Wisconsin weather modification program


Paul Griepentrog

Wisconsin Reports
 Yesterday I finally received a response to my open records request to the Department of Ag Trade and Consumer Protection for “All licenses, permits, records, reports and notices of exempt operations pursuant to State statute § 93.35 and ATCP 54.06 regarding weather modification.”

  The response from Brian D. Kuhn was “We have no records of anyone ever having applied for a license or permit related to weather modification, nor have we any notices of exempt operations pursuant to statute §93.35 and ATCP 54.06.”   Interesting that the response took over a month before I received it, which raises questions the greater concern is that despite the extensive private and governmental record requirements impose by statute none exist in the history of the statute.  With the advent of the documentary “What in the World are They Spraying” a reasonable person would expect that an agency charged with consumer protection would be enforcing these statutes.

  DATCP’s track record for this type of protection is woefully inadequate, despite thousands of complaints only few are investigated and none are prosecuted.  Unless the complaint is generated by DATCP officials in order to obtain warrants to raid farms.  An act itself in violation of statute as all complaints must issue from a consumer inclusively.

  But living up to the letter of the law isn’t DATCP’s forte,   in fact in yet another open records request it came to light that Randy Romanski, the recently appointed Secretary is operating under color of office, having never taken his oath of office and recording said oath with the Secretary of State. 

    § 17.03 Vacancies, how caused. Except as otherwise provided, a public office is vacant when:

(7) A person elected or appointed or reelected or reappointed to any office neglects or refuses to take and file the official oath or to execute or renew the official bond if required, or to file the oath or bond as prescribed by law.
 Don’t get your hopes up, seems as though the black robe society has ruled that because the legislature provided no penalty provisions in the statute that anyone failing to file an oath or bond can continue in that position until successfully challenged and convicted in a court, and that all acts done in this dejure/defacto status are valid. .  How about plugging in a class I felony for failure to perform a ministerial duty?

 Interesting note is that there were no penalty provisions in the Premises Registration statute either.
  When DATCP can’t get what it wants directly they send in USDA APHIS to conduct night raids and interrogations of farmers, coercing farmers into signing affidavits, without counsel present, agreeing to answer questions regarding their farming activities.  Interesting coincidence that the raids initiated on the same day the USDA announced its appointments to citizens group for animal identification.  A reward for services rendered no doubt.
  This is the first of a three part series delving into the goings on here in wisconSIN. Next will be the states persecution of yours truly and the final segment as to the proposed remedy by Governor elect Walker.

NAIS and the International Criminal Court


By: Marti Oakley (c)copyright 2009


There are times when I am researching a subject that something just jumps out at me because it is out of place, seemingly unconnected to the issue, or seems totally irrelevant.  Sometimes, gut instinct tells me to pursue it and see where it leads.  This is what happened with an unusual comment made By Bruce Knight of the USDA.

On June 8, 2007, Under-Secretary of Agriculture Bruce Knight, speaking at the World Pork Expo in Des Moines, Iowa, said, “We have to live by the same international rules we’re expecting other people to do.” (end quote)

Knight was referring to the return and adherence to the International Criminal Court: a global court which cedes itself the right to act with impunity and with no adherence to national or local laws, but only to the laws it has created itself……and not for your benefit. 

Bruce Knight was promoting the National Animal Identification System known as NAIS.  What could the International Criminal Court have to do with that?

In every instance in the Draft National Animal Identification System Users Guide, land is referred to as a premises.  A “Premises” has no protection under the Constitution of the United States, while property indicates exclusive private ownership and is protected by the Constitution.

This is where the return to the ICC comes in.  The ICC is in part modeled on the Vienna Diplomatic Relations Conventions where [premises] is defined globally and with a global use intended with no recognition afforded to the rights of private individuals, national laws or protections, or the rights or recognition to private property ownership. 

[At this point we have to remember the use of UN Agenda 21 mandates regarding rules and guidelines in NAIS, and now we add one more point of interest to 21:  It calls for the complete ownership of all lands to be held by the [state] citing land as a source of wealth and one that should not be held by the common individual.] 

Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court


3.1.2 Ownership and control of property privileges Description  

 “premises to mean the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary (connected to or existing as) thereto, irrespective of ownership, used for the purpose of…”. The word “premises” includes a place and a conveyance in this section. Conveyance is the transfer of ownership of real property from the original owner to another… such as land….such as what happens when you sign up for Premises ID under NAIS and CONVEY ownership and control of your land and livestock to the USDA acting as agent for the federal government.

[Now we know how and why the word [premises] was used.  The word premises is not only a redefinition of ownership and control within our legal system, but now under the International Criminal Court is also globally recognized and eliminates our private property rights and makes our own laws unavailable to us.]

Sect 3.2.1 cont.

As reflected in the discussions of the ICC Preparatory Commission Working Group, “the concept of legal capacity means that States (countries, provinces, commonwealths, or sovereign nations) will not subject the Court to national jurisdiction or legislation, and the Court will consult national authorities when it needs to act. Implementing legislation should not restrict the Court in the exercise of its functions or fulfillment of its purpose and should reflect the fact the Court is not subject to national law.”

States may need to ensure steps are taken to guarantee the Court will have the capacity that may be necessary to exercise its functions and fulfillment of its purpose in that State, such as the capacity to contract, acquire and dispose of property and participate in national legal proceedings.”  ICC codes reports.

There is far more to this, but you get the idea: Bruce Knight was advocating a return to the International Court System because it would facilitate the NAIS.  It would do this by ignoring Constitutional laws and rights, substituting global efforts to seize privately held lands and material property and any suits brought against state or federal agencies attempting to force NAIS would now be directed to the ICC…..where the individual is not recognized as owning or controlling property. 

Think they can’t get away with this?  Well..here is a law from 1949 that says they can and you can’t do anything about it.

Agreement on Privilege and Immunities of the Organisation of American States.


Now…….on to the “World Conservation Bank”…….another piece of the global wealth puzzle.

© 2009 Marti Oakley


%d bloggers like this: