Michael & Patricia Schneider file a legal response to the violation of property rights filed against them for refusing to register for premises ID inWisconsin; a voluntary law. 


The document below is the recorded response of the Schneiders’ to the attempts by DATCP to force them, using coercion and threat, to register their land, thereby forfeiting rightful ownership and control to the DATCP. 


Dr. Paul McGraw has responded to the Schneiders’ claiming that “DATCP has no obligation to respond to the substance of the communication.” Dr. McGraw is apparently unaware of his fiduciary duty to respond.  It is possible that he needs to seek legal council.


For those who have been raided without warrant or cause, by state agricultural agents operating under color of law, this is the first step in the process to reaffirm your rights.







June 4, 2010




Melissa Cochran                                     Certified Mail No. 

2811 Agriculture Drive                           R. R. 70091680000162079354 

PO Box 8911 

Madison, WI 53708-8911 





Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal 

Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent 



Dear Melissa:  


I received your letter dated May 5th 2010.    We are the lawful owners, standing on the land, of the property located at E4644 Irish Ridge Road, Viroqua Wisc. [54665] . These were purchased in 2004 and are a matter of Public Record.  I would like to avoid litigation at all costs and would like to settle this issue amicably, pursuant to Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure 36, Wi. SS § 804.11, request for admissions in any pending action. In order that I may properly prepare for any meeting to resolve this matter I need answers to the following questions so I can understand the nature and cause of the claim raised in your May 5th 2010 letter.  Each of the above named Respondents are hereafter referred to as you, your, Respondent(s), also, the singular denotes the plural and the plural denotes the singular.


In the event you are too busy to reply to this inquiry I have provided the answers to the inquiries made herein.  If you wish to rebut the claims raised herein or provide different answers to the inquiries other than the ones provided, you must respond within twenty (20) days of receipt hereof exclusive of the day of service by executing and delivering a response, point by point with evidence in support.


TACIT PROCURATION: Respondent(s) may stipulate and agree to all statements and claims made by Michael P. & Patricia Schneider herein after known as the Petitioner, by simply remaining silent.  In the event Respondent(s) by silence admit the statements and claims made herein, Respondent(s) stipulate all issues are determined settled STARE DECISIS and Respondent(s) may not argue, controvert, or otherwise protest the finality of the findings in any subsequent process, whether Administrative or Judicial.  Respondent(s) are granted 20 days to respond to the statements and claim herein and/or to provide different Answers to the herein inquiries.




If I do not receive the documentation itemized above within 20 working days, you will be in default and, as such your default will activate estoppel pursuant to Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932, and your silence with respect to any given item will also constitute fraud pursuant to U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297,  U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F. 2d 1021(5th Cir 1970).





You as a public official have a fiduciary duty to protect the interests of those you serve. Your failure to respond to my specific requests on a point by point basis is a breach of fiduciary duty [emphasis added].  Fiduciary duty is created mainly through the operation of contracts and private law, such as employment agreements, oaths of office, etc.


63 C Am.Jur.2d Public Officers and Employees, Sec 247

 “Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit-and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears [ 483 U.S. 372] in the  statute. See United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir 1985)—includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him and if he deliberately conceals material information from them, he is guilty of fraud. McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987).”




    On May 5th you made an unannounced visit to our property to inform us of alleged non-compliance with the registration of our property as a premises.  We then received a certified letter informing us of “Initial Notice of Non Compliance” which stated “Violation:  Failure to register with Premises Registration”.  Action required was to contact you, which we did.





   1.  Is the respondent to these questions acting in her official capacity or private capacity?


If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is:  “Official”


    2.  Please provide the venue of the authority of the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture in the above referenced matter and please include the statutes and other authorities to support your answer.


If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is:  “There is none”.


3.      Please provide certified copies of the delegation order that you are relying on in the above referenced matter, which comes directly from the Secretary in regards to a private citizen from the state of Wisconsin.


If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is:  “There is none”.


4.      Please provide a certified copy of a complaint and sworn affidavit that shows Michael P. & Patricia Schneider, are in violation of the law.


If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is:  “There is none”.


       5.    Do you agree with the definition of extortion, as set forth in BLACK’S LAW  DICTIONARY 623 (8th ed. 2004)?  1. The offense committed by a public official who illegally obtains property under the color of office; esp., an official’s collection of an unlawful fee.  2. The act or practice of obtaining something or compelling some action by illegal means, as by force or coercion.


