See other Activism Articles
Title: NY Dairy Farmer Turns the Tables When the Ag Inspectors Arrive for a Mystery Visit
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Nov 9, 2007
Author: Unknown
Post Date: 2007-11-09 11:20:47 by innieway
Keywords: None
Views: 485
Comments: 33
Over the last two weeks, Andrea Elliott has been writing emails to farm associations, her Congressman, and members of the U.S. House and Senate agriculture committees-- -all urging that the upcoming farm bill not include funding for the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). She and her husband, Jim, own a dairy farm in the Catskill Mountains of New York, and she made it plain in her notes that she is adamantly opposed to registering the farm's 80 cows under the federal program. Yesterday (Monday) she received a call from an inspector with the New York Department of Food and Markets in Albany that he planned to come by the farm for a special inspection, based on "a complaint" made to the department's Division of Milk Control and Dairy Services. Andrea couldn't imagine who might have complained, and what the complaint might have been about. Her farm, Crystal Brook Farms, sells nearly all its milk to a local creamery for pasteurization. She sells a few gallons of raw milk occasionally to individuals who stop in with their own containers, under New York rules that allow sale of 25 gallons a month without a permit. Today (Tuesday), the inspector, Bradley Lyle Houck, arrived from Albany, two hours away, together with her regular local dairy inspector, and Andrea was prepared. As soon as they arrived, "I turned on my video camera. I think that made them a little uncomfortable. " Then, she says, "I asked the state inspector to fill out my form." Her form is a three-page "public service questionnaire" that asks for the inspector's identity, his principal reason for doing the inspection, how the information he gathers will be used, and other such data. "He shook his head and refused," says Andrea. "He said, 'I have to be authorized by Albany.'" He tried to make a call on his cell phone, but couldn't complete the call because the farm area has no cell reception. Andrea persisted. "I said, This is our property and I can require you to fill it out.'" He offered his state ID and badge. Andrea moved on. "I asked him why he was here and he said a complaint was received in Albany." What was the complaint? "He said he couldn't tell me." Who filed the complaint? "He wouldn't tell me. He just wouldn't go any further. He said all complaints that come into Albany are treated as confidential. " "I asked him what statute allows a complaint to be treated as confidential. He said he couldn't quote a statute." At that point, the inspector asked if they could talk off-camera. Andrea declined. "He said, 'I guess the best thing would be for us to come back another time." The two got back into their car and took off. Andrea adds, "At no time did I deny him the inspection. I didn't ask him to leave. All I did was ask him for specific reasons for the inspection.. .I have a right to know who my accuser is." Andrea seems to have added an entirely new dimension to the agricultural inspection. Especially one with such an intriguing coincidence connecting it to NAIS.
Poster Comment: Here is a prime example of someone KNOWING that we STILL have rights in this country IF you KNOW what they are and HOW TO APPLY THEM. NO ONE BUT YOU can assert your rights!!! Don't be fooled into thinking that assertion of your "rights" is something your lawyer can do for you. YOU must know WHAT they are, and WHEN and HOW to use them to have them. Otherwise, then NO - you DON'T have rights... Here is a very important court decision (which has NOT be repealed) which outlines this perfectly. In US. vs.Johnson (76 Fed Supp. 538), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that: It would probably be a good idea for everyone to have copies of the "public service questionnaire", and be ready to use them. You can download the form here.
"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: innieway (#0)
Fantastic idea.
Her form is a three-page "public service questionnaire" that asks for the inspector's identity, his principal reason for doing the inspection, how the information he gathers will be used, and other such data.
 | “Before Isandwhlana we treated all your wounded men in our hospital. But when you attacked our camp your brethren, our black patients, rose and helped to kill those who had been attending on them. Can any of you advance any reason why I should not kill you?’ One of the younger men, with an intelligent face, asked, “May I speak?’ “Yes.’ “There is a very good reason why you should not kill us. We kill you because it is the custom of the black men. But it isn’t the white man’s custom." |
#2. To: innieway (#0)
NO ONE BUT YOU can assert your rights!!! Don't be fooled into thinking that assertion of your "rights" is something your lawyer can do for you. YOU must know WHAT they are, and WHEN and HOW to use them to have them. Otherwise, then NO - you DON'T have rights... Here is a very important court decision (which has NOT be repealed) which outlines this perfectly. In US. vs.Johnson (76 Fed Supp. 538), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that: "The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT claimant in person." It would probably be a good idea for everyone to have copies of the "public service questionnaire", and be ready to use them. You can download the form here. great post, innie.
Here is a prime example of someone KNOWING that we STILL have rights in this country IF you KNOW what they are and HOW TO APPLY THEM.
