Oathkeeper Sheriff Blocks Feds From Raiding Local Farmer

[Genx87]

I sincerely doubt that most people who regularly consume raw milk understand that it confers no noticeable health benefits but carries substantial risks.

I view this like drugs as well, people should be free to consume them if they want but that doesn't mean they should be free from basic health and safety regulations. I would never support the sale of drugs that weren't subject to safety regs.

Even if they dont know, it is irrelevant to the point of why are we wasting federal resources on people freely consuming raw milk?

 

[shortylickens]

and our resident communist has spoken.

You would sound better if you didnt make a short post with name-calling and nothing else.

 

[PokerGuy]

It means that if local law and federal law are in conflict federal law wins every time.

So? What makes you think there was such a conflict?

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.

Uh, no. Lets say some guy walks into your house and says he's from the FDA and searching for some illegal stuff. You'd just go ahead and let him do it? No, you'd call the local cops and tell them to get him off your property and charge him with trespassing. If he actually does have that authority, then he can document such and come back. The local cops would then not only not interfere, they would assist as needed to make sure he could safely do his job.

The sheriff absolutely has an obligation and right to make sure the laws are being followed -- even if that sometimes could mean that his interpretation might be wrong.

Our system wouldn't work if every local idiot was making their own interpretations of the valid exercise of federal power.

Funny how you immediately label someone attempting to stop what is likely abuse as "an idiot". Of course.

The sheriff is totally out of line. If anything the Feds should be making an example of him, not the farmer.

No, he was not out of line at all. He wrote a letter, and by doing so he forced the hands of the agency: either show how what you are doing falls within your authority and continue to do it, or back off. They chose option b, back off. Wish we had more people standing up to government when govt abuses citizens.

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.

If the details of the story are true (and I don't know that they are), and they were inspecting his property every two weeks, then they were obviously abusing him and the sheriff was right to stand up to them in the limited way that he could. He didn't arrest anyone, he didn't do anything crazy, he just forced the agency to either show that they were in the right or back off.

 

[PokerGuy]

Raw milk confers no health benefits over pasteurized milk and about 150 outbreaks of foodborne illness have happened in the last 15 years or so due to people drinking it.

It's not harassment, it's smart food policy.

Unprotected sex confers no health benefits over protected sex and it results in tens of thousands of diseases being spread each year, including fatal ones. Clearly regulating how people have sex, including random inspections of people "in the act" is not harassment, it's smart health policy. Brilliant logic you got there......

 

[PokerGuy]

and our resident communist has spoken.

In truth, he's not a communist. He's a classic elitist and authoritarian. As such he's going to always be fine with any manifestation of power over others as long as it's in support of something he personally agrees with.

 

[alien42]

Unprotected sex confers no health benefits over protected sex and it results in tens of thousands of diseases being spread each year, including fatal ones. Clearly regulating how people have sex, including random inspections of people "in the act" is not harassment, it's smart health policy. Brilliant logic you got there......

selling milk is legal, selling sex is illegal.

brilliant "logic" you've got there.

 

[IronWing]

what the inspectors were doing was illegal and unconstitutional. what part of that is so hard to understand. Sheriffs are elected officials and have a lot of power, i suggest you educate yourself.

You just made that up.

 

[fskimospy]

Unprotected sex confers no health benefits over protected sex and it results in tens of thousands of diseases being spread each year, including fatal ones. Clearly regulating how people have sex, including random inspections of people "in the act" is not harassment, it's smart health policy. Brilliant logic you got there......

Sex is not interstate commerce. Logical fail.

 

[shortylickens]

Sex is not interstate commerce. Logical fail.

ITS NOT!??







What the fuck have I been paying taxes for?

 

[fskimospy]

So? What makes you think there was such a conflict?

If there isn't then the sheriff is even more wrong.

Uh, no. Lets say some guy walks into your house and says he's from the FDA and searching for some illegal stuff. You'd just go ahead and let him do it? No, you'd call the local cops and tell them to get him off your property and charge him with trespassing. If he actually does have that authority, then he can document such and come back. The local cops would then not only not interfere, they would assist as needed to make sure he could safely do his job.

