Max Kane listens to Judge Rosbrough pronounce his decision.At the end of a nearly two-hour court session, state judge M.J. Rosbrough gave Max Kane the news that he would lose on all counts, But the judge did so in a nearly professorial, kindly way.
The raw milk issue “has become a big deal,” the judge told the defendant. “By my estimate, you have 100 citizens here as your supporters on raw milk. But this court is not here to decide that issue.”
The fact that Max Kane decided at the last minute to discharge his lawyer and represent himself turned the judge against him.”I appreciate the way you have conducted yourself,” he told the 32-year-old head of Belles Lunchbox buyers club. “But a lawyer would not be questioning a judge about the constitution…Your arguments about why these regulations are unconstitutional are primitive and undeveloped.”
Max Kane will need to submit to questioning by the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. The fact that he was given a second chance, a re-do if you will, stemmed from the state’s failure to properly place the previous proceedings, where Kane refused to answer questions, properly on the record.
If Kane in the next go-round refuses to answer their questions? “You could ultimately go to jail–that certainly is a possibility,” the judge said. “A remedial order could be entered that you would go to jail until you answer the questions.”
For more than ninety minutes before the judge rendered his decision, Max Kane debated Phillip Ferris, an assistant attorney general for the Wisconsin Department of Justice, about the circumstances and legality of DTCP’s efforts to question the buyers club owner about his customers. Kane argued that he could incriminate himself and, even if he was granted immunity, he could be prosecuted by the state of Illinois and the federal government. Ferris argued that legal precedent showed that the grant of immunity would need to be respected by other authorities, though Kane could be prosecuted based on separate evidence unrelated to his testimony.
The proceedings were notable in how low key and peaceful they were, especially in contrast to a boisterious rally outside the courthouse attended by nearly 200 people. It was led by Scott Trautman and Mark McAfee, and included brief talks by Mark Kastle of Cornucopia, Michael Schmidt of Canadian raw milk fame, Max Kane’s three brothers, and yours truly.
“They’re not going to keep us in chains!” exclaimed Scott Trautman. the Wisconsin farmer who has lost his dairy license for distributing raw milk. “I have a dream of a golden age of farming in Wisconsin. Let’s get rid of the goons who want to keep us in chains.”
I argued for keeping the focus on rights, on not getting caught up in the “religion” of arguing for raw milk’ curative powers, or its frequent deadly dangers. Mark McAfee advised the crowd to “behave” in the courtroom. “Let them see that we are reasonable people.”
After the court session was over, Michael Schmidt went up to the judge to compliment him on his handling of the case. And Max Kane was being urged by supporters to re-hire his lawyer. He said later he had decided to appeal the judge’s ruling, and was uncertain as to whether he would use a lawyer.
***
I’d like to respond to Hugh Betcha’s challenge: “Lykke is of this sort, s/he probably works for the FDA and is here on assignment to disrupt. anyone who wants to offer an alternative reason for her presence please feel free to offer it. anyone who thinks lykke is fair and balanced please pipe in.”
All I can say, Hugh, is that you haven’t met many FDA or state public health officials. First off, they won’t express themselves publicly the way Lykke has (even under assumed name). They can’t stand the idea of public debate of their views and tactics. Second, Lykke listens and debates and is rational and respectful. She/he isn’t arrogant. Third, Lykke has expressed sincere support for small farms. Lots of regulators read this blog (I’m assuming Lykke is a regulator, or close to the regulator community), but many are scared off by active discussion of the sort that occurs on this blog. Lykke isn’t. I get frustrated with Lykke’s refusal to consider the possible health benefits of raw milk, and her/his rabid worry about risk from raw milk, but I commend her/his willingness to engage in debate and discussion, often in articulate fashion. Lykke on “assignment to disrupt”? Hardly.
Heres more information on the down side of consuming raw milk. I wonder if the judge in the Max Kane case follows twitter. These were tweeted all over the place.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/raw-milk-facts-in-short,1098927.shtml
http://www.foodpoisonjournal.com/2009/12/articles/food-poisoning-information/before-you-consider-drinking-raw-milk-please-read-this-and-watch-these-videos/
s/he has shown repeatedly that s/he has no desire to debate, listen or learn. s/he weighted down by her nanny state chains and thinks it’s just dandy that way.
great religion you got there, hows that working out for you?
