The Bureaucrats Come Calling….
Recounted by Doreen Hannes
After more than five years of full time fighting and agitating for food freedom and the complete abandonment of NAIS or NAIS like things, I finally received a visit from compliance officers. What officers, you ask? They were Missouri Department of Agriculture Compliance Investigators, John Jordan and Joe Stropp.
They came past “No Trespassing” signs, had no paperwork to show me, ie. no written complaint. They were just ‘investigating’ a report that I was engaged in selling meat and poultry products. Well, even though I am not involved in selling meat, it is certainly something I am a strong advocate for, and I told them so. They said, “Do you know there are some exemptions you can apply for to sell poultry directly?”
Eeegads. I thought, “I don’t want an ‘exemption’ because that grants you authority over me anyway.” but I didn’t bother to get into that as I was a little cranky. To the agents, I said, “As you can see, we don’t have enough poultry to be selling to anyone.”
John tried to be engaging, but since I was just eating breakfast at 11:30 after milking my neighbor’s cows so they could have a vacation, I wasn’t feeling too chatty, nor too appreciative of them coming on our property with only business cards and a ‘rumor’.
He tried to talk to me about our dog. I wasn’t interested. He said, “I notice you have dairy goats, do you milk them?” I just looked at him with a certain level of incredulity in my eyes, and asked “Who reported that I was selling meat and poultry products?”
Of course, being good government agents, they can’t give out that information. It could be someone within the department itself. Who knows who it is? Evidently nobody cares. For agency types, it appears that it’s fun to justify continued employment by going onto people’s property to investigate unsubstantiated anonymous rumors with no basis in fact or need of any fact. The philosophy they appear to follow could be stated like this, “Heck, if we have ‘reason to believe’, like you have chickens or a cow or a goat, you can get a visit from us! We’re nice guys, and we are really mindful of our public booty…I mean duty.” Great use of taxpayer money, don’t you think?
John said something like ‘we’re simply given a list of things to do and not making the decisions”, but they had to investigate reports of activity that might violate regulations. I told him, “We grow our own meat, and as you can see, we don’t have enough chickens to engage in selling them, but even if we did, it would be direct trade and you don’t have authority over that.” And thus ensued the only interesting conversation we had… the ever so enlightening conversation regarding commerce.
John told me that “commerce is whenever you sell something”. Then I explained to him that wasn’t right, commerce is when you bring in a third party, and gave the example of taking calves to a sale barn as fulfilling the requirements of commerce, but if I sold calves to my neighbor, that wasn’t commerce. Joe said, “I think that’s right. It’s private treaty or something.” Then John told me it all depended upon the definitions, and I said, “Yes, and the definition of commerce includes the involvement of a third party.” I think that aggravated John as he then asked, “Is there anything else we don’t know that you’d like to tell us?”, to which I replied, “I don’t know what you don’t know.”
They then said, “Well if you’re not selling meat then I guess we’ll get on with our day,” and I said good bye to the compliance officers.
Since I am who I am, I have a few thoughts on this. The first one is, in the past couple of weeks I have received several phone calls asking for fresh goat milk. I stopped selling goat milk when I became terrifically engaged in the National Animal Identification System fight. It was just not worth the potential hassle for the little bit I sold. However, every time the Milk Board is about to do a sting, I receive requests from far away for goat milk. Within a few months people are receiving mailed notices of fines or cease and desist letters in the mail. So, I would expect some activity in the near future on fresh milk in Missouri. Based on the visit today, we should begin to expect visits to any food activist who grows anything agencies might decide they can extrapolate authority over.
And I hadn’t even been able to get into the shower when they showed up. Poor guys, got to see evidence of work on a very hot August morning….I wasn’t even hospitable to them. Shame on me, I let them stand in the sun.
[Remmber folks, what you say can and will be used against you by the government in a court of law. Be very, very careful talking with any government officials that show up at your door, especially those impolite enough to trespass. -WJ]
All I can say is you done good man! People trying to intimidate you, don’t stand a chance! Bet you smelled real good too!!!
Comment Arlene — August 5, 2010 @ 3:37 pm
In the mean time, how many meth labs were making their poison and selling it to the youth in that area? How many children were being abused by sex offenders? How many drug deals were going down?
I was wondering did you give them the Pubic Servant Questionaire to fill out? Could they be getting ready to do a sting of some sort. Have you called your local newspaper or tv news to let them know what’s up?
Comment esbee — August 5, 2010 @ 7:14 pm
I’m ‘gathering’ information at this point. Unfortunately, I didn’t give them the PSQ. The copies were not where I had left them.
This is going to be addressed by many…Stay tuned. BTW, we don’t have any local tv. I’d have to write it for local papers, and will when I have a little more, but they are a dicey proposition.
I am a regular guest on The Power Hour now, and will be on Monday August 9th from 9-10 Central. We’ll be discussing this and raids that are happening all over the nation Monday.
Thanks all!
Comment Doreen — August 6, 2010 @ 5:15 am
Doreen,
Is there a link to that definition of commerce?
