Update: Mark Baker still under scrutiny

In his satirical novel, Animal Farm, George Orwell wrote, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

George Orwell was right – some animals are more equal than others.

Take Mark Baker's Mangalitsa Hogs, for instance; raised on their family farm in Marion called Bakers Green Acres. The Baker hogs are definitely more equal than their pink, cookie-cutter consistent counterparts who are raised just as equal as one another; sometimes in dreary, Orwellian quarters known on some commercial farms as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO). That's an example of a CAFO above. Total animal equality. No pig first among his peers.

But Baker's Heritage Hogs, raised from birth to slaughter on the farm, enjoy the pasture life as "dirt pigs."

According to the description on the Bakers Green Acres web site, they are finished with special diets including grains and even acorns, which makes their meat desirable to foodies and chefs. In fact, some of them rely on the pasture raised, carefully fed end product to make specialty foods like sausage or prosciutto.

It was at one of these establishments that serves up Baker's specialty pork
recently that the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) questioned a packaging issue with one of Baker’s products.

That led to the issuing of a search warrant, signed on Dec. 17 by Missaukee County District Judge Audrey Van Alst. Around 9:30 a.m., Baker said representatives from MDARD, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Michigan State Police Troopers arrived at his property to execute the search warrant.

Baker said that the warrant gave them the authority to take photos and copy records; size food in violation of the food law; and take any other action as is deemed necessary to follow the food law.

The reason given on the warrant was that, because of the alleged problem that MDARD had with packaging, they were searching for food “found to be suspected to be adulterated, misbranded, a nuisance, or a risk to the public.”

But let’s be honest here: The problem isn’t in the packaging; the problem is with Mark Baker.

Mark, who is retired from the United States Air Force, has been farming Bakers Green Acres for more than a decade now, with the help of his wife, Jill, and their eight children. It is truly a family operation. It's their livelihood - for now.

But sadly, a few years ago, the jackhammer of bureaucratic skullduggery began to chink away at the Bakers' way of life, thanks to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

In 2010, the DNR issued an Invasive Species Order prohibiting "feral swine."

It went into effect on April 1, 2012. The section which the DNR contends applies to the Bakers' pigs specifically prohibits the possession of any of the following live species:

"Wild boar, wild hog, wild swine, feral pig, feral hog, feral swine, Old world swine, razorback, eurasian wild boar, Russian wild boar (sus scrofa Linnaeus). This subsection does not and is not intended to affect sus domestica involved in domestic hog production."

We had a state department (DNR) that appears to be breaching the levy of its authority in the name of "public safety"; and agricultural special interests appear to be supporting that same overreach that exerts certain force over farm animals on private land (while being careful not to affect "hog production" - for some producers, of course).

That’s how Mark Baker ended up fighting that department over his farm animals, even being fined $10,000 per each pig (to the tune of $700,000).

But why?

Why should Mark Baker have been made to give up his property - his livelihood, his Heritage pigs - by order of a rogue band of bureaucrats who wrote their own definitions of feral and domestic based on so-called "scientific" data?

His land was certainly not public domain. His animals are quite healthy, very marketable, and live under the husbandry of humans; and unlike these beasts off the leash from the DNR, seem largely uninterested in busting through fences into territory where they aren't meant to go.

He shouldn't. And as The People, we should be deeply offended and gravely concerned when our rights are so blatantly disregarded.

The DNR, using their own authority to add or delete species as restricted or prohibited, through the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of 1994 [324.410302(1)], somehow used the prohibition of feral pigs to cross that bridge from forest to farm; from wildlife to livestock.

But since these bureaucrats are unelected and unaccountable to The People, what do we do when they breach the levies of their authority?

The DNR should have no jurisdiction over private property at any time. They should have no jurisdiction over any animals other than those that are wild and live on state land at any time. Livestock is off limits. However, because they defined "feral" and "domesticated" for the purpose of enforcing their order, they have found a way to exert control over private property and what might better be defined as "livestock."

Several years after Mark’s lengthy legal battle, the Attorney General’s office dropped the case against them, saying that their hogs were “compliant.”

(Nothing changed, by the way.)

So here we are again, with the Baker family again under scrutiny by some alphabet soup quasi-governmental agencies – and make no mistake my friends, Baker’s scrutiny is no coincidence. Many people believe it’s because Mark Baker chose to do what others did not: Fight.