#3. To: innieway (#0)
Andrea has both brains and balls. Good on her!
"He said, 'I guess the best thing would be for us to come back another time." The two got back into their car and took off.
#4. To: innieway (#0)
this is a good example of one of these goofy bureaucrats trying to JUSTIFY his job.
#5. To: Fred Mertz (#3)
I like the farmer in VA that sells his raw milk in containers that read...NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION....PET FOOD ONLY... The State is going crazy trying to shut him down.
#6. To: Cynicom (#5)
I remember reading about that one not too long ago with a smile on my face.
#7. To: (#0)
What kind of loser goes to work for the government as an inspector?
#8. To: Cynicom (#5)
That's exactly what we do too. AND we only accept silver. You CAN go to the grocery store and buy a bag of Dog Chow and feed it to your kids if you want to... Once it leaves the store, it's no longer the store's NOR Purina's responsibility what you do with it...
I like the farmer in VA that sells his raw milk in containers that read...NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION....PET FOOD ONLY...
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
Steven Wright
#9. To: Alan Chapman (#7)
What kind of loser goes to work for the government - PERIOD? Apparently there are a lot of losers out there. Government (on all levels) is by FAR the largest employer in this country.
What kind of loser goes to work for the government as an inspector?
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
Steven Wright
#10. To: Fred Mertz (#3)
When you use your brains, it's a lot easier to find your balls...
Andrea has both brains and balls.
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
Steven Wright
#11. To: christine (#4)
CAN'T be done.
this is a good example of one of these goofy bureaucrats trying to JUSTIFY his job.
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
Steven Wright
#12. To: innieway (#9)
Me. I did it for 25 years. Best and worst job I ever had. Not all Gubmint workers are slugs and drones. For every ten "workers" there are at least three burrowcrats that are stiffing the taxpayers.
What kind of loser goes to work for the government - PERIOD?
#13. To: innieway (#0)
Excellent story, form, and information. Thank you.
#14. To: innieway (#9)
Now THAT'S disturbing.
Government (on all levels) is by FAR the largest employer in this country.
From Two Party System... ...to Two Family System.
#15. To: innieway (#11)
I enjoy watching house-flipping shows on TLC and HGTV. I remember one episode in particular in which the house-flipper neglected to obtain a building permit. An employee from the city showed up and told everyone that they would go to jail if they didn't stop working on the house. Every time I read stories like the one in this thread I think of that show.
#16. To: Alan Chapman (#15)
That flip was too big a project for them to blitz in a couple of days - good episode. Mrs.L loves those flipper type shows.
#17. To: Cynicom (#12)
I did it for 25 years. Best and worst job I ever had. OOPS... No offense meant cyni... I suppose I didn't think of all our young men and women in the military either.
Me.
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
Steven Wright
#18. To: Alan Chapman (#15)
Is it just me or is anyone else sick and tired of these perps wanting us to ask permission to take a shit?
I remember one episode in particular in which the house-flipper neglected to obtain a building permit.
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
Steven Wright
#19. To: Cynicom (#12)
Not all Gubmint workers are slugs and drones. Whether or not government employees are nice people is really beside the point. They are paid with plundered loot and they have the power to ruin people's lives.
#20. To: innieway (#0)
Great Post ! That form looks a lot like one my old friend Dan Kelley created years ago. We have a right to know who's who ... and what they think they're doing.
"The mighty are only mighty because we are on our knees. Let us rise!" --Camille Desmoulins
#21. To: innieway (#17)
None taken... I took the job most likely afore you were born. It paid $4000 a year, no health insurance, little life insurance. It did offer job security in that the airline/aviation industry was starting into a post war boom that has never ceased. The pay was so miserable with few benefits that the educated turned up their noses and jobs went begging. After a few years when pay and benefits matched private industry the slicks were knocking at the door wanting in. Again, for every person working there is some burrowcrat stiffing the taxpayers.
No offense meant
#22. To: Alan Chapman (#19)
I suspect I and most of the people here were aware of that quite some time ago.
Whether or not government employees are nice people is really beside the point.
#23. To: noone222 (#20)
It IS very "professionally" done. I suspect that more often than not it would get similar results to Andrea's.
That form looks a lot like one my old friend Dan Kelley created years ago.
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
Steven Wright
#24. To: innieway (#23)
"Politicians"
99 percent of .... give the rest a bad name.