My God is working out just fine for me hugh…and no…Christians don’t "kill people at the drop of a hat", though some false christiands have in the past and probably will in the future…just as ANY human endeavor does.
The fact is God saves lives. I KNOW He does…he saved mine.
I find your lumping all Christians together and implying they are bad as offensive as I find Lykke’s attempts to lump all raw milk as bad because of a few.
I find both ignorant and offensive.
Bob Hayles
http://www.juicymaters.com
Heres a well done article on the devil himself, Bill Marler.
http://www.marlerblog.com/2009/12/articles/lawyer-oped/a-conversation-with-bill-marler-taking-on-e-coli-big-ag-raw-milk-conspiracy-theorists-and-the-usda/
http://www.marlerblog.com/2009/12/articles/lawyer-oped/simple-good-and-tasty-bill-marler-taking-on-e-coli-big-ag-raw-milk-conspiracy-theorists-and-the-usda-continued/
cp
While we understand the reasons behind your defense of Lykke…most of us that actually milk cows for a living don’t agree with your take on her…she’s not respectful, and I must have missed her ‘support for small farms".
By the way Concerned person…no I’m not a christian…saw through that at an early age. And while I’m certain that God does exist, the arrogance and intolerance of Christainity cannot make it the true ‘way’. Frankly I think Jesus is turning over in his grave when he sees what men have done, throughout the ages, in his name. ( by the way, if your looking for some hearty belly laughing entertainment I suggest Bill Maher’s ‘Religulous’….I haven’t laughed that hard in years…the look on that Senators face when he said "you don’t need to pass an IQ test to get elected to the Senate" was absolutely, totally priceless..) Spirituality is a personal thing…and those that depend on organized religion are weak minded, and easily led.
That someone must be Christian to be credible, even if they use slang, is evidence of the arrogance.
Bitch slap is a slang term…one that is characterized by a full arm swing and open hand…and I just said that she ‘deserved’ it…for what she wrote. And while I’m sure some will find offense, I thought the term was appropriate to create the mental picture in the readers mind. (you should have seen the post BEFORE I cleaned it up)
Our thoughts and prayers (yes I do pray) are with Max….he’s going to need a truckload of courage, and a clear mind to see this through.
group think – is what has and is destroying this country.
if someone doesn’t like how a local system works then they are free to move to one that is more in their style. but instead we have a nation that basically… sucks.
big government, big religion, big interest groups are the problem. i very much want to see them crumble under their own weight. i do everything i can to not support them and i have no time for those who think they are the answer.
our government creates the problems we have and then our government creats worse problems in their blind attempt to fix the problems they created. religion is the same way. both are as old as time, both fail again and again and always have. both always find something else to blame for the failures, neither can see the truth.
many restrictive laws were written because of special interest pressure. maybe it’s time to become a special interest group.
my advice to max is delay, delay, delay… make this last 5 years if you can max. by then there will be great changes in america and wi. look at the budget deficit for all states. look at falling revenue, job losses, forclosures… falling sales tax, look at the debt people have to getr out from under. this is gonna change everything and it ain’t gonna be pretty.
it’ll take 10-20 years just to unwind the massive debt folks are carring over from their shop till they drop decades. all that’s over and ain’t comming back.
starve the beast!
Wow, the judge minimizes and belittles the farmers questions. This judge is paid to uphold the law, shouldn’t he also explain it if someone asks? Especially if that persons lively-hood is in danger.
"Second, Lykke listens and debates and is rational and respectful. She/he isn’t arrogant. Third, Lykke has expressed sincere support for small farms."
I beg to differ. I haven’t seen this. rational? Respectful? Sincere? Support of small farmers? Missed those posts totally.
Sylvia said: " "But a lawyer would not be questioning a judge about the constitution…Your arguments about why these regulations are unconstitutional are primitive and undeveloped."
