(NaturalNews) Documents and testimony obtained by NaturalNews allege the following: The Rawesome Foods armed "raw milk raids" and prosecution of James Stewart and Sharon Palmer were carried out in part by law-breaking private citizens pretending to be lawful government authorities. Those individuals -- who have been operating under false labels such as "district attorney" or "LAPD officer" -- may conceivably be liable for millions of dollars in civil and criminal damages for their actions which technically may be described as:
• The armed robbery of Rawesome Foods, including theft of cash
• Willful destruction of private property
• Criminal kidnapping of James Stewart
• Violation of the civil rights of James Stewart
... and other crimes to be described later.
This all stems from the fact that in California, all state "officials" must have sworn and signed oaths of office on filein order to qualify as duly empowered state officials. This is written right into the California Constitution, Article 20, Sec. 3, which states: (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_20)
SEC. 3. Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:
"I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter."
To whom does this oath apply? According to the California Constitution, this oath applies to:
...every officer and employee of the State, including the University of California, every county, city, city and county, district, and authority, including any department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or instrumentality of any of the foregoing.
Why is this important? Because in the case of Rawesome Foods, key figures who signed search warrants, conducted the armed raw milk raids, and prosecuted James Stewart did not have oaths of office on file. Thus, they acted outside any official capacity and engaged in their actions against James Stewart with only the standing of private citizens, not public servants / officials.
Michelle LeCavalier deemed an "impersonator"
Michelle LeCavalier, for example, is the Health Department "official" who signed the original raid warrant for Rawesome Foods. You can see her signature on the warrant document here:
That document, which was cited to justify the use of armed force against a man distributing raw milk to happy customers, stated that Michelle LeCavalier believed "a felony has been committed or that a particular person has committed a felony."
It goes on to "COMMAND TO SEARCH" "ANY SHERIFF, POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES" the Rawesome Foods property.
Critically, at the time Michelle LeCavalier signed this search warrant -- August 1st, 2011 -- she had no signed Oath of Office on file for her position as required under the California Constitution as well as health department procedures.
This is admitted in an April 26, 2012 letter from the County of Los Angeles Public Health, which openly admits no Oath of Office exists for Michelle LeCavalier and that the department's internal processes have been changed because of this question being raised:
In your letter you expressed concern over the absence of a public record regarding the Oath of Office for Environmental Health Specialist Michelle LeCavalier. Your letter also suggests Ms. LeCavalier should not have received compensation unless an oath is taken per the California Government Code section 1367.
Department of Public Health procedures require the appointment of Deputy Health Officer and oath of office to be given at the time of badge issuance. However, a review of Department policies and practices indicate a need for improvement in the recording process and corrective measures have been initiated.
It reads, "The Los Angeles County Clerk's Indices to Appointment of Deputies have been searched and no record could be found of a filing under the name of MICHELLE LECAVALIER. Indices searched include appointments filed in the Office of the County Clerk through February 14, 2012."
An individual schooled in the application of law in California and the United States of America has now filed a Motion to Dismiss the LA county case against James Stewart. That document, filed on July 18, 2012, states:
3. The parties who signed the Warrant and the Complaint for said warrant, Richard Ballou as declarant and complainant, and Michelle LaCavalier as witness and affiant of the search warrant, were both acting in their official capacities, but neither have a valid oath of office filed on the record as required pursuant to the State of California Constitution Bill/Declaration of Rights Article 20 section 3, and pursuant to law, have been and were, specific to this matter, impersonating public officials, which is a felony (see exhibit 'B').
It goes on to state:
Wherefore, because all actions by the state agents/actors have been performed in a criminal manner, fruit of the poison tree, and in violation of Stewart’s guaranteed and protected rights and resulting charges specific to this matter have been done in violation of clearly established law and because jurisdiction cannot be proven on the record, this court should sua sponte dismiss the charges. Therefore James Stewart, defendant in error moves this honorable court to dismiss all charges with prejudice.
Armed Rawesome raid search warrant was null and void
As a result of this remarkable oversight on the part of the LA District Attorney's office and the Los Angeles Health Department, the search warrant raid document bearing Michelle LeCavalier's signature which was used to justify the armed LAPD raid on Rawesome Foods was null and void. It carried no official legal standing whatsoever.
