What is the legal definition of "Stakeholder" as it is used by the USDA's NAIS?

Why is it necessary to defraud a farmer or rancher out of his property via the Premises Registration, under a guise to protect the safety of the animal producers and food production? Why does the USDA want you to relinguish ownership of your own land, and take over jurisdication as to what can be done with the property and the contents of anything on that land? What is the real agenda of NAIS? Are these properties to be use as collateral against the national debt?

Why are there no (zero) answers to this question after being posted four days ago? Are there no legal eagles out there willing to step forward? If the USDA is finding no takers for their voluntary program, could the stumbling block be the conversion from property owner to stakeholder? i.e. serf upon the land under the new fuedal system. Why would one sign a Premises Registration to become a Stakeholder?

"What is the legal definition of 'stakeholder' as used by the USDA NAIS?"

There is no quick answer to your question.

Black's Law Dictionary (2004) defines "stakeholder"-- as it would appear to apply here-- as:
2. A person who has an interest or concern in a business or enterprise, though not necessarily as an owner.

But my reading of the NAIS material would seem to indicate that the word has no real "legal" meaning in the context of the system they have created. "Stakeholders" would appear to refer to the large body of persons who would be affected by the NAIS program-- people who would want to comment on the pros and cons of the program whether they be landowners, managers, or agents. And I suspect it would include only those persons who have identified themselves through the system. (Funny how that works.) But no specifics are actually provided to differentiate a "stakeholder" from any other person.

The real legalese type term appears to be "producer."

"In this guide, the term 'producer' is used to simplify the reference to all individuals engaged in the ownership, management or marketing of livestock included in NAIS. While owners and or managers of certain species may not typically be referred to as a 'producer,' owners of horses for example, these individuals are to be interpreted as being included in this broad use of 'producer' in the context of the NAIS User Guide."

But I must note that the Premises Registration (PR) is technically a separate system from NAIS. And PR appears to be just a registration system where there is no relinquishing of rights or property or such-- as you seem to indicate in the amplification to your question.

Of course, having a GPS location of a particular locale makes it so very easy to find-- and so very easy to "invade" if you will-- assuming a totalitarian response to a presumed threat. And I have no doubt-- given the read-between-the-lines language used in the NAIS Users Guide that some national planner envisioned a rapid response where the government would descend upon a locale and exterminate every last animal on the land-- in the name of protecting everyone's livestock-- but really to protect the vast herds of the big business interests who support the NAIS wholeheartedly.

These are just my impressions from a quick read and look-through.

I don't see that your fear of loss of property is really justified-- even given a cynical, between-the-lines read.

But I do believe that small to medium livestock owners might want to be concerned about what might be done in the name of saving livestock in a locale-- where it is their livestock getting whacked and the big herds of the big business interests getting saved.

And, of course, if the particularly sensitive information collected-- the location and type of all (each and every) agricultural-related livestock in the U.S.-- isn't used in a way that wasn't actually intended, then the program might actually have a significant benefit someday even if it is a benefit that is weighed largely in favor of the big business producers.

But one look at the VA losing millions of vets private information to a theft should show how potentially dangerous that NAIS information-- collected in one place-- might be too.

Skepticism appears appropriate for such a broad, wide-reaching plan. I would think that a more limited volunteer registration schema-- covering larger groups of livestock and not particular horses owned by individuals for recreation, for example-- would make for a better sell to the public.

For legal definition see my other question:

Is the USDA's NAIS considered strong delusion as per 2Th 2:1-12? Report It

Cattle breeder and owner of a 160-acre farm in Michigan, GREG NIEWENDORP, whose land is now under quarantine (and facing $50,000.00 fines and up to 5 years in jail) because of his refusal to go along with the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), Report It

believes in civil disobedience and has drawn a line in the sand, 鈥淭his isn鈥檛 a matter of desperation. I laid the ground work for this months ago.鈥? In other words, his decision to resist is a well planned and rational response to what he perceives as government excess - - - -" Report It

-"A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." - - - Declaration of Independence. Friday 13 - the power hour (hr. 2) 10:00 AM
http://www.thepowerhour.com/sc... Report It