Making Ripples: post-corporate adventures in Floyd County Virginia

When you see your Government at work - remember to ask if they have warrants

Nevada Health Dept. Shuts Down Gourmet Farm Dinner– “Pour Clorox on the Food”

November 11, 2011

By Augie - cross posted from Journal of Natural Food and Health

Folks, you can’t make this stuff up; although for a moment I thought it was– like an exaggerated satire from The Onion. The health inspector arrived shortly before the guests sat down to chow down–down on the farm. The farm fresh gourmet menu was not fit for the pigs or composting and had to be sanitized with Clorox and put in the garbage. Apparently, the health department inspector is on a mission from God to protect and promote the health of the planet by preventing a potential disease pandemic–even at private dinners on farms. After all, they cut vegetables without state permission, making them a “unlicensed food processor”–among other violations.

During this fiasco, FTCLDF’s General Counsel, Gary Cox, was called and he simply suggested that they apply our fundamental constitutional right to be protected against “unlawful search and seizure.” Gary said to ask two questions.  “Do you have a search warrant?”  “Do you have an arrest warrant?” That put the fear of God into the inspector because she then ran off. Now I would have added one other statement for the inspector: “you may be subjected to personal liabilities with civil and criminal penalties for your actions in the line of public service.” That could have caused a different kind of running off.– Augie

Here is the letter from  Monte and Laura Bledsoe from Quail Hollow Farm (Source: Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund) .

October 24, 2011

Dearest Guests, (You have all become dear to us!)
What an evening we had this last Friday night!  It had all the makings of a really great novel: drama, suspense, anticipation, crisis, heroic efforts, villains and victors, resolution and a happy ending.

The evening was everything I had dreamed and hoped it would be. The weather was perfect, the farm was filled with friends and guests roaming around talking about organic, sustainable farming practices. Our young interns were teaching and sharing their passion for farming and their role in it.  (A high hope for our future!)  The pig didn’t get loose.

Our guests were excited to spend an evening together. The food was prepared exquisitely.  The long dinner table, under the direction of dear friends, was absolutely stunningly beautiful. The music was superb. The stars were bright and life was really good.

Skype and Sensibility

Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned from Estonia which wanted a transparent state when it finally escaped from Soviet socialism.  Can we imagine a country that isn't constantly intervening, nationalizing businesses, placing a bureaucracy above everything and imposing rules on people in every respect?

10/21/2011 

Estonia Lives the European Dream

By Ralf Hoppe and Jan Puhl

DPA

The Estonians, with little debt, an enthusiastic attitude toward Europe and a stoic approach to austerity measures, are a model EU nation in the midst of a crisis. They live in a digital republic defined by a business-friendly atmosphere and government transparency, an image that is attracting European expats.

When a Greek leaves a sunny country filled with olive trees, magnificent beaches and warm sea foam, when he leaves a place where summer lasts for seven months and moves to a country where he is held captive by a seemingly endless winter, it's bound to raise a few questions. Some relate to the country he has left, but his new home raises even more questions. And there is one question that affects both countries: Why is the one society driving people away, while the other draws them in?

More..       

Government Agenda 21 Update: Family Farms Are Under Attack

I read the very first link in this article and I fear for the farmers of Floyd County. Read the proposed rule and see if you agree. There is a lot of what I would call weasel-wording about who this regulation would apply to but once in place there are no safeguards that the DOT would not raise the requirements as they see fit.

Once again, the federal government is extending its reach into areas that are the resonsibility of the state.

The Federal Register

The Daily Journal of the United States Government

Proposed Rule

Regulatory Guidance: Applicability of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations to Operators of Certain Farm Vehicles and Off-Road Agricultural Equipment

---

Government Agenda 21 Update: Family Farms Are Under Attack

Originally posted on July 31, 2011 at 1:07pm by Mike Opelka

In Late May, the DOT proposed a rule change for farm equipment, and if it this allowed to take effect, it will place significant regulatory pressure on small farms and family farms all across America – costing them thousands of dollars and possibly forcing many of them out of business. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), part of the Department of Transportation (DOT), wants new standards that would require all farmers and everyone on the farm to obtain a CDL (Commercial Drivers License) in order to operate any farming equipment. The agency is going to accomplish this by reclassifying all farm vehicles and implements as Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs).

(It is also important to note here that DOT Secretary Ray LaHood holds a seat on the newly created White House Rural Council. A powerful group whose members have ties to George Soros and The Center For American Progress.)

The move by the DOT appears to be “legislation through regulation.” By reclassifying all farm vehicles and implements as Commercial Vehicles, the federal government will now be able to claim regulatory control over the estimated 800,000 farm workers in America, at the same time, overriding the rights of the states.

