One theme that regularly asserts itself here is what the U.S. Constitution does and doesn’t allow as concerns food regulation and the right of private individuals to engage in private contracts.
The fact of the matter is that the Constitution doesn’t say anything about regulating food, But the Constitution omits lots of things that are regulated today (vehicles, barber shops, drugs, doctors, hospitals, etc., etc.). I’m afraid piling on Lykke about the absence of an explicit statement isn’t a productive exercise.
Similarly, the Constitution explicitly prohibits interference in private contracts between individuals; Article 1, Section 10 provides:“No State shall enter into any…law impairing the obligation of contracts…” Yet various states have repeatedly interfered in herd-share and buyers club contractual arrangements between individuals; I discuss in my book some of the reasons behind the marginalization of the Contracts clause.
(It should be noted that the same clause of the Constitution allowing for private contracts also prohibits any state from making “…any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts…” That prohibition has been ignored as a matter of American monetary policy since the early 1970s, when President Richard Nixon unilaterally reneged on the country’s policy of backing its currency with gold.)
The bigger issue over the Constitution isn’t whether it allows something, but how it is interpreted by judges, legislators, and presidents. And increasingly, the Constitution, much like owners of small farms, is being marginalized. And because judges refuse to stand up for it, legislators and the executive branch’s regulators ignore it ever more. Give ’em an inch and they’ll take a mile.
Interestingly, concern about the marginalization of the Constitution is working its way into the financial mainstream, which offers some hope—after all, once big money is affected, then things often happen in this country.
I was amazed to read this statement yesterday in a very popular financial newsletter that is distributed to more than one million subscribers, from the head of a large mutual fund:
“Aside from the fraction of bailout funding that was specifically allocated by Congress through legislation, these actions [the Fed bailing out financial institutions] represent an unconstitutional breach into enumerated spending powers that are the domain of the elected members of Congress alone. The issue here is not whether the Fed should be independent from political influence. The issue is the constitutionality of the Fed’s actions. The discretion that it has exerted over the past two years crosses the line into prerogatives reserved for Congress. That line needs to be clarified sooner rather than later.”
One of the places where we see a vivid example of the trampling of Constitutional guarantees is in the new food safety legislation that is close to being approved by Congress. I’ve been reviewing the U.S. Senate’s version (Senate Bill 510) over the past couple days, and I came across a sentence that grants the U.S. Food and Drug Administration the power to ignore the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution prohibiting searches and seizures without a warrant:
“(2) USE OF OR EXPOSURE TO FOOD OF CONCERN- If the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] believes that there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to an article of food, and any other article of food that the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected in a similar manner, will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals, each person (excluding farms and restaurants) who manufactures, processes, packs, distributes, receives, holds, or imports such article shall, at the request of an officer or employee duly designated by the Secretary, permit such officer or employee, upon presentation of appropriate credentials and a written notice to such person, at reasonable times and within reasonable limits and in a reasonable manner, to have access to and copy all records relating to such article and to any other article of food that the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected in a similar manner, that are needed to assist the Secretary in determining whether there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to the food will cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals.”
Amazingly, that is just a single sentence. But such language, representing the worst application of lawyers’ legal training, is used throughout the legislation to confuse and obscure. I would venture that many lawyers can’t figure out what the hell it means, except that basically, FDA agents who say they’re suspicious of some producer’s food, can present “appropriate credentials and a written notice to such person,” and have at a company’s records.
And by the way, try to figure out how the legislation defines what a “farm” is, which is supposed to be excluded. I can’t find the exact language, but my understanding is that once you wash or package any food, you transition from being a farm to being a food producer, subject to this legislation.
It’s understandable why even the big money interests are becoming concerned.
When you(the human being) are playing "Monopoly"(the game),your token(the legal person) will end up in jail if it lands on the wrong place on the board.The rules of the game apply in this case,not the Constitution.The Constitution hasn’t been "marginalized" ,the Constitution does not have anything to do with the game of Monopoly.Likewise when the legal person is playing the game of Commerce,It is bound to follow the rules of that game.The government makes the rules and changes them when it likes.Human beings can choose to not play that game.In fact they cannot play the game of commerce.Only legal persons can play.If a human being wants to play,they can use the legal person that the government created for them when their birth was registered.While their legal person is playing the game,It is important to remember that the legal person and the human being are not the same thing.
