Selective enforcement of Federal Law, the tragic cases of Sam Girod and Donald Trump.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
-George Orwell, Animal Farm'


In two days, the FDA and a federal judge are going to put a Kentucky farmer and grandfather, Samuel Girod, in jail for up to 68 YEARS with up to $3M in fines for charges related to selling a homemade herbal salve.



Samuel Girod [G as in Gee: gi-ROD] and his family have been making and selling three all-natural herbal products for nearly 20 years.

No one has ever been harmed by the products; the Girods have pages of testimonials and scores of repeat customers.

Similar products are currently made and sold online worldwide (including on Amazon) by other people using the same or similar basic ingredients. The recipes are online as well, you can make them in your kitchen.

In 2001, an FDA agent informed Sam that his product labels were making medical claims regarding healing certain conditions. At the time, Sam’s label said, ““[g]ood for all skin disorders. Skin cancer, cuts, burns, draws, and poison ivy.”

Sam had to change his label, removing the skin cancer claim specifically, or do very expensive testing proving the claims. Sam changed the label, removing any reference to skin cancer.

Sam did not receive any further communication from the FDA until 2012 when someone called the FDA and reported that a store in MO was selling Sam’s products and that medical claims were being made.

The “medical claims” were in fact customer testimonials contained in a brochure about Sam’s products! These testimonials are no different than Amazon reviews.

Then the FDA claimed to have found a MO customer who had been harmed by Sam’s bloodroot salve.

In early 2013, during the investigation on that claim, FDA agents went to Sam’s home and demanded a warrantless search. Wanting to be cooperative, Sam said OK on one condition: that no photographs were taken (the Amish are religiously opposed to photography). The agents said no problem, no photos.

Then they got on the property, whipped out their cameras and took photos of everything.

Several months later, the Girods discover that, not only has this customer never been identified or produced, the bloodroot salve this customer used was not even Sam’s!!!

Yet that judge put an injunction on Sam’s products with three stipulations:

  • none could be sold until all medical claims were removed (referring to the brochures);
  • Sam’s bloodroot salve could never be sold again EVER (1); and
  • Sam had to allow inspection of his property where the products were made FOR FIVE YEARS.
  • Sam complied with 1 and 2: he stopped selling the bloodroot salve and stopped using the brochures. He was not so compliant with the searches.

In late 2013, after the injunction, FDA agents came to do a second search. Sam informed them that nothing had changed since the first search 7 months earlier, and that, since they had lied and taken photos during the first search, they were not welcome to do a second.

The FDA agents had a Bath County Sheriff’s deputy along with them (as they are required since they are federal agents rather than state). This sheriff witnessed the entire event and eventually told the agents to leave the property. Which they did.

These three product sales are how Sam’s family made their living. They had been denied this right via an arbitrary regulation made up by a federal agency with no true jurisdiction in the states — and with NO VICTIM.

So the Girods started selling their products again. Then, in 2014, Sam started a legal private membership club and sold his products to members via that framework. Perfectly legal.

Meanwhile, the FDA started criminal proceedings against Sam for disobeying the injunction (selling his products and refusing the search) plus two other very serious charges:

1. The FDA agents claimed that, when they came for the 2nd search, Sam and his family threatened them with physical violence. That is ludicrous enough on the face of it. Plus, the Sheriff’s deputy testified under oath that absolutely no threats were made, that, essentially, the FDA agents lied under oath.

2. The FDA also charged Sam with witness tampering. The witness who was supposedly tampered with? Read the eyewitness account of Mary Miller’s testimony, link below. (2)

The Trial 2.27.17

The Amish do not use lawyers as a rule and Sam did not. This is a decision made by the community, not just the accused. Apparently the Amish don’t trust lawyers. Imagine that.

Because he barely presented a defense against federal prosecutors for whom money and conscience are not problems, Sam was convicted on all counts. (3)

The judge ordered Sam to remain in jail until sentencing on 6/16/17. [apparently rescheduled to 6/30/17] He’s been in jail since 2/27/17.

Had Sam had a good attorney, he would certainly have been acquitted on the most egregious counts (threatening federal agents and witness tampering). These charges were clearly manufactured solely to make Sam into a “real” criminal, with the FDA being the only victim.

The only other charges — selling “drugs” across state lines — were manufactured out of whole cloth as well. The FDA’s own tests proved that the products were not drugs, that they were made from all-natural ingredients!!! These charges should have been dismissed from the start.

Sam’s sentencing is 6/30 and he is looking at up to 68 years in prison and up to $3M in fines. This is essentially a life sentence for charges stemming from an innocent labeling infraction!


Now, compare and contrast the prosecution of Girod's case, above, with the complete lack of enforcement of the War Powers Resolution, in regards to the deployment of United States military forces in Syria and elsewhere.…

In Syria, the US is currently working with an alliance of Kurdish and Arab militias and its biggest focus at this moment is to encircle and ultimately capture the ISIS capital of Raqqa. This week, the U.S.-led coalition announced that around 400 additional U.S. forces had deployed to Syria to help with the Raqqa campaign and to prevent any clash between Turkey and Washington-allied Syrian militias that Ankara sees as a threat. Around 500 U.S. forces are already in Syria in support of the campaign against Islamic State, which this week added several hundred, marines who were recently caught on video as they prepare for the Raqqa offensive.


Asked about a deployment of U.S. forces near the northern city of Manbij, Assad said: "Any foreign troops coming to Syria without our invitation ... are invaders."


Unlike the Amish grandfather's herbal salve, President Trump's illegal invasion of Syria has actually harmed others.…

Dozens more civilians allegedly killed in U.S.-led strikes

...various activists groups reported different casualty tolls, saying the U.S.-led coalition, which is waging war on ISIS, was likely behind the attacks.


The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) monitoring group said the strike hit the village of Akayrshi on Sunday night and that 12 women were killed. The activist-run, Raqqa Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently, said the strike hit a convoy of farm workers and that 22 died.


Below is what The Library of Congress has to say about the War Powers Resolution.  However, our congress is far too busy funding the FDA so it may prosecute Amish grandfathers, and receiving unlimited campaign contributions from pharmaceutical companies, weapons companies, and AIPAC, to bother to read, understand, and do the job they were supposedly elected by the American people to do.

The War Powers Resolution, Public Law 93-148, 87 Stat. 555, passed over President Nixon's veto on November 7, 1973. The War Powers Resolution is sometimes referred to as the War Powers Act, its title in the version passed by the Senate. This Joint Resolution is codified in the United States Code ("USC") in Title 50, Chapter 33, Sections 1541-48.  

The term "Resolution" can be misleading; this law originated as a Joint Resolution and was passed by both Houses of Congress pursuant to the Legislative Process, and has the same legal effect as a Bill which has passed and become a law. For more information on Bills and Joint Resolutions see this explanation of Congressional Forms of Action.

The Constitution of the United States divides the war powers of the federal government between the Executive and Legislative branches: the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces (Article II, section 2), while Congress has the power to make declarations of war, and to raise and support the armed forces (Article I, section 8). Over time, questions arose as to the extent of the President's authority to deploy U.S. armed forces into hostile situations abroad without a declaration of war or some other form of Congressional approval. Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in the aftermath of the Vietnam War to address these concerns and provide a set of procedures for both the President and Congress to follow in situations where the introduction of U.S. forces abroad could lead to their involvement in armed conflict.

Conceptually, the War Powers Resolution can be broken down into several distinct parts. The first part states the policy behind the law, namely to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities," and that the President's powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541).

The second part requires the President to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent, and to continue such consultations as long as U.S. armed forces remain in such situations (50 USC Sec. 1542). The third part sets forth reporting requirements that the President must comply with any time he introduces U.S. armed forces into existing or imminent hostilities (50 USC Sec. 1543); section 1543(a)(1) is particularly significant because it can trigger a 60 day time limit on the use of U.S. forces under section 1544(b).