Following discussion outside Baker’s home, the representatives from MDARD and USDA left without a search. There’s still time, of course – according to the warrant, Mark says, officials have from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. for three days from the date that the warrant was signed to execute that search.

According to Mark, it’s important to point out that although he’s faced issues with these state agencies over the years, there’s one group that’s remained professional and courteous: The Michigan State Police.

“The policemen that came – they were nice,” he said. “I have appreciated their professionalism through this thing. Every single one of them has been good to me.”

So what happens next? Will the warrant be executed? We’ll keep you updated as we know more details.

Here’s a link to Mark’s latest video describing the Dec. 17 incident: Mark's Dec. 17 Video

Judge Rules Administrative Court System Illegal After 81 Years

Posted on June 10, 2015 by Martin Armstrong

Well, it has been a long time coming, but all along there have been discussions behind closed doors (never in public) that the Administrative Law Courts established with the New Deal were totally unfounded and unconstitutional. With the anniversary of Magna Carta and the right to a jury trial coming up on June 15 after 800 years, the era of Roosevelt’s big government is quietly unraveling.

A federal judge’s ruling against the Securities and Exchange Commission for using its own Administrative Law judges in an insider trading case is perhaps the beginning of the end of an alternative system of justice that took root in the New Deal. Constitutionally, the socialists tore everything about the idea of a Democracy apart. It was more than taxing one party to the cheers of another in denial of equal protection. It was about creating administrative agencies (1) delegating them to create rules with the force of law as if passed by Congress sanctioned by the people; (2) the creation of administrative courts that defeated the Tripartite government structure usurping all power into the hand of the executive branch, as if this were a dictatorship run by the great hoard of unelected officials.

Not discussed in the coverage of this story is that the Administrative Law Courts are a fiefdom, to put it mildly. They have long been corrupt and traditionally rule in favor of their agencies, making it very costly for anyone to even try to defend themselves. If someone were to attempt this feat, first they have to wear the costs of an Administration proceeding and appeal to an Article III court judge, then they must appeal to the Court of Appeals, and finally plea to the Supreme Court. The cost of such adventures is well into the millions, and good luck on actually getting justice.

Furthermore, Administrative Law Courts cannot sentence you to prison, but they can fine you into bankruptcy. So the lack of a criminal prosecution meant the judges did not have to be lawyers. They could be anyone’s brother-in-law looking for a job where he just rules in favor of the agency not to be bothered with law. Unless the victim has a pile of money, there is no real chance that he or she can afford to defend themselves. This is why the agencies cut deals with the big houses and prosecute the small upstarts who lack the funds to defend themselves.

In a 45-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May in Atlanta issued an injunction halting Administrative Law proceedings against Charles Hill, a businessman who the SEC accused of reaping an illegal $744,000 profit trading in Radian Systems stock. This is typical. The legal fees involved will exceed the amount of money he is alleged to have made, the typical result is to just pay the fine and they go away, it is cheaper.

The judge ruled that the SEC agency violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution by subjecting Hill to proceedings before an Administrative Law judge, who isn’t directly accountable to the president, officials in charge of the SEC, or the courts under Article III. The ruling is 81 years overdue. The entire structure of administrative agencies blackmailing people has been outrageous. Then you take the banks who just entered a plea of CRIMINALLY guilty to manipulating markets. They are now formally FELONS who engaged in violating SEC rules and thus under the SEC rules, they are no longer eligible for a banking license. The banks are “too big to jail” and the SEC has waived their own rules, of course, to exempt the banks. So they can engage in fraud and manipulation, get caught, pay billions in fines, and the SEC exempts them from losing their licenses. This is how corrupt the administrative agencies really are.

This new decision calling the Administrative Law Courts what they really are is reminiscent of the notorious extrajudicial proceedings of the Star Chamber operated by King James I. The court of Chancery set up outside of the King’s Bench, so there were no trials by jury. It had the same purpose, to circumvent the law. This is where our Fifth Amendment privilege came into being. That came about following the trial of John Lilburne (1615-1657) for handing out a pamphlet the government did not like.

The Miranda v Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) decision of the Supreme Court came only after decades of abuse by American police against citizens, not unlike what we are watching today. The Miranda decision is hated by police, prosecutors, right-wing judges, politicians, and citizens. The decision is based upon the history of the right not to be coerced that began with the famous trial of John Lilburn before the English court of the Star Chamber in 1637 where he stood tall and objected to the King’s torture. Lilburn’s crime was handing out pamphlets against the king. John Lilburne (1615–1657) was a leader in the Leveller Movement of the 1640s and was a prolific pamphleteer who defended religious and individual liberty of the people. He was imprisoned many times for his views and was active in the army of the New Parliament rising to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. In October 1649, he was arrested and tried for High Treason for printing and circulating books and pamphlets critical of the government but was acquitted of all charges by a jury of his peers.

This entry was posted in America's Current Economy, America's Economic History, Current Events and tagged Administrative Law Courts, John Lilburne, King James I, Mary Jo White, Miranda Law, SEC, U.S. Constitution by Martin Armstrong. Bookmark the permalink.

Giving Thanks

This season, I am thankful to know people who are willing to fight.

That might seem strange to some, but to others, it will make perfect sense.

Over the past several years, I have come to know many people who are involved in struggles that other people rarely think about. Mainly, because they are the kind of struggles that don't impact you until you are in the middle of one.

Across our state, and across our country, there are so many people involved in struggles with their local government, or with quasi-governmental agencies. In the majority of these cases, at the heart of the issue is property.

Agencies like the Department of Environmental Quality, the Department of Natural Resources; or local Zoning and Planning Boards; often feel that their jurisdiction involves your private property, and they often try to dictate what you build, what you grow, how you live.... 

Fortunately, there are some people who are waking up and who are willing to stand with others while they are in the midst of these battles. 

These are the people we want to connect with. We want those of you who are willing to stand and fight for the rights of friends, neighbors, or anyone else involved in battles with rogue agencies, to like our page, and follow this blog.

In the coming months, we plan to bring you stories of people involved in these battles; and give you opportunities to answer calls to action to help them out.

But first, we need you to share our blog, and share this page. We want these stories to reach as many people as we can.

Together, we are stronger.

God bless you this Thanksgiving.

If you have a story to share about a struggle with your local government, or an alphabet soup-type agency (think DEQ, DNR, EPA, USDA, etc., etc., etc.), we want to get the word out. We want to help you share your story, and maybe find support. Email us at violationsofthepublictrust@gmail.com; or message us on Facebook.

We Have The Right To A Jury Trial, Right?

We have the right to a jury trial? Don't we?

According to the 1963 Michigan Constitution we do:

"The right of trial by jury shall remain, but shall be waived in all civil cases unless demanded by one of the parties in the manner prescribed by law."  Article I, Declaration of Rights, § 14

However, Public Act 164 of 2013 took that right away from us when they established The Court of Claims.

"The Court of Claims is a court of statewide, limited jurisdiction to hear and determine all civil actions filed against the State of Michigan and its agencies. These cases include highway defect, medical malpractice, contracts, constitutional claims, prisoner litigation, tax-related suits, and other claims for money damages. As of Nov. 12, 2013, the Court of Claims is located in the Michigan Court of Appeals. Four Court of Appeals judges, including a chief judge, are assigned to the Court of Claims by the Michigan Supreme Court. Each Court of Claims case is heard by a single judge. The Court of Claims operates much like any other Michigan Circuit Court. In the Court of Claims, however, there is no right to a jury trial." Chief Judge Michael J. Talbot

Let's repeat that:

There is no right to a jury trial.

That means that when you have an issue with the State of Michigan, you do not have the right to a jury trial. 

Fair? No way.

Repugnant to the Constitution? Absolutely.

What are we going to do about it? 

Those of us who care MUST contact our legislators and tell them that we want the right to have cases against the State heard by a jury of our peers. 

A good start would be to ask lawmakers to support HB 4847. This bill was introduced in September by Representative Gary Glenn. It would allow anyone bringing action against the state or one of its agencies the right to bring that suit in the county of origin and have that case heard by a jury, or have the case heard by an appointed judge in Detroit, Lansing, Troy, or Grand Rapids at the Court of Claims.

Are you involved in an issue with a state agency? We want to share your story. Email violationsofthepublictrust@gmail.com.

