N.A.I.S. in Court — “Premises” doesn’t exist unless defined on property title!

Paul Griepentrog reports from court in Wisconsin on the PPJ blog:

Sample ID card -- Is "Premises ID" an elaborate fiction with no basis in law?

“Having attended the trial of Pat and Melissa Monchilovich at Balsam Lake, I found it more like viewing a site being cleared by a bulldozer.  Judge Molly GaleWyrick cleared the path for Wisconsin’s Department of Agriculture to further its agenda of an alleged disease control program.   The Media in their true slanted fashion picked away at the obstructions around the edges, avoiding the hard facts like stones.

I had arrived at Pat’s house before the trial to find a young family supported by the community via phone calls and a helpful sister in law waiting to baby sit.  Pat was understandably nervous, as a way of life he had come to know for generations was being threatened.

During the proceedings the Judge indicated that Pat and Melissa should have made their arguments in an administrative hearing not in her courtroom.  Interesting thought, as the original motion to dismiss voided by the Judge was based on the failure of DATCP to provide just such a hearing.

When Pat raised the point of not having a premises on title, the Judge turned to the assistant district attorney Moria Ludvigson for an explanation of what Pat was saying, “he must mean that there isn’t a 911 address where the cattle are kept” Moria replied.

Sorry folks, ignorance of the law is no excuse, in that the authorizing statute didn’t define premises the common definition applies.  Black’s Law indicates that a premises, doesn’t exist unless defined on title.

Is what in effect has occurred in this conviction is that law now rises from fiction?

Could the creation of a premises, without substantiation on the title deed invoke a taking without due process?

Could it be the reason only a monetary forfeiture was given is that the court lacks authority for action in rem.(1) ?

Is the premises registration program something more than it appears?

Certainly all these are valid issues for appeal.

DATCP officials under questioning by Judge Jon Counsell certainly where not able to substantiate the validity of the disease claim, nor was food safety or protection from terrorism allowed as cause.  Is there a hidden agenda here of a greater scope?

Agriview’s article was based on an interview with Donna Gilson, DATCP official and member of the Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium.  WLIC has representatives from the tag manufacturers on the board as well, and with the USDA holding patents to the NAIS system as well as the RFID tags….”

Read the whole report on the PPJ blog.

Author Paul Griepentrog drives tractor through greenhouse in Wisconsin.

Leave a comment

Filed under News

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s