More fun with Swat Teams

[Medic624]

Herd shares are not illegal in CA. They are simply not legislated for or against. To make it simple. If I own a cow--I can drink the milk from the cow in any form I want be it raw or pasteurized. If I wish for a farmer to board my cow and pay him a fee for his services then I am still entitled to the milk from my cow. That is what a herd share is. It is not illegal. They broke no law that I have heard of--they are being portrayed as a raw milk retailer when that was not the case at all. They were operating in a different manner than required a permit.

On the raw milk being dangerous--do you eat peanut butter, do you eat spinach, how about peppers, how about turkey? Do you know that the CDC's own data shows that you are 35,000 more likely to be made sick from those foods as opposed to raw milk from a farm. This is not some nut job claiming this--it is from the CDC's own data. So you might find drinking raw milk to be gross but I find sushi to be disgusting, that does not mean it should be criminalized.

Come ON people it's not the point of it being pasteurized or NOT! ha ha ha...it's the fact that they were told they needed a permit....they didn't get it...they got in trouble... Had they gotten the permit the couldve sold said milk/cheese as they wanted...

As far as a spinach and pepper salad, and Turkey legs covered in peanut butter ... I can also step into the street and get hit by a bus... I was on a tangent and saying their is a reason they pasteurize milk...WoW!!!

[mamabearCali]

Come ON people it's not the point of it being pasteurized or NOT! ha ha ha...it's the fact that they were told they needed a permit....they didn't get it...they got in trouble... Had they gotten the permit the couldve sold said milk/cheese as they wanted...

As far as a spinach and pepper salad, and Turkey legs covered in peanut butter ... I can also step into the street and get hit by a bus... I was on a tangent and saying their is a reason they pasteurize milk...WoW!!!

Do I need a permit to eat my tomatoes from my garden? Do I need a permit to use my basil from my garden? Does a cow owner need a permit to make and eat his own cheese? That is what they were doing. They owned a portion of a goat and therefore were entitled to a portion of it's milk it is quite simple. No permit required. The problem is the officials in charge did not take the time or did not want to take the time to understand their own laws. They got embarrassed last year when they raided this same place and were shown to be acting like idiots, so this is retribution pure and simple.

As far as them getting in trouble--the next time you break the law (which we all do from time to time--ever speed) perhaps we should toss you in jail and put a 40K bond on you. After all you were endangering everyone around you with your speeding. As a side note in California a woman recently grabbed a baby out of a carriage and attempted to eat the baby's arm. Her bond was 30K, the facilitator of this herd share programs bond is 130K.

Sure there is a reason to cook milk--just like there is a reason we cook fish. But people are still permitted to eat sushi. They are even permitted to make it in their own homes.

[Medic624]

Come ON people it's not the point of it being pasteurized or NOT! ha ha ha...it's the fact that they were told they needed a permit....they didn't get it...they got in trouble... Had they gotten the permit the couldve sold said milk/cheese as they wanted...

As far as a spinach and pepper salad, and Turkey legs covered in peanut butter ... I can also step into the street and get hit by a bus... I was on a tangent and saying their is a reason they pasteurize milk...WoW!!!

Do I need a permit to eat my tomatoes from my garden? Do I need a permit to use my basil from my garden? Does a cow owner need a permit to make and eat his own cheese? That is what they were doing. They owned a portion of a goat and therefore were entitled to a portion of it's milk it is quite simple. No permit required. The problem is the officials in charge did not take the time or did not want to take the time to understand their own laws. They got embarrassed last year when they raided this same place and were shown to be acting like idiots, so this is retribution pure and simple.

As far as them getting in trouble--the next time you break the law (which we all do from time to time--ever speed) perhaps we should toss you in jail and put a 40K bond on you. After all you were endangering everyone around you with your speeding. As a side note in California a woman recently grabbed a baby out of a carriage and attempted to eat the baby's arm. Her bond was 30K, the facilitator of this herd share programs bond is 130K.

Sure there is a reason to cook milk--just like there is a reason we cook fish. But people are still permitted to eat sushi. They are even permitted to make it in their own homes.

WoW... ...okay you're right... Never mind...

[VMI77]

The premise underlying your first point about permits is precisely what makes the overkill you're complaining about possible. If the government has a right to decide that something like pasteurization is so good for me that I can't eat food that hasn't been pasteurized then it can tell me I can't feed birds in my backyard and my children can't sell lemonade. Free people make such decisions for themselves. If I want to eat unpasteurized food that's my business. In a free country you don't need the government's permission to go about your daily business of selling food and eating what you want to eat (admitted oversimplification for the purpose of making a point). In a free country people are responsible for their actions. If the seller misrepresents his product and someone is sicked by it, he commits fraud and incurs liability and perhaps criminal prosecution. If I choose to eat his unpasteurized product and I get sick it's my problem and my responsibility. To quote Mencken again: "When A annoys or injures B on the pretense of saving or improving X, A is a scoundrel."