This proposed change literally means family farms could no longer legally allow young workers, not old enough to drive and seniors who no longer drive on the public streets, to operate a tractor… even on the family’s private property.

Waco, TX television station KXXV has the story:

The proposed change also means ANYONE driving a tractor or operating any piece of motorized farming equipment would be forced to pass the same rigorous tests and fill out the same detailed forms and diaries required of semi-tractor trailer drivers. This reclassification would bury small farms and family farms in regulation and paperwork.

Some of the additional paperwork and regulation required:

• Detailed logs would need to be kept by all drivers – hours worked, miles traveled, etc.
• Vehicles would have to display DOT numbers
• Drivers would need to pass a physical as well as a drug test – every two years.

The Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation (WFBF) is one of many farm organizations not happy about the idea and has sent the DOT a letter expressing this opinion:

“WFBF opposes any change in statue or regulatory authority that would reclassify implements of husbandry or other farm equipment as Commercial Motor Vehicles (CMVs)”

WFBF Director of Governmental Relations Karen Gefvert continues, explaining the excessive cost to farmers if this allowed to move forward:

“The proposed guidance by the FMCSA would result in an initial increased cost to each Wisconsin farmer and employee of $124 just for the CDL license, permit and test; not to mention the time and cost for the behind-the-wheel training that is several thousand dollars.”

Additionally, Illinois farmers believe this regulation will also force new restrictions on trucks used in crop-share hauling. (One estimate claims more than 30% of Illinois farmers utilize shared land.) These crop-share trucks are typically limited-use vehicles that often travel fewer than 3000 miles each year, mainly hauling crops from the fields to nearby grain elevators. To require them to follow the same rules as semis would also mean a farmer would be forced to purchase substantial insurance.

The Hancock Journal-Pilot covered the story:

Earlier this year, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) began to define crop-share tenant farmers as “for-hire“ carriers and implements of husbandry as ”commercial motor vehicles.“ The ”for-hire” designation for crop-share tenant farmers would have a dramatic effect on farmers because it voids exemptions from the Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) program and would require a minimum of $750,000 in insurance coverage for the farmer.

The DOT is holding hearings for public comment on the topic, but only through Monday, August 1st and farmers all across the country are rightfully concerned. No matter what the feedback is from the people who actually grow the food, it appears that the DOT’s mind is made up. Just last week, DOT Administrator Anna Ferro posted an Op-Ed addressing the controversial regulation. The opinion piece closes with this statement:

Everyone in this Administration – from President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Secretary LaHood on down – is committed to the long-term success of America’s agricultural industry. In many ways, agriculture is the backbone of our economy – feeding hundreds of millions of Americans and billions more around the world. As the largest user of freight transportation in the nation, the agricultural industry is also one of USDOT’s most important constituents. We hope that this comment period is the start of a new and productive relationship. We may not ultimately agree on every issue, but we will always listen — and do our best to help America’s farmers succeed.

(A personal aside, when someone tells you, “We may not ultimately agree on every issue, but we will always listen… ” it has always been my experience that they are going to do whatever they wanted to do in the first place. The “listening” was just to make you feel better.)

The FMCSA has said their intent is to create uniformity in how federal safety regulations are carried out across America. The farming community and many of the states that would be affected by this change feel differently. Almost to a man, the farming community believes this to be a local issue, best handled by state governments, and not some Washington DC agency.

To make a comment to the DOT visit – www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the Federal electronic docket site. Or you can fax your comments here 1–202–493–2251.

H/T – All the active Farm Bureaus working to protect their rights and states rights. And to the ever-vigilent “Resist UN Agenda 21” groups (you know who you are)

USDA's real agenda on bunny protection is being brought into view

Out of control agencies have used many animal proxies to justify shutting down American industries and worsen the economy. First it was the snail darter, then it was polar bears and now it is bunnies??

Reposted from Big Government.

More than a month has passed since I published news about out-of-control agents from the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service going after a couple in Nixa, Mo., for selling more than $500 worth of rabbits in a calendar year. Today, I offer an update likely to upset those who’ve been following the case of John and Judy Dollarhite.

On May 24, the Dollarhites were cautiously optimistic about their prospects after the USDA appeared to be rethinking their plan to levy up to $3.9 million in fines after some public attention — via more than a dozen posts here, at Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com and elsewhere as well as notice by Drudge Report and Rush Limbaugh — was cast on the matter. Now, it appears they had good reason to be cautious.

