Land Taking ClarifiedSubmitted by nwind on Mon, 01/05/2009 - 18:54
This is the clearest article I have read on land taking:
NAIS---PREMISES DEFINED---WHO WINS?
Marti Oakley--Jan. 6, 2009
In what can only appear to be nothing more than a last ditch effort to eradicate all family farms and ranches, USDA has been caught repeatedly misrepresenting the voluntary National Animal Identification System and many states and groups are fighting back.
Without any approval or oversight from congress (none being needed as USDA operates as a self-regulating agency) USDA launched the NAIS with the usual bleating about [national security]. This threat was identified as the possibility that some rampant terrorist might somehow sneak some bio weapon into the country and infect a cow or corn field with some disease no doubt developed while hiding out in a cave somewhere on the other side of the world. I suppose its possible considering how insecure our borders are.
More than likely, any attack of a bio weapons nature will come from one of the hundreds of bio labs now operating right here at home. The US is the most prolific producer of bio weapons in the world and has created and designed some of the most lethal biological weapons ever to have been cultivated.
Using the usual scare tactics of terrorist attacks, NAIS was launched with the appearance of one goal in mind: eradicating family farms and ranches and establishing the complete takeover of all food producing lands and animals by huge multi-national corporations. Instrumental in this takeover is the designation of PREMISES ID, rather than property ownership.
Defining Premises within the law:
Premises, signifies a formal part of a deed; and it is made to designate an estate.
Estates:Lands and tenements when generally called premises, or when particularly spoken of as, the premises, will be sold without reserve.
Conveyancing: That part in the beginning of a deed, in which are set forth the names of the parties, with their titles and additions, and in which are recited such deeds, agreements, or matters of fact, as are necessary to explain the reasons upon which the contract then entered into is founded;
and it is here also the consideration on which it is made, is set down, and the certainty of the thing granted. The technical meaning of the premises in a deed is every thing which precedes the habendum. (http://www.lectlaw.com/
Ha`ben´dum (hå`bĕn´dŭm) n. 1. (Law) That part of a deed which follows the part called the premises, and determines the extent of the interest of estate granted. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Habendum
Premises ID when viewed as a conveyance, could be construed to mean voluntarily abandoning what you owned. You convey control of your property by signing up for Premises ID, voluntarily abandoning your control of the property and subjecting the property to the newly acquired control of the government. Simply put: you just gave away your property and any rights to control or use that property as YOU see fit. At this point, legally, the property is no longer property but rather a premises and can be sold and controlled by someone other than you without reserve.
Premises signifies a formal part of a deed as mentioned above. To designate is to name or entitle and to create an estate. A premises has no protection under the United States Constitution and allows no exclusive rights of ownership. Once you have signed onto PREMISES ID, you have put your property into a state of legal limbo and have agreed to the new status as nothing more than a tenant farmer or sharecropper. Of course you will still have to make the mortgage payments until they take it from you.
Animals belong to the owner only so long as the owner retains possession of them. Once you enter into the National Animal Identification System, you no longer legally own the animals. They are no longer under your control, but rather under the control of the USDA.
The USDA uses the term [stakeholder] to identify those who own animals, implying under the statutes and codes you are a third party interest until the legal owner can be determined. No doubt in an administrative court which administers codes and statutes, not constitutional law. [you could not access a civil, constitutionally controlled court]
UN policy of STAMPING OUT/Agenda 21 rules for controlling access to food supplies and sources.
Using the UN Agenda 21 rules the USDA has adopted, there is no requirement for the USDA to vaccinate or to quarantine sick animals. In fact, they don't even have to prove there is a real threat to the animal population, or to substantiate that any disease is present or a threat prior to stamping out entire animal populations in a six mile area surrounding the claimed infection or disease. The only requirement of the NAIS is that USDA follow UN Agenda 21 guidelines and eradicate all animal life in that area. That means every fish, bird, dog, cat, cow horse, deer, raccoon etc... every living thing is killed in its tracks.
This isn't about food safety, animal safety or national security: this is about food access and control.
How they get away with it:
1946 Federal Administrative Procedures Act. The Administrative Procedures Act is the law which allows US Federal Agencies to create the rules and regulations they can then enforce. This Act is a subversion of constitutional government and should be repealed. It was another case of congress ceding its authority to a non-elected agency allowing the construction of codes and statutes and avoiding constitutional provisions and laws.
Using regulations they themselves created, in essence creating laws in abeyance of congress, the USDA can also amend any of these regulations and rules at will and at any point can rewrite their own laws. http://www.archives.gov/federalregister/laws/administrative-...
NAIS violates the 1st, 4th, 5th, and the 14th Amendments, suspending and substantially violating the rights of private citizens without so much as a hearing in congress, not that it would do any good. Congress has shown itself consistently to support the most un-American and anti-constitutional policies and laws ever foisted on the American public and neither party is a protector of constitutional rights.
Its difficult to know that any time we are dealing with our own government or its agencies, we must constantly be on guard for hidden agendas, the hiding of hostile intent, or the practice of [altered functions]. This means that although the thing being promoted may have a good and beneficial purpose if applied as it is marketed, an altered function which is hidden, destructive or implemented with malice can be the reality.
Kudos, to all of you out there fighting this battle to keep government from controlling our land, animals and our right to chose the foods we want to consume.
© 2008 Marti Oakley