19 votes

WI: No right to eat or consume food

This Dane County Judge needs to be removed from this country, not just the bench! How DARE he make this kind of ruling? Was DATCP holding a gun to his head? I mean, REALLY?

The original judgement can be seen here. To quote from the main points:

1) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;

2) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;

3) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;

4) no, the Zinniker Plaintiffs’ private contract does not fall outside the scope of the State’s police power;

5) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume foods of their choice;

(reprinted from The Complete Patient)

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

That's Dane County for you

They are liberal, but not the friendly free kind, that's for sure. And they have a money hungry court system.

I have never been able to understand

why anybody adheres to these things.

Just defy them. Don't pay any attention to them. Refuse, and do what you need to do.
If they attack you, defend yourselves.
There is no requirement to bend to his kind of idiotic tyranny. The Constitution doesn't authorize it, and the founders admonish Americans to fight it.


What about breathing? Is that a right? ;)


Short of being an abject moron, there is only one way he can

honestly say he believes this ruling he issued: "plaintiffs" are not recognized by the court as Men and Women but rather "legal persons."

A "legal person" has only those privileges granted by government in a civil capacity as a citizen. If this is the ground the plaintiffs argued on, then his ruling is correct. They are the idiots.

However, if they argued in their actual capacity, and not as "legal persons" and they insisted that the rights they claimed were "natural rights" antecedent to government, then no, this guy is a moron. (or a traitor - either way - he has to go)

Legal Fictions, The Plaintiff's Were The Estates of Dead People

Dead people obviously have no right to consume the milk from their own cow.
The Court's decision is correct. An Estate of a decedent has no right to own, or consume anything.
The Estate is under the control of the Executor of the Estate. If you have not piped up and claimed your estate (JOHN H. DOE) after your 18th birthday then the State becomes your guardian because you are clearly brain dead. Otherwise why wouldn't you claim your Estate that is worth millions of Dollars?
Perhaps the trustee overseeing your estate didn't inform you of your inheritance so he could steal from your estate?

You betcha, that's exactly the deal in Amercica.

The social security act was just a cover to get everyone into a mega joint stock trust (communism).
So you have assets you don't know about in the joint stock trust. There are 644 trillion dollars in the trust. You own shares, how many? You can track the C-U-S-I-P number on your berth certificate or look up the bond number on the back of your SS card to find out how many dollar shares are in your estate account.

You own millions of shares in all the public corporations.

Wake up America. The United States is a communist country and you are the owners of the giant public corporations. That's what public financing is. The fed issues a stock split of new shares in your name and loans the new shares (dollars) to corporations in need. So you get richer every day.
It is a forced savings plan where they reinvest 97.5% of everything you make in the corporations by printing 39 new dollar shares every time you deposit a check in the bank for one dollar.

This way the confiscation and forced savings is unseen and evenly distributed so you can't see or feel where the loss of your labor is occurring. You know it is happening just not how.

So the plaintiffs were actually not human beings. They were not men, they were not persons.
The plaintiffs were vessels (The JOHN H. DOE, a merchant vessel in wartime) operating under Emergency War Powers (Admiralty) and in Bankruptcy!

So the law of necessity applies, not the law of the land. Under the law of necessity, there is no Law!

So the government can tell your vessel what to do and what not to do because of the Emergency War Powers and the banking emergency of 1933.

The court was correct in it's decision. The estates of the dead people had no right to own a cow or consume it's milk. How can an estate consume the cows milk? A legal fiction doesn't even exist except on paper. Can a corporation have an The right right to consume a cows milk? No. A corporation is not natural, it has no natural rights.

The people who thought they brought their suit in common law in fact brought their suit in Admiralty or Equity. I would have to check to see which.
To bring the claim in common law they would have had to do so either in small claim court or in International court. All other courts operated by The U.S. are just interdepartmental courts for government employees, that is to say legal fictions. Government employees have no natural rights only duties, privileges. They are legally dead, legal fictions. So the people brought their case into an Internal tribunal of the U.S. Government operated ONLY for it's employees. The court decided government employees don't have a right to have a cow at work and drink it's milk. Which makes sense. You see the government employees that sued work for the Department of Agriculture!