Wow, the judge minimizes and belittles the farmers questions. This judge is paid to uphold the law, shouldn’t he also explain it if someone asks? Especially if that persons lively-hood is in danger."
I actually kind of agree with the judge. I’m no lawyer, but I ‘m pretty sure that a lawyer would have been able to eloquently point out in court why, much more so than Max could, or any Joe Shmoe for that matter. I’m sure Max studied up before going to court and representing himself…but unless you have a firm grasp on laws (because obviously there are SO many), and court proceedings, how can you really hold your own? I don’t think I’d dream of representing myself because I don’t know enough; it’s not my specialty. Now, if Max felt that he wasn’t getting proper representation or that his lawyer wasn’t "doing his job" to his satisfaction, and he felt he could represent his issues better himself, I can understand why he’d do that. We have the right to do it; in some cases though, it might not be the best option. A lawyer would have been more effective in presenting a case and providing other case histories as examples to further illustrate the case at hand. I think if Max is smart he’ll rehire his attorney, or another one, to represent him again if he appeals the decision.
I don’t think it’s really any different than engaging someone of a specialty in conversation about what they do, in which you know only a handful of information about. Take farming. I’m not a farmer. I know some basic information about farming, but I can’t talk about crop rotation, or managed intensive grazing, etc., etc. in detail because I haven’t spent time studying it or putting it into practice. But another farmer would understand, because that’s what they know, or they CAN understand it. Same with lawyer and judge; two people who have spent years studying law, representing clients in court, or making decisions or setting legal precedents.
It reminds me of learning how to write argumentative papers in my senior year high school Euro History class. You had a question to answer by choosing a side, and material to choose from to illustrate and solidify your point. You have to convince the reader that your thesis is correct by how you utilize the material supplied. A well-argued paper will convince a reader. If you don’t understand the question, or the material given, or BS your way through the argument, it shows; I had enough badly graded papers to know this first-hand. Argumentative papers are like a one-sided debate. Court cases are like debates on a grander scale and with a heck of a lot more to gain/lose. From what David has reported, and obviously I wasn’t there to hear Max, but it sounds like Max wasn’t arguing his case as well as someone who would have been more prepared to handle the material, like a good lawyer. The judge politely pointed that out to him by telling him his arguments are primitive and undeveloped, which is probably true; basically, Max didn’t convince him. It’s unfortunate, and I’m happy that circumstances worked out that he gets a re-do. Hopefully, he’ll either be extremely well prepared, or have a lawyer with an excellent legal strategy next time. I wish him all the best, and he will certainly be in my thoughts and prayers; I do agree that this is a rights issue.
Raw milk? Should’ve only been mentioned in the context of the details of events.
It would seem that Max lost because he was making the wrong argument. This case had absolutely nothing to do with raw milk – it was a case about law and the extent of a regulatory body’s jurisdiction. Any other argument is off point.
This was the same problem that the Meadowsweet folks had. They were trying to argue about "raw milk", when their case was about jurisdiction of a regulatory body – period. Instead, they argued "raw milk" and lost. They were then subject to the rules of the regulatory body. Just like this fellow Max will be.
Glen Wise won his case because he argued law, not "raw milk".
Judges don’t care if you’re dealing in raw milk, lumber or sewing needles; they are charged to be concerned only with law and matters of law. Raw milk advocates would do far, far better for themselves if they argued law, not "raw milk".
Farmers in these situations need to fight their own battles, not the war over food rights. That can only be done in legislatures.
You can come to my small farm and and bitch slap me. My animals and I will give you a hug. Happy Winter Solstice to one and all!
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law…Love is the law, love under will."
