“Heads I win, tails you lose.”
I couldn’t help but think about that kids’ expression–the kind of everything-going-your-way fantasy all kids dream about at one time or another–as I read through Wisconsin judge Patrick Fiedler’s opinion in two cases challenging the state’s ban on raw milk sales and distribution.
The judge ruled in the cases of Kay and Wayne Craig, owners of Grassway Organics Farm Store; and Mark and Petra Zinniker. (The cases had been consolidated into a single case.) They sought to distribute raw milk through farm stores to herdshare owners, and also argued that their stores didn’t require retail permits from Wisconsin’s Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection’s (DATCP). The judge ruled against them on all counts.
The judge’s ruling is quite convoluted, but essentially he seems to be saying that, despite the fact that DATCP had contradicted itself in both allowing and banning raw milk over the last decade, the agency really was consistent. For example, the judge notes that on May 8, 2009, DATCP “added a new interpretation of (the WI raw milk statute). DATCP stated that for an ownership interest to qualify as a ‘bona fide ownership interest in the milk producer,’ the ownership interest must have been acquired with an expectation of financial profit. ‘It does not include “cow shares,” license shares, or other devices that are merely designed to facilitate the illegal sale or distribution of raw milk…'”
The judge seems to agree that Wisconsin’s raw milk statute “is ambiguous,” particularly “as to what constitutes an ‘incidental sale,’ which is allowed under state law. The judge explores dictionary definitions of “incidental,” and concludes they contradict each other as well.
So, he eventually concludes DATCP should be given “great weight deference”–essentially allowed to do whatever it wants–primarily because “the Agency’s construction of (the state’s raw milk statute) has remained consistent.”
As I said, heads I win, tails you lose.
He also states that any claim to consume the foods of one’s choice is “totally without merit.” Why? Because “arguments unsupported by references to legal authority will not be considered.” In other words, because no legislature or judge has declared such a right previously, he is prohibited from declaring such a right now.
Such a judicial mindset would presumably have made it impossible for judges to rule that such matters as school segregation or prohibitions on abortion were violations of fundamental rights.
The judge seems to have been influenced by an outbreak of 35 illnesses from campylobacter attributed by Wisconsin authorities to the Zinnikers in 2009. Based on that outbreak, he said, “It is clear…that there is a rational basis for the legislature’s prohibition against the sale and/or distribution of unpasteurized milk” because it “can result…in serious illness.”
Discussed as they are near the end of his ruling, the 2009 illnesses seem tangential to his main ruling–that DATCP can flip the coin any way it wants, and the farmer loses.
If the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, which represented the Craigs and Zinnikers, were a National Football League team, the coach’s job would be in jeopardy. There have now been major consecutive losses in New York (Meadowsweet), Missouri (Morningland Dairy), and now Wisconsin (Craig and Zinniker)–all a result of judges giving overriding weight to the regulators’ arguments, no matter how inconsistent or fear-mongering.
But FTCLDF isn’t an NFL team, it is an upstart legal crusader for a subclass that has never before had legal representation. As such, it can’t expect judges to simply stand up and salute the new guys in town.
FTCLDF is clearly going to have to pay its dues as the upstart, fighting long established and well funded state agencies. Maybe the key question it faces is this: What does it need to do to speed up the dues-paying process? Bring in some big-shot legal heavy hitters a la Alan Dershowitz or James Baker–lawyers who will turn judges’ heads? Increase the number of lawsuits by a factor of two, or five, or ten, in hopes of hitting one of the few receptive judges who must surely sit out there in a courtroom somewhere in America?
In the meantime, this is a discouraging time for advocates of food rights. There is no doubt in my mind that the regulators-can-do-no-wrong attitude by state judges is fueling the ever-more-intense attacks we’re seeing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on farmers and food clubs. John Sheehan and cohorts feel increasingly comfortable, and immune from oversight, in their secret-police undercover tactics to destroy private food clubs and put small farms out of business.
I’m not sure what the answer is, but clearly the FTCLDF needs to re-think its approach. In the meantime, it has appealed the Craig and Zinniker cases.
Wow. This is from a person who supposedly has been educated and unbiased to sit in judgement?
Education of the masses is the key, in all aspects of freedom to consume any foods of choice.
I know advertising is expensive… there is the internet, so far the govt cannot control it. Also flyers at farmers market, farm shares, etc to hand out, word of mouth, T-shirts, etc.
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/02/140146780/probiotic-bacteria-chill-out-anxious-mice
Take a probiotic instead of an anti-anxiety pill…….I wonder how long before big pharm squashes these studies?
David, I think I have the answer to these failures in the judicial arenas.
I see the answer to failing in the judicial arena, as "teaching raw milk" to grass roots consumers. It is a long and hard process. It takes committment and it takes time and energy. Out here in CA we are teaching two classes per week…every week. That is about 100 classes per year. The follow on to this is…. the increase in Raw Milk market size.
When consumers are counted…..we now have County Ag Commissioners, Judges, CHP offices, CHP Pilots, Members of the media, doctors, lawyers, families everywhere….teachers. We have everyone drinking high quality safe raw milk. CA is still part of the USA. The internet is distributing information like never before.
This is a process. A process of building critical mass. A process of education and dollar voting.
In the civil rights movement, there were leaders and laggers. The south lagged and the west was ahead. The same goes for the Nutritional Civil Rights Movement. There will be leaders and laggers.
It seems as if the Bible Belt is the Biggest Lagger area in the US. Wisconsin seems to be dragging itself slowest of all.
If the judges do not send down opinions pro-raw milk…there are still many other channels to achieve change. Legislative change, the media and the public arena are huge.
As more and more national news pieces and feature films expose the true nutritional healing value of raw milk….the laggers will heat up and battle forward.
This is a WAR of oppression of the truth and a WAR of survival for a well entrenched Dead Food CAFO FDA PMO Battle Ship that is sinking slowly in the lagging states and has already sunk in the leading states.
This is a long battle…..the right to eat food or be healthly not being a right shows how sick the judges are. We have a ton of teaching to do.
Lawyers with charisma and integrity . . . .who can take on the regulators . . .and was perhaps a regulator in he/she's prior job.
That is what is needed . . .
My husband and I knew about and informed the FTCLDF about S-510 over a year before it was voted on . . . nothing was done to lobby against this . . . and here we are. . . behind the 8 ball . . .where government agencies can tell us what we can eat or drink . . .
I am so sick of this . . . .we are running defense instead of offence . . . .where it should be the other way around.
I think the the FTCLDF is good (helped our small farm friends out a few years ago) . . . but the big cases . . . they consistently loose . . .
Something needs to change . . . .
Kind regards,
Violet
http://www.kilbyridgefarmmaine.blogspot.com
I agree that something needs to change, but this change has little to do with the skill of our lawyers at FTCLDF. Gary Cox is very sharp and won my case ( by strategic settlement ) in CA for OPDC. His arguments before Judge Wanger were excellent and the FDA left with their tails between their legs. In fact, the record that was created by that case embarrasses the FDA to this day.
Gary was a government prosecutor, Gary is highly experienced and knows the dark side.
What you are saying is that" we the raw milk people " must dig deeper and hire Jonathan Emord and his firm ( who have beaten the FDA repeated ). I agree…but this takes huge money.
Are you in line to donate in this passing of this big hat?
One more thing, FTCLDF is not a provider of skilled legislative oversight. That is not their specialty. Legislation and lobbying is far from litigation.
Stacy at Raw Milk Institute is the lobby expert and will be available to assist with change of laws after September 21st when she settles in at her new job.
Given the nature of this battle and the sheer number of farmers in trouble, FTCLDF has done a miraculous job of fighting ten dragons simultaneously with its limited rare resources.
It is very easy to be negative about our David v. Goliath fighters….it is much harder to donate $250,000 to hire Jonathan Emord.
Donate big or forever hold your peace.
Throughout the ages human rights have been continually manipulated and under assault. It is an ongoing and discouraging struggle, with the legal system serving but as a pawn to the system. The efforts of lawyers in defending human rights are only marginally successful in bringing about change. There needs to be a conscientious will by society to recognize the need for change.
Justice William J. Brennan in 1982 stated that, The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to "create" rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting.
In todays world it appears that our rights and liberties are no longer presumed to be preexisting but rather relative to our whimsical, greedy and controlling nature.
http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/September-2011/Vaccine-Wake-Up-Call-for-Parents–Your-Children-Ar.aspx
The busybodies are hard at work in California and it is appalling that Assembly Bill 499 referred to in the above article would even see the light of day. Although the bill is not about food rights it does however represent a fundamental violation of human rights. If it passes you can probably kiss your right to consume the foods of your choice good buy.
Ken Conrad
We've all got to keep chipping away and keep doing what we're doing. As you suggest in your post, David, I think it will take many more lawsuits, but the legal tide will turn eventually. In the meantime, let's keep producing and drinking our raw milk all across the country.
Are we caving in to the big boys game throwing money into the arena and drain ourselves to death.
No money in the world can buy you real justice.
Let's be upfront and admit that we cannot afford this game. We need to defend ourselves in order to expose hypocrisy and o get the current insanity on record.
Otherwise follow Marks repeated call and teach ,teach, teach.
Why are farmers always in the defensive. Where are the members of cowshare operations, herdshare operations to claim their right for food.
Unless we ALL rise up to reclaim what we have lost we will lose it all.
Are w talking about real pain ,real suffering ,real non-violent resistance?
You bet we are.
Let's look at this constant defeat as a galvanizing force to keep going and to keep waking people up.
Not to say tha IF a high profile lawyer comes along and offers pro bono support, take it but never let the reigns go.
It will get much worse my friends, you have not seen the real deal yet.
The most important thing that we can do as a movement is to make sure that the milk still flows (even if that means, much to Marks chagrin, back alley nightime rendezvous) When they start putting farmers in jail, we shall begin to win in the court of public opinion.
Is it illegal to butcher your food on your property?
I am afraid should the feds win in the courts, the "back alley nightime rendezvous" will prevail and the potential for contamination will skyrocket. Those who live in states where raw milk consumption is illegal, still obtain it.
Everyones best interests would be to teach sanitation, etc. Raw milk consumption is not going to go away.
"slamming the FTCLDF is providing the regulators with the greatest imaginable satisfaction."
Divide and conquer.
"Unless we ALL rise up to reclaim what we have lost we will lose it all."
When I worked for the state of Ca. we were forced to pay for the nurses union. I read the contract, several times. It left the Dept of health nurses in the dust, kicked to the curb, I went to several meetings, and yes I spoke out, numerous times, pointed out the flaws, lack of support from the union, etc.
There is a small window that allows you to boot out a union. Long story short, I had 100s of emails saying they would support me, yet none-or I should say- a small handfull stood next to me. I sent out emails telling people they had to participate or it wouldn't work. They wanted me to do all the work and they said they would sign whatever I needed signed. Obviously nothing got changed because the support wasn't there. It was wasted $$ from my monthly check.
Will the same happen when peoples food is involved?
Mandatory vaccinations with out parental consent??? I called and voiced my opposition to AB 499. There is no way that Jerry Brown will sign this insane bill into law…no way.
Michael Badnarick said during his presidential run years ago:
"You bring your needle and I will bring my .45 and we will see which one makes a bigger hole". Americans must embrace peace but do not ever let the government think that resistance is not possible. Our government must serve us…..cops with guns drawn…begets people that become not so happy with guns pointed at them.
Micheal makes a very good point….a point he lives and breathes every day in Canada. We must live our freedoms. Not just speak of them….but live them.
I believe in the power of dollar voting and teaching. There is a reason behind my belief. The dollar is still considered sacred in the US. Your choice in what you do with your dollar is still pretty much your choice. If you stop buying….something starts dying.
Kill pasteurized milk by the simple act of never purchasing it again.
Protect and grow raw milk and your rights by buying raw milk from your trusted source. This source will grow and thrive. This will drive change….no question. Dollars drive markets.
Teach others about raw milk. Teaching is still something we can do….I teach about raw milk constantly every week in CA. We now have every possible walk of life, profession in life, drinking raw milk in CA. If the FDA or CDFA ever attempted to stop raw milk in CA….all hell would break loose. It is not going to happen. Our governor is a raw milk guy from way back.
This is a war of educational attrition. Every day….teach. In 1000 days your world will have changed. Teaching Raw Milk is a synergistic practice,…when you teach ten….they teach 100…and so on.
Who did you teach today??
Mark
How can the courts regulate the purchase and/or lease of a cow based on intended or realized profit? I do not follow that logic at all.
Putting these cases together wasn't really a good idea – in my opinion it just gave the judge a bigger target at which to shoot. Also, it convolutes the case histories and even if they are similar, they are still different. Each should have been decided on its own merit rather than placed into a box. Raw milk and other "healthy food fight" cases, most especially, seem to always end up in a box Pandora herself would be loathe to open, much less some empty-headed judge.
Cases like these are never pretty because common sense doesn't prevail, sorry to say.
When Michael Schmidt won his case in Canada….he had educated the judge over months of time. You must teach the judges or expect them to be conforming idiots.
Correctomundo…..
However, the same goes for teaching those that will stand to profit from the benefits of raw milk….the farmers and their consumers.
If your paycheck depends on fighting against raw milk…you are right.
Forget them…teach the teachable. The rest are back ground noise to be treated as irrelevant. I have never had a FDA person or big dairy processor show up and take me on at one of my Share the Secret presentations. They are a "no-show" to grass roots teaching efforts. This makes the grass roots all ours…..we have no competition.
This weekend, OPDC is hosting a booth and giving away at least 8,000 samples of raw milk at the Ghirardelli Chocolate festival event near fishermans Wharf in San francisco.
Teaching comes free with each sample given. Not a damn thing the FDA can do about it. There is not one drop of pasteurized milk being given out at the event. The event promoters learned long ago that pasteurized milk samples fail miserably. It is Chocolate and Raw Milk time in SF. Two things nearly everyone can digest and love.
I hope that part of your teaching includes the exact way pasteurized milk is adulterated. Show and teach the contaminated environment the confined dairies subject their cattle to… teach what they are fed…. Use pictures/drawings. Hand out flyers…..
The argument put forth by the plaintiffs was that, as stated in Wisconsin statute and administrative rule, the underlying owner(s) of a milk producer license could drink the milk from their farm. Thus the Farmshare, which conveyed ownership to the investors in an LLC which held the license. The judge points out rightly that the purpose of having a milk producer license is to sell milk into the public food supply, but the plaintiffs admit that the Farmshare owners invested in the LLC in order to procure raw milk. The judge states that this is against the intent of the license and thus Farmshare owners are not legitimate owners, as they are not investing in the LLC in order to produce milk for the public food supply. In the case of the Craigs, who state that they do not need a retail food establishment license because their store is members only, the judge states that the members are not legitimate owners of the farm, for the reason stated above, but rather members of the public, and thus the Craigs do indeed need a retail food establishment license.
In the case of the Zinnickers, their milk producer license was revoked by DATCP in 2009 for failing to have a contract with a milk processor (which is the point of the license). Therefore, the Zinnickers dont have a case against DATCP, since they dont have a legal contract (i.e. milk producer license) with DATCP. On page 15 of the pdf we see that the statutes read in part [97.24(2)], No person may sell or distribute any milk unless A person in a legal context refers to the corporate fiction (you the corporate fiction or a corporation, not a flesh and blood human being). The Zinnickers have an LLC, which is a legal person. They thus are bound by the statutes, which states all milk must be grade A (with license) and pasteurized.
As to the fact the judge states the Farmshare owners do not have a fundamental right to consume the raw milk, lets not forget when one enters into a contract with the state (whether through the milk producer license or organizing a corporation) one waives certain rights and agrees to abide by the terms of the contract in this case, to follow the statutes (with the LLC) or the administrative rules (with the milk producer license). We may not like it, but this is how contract law works.
Perhaps instead of bemoaning this loss we need to look at the ruling (please read it if you havent, and remember that certain words like person and dairy farm have legal definitions which may differ from your own for example, a dairy farm by legal definition is one that produces milk for the public food supply, therefore someone with 2 cows for personal use and who is not shipping milk to a processor is not a dairy farm) and see that these Farmshare agreements were highly flawed from the very beginning. If you dont like the law, fine, work to change it, but in the meantime, we need to make a serious effort to understand the current laws for what they are, and work with them, or else we risk loss after loss after loss.
We try not to gross people out at their first raw milk lesson…..but yes…we compare CAFO verses Pastures and Dead verses Alive and Probiotic verses Antibiotic, Digestible verses Lactose Intolerance…Healing Asthma verses a Primary cause of it, living clean milk…verses dead dirty milk. That is when their eyes glaze over in educational shock and we just offer some delicious raw milk to go with their sample of chocolate.
Mostly,… we just deliver great taste and yum!! That is a great sensory lesson unto itself.
Ever worked in DC . . . I have . . . . and I know how the game is played.
That is why we NEED to ELECT those who are opposed to S-510 and wish to repeal it . . . let me guess . . . . they PROMISED to gave you a place at the table with RAWMI . . .you were duped! Dean foods, et. all . will not let you get close to that table.
The only other way I know is to produce raw milk illegally through the black market and then fight for our rights when they decide to invade our farms . . . . call the local press . . . get customers involved, etc.
But then again I am on the fence about this tactic as well . . .I have seen sheeple pour out milk when the feds show up and hand it over to the State Regulators with the beret caps . . .
You can Teach, Teach, Teach . . . . all you want . . . . 4 million out of 350 million Americans drink raw milk . . . out of those 4 million I think maybe 10,000 of those are food rights advocates who are hardcore and will fight . . . I see the same people over and over again contribute to David's blog . . .there are very few newbies and I hope they begin to contribute . . . but it is not enough . . . .. That is why we need good lawyers. . . . or we get rid of those who are now in elected office that are in the back pockets of Big Ag and have taken money from them . . . .and invite all those K street lobbyists to help write legislation.
Kind regards,
Violet
http://www.kilbyridgefarmmaine.blogspot.com
This is not so much news of a setback as it is a reminder that education and support for small farms are the keys to their eventual successes. And they will succeed. Processed foods are killing people. Fresh milk, properly nourished, is a remedy. Science is catching up and proving it.
As said, the consumer's dollar is much more powerful than any judge, and another arm of government- the legislature, is perhaps better poised to represent public interests. This battle must not rely on the whims of individual judges, but on the opinion of those whose rights are being infringed on. And that is virtually everyone.
It is therefore incumbent upon all of us to educate, be unafraid of putting our names out front for producing a safe, clean product, and make lots of noise. More than anything else, apathy and ignorance are the true nemesis.
Brigitte
Brigitte is correct . . .
We must also understand that our LAWMAKERS in STATE and FEDERAL Government appoint said judges . . . so elections do have consequences.
4 million of us do have a great deal of consumer power . . . . but it is not enough yet to influence our lawmakers . . . . until those who are on the take of BIG AG . . . . are voted out.
We need to band together and fight for those candidates that cannot be bought and will give us the FREEDOM of FOOD CHOICE.
Kind regards,
Violet
http://www.kilbyridgefarmmaine.blogspot.com
Our family is now in a unique situation where we will be living in the Bay area of California for most of the next year, while still maintaining our home here in Wisconsin. We will still be paying our boarding fee in Wisconsin plus buying "legal" milk in California for our family. This is not easy on our budget, but there is a price to pay for freedom and it's our turn to pony up. We will also continue to support FTCLDA and are extremely grateful for all the hard work they have done over these past few years.
We the consumers must sacrifice as the brave farmers who board our cows do. I am truly humbled when I think of what these farming families put on the line to board our cows. They are the true heroes in this Civil Rights movement and we the consumers must be united and march for them.
I'm looking forward to walking into my neighborhood health food store in Pleasanton, CA and buying your milk, Mark!
In business speak, that means the individuals be investors–actually own a percentage of the corporation, partnership, or whatever entity owns the land, buildings, animals, and other facilities. The "financial profit" comes from cash dividends or in the event the business is sold and proceeds of the sale are divided up among the owners.
In point of fact, this is a very high bar to set, and impractical to boot. Having written about and analyzed many business plans and business arrangements, I can say that it's not even clear such an offering of a "bona fide ownership interest" would be legal to offer, since private companies are prohibited from offering shares in their companies to individuals who aren't considered "professional investors." Professional investors are variously defined as having $1 million of assets. I think that would leave a lot of people out of the running in any event.
I can appreciate lola granola's desire to see logic and consistency in the WI judge's decision. However, it's not clear, beyond the matter of a bona fide interest in the farm, what he means about the practical import of the Grade A dairy permit in terms of what is allowed. Perhaps that Grassway should get a Grade A license, sell interests in the license to the shareholders, and then sell some of the milk to a milk truck while selling the rest to the shareholders (that way the license wouldnt be "solely used to sell raw milk to shareholders)? Thus, the incidental sales exception would not apply and the Craigs and their license owners could obtain all the raw milk they want?
Should they try this, you don't think DATCP wouldn't come up with a "new interpretation"? And the judge would side with DATCP?
As I said before, heads I win, tales you lose.
One other thing: I have argued what Mark McAfee and Brigitte Ruthman are suggesting–that overwhelming consumer demand can overwhelm the regulators and judges. But in the meantime, Michael Schmidt's warning is well taken: "It will get much worse my friends, you have not seen the real deal yet."
David
As the originator of the cowshare in Wisconsin and taking part in its multiple versions to come to an accepted version known as the Farmshare, i think to take the stance that the judges ruling as a loss is premature.
In the begining I thought we had rights to purchase what we want and even bent in favor of the whole idea of vested interest in a cow then farm to secure that right.
The Wi Divison of Securities was supportive of the waving of expectation of profit but after 4 years of throwing a fit they bent to the will of DATCP and the issue they had with waving expectation of profit and we have the new interpritation.
This is the 5th interpritation from DATCP since 1999 on the share issue, and doubt it will be the last.
As to the ruling of the judge, instead of looking at it as a loss we now have a clearer understanding of the States definition of our rights, its alignment wth the Feds definition and Corporations say in the whole matter.
We have yet to define the the basic issues we are facing and each court/administrative hearing gets us closer to that last layer and our true measure of resistance we can begin to counter act with clarity and definitive action.
As for the success or failure of the share arrangement in Wi… if you see it as a horse race as we are trained to do, yes it seems a failure, however given the thousands of families that are now getting milk in Wi, and the 10's of thousands that have always gotten milk with no share arrangement but were bolstered by those who joined the activitiy with a cow share it is a grand success and one that is not easily going to be put back in the bottle.
DATCP as most current government agencies tend to be are behind the curve on the pulse of the public. Raw milk will not stop, securing your food from those you trust will not stop no matter how many judges the state trots out to tell us otherwise.
As for the legal defense Fund and it track record, at least these Wi. farms did not bear the full brunt of the cost to defend the rights of hundreds of people. As one who has, and deal with its consequences everyday i politely remind you to take the long view in this issue and the record everyone is trying to create.
it took 60 years to erode your rights to food and food security, its going to take more than 4 years to get it back.
Wisconsin has made much progress in the 12 years since the first conversation started about raw milk, but it is narrow minded and and lacks maturity to cast your hopes on one judge and one ruling.
Life changes are not always immediate, and to fall for that theory of immediacy is to allow the continuation of the hold our government agencies have over us and our responsibility that was given over to them years ago without our permission.
Regards
Tim Wightman
This is the "About Us" information:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/AboutUs/AboutUs.htm?modecode=54-50-00-00
Here is some information on a study "Glycemic Effects of Honey Study":
http://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=21851
Have a great day,
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
I think the judges ruling is very clear in defining the intention of the grade A license, which is to sell milk into the public food supply. If you do not sell milk into the public food supply, you do not need (or you cannot get) a license, and if a farm no longer has a contract with a dairy processor the license is revoked.
Im confused about what youre suggesting above, David, as I was of the understanding that Grassway has a grade A license and sells to a processor as well as their members. The question of bona fide owner then becomes one of whether, as investors in the herd, the members receive a portion of the milk check to fulfill the purpose of the license. Of course they dont. Id invite you to publish any of these Farmshare agreements so that we may clearly see that they say, Member is not entitled to any financial share except for milk and milk products. Thats exactly what my Farmshare agreement said, and I know that others do, too, since I was given other agreements to reference by FTCLDF when writing mine. When we purchased items for the cows at the local mill, were the Farmshare members entitled to a portion of the dividend we received on their behalf at the end of the year? No. When we purchased semen from the AI company and received a dividend check at the end of the year did the members receive their fair share of it? No. When were entitled to equity from the milk processor in 17 years will I be bound to track down my former owners to share the wealth? No.
But, of the other farms I know with legitimate corporations because multiple family members are owners, such as mom-dad-son-daughter in law or 2 brothers and their wives the expectation of financial profit, and of profit sharing, is there, and they do share the milk checks, the dividend checks, the equity checks. We do not see this in the Farmshare, rather the ONLY thing the farmshare owner is entitled to is the unprocessed milk.
I again ask, are Farmshares legitimate ownership structures or are they designed to skirt the law? And if they are legitimate ownership structures, how and why are they different from the type of structure family members have who are share owners of a farm?
we own the cows.
What happens to your milk when you dont pick it up? Is it dumped? Is it sold to another person or to a processor? If so, do you receive the revenue from that sale?
If you're going to be out of the state for much of the year are you going to pay your farmer to dry your cow up? If she continues to produce milk, who gets the milk and any potential revenue from it?
The dairy industry has used its power (money) to build a tangled web of statutes, the ultimate purpose of which is to guard their territory and eliminate competition. Now that the mainstream media no longer controls all information, they find that all that they have done to create a monopoly and push out small farmers is at risk as more and more people find out the truth about the quality and healthfulness (or lack thereof) of pasteurized factory farmed milk. I believe that the current campaign to crush raw milk is much bigger than we realize, as we are dealing with serious profits and deeply entrenched power. It should awaken us to the reality that this is our big chance – to educate the rest of the populace, the masses who are not food activists and have little access to blogs and alternative media. We need to convince Americans that the government is not protecting the food supply, and instead has systematically replaced real food with artificial junk that is destroying our health, all because of money flowing from industrial food.
I am frequently amazed to find that people do not know that the 'half 'n half' or sour cream they buy at the store frequently contains no real milk. An entire generation of Americans have been raised on 'food' from packages, and has no idea that it is completely without nutritious value, a conglomeration of overprocessed foodlike substances and artificial colors and flavors. It is time that the industrial food cartels see their greatest nightmare come true – that the masses learn the truth about their fake food, refuse to buy it and insist upon 'real' food. Nor can we naively think that all are going to abandon the convenience of modern processed food – that has been its appeal all along. The vast majority of Americans are not going to return to slaving over the stove. An entire new industry will need to arise, in which small businesses provide the cooking that Mom used to do – homemade broths, butter and cottage cheese, and perhaps freshly prepared salads and dishes that can replace the 'fast food' that reigns today.
When people finally realize that their convenience foods are not only buying them time but disease and early death, they just might be willing to make a change. It breaks my heart to see so many people ignorantly consuming fake food, with no idea how harmful it is to their health, then wondering why they end up facing diabetes, cancer, arthritis, high blood pressure, etc.
I am not claiming to have all the answers, but I do believe that it is going to take a concerted effort by many to bring about the education of the public, which will do more to prevent the behind the scenes takeover of our food supply than the few admirable Davids flinging their stones at the industrial food Goliaths. What we need at this point is a lot more 'Davids', and I am appreciative of all that this David is doing.
In the case of the Zinnicker/Craigs it is not just a matter of "being left alone to milk my cow". If you as an individual did this, with your own cow, on your own land, consuming the milk yourself, you would be left alone. The issue is when that milk enters commerce. The Zinnickers created an LLC, which is a contract with the state, and with any contract you are bound to the terms of the contract – in this case, to follow the statutes regulating that LLC. The Craigs had both an LLC and a milk producer license, so they are bound to both statute and administrative rule. They tried to argue that these was a "private" contracts, but with contract law, the terms of the contract supercede any individual rights.
We will be honored to have you in CA drinking our raw milk. I hope you can venture down to Fresno and visit the Raw Milk Institute and see the cows and OPDC operations. Yosemite valley is only about 2 hours north of us and many people combine the two visits.
As to teaching…
We have 50 different realities on our national raw milk battlefield. Each of our states is in a different state of Raw Milk oppression, despare and confusion. Yet…we are one country and we have one internet.
Victoria Coulter sent me an email this morning and it stirred me deeply. She is a chapter leader in LA and took my teaching mantra to heart.
She is now coordinating a teach raw milk event in LA and will be inviting everyone that she can to become a teacher of raw milk. We can not ever sell raw milk….raw milk is something that is taught.
Teaching is a learning process. If the information being taugh does not touch you in a personal way…the information does not get in. In my experience, when you teach about raw milk…you really talk very little about raw milk. You instead, talk about what is missing in the modern diets, what your immune systems needs to be healthy, the hard core data, Univerisity and NIH research at the Human Genome project, etc…..then people realize that our tax dollars have actually descovered the reasons we are so sick….
We just have been cheated from knowing the results of the best and most recent research because teaching and sharing this data would lose big pharma and big dairy fortunes.
Then we talk about why raw milk and other whole foods fills this nutritional void…
When done we all drink some raw milk with the realization of what raw milk does for the immune system, CRP values, Inflamation, MAST cell stabilization, Asthma, The Human GUT, GERD, IBS, ADHD and etc…etc….
The educational spear is buried deep in the soul and it is not coming out. It has reached a place where people feel cheated and lied too. It has reached the Farmagedon place and all people want to do is teach others.
This is the viral educational fire that must be fanned and fueled.
If you hate what the FDA has done to our next generations health and the American Immune system….then stand and teach.
Mark
I see your point. What I am suggesting is that we must stop dancing to the tune of the regulators, who are always going to find a new reason to stop the flow of raw milk. There is absolutely no reason that a group of individuals, of any size, cannot purchase a cow or cows, have them raised and cared for by one farmer and consume, process or do whatever they choose with the milk – exactly as one man does with his one cow. That is not a business, it needs no licensing or regulation. It is a group of individuals voluntarily entering into a mutually beneficial contract, and our constitution clearly allows for that. Did it not, we should fight for such a right, as it is essential in our modern economy. It is, in effect, discrimination to insist that the only individuals who can consume raw milk are those who choose (if they can!) to live on a farm, buy a cow and produce their own milk. Just imagine the outcry if the government decided that the only people who could smoke were those who owned a tobacco farm and grew, processed and rolled their own tobacco! It is upon this principle that I suggest lawsuits be filed, as our judges seem always sympathetic to those who are discriminated against.
I do not disagree with the scenario you've suggested, what I'm saying is that is not what is happening in these cases. What is happening is that we're taking existing dairy farms, with milk producer licenses, contracts with processors, equity, farm debt, etc., and retrofitting them to fit the scenario you've described, and it doesn't work, for the reasons the judge described and I described.
What should happen then is this. A group of friends should get together, go to an auction barn and buy a cow, with all of their names appearing on the bill of sale and with canceled checks to prove each paid an equal portion for the cow. This group should THEN go to a person living on some acreage who has no milking animals of his own, and contract with that person to milk and care for the cow. The contract needs to spell out what should happen with that milk should the owners not pick it up, and the group of owners needs to take responsibility ("rights AND responsibilities") to pick up the milk in a timely manner. The group of owners should also be involved in paying the bills associated with the cow – the veterinarian, to purchase hay, artificial insemination, etc., and not leave that up to the "farmer" and his checkbook. It would then be very interesting indeed if this situation ended up in court, as I think the outcome would be very different than the one we saw with the Zinnickers/Craigs.
To assure that we do not subject ourselves to State rules, we must act privately. That is something we must learn how to doit does not come intuitively to most of us since we have been thoroughly indoctrinated into believing that our legal person is the same as our actual or natural person. Nevertheless, we are all human beings first, created by God and endowed by God with inalienable rights. Our legal person, on the other hand, is created by the State, and is therefore controlled by the State. The two entities coexist. It is how we use them that matters.
Sometimes it is advantageous to act as your legal person. As an example, I am licensed by the State to practice my profession. My legal person is the entity at work there. I sometimes fuss that the State exerts unreasonable control over my legal person, but the State is allowed, even obligated, to control what it creates. I can only work to change the rules if I am not happy with how they do it. On the other hand, my natural personthe entity that is me, created by Godis not legally subject to the rules that govern State creations. My natural person rather answers to a higher (and much less complicated) law. Along with acting as a natural person, needless to say, comes the responsibly to act in accordance with higher law. It may also mean forfeiting certain protections that the State offers its own creations.
This is not to say that bureaucrats, or police, or even some judges understand the difference. But they can be taught.
The Pennsylvania-based group CARE (Communities Alliance for Responsible Eco-Farming) espouses this. See their statement here:
http://www.pasafarming.org/resource/PDF/CAREstatement.pdf
That AB499 issues is HUGE in CA…..precedent setting for the rest of the US!!!! Not just californians should call but all of us need to inundate Gov. Brown's office. You can see the details at Sarah Pope's http://www.thehealthyeconomist.com blog from the other day. She had a link to a website where you could send him a comment and his # and fax #! INUNDATED THEM! I am from IL and called!
Here is the corruption scoop on how this bill got passed:
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/09/06/merck-funded-anti-parent-bill/
Total that Merck donated to legislators voting yea on AB 499: $39,500
True, some Merck money went to those who voted against the bill. But an overwhelming amount went to those who backed it. For Merck, which stands to make tens of millions of dollars off the bill, it was an investment that paid off big time."
Natural News the other day had an article about the FDA and our supplements. Listed action items! DO IT!!!! Here is the article and he lists at the bottom action items:
http://www.naturalnews.com/033482_FDA_dietary_supplements.html
I'd like to go look in this judge's refrigerator and pantry and see what he eats! Like hell what we choose to eat has no merit!!!!! B.S.!!!!
Is there a phone # and email address and fax# for this judge so we can all inundate him??
The PEOPLE MUST REBEL, and speak up!
nancy
Lawyers with charisma and integrity . . . .who can take on the regulators . . .and was perhaps a regulator in he/she's prior job.
That is what is needed . . .
My husband and I knew about and informed the FTCLDF about S-510 over a year before it was voted on . . . nothing was done to lobby against this . . . and here we are. . . behind the 8 ball . . .where government agencies can tell us what we can eat or drink . . .
I am so sick of this . . . .we are running defense instead of offence . . . .where it should be the other way around."
Violet…I am going to have to respectfully disagree with several of the above points in your first post.
First off, I don't think that any other lawyer (Emord included) would have gotten a better result on this or some of the earlier cases with biased judges that are the enemies of freedom and the constitution.
Second, was FULLY engaged in fight against S510…I know first hand that Pete Kennedy was tireless in the fight against S510 in it's entirety, and unlike many other organizations, did not bow to the allure of the Tester-Hagan amendments. Go check out the 'Action Alerts' section of FTCLDF's website (http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/take-action.html), and take note of all the late 2010 alerts on S510.
Finally, I think that sueing the FDA over the interstate commerce ban on raw milk is a pretty good offensive move. One thing to keep in mind is that all of the small farmers do need some form of defense in this dark period before we turn the corner and finally gain traction, which as Tim eluded to is going to take time.
As Salatin says, we need and 'NRA for food' (http://farmtoconsumer.org/kudos/salatin.htm), and the only way for FTCLDF to become that, is to have the kind of membership level that the NRA has (of course an amendment to the Constitution helps).
Please don't give up on them now…they need our support more than ever.
I'm really looking forward to the FTCLDF Fundraiser event at Joel's farm this weekend, where I can personally thank MY heros in this fight.
Kevin
Most of this dialogue and passion is centered on priorities and how to add additional elements so that there is a full court press that is ongoing. That includes, litigation, legislation, consumer education, farmer training with raw milk safety and basic standards and grass roots activism.
It appears that "food freedom" is the common plank that is embraced by all.
I would share this with the freedom fighters.
Freedom requires personal and farmer responsibility. Food safety is the personal responsibility and farmer responsibility in the food freedom fight.
All of the freedom fighting in the world will fall flat on it's face if we end up defending a bunch of raw milk producers that do not take responsibility for safety. The FDA and Food Inc Milk Mafia will rejoice at every raw milk sniffle.
I am certainly not about to "give up on" the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund. It needs all the support we can muster, and then some. I was suggesting it look for ways to leverage its expertise, become more innovative to wage what is certain to be an ever-tougher fight against a totally cynical opposition.
Looking forward to meeting you on Saturday.
David
Agree agree agree…this is an unconventional fight and will require innovative strategies to win. We can no longer believe that doing the same old things over and over will bring different outcomes. This goes for all of us. Where ever we battle or teach.
I think we must agree to disagree about this . . . . I have said that the FTCLDF has done good for farmers . . . they helped out a fellow farm familiy that are very good friends of ours . . .but they consistently loose all those BIG cases that mean so much to the raw milk movement . . . . and I am sorry but showing up in court in a pair of shorts and sandals is not really very professional . . .no matter what the excuse . . .I believe I commented on this a few months ago.
I am not going to give up on FTCLDF . . . but I think they can do much, much better. Hiring one or two attorneys with the calibre of Emrod as "Advisors" would be a start . . .and sending someone up to the Hill to attend committee meetings when bills com up regarding Food Safety and Local Agriculture would be great too . . . get to know those Senators and Congressmen and Women . . .Donate money to Congressional/Senate candidates that stand up for food rights . . . and then when they win . . . visit often. That is how things work on the Hill . . . and that is what should have been done prior to S-510.
Just love Salatins comments about the need of a NRA for food! That really hits home because the best job I ever had besides farming . . . was working for the NRA for nearly 2 years in DC right before they moved to Fairfax, VA . . . I was a "grassroots coordinator" for them:)
Kevin . . . these posts are my opinion . . . and I am sharing my frustrations . . . the FTCLDF needs to win those big cases . . . arguments need to be rock solid in the face of these biased judges. . . .
Wishing everyone well this weekend . . . in Virginia . . . at Joel's farm:)
Kind regards,
Violet
http://www.kilbyridgefarmmaine.blogspot.com
I understand the thought behind not having a milking operation already possibly licensed or under the jurisdiction of the state, but as a consumer, I want to contract with an experienced dairy farmer, not someone with no experience. It would seem to me that an existing dairy farmer could still work in your scenario, if the new private contract arrangement was completely separated from their main dairy operation. It might even mean separate land deeded to the this group where the animals purchased would reside.
As to the comments on FTCLDF, I raised some of these questions a couple weeks back regarding their experience and record. I think the dialog is both necessary and useful for the movement, and I am glad David has raised these questions. If the comments by Violet are true, that attorneys are showing up in court in shorts and sandals, then I am shocked.
What has not been discussed is the issue of the close association and apparent funding of FTCLDF by WAPF, and the influence of WAPF in starting and running this organization. WAPF is starting to lose credibility among many people for a variety of reasons that have already been discussed here. I am not sure other attorneys with more experience are so willing to "come on board" with FTCLDF because of that association and oversight. I am unwilling to support FTCLDF because of this association with WAPF. Jonathan Emord's name has been mentioned, along with his high rates, but he also is employed at times with non-profit organizations that could be used to raise money for the cause, such as Alliance for Natural Health, an organization with a very good track record in fighting the FDA in court.
You can not be a Raw Milk Advocate….if you are not one in the blood with WAP….what is your trip???
You need not love every little detail about WAP…but the core values are consistent with everything raw milk.
We must all be careful to NOT sweat the minutia as this Raw Milk Movement gains momentum. If we do….this begs for infighting and fewer soldiers in the battle.
WE MUST NEVER EVER FIGHT EACH OTHER!!
This entire raw milk movement started with Sally and her work in 1999. I got to know her in 2000 and WAP was our core.
When educating about raw milk….you must start with the core and build out. You are hardly ever successful, going to the FOOD INC affected mainstream and attempting to speak of raw milk.Most have no reason to listen and they are addicted to all things FOOD INC. That is the Jamie Oliver Media stunt…it nearly always gets a head injury, but makes for great nutritional TV soap opera. That is why he intentionally goes to the non-core and hits his head against the brick wall of diabetes, obesity and asthma on purpose….it makes for great conflict, emotional drama and TV ratings ( sometimes ). With huge budgets this may work…no one in the raw milk movement has huge budgets.