      If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “Yes”


      6.   Do you agree with the form as signed by Rod Nilsestuen, Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection, hereafter referred to as  WI DATCP, on 12/18/06 and submitted to the USDA, APHIS, VS as part of the application for a Cooperative Agreement where it states on Standard Form 424B (Rev. 7-97) Item 18 : “Will comply with all applicable requirements of all other Federal laws, executive orders, regulations, and policies governing this program.” ?


      If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “Yes”


      7.    Do you agree with the form as signed by Rod Nilsestuen, Secretary of the WI DATCP where in response to item 11 on the application for federal assistance which it asks for a descriptive title of applicant’s project on Standard Form 424 (Rev.9-2003) Item to support NAIS Implementation”


If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “Yes”


        8.   Do you agree with the USDA’s posting 39304 Federal  Register / Vol. 72, No. 137 / Wednesday, July 18, 2007 / Rules and Regulations where it states:   


  “Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule and in this document, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule, with the changes discussed in this document.”


 “This final rule also affirms the information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Orders 12372 and 12988, and the Paperwork Reduction Act.”?


If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “Yes”


       9.  Do you agree with the USDA’s posting 64648 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 215 /  Monday, November 8, 2004 which states:  “This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule.”?


If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “Yes”


       10.  Do you agree with the USDA’s National Animal Identification System: A User Guide and Additional Information (Dec. 2007) at p.ii. where it states: “Animal health officials across the country agree that premises registration, the  foundation of NAIS, is a necessary first step to achieving these goals.”? (emphasis added)


 If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “Yes”

11.  Do you agree with the USDA’s Animal Fact sheet where it states USDA documents explain that premises registration is a prerequisite for the rest of the program because tags with NAIS animal identification numbers (AIN) can only be distributed to those who havew premises registration numbers?       
 If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “Yes” 


      12.  Do you agree that the purpose of issuing a premises registration number to property is to meet the requirement of the premises number as used as part of animal identification numbers as part of the NAIS system?                                                                                                                                              

If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “Yes”


      13.  Do you agree with the USDA’s posting 64647 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2004 where it states: “Producers can opt not to participate in the      NAIS if they anticipate that the costs they will incur will exceed the benefits they receive from participation.”? (emphasis added)


 If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “Yes”


       14.  Do you agree that based on the forms records management plan, as authorized by Dr. Paul McGraw, that as per USDA instructions the Premises Registration Database is

stored in an Oracle database in Canada? 


If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “Yes”


        15.  Do you agree that storing the Premises Registration Database in a foreign country beyond the protection of the laws of the US is a violation of confidentiality provisions

as set forth in SS § 95.51(5) which grants no authority to

share information beyond the inclusive listings?


If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “Yes”


        16.  Do you agree with the legal maxim In ambiguis orationibus maxime sententia spectanda est ejus qui eas protulisset. In ambiguous expressions, the opinion (or meaning) of the person who made them is chiefly to be regarded?   


If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “Yes”


        17.  Do you agree with 990.01 Wisc. Stat. where it states “Construction of laws; words and phrases. In the construction of Wisconsin laws the words and phrases which follow shall

be construed as indicated unless such construction would produce a result inconsistent with the manifest intent of the legislature:”? (emphasis added)


If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “Yes”


       18.  Do you agree with Corpus Juris Secundum § 172 where it states “However, if an administrative rule conflicts with an unambiguous statute or clear expression of legislative intent, the rule is invalid.”?  See US—Russel v. North Broward Hosp., 346 F .3d 481, 37 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 400 (7th Cir. 1997


If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “Yes”


               19.  Do you agree that a clear expression of legislative intent was declared by Barbara Gronemus in her letter to DATCP dated March 21st 2007 in which it states:  “it was the position of the department to ‘educate and inform’ and that ‘no enforcement actions would be taken against those who hadn’t registered’… and was not the intent of the legislation as authored by me, passed by both houses, and enacted into law.”?


If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “Yes”


            20.   Do you agree with the court’s decision in Wisconsin v. Emanuel Miller Jr. where it states:  “The premises registration number does nothing to further or assist in the disease tracking aspects of registration. Transcript, p. 200.”