"The mighty are only mighty because we are on our knees. Let us rise!" --Camille Desmoulins
#25. To: innieway (#0)
PUBLIC SERVANT'S QUESTIONAIRE Public Law 93-579 states in part: "The purpose of this Act is to provide certain safeguards for an individual against invasion of personal privacy by requiring Federal agencies... to permit an individual to determine what records pertaining to him are collected, maintained, used, or disseminated by such agencies." The following questions are based upon that act and are necessary in order that this individual may make a reasonable determination concerning divulgence of information to this agency. 1. Name of public servant (please print) ......................................... 2. Residence ...................................................... City .................................. State ..................... Zip ................. 3. Name of department, bureau, or agency by which public servant is employed: ......................................................... supervisor's name ............................................... 4. Department, bureau, or agency 's mailing address.................................... City .......................... State ..................... Zip ................. 5. Did public servant furnish proof of identity? Yes/No ................ 7. What was the nature of proof? ........................................... 6. Will public servant uphold the Constitution of the United States? 7. Does this public servant know what my natural rights are? 8. Will this public servant help protect my natural rights? 9. Does this public servant know the restrictions against government agents and the government in the ten Bill of Rights? 10. Can this public servant know there is no law or rule making which allows him to violate the 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights? 11. Does this public servant know that when he violates 'law' he is liable in his personal and official capacity? 12. Does this public servant know that under Constitutionally guaranteed common law violators of my natural rights may be held liable for damages of my natural rights under the Laws of Nature's God and can be held accountable in the personal and/or official capacity? 13. Will public servant furnish a copy of the law or regulation which authorizes this investigation or request for private information? 14. Will the public servant read aloud the portion of the law authorizing the request for private information? 15. Are the answers to the questions or requests for private information voluntary or mandatory? 16. Are the questions to be asked based upon a specific law/regulation, or are they being used as a discovery process? 17. What other uses may be made of this information? 18. What other agencies may have access to this information? 19. What will be the effect upon me if I should choose not to answer any part or all of these questions or requests for private information? 20. Name of person in government requesting that this investigation or request for private information be made................................................... 21. Is this investigation 'general' or is it 'special'? 22. Have you consulted, questioned, interviewed, or received information from any third party relative to this investigation or request for private information? 23. If so, the identity of such third parties................................................ 24. Do you reasonably anticipate either a civil or criminal action to be initiated or pursued based upon any of the requested information? 25. Is there a file of records, information, or correspondence relating to me being maintained by this agency? If yes, which and how do I identify and obtain a copy of it? 26. Is this agency using any information pertaining to me which was supplied by another agency or government source? 27. If so, please deliver to me a copy of that information. I demand the documents be delivered within 10 days. The very existence of these documents may already be damaging my rights and privacy for which some one needs to be held accountable. 28. Will the public servant guarantee that the information in these files will not be used by any other department other than the one by whom he is employed? If not, why not? If any request for information relating to me is received from any person or agency, you must advise me in writing before releasing such information. Failure to do so may subject you to possible civil or criminal action as provided by the act. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PUBLIC SERVANT'S DECLARATION I (public servant's name here, please print) ............................ declare that the answers I have given to the foregoing questions are complete and correct in every particular. X ____________________________ Date: ________/_________/_____________ Witness:________________________ Witness:__________________________ http://www.svpvril.com/cofe.html#PUBLIC
The U.S. Constitution is no impediment to our form of government.--PJ O'Rourke
#26. To: Alan Chapman (#19)
Or to make certain that the rules are followed equitably.
they have the power to ruin people's lives.
The U.S. Constitution is no impediment to our form of government.--PJ O'Rourke
#27. To: innieway (#0)
The last time I got a ticket was about 17 years ago by a Santa Clara county (i.e. Silicon Valley) deputy sheriff. He began talking to me about why I should get a commercial drivers license and gave a comletely false interpretation of the law. I laughed and told him he could only administer law and not create it. He immediately made a mark on the ticket. He told me that he had noted on the ticket with that single mark that I knew what the law was. I guess that was a warning to traffic court that I understood the law. When a woman I know mouthed off to a highway patrolman, he also made a similar single mark on her ticket that probably indicated she was disrespectful in case she got to traffic court.
The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie
#28. To: DeaconBenjamin (#25)
This content is very similar to the form I linked to. The biggest differences are questions 7 through 12, which are really not necessary anyhow. As I stated in my original comment following the article, YOU are the one that has to know and claim YOUR rights - the public servant who is the subject of this questionnaire CANNOT do it for you. And if you KNOW and ASSERT your rights, and said servant violates them, you have recourse. Why warn them you have that option? They should KNOW THEIR rights! Besides, I kind of like the "look" of the one I linked to - it looks much more "official", and prints out very nicely. (Just scroll down until your Acrobat reader is showing page 3 and choose the option to print only "current page")
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
Steven Wright
#29. To: innieway (#28)
Sorry, I didn't see the jumpcite.