Aleister Crowley
Lykke, I said you ‘deserved’ to be bitch slapped, for your lying, insincere, disrespectful post…and stand by that statement. And while you say a hug would be waiting, with your history of lies, I doubt this post is sincere too. Just some more fluff to make yourself seem reasonable. Raw milk producers aren’t the greedy, careless, criminals you portray them to be… and people have a right to choose what food to eat, whether the government deems it ‘safe’ or not.
political correctness is not compatible with freedom and liberty.
i would encurage everyone to stand-up and voice their honest opinon in all things america needs to be. we’re way past the point of "compromise" being a good position to take. compromise of freedom and liberty and choice is equal to less of those things. there is no balance available when it comes to liberty, freedom and choice. you either have them or you don’t.
todays parents are in chains regarding their own family because of the political correctness of "it’s for the children" we have done nothing to maintain liberty, freedon and choice due to these "political correctness positions. politics has no place in defining liberty, freedom and choice. politics only errodes the base they stand on.
there is no way i can seek liberty, freedom and choice and at the same time include a lykke or cp position. the two are mutually exclusive.
liberty, freedom and choice are scary things. i might make a mistake and have to live with the result i created. i might choose badly and damage myself somehow. liberty, freedom and choice means living with the result of ones decision. there is no one to blame, no one to sue. it’s simply liberty, freedom and choice.
starve the beast, let the lykkes’ and cps’ of the world know flat out that they no lnger have a say about how you live your life. no more compromse. past compromises need to be undone.
americans need to find eir backbone, speakup and be heard i a clear and forceful manner. let the world now we are takingback our liberty, freedom and choice.
starve the beast is the greatest opportuniity we may get in this geeration. many re beeing forced to starve the beast as the past decades over consumption has left them in serious debt and negative equity. those of us who still have have buying power need to join them and further starve the beast.
goverrnmets across the country are spending more debt while being sure that shop till you drop consumerism will return. if it does, americans are really blind and stupid and can’t think about the future and what they are doing to their childrens liberrty, freedom and choice.
governments will only shrink if they are starved and forced to comply. we all need to do our part. starve the beast!
starve the beast!
We sought a declaratory judgment that the activity of the LLC was private conduct between consenting adults that was beyond the jurisdiction of NY Ag&Mkts Div of Milk Control and Dairy Services. Gary Cox brilliantly argued, using the definitions in NY law and in the Div’s regulations, that we did not fit either their model of ‘dairy farm’ or ‘milk plant’ and thus were not subject to Div regs. So the Court rewrote the law to make it apply to us.
All the briefs have now been filed to the Appeal Court and I hope to have them up on our website in the next couple days. In their Respondent’s Brief, the Masters of Misdirection (the Ag&Mkt team of 14 attorneys) state that we are raising the question of jurisdiction for the first time and it is too late for that so the Appeal Court should not even listen to it. It is a valiant effort and may win the day but the evidence is not with them. This is the first time that they have acknowledged the question of jurisdiction as in all hearings before this they claimed they had the duty to protect the public by restricting all milk flow with their regulatory system. Indeed, in their latest brief they state they have "…adopted regulations and implemented procedures to minimize, to the greatest extent possible, the health hazard posed by the consumption of raw milk." They have repeatedly raised the specter of the fragility of raw milk and of food unfit for human consumption because it doesn’t meet the Federal Standards of Identity. (For instance, the only standard of identity for yogurt requires pasteurized milk as an ingredient so any yogurt that is made out of raw milk is unfit for human consumption.)
The biggest stumbling block I see (I have had no formal training in the practice of the law) in seeking justice through the Courts is "agency deference". I’m not sure if that concept is codified or just an unwritten course of action but it means that the Court is required to rule broadly for the State and narrowly for anyone questioning the State’s authority. It stems from the idea that State agencies are composed of experts in whatever the agency deals with and hence the Court must give more weight to the arguments of the experts. Therefore, arguing about excess regulation through the State Court system is an uphill struggle.
Steve Smith
Managing Member
Meadowsweet Dairy, LLC
I agree with David and would also like commend Lykkes willingness to engage in constructive debate and discussion. I would add however that at times there is a subtle arrogance in how he or she presents his or her arguments.
As an example back on November, 28 Lykke stated to Bob, Good point though on the educational materials – probably no one reads them anyway other than those who wrote them. That’s the limitation of education and why we need regulation.
Is it indeed? Various religious institutions have used that same paternalistic reasoning with respect to the laities knowledge and understanding of scripture hence the need for doctrinal rules (regulations) in order to manipulate and control.