If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “Yes”


            21.   Do you agree with the court’s decision in Wisconsin v. Emanuel Miller Jr. where it states:  “Dr. Paul McGraw admitted that a simple transposition error in the keeping the number could delay or stall a trace of an animal. Id., p. 203.”


If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “Yes”


            22.   Do you agree with the court’s decision in Wisconsin v. Emanuel Miller Jr. where it states:  “The premises registration number is no better than an address.  Dr. McGraw, the State’s expert indicated the number is used because that is how the program was set up by the USDA and therefore Wisconsin used that system.  Transcript, p. 201. When asked if the number was somehow better than an address, Dr. McGraw stated. ‘I don’t know that I can answer that.’ Id.”?


If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “Yes”


            23.  Do you agree with the court’s Summary in Wisconsin v. Emanuel Miller Jr. where it states:  “The State has not shown how mandatory premises registration will further the State’s interest in animal health and food safety.  Because of the shortfalls in the premise registration law, it provides no advantage, advancement or gain over existing programs and systems.  There is no concrete evidence that premise registration serves the interest of promoting animal health and food safety better than other alternatives…. There are no case studies, historical data or other evidence that mandatory premise registration furthers the goals of animal health and food safety…”?


If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “Yes”


            24.  Do you agree with Dr. Paul McGraw’s testimony in the Wisconsin v. Emanuel Miller Jr evidentiary hearing where on p.186 he stated “The state cannot register a premises without permission.”


If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “Yes”


      25.   Does the mandate of conveyance under premises registration clearly violate Article 1, Section 14 of the Wisconsin Constitution which states all lands within the state are declared to be allodial, and feudal tenures are prohibited?


If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “Yes”


      26.  Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s decision: “To conclude otherwise would also violate the contract inherent in each piece of federal legislation enacted under the authority of the Spending Clause of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1. “When Congress acts pursuant to its spending power, it generates legislation ‘much in the nature of a contract: in return for federal funds, the States agree to comply with federally imposed conditions.’”Davis, 526 U.S. at 640, 119 S.Ct. at 1670 (quoting Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 17, 101 S.Ct. 1531, 1540, 67 L.Ed.2d 694 (1981))”?


If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “Yes”


            27.  Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s decision in Screws v. United States , 325  U.S. 91, 65 S. Ct. 1031, 89 L. Ed. 1495, 1945 U.S. LEXIS 2096, 162 A.L.R. 1330 (1945) where it states “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 definite. When they are convicted for so acting, they are not punished for violating an unknowable something.”?(emphasis added)


If no answer is otherwise provided the answer is: “Yes”




Each Respondent, as identified in the above captioned action must respond to each claim and inquiry above within 20 working Days.


In the event the Respondents, or Wisconsin Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection, any employee, officer, agent, agency, subsidiary or co-respondent, takes any overt Act to compel any further performance of Declarant or his Relatees without first providing responses to the above claims and inquiries, it shall be deemed an automatic stipulation to the answers contained herein. Failure to respond and provide answers other than those provided herein will be deemed your stipulation and agreement thereto by TACIT PROCURATION and your stipulation and agreement that the answers herein given are not reviewable in any future proceedings whether administrative or judicial.



As the Undersigned, We, Michael P. & Patricia Schneider, hereby verify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, without the “United States” (Federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws is true and correct, according to the best of My current information, knowledge, and belief, so help Me God, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746(1). See the Supremacy Clause for Constitutional authority.


Further Declarants saith not:




____________________________            _________________________

Michael P. Schneider                                 Patricia Schneider









State of Wisconsin     ) 


County of Vernon    )


Before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State on this the 4th day of June,  personally appeared Michael P. & Patricia Schneider , known to me to be the identical person who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that she first took an oath upon reason and belief as to the truth and then executed the above petition as a free and voluntary act.



My commission expires,                                _______________________________

                                                Notary Public






We, Michael P. & Patricia Schneider certify that on this day the 4th of June, served copies of the attached Administrative request for information by placing said request for information properly in an enclosed sealed wrapper, postage pre-paid, in a letter box of the U.S. Post Office in  Viroqua, Wisconsin, a depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Post Office Department, addressed to the following at the addresses listed below:


Melissa Cochran                                     

2811 Agriculture Drive                          

PO Box 8911

Madison, WI 53708-8911