Case Update: Groningers v. The Department of Environmental Quality

Friends, this message is going out to you because it won’t be long before the next round of fights between the DEQ/DNR and the Groninger’s will begin. 

Remember, the Groninger's have been fighting a battle against these state agencies for awhile.

From a previous Blog:

In the case of Greg Groninger, Carol J. Groninger, Kenneth Thompson and Thomas Dunn v. State of Michigan, aka Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the Plaintiffs refused to allow the DEQ – a state agency with jurisdiction and authority over land in the Public Domain – access to their private, patented property in order to determine if it was a protected wetland under the Michigan Wetlands Protection Act (MCL 324.43001 et seq.) As a result of the landowner’s refusal, the plaintiffs were informed that an administrative warrant would be issue to give the DEQ access to their property without their consent. The plaintiffs then filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory relief, alleging Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress by the DEQ, and asking the court to find that the DEQ cannot enter their private, patented property.

The Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition filed by the DEQ on July 9, 2013, argued three points, including the point that they feel the Michigan Wetlands regulations apply to the Plaintiff’s private, patented property; that … “even if Michigan law did not apply to the Plaintiffs’ property … federal wetlands regulations apply to the Plaintiffs’ property, and those federal wetlands regulations are enforced by the DEQ; and that Plaintiffs Thompson and Dunn lack standing to participate as plaintiffs in this lawsuit.

Regarding the third argument about Plaintiffs Thompson and Dunn, who lease a portion of the property in question for hunting purposes, the Court opined that he could not find that Thompson and Dunn had any interest in the land; further stating that “…even if Plaintiffs Thompson and Dunn had produced a document entitling them to place hunting blinds on the property they still would not have standing. 

While the Groningers can show a particularized injury if the DEQ enters and places restrictions on the use of their land, Mr. Thompson and Mr. Dunn cannot.” In the Motion for Summary Disposition argument regarding the application of the Michigan Wetlands Statute to the Plaintiff’s land, Judge Carras held the opinion that the plaintiffs had “…no legal basis for their action as they are mistaken in their reading of the law, the Wetlands Statute is meant to apply to all land within the state, including privately owned patented land.” Furthermore, it was the judge’s opinion that the DEQ, as an arm of the Department of Natural Resources, had the authority to regulate wetlands under the Wetlands Protection Act.

In his conclusion, Judge Carras noted that, “…when viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs there is no issue of material fact upon which this motion for summary disposition could be denied,” thus opining that the Michigan Wetlands Protection Act applies to the Groningers’ private, patented land, and that the DEQ has the right to come onto that private property and enforce regulations on behalf of the state and/or federal government.

In a statement issued by the plaintiffs, they explain:
"Ever since we filed this Constitutional and Statutory case against the DEQ for threatening to enter our land and control activities on our land, the state has been doing everything they can do to drag this case out – hoping we will drop the case, and folks like all of you will lose interest. We will not drop the case, and we hope you will continue to follow the case and witness the delay and bully tactics the government is using to bury the constitutionally protected contracts that the founders used to grant land from the public domain into private ownership and control. This case will have impact on everyone – just think what America would be like if the government owned and controlled all the farm land, forests and land that contained oil, gas and other minerals? That would be the end of the free market system and our way of life." 

You may have thought after the Michigan Supreme Court denied to hear that case and supported the Appeals Court Opinion that Art. I, § 10 of the Constitution is not absolute, the fight would be over and the DEQ/DNR and Attorney General’s office had won the right to control private property.

This first round has only shown how Constitutionally Bankrupt the State of Michigan has become and how far they will go to delay, deny, deceive and destroy to keep their tyrannical control over the public.

In this first round, the DEQ/DNR and the Attorney General’s office has documented in their own hand how they are willing to work together to twist the law to achieve their agenda of controlling private property. 

The Groningers were denied a Constitutionally protected right to a jury trial, through the use of a court rule called summary disposition, to hear our case involving the abuse by PUBLIC SERVANTS of our private property rights: PUBLIC SERVANT Stephen Carras, at the request of PUBLIC SERVANTS Daniel Bock and Bill Schuette (each of whom should, by their job description, represent THE PEOPLE - not a state agency acting AGAINST The People); supported by the PUBLIC SERVANTS working at the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. 