Unfortunately governments always assume that everyone is acting as a legal person and is playing the governments game of Commerce.It is up to the people to preserve the Constitution by letting government officers know that we aren’t participating in that game.
The Constitution guarantees us that participation in the game of Commerce is voluntary.
Our herdshare has worked very well for us. We formed a cow-owners association (wherein a person buys in with a SILVER dollar), puts up additional money to buy cows and other up-front costs, and pays a monthly maintenance fee that covers ongoing expenses such as our agisters salary, feed and veterinary services, a rainy-day fund, etc. For their money, members get milk and as the herd becomes larger and more valuable, any added herd value which would show up in a reduced monthly maintenance fee.
We had great advice in setting this up. This model was created with significant inputs from FTCLDF and Katherine Russell. We went ahead with this project because we wanted local raw milk, we had arranged for an excellent agister, and we felt that we had a very good, legally viable arrangement based on contracts. And no milk is bought or sold !! (I dont fully understand why it was important to buy in with a silver dollar, but it was explained to me that this put us in a slightly different legal category.)
I know it DOES require significant initial capital from each member, but this requirement is intended to shield the organization from criticism about skirting ownership issues. Initial capital aside, Ive often wondered why this model has not been copied widely by farmers who want to provide raw milk particularly by those who would milk less than 10, 20, 30 cows. If the person could farm without having to personally capitalize a significant portion of the start-up costs, wouldnt that be very attractive? Wheres the downside?
Incidentally, this milk comes with all the cream in it. Our cream level varies from cow to cow depending on factors like where she is in her lactation cycle, the time of year, etc, but the jars are usually 20% or 25% up to almost 40% cream. Its richness you can taste. About a year and a half ago, I gave some to the owner of a licensed raw milk dairy and was told that it was better that theirs and it was.
Get your herdshare before they change the laws.
What you say sounds nice and all, but… I did watch the YouTube videos showcasing John, but all that I actually took out of those videos was that he was going to destroy his registration with the mother corporation (his birth certificate). There was also some helpful information on how our actions, or lack thereof, bind us to various contracts that the mother corporation puts upon us.
You talk about playing their game of Commerce. So how do we actually stop playing their game of commerce. If I were to start a distribution of raw milk in some areas, I could be locked up. Just the fact that I am registered with the corporation means that I must abide by all of its numerous statutes or make donations to the corporation’s bottom line through fines. That would be good for making a stand, but I think the goal is to actually make raw milk available to more people and not make laughing stocks of us "crazy" farmers.
I guess, said a different way, even if we let the "government officers know that we aren’t participating in that game", its not like they will let us continue doing what we feel is right and helpful. It seems like whoever has the might has the right and the corporation, I mean the government, definitely has the might to do almost whatever they please as long as they don’t upset too much of the population that there are mass riots. It seems like that is almost what needs to have happen to change things around.
So how would you make raw milk available and at the same time not play their commerce game? It seems that at some point people’s personalities would need to be used, whether in keeping track of product purchases or just who wants what. Would everyone involved have to have aliases? I guess I am so entrenched in the game that I can’t see any viable alternatives…
Cheers, Brandon
I also have been a herd shareholder for almost five years and I very much appreciate the close personal and financial relationship I have with my farmer. I’ve even developed software that is currently being used by several farmers in Ohio to manage their shareholder orders and create pick/invoice reports. As far as raw milk is concerned I personally wouldn’t do it any other way.
However, from my farmer’s point of view having to deal with the herdshare boarding contracts, bills of sale and owned shares is yet another headache over and above running a family farm. He would much prefer to just sell raw milk directly off the farm rather than deal with people frequently buying and selling shares and hunting down shareholders who forget to pay their monthly boarding fee. The software I’ve provided does ease the job of tracking shares and boarding fees somewhat, but it’s still a bit of a hassle for him.