Comment Barbara — August 7, 2010 @ 4:07 pm
I have a relative in local/state government working with zoning and rural planning. She has told me before that she is legally and ethically barred from filing complaints, reporting violations, investigating or assessing fines on certain things when she sees them occurring on private property, even if she can see them from the roadway while casually driving by, in at least some situations (such as trees being cut down on commercial property without a permit, but I don’t know what else specifically), but rather has to wait until the violations are reported by a member of the general public. I wonder if DOA agents are also not allowed to do this sort of thing… Not saying that they might not have been skirting the law and professional ethics here or in similar situations, I just wonder what their actual, by-the-book policy is on reporting and investigating such potential violations.
Comment Rachael — August 7, 2010 @ 11:37 pm
answer to #5–those officials probably get around the public reporting an offense by having someone in the know or in the pocket “file” a complaint…
Comment esbee — August 8, 2010 @ 7:22 pm
I don’t have the link any longer. That was something I ran across a hundred years ago in the early days of NAIS. A couple of computers ago anyway!
However, what Ifound in researching things on this visit was this in 9CFR:
http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/381-1-definitions-19611982
Commerce. Commerce means commerce between any State, any territory, or the District of Columbia, and any place outside thereof; or within any territory not organized with a legislative body, or the District of Columbia.
Read more: http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/381-1-definitions-19611982#ixzz0vnJh1JzV
Which is really somewhat more intriguing as it seems the we, as people, not being states, territories or DC or a ‘place’ would be incapable of participating in commerce…However, should we receive PIN’s, or sell to one of the delineated ‘places’, like school lunch programs, it seems we might be capable of achieving commerce by the applicable definition in this section of the CFR.
It sure as heck is interesting. And I am waiting on the protocol on the Dept of Ag complaints. It would seem that there should be constraints on public servants though.
Sorry about the html…
Comment Doreen — August 10, 2010 @ 12:55 pm
Re: Commerce..there is a new book out by attorney Jacob Huebert…titled: Libertarianism Today…you can read Dr. Walter Block’s review of it at: lewrockwell.com/block/block163.html In it, he refers to Chapter 8 covering such things as “The Commerce Clause”…Due Process, etc. Dr. Block is very high on this book and its author…his review is posted at lewrockwell today.Maybe even contact attorney Huebert himself with your question…on commerce.
Comment The Phantom — August 10, 2010 @ 2:22 pm
Doreen’s article is at newswithviews.com today…and another article goes along with it’s theme…it is by J.B. Williams re: our “Public Servants”…do you know how much money (salaries) our Congress people make…that is known? He tells you. Also, there is a commentary re: the U.S. and Russia joining together on a joint task…I found the information from an American high ranking military person of interest…and in this commentary…there is mention of Hillary Clinton and an international….something…re: gun control….I am becoming aware of how all these bills that are passing through Congress…like the food safety bill…health care…etc…always have ominous things “hidden” in them…I really do not understand how they get away with so much deceit…guess they all think we are all really at a 6th grade level…
Comment The Phantom — August 11, 2010 @ 4:32 am
Here’s another thought about commerce. If a horse crosses a state line, but does not change ownership, how is that commerce? Doesn’t commerce require that something be sold?
Comment Barbara — August 19, 2010 @ 5:32 am
Walter, you should do a post about the infamous “Commerce Clause” and the case of Wickard v. Filburn heard before the Supreme Court. ALL farmers, gardeners, pet owners and the general population need to be aware of this travesty of justice.
What is the Commerce Clause and Why is it Important?
“Wickard was a wheat farmer in Illinois and Filburn was the Secretary of Agriculture. In order to maintain wheat prices, Congress had instituted price supports for Wheat markets, along with quotas for growing wheat. Wickard was not only growing wheat for market, but he also grew an extra acre of wheat to harvest to give to his wife to grind into flour to make bread for the Wickard family. The Department of Agriculture, tasked to enforce the wheat quotas, asserted that the acre of wheat Wickard grew for his family was a violation of the quotas.
Wickard sued. The Department of Agriculture claimed that Congress had commerce clause authority under the Constitution to prohibit Wickard’s practice of growing wheat for his family. Even though it was admitted that the wheat Wickard grew for his family never left the farm, the Department of Agriculture claimed that this practice affected interstate commerce. If Wickard had not given this wheat to his wife, the government argued, it might have traveled across a state line and could have affected interstate commerce. Further, the government argued, if Wickard had not given farm-grown wheat to his wife to feed the family, his wife would have bought bread at the store – bread that might have crossed a state line and might have affected interstate commerce.
Thus, the government argued, Congress had sufficient constitutional authority under the commerce clause to impose the wheat quotas on Wickard and prohibit him from growing extra wheat to feed his family.
…the [Supreme] Court upheld the government’s arguments in Wickard, thereby dramatically expanding the power of Congress to “regulate commerce … among the states.””
As you can see the clause in the bill HR875
“in any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction SHALL BE PRESUMED TO EXIST.”
means ALL growing of food even that grown on you own land and consumed by your family could be regulated if this clause is added to a food safety bill.
In the case of the Animal Welfare Act the clause was added as an amendment several years later. That is the danger with ANY law and the infamous “Commerce Clause”
Comment Snazy snezy — September 1, 2010 @ 9:22 pm