Oathkeeper Sheriff Blocks Feds From Raiding Local Farmer

[OutHouse]

the power of a sheriff is something to behold.


http://www.dontcomply.com/oathkeeper-sheriff-blocks-feds-raiding-local-farmer/

Sheriff Rogers wrote to the DOJ and let them know that he would take action if the federal inspectors came without a signed warrant that specified probable cause to give a clear reason why they needed to conduct their invasive searches:
“I understand that you have made recent requests to (the farmer) for documents and to appear before a grand jury, and he has had a number of inspections and attempted inspections on his farm within Elkhart County. This is notice that any further attempts to inspect this farm without a warrant signed by a judge, based on probable cause, will result in federal inspectors’ removal or arrest for trespassing by my officers or I. In addition, if any further action is taken by the federal government on (the farmer), while he is in Elkhart County, I will expect that you or federal authorities contact my office prior to such action. I will expect you to forward this information to your federal associates, including the FDA.”

Soon after his email was sent, the farmer got a certified letter in the mail from the DOJ that notified him that the grand jury subpoena was now cancelled. “Now, over four years later, the FDA inspectors and the DOJ, have not returned to the property since I interposed for the farmer. Some have suggested it was my interposition that caused the feds to stand down. I have no way of knowing this for sure, but the evidence would suggest so,” wrote the sheriff.

he saw that there was no justified cause for the obtrusive inspections that have going on since 2011 around twice a month.

“Specifically, the FDA was inspecting his farm without a warrant as much as every two weeks. Typical inspections occur annually. The Department of Justice (DOJ) had subpoenaed him for a grand jury in Michigan in which he was to bring his production documents. The Feds wanted to make this farmer an example.”

 

[nickqt]

the power of a sheriff is something to behold.


http://www.dontcomply.com/oathkeeper-sheriff-blocks-feds-raiding-local-farmer/

The sheriff lost this argument in the spring of 1865.

It is cute though to watch them twist and turn and hem and haw about it.

 

[PokerGuy]

The sheriff lost this argument in the spring of 1865.

It is cute though to watch them twist and turn and hem and haw about it.

What argument exactly would that be? In what way exactly did the Sheriff act that was not according to the law?

 

[fskimospy]

What argument exactly would that be? In what way exactly did the Sheriff act that was not according to the law?

Supremacy clause. If the Feds are not acting in accordance with the law (and I don't know if they are or not) then it is not up to a local sheriff to decide, much less attempt to arrest federal officials in the performance of their duties. If he continues to impede federal activity he could be subject to sanction or imprisonment himself.

 

[PokerGuy]

Supremacy clause. If the Feds are not acting in accordance with the law (and I don't know if they are or not) then it is not up to a local sheriff to decide, much less attempt to arrest federal officials in the performance of their duties. If he continues to impede federal activity he could be subject to sanction or imprisonment himself.

The sheriff made no argument against the supremacy clause. Like you, I don't know if the feds were acting in accordance to the law or not, but the Sheriff basically put them on notice that if they didn't he'd have them arrested. Just because some federal agency wants to do something doesn't mean they automatically have the right to do it, nor does it mean the local law does not apply. The supremacy clause doesn't mean whatever some federal agency says goes. If indeed the feds are acting within the law then they can press the issue and there's not much the sheriff can do.

Based on the subsequent reaction from the DOJ (the certified letter to the farmer and stopping the bi-weekly inspections rather than the usual annual), it sure appears like they were in the wrong, but again, I don't know the details of this case at all. The feds obviously know that if they are doing stuff they shouldn't be, then getting the sheriff involved and making it a big deal would shine a light on something they don't want to shine a light on. It forces them to play by the book.

 

[fskimospy]

The sheriff made no argument against the supremacy clause. Like you, I don't know if the feds were acting in accordance to the law or not, but the Sheriff basically put them on notice that if they didn't he'd have them arrested. Just because some federal agency wants to do something doesn't mean they automatically have the right to do it, nor does it mean the local law does not apply. The supremacy clause doesn't mean whatever some federal agency says goes. If indeed the feds are acting within the law then they can press the issue and there's not much the sheriff can do.

Based on the subsequent reaction from the DOJ (the certified letter to the farmer and stopping the bi-weekly inspections rather than the usual annual), it sure appears like they were in the wrong, but again, I don't know the details of this case at all.

It means that if local law and federal law are in conflict federal law wins every time. If a local law impedes the valid exercise of duties for a federal official it is invalid in those circumstances every time. If the federal officials are not in accordance with federal law then it's not the sheriff's place to make that determination, it is the courts. Our system wouldn't work if every local idiot was making their own interpretations of the valid exercise of federal power. The sheriff is totally out of line. If anything the Feds should be making an example of him, not the farmer.

I also wouldn't take their ceasing inspections as a sign they thought they were wrong any more than we should have taken the BLM's decision to withdraw as a sign that Cliven Bundy was right.

 

[IronWing]

Guy takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, he breaks his oath and oversteps his authority, he calls himself an oathkeeper.

 

[Jaskalas]

Guy takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, he breaks his oath and oversteps his authority, he calls himself an oathkeeper.

I forgot the part where we vow to let criminals of federal stature act supreme against the law. Maybe instead of slandering him you should support the people from illegal trespass.

 

[IronWing]

I forgot the part where we vow to let criminals of federal stature act supreme against the law. Maybe instead of slandering him you should support the people from illegal trespass.

He had no authority to write the letter. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of whatever pops into Sheriff Rogers' head. He abused his office; one man mob rule.

The farmer had legal recourse if the feds were overstepping the law. Sheriff Rogers' dick waving is not that recourse.

 

[fskimospy]

I forgot the part where we vow to let criminals of federal stature act supreme against the law. Maybe instead of slandering him you should support the people from illegal trespass.

We should support the people from illegal trespass. We should also all join together to condemn local officials who attempt to vastly overstep their legal authority, no?

Most legal abuses that happen in the US come from local officials, not federal ones. We should all support efforts to reign them in.

 

[nickqt]

I forgot the part where we vow to let criminals of federal stature act supreme against the law. Maybe instead of slandering him you should support the people from illegal trespass.

Rogers continued, “My research concluded that no one was getting sick from this distribution of this raw milk. It appeared to be harassment by the FDA and the DOJ, and making unconstitutional searches, in my opinion. The farmer told me that he no longer wished to cooperate with the inspections of his property.

http://www.dontcomply.com/oathkeeper-sheriff-blocks-feds-raiding-local-farmer/

Sheriff Hero-man McFreedom doesn't get to opine about whether or not the Federal Government has jurisdiction and legal ability to inspect a farm, even when the farmer - GASP - decides that he just doesn't want to be inspected anymore and stuff you guys!

Again, the ability of local or state officials to overrule the Federal Government was argued, violently, from 1861-1865. Sheriff Hero-man McFreedom doesn't get to relitigate it because he up and decided to have himself an opinion, published in a confederate-worshipping newsletter, literally named dontcomply.com

 

[JSt0rm]

Guy takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, he breaks his oath and oversteps his authority, he calls himself an oathkeeper.

a wise old ham.

 

[Kwatt]

The sheriff may be right.

From Wikipedia

The United States Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

III. Prohibited Acts and Penalties

This section contains both civil law and criminal law clauses. Most violations under the act are civil, though repeated, intentional, and fraudulent violations are covered as criminal law. All violations of the FD&C Act require interstate commerce because of the commerce clause, but this is often interpreted broadly and few products other than raw produce are considered outside of the scope of the act.

The farmer was producing raw milk and organic food.

So, no jurisdiction to the FDA. May be why they dropped it. If it went to court everybody might find out they were exceeding their authority. They would rather let people believe that whatever a federal government agency says goes... can't have people not blindly following orders.

Supremacy Clause
The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law. In essence, it is a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain national acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with national law. In this respect, the Supremacy Clause follows the lead of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which provided that "Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress Assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them." A constitutional provision announcing the supremacy of federal law, the Supremacy Clause assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, at least when that authority is expressed in the Constitution itself. No matter what the federal government or the states might wish to do, they have to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. This makes the Supremacy Clause the cornerstone of the whole American political structure.

Asking for probable cause and a search warrant is Constitutional.


.

 

[IronWing]

The sheriff may be right.

From Wikipedia




The farmer was producing raw milk and organic food.

So, no jurisdiction to the FDA. May be why they dropped it. If it went to court everybody might find out they were exceeding their authority. They would rather let people believe that whatever a federal government agency says goes... can't have people not blindly following orders.


Asking for probable cause and a search warrant is Constitutional.


.

Raw milk is not raw produce. Threatening to arrest federal officials carrying their duties is not lawful and beyond the authority granted to sheriffs. Demanding that federal officials contact his office prior to taking lawful actions is beyond the authority granted to this sheriff.

 

[Kwatt]

Raw milk is not raw produce

OK. What is it?

Threatening to arrest federal officials carrying their duties is not lawful and beyond the authority granted to sheriffs.

So, requiring federal officials to obtain a search warrant by showing probable cause is wrong?

A Sheriff arresting a trespasser is wrong?

If the Sheriff had waited till they showed up and then arrested them that would have been high handed. So, he requested that they followed the law. If they did not follow the law and trespassed they he is obligated to arrest them.

You don't get to break the law and get a pass just because you are a federal employee do you?


.

 

[IronWing]

OK. What is it?


So, requiring federal officials to obtain a search warrant by showing probable cause is wrong?