Another issue with herdshares is the problem of seasonal availability. Right now winter is setting in here in Ohio and a number of our cows are dry. Since this is a closed herd when shareholder demand exceeds supply then some people get shorted on their milk orders. There are other farms and herdshares in the area, and if direct raw milk sales were legal then the farmers could augment their milk supply from other trusted herds in the vicinity during seasonal shortages. On the other hand, shareholders must pay the same boarding fee regardless of how much milk they actually receive so seasonal shortages tend to work out better for the farmers. (However, when the milk supply is plentiful the shareholders can sometimes receive more than their allotment so it all tends to work out in the end.)
We have been taught (indoctrinated really) that our rights emanate from government. That is wrong. Our rights are in fact endowed by our creator. The indoctrination of America into the mistaken notion that their rights are granted by government has led us into this mess, and made us believe that the road in was one-way only. This casues us to behave as if freedom can be expanded only by arguing over the strength and length of government-created tethers.
Strong-willed individuals who challenge the ruling classes have always been the best hope of freedom for all. Our founders understood that. We should respect their efforts.
************************************
About piling on to Lykke
I dont think there is any ill intent here. Nevertheless this is an idea forum, and Lykke has been the most persistent purveyor of the idea that regulators must be in control. It is inevitable that responses to that idea would come his/her way.
I stand by my desire to hear Lykkes feelings about these extremely important self-evident truths. (And will add that I am very happy to have Lykke here, and apprecidate his/her willingness to act as a foil.)
**********************************
And finally, Steve,
Did Nixons act violate the Coinage Act of 1792? (If I remember my history correctly, the Coinage Act made debasing our currency a felony, punishable by death.) If so, what are we to make of such federal actions?
http://library.georgegordon.com/audio
Do you read the PPJ Gazette? http://ppjg.wordpress.com/ Marti Oakley and her merry band of revelers discuss farm issues, among other things, in the context of the US Corporation and the government-created fictions.
Brandon, this would also be a good starting point to help understand the Matrix.
Paul Griepentrog from the PPJ will be on the radio tonight discussing the food safety bills.
http://ppjg.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/paul-griepentrog-on-randy-yarbrough-radio/
Paul is very skilled in the law. This should be a great interview.
Our bookkeeping started out as a seat-of-the-pants operation which worked fine when we had only two cows. As the cow owners assn has grown, things have become more complicated, and when there has been a change in bookkeepers (Do you know of any other English words that have three double letters in a row?), sometimes there is a hiccup.
Id like to hear more about the specifics of your software. We can talk off-blog. Email me at daveshanken@juno .com if you would like to share.
Relying on cow share contracts not being illegal seems a rather shaky foundation. I would much rather stand on the RIGHT TO LIFE. For that right is meaningless if a 3rd party can control the method, means, or access to the food necessary to sustain that life. The government has no legitimate authority to regulate food. Does anyone know if there is even a single state Constitution that purports to grant the authority to regulate food?
Don’t they require a very dedicated type of customer? In my experience most just want to buy their milk and go and anything more difficult than that turns them off.
Are they ever a viable option outside of states where milk is not ‘legally’ able to be sold?
Pete – I agree with your statement; I don’t know the answer to your question, although I would suspect there are none, simply because who would have thought it necessary to protect such a basic and obvious right?
http://www.marlerblog.com/2009/12/articles/case-news/dungeness-valley-creamery-and-whole-foods-linked-to-raw-milk-e-coli-outbreak-in-sequim-washington/
cp
It is sad that some individuals have gotton sick in Washington. I sincerely hope that the individauls involved can get competent treatment and that their health can stabilize.
I wonder CP, how do you ensure that your digestive track has all of the beneficial bacteria and enzymes that your body needs to stay healthy?
If all of our foods are sterilized, then I guess the only way would be through supplementation. Most supplements only contain 1 to a handful of strains of good bacteria as compared to the hundreds of strains found in raw milk (good bacteria that is). So I am assuming that because we may not know exactly what all of those other strains of good bacteria do, then they must not be important. Isn’t that pretty presumptuous of us? The cost of trying to maintain a healthy digestive track on sterilized food can be astronomical too. I’m not saying that contaminated milk is OK, but I don’t think a forced sterilized diet is OK either… I think that is a perfect recipe for compromised health.
I think that the conventional sick care, I mean health care, industry is very reluctant to admit what kind of a role the good bacteria play in our overall health and well being. If we just ignore it then it doesn’t matter, right?
For everyone else too,
Does anyone else find it ironic that people throw out that eColi O157:H7 can sometimes cause HUS when it seems to me (I’ll admit that I am no expert in this area – just opinions) that the treatment of eColi is more of a factor in this then just the fact that they have a problem with O157:H7. If someone goes to a doctor and is diagnosed with O157:H7 and they are put on antibiotics, then it seems like it is more likely for the person to spiral downward fast! If the standard treatment protocol was different, then maybe the outcome would be different as well. Hmm…
Brandon
"Two-thirds of all store-bought whole broiler chickens contain salmonella and/or campylobacter, according to a study by Consumer Reports.
The magazine tested 383 chickens it purchased in 100 supermarkets, gourmet- and natural-food stores, and other mass retailers in 22 states and found an alarmingly high level of contamination.
More than 80 percent of Tyson and Foster Farms chickens contained either one or both salmonella and capylobacter, making them the name-brand chickens with the most contaminates.
On the other hand, Perdue had the cleanest chickens with 56 percent of their birds found to be free from food-borne organisms.
Consumer Reports found the safest purchase to be air-chilled, organic broilers with 40 percent containing one or both salmonella or campylobacter."
40-80% contamination–and this is allowed by the govt? Wonder if these are factory farmed chickens?
I think Convenience is a big issue for many who would like to join a cow-share. Not many cows are close to cities,( unless you count the nasty feedlot cows south of Sacramento). Driving an hour and half or more(one way) to get milk weekly would get old quickly. (if retired, it wouldn’t make a difference) The cost and fees aren’t an issue, it’s logistics. The initial join fees are reasonable as were the monthly maintenance fees. I don’t live in a convenient area.
It would be worth it to pay someone to care for and milk my share. They know how to care for the cow, what to look for in case of illness, proper handling of the milk, etc. I guess this too is a convenience, one I’m willing to pay for.
Aren’t the majority of those who seek out raw milk more concerned with healthier foods, lifestyles?
The "laws" dictating that Fast-food/restaurants make nutritional information available to the consumers is supposed to do what? Most who consume fast foods don’t appear to care what goes into their mouths and when someone is at a restaurant, do they really care about the nutritional information? Not likely-they go to enjoy whatever they ordered. Will you look at the labels soon to be on menus?
Why the extremes of either consuming sterilized foods or raw milk? Is there not an in between that is considered healthy? How do I ensure that my digestive track has all of the beneficial bacteria and enzymes that my body needs to stay healthy? I consume raw juice made from 10 different vegetables twice daily, raw salads, raw fruit, fermented vegetables, kefir, yogurt, and a probiotic supplement.
Health is not all about raw milk.
BTW, the standard treatment program for treating E.coli 0157:H7 is not antibiotics.
cp
Appreciate your input on gold and private contracts. On gold, my point is that Constitution pointed toward gold and silver as only recognized currencies, and U.S. dollar was backed by gold (and coinage contained silver) for nearly 200 years, until Nixon changed the gold backing. He did so partly because the government couldn’t pay for the war in Vietnam and other rapidly expanding obligations based on the country’s gold stash, so he solved the problem by moving to a paper currency backed by nothing. As Don points out, we see what’s happened to the value of the dollar priced in terms of gold…and the situation promises to get much worse.
David
Suppose you want to start a herdshare to distribute raw milk.Each person that wants milk will have to sign a contract with you which you will also sign.This is a legal document.It is a contract between your legal person and their legal person.But what are these "legal persons"?How does this contract between these legal persons protect you from interference by the state or federal government?Your legal person is registered with the state government.This means it is the property of the state.The state grants your legal person some rights and also gives it duties.One of it’s duties is to obey all of the statutes of the legal system in that state.If the state has a statute that can be interpreted as prohibiting the distribution of raw milk,then your legal person’s herdshare contract is in direct conflict with this statute.