NaturalNews recently learned that Michelle LeCavalier has, in the last few months, taken steps to get an Oath of Office sworn, notarized and on file. This alone is evidence that her Oath of Office did not exist in 2011 when the Rawesome search warrant was signed... and it certainly did not exist in the years prior to that.
This means that the entire armed raid on Rawesome Foods was illegal, as it was conducted without a valid search warrant signed by a state official bound by a signed Oath of Office as required under California law.
This, in turn, means that any and all evidence acquired as a result of this search is invalid and inadmissible in a court of law.
Even more, it means that the LAPD officers who conducted the armed raid weren't fulfilling a search warrant at all, but were actually (and inadvertently) engaged in what could reasonably be defined as the armed robbery of a private business which resulted in the destruction of over $50,000 worth of property and the kidnapping of a private individual.
LAPD commits armed robbery against Rawesome Foods
According to a popular online dictionary, the definition of "armed robbery" fits perfectly with the actions of the LAPD in their illegal raid of Rawesome Foods:
robbery n. 1) the direct taking of property (including money) from a person (victim) through force, threat or intimidation. Robbery is a felony (crime punishable by a term in state or federal prison). "Armed robbery" involves the use of gun or other weapon which can do bodily harm, such as a knife or club. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/armed+robbery)
For the record, the LAPD not only destroyed Rawesome Foods' private property during the armed raid; they also stole thousands of dollars in cash from James Stewart and the Rawesome Foods cash storage area. The cash, of course, was used each day to purchase fresh produce from area farms. See the video proof of this at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b27EFldZ17k
It even turns out that at least one of the LAPD "officers" who participated in the raid also had no oath of office on file, either. This is an explosive development because it means "law enforcement officers" from LAPD were actually just private citizens impersonating peace officers and wearing costumes featuring badges and guns. It furthermore means that their actions are not protected under state immunity laws and that James Stewart can individually sue each and every member of the LAPD, LA Health Dept. and LA District Attorney's office who conspired to raid his business at gunpoint, destroy his private property, forcefully kidnap him and deny him his civil rights.
But that's not even the worst part of all this. There's also, of course, a cover-up.
LA County DA's office engages in cover-up to hide their missing Oaths of Office
According to documents received and reviewed by NaturalNews, none of the following 8 investigators working on the Rawesome Foods case at the Los Angeles District Attorney's office were able to produce signed Oaths of Office within 30 days of being requested. These individuals include:
• Richard Ballou
• Christopher Rentie
• Joyce Toby-Kerchisnik
• Susan Wiggins
• Jenelle Meier
• Jay Chapman
• Pete Parmalis
• Teresa Carver
LA District AttorneySteve Cooley also took part in an apparent cover-up effort to try to claim that signed Oaths of Offices could not be released to the public. (See evidence, below.)
This kind of secrecy is, of course, the essence of tyranny. When those who claim to uphold the law will not, themselves, transparently and openly abide by the law, the entire system devolves into a lawless criminal racket that often targets innocent citizens. When the District Attorney's own "officers" operate in violation of the Constitution of the State of California, they obviously cannot be counted on to uphold the law in the first place. This is probably why we see such selective and punitive prosecution against a California "milk man" who only sought to distribute healthy, wholesome unpasteurized milk to a long list of happy club members, none of whom were harmed by James Stewart's actions.
To really understand this, see this letter dated June 14, 2012 and signed by LA District Attorney Steve Cooley, which was acquired by NaturalNews:
In it, Cooley attempts to justify the secrecy of the non-existent oaths of office by stating:
...personnel records are exempt from disclosure under the PRA... So too are items for which disclosure is prohibited by other statute. Additionally, materials of a portion of them are purely personal and, therefore, exempt. Having considered these issues, our office will release the Oaths of Office, but would redact the signature of each employee and the Chief to preserve their privacy rights and guard against identity theft. (Note: To date, on July 18th 2012, the promised Oaths of Office still have not been released, our sources say.)
This letter, signed by LA District Attorney Steve Cooley, appears to be a blatant cover-up to avoid releasing signed Oaths of Office of DA investigators. The DA's excuse for not releasing oath signatures is fallacious and invalid: that signatures are "personal materials" and therefore "exempt" from public disclosure, he claims. This is absurd on its face, given that the Oaths of Office are, by their very nature, public documents whose sole purpose of being created is to ensure that public officials serve the public interest and defend both the state and federal constitutions. Without a visible signature, such documents are null and void. It is the signature that binds the person to the oath.
The DA's assertion that "we are sworn to protect the public, but we cannot disclose our signatures swearing our oath to protect the public" is absurd. It stands as an example of a belief that government rules over the People and that the People have no right to demand accountability. Government by secrecy seems to be the norm in the LA District Attorney's office, which exercises vast powers to arrest and prosecute individuals and thereby deprive them of life and liberty.
That a government agency with such widespread powers would not even be willing to disclose documents confirming its compliance with California law is beyond disturbing. It is actually a sign that the runaway criminality of California government has crossed a tipping point and is now descending into accelerated lawlessness. Another obvious sign of the insanity of this organization is that while violent criminals run loose on the streets of Los Angeles, the DA's office spends what surely amounts to millions of dollars in taxpayer money in an attempt to jail a 65-year-old senior citizen "milk man" who is no threat whatsoever to the public.
Why the big cover-up? Thousands of criminal prosecutions in Los Angeles could now be overturned
But there's an even bigger story behind all this. What NaturalNews is uncovering here is a systematic, deeply-ingrained culture of willful lawbreaking by the Los Angeles DA's office. The lack of Oaths of Office among DA investigators and prosecutors may now put thousands of criminal convictions at risk of being overturned, due to the fact that many DA employees apparently operated in "official" capacity without having signed Oaths of Office on file as required by law.
This startling situation can now potentially invalidate thousand of search warrants that led to arrests of violent criminals, rapists, fraudsters and even child molesters. Any and all evidence acquired under search warrants signed under false pretenses (by people "impersonating" DA "officials") may be thrown out of court, causing a judicial crisis in L.A. County and resulting in the loss of tens of thousands of hours of police work and detective work. As a long-time supporter of local law enforcement myself -- someone who has been recognized and honored by the Chief of Police of a large U.S. city -- I am horrified by the thought that the Los Angeles District Attorney's office has been operating outside the law for many years, violating the California Constitution and using invalid search warrants to conduct what are now exposed as illegal armed raids on California citizens.
No wonder the DA wants to throw James Stewart in prison and hope this all goes away. But it's not going away, of course. Now, the Los Angeles DA's office might even engage in desperately trying to fabricate back-dated Oaths of Office -- an act which is itself a felony crime. They must try to salvage their prosecutions before the truth catches up with them... and before the thousands of defense lawyers who operate in Los Angeles realize they can get their clients off the hook by challenging the Oaths of Office of DA "officials" who falsely signed search warrants that led to arrests which are now null and void.
The Los Angeles county DA has become a danger to the People of California
So why is NaturalNews publishing this information then? Because we believe in upholding the law. We've seen extreme and utterly unjustifiable violations of the law and civil rights displayed by both Los Angeles and Ventura county DA's offices, and what we are uncovering is a systemic culture of lawlessness and ego-tripping career prosecutors who target individuals like James Stewart for no other reason than personal revenge. If we are to uphold law and order in any society, we must demand that those who enforce the law FOLLOW the law themselves. And when they act outside the law, we must hold them accountable for their actions.
Rather than upholding the law and protecting peace, the Los Angeles county District Attorney has become a threat to the safety and liberty of the People of California. DA prosecutors have become, in essence, a lawless band of impersonators who engage in "Shock and Awe" tactics to force their will upon private citizens. While the DA's office has no doubt done tremendous good putting many violent criminals behind bars, their record is forever tarnished by their selective, punitive and highly suspicious targeting of James Stewart of Rawesome Foods. They have become precisely what they once swore to defeat: a gang of lawless, terror-slinging rogues who demand obedience and are willing to shove a gun in your face to force you to comply.
"The Founders put the requirement of an oath to the Constitution in the Constitution itself, in Article Six," Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes told me over the phone today (www.OathKeepers.org). "And it's vital that every officer in government, whether of the state or federal government, must be sworn in with an oath."
Because if they aren't, to whose allegiance are they really loyal? If they do not swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, then where do their loyalties really lie? Because the last part of the California Oath of Office reads as follows:
"And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means." (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_20)
That this phrase is in the California Constitution proves that the framers of that document suspected California's government would be targeted by infiltrators seeking to overthrow the government.
If you look around America today, in fact, you may recognize other top officials who are also impersonators with fake identities who push a destructive agenda that denies Americans our Constitutional rights. Ring a bell, anyone? Now you realize just how deep this story really goes.
If someone arrested your friends and stole food from you and your community - all in your name - you'd probably want to know about it. In fact, you'd probably take action to correct things and see that it doesn't happen again... I know I would.
And yet this is precisely what seems to have unfolded during the August 3rd, 2011 raid on the Rawesome Foods private club in Venice and what appears to be continually happening around the country while We the People remain asleep and ignorant to (or unwilling to face) the corruption run amock in government agencies still claiming to be working for our best interests.
But what if you could give substance to that sick feeling you've only ever carried quietly inside - the one that tells you something really is wrong with this picture, that something foul or dirty or sinister is at work? What if the people you thought were just 'crazy conspiracy theorists' were actually the truth-tellers? What if you could definitively prove certain members of the government weren't really serving the People? What if you could demonstrate with concrete evidence that certain government agents closest to the investigation and subsequent arrests of your friends were never authorized - not by you, nor anyone - to investigate in the first place? What if those folks claiming to conduct their duties on behalf of the People had goofed and missed an important step somewhere, and you - a concerned citizen - could see their too hastily assumed authority now unraveling?
And what if you were beginning at last to understand that even you had - in your silent, unquestioning consent - somehow helped those perceived authorities to falsely accuse your friends, harrass and intimidate your entire community and ultimately force your neighbors into giving up their businesses or declaring bankruptcy? What if you decided no longer to wear the cloak of a victim?
If you could do all that, I expect the whole house of cards might just come crashing down. And I expect it might start a very real revolution in which the now better-informed citizens of this world unite to hold its elected and appointed leaders and government agencies accountable - to their own rules, at the very least. I further expect we'd feel both shocked at the level of non-compliance and yet empowered at our own abilities to affect change.
It could happen... Here's why:
Six full months have now passed since the Rawesome raid. (Many thanks, by the way, to folks like Mr. David Gumpert who continue to publish updates: http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2012/1/27/hurry-up-and-wait-rawesome-three-get-used-to-criminal-justic.html.) Still, we former club members are likely no closer to forgetting how much more complicated it is these days to obtain the nourishing food we require. In that time, however, some of us probably have forgotten a few of the details that resulted in our having been separated from it... Details like the name Michelle LeCavalier.
So let's refresh our memories together... Savvy reporting by Natural News on the day of the raid (http://www.naturalnews.com/033224_Rawesome_Foods_search_warrant.html) kept us abreast of what was happening and revealed that it was LeCavalier's signature that appeared on the search warrant (http://www.naturalnews.com/files/RawWarrant1088-NoSSN.pdf). But little else was known about this mystery woman - so little, in fact, that Natural News had posted the following query for more information within the body of their own article:
"Who is Michelle LeCavalier?
I want to know who this state employee is and why she is engaged in authorizing acts of terrorism against innocent citizens of California. Attempts to find out more about LeCavalier have so far failed, although NaturalNews has confirmed that she is a California state employee who worked under the Dept. of Health at one point.
If you have any information about Michelle LeCavalier, or a link to an online photo of her, please let us know. This woman needs to be held accountable for her role in authorizing acts of government terrorism against the People."
Even with such limited information available, it has come to my attention that new data has recently surfaced on LeCavalier - most notably that she has NO Oath of Office on record with either the Secretary of State in California or the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office, despite her signature on the search warrant (http://www.naturalnews.com/files/RawWarrant1088-NoSSN.pdf) issued against Rawesome & Healthy Family Farms. See below.