OPDC teaching successes in CA have been built upon the core and their passion to teach others close to and beyond the core. Now the core is many layered, huge and growing. It is no longer just WAP….but they were the first and they hold my heart and soul.
They were also visionary enough to birth FTCLDF….a sheer act of collective genius.
If you are a true "Raw Milk Advocate"….be careful, you have touched a nerve with me and probably the core as well.
If you want safe, accessible raw milk in America and beyond. We need all…working with all to move this educational mountain.
"This entire raw milk movement started with Sally and her work in 1999. I got to know her in 2000 and WAP was our core."
RawMilk Advocate,
What Mark is trying to tell you is that the raw milk movement is HIS and SALLY'S movement, not yours, and if you don't join HIS movement, you are not an ally of raw milk.
Get it?
RawMilk Advocate,
The scenario I described above does not imply that one would need to contract with someone with no dairy experience; on the contrary, I would most definitely advocate you find someone with a dairy background, but who is not currently milking cows. In my neck of the woods there are people who grew up on dairy farms who do not own farms of their own, people who sold their dairy herds and bought beef cows, and people who sold their dairy herds and went into other businesses. These people would be great candidates with whom to contract.
I would not advocate you find a person who already has dairy animals since regulators and judicial types may find the lines too blurred, and to me, the point of this exercise is to test the judicial waters and see if even the most basic arrangement is recognized as legitimate by the state. I think once that happens, one could push the boundary, but it is this muddy gray area that's what's getting us into trouble.
RawMilkAdvocate–Could you give specifics of what you find off-putting about the WAPF?
Thank you both.
Those most vehement against WAPF are the anti-raw milk crowd….
When I finally got hauled in to Court … turns out he was one of the publicans employed by Revenue Canada
"information overload brings pattern recognition" = the pattern of the old Grumbler's postings gives away that he's no friend of the Campaign for REAL MILK … he's a troll whose net result is to sow discord
And, as Barney Google asks, why do you have to be pro-Weston Price to be involved in the raw milk movement?
It our American Birthright….if any one should get credit here in CA…it is Claravale for hanging in there since 1927. That is 84 years of continuous pathogen free, clean, raw milk….wow!!!
It is Alta Dena and the Steuves for keeping Raw Milk Alive and defending it during the raw milk dark days of the 1970-1990s.
It also goes to James Stewart ( founder of Rawsome ) and Aajonus Vanderplatz for guiding me to the light and starting OPDC off in the Raw Milk business of education and nutrition in 2000 and away from Organic Valley UHT dead milk.
It also goes to Sally at WAP and Joan at Price Pottinger Foundation in San Diego and their vision.
The Raw Milk movement is not owned by anyone. But…there were early days, where I think we need to remember the vision and the lonely and tireless leadership that started this revolution.
There may have been private, secret raw milk rumblings all the while…but this movement, this revolution, is the public spectacle that it is today….because of the visionary, deliberate work of key people ten years ago.
Lola… it may be hard to swallow….but that credit was earned long before this blog was ever even thought of. Before Granola was ever filled with fruits and nuts.
Why so negative??
"As a WAPF chapter leader, I sometimes meet people who are anti-WAPF as an organization though they are pro- WAPF nutritional principles. Some have had an unfortunate interaction with a WAPF-affiliated person, some have taken offense at something printed in the journal, some have other reasons. I find it interesting and helpful to know what issues people have with the organization."
That is a much more reasoned approach than I have encountered with some other WAPF chapter leaders and some commenters on this blog who seem to take an attitude that "if you are not with us, you are against us and everything we represent." My comments were not made in an effort to debate the overall merits of WAPF. WAPF has obviously contributed much to the Raw Milk movement and many other causes (like the dangers of soy). But the comments were in the context of the discussion concerning FTCLDF and their abilities (or inabilities) to accurately defend raw milk producers and consumers in the US judicial system. As I wrote, I think it is a healthy discussion and prudent for the movement, which should not be tied to one person or organization. So if other more experienced attorneys are going to be approached to join the fight, I think there are some issues of having them work with FTCLDF for a variety of reasons, including FTCLDF's association to WAPF which is a highly political organization, and can be very divisive.
This is a critical time for supporters of raw milk and food freedom. I sincerely hope that others outside of these self-appointed leaders step forward and see the importance of these issues facing our nation, and that there are some options regarding who we can support to help fight these battles. The calculated and well thought out attack on Rawesome and Sharon Palmer should wake us up not only to their tactics, but to those who represent the movement that might have their own internal issues that need to be cleaned up and exposed.
Why not use a real name…what is your reason for being unanimous. David tells me that many people on this blog use a artificial name because they work as a regulator or adminstrator or have some other need to protect themselves. I have learned to appreciate this ( even tough I think it is cowardly as hell ). I know why some of the others speak with a paper bag over their heads…tell us your story…
To be critical is one thing, to do it from behind a wizard of oz screen is quite another.
In our court system, every accused person has the right to face his accusor.
I guess this does not ring true in the blogosphere where there is no accountablity when you throw rocks and break windows and get away with it… RMA….what is your story.
When I took out an account on this blog 3-4 years ago just about everyone used a pseudonym. Even my favorite nemesis used a pseudonym when he first joined this blog. It doesn't change the HUMAN BEING behind the name, Mark, and the thoughts and experiences he or she contributes here.
Would you honestly feel better if you knew my name or RMA's name was Bradley MacKean or Timothy Wood or Melody Jacobs?
Why the hostility to us "anonymous nobodies", Mark? And why do you so desperately want to know our real names?
Alyssa
Well, Ms. Pellicano, considering I've contributed a significant amount of legal analysis to this blog in the past few days, and you've contributed nothing until now, I'd have to respectfully disagree with you.
That means that if I was to meet you…I would know your name and your thoughts and perhaps a bit about your soul. If you are caustic, mean, bigoted and down right unkind, you are known by your comments and their content. These things are associated with you and I can visit you at a known address and come have words with you in person. This is real. This is accountability.
Those that are accountable, tend to care more about their comments.
If you hide….I do not know you from the man on the moon. You are able to throw stones and never be personally counted as the stone thrower.
Not using your name and being counted for your comments is down right unAmerican. It is cowardly and it is decieving. It is a lie.
I only respond to the unnamed…because of the opportunity to turn the other cheek. Those that use their real names….can be GOOGLED and have an address and can be held accountable for their comments and conduct. Those that are nameless, are nothing less than Blog Terrorists and social disrupters. They have no responsibility to their comments and or content.
I respect all those that use their names inlcuding Bill Marler and Mary Martin more than you know becuase of their guts to be real. The rest of you nameless non persons are rediculous clowns or worse and a distraction to the movement.
If you are going to use an unreal name….please explain why this is required. If you are an FDA agent…then use a name that says….FDA Guy….that way at least we know what kind of ship-rat you are and what disease you carry. That I can at least partially respect.