Why wouldn’t you just milk your cow and drink some of the milk,make some cheese and butter and feed skim milk and whey to a few pigs and chickens.You will probably have some extra of all of these things at some point.Find someone or maybe someone will find you and want to help out in exchange for some of the food.Even if your friends live in the city and only can offer monetary support,is anything illegal about that?Do you really need a legal contract?I think what you really need is trust and understanding and loyal support.These things take time so your community of supporters will necessarily grow slowly.You have a community of people working together to produce their own food.Even though the people are geographically separate they are still a community of farm supporters.There will soon be more people wanting to join your community than can be fed from the land you have.Some one might think this is a business and think that some statute is being violated.It is reasonable to ask at what point in the growth of this community of food producers did they cross the line into illegal activity.It is important that everyone understands that they are not operating a business.No attempt to be businesslike should be tolerated.Everyone is so conditioned into playing the game of Commerce that it will be difficult at first.You will have to be patient and persistant.Remember that you are all involved in the persuit of happiness.If you can pull it off ,I guarantee that government officials won’t know how to respond to such a thing.
The state has the original copy of all of our birth certificates which means that they have legal ownership of all of those names.They don’t own any of us unless we think that we are that name.The legal person is just a name.When we are working together to produce our food we are working in a common law framework,we don’t use those names that the state owns.In this situation we do have all of our Constitutional Rights.I expect that we will be challenged.It will be a great opportunity to learn from the mistakes we are making.Eventually we will get it right if we don’t stop trying just because we are afraid.
Using words like "outbreak and ecoli" are inflamatory and say very little about the facts or the actual numbers. This could be nothing…. much more information needs to be known.
Why is it that just a few people get sick when perhaps thousands drink the same raw milk?
Perhaps ecoli immunity is a much more important player than we appreciate.
The road to improved immune status is not through increased sterility.
Raw milk contains oligosacharides and specialized fats( specialized non digestible sugars that protect bacteria from being destroyed in the low PH of the stomach ) that act as body guards for beneficial bacteria and allow them to re colonize the gut. That is why raw milk is special and you can not get the benefits of raw milk from a pill.
Read the Milk Bionome report from UC Davis and portions of the Michigan Working Group research. The science is all there. The bioactive parts of raw milk are a part of whole fresh milk….parts can not be extracted and still act like the whole.
Do not try to fool mother nature. She will tear your wings off.
Mark
I had no idea where that gift of G-D my first glass of real living milk would take me but it has been freedom from disease and as well the freedom from deep deception.
There is no turning back!!!
We are all learning how the system works by trial and error.If we are making a mistake by using FRNs or checks it will soon be apparent.As long as these things can be changed into another form of energy why shouldn’t we use them?The trouble with bank accounts is that when you,the human being, turn your energy into money and deposit it in the bank,your energy has now been transferred into the account of the legal person.It is no longer your money.You can use it but now you must keep a record of how you spent it and report this to the real owner which is the owner of that legal person ,the state.depending on how you spent it you may be liable to pay the owner a fee(tax) for the privilege of using it’s money.When you make use of your legal person you are, in effect, the property of the state or a slave.To be a free man or woman you need to avoid making this connection between your physical body and the name that is the legal person.It’s not easy.
In this day of doctors scheduling 100 appointments a day (I had a doctor’s appointment staff actually brag about this, as if it showed how efficient he was. No, it showed how little time he spent on each patient.) the first thing a doctor will usually do is MAYBE get a white blood count and treat for a generalized infection, that treatment being an antibiotic. It is only AFTER the antibiotic doesn’t resolve the issue, indeed makes it worse, that the doctor digs deeper and discovers the ecoli…at which point the damage has been done and the patient may be in serious trouble..
Not all, but in most cases, a patient presenting with typical ecoli symptoms, if the ecoli is discovered prior to antibiotic treatment, will suffer little more than mild to moderate diarrhea and stomach cramps for a couple of days.
Then we are left with the question…would you lay the blame for resulting HUS on the raw milk specifically, the ecoli in general, or the doctor who didn’t take the time to find out just what he was treating before prescribing a treatment?
Bob Hayles
http://www.JuicyMaters.com
EVERY time you contact an elected official, remind them, "We don’t work for you. You work for US."
This is true of our health care system, not just with ecoli. Even the ads promote this way of "health care". If you band-aid the problem you can have the patient return time-and-again, more money for the health care system. It doesn’t matter that the patients problem isn’t resolved,s/he is generating $$$ for the system. Patients get what, 7 minutes per visit with the doc now? Most are unable to articulate their symptoms/concerns in that short of time frame. How often do you hear the word "cure"? "treat" is the word of choice.