If anything regulations are often fueled by insecurity and a desire to control. They can be and are often a result of a presumed knowledge and/or bias that lend to a top down state control form of government that is especially vulnerable to excessive extremes for which history does not paint a pleasant picture. As I see it they are reservedly acceptable as long as those in charge recognize their limitations and humbly respect the God given freedom of each individual.
Don
Your paraphrase of Shakespeares quote from Hamlet reminds me of another version I heard about forty years ago, To swing or not to swingthat is the hang up
Thanks for the book David
Ken Conrad
There are a number offensive posts on this blog, and their not all coming from pagan heathens. One mans ‘offensive’, is another mans point.
I’ll not apologize for my view, or my choice of words. Sure, not everyone has the same background, or tolerance for the politically incorrect…but I don’t write words to satisfy the majority…that some will be offended will always happen in a forum such as this. David is the referee here…and if he found it offensive, he has every right to delete/modify the post.
And this is one of the things of beauty about raw milk…it cuts across social, political, religious lines…and is indeed a ‘large tent’.
Would it have been different if I said Lykke deserved to be drawn and quartered for her lies and insincerity?….waterboarded?….tied up and tickled with an ostrich feather?
We do need to get back to the issues at hand….but I’m not the only one castigating someone for what they wrote. 😉
Hugh is right…. Lykkes patterns are obvious.. for those who see clearly.
While I support Max Kanes right (and everyone elses) to procure whatever food he wants without interference from regulatory agencies, it seems to me that attempting to push a US attorney into a corner on his support of the constitution does not help the cause. There is a time and place for everything, and in our properly compartmentalized court system, leap-frogging over the question at hand is a strategy likely to backfire and harm the cause. It certainly impedes the courts progress on hearing one’s issue.
The salient point here is that regulatory agencies reach too far when they attempt to control individuals legal behavior. That should be, again in my unschooled opinion, the basis of such challenges. I am uncomfortable with arguments made along the lines of what Steve Smith describes, that regulations are not applicable here or there because of details in their wording. There is a fine line here, and I would dearly love to hear more discussion on this issue, but if Meadowsweet argued that they did not fit either [NY Ag & Markets] model of ‘dairy farm’ or ‘milk plant’ and thus were not subject to Div regs they also may have conceded, de facto, that regulatory agencies do have the right bring any individual into their perimeter if they would only write their rules specifically to include individuals.
I can certainly understand a good lawyers wish to win his clients particular case, and perhaps Meadowsweets strategy was appropriate toward that end. But earning such a win could cause the regulatory monster to grow stronger and improve its aim (and someday come back to bite Meadosweet again, perhaps more effectively).
Also the observation that the judge permitted questions or discussion on constitutional law, again speaks to fairness at allowing Max Kane to be heard out. And it takes a lot of courage for any defendant to stand up and address a court- and receiving a compliment from a Judge speaks very well of Max Kane. We need to hold in mind that a judge simply does not have to tolerate this sort of thing.
In addition I think for this group the comment that:
Your arguments about why these regulations are unconstitutional are primitive and undeveloped.
should be taken to heart.
It is quite different arguing in front of a court, whether a state circuit court or the Court of Appeals, and discussing heart felt issues involving individual rights. To prevail in court or pass legislation will require stepping up to the plate and actually looking deeply at facts, and legal precedent. The arguments cannot be opinion, nor primitive, nor undeveloped. And that is true whether arguing a case or drafting binding legislation.
(In my opinion Davids book was a real advance in formulating reasonable argument for food rights and attendant liberty interests.)
The issue of civility forces us to argue from reason and not just emotion. As to Lykke and CP, and all of us—- it is important for us to keep pushing each other and force all to think deeply about the basis of what we believe, the validity of fact, and also how to address the issues in such a manner that we can prevail in court and through other legal means.
From my perspective there is no question that we have an individual right to grow, distribute, access and choose good and healthy food, but those rights will not become manifest if our legal arguments are primitive and undeveloped. Our defense, and arguments will continue to grow stronger with each challenge and each case.
Best wishes to all. Never give up-
We will try and do a better job next time of cleaning up the emotion in our future posts.
