Due Process of Law Denied in Wisconsin Raw Milk Trial

PictureFood Freedom USA

When Wisconsin raw milk farmer Vernon Hershberger submitted to the Wisconsin Court System, a jury became his only true hope of remaining a free man. The only problem was the corrupted court system of Wisconsin and the appointed ringmaster, Judge Guy Reynolds. It was under his ‘mis’-direction that words like Liberty and raw milk were banned from the courtroom. Documents were redacted as to prevent the jury from getting both sides of the story. Biased as this court was with the evidence suppressed intentionally to favor the State prosecutors and the agricultural industrial complex of Wisconsin, Hershberger was forcefully and coercively entered into their game.   

The jury was misguidedly lead into finding Hershberger guilty on the one count of violating a holding order issued by an agency that had admittedly stated, after the raids, that they did not have jurisdiction; but sure were hell bent on destroying this buyers club and family farm. Yet the jury could see through the rest of the evidence and found Hershberger not guilty on the other three counts.

Hershberger started to go at it alone, a man against the system. He argued that he operates a private buying club and that DATCP did not have jurisdiction over the Right to Choose Healthy Food Buyers Club. Eventually the lawyers of the Farm to Consumer legal Defense Fund came to the aid of Hershberger who valiantly had fought the system alone for quite sometime. The FTCLDF attorney, Elizabeth Rich, had been watching from the front row and by her expressions you could see she was well aware the court itself was trying to railroad this raw milk farmer. FTCLDF attorney Elizabeth Rich was the first to step forward and offer her services to Hershberger for the trial he had tried to avert. This trial was going to proceed either by hook or crook. They argued on appeal that he wouldn’t have been found guilty had an unedited copy of the state’s holding order been placed into evidence, and that the Sauk County Circuit Court wrongly precluded him from introducing evidence to bolster his defense.

Unbelievably the state appeals court rejected all of his arguments. Hershberger was fined $1,000 plus court costs.

Wisconsin Department of Justice spokeswoman Dana Brueck heralded the court’s ruling.

“This appeal is not a referendum on the desirability of on-the-farm sales of raw milk products,” she said. “Rather, it involves the ways in which a defendant may — and may not — challenge a (state) holding order.”

Even with the heavily redacted document, which the jurors admit lead to a misdemeanor conviction, Hershberger was found not guilty last year of three other charges alleging he sold retail food, produced milk, and operated a dairy plant without proper state licenses.


Wisconsin based attorney Elizabeth Rich, Vice President of the FTCLDF, sheds great light upon misdirection the authoritarian government has taken in Wisconsin, with this comment to FoodFreedomUSA.org. “The Court of Appeals decision continues a disturbing trend toward empowering administrative agencies to exercise their authority unchecked.  Our courts have placed themselves in a strait jacket that prevents any meaningful review of agency actions.  This is contrary to the role of the judiciary as it was conceived by the framers of our Constitution.  The holding order in the Hershberger case stated that the dairy products subject to the order were “misbranded” and “adulterated.” The order also included the statutory definition of those terms–which states, among other things, that the products were “dangerous to human health.”  All of that information was redacted from the order that was shown to the jury.  We believe the jury should have had the opportunity to review the unredacted order, and that Mr. Hershberger was denied due process of law and prevented from putting on a defense to the criminal charges against him when this information was withheld from the jury.  This case is an example of the danger of judicial deference to agency action that has become the norm in this State.  Deference to agency action means no discussion of the facts and how the law relates to the facts.  The agency has no need to explain its actions and no fear that those actions will be subject to judicial scrutiny.  The agency is, in theory, obligated to make its factual determinations based on applicable law–but because the judiciary has ceded its reviewing authority to the executive branch, there is no longer any objective, reasoned evaluation about whether the agency correctly applied the law.  We have gutted the checks and balances system so carefully designed by our nation’s founders.”


Anja Sharma Wilson, a young, fresh attorney from the left coast of the United States a.k.a. Kalifornia, whom had traveled to Wisconsin to assist the FTCLDF during the trial, had this to say to FoodFreedomUSA.org: “It is not the people of Wisconsin who have spoken in this decision. The food movement won in the eyes of the jury when Hershberger was found not guilty of three counts in this matter.

The decision made by the judiciary in Wisconsin to not review this matter is indicative of the lack of checks and balances that have been allowed by our governmental agencies, legislative and judiciary.

During the trial there was so much hidden from the jury, including the true intent of the enforcement agencies to create a hostile environment for this defendant, his family, and private buyers club.

No one deserves to go through what Hershberger and his family have experienced,” said Sharma-Wilson


At FoodFreedomUSA we find the answer to this whole mess is that objective truth is above your masters and people alike. Therefore if the people have the truth on their side, we the people are then  superior to the masters if the masters do not have the truth. On the other hand if the people do not have the truth, they have no right to rise up against the masters. In brief, if they are right, they have the right. If they are not right, they have no right. And what tells if they are right or not? Neither masters (necessarily), nor people (still less necessarily), but reality, even if masters or people, or both, conspire to smother it. The truth will set you free.


4 thoughts on “Due Process of Law Denied in Wisconsin Raw Milk Trial

  1. My question is! Was the local county sheriff contacted and asked if he would hold up his OATH of office in which he is required to protect the citizens of the county he is embolden to? Because, the sheriff may have been able to STOP this over reach. PLEASE forward to those that need to know: http://politicalvelcraft.org/2011/09/21/the-sheriff-has-more-power-in-his-county-than-the-president-of-the-united-states-u-s-constitution-u-s-supreme-court-quashes-obamas-claim-to-supremacy-clause/

  2. This is another case of a derelict sheriff refusing to uphold his sworn oath. I personally had quite a few discussions with the Sheriff of Sauk county and many of his deputies. We had brought in Sheriff Mack on multiple occasions to educate the people of Wisconsin all throughout the three year process. What we need is a farmer like Vernon to run for Sheriff and return the county to a Constitutional Sheriff’s Office. Yes, we need another farmer doing these things like Mark Baker is doing in Michigan.

  3. “This appeal is not a referendum on the desirability of on-the-farm sales of raw milk products,” she said. “Rather, it involves the ways in which a defendant may — and may not — challenge a (state) holding order.”

    REGARDLESS of the fact that the STATE has absolutely NO authority to issue such an ‘order’.

    I’m certain that fact will be brought up at your trial, b#tch.

    After which, we will gladly HANG YOUR COMMUNIST @SS!!!

  4. Time to start cleaning out Wisconsin and Michigan.

    Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

    For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

    The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

    TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
    Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping [sic] or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published.