A Sheriff arresting a trespasser is wrong?

If the Sheriff had waited till they showed up and then arrested them that would have been high handed. So, he requested that they followed the law. If they did not follow the law and trespassed they he is obligated to arrest them.

You don't get to break the law and get a pass just because you are a federal employee do you?


.

Milk is an animal product.

The sheriff had no authority to interfere with federal officials carrying out their lawful duties. If the farmer believed that the officials were overstepping their legal authority, he had recourse to the courts. The sheriff had no authority to intervene.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Guy takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, he breaks his oath and oversteps his authority, he calls himself an oathkeeper.

The oath of office as I remember contains "defend the Constitution against all, both foreign and domestic" and not " turn a blind eye to Feds on a power trip."

 

[WHAMPOM]

Raw milk is not raw produce. Threatening to arrest federal officials carrying their duties is not lawful and beyond the authority granted to sheriffs. Demanding that federal officials contact his office prior to taking lawful actions is beyond the authority granted to this sheriff.

Time to quit blowing smoke up our ass.

 

[Kwatt]

The sheriff had no authority to interfere with federal officials carrying out their lawful duties.

Without a warrant they weren't lawful duties.

If the farmer believed that the officials were overstepping their legal authority, he had recourse to the courts.

They were trespassing. When someone trespasses you don't file suit you call the sheriff.

The sheriff had no authority to intervene.

When someone is breaking the law who does?

.

 

[fskimospy]

Without a warrant they weren't lawful duties.

What is your basis for this? Are you saying the FDA needs warrants to do inspections? This is news to me. (And presumably the FDA)

They were trespassing. When someone trespasses you don't file suit you call the sheriff.

See above.

When someone is breaking the law who does?

.

What is your basis for saying they were breaking the law?

 

[Kwatt]

What is your basis for this? Are you saying the FDA needs warrants to do inspections? This is news to me. (And presumably the FDA)

Are you saying they don't? What is your basis for this? Do you think they can come and go as they please?

What is your basis for saying they were breaking the law?

There was no probable cause for a warrant. No warrant = trespassing.

.

 

[fskimospy]

Are you saying they don't? What is your basis for this? Do you think they can come and go as they please?

There was no probable cause for a warrant. No warrant = trespassing.

.

Yes, I'm saying the FDA does not need warrants to inspect businesses. Their authority to conduct inspections comes from the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. It does not come as the result of a warrant, nor does any other inspection of a business that I can think of. Not only is probable cause not necessary, it would largely destroy the purpose of inspections. I mean do you think the health department needs probable cause that a restaurant is making people sick before seeing if there are roaches in the food?

http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/ucm073839.htm

 

[Kwatt]

Yes, I'm saying the FDA does not need warrants to inspect businesses. Their authority to conduct inspections comes from the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. It does not come as the result of a warrant, nor does any other inspection of a business that I can think of. Not only is probable cause not necessary, it would largely destroy the purpose of inspections. I mean do you think the health department needs probable cause that a restaurant is making people sick before seeing if there are roaches in the food?

http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/ucm073839.htm

Article III
All violations of the FD&C Act require interstate commerce because of the commerce clause, but this is often interpreted broadly.

Warning nitpick ahead:
He was not selling the milk. He milked the cows for the owners and delivered it.

Warning another nitpick ahead:
Was he delivering it across state lines?

Why didn't they just get a warrant? Then if the sheriff had interfered he would have been arrested.

After being asked for a warrant they just dropped it. Why? 6 years later and nothing...


.

 

[Kwatt]

http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/ucm073839.htm

The legality of an FDA inspection, conducted at a reasonable time, and within reasonable limits, and in a reasonable manner, depends not on consent but on the validity of statutory authority.

Is as often as every 2 weeks within reasonable limits? How much food is searched for roaches?


All of it, every day every bite?


.

 

[fskimospy]

Article III
All violations of the FD&C Act require interstate commerce because of the commerce clause, but this is often interpreted broadly.

Warning nitpick ahead:
He was not selling the milk. He milked the cows for the owners and delivered it.

Warning another nitpick ahead:
Was he delivering it across state lines?

Why didn't they just get a warrant? Then if the sheriff had interfered he would have been arrested.

After being asked for a warrant they just dropped it. Why? 6 years later and nothing...
.

Because warrants aren't used for those inspections. A judge wouldn't have been able to grant one even if he wanted to from my understanding as they don't make warrants for FDA inspections.

In addition, whether or not that particular individual was engaging in interstate commerce doesn't actually matter so long as the regulation is on activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. For example if our milk markets are frequently interstate the fact that one individual farmer might not sell his over state lines does not exempt him from broader regulations. This sort of regulatory authority has been around for a long time.

The sheriff was wrong and either doesn't understand the law or doesn't care to follow it.