Home

State of Wisconsin vs. Pat and Melissa Monchilovich

2 Comments

Paul Griepentrog (c)copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved

In the matter of the State of Wisconsin vs. Pat and Melissa Monchilovich a motion hearing was held on the 18th of May.  Motion was granted for a new trial and relief from judgment. 

Motion for new trial was based on new evidence, as the Wisconsin Secretary of Agriculture’s, acting as agent for the state, application for grant pursuant to the implementation of the NAIS program required the state to adhere to the rules set forth in the final issue of the Federal Register which states that the state Will comply with all applicable requirements of all other Federal laws, executive orders, regulations, and policies governing this program.” Further the Federal Register clearly defines that “It is important to note that participation in the NAIS is voluntary.”  (emphasis added)

And “This rule: Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule”.  (emphasis added)

Furthermore the rules of statutory construction prohibit an administrative agency from going beyond the intent of the legislature.  See prior post for complete motion.

  The new trial will be on the 24th of August in Balsam Lake Wisconsin.

Notes from wisconsin: something funny happened after court the other day.

Look what 1.5 million can buy you in Wisconsin

Health Care Nullification and Interposition

Leave a comment

by Michael Boldin

When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law or regulation, it is passing legally-binding legislation that makes the federal act in question void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

Current nullification efforts around the U.S. have states passing laws that effectively defy federal laws and regulations on firearms, marijuana, identification cards and more. In 2010, we expect to see similar legislation in response to Health Care, No Child Left Behind, Federalization of the Guard and more.

The most asked question is – once such a law is passed, what next?

STANDING BETWEEN

In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Here Madison asserts what is implied in nullification laws – that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the federal government and the people of the state. More

Taking American Land and Rights – How It Works

1 Comment

 

By Nancy Levant

Tell a Friend 

“All treaties, Memorandums of Understanding, and alliances with the U.N. trump the Constitutional Laws of the United States.”

Why the “New World” is so difficult to understand is not as complex as one might guess. While we naturally focus upon local issues and concerns such as community development, forest access, sportsmen’s rights, etc., one does need to understand the “whys” of local political decisions, and the decisions of local commissions and councils. There is rhyme and reason to our loss of rights, land, privacy, and public opinion.

Consider the following:

Every American citizen, no matter where you live, MUST buy your county’s Plat Book. Plat Books are maps that identify the owners of each and every parcel of land in your counties. You cannot know what is going on behind the scenes unless you buy your county Plat Book. Begin there. More

A Citizen’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Federal Government – MOU #3: Healthcare Reform

3 Comments

                        PPJG Original article

 September 29, 2009  

Author:  Marti Oakley (c) 2009  All RIGHTS RESERVED

 Tell a Friend 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MOU #3

Greetings:

Consider this a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to all members of the Senate, all members of the House, and to President Obama.  I am sure you are fully aware of the intent and implications of MOUs, as each of you, in one way or another, uses them to establish the outlining of agreements between yourselves, collectively or individually, concerning the agreements you have made with individuals acting as state’s representatives or agencies; generally to avoid Constitutional prohibitions on your intended actions and in avoidance of the Constitution.  I am using it in quite another fashion as you will see in the following text.

For you, MOUs are the terms and agreements of what, are in fact the first step in contractual agreements. MOUs are most often accompanied by cooperative agreements and funding (bribes) to implement what generally turns out to be egregious assaults to civil rights and liberties to the benefit of the federal government, linked so inextricably to corporate interests and global agreements.

Consider what follows a Memorandum of Understanding between me, Marti J. Oakley, and all of you, collectively cited in the above paragraph. More

Nevada Caves to Real ID

5 Comments

Apparently it doesn’t matter what the several states have told the federal government regarding Real ID; the feds are just going to go ahead and force us all to carry a chipped ID card, whether our states said “no” to it or not.

According to this article, one of the states that has caved in to such mafia tactics is Nevada – one of the three states in which Ron Paul placed a strong second in last year’s primaries. Apparently, it doesn’t matter what the people of Nevada want, either.

As the article states, “SB52 contains a variety of provisions designed to implement the Real ID Act, including spelling out the documents an individual will need to get a Real ID license. The legislation isn’t optional since the requirements are imposed by federal law.

The Real ID Act requires that, within the next two years, all states require drivers to show proof of their identity and their legal right to be in the U.S. and issue a drivers’ license which has security features  designed to prevent identity theft.”

%d bloggers like this: