The State finally came for Mark Nolt, the Pennsylvania dairyman who refused to obtain a raw milk permit, and continued selling raw dairy products from his Nature’s Sunlight Farm.
A constable dispatched by a Pennsylvania District Court served Mark with an arrest warrant this morning and brought him to the court, where he was ordered to appear May 5 for a summary trial before a judge. According to a clerk I spoke with at the court, Mark was arrested in connection with five citations dating from last July for selling milk without a license. He has incurred a total of $5,100 in fines and costs, she said.
According to reports from neighbors and the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, several officials of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture participated in the raid, and while Mark was being transported by police car to the courthouse, PDA officials confiscated $20,000 to $25,000 worth of dairy products and production equipment. Neighbors reported the farm had been closed and that a large group of officials had gathered, with videos prohibited. The clerk reported, at the time I spoke with her at 2 p.m., that Mark had already left the courthouse to return home.
I reported on Mark last August, when a group of ten state police and agents from the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) descended on the 100-acre farm in Newville, and confiscated about $25,000 worth of Mark’s raw milk products, along with packaging and equipment. Mark told me at the time that he had voluntarily given up his raw milk license because it prohibited him from selling the other raw dairy products his customers want, like butter, cream, and yogurt.
Mark’s case is similar to that involving Meadowsweet Dairy LLC in New York, in that both Pennsylvania and New York allow raw milk sales, but adamantly oppose the sale of other raw dairy products. As I’ve reported, New York has gone after Meadowsweet owners Barb and Steve Smith with a vengeance. In the case of Mark Nolt, the state appeared to back off because he is a Mennonite who based his resistance in part on his religious beliefs. That has changed, as Pennsylvania now seems determined to close the case. But I would guess Mark will make the same argument to the judge that he made to me last August.
Bullsh*t. There is a little thing called the constitution that garuntees a right to trial by jury. I hope Nolt exercises that right. I just cannot see a jury punishing a Mennonite farmer for selling milk…especially if his lawyer has the courage to defy the judge and explain "jury nullification" to the jury.
Bob
Mark’s point is that without a law requiring a permit to do what he is doing,the regulations they are enforcing against him do not apply to him.The court is trying to enforce the terms of a contract on him which he has not signed and does not agree to.How should he defend himself against this unlawfull overreach by regulators? I can’t see how any legal advice can help.When regulators try to intimidate people into granting them authority that the law does not give them,we should all be asking …where is the law that requires Mark Nolt to get a lisence to do what he is doing?
The court has no jurisdiction in this case unless there is a contract and both parties to the contract agree to the court settling the dispute.
Mark’s own words explain his position.
"But there was more to his decision than providing for his approximately 200 raw milk customers. It was also a legal matter. I have done a lot of research. I could not find a law that says I must get a permitThe rules and regulations that are in place have not been approved by the legislatureThe only way they can enforce their regulations is by having people volunteer to agree.
Mark argues further that the regulations, even if they were legal, wouldnt apply to him because he is selling directly to consumers, via private contracts that are outside the purview of the state. Theyre trying to make a privilege out of a right I have. Our constitution gives us the right to private contracts.
I wrote the PDA and asked them to tell me the law requiring I get a raw milk permit. They never got back to me. By not getting back, they were tacitly agreeing.
But the PDA did convince the courts, in numerous hearings this summer, that it was in the right, and recently obtained an injunction prohibiting the farm from selling raw milk. When Mark continued to sell, the court ruled him in contempt, leading to todays raid. "
"There is either the rule of law or no rules at all".
http://www.collegeofmidwives.org/news01/FMcase_newspapers%20May02.htm
Above is an article at the American College of Domiciliary Midwives with two articles quoted from Cleveland Plain Dealer about a Mennonite midwife in OH who illegally administered two prescription life-saving drugs to a woman she had helped have a baby. These are drugs routinely used in similar hospital situations.
A customer review of a book, "Spiritual Midwifery," tells a little more of the inside story. This midwife was released on bond, but when she wouldn’t reveal the name of the doctor who gave her the drugs (which ultimately saved a woman’s life), she was put back in jail:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3RTO03C2LIMUM
The end of the story is that the people trying to put her out of business gave up, and there is political action proposing to make it legal to do just what she did – save someone’s life in an emergency.
200 people showed up in court to defend her.