Are you saying that when the FDA came to inspect this farm they did not bring the proper identification? If so, what is your source? Are you saying that the FDA lacked the statutory authority to inspect this farm? If so, what's your source? I'm aware of no one even attempting to make such an argument, so this is an invalid comparison.

If federal officials came to your business with proper identification and began inspecting it and you called the local cops they would do nothing. If they did do something they could be putting themselves in legal jeopardy.

The sheriff absolutely has an obligation and right to make sure the laws are being followed -- even if that sometimes could mean that his interpretation might be wrong.

Never said he shouldn't make sure the laws are being followed. He just has no say in this case.

Funny how you immediately label someone attempting to stop what is likely abuse as "an idiot". Of course.

I wasn't referring to him, I was referring to the fact that some sheriffs are undoubtedly idiots and this would grant them the same power. No thanks.

No, he was not out of line at all. He wrote a letter, and by doing so he forced the hands of the agency: either show how what you are doing falls within your authority and continue to do it, or back off. They chose option b, back off. Wish we had more people standing up to government when govt abuses citizens.

He wrote a letter showing he doesn't understand how the law works. Warrant? Huh? The FDA would be under no such burden and could go back there tomorrow. There is no evidence that any abuse was taking place here, only the statements of one self interested party. Imagine what Cliven Bundy would have said.

If the details of the story are true (and I don't know that they are), and they were inspecting his property every two weeks, then they were obviously abusing him and the sheriff was right to stand up to them in the limited way that he could. He didn't arrest anyone, he didn't do anything crazy, he just forced the agency to either show that they were in the right or back off.

That would depend entirely on why they were inspecting him and it is most certainly not prima fascie evidence of abuse. It sounds like he was engaged in illegal behavior, actually.

 

[glenn1]

In truth, he's not a communist. He's a classic elitist and authoritarian. As such he's going to always be fine with any manifestation of power over others as long as it's in support of something he personally agrees with.

Yep, change "raw milk on farm" the FDA was doing biweekly inspections on to "medical devices at abortion clinic" and he'd be screaming his ass off about abuse of power and such.

 

[fskimospy]

Yep, change "raw milk on farm" the FDA was doing biweekly inspections on to "medical devices at abortion clinic" and he'd be screaming his ass off about abuse of power and such.

Depending on why they were inspecting this person I certainly might not support that either. From the description however it sounds like the farmer was engaged in illegal activity. If there was evidence that an abortion clinic was engaging in illegal activity I would support more stringent oversight of that too.

I think if you look back you'll see my ideology is very consistent. You might prefer using the power of government to attack your ideological enemies but I don't.

 

[realibrad]

Depending on why they were inspecting this person I certainly might not support that either. From the description however it sounds like the farmer was engaged in illegal activity. If there was evidence that an abortion clinic was engaging in illegal activity I would support more stringent oversight of that too.

I think if you look back you'll see my ideology is very consistent. You might prefer using the power of government to attack your ideological enemies but I don't.

At what point do you think the searches would conflict with the 4th amendment? If the norm is once a year, and this farmer was being searched every 2 weeks, that would sure seem unreasonable unless people were getting sick. If what the sheriff said was true, and that nobody had gotten sick.

In Indiana there are regulations on selling raw milk. If the farmer was breaking the law, then fine. It would seem odd that they would need to keep doing searches to prove that though, and even more weird to have to keep searching for so long.

That said, the sheriff took an oath to uphold the constitution. The state gave him legal authority to take action if the sheriff believes something illegal is happening. If he truly felt that the 4th amendment was being broken, he had a legal obligation to act. Just because its a federal agency acting does not make that action legal. It also means that there are going to be differences of opinion. The sheriff has a legal responsibility to enforce the constitution as well as other laws. Sometimes those laws conflict, and he has to choose.

 

[fskimospy]

At what point do you think the searches would conflict with the 4th amendment? If the norm is once a year, and this farmer was being searched every 2 weeks, that would sure seem unreasonable unless people were getting sick. If what the sheriff said was true, and that nobody had gotten sick.

In Indiana there are regulations on selling raw milk. If the farmer was breaking the law, then fine. It would seem odd that they would need to keep doing searches to prove that though, and even more weird to have to keep searching for so long.

