All times are UTC - 8 hours

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

What kind of farm can grow government-safe food?
• Local farms 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
• Industrial farms 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
• All Farms 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
• No Farms 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 0
Author Message
 Post subject: 913 What kind of farm can grow government-safe food?
PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:13 pm 
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:17 pm
Posts: 827
Industrial production of peanuts, cantaloupes, hamburger, and spinach reigned havoc on the nation’s food chain, sickening many and killing some.

In keeping with their stated policy of “never letting a serious crisis go to waste,” politicians flew into action, and in the waning hours of 2010, passed the Food Safety Modernization Act, which granted to government total and absolute control over the nation’s food chain.

Former Monsanto Executive Michael Taylor, now government’s Food Safety Czar, recently handed down 1,200 pages of new food safety rules. These rules are scheduled to go into effect in a few weeks. Few have read all the 1,200 pages, and most seem resigned to follow a former Speaker of the House, who would likely say, “Let’s enforce all the rules so we can know what they are!”

Some, however, would like to have time to read all the new rules before accepting them. Their asking for time to read all the rules leads us to ask…

What kind of farm can grow government-safe food? (Food Chain Radio #913)

(Tags: Food Safety, Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, Judith McGeary, Michael Taylor, Food Safety Modernization Act, safe food, food contaminations)

 Post subject: Re: 913 What kind of farm can grow government-safe food?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 7:18 am 
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:17 pm
Posts: 827
This from Jim in California...

This is insane.
Again... do these regulations apply to third-world food that America is
now, for the most part, consuming.

Did you see the latest 7 foot tall Healthcare regulations?

We'll need to employ several million new government employees, [who can read],
just to enforce all of this. Of course, they will need full benefits.

 Post subject: Re: 913 What kind of farm can grow government-safe food?
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 7:26 am 
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:17 pm
Posts: 827
This from Anne....

It is unbelievably appropriate that McGeary would be talking about the food safety rules and criticizing them, since, posing as someone who opposed them, she was instrumental in getting them passed.

She was somehow on the board of an inhumanly large number of the very NGOs that were supposed to stop such a blatant take over of food (FWW, Slow Food, OCA, etc, etc., etc.) All of them got legal advice from her that the bills were harmless, and they did nothing. She even got OCA (and FWW) to put out an alert - not about the bills, but about the rapidly growing grassroots movement on the internet warning about the bills' threat to food and to farmers! - calling it alarmist. Groups were strongly warned off from hearing anything from anyone saying the bills were a threat.

FWW even put out bogus pieces saying the bills are safe. Did she contribute to these falsehoods, clear to anyone bothering to just read the bill?

She claims credit for the Tester amendment which was worthless at the outset - since the bill says clearly that no amendment to the bill overrides the force of but was critical in passing final bill, claiming it protected small farmers. That is BS.

Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.

Read the whole article to see how seriously worthless the Tester amendment always was.

As you read the following letter on NAIS, realize that she somehow ended up one of the head people on the USDA panel that advises Vilsack on NAIS, now called ADT.

Having helped to pass the food safety law, having gotten herself onto the Vilsack committee on NAIS/ADT, she is now also on the board of FTCLDF, the much bally-hooed defense team against the law as it lands on farmers. But Farm to Consumer appears to me to be throwing cases. It makes impossible legal claims (not based on precedents) in court that even reasonable judges would have to reject, and is leaving a trail of terrible anti-farmer, anti-consumer precedents in its wake.

They are grabbing the big cases (right to own any farm animals, right to choose food, right to contract, right to local control [food sovereignty laws], animal ID, etc.) but their work seems, even a lay person, to be some mix of high-sounding foolishness and dangerous. Are they controlled or infiltrated by agribusiness? Is one person there giving them terrible advice and the rest are sincere?

They claim "rights" without citing legal precedents for those claims, ignoring 100s of years of precedents that do exist but are subsumed under "rights." They don't go to administrative court even when the state has no jurisdiction and has broken the law.

Someone with legal background needs to look at their cases and what they are saying in court. If their work is in any way suspect, something needs to be done because all our most fundamental rights around farming and food and even owning farm animals, is ending up in their hands. And though there are hundreds of years of precedents on the side of farmers and people, things are not going well.

If you want details on FTC, contact Paul Griepentrog, who has been winning cases (and doing so for free), they bungle.

If agribusiness has rigged cattle markets, commodities, courts, politicians, taken over universities, and infiltrated farm and consumer organizations of all kinds, would they do the same with the defense for farmers?

Here is a letter by a lawyer who worked with McGeary.

From "Keeping a Family Cow" newsletter, here is the article. Most of the links to it are now dead, so copied this one out. If you go to this newsletter/website, there are worthwhile comments. Others' experience parallels Zanoni's but around FMSA, and the misleading of organic and other groups, to facilitate its passage. Claims to be responsible for the Tester amendment which falls under what Zanoni refers to below as "minor 'victories' that are not victories at all." Worse, it allowed the FMSA to pass because it "seemed" to protect farmers. Yet, the bill itself says clearly that nothing in the bill and no amendment to the bill stops it from having to be in compliance with international agreements and the WTO.

Animal ID have everything to do with destruction of animals because electronically tagged animals, recorded in a global corporate data base, would be almost impossible to hide from those attempting to destroy them. The Haitians managed to hide enough of their special pigs to save the breed and are now trying to rebuild it. Tagging is for the more easily accomplished genocide of animals with normal DNA.


"Mary Zanoni, writer of some of the most intelligent and extremely detailed anti-NAIS pieces, feels it's important to give us this warning. Beware the wolf in sheep's clothing Oh boy, how do we know who to trust? I guess we all need to speak up for ourselves and speak out and educate in our own communities, rather than just trusting someone else to speak up for us!

An Open Letter to the NAIS Opposition Community


Mary Zanoni
P.O. Box 501
Canton, New York 13617

Does a Secret Pro-Corporate Agenda Intend to Co-opt the Anti-NAIS Movement? Who Are
the Real "Leaders" Behind Liberty Ark/FARFA? [Does a secret pro-corporate agenda intend to co-opt the defense of farmers and consumers?]

A Sad Story of Concealed Interests; but With a Hopeful Ending

Many of us who are most strongly opposed to NAIS have noticed that Liberty Ark/FARFA
and their de facto leaders, Henry Lamb, Judith McGeary, and Karin Bergener, have taken
every opportunity: (1) to promote the type of "voluntary" system specified in the NAIS
User Guide, which, as we know too well, inevitably will lead to a mandatory system; and (2)
to quiet and blunt the NAIS opposition by touting the supposed "importance" of
insignificant minor "victories" against NAIS, many of which are not "victories" at all, but
just steps that bring us closer to NAIS.

Most in the antiNAIS community probably do not understand the concealed connections
and actions of the main people working on behalf of Liberty Ark/FARFA. Karin Bergener of
Liberty Ark works for a company called SAIC (Science Applications International
Corporation). SAIC is a prominent federal government contractor, the developer of the
national DNA database and the gun-purchase background-check database. As described
on its website,, SAIC also works in the areas of data-mining and biometric
identification. SAIC has been a member of the National Institute for Animal Agriculture
(NIAA), presumably because its product lines could be applied to animal identification. As
we well know, NIAA has been the driving force behind the development and promotion of
a fully mandatory NAIS. Henry Lamb is very much involved in Liberty Ark, but his name
appears nowhere on their Steering Committee. In the past, Henry Lamb's various
organizations have been funded and supported by the American Farm Bureau Federation.
( Farm Bureau has been a
relentless supporter of a mandatory NAIS. Judith McGeary consistently has supported a
"voluntary" government-run NAIS program (such as that the USDA itself now promotes in
the User Guide); she has chosen to have her own horses microchipped. As discussed
below, McGeary, while sometimes trying to present herself as a proponent of "sustainable"
agriculture, has, along with Bergener, secretly embraced support and funding from the
anti-environmentalist Lamb.

All this is not to say that these people may not "oppose" NAIS on some level and for some
motives; the question is the degree of their opposition, and the authenticity of their
motives. NAIS is the very model of how an unresponsive Executive Branch agency can
cooperate with a globalist industrial agriculture and a technocratic corporate elite to force
an undesired program upon an unwilling populace. So ask yourself whether people
aligned with those selfsame industrial/corporate interests are likely to be legitimate
opponents of NAIS.

McGeary Supports "Voluntary" Government-Imposed NAIS

Judith McGeary of FARFA and Liberty Ark has made frequent on-the-record statements in
support of a "voluntary" government-run NAIS. She testified on September 6, 2006 before
the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) that FARFA does not oppose a "voluntary"
NAIS program. (
C5852006090610001.HTM ) In written testimony to a Texas Senate Subcommittee,
McGeary stated, in response to a question concerning the viability of a "voluntary" Texas
NAIS pending the implementation of a national NAIS, "FARFA does not oppose a voluntary
state program." (Texas Senate Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Affairs, and Coastal
Resources, September 6, 2006.) An Austin Chronicle article quoted McGeary as willing to
settle for a "compromise" that would create a government-imposed "voluntary" NAIS:
"McGeary . . . in negotiations with the TAHC [regarding NAIS] hopes to reach a
compromise wherein small operations can comply voluntarily or be exempted altogether."
( )

Of course, we in the NAIS opposition community know all too well from the USDA's User
Guide for NAIS, and from the actions of various states in forcing farmers into NAIS without
their knowledge or consent in the guise of a "voluntary" program, that a "voluntary" NAIS
cannot be tolerated, and is not consistent with the positions of groups completely
opposed to NAIS, such as the Northeast Organic Farming Association - Massachusetts,
Rural Vermont, or the Virginia Independent Consumers and Farmers Association.

McGeary and the Massachusetts Coordinator of Liberty Ark Worked Diligently to Weaken
State Legislation

In Massachusetts, Northeast Organic Farming Association/Massachusetts (NOFA/Mass)
antiNAIS activists Ben Grosscup and Jack Kittredge were just on the verge of approaching
their legislators with antiNAIS legislation to bar completely the Massachusetts premises ID
program and allow Massachusetts farmers who had been unjustly placed in premises ID to
get their information removed from the database. At this crucial moment, without the
knowledge of Jack and Ben, Liberty Ark's Massachusetts State Coordinator, Pat Stewart,
gave legislators a bill that would have established a "voluntary" state-run NAIS. (The truly
harmful nature of such legislation is evident from the fact that Massachusetts presently
has NO statutory authorization for any state-level NAIS.) When faced with Stewart's
submission, the legislators, at that point unfamiliar with all the nuances of the NAIS fight,
were on the verge of accepting this Liberty Ark pro-voluntary NAIS bill for filing.
Fortunately, Ben and Jack really stepped up to the plate for all of us, fought hard to get
their stop-NAIS bill filed instead, and thought they had this struggle behind them. But
then Judith McGeary of FARFA/Liberty Ark contacted Ben and Jack repeatedly, insisting that
they accept at least some part of the pro-voluntary NAIS Liberty Ark legislation. (One of
McGeary's objectives was to get the word "sustainable" removed from the bill's title; Lamb
and his ilk are outspoken enemies of "sustainability," claiming that the concept is some
nefarious plot hatched by "environmentalists.")

Ben and Jack solidly stood their ground and rejected any weakening of the NOFA/Mass bill
and made sure their legislators in both chambers would file the NOFA/Mass strong
antiNAIS bill. Then Pat Stewart of Liberty Ark, again without telling Ben and Jack,
approached a Senate aide with what she claimed was a "compromise" bill. (Remember,
Ben and Jack had held their ground and refused to weaken the NOFA/Mass bill, so there
never was any "compromise" version of a bill.) In the confusion of the last-minute
deadline for filing bills, Stewart somehow got the weak Liberty Ark bill filed. Now NOFA/
Mass had to work doubly hard to clean up the confusion and make sure the strong NOFA/
Mass bill had been filed properly in both houses of the legislature.

In light of these events, one must ask, why would Judith McGeary and Pat Stewart
deliberately work to introduce pro-voluntary NAIS legislation in Massachusetts (a state
with NO statutory authority for any version of NAIS), and why would they be so insistent on
promoting the weakened legislation, that they would use less-than-open tactics to get it

Henry Lamb and the Early History of Liberty Ark

In early March of 2006, Henry Lamb called me and said that he wanted to sponsor and
fund a national group to oppose NAIS. He wanted me to be the leader of this group. He
asked me for the names of any people I thought might be suitable to be members of a
steering committee for such a group; I suggested Judith McGeary and Karin Bergener, each
of whom had independently contacted me and expressed their interest in opposing NAIS.
I gave Lamb, Bergener, and McGeary one another's contact information and Lamb began
organizing a series of conference calls for the group to discuss forming the organization
that came to be called Liberty Ark.

My first contact with Lamb had taken place a couple of months earlier, when he had asked
me if he could reprint one of my early antiNAIS articles in his "Ecologic" magazine. I had
never heard of Lamb and, assuming that this was some small ecology publication, I gave
him permission for the reprint. Now, in the larger context of the possible formation of
Liberty Ark, I was motivated to look more deeply into Lamb's publications and other
activities. It turned out that Lamb's magazine is in fact not an ecology publication at all,
but rather, the opposite - a virulent anti-environmental publication. Lamb himself is best
known as a voice for the corporate interests of polluting industries, working to defeat
initiatives that would promote clean and livable rural areas for the good of the average
people. (

As Bergener, McGeary, Lamb, and I continued to discuss the formation of Liberty Ark,
Lamb added his son to the group. Meanwhile, I was also taking part in separate
conversations among Bergener, McGeary, and myself, in which I was expressing growing
misgivings about Lamb's motives for forming the group in general, and in particular, my
fear that Lamb would use Liberty Ark to co-opt the antiNAIS movement into nothing more
than an appendage of the pro-corporate, anti-environmental agenda. However, Bergener
and McGeary insisted that Lamb's backing and funding were necessary to the group.

Just as the Liberty Ark website was about to be launched, Lamb told us in a conference call
that he was not going to permit his name to be used publicly on the Liberty Ark website as
one of the members of the steering committee (albeit he was going to continue to be the
funding behind the organization). After that call, I resigned from the Liberty Ark steering
committee and severed ties with the group, because I was not willing to participate in any
venture that was not revealing the identities of all the persons behind it.

Henry Lamb's sponsorship of Liberty Ark is confirmed in public documents. If you do a
"who is" look-up on for, you will find that the Liberty Ark
website is owned by a Tennessee company called Earth Work, Inc. In turn, if you search
the Tennessee Secretary of State's corporate records for Earth Work, Inc., you will find that
it is a for-profit corporation and that the registered agent for Earth Work, Inc. is Henry
Lamb, 175 Shepard Cemetery Lane, Hollow Rock, Tennessee. (In case these records may
be changed in the future to obscure the relationship, alternate sources of these pages are
being maintained.)

The Talent/Emerson Bill and the Misleading of Missourians

During last fall's Congressional elections, the Senate seat in Missouri was very closely
contested, with former Republican Senator Jim Talent ultimately losing to Democratic
challenger Claire McCaskill by a thin margin. Missouri is a hotbed of opposition to NAIS
and NAIS was definitely an issue in the Senate race. McCaskill, whose family business was
a local feed mill and who therefore had ties to local and small-scale agriculture,
consistently opposed NAIS from the beginning of her campaign. Talent, on the other
hand, had developed ties to corporate and industrial agriculture during his incumbency
and had been primarily a supporter of NAIS before the election. However, as the election
season progressed, Talent began to take an ostensible position against NAIS. In early
September, Talent suddenly introduced in the Senate legislation that would have given the
green light to the USDA's establishment of a "voluntary" federal NAIS (remember, there
has never been, and there is not to this day, any federal statute that actually authorizes
ANY element or form of NAIS). Also, Talent's NAIS legislation would have been a frontal
assault on the citizens' right to know, because it would have prevented federal freedom-
of-information disclosure to citizens of information related to NAIS and also, in an
outrageous assault on the autonomy of state freedom of information laws, would have
prohibited states from allowing disclosure of state information under their own state laws.
(109th Congress, S. 3862; companion House bill introduced by Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, H.R.

Thus, it appeared that the Talent NAIS legislation was deliberately designed to offer false
appeasement to potential Missouri antiNAIS voters, while actually facilitating the USDA's
development of NAIS. In sum, the Talent bill was pro-NAIS, and was recognized as such
by many of Liberty Ark's own state coordinators, by the antiNAIS organization Virginia
Independent Consumers and Farmers Association (VICFA, and their
legislative counsel, and by me, among many others. Nonetheless, Liberty Ark insisted
upon promoting the bill with press releases and an action alert urging their followers to
contact legislators in support of the bill. Not surprisingly (now that you know Lamb
founded and funds Liberty Ark), Henry Lamb "independently" promoted the Talent bill and
for good measure threw in fulsome praise for Liberty Ark (without, of course, ever
revealing that he is the force that created and maintains Liberty Ark). (http://

