Paul Griepentrog/PPJ Reporter Wisconsin

________________________________________________

“A clear cut act of coercion, being forced to waive their rights just to market milk. “

____________________________________________ 

Yup! DATCP won again! As Mark and Jane Brothen pled no contest to charges of failure to register a premises.  

Unable to afford or procure competent counsel and lacking the ability to represent themselves left them with little choice, after all the state run education system falls grievously short of providing scholars of the necessary information to obtain due process of law, and deliberately so. 

Jubilant with their boot heel victory over another family farm Donna Gilson, spokesperson for DATCP, rushed to press somewhat prematurely as her announcement was three days prior to the entry in the court record.  An act in clear violation of Wisconsin Statutes  §943.201 except for one thing; Mark and Jane are licensed dairy producers and as part of the application for that license were forced to wave their privacy rights and allow DATCP to do whatever it wants with their information. 

Even when producers try and make a reservation of rights the heavy handed Cheryl Daniels wrote: 

 “If a person wants to be a dairy producer, they must submit the application as written.  If they want a license, they need to follow our rules.  Premises is a term under our statute. Have them resubmit the application or tell them it will be denied.”  

A clear cut act of coercion, being forced to waive their rights just to market milk.  

I was led to believe that statutes were the manifest intent of the legislature as representatives of the people, so much for that theory I guess, dictatorship is back.  That must be why Cheryl Daniels used the term person which also appears in the Premises registration statute. 

  • Unless otherwise specified in the statute, the definition in  SS §990.01 (26)’ “Person” includes:
  •  all partnerships, associations and
  • bodies politic or corporate.’ Not natural persons (human beings),  

However DATCP altered the definition in ATCP 17.01 (27): 

  •  “Person” means an individual,  
  • corporation,
  • partnership,
  • cooperative,  
  • limited liability company,  
  • trust or other legal entity.   

As the term individual did not appear in the enabling statute DATCP is operating outside the manifest intent of the legislature as that which is not inclusive, is exclusive. 

The Wisconsin courts have given wide latitude to administrative rule making however the application for grant money from the USDA invokes a clause that states all Federal laws that are applicable shall apply, we find that in Corpus Juris Secundum § 172 pdf. 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)pdf.

 State law also affirms this as well in 990.01 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)

I guess Cheryl Daniels quote is correct as it is DATCP’s law, and not the one put forth by the legislature.

I contacted several of the media outlets that ran the story only to receive an altered version of the Nuremburg defense regarding the release prior to being posted on the court docket.  They indicated that they only post what DATCP sends them; this is a clear example of the lack of research or diligence in regards to these postings. 

Dr. Ehlenfeldt also was quoted as saying that DATCP wasn’t out to persecute farmers just force compliance for disease control, a furtherance of his long career of false statements as Wisconsin v. Miller verified beyond a doubt that premises registration provides no benefit for disease control.  But as a law unto themselves, I must presume that court cases have no merit either.

Things are changing though. An article last fall by WKOW reporter Dan Cassuto exposed DATCP’s total failure at consumer protection and the Baraboo News Republic is suing DATCP for failure to comply with open records requests regarding Vernon Hershberger.  Who knows what will happen if AB 8 is passed and administrative rule making and judicial review are changed, only time will tell.

_________________________________________________

Resources:

Cassuto exposed DATCP  http://www.thedailypage.com/isthmus/article.php?article=28600

Wisconsin Statute 990.01 http://law.justia.com/wisconsin/codes/2010/990/990.01.html

Russel v. North Broward Hosp http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200213343.pdf 

Wisconsin v Miller                    http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2010/wi-slowdrive.pdf

Corpus Juris Secundum § 172 http://www.republicoftheunitedstates.org/downloads/CJS_FullCopy.pdf

Wisconsin AB 8 http://www.weda.org/media/cushycms/LegislativeIssues_13_226395846.pdf

Wisconsin Statute ATCP 17.01 (27

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/atcp/17/01/27#/code/admin_code/atcp/17/01/27