GERD (reflux) is a good example. The illness of the last 20 yrs. Probably diet induced for the majority. Eliminate the chemically infused processed foods and I’d bet the farm that the majority of "reflux" Dx would decrease if not be eliminated.
David G. It seems it comes full circle; back to a person’s right without interference to choose what they consume. And someone(s) are trying to block that right. The only reason that keeps returning is for money.
As pointed out numerous time, if it were truly about food safety, then all foods, especially the most dangerous ones, would be blasted all over the media. This is not the case.
If the govt is so worried about contamination then label all foods regarding the risks. Does that package of lunch meat have the label about its dangers? especially for pregnant women? If so, is that label obvious, or is it tiny and hidden in some obscure way?
I submit that the state of CA’s issued IOUs would qualify.
Tragic!
cp
I spent the last two days in Minneapolis with Stephanie, her family and guardian meeting with Cargill, its lawyers and insurance company to try and resolve Stephanies claim against Cargill. We were unable to do so. A lawsuit is now her only option.
One moment at the mediation will be forever seared in my mind. Stephanie wanted to meet with Cargills representatives. She wanted to tell them what their hamburger did to her life. However, when the time came to meet, Stephanie was not feeling well many of the medications she needs to take on a daily basis make her nauseous. Even being pale and lightheaded, she was determined to meet.
As she and I waited for the meeting, Stephanie suddenly vomited multiple times. I begged off the meeting and helped clean-up Stephanie and the law office. Stephanie, however, was even more determined to meet. What both she and I did not know was that while she was vomiting she had also voided her bowels and bladder. I am not sure why I did not notice it, but Stephanies excuse she feels nothing very little from the waist down.
Stephanie still had her meeting. I wonder if Cargill noticed.
cp
I appreciate your farmers concerns about boarding contracts, bills of sale and owned shares. These are some of the things that our farmer (agister) wanted to minimize when the organization was set up. There is only a simple contract between the consumers and the cow owners assn, and another between the farmer (now agister) and the assn. The only on-going paperwork is keeping track of who has paid their monthly maintenance fee. Very simple.
You said your farmer didnt want to deal with the frequent buying and selling of shares. It seems his situation is different from ours in that our arrangement serves dedicated raw milk consumers only. Our shareholders primarily come from 3 or 4 communities and within each community, many of us know each other. And when someone is out of town or otherwise needs less milk, someone almost always is wanting an extra jar or two. If personal contacts dont absorb the milk, we just leave a note at the pick-up point. We are prohibited from selling milk to others who are not herdshare owners.
I suppose that in a situation where a farmer already has a herd, he would have to legally separate the herdshare cows from the others. I have no experience with splitting herds and any attendant difficulties, but the hurdle, if one had a good reason, doesnt seem high. Im sure continuing to sell milk is more convenient than changing the model, but with all the ODAs crackdowns, this ownership kind of contractual arrangement might well cover an Ohio farmers patootie better longterm. Having full ownership of the herd (ALL of the livestock) lie in the hands of the consumers themselves is the key to protecting everyone from legal headaches because milk is not sold – it is owned. Having a cow owners association whose only asset is the herd further insulates and protects both the farmer (now agister) and the herd owners. If the farmer would sell a cow to an association, hed have a cash cow. :-)) Checking with FTCLDF will clarify and facilitate things better.
I agree …this is tragic. No young person deserves this….never.
What is perhaps more tragic is the fact that the FDA refuses to acknowledge that antibiotics being fed to cows, chickens, beef and poultry creates superbugs that hurt Americans….just like our little dancer.
I sat and listened to an FDA Vet "do a hit job" at a Dean Florez Hearing in Sacramento last spring. The FDA vet was sent in from Washington to assure that the big dairy, big beef and big poultry interests were protected so that they could continue to feed antibiotics in animal feed. Even though this practice is banned in most of EU.
The Vet said that there was no evidence that antibiotic feeding caused antibiotic resistance.
I nearly puked right there and then. There was six inches of hard research sitting on the podium submitted by the Pediatric Medical Associations and other interested medical organizations. Did the FDA side with them? NO….they sat and sided with big ag and backed them 100%.