Liberty Ark, Bergener, and McGeary deliberately supported the Talent bill even though they
were well aware of the terrible consequences if the bill should pass (thankfully, it didn't) -
namely, the bill's potential to create the first-ever federal statutory authority for NAIS and
its insults to citizens' rights to government information. Because Bergener and McGeary
insisted on supporting the Talent bill against all objections, four of Liberty Ark's strongest
state coordinators resigned over this incident. (Nonetheless, Liberty Ark, in its obsession
with creating a misleading impression of its own influence - an obsession discussed in
greater detail below - to this day has failed to remove the names of ex-supporters from its

Liberty Ark Lures NAIS Opponents into Slumber with the False Comfort of "Opt Outs"

On January 29, 2007, Liberty Ark's Karin Bergener and Judith McGeary issued a "press
release" loudly trumpeting: "In a dramatic reversal of policy, the USDA has decided to
provide an `OPT OUT' procedure for people whose premises have been registered" in NAIS.
(On precisely the same date, Henry Lamb posted an article on his website about this
"dramatic" development, almost identical in wording to the Liberty Ark "press release.")
The Liberty Ark "press release" went on to suggest that Liberty Ark had somehow
discovered or even obtained this supposed boon through a telephone call to the USDA on
January 26, 2007.

The truth is that NOFA/Mass, not Liberty Ark, was the first organization to secure a
possibility of "opt outs." NOFA/Mass accomplished this in the summer of 2006, six
months prior to Bergener and McGeary's announcement of a "dramatic reversal."
Moreover, in New York State, apparently as a result of complaints from individual farmers,
the state began to offer "opt outs" during the fall of 2006 for animal owners who had been
placed in the premises ID program through data-mining, without their prior knowledge or
consent. Perhaps most importantly, as NOFA/Mass itself has always indicated, an "opt
out" procedure, far from any "dramatic reversal," is really a very poor remedy of too-little
and too-late, since the animal owner's information should never have been submitted to
USDA/APHIS in the first place, and since the states using data-mining to secure "false
voluntary" premises IDs did not offer to discontinue the data-mining.

This "opt out" incident is characteristic of two traits common to Liberty Ark, Lamb,
McGeary, and Bergener. First, they continually overstate the importance of their own
accomplishments and fail to accord credit to the actual accomplishments of other groups
and people. (Consistent with Lamb's sponsorship of the group, they seem especially eager
to omit mention of the accomplishments of such pro-environmental groups as NOFA/
Mass.) Second, they invariably endorse and support weak compromises and half-
measures such as accepting "voluntary" government-run NAIS or supposed "opt outs" for
people who should never have been forced into NAIS in the first place. This behavior is
affirmatively harmful to the legitimate movement against NAIS. It lulls into submission
those opponents of NAIS who incorrectly may believe that part of the problem has been
"solved" by a misleadingly-named "voluntary" program or by "opt outs." Further, it has the
potential to defeat the antiNAIS movement altogether. Consider what would happen if
Liberty Ark/Lamb/McGeary/Bergener concentrated a large degree of power in their own
hands by overstating their own "accomplishments" and never acknowledging the real
accomplishments of others (particularly the real accomplishments of pro-environmental,
sustainable farming groups). In that scenario, Liberty Ark/Lamb/McGeary/Bergener might
well place themselves in the position of appearing to have the power to agree to some
defeatist "compromise." In other words, what if Liberty Ark/Lamb/McGeary/Bergener act
in ways that nullify the gains of those truly opposed to NAIS, by insinuating themselves
into a position of influence with bureaucrats, legislators, and industrial farming interests
such as Farm Bureau, and then obtaining less-than-desirable "concessions" or legislation
to further their own agenda, despite the honest opposition of their "supporters?" Surely,
we have not all labored tirelessly against NAIS just to have some unrepresentative, self-
appointed group accept a result far short of what we really want - the complete
eradication of any government NAIS program.

The Hopeful Ending: A Growing and Diverse NAIS Opposition Can Sustain the Movement's

Many readers will be disheartened to learn of the tactics employed by Liberty Ark, FARFA,
Lamb, McGeary, and Bergener. But the revelation of these tactics will allow true NAIS
opponents to combat the negative effects of these groups and their "leaders." Fortunately,
at just the time when more positive direction is needed by the antiNAIS movement, many
more groups are embracing the true NAIS opposition message or are moving toward a
more effective opposition. For example, R-CALF, previously only a mild and partial NAIS
opponent, soon may be forced by a member referendum to take a stance of complete
opposition. Many other livestock and farming groups on the local, state, or even national
levels have taken up the antiNAIS cause in recent months. Sustainable and small-farming
advocacy groups organized at the state and local levels are beginning to work actively
against NAIS.

Those who have been most effective and successful in fighting any form of NAIS have done
so by adhering to the true interests of their local supporters, and becoming very active in
educating both the public and their government representatives about the dangers of any
government-run animal identification system. This is truly a grassroots movement, and
dedicated individuals and authentic local groups are responsible for the progress that has
been made in the fight. There are many well-informed and passionate people diligently
fighting against NAIS. The fight against NAIS offers the first legitimate opportunity in
years, perhaps decades, to turn back the tide of corporate globalism and the earth-
destroying excesses of industrial technology, and restore the ethical and moral values
upon which local, human-scale, peaceful, generous communities can be built.

Don't squander the opportunity. Join with your friends, family, and neighbors, reject
greed and blind self-interest, despise the technocrats' divorce from Nature, take back the
Earth, restore the Creation as the cradle of life.

In this article, Mercola praises them and urges them as the place to go for help.

Will You Continue Allowing the FDA to Dictate What Foods You're Allowed to Eat?
Raw dairy farmers and artisan cheesemakers are being shamefully persecuted by federal agencies in multiple states. FDA claims you have "no fundamental right" to choose what you want to eat, nor to your own bodily or physical health! Will you let them get away with their draconian dictates?

 Post subject: Re: 913 What kind of farm can grow government-safe food?
PostPosted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:30 am 
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:17 pm
Posts: 827
This from Anonymous...

I do not know if this section of HR 875 was moved into the food safety law, but it sets up a star chamber - outside of the legal system, giving itself unlimited funding through raids and fines and with no oversight - which can impose anything on anyone, not excluding torture or death.

Is this in the law now or in the 1200 pages of new food safety regulations the FDA is trying to rush through?

Does your guest focus on details of the regulations to no useful purpose or expose who wrote them and whether they or the law already (may) contain the end of the rule of law in the US?

Perhaps common law eagles will go over the law and regulations and see if this star chamber section got inserted. Taylor problikelyably didn't write it by accident and didn't just say forget it when they took pieces from the various bills (including HR 875) to create S 510, the food safety law. Or he may have had to postpone inserting it then. Is it buried somewhere in the 1200 pages?

What's clear is that games are being played with law at every level.

Paul Griepentrog has been defending Amish farmers and winning cases in Wisconsin for a long time, all for free. Perhaps he would be a good guest to have on to describe how common law works and why precedents matter. It would be helpful to have a series of shows teaching those who care about food and farming how to use common law. Griepentrog would also be able to review the cases that have failed or succeeded and why.

Unless one understands the law (and most of us do not understand there are two kinds and it is common law that offers people protection and justice), it can seem as if FTC is making reasonable claims but based on how the law works, they aren't since they are ignoring precedents and common law moves that would win cases. So everyone needs to understand the immense difference between statutory law (or is it civil law?) and common law.

The precedents in common law are on the side of the farmers. But the cases are being tried outside of common law. And if the star chamber section is in the food safety law, "cases" wouldn't have to be based on anything real at all, and people would be "tried" and punished outside of any real court altogether.

To give you some idea how powerful the difference it and how freeing, you might watch this video. The bank part is equally good.

Courts Afraid of Us Now & Lawful Bank - Roger Hayes ... - YouTube

► 56:33► 56:33
Oct 1, 2011 - Uploaded by mranthonyjhilder
Courts Afraid of Us Now & Lawful Bank - Roger Hayes British ... court by the Lawful Rebellion movement ...

This exposure of the fact the courts are working for corporate entities and not using common law, clearly is threatening to the system.

Roger Hayes talks about his UNLAWFUL arrest and 21 days in prison

Expose this and the FDA and Monsanto are fried. Michael Taylor designed the bills and in the section above, he would be the "administrator" who is judge, jury and executioner of the star chamber he created.

Here you can see that common law courts are being set up and have indicted international leaders - the queen, the popes, the government of Canada, etc.

Common law versus what the hoax of what the courts are doing, is at the heart of why the cases are being lost by FTC and being won by Griepentrog.

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group