The U.S. Constitution is no impediment to our form of government.--PJ O'Rourke
#30. To: innieway (#0)
A father and son are facing several charges, including feeding garbage to pigs and animal cruelty, following raids on their Carroll County farm where several hogs have tested positive for trichinosis. State agricultural officials face growing concerns about the spread of trichinosis after three Carroll County pigs tested positive for the parasitic disease. Officials from The Department of Agriculture told WJZ's Mike Hellgren that the pigs were from a farm in New Windsor. Carroll Schisler, 60, the farm's owner, and his son, Carroll Schisler Jr., 34, were arrested last week on a 19-count indictment that also included federal charges of operating a slaughterhouse without a license. The arrests followed raids in March and April, in which investigators discovered piles of dead animals and livestock feeding on garbage. At that time, state agriculture officials said a malnourished pig taken from the farm tested positive for trichinosis. Now, officials confirm that three more pigs believed to have wandered from the farm have tested positive. State agricultural officials tell WJZ's Mike Hellgren that garbage consumption may have caused the infection to spread. "There appears to be quite a bit of garbage feeding, particularly on carcasses, and those carcasses may be infected with trichinella, and that's the primary was that it's transmitted," authorities said. Humans and animals contract the disease in the same way - by consuming infected meat. The disease is caused by worm larvae enclosed in capsules. When the encysted worms are consumed in meat, digestive acids in the stomach dissolve the cyst, releasing the worm and allowing it to mature. The matured worms mate, producing more worms which in turn infect more of the body's muscles. Trichinella is diagnosed by a blood test and treated with prescription drugs. It usually goes away even without treatment but can cause death in severe cases. Symptoms range from mild to severe, depending on the number of infectious worms consumed in meat. The first signs of infection are nausea, fever, vomiting, abdominal discomfort, diarrhea and fatigue. Following this, infected persons may experience headaches, fevers, chills, cough, eye swelling, aching joints and muscle pains, itchy skin or diarrhea. Difficulty coordinating movements, heart and breathing problems may plague patients who suffer from a heavy infection. In the most severe cases, trichinella can cause death. Health officials are concerned that Schisler's cruelty towards animals may be causing a spread of the potentially deadly disease. Schisler denies responsibility, telling Eyewitness News , "It could not be a health concern from my farm because I bought the pig in a livestock market where there's a Maryland State Agriculture man in every market I buy out of." "They say about tainted meat and stuff - the animals I buy - if not one else would buy them, they would end up in the grocery store on the meat shelf," Schisler said. Last week, during an exclusive interview Schisler told Eyewitness News he sells live animals to mostly immigrant customers who slaughter them according to their religious beliefs. At that time, a warrant was out for his arrest on animal cruelty charges. Roland Walker, the attorney for the elder Schisler, said his client is free on bond. He also said any diseased pigs on the Schisler farm were infected when they were purchased. "The fact that they have trichinosis doesn't suggest they got it at his place," Walker said. "He's only had some of the pigs for a short time." "I do nothing wrong those animals and to those animals," Schisler said, proclaiming his innocence. In 1990 Schisler was found not guilty of animal cruelty charges, stemming from an investigation into the same property. "I've been being harassed for 16 years about this, " Schisler said, speaking with WJZ's Mike Hellgren . "I've been in court. I've never lost."
I dunno about the facts of this case, but here's why they do it and should do it more.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
#31. To: DeaconBenjamin (#29)
No problem. It's good that you posted it. Others may have missed the link too. Plus this gives people a choice. Either of them will get the job done - IF a person has the desire to do it.
Sorry, I didn't see the jumpcite.
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
Steven Wright
#32. To: DeaconBenjamin (#26)
A government goon is not necessary to ensure compliance with rules.
#33. To: Mekons4 (#30)
Schisler could well be right. Pigs are by FAR the most common carriers of trichinosis. Pigs are horribly nasty creatures that WILL eat just about any vile slop including each others' dead carcasses. I will not eat pork, won't even allow a hog to be on my property. BUT, past that, the situation is entirely different from the article you posted and the one I posted. If inspectors truly have a warrant and a reason to believe there is a serious situation, then they wouldn't have any problem with filling out the questionnaire. Likewise, people that are licensed to engage in some type of "food production" know and understand routine inspections. BUT "mystery inspections" of reputable establishments which are supposedly done because of "complaints" when nothing has changed to cause a complaint is a horse of a different color. It all comes down to individual choice. If you feel a need and trust government to take care of you and look out for your best interests, then they'll certainly be there for you to fill that need. I don't have that need, and don't want it (and won't have it) shoved down my throat.
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
Steven Wright
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest