.


This understanding of the limited effect of the Fourteenth Amendment was not lost in the Court’s decision in Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961). There, the Court was careful to point out that the complaint stated a cause of action under the Fourteenth Amendment because it alleged an unreasonable search and seizure violative of the guarantee “contained in the Fourth Amendment [and] made applicable to the States by reason of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. at 365 U. S. 171


In Paul v Davis;  You must be able to show

  • a distinct alteration or extinction of a previously recognized right or status in order to file for damages.  (We have only to view what is transpiring in Wisconsin)

 Creating unnecessary fees, licensing and special statutes, regulations and rules to by-pass Constitutional rights and protections is an assault on Constitutional protections and liberties.   The states, nor their corporate agencies or agents can violate due process and the prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure without probable cause ( saying you “believe” there is a problem is not sufficient grounds) even by attempting to create a crisis where none exists, or to encourage a crisis by failing to perform their actual duties. 


USC Title 7, Agriculture:  is non-positive law.  It cannot be codified into US law.  The federal government, even when constructing corporate federal agencies and unlawfully ceding them power to write laws (all laws must originate in the House) cannot grant these agencies such as the USDA and FDA the lawful right to construct rules, regulations or arbitrary codes and statutes to be used to abrogate, violate or otherwise infringe upon the rights and liberties of the individual.


Even the contract agreements between the USDA and the corporate state AG departments cannot bind the sovereign citizen to a contract they were never a party to.  Neither can a state agency or government bind the citizens to contracts without their consent and knowledge.  One can reasonably deduce that contract agreements between state and federal agencies are binding only upon the agencies themselves and their personnel. 


As the FDA and USDA along with equivalent state agencies are all incorporated and autonomous “for-profit” corporations, they cannot claim sovereign immunity for their actions as they do not exist as “public service” state or federal agencies.  A clear conflict of interest arises when an incorporated agency is contracting privately with other corporations and at the same time siphoning funds from taxpayers and perpetrating a fraud on the public by masquerading as a state agency when in fact they operate and exist as private businesses.