*Redacted items NOT directly related to Michelle LeCavalier .
You might argue that all this Oath of Office business is simply more non-information on LeCavalier, except that this lack of filing would indicate she appears to be out of compliance with CA GOVERNMENT CODES 1360-1367, which state that "before any officer enters on the duties of his office, he shall take and subscribe the oath or affirmation set forth in Section 3 of Article XX of the Constitution of California," and that "no compensation nor reimbursement for expenses incurred shall be paid to any officer by any public agency unless he has taken and subscribed to the oath or affirmation required..."
But LeCavalier's isn't the only missing Oath of Office. Richard Ballou, Senior Investigator for the County of Los Angeles District Attorney's Office Environmental Crimes Unit, the same man listed as "Declarant and Complainant" on the 21-page complaint against the accused: http://nourishedkitchen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/filed-HFF-Complaint.pdf) *also* appears to have NO Oath of Office on file. See below.
And so who are these people? And how is it they've assumed the roles of government agents working on behalf of the People, when they've taken no Oath of Office promising to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies,
foreign and domestic", and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the State of California"?
Without this solemn bond with the People, how have we any guarantee that We the People are protected from their ignorance and/or malice? What recourse do we have against any false witness borne by them against our friends and neighbors? And what's more, shouldn't these revelations call into question the entirety of the so-called "evidence" gathered by their direction in this case?
This concerned citizen would like very much to know how it is that these departments of the County of Los Angeles and the State of California claim to be in compliance with the above-named CA Government Codes, when folks with no filed Oaths of Office seem to be on the payroll. It's a simple question, really. And if there is an exception somewhere that gets them out of this requirement, then I want to see it... That's all.
After all, according to CA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54950-54963 and CA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 11120-11132, " The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created."
And anything less simply will not do. Not for me. Not anymore.
I'll leave it to more legally minded folks to discern how damaging this publicly available information may or may not be to the prosecution's case against James Stewart and the Rawesome Three. Of course, I hope that it is very damaging, and I cannot conceive of how it could be anything else but that. Even notaries, for example, cannot begin notarizing documents until they've taken an Oath of Office. And for those who might suggest that Oaths of Office are strictly ceremonial, I'd ask what would happen if the President of the United States were to neglect taking an Oath of Office. I mean, isn't that entire point of the Inauguration? Given the hostilities still lingering over disputes regarding the current President's birth certificate, I can just imagine the uproar that would ensue from the People, had Obama failed to take an Oath of Office. And in fact, I'd take issue myself with such an omission.
In the case of Rawesome, however, as a very concerned citizen whose food was [I believe] wrongfully taken and destroyed and whose access to those foods continues to be denied as a result of documents signed by LeCavalier and Ballou, I have a big problem simply continuing blindly to trust in a governmental system whose corruption seems to run always deeper. In short, I am - like many of you, I hope - beginning to wake up. And I am beginning to take action.
Please do not mistake me. I am not contesting the necessity and usefulness of some structure of government - and ideally, fellow conscientious members of government agencies will support and assist us in weeding out unlawful and unconstitutional behaviors; Rather, I am simply expressing my increasing intolerance of apparent abuses within the governmental system. That is why, I believe, these folks and all others holding government offices MUST be held accountable - not merely by their own agencies, but by the People (that's us) whom they claim to represent.
Let's not forget who sits at the top of the ladder in this government (both state and county), who is ultimately responsible for the behavior of any such ill-sorted rabble, and who therefore who has the power and authority to set things right again...
We the People.
(Another article by Natural News with some excellent tips for how to get started: http://www.naturalnews.com/033318_government_agents_Rawesome_Foods.html. If you're outside California, why not start with a visit to the State or County Recorder's office to look into the public records of your own local government agents? Who knows what happens when you're not looking? Not you... That's for sure!)
