Revisiting Conflicts of Interest: Revoking the Corporate Charters of State Agencies

Marti Oakley, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

One issue seemingly untouched by the all the legal eagles out there who claim to be defending independent and family ranchers and farmers is, the conflict of interest with intent to benefit between the state corporations (in every state) operating as “Departments of Agriculture” and private and individual farmers and ranchers who are being prosecuted and persecuted as these state owned corporations are empowered to make their own laws to benefit their own interests and to enforce those laws with full knowledge that constitutional rights and protections have been fraudulently eliminated for the sovereign individuals.

The intent to benefit needs to be examined in depth. Who will benefit and who has benefited should be paramount in revoking the corporate charters of autonomous corporations operating under the guise of “state agencies.” We are forced to fund through taxation, these private corporations which operate fraudulently as state agencies. In addition, as corporations these fraudulent state agencies may conduct business for profit with other corporations to the detriment of the people. As corporations they have only one duty: to make a profit; even if it means destroying you and your livelihood to do it.

In researching for a remedy, I came across this Tort action. While it may not be the answer, it should provide a foundation for suing state and agencies, agents and operatives. It could also be extended to sue your legislature for failing to honor their oaths of office and defend your constitution and rights. After all, none of this happened with out their knowledge and consent. But then, your state government is a corporation too, so go figure.

Tort of Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
The elements of that tort of are:

(1) An economic relationship between [the plaintiff and some third person] containing the probability of future economic benefit to the [plaintiff], and expectation to profit from lawful business.
(2) Knowledge by the defendant of the existence of the relationship,
(3) Intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship,
(4) Actual disruption of the relationship, [and]
(5) Damages to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the defendant.’

(1) The economic relationship between the [plaintiffs] and some third person:
This relationship is specifically indicated by the relationship between independent and family agricultural producers [the plaintiff] and the third person [the consumer/buyer] of the products the plaintiff produces with the intent to profit.

In each and every state, incorporated agricultural agencies and their agents have enacted and enforced rules and regulations specifically designed and enforced to interfere with the prospective economic advantage of private producers. No where is this more apparent than in the efforts by the state agricultural agency corporations to act under “the color of law” against milk producers; setting arbitrary standards and requirements and granting themselves the authority to:

Unlawfully trespass onto privately owned property
Deny due process of law
Search and seize property without cause or warrant, and,
Forcibly, end the right to engage in commerce as is the right of the sovereign
To establish fictions of law and present them as enforceable: a willing fraud on the people.
To deny the rights of sovereign individuals to engage in lawful business.
To deny the sovereign the right to judicial review and fair treatment in common law.
Through restraint of trade by the interfering party as defendant
Impediment to proceed with a contract still subject to a condition precedent such as regulatory approval which is known to be arbitrary to the rights of the individual to engage in his trade.
The forcing of signature to contracts presented as “permits”, “licenses” etc. for which the signatory does not know the full extent of said contract implied or otherwise, and which in most cases abrogates all of his/her constitutional rights and protections.

(2) Knowledge by the defendant of the existence of the relationship
The corporate state agricultural agencies are fully aware that they:

Are no longer operating as public servants and are in fact, agents and operatives of an autonomous corporation operating under a fiction of law intended to defraud the public on behalf of the Corporate government operating as THE UNITED STATES and its sub-corporations, the USDA/FDA
That with this knowledge, these corporate agencies, agents and operatives are fully aware of the violations not only of valid state laws, but also the Constitution of not only the state, but the nation as well.
That these corporate agencies, agents and operatives have full knowledge of the right of the sovereign to engage in lawful business and that their activities will disrupt that right to commerce.

(3) Intentional acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt the relationship,

Corporate state agencies after first creating fictions of law then,
Proceed to act under the “color of law”.
That these fictions and acts constitute a fraud on the public at large
That these corporate agencies, agents and operatives are fully aware of the fraud
That these corporate state agencies, agents and operatives have created a fraud intended to benefit private stakeholders and to further the business plans of federally held corporations operating as USDA/FDA and others.

(4) Actual disruption of the relationship, [and]

Have harassed and threatened third partys (consumers)
Have terrorized and harassed the plaintiffs
Have suspended all access to markets and sales by agency declaration and physical seizure of land and/or property
Have caused the plaintiff to lose or forfeit their right to engage in lawful business and to anticipated profits
Have created and enforced arbitrary laws, regulations, fees, fines and threats of imprisonment if plaintiff did not forfeit his/her rights to engage in business.
Have physically appeared in person on private property armed and dangerous and posing a threat to not only the business owner, but family members and employees.
Have mounted a public campaign to negatively impact the products produced by the plaintiff and to condition the public thinking that the sale of the plaintiffs products was harmful.
Have committed assault and battery, defamation and fraud and deceit
Caused a third party to either terminate an at-will contract with the plaintiff according to its terms, or,
Failed to renew a renewable contract with the plaintiff because of threat of prosecution from fictitious rule-making, harassment and threat by corporate state agencies acting under color of law.

The corporate state agencies have required unnecessary and burdensome record keeping, fees, licensing, regulations, prohibitions, and unlawful interferences to impede the right to engage in lawful commerce.

These same corporate state agencies have acted to deprive the individual through independent rule-making authority for which there is no constitutional authority.

These impediments are and were designed to target segments of the agricultural community with the intent to limit, disrupt or to end entirely the individuals right to engage in business and the potential to profit.

That these impediments are and were created to benefit industrialized corporate interests and, under the color of law, to unlawfully seize privately owned lands and real property for the benefit of the corporate state.

That agents on behalf of the state corporation operating under various names but commonly known as the Departments of Agriculture, have with malice and forethought, using coercion and duress, interfered with legal trade and commerce:

Have disrupted the lawful businesses of private individuals.

Created arbitrary fictions of laws to facilitate that disruption

Have used force and threat against sovereign individuals who refused compliance with known violations of their sovereign rights.

(5) Damages to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the defendant.’

Departments of Agriculture in each state have been registered as private corporations. As such, they no longer serve the public as each of them operates “for profit” and willingly and knowingly engage in activities known to profit the agency by their interaction with other private corporate stakeholders having a vested interest in ending competition, controlling market access and the buying and selling of numerous agricultural products.

As the corporate agencies which operate as a fraud have profited not only publicly, but also personally, each agent, operative, and agency should be held personally liable for the loss of income, the interruption of free commerce and the intent to benefit through the use of the creation of fictions of law used to persecute and prosecute sovereign individuals who refused to forfeit their constitutional rights to an unelected corporate agency.

Whether the corporations operating as “government” like it or not, we have rights. While this little document may not be the end all, be all of remedies it could be the basis for mounting a countering action.

Before we will ever make any progress we must first move to revoke all state corporate charters and return our state government on all levels to one of “public service.” As long as we allow every level of state government to incorporate we are in danger of losing any freedom we may have left.

Marti Oakley is a political activist and former op-ed columnist for the St Cloud Times in Minnesota. She was a member of the Times Writer’s Group until she resigned in September of 07. She is neither Democrat nor Republican, since neither party is representative of the American people. She says what she thinks, means what she says, and is known for being outspoken. She is hopeful that the American public will wake up to what is happening to our beloved country . . . little of it is left. Her website is The PPJ Gazette