That said, the sheriff took an oath to uphold the constitution. The state gave him legal authority to take action if the sheriff believes something illegal is happening. If he truly felt that the 4th amendment was being broken, he had a legal obligation to act. Just because its a federal agency acting does not make that action legal. It also means that there are going to be differences of opinion. The sheriff has a legal responsibility to enforce the constitution as well as other laws. Sometimes those laws conflict, and he has to choose.

I'm not even sure why this would ever be a 4th amendment issue. It sounds like inspections of a business. The FDA simply does not need probable cause or warrants to engage in these inspections for businesses under their regulatory authority.

They have a statutory obligation not to engage in onerous searches but I'm not aware of FDA inspections ever being successfully challenged on 4th amendment grounds.

 

[glenn1]

Depending on why they were inspecting this person I certainly might not support that either. From the description however it sounds like the farmer was engaged in illegal activity. If there was evidence that an abortion clinic was engaging in illegal activity I would support more stringent oversight of that too.

I think if you look back you'll see my ideology is very consistent. You might prefer using the power of government to attack your ideological enemies but I don't.

Oh yes I can see where your belief in "illegal behavior" is strongly supported by the FDA immediately sending a registered letter saying the grand jury subpoena was dropped. That is some rock solid evidence that would support your opinion. It was so self obviously illegal that they didn't even bother with indictment processes. Evidently a DA can indict a game sandwich but not a farmer engaged in illegal acts.

 

[1prophet]

So the Federal government is searching/harassing a local farmer every two weeks over milk similar to the local police harassing minorities with their stop and frisk policies in their neighborhoods over drugs and weapons,

and the so called liberals are OK with it? :\

 

[MrPickins]

Linked in the article from the OP:

http://www.goshennews.com/news/loca...cle_8e5582f9-d39e-584a-b191-dc131a416983.html

David Hochstetler wants to sell raw milk to willing buyers. State health departments don’t want him to.

Hochstetler, his wife and two children operate Forest Grove Dairy near Middlebury. Their dairy has been cited in warnings from health departments in Illinois, Michigan and Indiana and from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Those departments have warned consumers that an outbreak of campylobacter bacterial infections might be traceable to the Forest Grove Dairy.

"The health departments have not been here," Hochstetler said Tuesday while standing in the drive leading to his dairy barn.

Out beyond the barn, 75 Jersey cows grazed earnestly on the greening pasture.

But the health departments know about the dairy. Last week the Michigan Department of Community Health issued a warning against drinking raw milk from Hochstetler’s dairy. The department claimed at that time eight people had contracted the bacterial infection after drinking raw milk from the farm. The milk was distributed through Family Farms Cooperative in Vandalia, Mich. Since then the health departments in Indiana and Illinois have also issued warnings.

As of Tuesday there have been 13 confirmed cases of campylobacter contamination and 12 other suspected cases in Michigan, according to James McCurtis, spokesman for the MDCH. McCurtis said no tests were done at the dairy, but that samples of milk have been taken from the homes of the people who became ill.

"Testing of those samples is under way," he said.

Results may come in as early as the end of this week or it may take another week, according to McCurtis.

While there is no scientific evidence in hand to tie the outbreak to Forest Grove Dairy, McCurtis said there is circumstantial evidence.

"Now we have 13 people in Michigan confirmed and 12 others suspected," McCurtis said. "All of these people have one thing in common ... they have all drunk raw milk from this facility."

...

So, it sounds as though his milk is crossing state lines, and there is some evidence that it may be causing illness.

In this case, the FDA would be negligent to not inspect his dairy.


And this is why you shouldn't take news from an obviously biased site at face value.

 

[fskimospy]

Linked in the article from the OP:

http://www.goshennews.com/news/loca...cle_8e5582f9-d39e-584a-b191-dc131a416983.html



So, it sounds as though his milk is crossing state lines, and there is some evidence that it may be causing illness.

In this case, the FDA would be negligent to not inspect his dairy.


And this is why you shouldn't take news from an obviously biased site at face value.

I for one am totally shocked.

 

[Kwatt]

Linked in the article from the OP:

http://www.goshennews.com/news/loca...cle_8e5582f9-d39e-584a-b191-dc131a416983.html



So, it sounds as though his milk is crossing state lines, and there is some evidence that it may be causing illness.

In this case, the FDA would be negligent to not inspect his dairy.