People tend to speak to one another with courtesy and some dignity when they know that they can be held accountable. No namers….are social crime committers with out conscience.
I would speak to you much differently if I knew you as a person…you get much less…because you are much less. These words I stand behind and you know where to find me. If you have a problem with this…come see me in person and use your real name when you shake my hand and look me eye to eye. I guarantee that our conversation will be courteous. That is the way people speak to one another when they use real names.
In a war….if the enemy takes and wears the uniform of your side as a cover and ruse…they are shot as a spy.
We do not shoot blog spies here in the blog land….but you can get the gravity of the violation. In my heart and mind this is a war. Mike feels the same way and those that wear the scars of battle share this sentiment as well.
Spies…..think about it. Get some guts and take a side. I am sick of snipers being allowed to stake their nameless ground, and snipe away with impunity.
"There may have been private, secret raw milk rumblings all the while…but this movement, this revolution, is the public spectacle that it is today….because of the visionary, deliberate work of key people ten years ago. "
Wrong……
My father grew up part time on a Wisconsin Dairy farm where guernseys were milked in Spooner Wisconsin before he set out in the world as a scholar at Oxford and an infantry rifle commander in WW 2.. I set out as a teenager to change the world at a small dairy farm milking Ayreshires in Morgan Center, Vt. in the 1970s and 80s. My mother survived World War 2 as a girl on the gifts of farmers, principally milk and their own apples, secreting the milk from Nazis . In all these cases, and thousands of others, fresh milk was anointed as a remedy for nutrition. And thus it was understood and no one feared it because it came from small, careful, farms. In the Depression and in the war and even as big agribusiness grew seemingly unchecked in the 70s..the silent but powerful minority understood the virtues of good food. Their words weren't lost on others, and the ripple effect is what we see today. There are many many unsung heros, my mother's father, a doctor, among them. This revolution is about grass roots. Its about people who understand that healthy food is not processed, not just familiar names.
As to pseudonoms…its not worth debating. Its simply cowardly to hide.
Those are some pretty big words considering you don't own this blog and our gracious host does not require us to use our real names. David knows our real names as we use our e-mail addresses in our sign in. He knows we're real people. And I trust he won't break our confidence to satisfy your egotistical paranoia.
Please tell me…what would you do with my real name? You'd Google me? If you've paid attention I've already told you who I am and where I live, what I do for a living, and what I stand for. Plus, I know that your cohort Bill A. complains about "Lola Granola on The Complete Patient" to all of his listserve friends, and has several times. Do I really believe you wouldn't denigrate me behind my back to all of your "friends"? Sure…
Please tell me how not using my real name has detracted from my analysis of the judge's ruling that is the topic at hand? Tell me, did you read all 27 pages of the ruling and give an insightful analysis based on your knowledge of Wisconsin statute and rule? No, you didn't. But I did. And that doesn't "count" because you don't know my real name? YOU are the distraction here, my friend, harping on a non-issue.
Well, if it makes you feel better you can just call me Melody Jacobs from now on. And I look forward to reading your analysis of the judge's decision.
You got balls trying to tell someone else that they are unAmerican….or a raw milk spy.
It shows extreme weakness to fall back on the name game…and it shows even more deeply that the criticisms that are leveled have more than a shred of truth……..
It's the content of the post that is most important…not the name on the bottom (although with your massive ego, I doubt you'd see that). A point is a point, and opinion an opinion no matter who is writing it. Those that can't deal directly with substance usually rely on tactics that divert attention away from what is real. We know you are better than this (at least you think you are)…. Those that use pseudonyms are just as real as those who choose not to….they all hit "create post" the same….. and should be judged on what they write not how 'large' they sign their name. (and frankly the notion that you'd want to google someone's name because they posted something on this blog is quite scary)
That you have more respect for shysters and raw milk opponents, rather than those who are busting their asses producing raw milk is quite telling too.
Frankly, the more you write on this blog, the more we are correct in questioning if you can be trusted to 'lead' this movement in a beneficial direction.
Lola…alyssa is a OPDC customer…she depends on him for her milk, and her quality of life is increased because of it….. she would be expected to defend mark to the nth degree. I know I would (and could) count on one of my customers to do the same.
Who is smarter…. the guy who decides to jump out of the foxhole, run up the hill taking bullets so he can brag about his scars…or the one who stays under cover and chooses a grenade launcher or sniper rifle to 'attack' the opponent. (there is no right answer here…but it's obvious that the guy running up the hill is in more of a position to take friendly fire..that is unless he can convince the one back in the foxhole not to shoot before he goes)
"Those that use their real names….can be GOOGLED and have an address and can be held accountable for their comments and conduct."
Your comment sounds like a threat – you'd Google us and know where we live? Are you going to send the raw milk gestapo after us and hold us ACCOUNTABLE for the words and thoughts we've shared here? Especially if we don't agree???
It's rare to see anyone who works in a day-to-day routine function in food safety post on this blog. David Gumpert has been open to these few posts and has gained trust by not revealing identities or censoring comments against the popular beliefs. IMHO, that is an essential part of what makes this blog exciting and worth reading on a regular basis.
The dynamic would change hugely if names were required. I'd just never post again – perhaps miguel would be thrilled (tongue in cheek). The fear would be someone like Mark doing a Google, then launching a harassment campaign. in the name of his war. These latest comments confirm it – there is no room for people who agree with some of what he says, but not all. It is all or nothing.
As such, the only food safety people he gets to communicate with "in-person" are those forced to do so because they hold regulatory/management positions, those who sued him, or paid consultants. The grassroots food safety people would never take the chance to reach out knowing he'd do who knows what with our names and Google.
Create post,
MW
If we do not pick up our milk it is dumped on the land. There is no selling or processor pick ups. If one of the animals needs a vet, then we pay for that above and beyond our boarding fee. And yes, we do have a bill of sale for the cows we own. As you can see, when I say we own the cows, we really do own the cows and have full resposibility for them.
I respect that many people, including myself, do not use their real name. Big Brother would surely be able to track down people through my name and many others. DATCP ALWAYS asks for the names and addresses of the raw milk consumers.
Raw milk advocate…I also wonder whether you spend your time here to harm the raw milk community. In our state where we are fighting to keep our milk supply and looking over our shoulder, the community is solid and with FTCLDA and Weston Price. We need the the whole nation of raw milk consumers to be supportive as well.
Must we be uniform in our convictions, politics, religion and choice of weapon, or will we not be most successful when we have foot soldiers from all walks of life, each fighting the battle in their own territory in their own way?
Some are teachers, some lawyers, some writers, some activists and so on. Is it not beneficial to have such diverse vantage points and abilities? In my opinion it would be unwise to limit the battle to the chosen few, the card carrying members of some particular group, philosophy or method. Why not welcome the true diversity of opinions and gifts, and be thankful that so many are fighting battles on so many fronts? There is enough battle to go around.