The fourth part of the law concerns Congressional actions and procedures. Of particular interest is Section 1544(b), which requires that U.S. forces be withdrawn from hostilities within 60 days of the time a report is submitted or is required to be submitted under Section 1543(a)(1), unless Congress acts to approve continued military action, or is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Section 1544(c) requires the President to remove U.S. armed forces that are engaged in hostilities "without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization" at any time if Congress so directs by a Concurrent Resolution (50 USC 1544 (external link)). Concurrent Resolutions are not laws and are not presented to the President for signature or veto; as a result the procedure contemplated under Section 1544(c) is known as a "legislative veto" and is constitutionally questionable in light of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983). Further sections set forth expedited Congressional procedures for considering proposed legislation to authorize the use of U.S. armed forces, as well as similar procedures regarding proposed legislation to withdraw U.S. forces under Section 1544(c) (50 U.S. 1545-46a).

The fifth part of the law sets forth certain definitions and rules to be used when interpreting the War Powers Resolution (50 USC 1547 (external link)). Finally, the sixth part is a "separability provision" and states that if any part of the law is held (by a court) to be invalid, on its face or as applied to a particular situation, the rest of the law shall not be considered invalid, nor shall its applicability to other situations be affected (50 USC 1548 (external link)).

U.S. Presidents have consistently taken the position that the War Powers Resolution is an unconstitutional infringement upon the power of the executive branch. As a result, the Resolution has been the subject of controversy since its enactment, and is a recurring issue due to the ongoing worldwide commitment of U.S. armed forces. Presidents have submitted a total of over 120 reports to Congress pursuant to the Resolution.


If we are not a nation of laws, then what are we?




froze25 (not verified) VWAndy Wed, 06/28/2017 - 14:01 Permalink

Great so we are not a nation of laws, I can stop paying my income taxes since there isn't a imaginary "Law" that requires me to pay them anyway.

Looks like all we are left with is the "Law of the Jungle" thank God for the 2nd amendment and the fact that we are armed to the teeth.

In reply to by VWAndy

SantaClaws Wed, 06/28/2017 - 14:00 Permalink

Did anyone tell the FDA there was an election?  Wonder if the White House knows about this.  Sounds like one of Comey's relatives must have been invoved.

TeethVillage88s SantaClaws Wed, 06/28/2017 - 15:03 Permalink

perhaps clintonistas? Sandonistas? Communistas? Fascistas? Globalistas?

- Hey, why did the ECB, BoE, BoJ, and Federal Reserve... all increase their balance Sheets, buy corporate paper & MBS?
A: So the can be players with assets & clout at the Globalist Table once Rotschilds, Rockefellers, TBTF, Gates', Bezos, Cook, Schmidt, Slim, Ma & others take over

no sarc

In reply to by SantaClaws

Cardinal Fang Wed, 06/28/2017 - 14:16 Permalink

Anyone who deals with the Feds understands this is normal ops for FDA and DOD.

Sorry, but that's a fact, Jack.

And no ghost of Thomas Jefferson is gonna come back and save anyone.

enfield0916 Wed, 06/28/2017 - 14:47 Permalink

This is the reason the medical industry survives on the illhealth of others, because if they ACTUALLY treated illnesses the world would be a LOT better place.Allopathic medicine just looks and tries to treat the symptoms.Look at Yoga for example, the Bikram Yoga studios with the hot 20's something instructor in yoga pants IS NOT REAL Yoga.

chunga Wed, 06/28/2017 - 16:00 Permalink

As soon as the frauds in congress get back from their well deserved recess period, they're gonna come up with a sick-care plan to shove up our asses. They are the problem. The federal gov is the problem. I said this just yesterday. FDA frauds banned OTC inhalers because according to them they warming. The pharma frauds came out with replacement RX that cost way more. I know one brand that has a counter on it that stops the gadget from working when it reads zero, even if it's not empty.Fraud, it's everywhere. Pure, solid, fraud.

Conax Wed, 06/28/2017 - 16:01 Permalink

Trump could make some friends out in the hinterlands by making a couple phone calls and having those lying twats at the FDA back the hell off this farce of a case.  He says he wants a great America, entrepeneurs like this old fellow actually contribute to that goal. 

hedgeless_horseman Conax Wed, 06/28/2017 - 16:06 Permalink

 I have some bad news for you... Donald Trump is a Big Government Statist.