Posted by Angela Doss at 9:29 PM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook
Nicole WagnerFebruary 28, 2012 12:57 PM
Wow .... did some lawyers initially find this specific information? Either way, the case should be completely thrown out just based on these "simple" mistakes!! What a circus of morons
Angela DossFebruary 28, 2012 4:01 PM
From a Facebook exchange, posted with permission from my friend Mako. (Follow me on Facebook by visiting >> https://www.facebook.com/pages/TheGirlsGoneRawcom/187273177976472 << and clicking 'Like'.)
Mako: hella intriguing. I didn't know Health Specialist III's needed to take oaths of office. To me, it sounded like a glorified health inspector. Does an REHS have to swear in?
Angela Doss: I don't have all the answers either... But the info certainly raises questions, at the very least. And since these folks' positions supposedly exist for our benefit and/or protection, it seems We the People (especially me) should at least be better informed.
Angela Doss: And anyway, why would one group of government agents be required to take oaths and not another?? These are things I want to learn.
Mako: from what I read, the argument is that the person who signed off on the raid technically needs to be sworn in (or on record of taking an oath). The only problem I see is that it is a secondary action stemming from an original directive, and that person has sworn the oath. An REHS is hired as the authority to determine what is "healthy" or "public health in environment" crap. That might be the loophole from the other end. but yes, intriguing
Angela Doss: Yes, there could be loopholes galore... My point is that our government is accountable to us, and NOT the other way around. I simply want an explanation of this - because something looks a bit off to me.
Mako: I think it boils down to Pat Kennelly, Food Safety Chief at the Food, Drug and Radiation Safety Division under California DPH. If he authorized the REHS, it's a sworn deal. To be honest, you can't drum up SWAT-esque resources unless it's a political move. Makes me wonder if he was directed by someone who needs supermarket support to be honest.
AnonymousMarch 12, 2012 3:00 PM
Not all individuals that do business as "government" are required by law to take and subscribe an oath of office. What difference does it make that your oppressors have sworn an oath to support pieces of paper that they force on you at gunpoint?
Angela DossMarch 12, 2012 5:49 PM
While I think it's true not all individuals are required by law to have oaths of office on file, it seems many of those involved in the Rawesome case are. And it is disturbing that so many (more than I've published here, in fact) are missing. As to "what difference it make[s]"... in the long-run, well, that remains to be seen. My hope is that all this, when brought more to light, can remind law enforcement officials that they too - and not just constituents - are bound by law as well. Whether we all agree with that system of law is another topic entirely... In any case, I expect we'll want to continue watching this whole thing. People are beginning to wake up, and as they do, they're not so happy with what they see.
Aajonus VonderplanitzJuly 19, 2012 11:08 PM
This was also the case in the Wisconsin v. Vernon Hershberger case in which County and State "authorities" pursued and achieved a search warrant without being true public servants. They were not duly accepted public servants because they lacked oaths of office as well as bonds. In Wisconsin, according to the its Constitution, you must have an oath of office on file as well as a bond. None of those who were responsible for getting a judge to sign a warrant had oaths of office or bonds on file.
Farmer Vernon filed a motion to dismiss based partially on those grounds. The judge denied even knowing the law about oaths and bonds, even though all statues and designations were cited in the motion to dismiss. The corruption in government to deprive us of our rights is moving fast and hard since 2010. We must stop it. There is always jury nullification.
Jury nullification is every jurors right to judge not only fact but law. Jurors can rule by their verdicts that laws are unjust and acquit the defendant. That was how the public rid itself of the prohibition laws in the 1920's and 30's.
But guess what, judge Guy Reynold in Vernon's case ruled that jury nullification cannot be mentioned during the trial. Now you know how judges who work for the governments taking actions against citizens stack the deck against citizens. They violate their oaths of office to protect the people according to both State and Federal Constitutions.
What can everyone do about it? Can we sue the judges who violate us? Sure but it will be another judge that will rule and manipulate the jury in that case. So where can we achieve justice in such a corrupt system? I have no answer other than for hordes of people to appear at such trials and wreck havoc via demonstrations. I do not mean simply hundreds of people. We need thousands of people.
Farmer Vernon Hershberger's case is scheduled for September 25, 2012 at the Baraboo County Courthouse. Please plan to be there for the week. In case dates change, keep updated with David Gumpert at TheCompletePatient.com.
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.