And while forgiveness is something that many use to validate their sense of superiority, I only ask for acceptance that their are other experiences, backgrounds, morals and mores, that don’t jive with your own. Having compassion and understanding is so much better….it leaves out the ‘I’m better than you’ mentality.
I did not start that religious wheel rolling…only answered the judgmental post that brought it up.
Fact is though, Lykke, and her bogus reasonableness, her falseness and lies, must be called out.
In regards to your physical abuse comment…it was the physical propensity of the nuns and teachers in my catechism classes while a youth that really got me started on questioning organized religious authority, and the dogma they try and force upon you….those rulers (boy, words can sometimes be revealing) used to really hurt.
Lets put this chapter to bed, and get back to raw milk, rights, food safety and legal constitutional arguments.
A question to ponder…
Is a "primitive" argument necessarily an unhelpful one? And does "primitive" necessariily imply that an idea is not deeply thought out?
I generally find "primitive" notions to be the most compelling, and I see no reason why they shouldn’t be so in court. Certainly there is nothing overly complex about our constitutional rights–they could be fairly described as primitive (and because of that would necessarily, naturally, be more "heart felt"). Complexity, on the other hand, can be an excuse to avoid dealing with base issues, and a place to hide bad law.
I am certainly not accusing the Wisconsin judge of being a scoundrel (sounds like quite the opposite) nor am I saying that Max Kane’s court arguments were appropriate for the moment. But I am suspicious of systems that cannot properly contain (or adjudicate) a "primitive" idea.
Just a flawed view of an uninformed unsophisticated "legal fictional person"
UNBELIEVABLE
Primitive does not mean an argument lacks merit, is unhelpful nor not well thought out. The position taken may be ethically and morally superior, and compelling at many levels. of course depoending on one’s point of view. The reason many of these sorts of arguments are not really appropriate in court is that they are not thought out enough (in my opinion and in general) to be based on valid and defensible legal precedent and more importantly provide a clear argument that guides a court to the correct conclusion-ours.
No matter how much we feel a point of view is compelling–primitive or otherwise- in court arguments in equity are arguments of desperation–and are loosers.
I have deep respect for activists attorneys (like Steve Bemis and Judith McGeary–for example) who spend incredible amounts of time, effort and emotion assessing, researching, drafting etc…. to challenge the Forces of Darkness.
No doubt there is bad law,complexity is a fact we have to deal with, and I do not disagree with your comments, but we do battle in the real world, and I guess that is just the way it is.
To the group – regarding my "extremist" viewpoints about raw milk….I am not in favor of prohibition, but do support regulations that are scalable to the size of the farm/operation. I don’t know the ultimate answer of how this would work, especially in such an emotionally charged atmosphere. These two posts contain many good ideas (or "great thoughts") that suggest there is a way to find a balance between food safety and food rights. I would think these could be a starting point for rational discussion.
http://www.ftcldf.org/news/news-11-Great-Thoughts.html
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2009/11/what-id-recommend-raw-vs-pasteurized-milk/
I understand your comments, and I apparently was not very clear. My point was simple-that IF a judge was not interested in hearing what a defendant had to say-especialy if the comments wandered off from the issue being contested-the court would have every right to redirect the comments. In the case we are discussing the judge apparently did listen, permitted Max to speak and place his statement into the court record. This is significant-in my opinion-considering he did not have the benefit of counsel. I have been present when such defendants were treated harshly and within the power of the court-that is clearly not what David reported.
Michael Badnarik has heart attack while in Wisconsin to attend Max Kane hearing. If you took the time to watch the videos that Miguel kindly provided the links for you will know who he is and why we are experiencing many of our current problems.
What a gift! What an awesome collection of ideas, policy, facts, education!
Let’s use this knowledge to craft bills and amendments All these minds and energies are directed at cyberspace, rather than changing local laws – which is the only act that will change regulatory policy.
There could be a bill on the 2010 legislative agenda. But there isn’t. Now, we’ll have to wait til 2011 – and 2010 will see more injustices, fines, and contentious arguments about a glass of raw milk.
I think it took Shawn Dady at least 3 years to get the TN herdshare bill passed. She never gave up, and this year, she won. Do we want to depend on CP & Lykke having an eventual change of heart, give up their jobs so small farms can thrive and anyone can have access to the foods they choose?