The tragic reality is this…..the FDA is a criminal organization and it is too big to be arrested and placed into jail. It is so big and powerful that it creates its own oxygen to stay alive…while little dancers are maimed for life.
This is the tragedy. I am proud to say that I expressed my shock that the FDA would send a Vet to come lie straight faced in senate hearings. This was placed on the record at the hearing when I testified as an organic producer.
What else could I do…We have a sick and tragic FDA. Some one had to speak the truth.
Mark
Mark
I praise Marler for going after big ag defendants (he quickly points out, that’s where he started and where he spends much of his firm’s efforts). The trickier question, which apparently even a firm as big as his can’t take on, is the question involving chronic poisonings from processed foods. A really BIG impact would be made if the dots could be connected between HFCS, various preservatives and other processed food components and diabetes, heart disease and cancer. Then, I would really stand up and cheer the intrepid litigator.
All of my farmer’s animals are also owned by the shareholders and he doesn’t even hold a dairy license, which keeps the ODA inspectors off of the farm. 🙂
It sounds like you have an intermediate entity that has the relationship with your agister, while we have direct boarding contracts with ours. Our farmer highly discourages a lot of buying and selling of shares, but it does occur as people need to make adjustments for births, kids growing up and drinking less milk, etc. It’s not really that big of a problem for my farmer, but he’d rather be looking after the animals than dealing with the paperwork. 🙂
http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20091204/news/312049997
———-
"Brown, in response, pointed out that E. coli was not found in the current batch nor in any batch, ever. Food safety inspectors typically test the Dungeness milk monthly, Kelly added.
…
So where was the E. coli bacteria found?
Brown said investigators detected it in old manure in a field where a group of Jersey cows had been some weeks earlier. They were dry cows, he added, and not part of the milking herd.
When asked to confirm that, Kelly said only that the investigation is ongoing, and that Agriculture will continue to visit and test the dairy each week through the end of the year.
Brown, meantime, is used to the scrutiny from the state. He’s been a dairyman all of his life. But he pointed out that E. coli bacteria can also find its way into other foods, such as spinach, lettuce, tomatoes and meat.
Based on the creamery’s production levels, about 1,000 Washingtonians drink his Jerseys’ milk on a daily basis, Brown added.
Yet the state release focuses only on raw milk, and call the three infections an E. coli outbreak.
The three Washingtonians "are linked in an outbreak to the same source," Moyer said.
…
His daughter Sarah Brown McCarthey, co-owner of the creamery, said it will continue producing milk "in its natural form," grade A unpasteurized, from the farm’s 70 Jerseys.
"Our reputation has been compromised without any fault of our own," she added. "WSDA only put out the press release to make sure they are covered, and are erring on the side of caution."
…
Dairy owners have posted a written response to the state’s release on their Web site at http://www.dungenessvalleycreamery.com/."
"I submit that the state of CA’s issued IOUs would qualify". –Chris Lewis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender
The U.S. Constitution, Art. I Sec. 10 Cl. 1, states, in part:
"No State shall … coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; …"
"Legal tender or forced tender is an offered payment that, by law, cannot be refused in settlement of a debt, and have the debt remain in force.[1]"
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/californiaiou-alert.htm
"Investor Alert on State of California IOUs"
"California began issuing the IOUs, or registered warrants, on July 2 to certain individuals and entities, including citizens who were entitled to a tax refund or vendors who were entitled to payments. These IOUs bear interest and are negotiable, which means they can be sold to third parties."
" as municipal securities, the IOUs are subject to the rules issued by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, which include a requirement that the securities sold are suitable for the purchaser."
Unlike Constitutional legal tender,the IOUs are subject to the acceptance of the purchaser.
These IOUs are not unconstitutional.They are not affected by the Constitution because they are clearly to be exchanged between legal entities such as corporations and legal persons.Human beings can only use them through their legal person.They are a token that can be used to transfer debt from one legal person to another.These IOUs are part of the game of commerce.As a free man or woman would you accept monopoly money in return for goods or services if you knew that it might not be acceptable as legal tender?
