[Foodcouncil] NAIS: Swapping debt for Land?

Rosanne Lindsay rosanne.lindsay at gmail.com
Fri Dec 19 11:07:33 CST 2008

The following excerpt, taken from the link below, as an example of the real
purpose of NAIS - to define a farmer's property as a "premises" (which has
no protection under the US constitution).  Vilisak is just one person who
will continue the program, as already laid out by world leaders.  It is
bigger than Vilisak or Obama.


The Farm Bureau, National Cattlemen's Beef Assn. and other organizations
have strong ties to USDA and government officials, including  Wisconsin's
agricultural committees.  And though diseases are supposedly a concern, one
farmer noted that those organizations continue to advocate for the import of
diseased livestock from foreign countries.  "Whether as willful intent to do
harm, or depraved indifference, the results are the same. Nothing is being
done to stem the source of these diseases."

Farmers opposing NAIS believe that diseases are a concern but that they can
only be addressed at the source.
Meanwhile, the situation has only worsened, as premise registration grants
warrantless searches, fines and forfeitures, never mentioned by those
promoting the program. http://www.opednews.com/articles/Don-t-sign-up-for-

Derry Brownfield explains that, "the World Bank, the International Monetary
fund and how the world bankers planned on collateralizing the world debt
with land. Not just the U.S. national debt, but also the *"WORLD"* debt.

That is, farmers in signing onto "premises ID" - and it is happening
involuntarily to them across the country, appears to signing away his land
as collateral on the bailout.

And there is deep concern over why any farmer needs to register his property
since it registered  already.

He bases this on a copy of a report of the FOURTH WORLD WILDERNESS CONGRESS,
which was held in Denver in 1987. "Over 1500 people from sixty countries
were told that wilderness lands were to protect the reindeer, the spotted
owl and other endangered species. Ninety percent of the group consisted of
conservationists, ecologists, government and United Nations bureaucrats. The
other ten percent were world banking heavyweights, such as David Rockefeller
of Chase Manhattan Bank, London banker Edmund de Rothschild and the
Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, James Baker, who gave the keynote address."

George W. Hunt, an investment councilor, served as official host and sat in
on all the meetings, and wrote the report.
Paraphrasing Mr. Brownfield:  Conservationists were told the WILDERNESS
CONGRESS was about beating the ozone deterioration and bringing the rain
forests back. But in meetings closed to the public, with only bankers in
attendance, the topics centered on a "WORLD CONSERVATION BANK" with
collateral to be derived from receipt of wilderness properties throughout
the world with central bank powers similar to the Federal Reserve and would
create currency and loans and engage in international discounting,
counter-trade, barter and swap actions. The bank would refinance by swapping
debt for assets. A country with a huge national debt would receive money to
pay off the debt by swapping the debt for wilderness lands. In the long
term, when the countries won't be able to pay off the loans, governments
from around the world will give title to their wilderness lands to the

Hunt said that World Bank loans, as they stand now, are not collateralized
and they want collateral, so that when they loan-swap debt, they would own
the Amazon when countries default. That is, they are going to make their bad
loans good by collateralizing them after the fact with land and somebody is
going to end up with title to twelve and half billion acres.

Brownfield says "The World Conservation Bank is a scheme to monetize land.
This will function as a world central bank and out of that bank there will
grow a one-world fiat currency.

"This isn't some scheme conjured up during the Bush and Clinton
administrations. The United Nations World Commission on Environment and
Development was created in 1982. The commission published the "BRUNDTLAND
REPORT," setting the stage for unlimited enactments to take over ecology,
and environmental and pollution laws throughout the world. The report
stated: "We will have a proposal for very harsh, quasi-spiritual ecological
laws for MOTHER EARTH. A MOTHER EARTH COMES FIRST mentality will arise
throughout the world."

"When James Baker made his keynote speech in 1987, he stated that, "No
longer will the World Bank carry this debt unsecured. The only assets we
have to collateralize are federal lands and national parks." Baker's
definition of federal lands includes Heritage sites, of which there are
about 20 in the United States. I say "about" 20, because they are being
added on a regular basis. As I write this article, Congress is about to vote
on a proposed Rim of the Valley National Park that would include over
500,000 acres of National Forest land and 170,000 parcels of private
property including many farms and ranches. At the same time there is a bill
before Congress called the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act that
would increase the acreage of designated wilderness by 50% in the lower 48
states. *** While our Heritage sites take in quite a large amount of
territory, such as Yellowstone National Park and Mesa Verde, the Grand
Canyon and the Everglades, other countries have much greater areas. Brazil
for example has the Amazon Conservation Complex and Canada has the Canadian
Rocky Mountain Parks. As I write this story, the list includes 851
properties in 141 countries, comprising over one third of the earth's land
mass. Will all this land collateralize the world's debt?  Probably not, so
along comes NAIS (the National Animal Identification System).

"According to the United States Department of Agriculture, "The first step
in implementing a national animal identification system (NAIS) is
identifying and registering premises that are associated with the animal
agriculture industry. In terms of the NAIS, a premise is any geographically
unique location in which agricultural animals are raised, held, or boarded.
Under this definition, farms, ranches, feed-yards, auction barns and
livestock exhibitions and fair sites are all examples of premises."

"That may be the definition some government bureaucrat will give you, but
the word "premises" under the "international Criminal Court Act 2002- Sect
4, states: The word "premises" includes a place and a "conveyance." Why
check with the International Criminal Court Act?  Because on June 8, 2007,
Under-Secretary of Agriculture Bruce Knight, speaking at the World Pork Expo
in Des Moines, Iowa, is quoted as saying, "We have to live by the same
international rules we're expecting other people to do."

"Throughout the entire Draft National Animal Identification System Users
Guide, land is referred to as a premises and not property. A "Premises" has
no protection under the Constitution of the United States, while property
always has the exclusive rights of the owner tied to it. The Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution protect property rights.

"The word "Premise" is a synonym for the word tenement. A definition of the
word tenement in law is: Property, such as land, held by one person
"leasing" it to another. Webster's New World Dictionary 1960 College Edition
defines "Premises" as the part of a deed or "lease" that states its reason,
the parties involved and the property in "conveyance." Webster then defines
"conveyance" as the transfer of ownership of real property from one person
to another. It is quite obvious that the bureaucrats in Washington had a
very good reason to use the term "premises" and never mention "PROPERTY."

"While the wilderness areas cover about one third of the earth's surface,
they are wilderness areas for a good reason – they were useless or difficult
to homestead, farm or use in a constructive manner. Worldwide, the best and
more valuable land is occupied by farmers, ranchers and people with the
ambition to produce. Wouldn't the World Bankers rather have some productive
property besides mountains, deserts and swamps?"

Mr. Brownfield ends by saying "I am convinced that the word "premise" will
put an encumbrance on your deed. The bankers say they want to monetize land.
It's your land and my land they want to monetize."

Which brings us back to an Amish farmer being sued in Wisconsin for not
registering his "premises" under NAIS's "premises ID."  And it brings us to
his friend, Mr. Griepentrog's
"Why implement such a program in the first place,  with all these inherent
violations of our personal freedoms?    In the end we are told to follow the
money, who will truly benefit from "premises registration."  A look into the
definition of this word on an international basis may give us insight.  The
answer lies here
http://www.newswithviews.com/brownfield/brownfield59.htm .  This will
explain  where the collateral for our national debt has been coming from to
fund the bailouts."
Mr Griepentrog goes on: "As I write this it is Veteran's Day, we are
reminded to remember our Veterans.  Let us also remember those veterans who
with frozen feet wrapped in rags, crossed that dark valley so long ago to
gain us our freedom.  Most of them were Calvinists, here fleeing religious
"When they came for the Amish, I did nothing because I was not
So, as it stands now, we have a situation in which a tiny group of
traditional farmers, the Amish and Mennonite, based on their religious
beliefs, are attempting to shield themselves from over weaning USDA power
and the loss of the most basic constitutional rights and freedoms.
And, ironically, all farmers and we ourselves are all now dependent on these
gentle people and their deeply held religious beliefs to shield us all, too,
from another round of astronomical rape (the bailout being the first) by
international financiers - the mandatory (but cruelly hidden)
collateralization of all US farm lands.
NAIS, my friends, is not about food safety.  Farmers can tell you that and
have been trying for some time.  They know because those pushing it are the
same ones who cause the diseases through filthy animal factories, feedlots
and slaughter houses, and the same ones who, along with the USDA, have
prevented inspections (even as family farmers have asked for them and been
refused by the USDA).  NAIS is not about food safety, no matter how many
food scares they can "cook" up and no matter their fall-back threat of
The USDA is an agency created to help farmers.  The penalties the USDA is
imposing for not complying are enough to destroy a farmer in a blink.