The plaintiffs were legal fictions, government employees, ooops!
Wrong plaintiff, Wrong court, right decision.

If the right plaintiff figures out that he is not a dead guys 'estate or government employee and figures out that he went to a court reserved exclusively for the dead...then he can use his true name (living name) and go into the right venue to enforce his rights.

The Oracle

The States have been under Martial Law since 1861!
The United States hasn't had a common law court since 1933.
Vessels have no natural rights and are under military command because the military government has never been stood down since the Civil War.
The plaintiffs were merchant vessels operating under martial law and in bankruptcy.

Is all that really necessary? Just so we're clear, I don't

buy into all that.

I do understand the difference between a real man and a legal person, but that's as far as this needs to go. Anything beyond that really isn't necessary.

If You Want To Be Free It Is Necessary To Become Executor of

Your own Estate. The legal fiction (U.S. Citi zen ship) is actually an Estate. Between the berth certificate and Social Security you were declared legally dead, brain damaged or lost at sea. Now should you "return from the sea alive" or come to your senses you can reclaim your Estate and operate it as Executor until your second death.
This is what I have done and every day I learn new ways to handle this vessel on the seas of commerce. The sea of commerce is very dangerous. Ignoring the legal fiction attached to you won't do you any good. They already got your name, your footprint, your photos, your medical records, your school records, your grocery shopping records, even DNA if you are under twenty.

Best to learn how to claim your vessel and defend it from the pirates everywhere because your life's labor is pledged to that vessel and all your rights were put on board it including your right to life.
The pirates (government) can't starve you to death or murder you if they already have you classified as legally dead. No Crime Is committed if they kill an already legally dead guy.

Yes, all of this is necessary to master if you want to live through what history says comes next: the mass liquidation of Estates/vessels/debt slaves. It starts of with stuff like you can't drink milk from your own cow or you have to wear a star........and we know how that ends. No one was injured or killed during the Holocaust only Estates were liquidated and their assets transferred to the bankers to repay the loans Hitler used to Finance his war machine. The U.S. has, is, and will continue to use your Estate to pay it's debts until either you reclaim title to your life's labor that the U.S. Government
claims they own or until they work you to death to pay their bills.

So you better learn how to claim the commercial vessel trust/estate that owns you. Either you claim the legal fiction and learn to use it to fight pirates or the state and the bankers will hold you as their chattel property and work you and your family to the bone.

The Oracle

The Judge is right

as a plaintiff he has no rights.

But as sui juris he has!

reedr3v's picture

This judge needs to have his turn at the public

trough terminated. Let him eat food stamps.

Um, trade on public spigot for another?


reedr3v's picture

Of course you are right. I was being flip

: )for a moment, enjoying the vision.


my bad.

all you would need to do is shot the cow and have the authority

over for a BBQ. Everything would be right then.

No need to lock us up, we are in a world size prison.
That is real living.

As Ron Paul often stresses

The Constitution is not a document intended to GIVE you rights. Your rights are inherent. They are given to you naturally by a stronger power.

The Constitution is a document intended to prevent the government from taking AWAY your rights.

I think this judge has forgotten the basics.

This is a good point

Judges, as in this case, are waiting to be shown what rights a person has rather than first assuming a person has all rights, and it's only a question of what people can't do (things that affect others).

But this raises a question for me. Take the Second Amendment, for example, which is often the subject of debate. Do citizens naturally have the right to bear arms? If people have all rights automatically, could I begin constructing my own nuclear reactor in my back yard?

Would your right to build a nuclear reactor interfere with

my right to be protected from the release of radiation?

I suspect it would. Therefore you have no such right.

But why go so exotic as a nuclear reactor?

We can pretty much establish your right to a hunting rifle. But what if you have a persistant desire and tendency to fire that weapon off in random directions at my house and others, risking my safety and others? Do you keep that right the bar arms?

I think even the most ardent libertarian would say "NO".