It is about time we hold PUBLIC SERVANTS accountable to the Constitution and their OATH.

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who would pervert the Constitution." ~ Abraham Lincoln

Let's fight the DEQ/DNR Abuse of Private Property Rights by Making Them:

Obey the Law

When the Constitution is Silent it can give NO AUTHORITY


The Legislature cannot give power and jurisdiction to the DEQ/DNR that the Legislature has never been given!

ARTICLE X  
PROPERTY 

Michigan Constitution 1963 § 1 Disabilities of coverture abolished; separate property of wife; dower.

§ 2 Eminent domain; compensation.

§ 3 Homestead exemption.

§ 4 Escheats.

§ 5 State lands. The legislature shall have general supervisory jurisdiction over all state owned lands useful for forest preserves, game areas and recreational purposes; shall require annual reports as to such lands from all departments having supervision or control thereof; and shall by general law provide for the sale, lease or other disposition of such lands.


§ 6 Resident aliens, property rights. Aliens who are residents of this state shall enjoy the same rights and privileges in property as citizens of this state.

The Law

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 451 of 1994

MCL 324.503 "The Departments of DEQ/DNR has the power and jurisdiction over the management, control, and disposition of all land under the public domain,"
MCL 324.301 "Public domain" "means all land owned by the state”


No other power or jurisdiction was given to DEQ/DNR by Legislature because the Legislature can only give what it is authorized to give by the people through the Constitution.

Please Don't Feed The Government

Have you ever wondered what leads government agencies to make decisions weighted against the people rather than for them? It's not always for the public good. Quite frankly, sometimes it boils down to money.

Imagine - you have a piece of property. You pay your taxes. You have the right to - within reason - do what you like with it, right?

Well, that depends. How many times do we have to ask the government's permission for what we do or what we build on our own land? How many times has the government decided they want to "regulate" what we do/grow/build on our own land? How do we get the government's consent?

We pay them. We pay them permit fees, or we pay them fines. Either way, they get our money.

Sometimes this is done under the guise of public safety, but let's face it: It's not because the agency exists to serve the public; it's often because they exist at all.

Behind these agencies are people with jobs. Jobs require money. How does the government get money? From us.

You see, rather than risk cut jobs - which are the most expensive line item on any budget - government and bureaucratic offices would rather promise more revenue, often in the form of permits, fees, or fines. 

Unfortunately, that revenue is me. It's you. It's your parents, who are on a fixed income. It's your kids, just starting out in life.

Fair?  NO WAY.

My friends, we are NOT revenue.  And frankly, we should be offended that these agencies count heads and monetize us in such a way. We need to start demanding that they cut their own jobs – stop preying on us and right-size their budgets!

That's why it's so important for us to support one another when we find ourselves or our neighbors faced with a legal issue involving some entity like the DEQ, the DNR, or another agency; an issue that seems to unfair and unconstitutional. 

If we stand together and raise awareness, there are more of us to band together in protest against an agency gone rogue.

Do you have a story to tell about your own legal fight against one of these agencies? We want to help raise awareness. Email us at violationsofthepublictrust@gmail.com.

Do you have a story to tell?

It seems like lately, everywhere we turn, there is someone facing an issue with a state or local agency: The Department of Environmental Quality, The Department of Natural Resources, a local planning or zoning board.

All over, there are violations and abuses by these sorts of agencies. Some people fight them alone, or with some support, and some people buckle to authority – even when they didn’t have to.

These situations don’t happen in a vacuum, however, they often go unnoticed – even in cases of extreme overreach.

It’s often the case that no one cares until it impacts them. It’s that lack of empathy that we want to change. Change can only come with education and awareness. And for that to happen, we need as many people as possible to educate themselves and others, and to continue to share knowledge and raise awareness by sharing stories of government and bureaucratic overreach and abuse.

Do you have a story to tell? Maybe you’ve been on the losing end of a battle with the DEQ or Zoning Commission. Maybe you’re battle is just beginning, and you want to know your rights or share your story.

We want to help you. Reach out to us – email us you story at violationsofthepublictrust@gmail.com; or message us here on Facebook. Unless we stand together against violations of the public trust, we may all fall prey to them.