Gwen
Bob
First, IF the raw milk community uses this occurrance properly, it can bring a lot of people who have never given raw milk a thought over to our side regarding rights and food choices. It may not create many raw milk users, though it might, but it can create a lot of good publicity for giving folks the right to make their own choices, regardless of what those choices are.
What needs to happen RIGHT NOW is an unrelenting community based PR campaign with a laser focused theme, "PA regulators throw Mennonite Farmer in jail for being a farmer…selling milk."
Letters to the editor to EVERY newspaper in the area…over and over.
Calls to legeslators…over and over. Follow up EVERY call with a letter or email restating your opposition to what happened.
CONSTANTLY telling your circle of acquaintanances what happend.
Your church friends.
Your friends in your Bridge Club.
Your fishing buddies.
In short, EVERYONE you come in contact with…over and over.
One simple message repeated ad nauseum…government agents threw a farmer in jail for being a farmer.
Create a revolution.
The second good thing I see in this is that I believe that, perhaps, the action against Mr. Nolt, combined with other actions around the country including the Meadowsweet, Organic Pastures, and Claravale actions in the applicable states, MAY indicate that we are closer to winning than we think.
When you are in a fight, and you see that you are losing, you begin to fight more and more desparately, and I see the state and federal regulators reacting in a more and more desparate manner…
Perhaps they know something we don’t. Perhaps they have a better handle on just how strong a groundswell of folks who are beginning to stand up is building.
Perhaps they are getting desparate.
Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead
Jasper, GA
706.692.7004
Thornberry Village Homestead…a small goat dairy, owned by God and managed by Bob and Tyler.
http://usa-the-republic.com/jurisprudentia/commercial%20liens.html
The Commercial Lien Strategy – Background
Faced with corrupt lawyers and judges, no litigant can expect to win in court by simply playing defense. To beat them, you must be able to scare them. You must be able to make them respect you, and that means you must be able to take the offense — attack them personally.
Unfortunately, judges, lawyers, and other government officials enjoy various levels of personal immunity provided by both law and "professional courtesy." How do you sue a lawyer for malpractice? You hire another lawyer — if you can find one who’ll take the case. How do you sue an IRS agent for violating your Constitutional rights? Only with great difficulty. How you sue a judge for railroading you in court? You don’t.
As a practical matter, private citizens can’t sue the President of the United States, a Governor, judge, or even an IRS agent for failing to obey or enforce the laws. If we try to sue in court to compel our government officials to obey the law and perform their lawful duties, the judges routinely ignore our petitions and laugh us out of court.
Because legal and de facto immunities shield government personnel from being sued for committing crimes against the People, the public is legally disarmed, unable to aggressively sue the government or its agents and compel them to obey the Law. As a result, the public’s legal posture is fundamentally defensive: we try to duck, dodge, and hide in legal loopholes to defend ourselves against the government and the courts. We try to escape, evade, and avoid, but we seldom counter-attack against our antagonists, largely because we think there are no lawful weapons to do so. However, it appears that a powerful offensive legal weapon may now have been discovered, tested, and proven for common Citizens — the commercial lien. We don’t try to sue a government official for failing to perform his lawful duties. Instead, we simply file a lien that encumbers the official’s personal property and credit rating like a ton of bricks until he voluntarily satisfies our demand to perform his lawful duty, and we, in turn, voluntarily agree to excise the lien.
Some Examples of the Strategy
Example 1 — Edward J. Wagner, an hourly, unionized employee at General Electric, received Notices of Levy from the IRS, garnishing his wages and moneys received from several other sources. Wagner tried to persuade G.E. not to honor the Notices, since they were not properly attested as "true bills of commerce." His efforts met with no success.
After giving G.E. proper Notice and Demand, Wagner and his wife filed a Commercial Lien in the amount of $224,640,000.00. In the lien, Wagner impounded G.E. inventory that he had worked on (including air conditioning units, analyzing equipment, etc.) as security for the lien. This is similar to an auto mechanic impounding a car he had repaired ("mechanic’s lien"). This meant that G.E. could not lawfully sell or transfer the equipment until the lien was either extinguished or satisfied.
Among the reasons for the high dollar amount are that the law allows for such high sums as rewards for damages incurred, and it generally has to be large enough in relation to the size of the company involved, to get its attention. Otherwise such a large company might just ignore it.
Consequently, a legal war followed, and by June of ’92, G.E. had gone to court several times trying to remove Wagner’s lien, all without any real success. This was in spite of the fact that G.E. had the best, most highly paid, and highly motivated lawyers.
In June of ’92, the first major victory for the Wagners came. The IRS issued four different official Releases of Levy, one to General Electric, plus three other places where they had wages and income that the IRS had levied — the Port of Seattle, Dean Witter Reynolds, and Ohio State Life Insurance Company. These effectively released the IRS’s attachment on the Wagners’ income and assets. That’s a pretty solid testimonial to the power of the arguments in Mr. Wagner’s lien.
Example 2 — In August 1992, Mr. Nelson Starr, who lives in Florida, filed a lien on several federal judges, the Commissioner of the IRS, the Attorney General of the United States, one or more U.S. attorneys for the Southern District of Florida, and several other individuals, in the amount of $350,000 on each individual. The officials asked Mr. Alan Diamond, President of the Florida Bar Association, to inspect the lien and see if it was lawful or not.
In spite of his desire to please his powerful friends, Diamond could find nothing illegal about the lien. In fact, in a sworn affidavit, Diamond declared that, "… the document causes irreparable harm to the system of the administration of justice. While some of the harm may be compensable at law, no degree of compensation will adequately remedy the damage to the appearance of integrity of those named and of the system of the administration of justice. In my opinion, the filing of this type of lien is a direct attack on the justice system and on the general reputations of those named in the "lien." It may negatively impact on the financial credit rating of those individuals. It will probably have a negative impact on their willingness to continue to serve as representatives of the United States. And, it constitutes an abuse of civil process that cannot be adequately remedied by an action at law. [emphasis added]" In plain English, Diamond did not like the lien, but couldn’t find any way to extinguish it. Further, he seemed to say that these liens could drive public officials right out of office! For libertarians and patriots, that is a powerful endorsement!
Example 3 – Another a man in Florida filed Commercial Liens against nine IRS agents and was later taken to court by the IRS agents’ wives. The wives tried unsuccessfully to remove the liens, because their credit cards had stopped working. The liens had compromised their credit rating, and they couldn’t go shopping except with cash. Imagine the distress that the IRS agents themselves had to endure from their wives on account of these liens! Evidently, the liens hit the agents where they lived, in a way that other actions at law could not do.
What was the FINAL result when all was said and done…all appeals exhausted, etc?
These cases are old enough that there should be an end result…what is it?
Bob
It’s not about legal technicalities.It is a battle of will.
Chapter 8 – Final Thoughts
by Alfred Adask
[Editor: This chapter consists of excerpts from several editorials by Alfred Adask, editor/publisher of the AntiShyster. All excerpts and quotations from Mr. Adask are reprinted with permission from the AntiShyster, P.O.B. 540786, Dallas, Texas 75354-0786, or call (214) 559-7957 — annual subscription (6 issues) $25. (Note: Address and Telephone Numbers may be out of date)]
"THAT’S CONTEMPTIBLE
Precisely because the commercial lien is so powerful, that even judges cannot remove it, you may run into a particularly cantankerous, abusive, tyrannical old judge who can’t stand the idea that his powers might not be irresistibly god-like. If you encounter one of these megalomaniacs, he may decide to exceed his lawful power and jail you for contempt of court (for insisting on your lawful rights). Since he cannot declare the lien illegal or invalid, charging you with contempt of court is probably his only recourse — his last resort …
So as you already know, you can be absolutely right in your application of the law, and still wind up in the slammer. Therefore, before you start "liening on" government officials, you’d best learn how to defend yourself against contempt citations.
The various lien strategies are not toys for playful pro se’s. These strategies appear to be so powerful, so threatening to the "bad guys," that you can bet that they will respond forcefully and exploit whatever powers they have, lawful or otherwise, to defeat these liens. So be careful.
IT TAKES MORE THAN BRAINS
Judges routinely abuse their authority and get away with it, so what’s to stop ’em from abusing their authority in any case involving commercial liens?
You. Your courage. Your commitment. Brains and knowledge are not enough. It also takes guts.
Only you can stop the judicial abuse. And, initially, it’ll be tough. There will be some casualties. But what it boils down to is this:
1) This is a Civil Rights struggle. It’s political. That means lots of people. Therefore, you can’t go after the system or its henchmen by yourself — you must work with others who are in a position to support you in court, in the media, and, if necessary, in jail.
2) Initially, a few folks who file commercial liens will have to be willing to "pay the price" of going to jail in order to draw media attention to the judicial abuse and to the original crimes that precipitated the particular commercial lien. (If that thought is distressing, realize that from the point of view of the "other side" it will be necessary for a few judges to risk being sued, impeached, even jailed in order to "scare" us out of filing liens; i.e., unknown to most of us, the judges are also in jeopardy.)
3) A judicial threat is not the same as a judicial act. Threatening to jail you is not likely to create a "cause of action" since you have not been "damaged." Without the "damage" of false imprisonment, you can’t sue/lien the judge himself. So the judge is more interested in threatening (bluffing) you into compliance than in actually jailing you since your incarceration may expose the judge himself to personal liability.
4) Just as judges will try to scare us off with threats of contempt, we must try to scare the judges with "threats" of public exposure, and even civil and criminal charges filed against the judges. The "law" is not the only issue. This is also a test of will and nerve. He’s got to know that you won’t quit. …
You’ve got to realize that the "practice of law" involves a great deal more than just "law." It involves psychological warfare, guile, bluff, and the ability to "read" your adversary. Remember, despite what you might be led to believe by the movies, court cases are not scholarly "debates" so much as contests, even street fights. Knowing the law is just the beginning. You’ve also got to be able to "know your opponent" and, also, to keep your opponent from "knowing" you…
It’s not enough to have the words. You’ve got to have the guts enough to stand behind them, knowing that you might not win, knowing that you might even suffer a serious punishment for saying the words. If the judge smells fear, he can slap you around even if you’re right. If he smells courage and conviction sufficient to cause him personal liability, he will be reluctant to mistreat you even if you are wrong.
This is not just law, it’s politics. And more than politics, it’s a fight. A fight. Do you understand? Complete with black eyes and bloody noses, and sometimes even worse.
But it’s a fair fight, because, as bad as those judges may be, they are human and they know they are outnumbered thousands to one. The judge can hurt you if you stand alone, but if you stand with others, you can hurt the judge.
In the final analysis, the issue will be settled as an act of will and courage. It will be won by the side that refuses to lose."
To understand this it is important to understand that the PDA does not and cannot require a farmer to get a license or permit to produce milk.The only one who can require a permit is the person buying the milk.Mark’s customers don’t require him to have a license because they take the responsibility themselves to inspect and approve of his farm.If the state had the power to create contracts and force us to agree to them,we would call that slavery.
The PDA and the court don’t want to discuss the questions about permit requirements.They are only interested in getting Mark to voluntarily accept their contract by threatening him.A lawyer ,being an officer of the court, can only negotiate the terms under which his client will "voluntarily" agree to their contract.He can also beg for mercy.These options are not ones that anyone who believes in the rule of law can accept.By hiring an officer of the court to represent him he is implying that he accepts the authority of the court to settle the dispute.
And has anyone who refused to accept the jurisdiction of a court ever avoided imprisonment by that path?
Yes.If you don’t ever make any contracts with the state,you still retain your inalienable rights that you were born with.Those can only be given up voluntarily by you.The courts only have jurisdiction over contracts or if you violate common law.Most people don’t realize how many contracts they have.Just about every time you sign your name on any document you are signing a contract to give up one of your inalienable rights.
I know someone who was traveling in an unregistered car,no plates,no state drivers license,an unregistered gun on the seat next to him.They charged him with a list of things ,among them a felony for the gun. After a lot of hassle and bluster the decision was no jurisdiction and they had to let him go.We do have rights,unless we throw them away by agreeing to voluntarily give them up.
http://www.thinkfree.ca/
This story is from the forum at thinkfree.Check it out and see what you think.
" After losing thousands of dollars in vehicles and thirteen thousand in fines it has finally come to an end.
I WON! for the lack of a better term
Twelve times they stopped me and took my van, car, van and ticketed me.
Over a year and a half I sometimes went to court, including appeals, four times a week.
I never missed a day in their court.
The last time they drug me into traffic safety court in manacles.
Sixty one days in jail where upon release on Dec. 24 ’06 I embarked upon a Notice of Understanding and Intent And Claim of Right.
A modified version of Robs NUICR went to all concerned and affected parties.
In March of 07 I received a letter from my now defunct M.P. claiming that I existed completely free of all statutory restraints, obligations and restrictions.
I promptly replied with service of a default judgment on all affected parties.
I rightfully accept her offer that I am not subject to any civil law.
Thank you very much.
The local police service now see me every single day while traveling in my private conveyance of the day and that ain’t no donkey.
Either they have suddenly lost their sight or now, fully comprehend that I am not breaking any statute they claim to uphold.
Either way, we now exist in peace."