WHAT!?! No, you misunderstood... I could care less about the intake of unpastuerized food... You want it go get it, I could give a care. It's your body and your right to eat what you want. That issue was just me on a tangent.

The issue is they knew they needed the permit, they were told previously, they actively chose NOT to get said permit and now they're paying (ok serious overkill) a hefty price for their desire to ignore the rules.

You somehow took my post completely out of context ... Ya want nasty raw goat cheese knock yourself out..Gorge yourself.. I'll even give ya my share...

I don't think I took it out of context, I think we're saying different things.

I wasn't really taking a position on this before, I was just saying that in a free country you don't need permission from the government to sell milk and cheese. I'm not pro raw milk; I'm anti government permit, especially for things like selling milk and cheese. I'm against having to get permission from the government to open a legal business. I don't think you're endorsing the notion that people should have to get government permits to sell milk and cheese. I think you're just saying that since it is the law you should expect problems if you don't get one. However, if you do think permits for selling milk and cheese are justified then logically you must be opposed to open carry or Constitutional carry.

You seem to be saying that they could have avoided arrest by obtaining a permit. It seems you believe the raid and arrests merely stem from not having the proper permit. As a practical matter that may be true in some cases but I don't believe it is true in this case. Here are the agencies that participated in the raid:

Agencies taking part in the ongoing investigation include the U.S. Food and Drug Administration; the California Franchise Tax Board; the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s Milk and Dairy Food Safety Branch and the department’s Division of Measurement Standards; the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office; the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health; the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department, the Ventura County Department of Public Health; the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety.

http://da.co.la.ca.us/mr/080311a.htm

They spent a YEAR investigating milk and cheese sales with undercover agents. That's not permit enforcement, nor is it mere law enforcement: this is agenda enforcement. Criminal conspiracy charges for selling milk and cheese? The bankster criminals have nearly brought the entire country to its knees through outright criminal activity --where are the criminal conspiracy charges, where are the raids and arrests?

I was just talking about the issue of permits before, but now I'm adding that this isn't about a business not obtaining a permit, it is about destroying an industry that government authoritarians don't think should exist. They don't want people to drink raw milk and eat raw cheese. The law doesn't prohibit it so they're taking a backdoor approach to attack the practice. This is analogous to Obama making an executive order to further the gun control agenda.

[Dave2]

The issue is they knew they needed the permit, they were told previously, they actively chose NOT to get said permit and now they're paying (ok serious overkill) a hefty price for their desire to ignore the rules.

Is your assertion that they needed a permit based on the LEO's actions, something the article said, or California state law?

Herd shares are not illegal in CA. They are simply not legislated for or against. To make it simple. If I own a cow--I can drink the milk from the cow in any form I want be it raw or pasteurized. If I wish for a farmer to board my cow and pay him a fee for his services then I am still entitled to the milk from my cow. That is what a herd share is. It is not illegal. They broke no law that I have heard of--they are being portrayed as a raw milk retailer when that was not the case at all. They were operating in a different manner than required a permit.

If mamabearCali is correct, then the SWAT team was called out to deal with someone who was doing the legally equivalent of whistling while they worked.

[Medic624]

Look ppl bottom line is ... For whatever reason according to the article I read they were required to get a permit...they didn't ... They got into legal trouble. That's the facts...the reasoning behind the NEED for the permit is a completely different topic and completely subject to conjecture because unless you are in charge of the FDA or in charge of ANY OF THE GROUPS INVOLVED then you really are making nothing but assumptions.

I'm not going to get into semantics on whether I am for or against the reason behind the need for the permit because that is not what is at issue. I'm going off the reason they're in jail. If you have inside proof they were targeted then that's a completely different thread.

As far as governmental intrusion in ANY sector of private industry well, like I stated earlier, if you don't like it then work to ENACT and vote for a legitimate change.

Sitting around complaining about it is useless and won't do a thing but take up everyone's time. We've all been sitting quietly by for at least the last 2 generations and NOW we're going to act appalled and surprised that we're obviously moving away from a republic and more toward a socialist state?

I'm a staunch Libertarian with Conservative leanings who fully embraces the original tenets of the US Constitution. I wholeheartedly believe we need A WHOLE LOT LESS Govt but until enough of us are fed up and can enact a mass change we need to play by the NEW rules and USE them to OUR advantage. If ya cant and ya don't then you can expect to be singled out like these individuals and FORCED to conform.

Work smarter not harder... Use the system to take it back to what it is supposed to be ... Or, fight against a leviathan and see where that takes you.