Your rights end when the excercise of those rights violate MY rights.

Easy to dismiss. The right to keep and bear arms is a natural

right. It is ancillary to the right of self-defense and self-preservation. (think hunting for food on that last part)

Thus, absent a more basic right, no, there is no right to keep and bear arms.

So, does building your own nuke reactor protect you or your family? And from what?

The 2nd Amendment was clear, the reason the RTKBA is not to be infringed, is to make sure the People are always able to fight the government. Small arms are crucial to this equation. Without them, tyranny is assured. If the government has bigger arms, no matter, it still takes boots on the ground to fully subdue a population. They could nuke whole states if they chose to "set an example" but if the People elsewhere told them to go stick it anyway, that they'd rather be vaporized than live a slave, nukes are useless.

Thus even faced against our own government actively nuking entire States, small arms are critical, and truly, the only things NECESSARY for self-defense, and the "security of a free state."

A nuke is not only unnecessary, it is only effective against other large firepower. It is wholly ineffective against a People determined to be Free AND who possess small arms.

Thus, no, one does not have a right to a nuke, or the means to make a nuke.

Well I would not be at any more risk than I was

when the proffessionals at 3 mile island lost control of theirs.
And having a gun is hardly the same impact risk of owning a nuclear reactor , is it?

I disagree

I think people would certainly be at more risk from allowing anyone, competent or not, to start building a nuclear reactor. At least "professionals" require a certain level of training.

Of course a gun isn't the same impact risk, but I'm imagining hypothetical situations to see how far the "natural rights" ideology can hold.

Education is

as educated people DO. Doesn't prove a thing.
Risk is subjective. What is a degree in education but a document. There exists mistakes every day and I catch quit a lot of proffessionals making them. And I am just a shepherd boy. Proof is in the pudding, look at Washington DC. They are our best and brightest . AH ha!!!

I don't think

you would call seeing a nuclear reactor in your neighbor's back yard only a subjective risk ;)

The basic right is self protection

not the owning of a gun. But without a gun in todays world it is so much harder to protect one's self from those who have guns, namely your aggressive government. This is why the Fathers specified the second amendment. They were well aware of human nature of some individuals who love to wield power. There is ALWAYS threat of abusive persons who show no mercy. Just take a look overseas. Jihad, in and of itself, is exactly the point.

I'd say yes

you have the right to have a nuclear reactor with regards to the constitution. but remember you can't harm anyone with it.


That could be a problem, though. By the time it did its harm, depending on the size of the reactor (and explosion), it wouldn't matter. Many people could still be dead.

responsibility for your actons

and some good common sense is all we need to regulate our lives.

I agree

but unfortunately just saying common sense will provide sufficient regulation will not convince a great many people.



Free includes debt-free!

Yikes. Just reading through


Just reading through that link http://www.thecompletepatient.com/storage/WIorder-clarificat...

Was truely scary, sad and mind boggling. I almost sounded like "Doc" from back to the future as I was reading it.

We live in a society where you can exchange STDS with multiple partners without state violation, but you can't drink raw milk. You can have an abortion, but you can't drink raw milk.

It's like we're in a clown prison.


Sounds like this should be added to the Bill of Rights?

I'm guessing the issue was never brought Constitutionally because it was always assumed to be inherent?

Interestingly, this seems a great example why Alexander Hamilton argued against a Bill of Rights. From Wikipedia:



Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 84, argued against a "Bill of Rights," asserting that ratification of the Constitution did not mean the American people were surrendering their rights, and, therefore, that protections were unnecessary: "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations." Critics pointed out that earlier political documents had protected specific rights, but Hamilton argued that the Constitution was inherently different:

Hamilton fought tooth and nail anything that endangered

Hamilton fought tooth and nail anything that endangered his plans for empire.

He and his cronies wanted the make the Crown's tyranny into a local tyranny.

Thomas DiLorenzo called it "Hamilton's Curse". I see Hamilton, Clay, Calhoun, Biddle the banker, Lincoln as prototypes for the modern neocon.

Free includes debt-free!