7 The problem that is occurring with the cow/goat/herdshare issue starts with the problem people having wrapping their brains around the concept that it is NOT a way to get around laws, but that it is a REAL and VALID business model. In a share operation venture capital (cost to share owners) is used to purchase a shares. From that share purchase dividends are received (in the form of a % of product). A stream of income is derived from the boarding/maintenance costs of the share(s). Simple, isn’t it. If this was any other business there would be little question.
But even supporters of raw dairy still falsely use the "getting around the law" phraseology.
Even if raw retail sales were allowed in my state, i would still run a share operation, AS LONG as I had investors. It offers benefits to the investors and the agister that retail sales does not. We need to get this very clear in people’s minds. If we cannot be united on this point, how do we expect judges to be clear, most of whom do not have business background? Yeah! I have a new computer and am back in cyberspace now….
September 26, 2008 | Kathryn Russell 7
8 kathryn,
yes, i believe you are right. a herdshare approach is not a "way to get around the law" but is instead as you say a valid and legal business model. in fact, it’s how ALL publicly traded corporations operate, i.e., the purchase of an interest in the company (a share) with a return on investment in the form of a dividend. Some dividends are in the form of money, others are in the form of dairy products. i happen to know the farmer who should be credited with this herdshare approach (who unfortunately was run out of the state where he used to live because they didn’t like it) but i don’t know if i want to blow his cover because, as we all know, government regulators read this post regularly. so yes, we need more herdshares.
September 26, 2008 | Gary Cox 8
The clear intent of the federal pasteurized milk ordinance(PMO) which has been adopted by most of the states is to prevent raw milk from being available directly to the public even if the public wants it.A herdshare does appear to be a way for farmers and consumers to evade the intent of the PMO.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/dairy-groups-urge-senators-to-include-raw-milk-facilities-in-food-safety-regulations-70195142.html
"WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Although unpasteurized, or raw, milk products pose a significant food safety hazard, facilities producing these products are not covered by any of the food safety regulations proposed so far this year by Congress. These facilities also remain exempt from existing regulations enforced by all states, which are know as the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO), that set the standard for maintaining the safety of the nation’s milk and milk product supply"
Now we see this admission that farms that don’t have a license to sell raw milk are exempt from these regulations.I wonder what kind of a law they can write that will regulate raw milk produced by farms that doesn’t involve a license.Independent farmers who deal directly with consumers sure are hard to control.Can a license to produce and distribute food be required,if so how?
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/travel.htm
Right to Travel
DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS,
HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS
By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)
For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:
I surfed from your link to http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml.
This is a brief filed to defend a driving citation (I think). The brief goes into great detail regarding the usurpation of some rights by government entities through regulation and legislation pertaining to your driving "privilege. If you read, or have read, this article, how do you think it is relevant to your situation where the over-reaching gendarmes pulled you over and ultimately didnt cite you but only suggested that you should put a Not For Hire sign on your truck?
Bob Hayles,
It seems to me that this kind of defense might be useful in Georgia if The Law shows up.
State of South Dakota Initiates "POGROM" Of Economic Genocide Against Small Farm Raw Milk Producers by Richard Boyden
More of the shredding of the Consittution and the enshrining of madman karl marx’s ten commandments? Read his 9th commandment and also his 5th which is a kin to the current subject.
They that control a nations food and money are the masters. The power grab for both is evident for all to see inspite of the clairon calls of its for food safety and we must save the finiancial rigged casino’s on Wall Street for the good of We The People.
The good news is that fewer and fewer Americans are "BELIEVING " the "PARTY LINE" nonsense anymore.
I did not show the officer a license or registration when he ordered me to.I insisted that I was not commercial in any way. The truck is registered,it has a license plate and they looked to see who it was registered to,then asked me if that was me.I answered "no".If I had volunteered to being commercial,I would have been in trouble.The state has the authority to regulate commercial drivers and they are bound to abide by those regulations.They had no evidence that I was involved in a for profit business so they had no jurisdiction over me as long as I wasn’t a danger to other drivers.
in response to your post of december 4th, the appellate division in albany, ny will be hearing oral argument in january 2010. the issue will be whether the smiths and meadowsweet are subject to the jurisdiction of the department of agriculture and markets. stay tuned.