[paulhailes]

I could be wrong but I thought the point of the permit was for sales, I dont think they care what you consume on your own just what you sell to the public. If you sell something that requires a permit to the public without a permit then you should get arrested, I am sure the reason for the permit is to make sure that everything is safe to eat and drink.

[mamabearCali]

I could be wrong but I thought the point of the permit was for sales, I dont think they care what you consume on your own just what you sell to the public. If you sell something that requires a permit to the public without a permit then you should get arrested, I am sure the reason for the permit is to make sure that everything is safe to eat and drink.

If* they were doing sales outside their herdshare group then yes they would need a permit. (BTW just so you know the cost of said permit is 50K--not exactly cheap or anywhere near reasonable for a dairy farmer!--another way of trying to get rid of something by making the permit fee so high no one can afford it) As far as making everything safe if you have a permit--really the supplies of turkey meat have a permit and we have seen just how safe that is. A permit is often just another shake down by the gov't.

If they were just doing herd shares they did not need a permit. Just like you don't need a permit to eat your tomatoes and squash from your garden. However, as I understand the situation only one of the three people had at that time anything to do with the raw milk the other two took care of chickens and eggs--and supplied the co-op with free range chickens and eggs. So two people were arrested because they brought chickens and eggs to the same co-op that had a herd share that the gov't did not like.

Let us say that Jim (the fellow running the herd share) was selling some milk on the side outside the herd share. Do you really think that such a "crime" of selling something to a person who wants the product (that product being legal in all other situations) merits a swat team? A felony conspiracy charge? A year long investigation by 3 gov't agencies? Or 130K bond? Happily even the judge agreed that 130K was ridiculous and brought it down to 30K, but this is still insanity. Now if* he is selling the milk outside the herd-share he does not need to be running the herd share anymore and possibly should face fines--but this is craziness.

This is not a case of investigating a crime this is a case of trying to act out on a vendetta. The USDA, the FDA, and the CDC don't like raw milk--why? I really don't know. Their own data shows it to be as safe as (or safer) than just about anything else. They have gone around the country trying very hard in PA, KY and other states where raw milk sales are legal to attack those who practice it and make their lives as miserable as possible--5am raids on farms, attempting to force those who drink raw milk to disclose their source by threat of jail time if they don't talk. Perhaps it is because the powers that be don't get huge donations from small farmers, and they do from big dairies (which are hurt by small farmers). Perhaps there is something even more sinister going on here--I don't know. But something reeks in CA.

As this is a gun forum I would like to remind everyone that the gov't does not like us having weapons either. They would like to see every gun destroyed in this nation except those in the hands of the police and the military. So how would we like it if the ATF was permitted to carry out these sorts of actions. I think we would be screaming bloody murder. You don't have to agree with raw milk--you certainly don't have to drink it (I actually don't it is too expensive and too hard to obtain here in VA), but I am concerned with yet another abuse of power by the various alphabet agencies imposed against a citizen.

[Dragonfighter]

The problem with the food safety argument is that with FDA intervention you have mandated vaccinations, GMO feeds and hormones. The FDA is largely responsible for a decrease in food safety. I know people who could not drink milk, but when they went to the organic whole milk they could. There is no way you can convince me that a beef that has had numerous mandated vaccinations, GMO grains and hormone supplements is healthier than one that has been grass fed. That a chicken raised in a corridor of cages and stuffed with treated feeds is healthier and produces better eggs than one in the back yard eating grubs. That a steroid filled, homogenized and hormone laden milk is better than a whole, raw milk from a naturally nursing cow.

OT, but the FDA is single-handedly responsible for massive delays in truly effective cancer treatments hitting the medical mainstream. Burzynski Movie.

Mainstream and "approved" slaughter houses are nasty, bug laden and disease ridden yet they meet FDA and USDA requirements. Your meat is inundated with carbon monoxide to give it its nice red color. If the guy down the street was raising his own beef and slaughtering in his garage then I would likely be buying from him.

As an aside, a CHL permit is an infringement. It is quite an accomplishment and I am glad for it but my druthers are that it becomes a redundancy.

[VMI77]

I am sure the reason for the permit is to make sure that everything is safe to eat and drink.

How can a permit do that? Isn't a permit just a piece of paper? More specifically, how can a permit like the one at issue here do that? Oh yes, how "unsafe" we'd all be if we didn't have the government taking such good care of us.

Just curious, you must be against open carry and Constitutional carry? Surely requiring a "permit" would make us all safer, right? If it's so dangerous to have people selling milk and cheese without a permit then surely letting people walk around in public carrying guns without a permit is even more of a threat to safety?

