Paul Griepentrog (C) copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved

Wisconsin Reports

Pretext

As it was my intent to deliver three articles in sequence I found my life had again been invaded Thursday morning by an act of vandalism, a person or persons unknown to me entered my barn (burglary) released my animals (a felony in Wisconsin) and opened the doors to the grain storage areas allowing the animals to engorge themselves with grain.  This occurrence coincided with other acts of aggression to individuals opposed to the comprehensive land use plan.  There were three snowmobiles operating unlawfully on the road that night, in the past anyone complaining about such activity has been subject to acts of aggression, as in one case where the complainant had a snowmobiler drive into his driveway and discharge a firearm at his house.  

The Price county sheriff’s department has systematically failed to respond to such incidents in the past and the others I am about to extol upon you.  This is all based on the mindset echoed so often by town, county and state officials that the north woods of Wisconsin is for recreation and wildlife and that I, as a farmer, don’t belong here. 

A bit of history is in order to set the background here, as the assault upon me by the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) extends my generations.

Their first assault was against my father in regards to a stray voltage (electro-magnetic radiation) suit against the electric coop, regarding the death of 18 dairy cattle and injury to the rest which resulted in a lengthy court battle, in which my father prevailed.  However in order for my father to receive compensation for pain and suffering it was required by the electric coop to seal the court record and a gag order was put in place to prevent a compilation with other cases to form into a class action suit.  This was the first assignment of a state veterinarian to address the cause of the deaths of cattle, he displayed his true allegiance in court by testifying that there was no such thing as stray voltage, despite the fact he himself had neutral isolators (a preventative measure for stray voltage) on two of his three farms.  

This man is now head veterinarian of DATCP.  With my father’s passing I now possess the court records, and as I was not party to the action the order is not binding upon me.  Did you, Dr. Ehlenfeldt, think that the sons of Martin Griepentrog would forget the false witness you bore against our father? 

It was a DATCP inspector that closed my processing plant by requiring improvements beyond my financial capacity to obtain, despite her admission that she knew nothing about sorghum processing.  The plant produced sorghum, a syrup derived from by evaporative process of the raw juice of the plant known as sorghum vulgare var. an annual form of sugar cane.  An ancient art which I learned from years working at another sorghum mill and for which I had amassed and maintained the largest collection of sweet sorghum varieties held in private hands in the world. 

This act was to the benefit of the sugar industry as we know it today, as sorghum can be grown anywhere and would, with access to a mill, provide anyone the ability to grow and possess raw liquid sugar for their own use independent of the existing cartel.  All of this is gone now, save the equipment, and with my passing, the knowledge will pass as well. 

It was in the summer and fall of 2008 that it became evident that my farm was being searched, a man and a woman were routinely entering the property and going through my buildings while I was off operating farming equipment in my fields away from the buildings.  The man involved was seen by my plumber coming out of my house and running across my back yard.  The woman would keep me under surveillance, while doing fieldwork, while her accomplice went through the buildings.  I caught her standing watch and him as he exited the neighbor’s barn where I store hay and equipment and was able to view them both. 

In October that year I came to the back door of my home only to hear voices and a car running while these two made their exit through the front of the house, through a door that had previously been locked.  The Price Co. sheriff’s department refused to even write up the incidents.

It was in October of 2008 that multiple attempts of extortion began, in the form of letters sent certified mail from Dr. Paul McGraw, head of Bureau of Animal Disease Control for DATCP, as well as two visits from compliance officers which stated that I must comply with the Premises Registration Law or may face prosecution. 

Such acts of entry upon property were without warrant, although condoned in state statute, are acts under color of law, in direct contrast to the Supreme Court decision in Camara v. Municipal Court, 387U. S523 (1967)  where no entry onto property can occur without warrant despite the perceived public good, and was affirmed regarding a business in MARSHALL v. BARLOW’S, INC., 436 U.S. 307 (1978) 436 U.S. 307.

The last of these unlawful entries was on October 21st 2010, in which Randy Niederkorn (a DATCP compliance specialist) again engaged in yet another attempted extortion; he was accompanied by a deputy of the Price Co. sheriff’s department, who was armed, escalating the situation to a threat. 

During the discussion Mr. Niederkorn agreed to answer any questions I might have.  I served him 32 questions in regard to the legitimacy of the Premises Registration Program.  Dr. McGraw responded that DATCP was not obligated to respond to the contents of the document, rendering Mr. Niederkorn in default and having acquiesced by silence.  Mr. Niederkorn did respond to the attached Good Faith Offer of Conditional Precedence, it is in that letter of response he admitted the following: 

1.      ‘DATCP has already assigned a premises number to 2402 Shady Knoll Road in Park Falls, Wisconsin, because the premises was registered in 2006 and also renewed for 2007. In other words, DATCP has already assigned a premises number (which is not changeable) to that location.’ (premises is defined in International law as a location and conveyance)

2.      ‘Title 7 of the United States Code is federal law and is going to apply to all individuals and property subject to United States jurisdiction.’ (note future tense, Title 7 is nonpositive law) 

I submitted an open record request to Dr. McGraw; this Demand was submitted in my natural-person capacity pursuant to substantive common law principles for the following. 

1.    Report from Randy Niederkorn regarding the unannounced visit to my property on October 21st regarding non-compliance with mandatory premises registration.

  1. Report from Duane Brander and associate regarding the unannounced visit to my property on January 29th 2009 regarding non-compliance with mandatory premises registration. 

Dr. McGraw’s response was a refusal based on the following statement: 

 ‘There is strong public interest in investigating and prosecuting criminal activity (or other activity that violates state statutes).’

The hypocrisy in this refusal and extortion attempts is this; I had received a renewal form from the Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium (WLIC) which clearly stated that my location’s registration was current until December 31st 2010.  The WLIC is acting contract agent of Dr. McGraw and is charged with executing the premises registration program in this state.  The WLIC is uploading premises registration information into an Oracle database as a direct link to the USDA in direct contrast to state statute § 95.51(8)

(8) Contract agent. The department may contract with an agent to administer the registration program under this section on behalf of the department. The department may not authorize an agent to release aggregate information under this section.

Next time I’ll delve into more indiscretions and my offensive posture to this out of control agency, along with a promise of correction by the incoming governor elect.

_______________________________________________________ 

 MARSHALL v. BARLOW’S, INC., 436 U.S. 307 (1978) 436 U.S. 307. http://supreme.justia.com/us/436/307/ 

Camara v. Municipal Court, 387U. S523 http://supreme.justia.com/us/387/523/case.html

Advertisements