Agreed inspection called for. Especially if the state called the FDA in.

But, how many inspections and how much product should they be allowed to take/destroy? Without finding anything?


EDIT
Please disregard my response following the (End Edit) notice.
I confused the case in this thread with this one.
http://www.cornucopia.org/2013/05/dairy-farmer-acquitted-on-three-of-four-charges/
End EDIT
He did end going to trial over something about this. And was found not guilty of everything except for removing a state hold tag on the coolers. Which he admitted too and was fined for.

NOTE: The state health dept. destroyed ~300 gal. of milk in a bulk tank. Without even testing it.

.

 

[MongGrel]

You can drink raw milk anytime you care to, if you have your own cow.

Once you start selling it to someone else it becomes a different matter.

Heh, I used to live near Elkhart at one time, one of my Uncles was the Sheriff in Madison County IN decades ago.

You can't just blow inspectors off, especially if something suspicious is going on.

 

[nickqt]

Linked in the article from the OP:

http://www.goshennews.com/news/loca...cle_8e5582f9-d39e-584a-b191-dc131a416983.html



So, it sounds as though his milk is crossing state lines, and there is some evidence that it may be causing illness.

In this case, the FDA would be negligent to not inspect his dairy.


And this is why you shouldn't take news from an obviously biased site at face value.

They never learn.

Next up: The REAL truth about Benghazi!

We'll get a wonderful link from hitleryclintonmurderedvincentfoster.com and the conservatives will tie themselves into knots trying to make sense out of whatever offal they're trying to defend as RealTruth™.

Expect to be labeled an authoritarian, communist, fascist, or whatever, in the meantime.

I for one am totally shocked.

I know, right? Surprise! Clearly delusionally biased website is attempt to shit directly into your skull!

Freedom!

BENGHAZ!!!

Agreed inspection called for. Especially if the state called the FDA in.

But, how many inspections and how much product should they be allowed to take/destroy? Without finding anything?


He did end going to trial over something about this. And was found not guilty of everything except for removing a state hold tag on the coolers. Which he admitted too and was fined for.

NOTE: The state health dept. destroyed ~300 gal. of milk in a bulk tank. Without even testing it.

.

Break the law regarding how you store something, and everything gets thrown out of the storage container.


But, again, all of this was litigated on the field of combat from 1861 - 1865, and the confederates lost.

No. County Sheriffs do not have the power to interfere with the Federal Government if and when the Federal Government has jurisdiction over something.

Even when County Sheriff Hero-man McFreedom decides that the Federal Government doesn't have jurisdiction.

 

[Kwatt]

Break the law regarding how you store something, and everything gets thrown out of the storage container.

EDIT
Please disregard my response following the (End Edit) notice.
I confused the case in this thread with this one.
http://www.cornucopia.org/2013/05/dairy-farmer-acquitted-on-three-of-four-charges/
End EDIT

He was not breaking the law on how it was stored.

He removed a hold tag on a cooler inside the building.

He was found not guilty of everything else. Even selling raw milk.
No evidence of contamination was found.

.

 

[MrPickins]

Agreed inspection called for. Especially if the state called the FDA in.

But, how many inspections and how much product should they be allowed to take/destroy? Without finding anything?


He did end going to trial over something about this. And was found not guilty of everything except for removing a state hold tag on the coolers. Which he admitted too and was fined for.

NOTE: The state health dept. destroyed ~300 gal. of milk in a bulk tank. Without even testing it.

.

Link?

 

[nickqt]

He was not breaking the law on how it was stored.

He removed a hold tag on a cooler inside the building.

He was found not guilty of everything else. Even selling raw milk.
No evidence of contamination was found.

.

What was the "hold tag" supposed to be used for?

Why did he remove a "hold tag" on the cooler?

 

[OutHouse]

No. County Sheriffs do not have the power to interfere with the Federal Government if and when the Federal Government has jurisdiction over something.

Even when County Sheriff Hero-man McFreedom decides that the Federal Government doesn't have jurisdiction.

the 10th amendment disagrees with you.

and the supreme court case of Printz v. U.S

Justice Scalia pounds the point home (page 921): “This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty: ‘Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.’. . .” Gregory, 501 U.S. at 458.

the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to police exactly four areas: treason, piracy, treaty violations and counterfeiting.