[VMI77]

The problem with the food safety argument is that with FDA intervention you have mandated vaccinations, GMO feeds and hormones. The FDA is largely responsible for a decrease in food safety. I know people who could not drink milk, but when they went to the organic whole milk they could. There is no way you can convince me that a beef that has had numerous mandated vaccinations, GMO grains and hormone supplements is healthier than one that has been grass fed. That a chicken raised in a corridor of cages and stuffed with treated feeds is healthier and produces better eggs than one in the back yard eating grubs. That a steroid filled, homogenized and hormone laden milk is better than a whole, raw milk from a naturally nursing cow.

OT, but the FDA is single-handedly responsible for massive delays in truly effective cancer treatments hitting the medical mainstream. Burzynski Movie.

Mainstream and "approved" slaughter houses are nasty, bug laden and disease ridden yet they meet FDA and USDA requirements. Your meat is inundated with carbon monoxide to give it its nice red color. If the guy down the street was raising his own beef and slaughtering in his garage then I would likely be buying from him.

As an aside, a CHL permit is an infringement. It is quite an accomplishment and I am glad for it but my druthers are that it becomes a redundancy.

The food safety argument is the nonsense Statists use to indoctrinate school children. The FDA's primary role these days is protecting big agra business. They frequently rule against safety, and take actions in opposition to the recommendations of their own scientists. Funny, how when they do that it always benefits big business. Their consistent relaxation of regulations for GMOs is a catastrophe in the making.

[i8godzilla]

I could be wrong but I thought the point of the permit was for sales, I dont think they care what you consume on your own just what you sell to the public. If you sell something that requires a permit to the public without a permit then you should get arrested, I am sure the reason for the permit is to make sure that more taxes are paid to the government.

There, I fixed it for you............

[paulhailes]

I am sure the reason for the permit is to make sure that everything is safe to eat and drink.

How can a permit do that? Isn't a permit just a piece of paper? More specifically, how can a permit like the one at issue here do that? Oh yes, how "unsafe" we'd all be if we didn't have the government taking such good care of us.

Just curious, you must be against open carry and Constitutional carry? Surely requiring a "permit" would make us all safer, right? If it's so dangerous to have people selling milk and cheese without a permit then surely letting people walk around in public carrying guns without a permit is even more of a threat to safety?

I believe you go to far when you say I am against open carry or Constitutional carry, have I given you any indication that I would be against the 2nd amendment? Did I miss where I said anything about a citizens right to carry a firearm?

Anyways you cant really compare the two things, do I believe that someone should be able to eat whatever they grow, yes. Just like I believe that we have the right to bear arms. However we are talking about production of a good for public consumption. Is a permit just a piece of paper? technically yes, but before they just hand out these pieces of paper I am sure they make sure the vendor is taking all of the necessary precautions to ensure that the good is safe for public consumption.

[VMI77]

I am sure the reason for the permit is to make sure that everything is safe to eat and drink.

How can a permit do that? Isn't a permit just a piece of paper? More specifically, how can a permit like the one at issue here do that? Oh yes, how "unsafe" we'd all be if we didn't have the government taking such good care of us.

Just curious, you must be against open carry and Constitutional carry? Surely requiring a "permit" would make us all safer, right? If it's so dangerous to have people selling milk and cheese without a permit then surely letting people walk around in public carrying guns without a permit is even more of a threat to safety?

I believe you go to far when you say I am against open carry or Constitutional carry, have I given you any indication that I would be against the 2nd amendment? Did I miss where I said anything about a citizens right to carry a firearm?

Anyways you cant really compare the two things, do I believe that someone should be able to eat whatever they grow, yes. Just like I believe that we have the right to bear arms. However we are talking about production of a good for public consumption. Is a permit just a piece of paper? technically yes, but before they just hand out these pieces of paper I am sure they make sure the vendor is taking all of the necessary precautions to ensure that the good is safe for public consumption.

The question about open and Constitutional carry is simply based on logic. Letting people carry guns, unregulated so to speak, is considered something dangerous or threatening to many, if not most, of the general public --though this is probably more true in the more liberal states. There is tremendous opposition to campus carry nationwide --and this is to people who have permits carrying guns (people who have taken classes and had background checks). Constitutional carry would allow people to openly carry weapons without a "permit." So, pretend I'm an anti-self defense liberal and explain why you think someone should have a permit to sell cheese but should be able to carry a gun anywhere they go without one?

And BTW, as I understand it, the permit at issue is a business permit --an expensive one. Once the permit is acquired they can do business. If there was a process that prevented unsafe food from being sold then there wouldn't be food recalls, and incidents of illness and death from unsafe food (like last year when the peanut company knowingly distributed contaminated peanut produced that sickened and killed several people).

[Bullwhip]

I am sure the reason for the permit is to make sure that everything is safe to eat and drink.

How can a permit do that? Isn't a permit just a piece of paper? More specifically, how can a permit like the one at issue here do that?

Just like a restraining order stops domestic violence.