On June 21, I learned from Clay Bowler, the Springfield, Mo., blogger who was first to break the Dollarhite’s story, that the couple had received a foll0wup letter from the USDA. Based on the content of Bowler’s post about the USDA letter which stemmed from his conversation with John Dollarhite, I fired off an inquiry (below) to USDA APHIS Spokesperson David Sacks late that same afternoon:

Dave,

I understand John Dollarhite received a post-inspection letter from the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, offering him a settlement based on a handful of conditions. Thought I haven’t yet seen the letter, I understand it requires the Dollarhites to do the following:

1) Admit USDA has jurisdiction over his animal-raising activities;

2) Refrain from breeding any kind of animals;

3) Refrain from applying for any kind of license under the Animal Welfare Act; and

4) Understand that the charges could be reinstated if any of the above conditions were violated.

After confirming, denying or clarifying the information above, please explain the authority under which USDA officials believe they can issue such an expansive set of requirements and explain how those same officials plan to respond to the huge public outcry that is certain to follow when the contents of the new letter become public.

Sincerely,

Bob McCarty

Sacks responded almost 24 hours later:

 

Hello sir.

Attached, please find the pre-litigation settlement offer that USDA/APHIS sent to Mr. Dollarhite this week. There has been no settlement agreement as of yet, but I can confirm that Mr. Dollarhite has in fact received this offer.

The Animal Welfare Act regulations [found in 9 C.F.R. 4.11] give APHIS the authority to enter a stipulation prior to the issuance of a legal complaint. The involved parties have the flexibility to craft the terms of the settlement. In other words, a settlement can be reached in such a legal matter as long as both parties agree to the settlement.

I don’t like to speculate on the public opinion that may result from our enforcement actions. We at USDA are called upon to enforce the Animal Welfare Act. Our focus is to ensure the welfare of the animals regulated under the Act, and part of our responsibility is to make sure that individuals conducting regulated activities are properly licensed so that we can inspect their animals on a scheduled basis and thus see how those animals are being cared for and handled.

Within the last year, there’s been a push to step up our Animal Welfare Act enforcement efforts, so we set out to do that in the most proficient way possible. However, we realize that it is most wise to step back in some instances and reassess our focus on enhanced enforcement, especially in cases involving first-time violators. After evaluating our original settlement offer, we have now presented Mr. Dollarhite with this alternative. We are hopeful an agreement can be worked out.

Thank you.

Dave

What Sacks referred to as a “pre-litigation settlement offer” in his email is referred to in the document he attached as a “Stipulation Agreement.”

The cover letter for that agreement, which appeared as the first page of the attachment, includes a reminder to the Dollarhites that the agency retains the ability “to impose civil penalties of up to $10,000 for each of the violations documented in our investigation” and informs them that they could still avoid the fines. The Stipulation Agreement, however, contains the “nuts and bolts” of the legalese to which the Dollarhites must agree. 

The first and, perhaps, most interesting stipulation, is that “John Dollarhite must admit that the Secretary (of Agriculture) has jurisdiction in this matter and waive an oral hearing and further procedures.”

While I’m not a lawyer, it strikes me as a sign of weakness on the part of the USDA that such a line is included in the agreement. Are they afraid that they overstepped their bounds in the first place by aggressively pursuing fines against the Dollarhites? Are they afraid of that point becoming a losing issue in future litigation efforts? Seems that way. 

Other terms to which John Dollarhite must consent and agree including the following*:

John Dollarhite must agree not to buy, sell, own, or possess breeding animals. “Breeding animals” include those animals that have not been spayed or neutered and fall under the definition of “animal” contained in the AWA and regulations promulgated thereunder.

John Dollarhite and any partnership, firm, corporation, or other legal entity that he controls or in which he has a substantial interest, financial or otherwise, are permanently disqualified from (a) obtaining an AWA license, and (b) engaging in activities governed by the AWA and regulations issued thereunder, either directly or indirectly, on or off [the Dollarhite's physical address].

John Dollarhite consents and agrees that his failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement shall automatically void paragraph D below, and that APHIS shall have the right to immediately institute enforcement proceedings against John Dollarhite based upon the non-compliant items documented in connection with animal welfare investigation MO09099-AC, and any future violations, and to pursue any and all remedies available to APHIS under the AWA.

For and in consideration of John Dollarhite’s agreements and actions described in paragraph B above, and the promises and admissions of John Dollarhite set forth herein, APHIS agrees not to institute an administrative or civil enforcement action against John Dollarhite in connection with the alleged AWA violations documented in animal welfare investigation MO09099-AC.

