Health

Prairie Star National says it is not a ‘sovereign citizens’ organization as referred to in court

Food Safety News last year referred to Prairie Star National Trust as a “sovereign citizens” organization after a court used the term in the Amos Miller case, which states that Miller has illegally sold meat without government inspection.

Star National has reached out to Food Safety News to opine that it has nothing negative to say about our coverage of the Miller case.

However, the organization had plenty to say about some of the terminologies that Food Safety News used after the group got involved with the Miller case. “We are in fact a ‘Law Advocate’ for Americans, probably more vested in ‘law’ than most law firms,” it said in taking exception to being referred to as a “sovereign citizens” organization.

“First of all, you of all people should know that calling someone or a group a ‘sovereign citizen’ is an oxymoron. No one can be ‘sovereign’ and a ‘citizen/Citizen’ at the same time,” Star National said on Food Safety News comment line. “You don’t even have to be a journalist to get it right — all you need to do is get a dictionary and LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF THE WORDS.”

“A sovereign answers to no one. A citizen/Citizen answers to someone or something ALWAYS,” it continued. The Star National view is that most of us in the United States are corporate citizens that must answer to the “Admiralty Courts” and our obligation is to the State. “You are not and cannot be a “sovereign” and an “American,” according to Star National.

“You are a Municipal United States ‘Corporate’ Citizen, a citizen/Citizen of the Foreign (British) United States Service Corporation, you can only be one or the other,” it adds.

Star National claims its short involvement in the Miller case established Amos and his wife Rachel as Americans by birth. It says the U.S. Department of Agriculture is not the government, but a non-governmental organization with a DUNSS number. It is an agency of the British Services Corporation providing services to the American people, according to the organization. Star National says USDA is not sovereign and carries no more authority than McDonald’s.

The USDA, since 2016, has filed civil actions to force Miller’s compliance with federal meat and poultry food safety laws and regulations. Miller and his Miller’s Organic Farm were found distributing meat and poultry that was not USDA inspected. The most recent civil action to bring him into compliance dates back to 2019.

Miller is from Bird-In-Hand, PA. All the litigation has been in U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania. Star National views the District Court as “not part of an agency of the United States of America.” But instead as a “foreign corporation” acting through America’s court system.

The District Court in the Star National view is nothing more than a non-governmental organization and they cite the very real, but very complicated Clearfield Doctrine as their source, which the Supreme Court decided in 1943. It concerns when government entities function as corporations and lose their sovereign status and then must be governed as a mere corporate entity

Star National sees Miller Organic Farm LLC as the only legitimate defendant in the current civil action. “Amos Blank Miller is not a corporation; he is an ‘American’ and NOT A U.S. CITIZEN, not a citizen of the United States government,” it says.

It says Miller does not have a contract with the Court or USDA. Star National does not recognize any automatic jurisdiction by the District Court. Depending on the outcome of the Miller case, Star National still could “challenge the jurisdiction of the Court.” It has asked USDA to produce its contract with the United States of America.

About a year ago, Miller wanted to fire his Dallas attorney Steven LaFuente and bring in Prairie Star National. Non-attorneys are not allowed to represent others in Federal Court and Star National was not allowed into the case. And LaFuente was not dismissed as Miller’s counsel until late in 2022 when attorney Robert E. Barnes Esq. of Los Angeles took over.

As 2023 opened, Barnes has had his client on a compliance track not seen since right before Miller first tried to fire LaFuente. If Miller follows through, he will avoid civil imprisonment and reduce fines now pegged at $300,000.

But the U.S. District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania at Easton before federal Judge Edward G. Smith has outlined what Miller needs to do. It’s found in the “second consent decree” filed by Barnes, and government attorneys.

It is an alternative to enforce the Court’s permanent injunction against Miller and Miller’s Organic Farm. That first injunction prohibits violations of the federal Meat and Poultry Acts and was entered on April 26, 2020

The new Court documents now call for Miller to pay $30,000 into the Court’s registry within 10 days after the “Second Consent Decree” was signed. It says:

“This sum will be used to reimburse: a) Mr. Lapsley’s fees and expenses to date; b) the U.S. Marshall’s Service’s fees/expenses for accompanying Mr. Lapsley on his March 17, 2022 farm site visit; and c) Mr. Lapsley’s ongoing fees and expenses in reporting on compliance with certain terms of this Second Consent Decree and the Second Contempt Sanctions Order.”

Lapsley is an agriculture expert the Court has assigned to the case.

Another $55,065 Miller owes USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) for the agency investigative work must be paid in two installments. The first $27,543 is due Jan. 15, 2023; and the second payment of $27,543 must be turned in at the U.S. Attorney’s office by April 15, 2023.

There are also some non-monetary details that Miller needs to follow.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

Related Articles

Back to top button