   (i) $50,000 in the case of any individual, except that the civil penalty
   may not exceed $1000 in the case of an initial violation of this chapter by
   an individual moving regulated articles not for monetary gain;

   (ii) $250,000 in the case of any other person for each violation; and

   (iii) $500,000 for all violations adjudicated in a single proceeding.

Across the country, USDA attacks on NON-corporate farmers using state ag
departments continue - raids on horse and buggy Wenger Mennonite in
Pennsylvania, <http://www.opednews.com/articles/NAIS---the-Fourth-Componen-by-Darol-Dickinson-080711-756.html/divdivbr>click
here <http://www.counterpunch.org/cohen04262008.html/divdivon> dairy farms
in California,
click here<http://www.westonaprice.org/federalupdate/aa2008/24jan08.html/divdivon>
coops in Ohio.
click here<http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_16011.cfm%C2%A0/divdiv%C2%A0/divdiv%22Food>
is given as the reason to sue small, clean NON-corporate farming operations,
while giant corporate feedlots and animal factories and slaughterhouse are
left uninspected and standards are lowered by the USDA.
Plainly, obviously, blatantly, dishonestly, cruelly, the USDA and its
agribusiness partners are not seeking "food safety."  They aren't even
seeking cleanliness or basic inspections.
Farmers know NAIS is not about and has never been about "food safety" or
"food security."  It is time for the American public to
Heavily disguised as "security," NAIS is about theft.
Today is a terrible, terrible day in the history of US farming.  Who stands
with the Amish and Mennonite?  Who stands with our American
Below you will find Paul-Martin Griepentrog's amicus curiae brief.  A true
amicus.  A true

STATE OF WISCONSIN<http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=1756%C2%A0/divdivhttp://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/press/releases/meat-inspection-poll-article03212007%C2%A0/divdiv%C2%A0/div/divdivbr>




                                                      Case No.


N9414 ROMDKA AVE.<http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=1756%C2%A0/divdivhttp://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/press/releases/meat-inspection-poll-article03212007%C2%A0/divdiv%C2%A0/div/divdivbr>

LOYAL, WI 54446




             Paul Martin Griepentrog, pro se sui juris, hereby requests
leave to file a brief of*amicus curiae* in support of the defendant in this
case.  I am uniquely positioned to comment on the issue before this Court.  As
one who has studied the ramifications of "Premises Registration", and who
finds himself in the same situation as Emanuel J. Miller.  See attached
affidavit for details, (Verification of Administrative Admissions).

  As indicated in the affidavit the named respondents failed to meet their
fiduciary duty pursuant to 5 USC 556.

  In Exhibit H.  Dr. Paul McGraw indicates he believes that the Amish cannot
meet step two because of their belief that, premises registration could lead
to animal identification as there is no existing statute to affirm this
contention.  However the enclosed document NAIS Implementation Cooperative
Agreement Work Plan for the WI DATCP, and the USDA/APHIS/ VS clearly
indicates the plan includes individual animal identification.  This document
stands as a paid contract for the implementation of NAIS.  See the USDA NAIS
DRAFT, Strategic Plan 2005 to 2009 enclosed for full details of this

  Whereas the State fails its prima facie case by not having established
that a habendum clause is present on title deed to the property, which would
determine or define the scope or existence of premises.

  "Premises" in International law, includes a place and a conveyance.  The
mandate of conveyance under Premises Registration clearly violates Article
1, Section 14 of the Wisconsin Constitution which states all lands within
the state are declared to be allodial, and feudal tenures are prohibited.
This information is given to the best of my belief and knowledge so
help me YHVH
, on this date December 14, 2008.


Paul-Martin:Griepentrog   pro se  sui juris.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wiscnet.net/pipermail/foodcouncil/attachments/20081219/2a136533/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Foodcouncil mailing list