The law is on their side, and no amount of passionate argument will change that. We have to change the law.
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2009/12/considering-drinking-raw-milk-read-this/
I also have not received much feedback (except from Steve and David) and some of my ideas on reaching a workable solution:
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2009/11/what-id-recommend-raw-vs-pasteurized-milk/
I still have had no feedback from this group or Weston A. Price on this document either:
http://www.foodpoisonjournal.com/2009/12/articles/food-poisoning-information/comparing-the-food-safety-record-of-pasteurized-and-raw-milk-products/
So, are you looking for a solution or just like to argue about problems? David, I would love it if you would consider posting your thoughts on http://www.foodsafetynews.com, or anyone else for that matter. However, NO religious arguments or violence – OK?
Your Recommendations are the second link here, and I believe they are the Recommendations which Lykke just referred to a couple of posts above. And yes, David and I commented on your Recommendations, not entirely unfavorably.
My own (modestly titled – not sure how I ended up more grandiose than yours) "11 Great Thoughts," Lykke also links to above:
http://www.ftcldf.org/news/news-11-Great-Thoughts.html. These were first floated on this blog almost a year ago.
So, I have the same complaint directed to you – where have you been on my stuff for the last 11 months? I don’t recall any comments from you, although there have been a few here and there from members of this blog (not lots, folks).
Perhaps, as the Sheriff said to Cool Hand Luke, "what we got heah isa failyah ta commun’kate." Or, more likely, we need a round table in some neutral place (as in, Paris, 1973).
So, how do we get to a solution instead of just arguing about problems?
The law is on our side.The regulators have set a clever trap for everyone and we continue to walk right into it with our eyes wide open.Are you pursuing life,liberty and happiness or are you in a for profit commercial business pursuing the almighty dollar?The pursuit of life,liberty and happiness is protected from those "laws"(really statutes,acts or regulations) that are on their side.If you insist on being a commercial business,you do have to abide by commercial laws and courts.If I was requested to give the names of all of the PERSONS(legal fictions ) that I cooperate with in my pursuit of good food,I could honestly say that I don’t know anything about anyone’s legal PERSON.The DTCP is not asking any questions about living men and women.They can only act on legal fictions because they can only act in the world of legal fiction.If you let them make the assumption that you are a business then they will assume that you(the flesh and blood you) are volunteering to(or contracting with them to)be responsible for the debt or obligation of the PERSON that you insist on connecting yourself with.If you have herdshare contracts with the name of some "legal PERSON" on it and your legal name,you are in a business,you need to abide by those "laws".If you accept checks written to your legal PERSON from someone else’s legal PERSON,you are a business.Any time you use your legal PERSON(your token in the game) you are playing the game of commerce and you are volunteering to be responsible for the debts and obligations of your legal PERSON.Part of the obligations of your legal PERSON is to abide by all of the statutes,acts and regulations(the rules of the game).Common english words have entirely different meanings in legaland.If you don’t understand these legal definitions you will not be happy in legaland playing the game of commerce.
Re your other comments – I thought putting the 4 parts into one, made for easier reading. Your thoughts? Regarding you being more grandiose them me, I will leave that for you to ponder. As for your 11 thoughts, I thought many had real merit.
I know raw milk will never be banned. That cow is long out of the barn. However, my feeling is that it should be made as safe as humanly possible. For those reasons, I think it should be sold on small, local farms that are inspected and tested – "so you can look the farmer in the eye." We do that here in Washington for the most part.
I also do not think it should be mass produced as it is in California. The more money you infuse, the greater the chance that greed will overcome common sense. We have seen that already in the organic food market.
I also do not think that it should be sold in retail outlets (Whole Foods, etc) – people should know who their farmer is and see the operation first hand. Selling retail also increases the risks that a casual buyer will purchase a product without fully understanding the pros and the cons.
I think there needs to be more education on the real risks of consuming raw milk, and the alleged benefits need to be held up to the light of day.
Finally, if a farmer sickens someone, they need to have the resources to take care of their customer.