Statists want government to have a great deal of power over the economy and individual behavior. They frequently doubt whether economic liberty and individual freedom are practical options in today's world. Statists tend to distrust the free market, support high taxes and centralized planning of the economy, oppose diverse lifestyles, and question the importance of civil liberties.

In reply to by Conax

silvercity hedgeless_horseman Wed, 06/28/2017 - 21:04 Permalink

If we are not a nation of laws, then what are we?  Anyone who believes in the rule of law is a big government statist. You may think that you are only a small government statist, but everything grows if feed, especially small government. Law cannot exist without law enforcement. Laws not enforced are irrelavant. Thus your quote above, which indicates to me that you do not agree that laws should not be enforced. Of course you have a particular bias as to how and when enforcement should. Law is just the whim of the tyrant. Law enforcement always are. or work for the tyrant, sometimes both.They are usually exempt from the law, unless they exite the ire of the tyrant. Many people support law because it relieves them of responsibility for their lives. For example, someone steals your car. It is not your responsibity to recover it and deal with the thief. Cops, prosecuter, judge, jailers are responsible to recover and deal with the thief. Laws can be passed to relieve most people of responsibility for most things in their lives like retirement, taking care of the old folks, cleaning up the neighborhood, keeping out the bad guys and thousands of other things. And government grows bigger and bigger because people demand the rule of law. And the oppressors create new problems which the rule of law people will demand solutions for and on and on and on it goes. It is hard for most to accept, but humans do not need law and they do not need law enforcement.

In reply to by hedgeless_horseman

TheRideNeverEnds aliens is here Wed, 06/28/2017 - 16:26 Permalink

The author has a fundamental misunderstanding of how laws work.

The government makes the laws and you have to follow them.

The government doesn't have to follow the laws because they are the agents (law) and you are the subjects (offenders). The law cannot be subject to the law, that would be ridiculous, only the subjects can be subjected to the law. I mean cmon, its right there in their title.

In reply to by aliens is here

338 TheRideNeverEnds Wed, 06/28/2017 - 19:04 Permalink

Poor Slave.  Laws are for the little people, not the crown, nor his prince, or the prince's bride, the duke, the earl, or even the court jester, We went from the rule of law to the law of rulers. Government schools helped this happen.'Government, proof that some people think just the right amount of force upon others will result in a beautiful utopian dream called society'Crazy Radio Sean  Media and it's presstitutes are complicit in the crime, blind compliance is the saddest of all traits. 

In reply to by TheRideNeverEnds

Malleus Maleficarum Wed, 06/28/2017 - 16:22 Permalink

Bad enough that not ONE government worker had the sense to say "stop this, it's insane; leave Sam Girod alone." Nevermind that the government manufactures 'criminals.' That's to be expected from any and all governments - especially one as bloated as the US Federal leviathan. Nevertheless, I apportion a large share of blame on the dumbed-down, servile, statist jurors, who are supposed to serve as a final safety mechanism to prevent such travesties from occuring. Ridiculous 'jury instructions' aside, if there was ever a more clear-cut case begging for jury nullification, I've not seen it! This is American justice: take a plea, and we'll use lube, or take it to the jury and you'll pay dearly. What an infuriating article! 

7thGenMO Wed, 06/28/2017 - 16:36 Permalink

Thanks H-H!  When the federales go after the Amish, it is a sign that they want to eliminate any group capable of living independently.  The oligarchs want a society of control!

Jubal Early (not verified) Wed, 06/28/2017 - 16:52 Permalink

What bothers me about this post, Hedgeless, is that, as I recall, you have a very "nuanced" position on Marijuana and other recreational drugs.  I won't try to define what you believe, but the same degree of anger you feel about the state making dictates about salve others feel about your support of the states dictates about cannabis towards them.   And the same applies to hundreds if not thousands of other "controlled substances", and not just mind or mood altering ones.

hedgeless_horseman Jubal Early (not verified) Wed, 06/28/2017 - 17:22 Permalink


"...your support of the states dictates about cannabis..."

My opinion is simply that it is a really bad thing to expose children's brains to mind-altering chemicals, especially during their brain's development.  Therefore, we do not tolerate drug use by our children in our home.  We love our children too much to do that.However, if you want to enable your children to use mind-altering chemicals in your home, then that is your choice.I do have a hard time understanding how this position of mine bothers you so much.