*Note: In the paragraphs above, I omitted the specific descriptions of the regulations cited and the Dollarhite’s physical address. To see them, download the Stipulation Agreement.

For folks like the Dollarhites, who used to have a variety of livestock on their property as farmers before moving into the town where they run a computer business, the terms outlined in the stipulation agreement must make it seem as if their onerously close to being asked to sign away their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But they haven’t said much about it.

With the exception of a June 21 status update — “Not happy with the letter that just came in from the USDA” — that appeared on the Facebook group page, USDA Bunny Tyrrany of the Dollarhite Family, John Dollarhite has not commented publicly about the letter. Instead, he’s told me only that he is working with his attorney on the matter.

At this point, I can’t say that I blame him for being more cautious than optimistic.

More to come, I’m sure.

--

A reader made this interesting comment:

I believe there is a bigger agenda going on here.

I went back to the original story, where the Dollarhites had received the shakedown letter from the USDA. It was signed by a "Sarah Conant". A quick google of this individual traces her back to the University of Virginia Law School, where she founded the Virginia Animal Law Society, which is affiliated with the Animal Legal Defense fund. When you check out the Animal Legal Defense Fund, particularly their blog, you will note that these folks are crusaders, determined not just to protect animals from cruelty, but to prevent them from being used as food.

In other words, there is a strong possibility that this is being driven by an animus against traditionally accepted animal husbandry and commerce. The vigilance and heavy-handed methods applied seem to bear this out. Their expressed purpose of trying to get the Dollarhites out of this business, with the threats they have made, seems to bear this out.

 

Read the original article at: Big Government

Our Nanny State is hard at work saving us from selling bunnies

How long before the government busybodies start doing the same in Floyd? Read the whole thing. Forwarded from Andrew Breitbart's Big Government

Family Facing $4 Million in Fines for Selling Bunnies

by Bob McCarty

John Dollarhite and his wife Judy of tiny Nixa, Mo., have been told by the USDA that, by Monday, they must pay a fine exceeding $90,000. If they don’t pay that fine, they could face additional fines of almost $4 million. Why? Because they sold more than $500 worth of bunnies — $4,600 worth to be exact — in a single calendar year.

About six years ago, the Dollarhites wanted to teach their young teenage son responsibility and the value of the dollar. So they rescued a pair of rabbits — one male and one female — and those rabbits did what rabbits do; they reproduced. Before long, things were literally hopping on the three-acre homestead 30 miles south of Springfield, and Dollarvalue Rabbitry was launched as more of a hobby than a business.

“We’d sell ‘em for 10 or 15 dollars a piece,” John said during a phone interview Tuesday afternoon, comparing the venture to a kid running a lemonade stand. In addition, they set up a web site and posted a “Rabbits for Sale” sign in their front yard. Most customers, however, came via word of mouth.

In the early stages, some of the bunnies were raised and sold for their meat. Much further down the road, John said, they determined it more profitable to sell live bunnies at four weeks old than to feed bunnies for 12 weeks and then sell them as meat.

“We started becoming the go-to people” for rabbits in the Springfield area, John said. “If you wanted a rabbit, you’d go to Dollarvalue Rabbitry.” He added that the family even made the local television news just before Easter in 2008 for a report about the care and feeding of “Easter bunnies.”

Initially, the Dollarhites sold the large, white, pink-eyed variety of rabbits. Eventually, however, they switched to selling a couple of different varieties of miniature rabbits, the mating pairs of which were purchased from breeders across the state. Not only did their “show-quality” miniatures reproduce well, but they ate less and seemed to be more popular with theme park visitors and retail buyers.

During the summer of 2009, the Dollarhites bought the rabbitry from their son who had grown tired of managing it. They paid him what he asked for it, $200. Things kept growing, however, and the Dollarhite’s landed a pair of big accounts in 2009.

A well-known Branson theme park, Silver Dollar City, asked the Dollarhites to have them provide four-week-old bunnies per week to their petting zoo May through September. When the bunnies turned six weeks old, they were sold to park visitors. The Springfield location of a national pet store chain, Petland, purchased rabbits from the Dollarhites as well.

In the fall of 2009, the theme park deliveries ended for the year and the Dollarhites scaled back their operation. At about the same time, the folks at Petland asked the Dollarhites to raise guinea pigs that the store would purchase from them. No big deal.

By the year’s end, the Dollarhites had moved approximately 440 rabbits and grossed about $4,600 for a profit of approximately $200 — enough, John said, to provide the family “pocket money” to do things such as eat out at Red Lobster once in a while. That was better than the loss they experienced in 2008.

Then some unexpected matters began demanding their attention.