The above is perhaps not perfect freedom, and people still may become sick or die, but it is at least a proposal.
By the way, I am not religious either, but do not think anyone should be "bitch slapped."
do you think a direct transaction between a consumer and a producer should be regulated by the government?
Look… we could come to an agreement here on this blog…or any blog, and it would amount to a hill of beans.
The problem is there will have to be up to 50 solutions to the raw milk problem…one for every state… and if you think that there is a chance in Hades that there will be a national solution, you haven’t been paying attention to what transpires as politics in our nations capital. Special interest lobbyists own this country, as evidenced by the gutting of the recent health care legislation. Counting on sweeping national regulations would be foolish….especially considering the wealth and attitude (milk after all is ‘theirs’) of the milk boilers.
So we’re left to slog it out one state at a time. And the differences between let say Wisconsin and Colorado, or California and Utah, currently, are striking. Add to this the level of intimidation from officials, courts of law and ruthless (but no doubt well meaning 😉 ) attorneys and you can see this won’t be a simple thing to resolve.
There must be an avenue for people, no matter what state they live in, no matter what the attitude of the regulators where they live, to assert their right to procure the food supply they want…whether it’s deemed safe or not by the authorities.
The right to control (own) your food supply is the clear choice, and getting a national court ruling to ‘legalize’ farm share programs seems to me to be the only logical step. It gives the consumer a chance to a) get to know their farmer b) support the farmer they choose c) and truly connect with what they put in their bodies. It also can, if structured right, afford the farmer tremendous security, both financial and legal, and make it ‘safer’ to dedicate oneself to a herd of cows, and a community of people that appreciate them.
Conventional milk is acting from script that was written by Karl Marx….raw milk should lean more toward Adam Smith for their direction.
PS David…are you going to change the blog post to reflect the true challenger …? After all if you want to be credible on the big stuff, you got to get the details right.
"do you think a direct transaction between a consumer and a producer should be regulated by the government?"
Hate to sound like a lawyer, but it depends. If you mean a final consumer (not buying to resell into a larger market) buying directly from a farmer, I see little, for federal or state governmental involvement – perhaps only in an advisory way – like agricultural extension. I can also see the need for some state/local inspections in some instances for higher risk products – like raw milk and raw meats.
thx…
one of the symptoms of americans illness seems to be a hyper-sensitivity to anything "real". feigning offense is more about posturing though. "bitch slap" sends a message, probably too personal for some here. men and women both probably have been. as well there are some that liked it… some cried, some just got mad… some slapped back. some probably punched back (escalating the situation!) anyway, too personal… too colorful… too imaginable…. too real
while i’ve never slapped anyone … i’ve been told i needed one and have told people in my life they needed one. sometimes in jest and sometimes not so much. it’s a problem in america that you can’t tell someone when they need to be bitch slapped. not much else can express a point and create a mental image better.
that’s what real language is for – painting a picture and communicating. to take every graphic phrase and translate it into a physical threat of real life violence is paranoia.
another topic
migel has been describing person vs. human(?) status. i found this link today, these two guys do a great job spelling it out sorta like "you’re owned!" for dummies.
it’s long but it answered a bunch of questions for me.
http://www.givemesometruth.info/RowanMcDonald.mp3
i found the link here: http://theburningplatform.com/economy/urgent-khen-radio-interviews-authors-of-they-own-it-all-including-you
Interesting though how comments here get blown out of proportion…yes Mark is a gun toting terrorist, and I’m a violent infidel, and lykee is a reasonable, respectful, small farm supporter…. it’s actually quite comical.
if YOU want to define it as "final consumer," then yes, obviously that’s what i meant.
of course, a "direct" transaction between a producer and a consumer cannot involve anybody other than a "final consumer" because there’s only one consumer, the person who was involved in the direct transaction. a direct transaction by definition eliminates any third party broker or mediator or intermediary.
given this, i’m glad you agree that direct transactions between producers and consumers do not fall within the police powers of the government and thus fall outside of government’s jurisdiction.
hence, all we need is a court to agree with that argument since it seems pretty basic and elementary. in that way we will regain our liberties.