Shock claim - NaturalNews exclusive - LA 'authorities' in Rawesome raw milk raids were impersonating public officials

Thursday, July 19, 2012 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...) Tags: Rawesome, District Attorney, impersonators

---

(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 file in 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:

https://www.naturalnews.com/rawesome/michelle...

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.

See this letter, which was acquired by NaturalNews, at:
https://www.naturalnews.com/rawesome/LA-publi...

Furthermore, this "Certificate of Fact of Non Filing" for Michelle LeCavalier admits she has no Oath of Office on file:
https://www.naturalnews.com/rawesome/Certific...

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."

Read more about this, by the way, in an eye-opening blog post called "Oafs of Office" at:
http://www.thegirlsgoneraw.com/2012/02/oafs-...

Motion to Dismiss filed in LA county

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.co...)

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

and:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzlrSCqTBBE

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 Attorney Steve 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:

https://www.naturalnews.com/rawesome/LA-DA-Oa...

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.

Rawesome Foods founder James Stewart, a 65-year-old senior citizen, is being persecuted by Los Angeles county. He is guilty of no real crime. He's the "California Milk Man," after all, and instead of dealing with James in a dignified way that might involve mediation or even fines, they instead rolled up with weapons and badges, seized private property, destroyed over $50,000 worth of food (https://www.naturalnews.com/033220_Rawesome_F...), arrested James Stewart and even subjected him to 8 days of torture in the Los Angeles county jail system. (https://www.naturalnews.com/035208_James_Stew...)

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.