In reply to by Jubal Early (not verified)

UncleChopChop Mustafa Kemal Wed, 06/28/2017 - 21:08 Permalink

i like that:Aggravated Strawman - the circumstance when the presenter of a straw-man argument accuses responders/refuters to said straw-man argument of themselves initiating straw man arguments.i was going to say pot-calling-the-kettle-black, but that's not quite accurate. more like the pot asking the woman in white gloves to hold a piece of coal, then calling the woman a filthy black coal handler. like some weird triggered projection.

In reply to by Mustafa Kemal

Jubal Early (not verified) Mustafa Kemal Thu, 06/29/2017 - 04:04 Permalink

If you are not aware, cannabis oil and cannabis cream have been shown by numerous parties to be very effective against cancer in general and also skin cancer specifically.  The country where I live does not allow the sale, cultivation or creation of cannabus salves.So there is a very strong link between the hypocrisy of the government banning or inhibiting the sale of one salve and allowing another, and thus my comment was very on topic.  Judging from his failure to reply to my last comment I would assume that  in his "libertarian" ideal world HH only allows salves to be made from materials he approves of.  

In reply to by Mustafa Kemal

Cruel Aid Wed, 06/28/2017 - 17:32 Permalink

i cant wait to set up a lemonade stand in a few years. im going to set it up right there in plain view and welcome all gov watchdogs.Oh im real excited about it and they cant say it doesnt have medicinal powers 

new game Wed, 06/28/2017 - 18:14 Permalink

some event like this will be kick off of the shot heard around the world (again)...tic tock(got close in nevada)as dad would say, tyme to saddle up...

WTFUD Wed, 06/28/2017 - 19:21 Permalink

This is what happens when you give up an inch to these terrorists, yes terrorists, whose sole purpose is to beat you down until dependent on the State. The inch becomes a foot, the foot a yard, the yard a mile, until you're declared 100% pussified compliant.

Not until there's a frequent occurrence of these terrorists being shot in the face will you have peace.

??????? ???????? Mon, 07/10/2017 - 02:38 Permalink

He convicted himself by coping to be an ANIMAL because ONLY "animals" are subject to the Clean Food and Drug Act within which sits the so called Controlled Substances Act.  SIMPLY read the definition of "drug" and or "food", make the court take MANDATORY Judicial Notice of it (it will be in the state or federal indictment) and then subpoena the agent of the non-existant plaintiff (US Attorney "representing the "United States" which MEANS a Federal Corporation - not a place or plaintiff see Tittle 28 USC § 3002 at def 15a) for the evidence the "defendant" is an "animal" pursuant to their definition of "drug" (or "food") found in the indictment. Here is THEIR definition for food and drug found at 21 USC § 321 (for man OR OTHER ANIMALS):(f) The term “food” means (1) articles used for food or drink for man OR OTHER ANIMALS, (2) chewing gum, and (3) articles used for components of any such article.(g)(1) The term “drug” means (A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them; and (B) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man OR OTHER ANIMALS; and (C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man OR OTHER ANIMALS; and (D) articles intended for use as a component of any article specified in clause (A), (B), or (C). A food ordietary supplement for which a claim, subject to sections 343(r)(1)(B) and 343(r)(3) of this title or sections 343(r)(1)(B) and 343(r)(5)(D) of this title, is made in accordance with the requirements of section 343(r) of this title is not a drug solely because the label or the labeling contains such a claim. A food, dietary ingredient, or dietary supplement for which a truthful and not misleading statement is made in accordance with section 343(r)(6) of this title is not a drug under clause (C) solely because the label or the labeling contains such a statement.So, has anyone used this?  Ask Alfred Adask editor of Antishyster Magazine:

pynky01 Thu, 05/24/2018 - 17:51 Permalink

We got laws running out our arses...I read somewhere that on average Americans break 3-5 laws every day... Rule of Law I suggest does not exist as it is the people who interpret them thereby the law is what some one says it is...not all laws but most have to be given meaning by people ... words mean what I want them to mean....