It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WI Judge: No "Fundamental Rights" to own a cow, or consume it's milk.....am I making myself clear

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
www.thecompletepatient.com...

I'm confused.......What do you all think?




posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
I clicked the link in the article, that go's to the official document. This is what I got from it.

The plaintiff was trying to run a dairy farm and sell the milk. and the Court was saying they don't have the right to under those circumstances.

I don't think it applys to a single individual. If it did, it would be pretty damn stupid.

That's what I got from it.

The argument from the judge is pretty jerkish about it tho, i can see the point the plaintiff is trying to make, but the judge specifically wants an exact description with mass details.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   
I believe a company that specializes in Judicial footwear is in order.

Comcrete shoes for the oppressive tyrants seems fitting.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by anumohi
 



Originally posted by anumohi
[E D I T E D]


Is that the country we want for ourselves?

It so happens that he is an ELECTED judge. Rather than advocating his harm for an opinion you don't agree with, support an alternative candidate at the end of his term.

In my view, you're perspective is just as scary, if not more so, than his.



edit on 20-9-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
These stories always avoid giving the details of the original story behind it. Better they tell the whole thing unless they are in fact trying to spin it to make you believe it is something other than what it is. Either way that source made the decision to give no background to explain both sides, making it a bad source even if it is true in some way.

You simply have no way of knowing who is telling the truth unless you know what all the details and evidence are. Jumping on board is a sign that a person cares more about an ideology than truth and is willing to forgo the truth to push an agenda.

Having said that, I think it should be up to the consumer to decide. As far as I'm concerned if a person wants to buy and drink milk that has sat in the sun for two days and smells to high heaven let them.

The government should make them warn you, but if you buy it and it does cause injury it should be your cross to bear. But then those who ignore the law are generally the first to sue. Same people from what I've seen. That tells me you would have to be a bit nuts to sell raw milk now, knowing your customers will turn on you in a heartbeat.

People who are delusional enough to think that pasteurizing milk is a bad thing would likely take everything you own if they get sick. They are not rational to begin with.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by anumohi
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



Do you wish to have everyone you disagree with murdered, or is this judge just special in that way?

edit on Wed 21 Sep 2011 by Hellmutt because: removed quoted post



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
While I think the judge is doing a crappy job of presenting his judgment, or the website is selectively editing what he ruled, I can somewhat extrapolate what is going on here. It appears to me that people are buying dairy cows, lodging them on a farm that provides all the maintenance of that cow, then using its milk. This is being used as a loophole to by-pass a standing law, because they are apparently claiming that the farm is not a dairy farm, and does not have to comply with state regulations regarding dairy farming, when in reality a dairy farm is exactly what it is.

When folks play legal games and use loopholes like this to by-pass standing laws, what ends up happening is stricter laws get enacted on the rest of us, and we end up with silly rulings like this one.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 



That's why your a Mod. Good answer.

Oops, cant do that can I



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
I was pretty sure that the article was exaggerating and spinning the story. No, not at all. Its crystal clear from the actual ruling which is linked to through the link in the OP. The judge was asked for a clarification, and the judge made it crystal clear what he meant with the following ruling:


This court is unwilling to declare that there is a fundamental right to consume the food of one's choice first without first being presented with significantly more developed arguments on both sides of the issue.

The other constitutional claims Plaintiffs put forward in their brief are similarly underdeveloped. As a result, the court denied Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgement, which means the following:

(1) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;
(2) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;
(3) no, Plaintiffs do not have the fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;
(4) no, the Zinniker Plaintiffs' private contract does not fall outside the scope of the State's police power;
(5) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice; and
(6) no, the DATCP did not act in an ulta vires manner because it had jurisdiction to regulate the Zinniker Plaintiff's conduct


Source of the Actual Ruling: www.thecompletepatient.com...

This ruling makes me happy that the courts are finally being honest with them selves that in fact they do not believe in property rights of businesses.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
When folks play legal games and use loopholes like this to by-pass standing laws, what ends up happening is stricter laws get enacted on the rest of us, and we end up with silly rulings like this one.


No, the legal system is not a game. It is a system of enslavement. It is completely acceptable to use the legal system to one's own advantage. The whole purpose of the legal system is for the legal system to be used to people's advantage. For you to say "its wrong to use laws for your own advantage" is ridiculous. The whole point of laws is to use them to your advantage. The "loopholes" as you call them are often there by design and for good reason.

The idea that a judge can arbitrarily rule that someone is using a law "to their unfair advantage" is total chaos.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by anumohi
 



Originally posted by anumohi
[E D I T E D]


Is that the country we want for ourselves?

It so happens that he is an ELECTED judge. Rather than advocating his harm for an opinion you don't agree with, support an alternative candidate at the end of his term.

In my view, you're perspective is just as scary, if not more so, than his.



edit on 20-9-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)

Its the only answer for a system that is so corrupt, that precedence must be established to stop the insanity and thwart people like this man from perusing his OPINION in the name of MONSANTO



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by anumohi
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



Do you wish to have everyone you disagree with murdered, or is this judge just special in that way?

Hes a judge on the take, need i say more ???
edit on Wed 21 Sep 2011 by Hellmutt because: removed quoted post



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by anumohi
 


Um...you do realize your post likely breaks the law and that you could get in a whole lot of trouble for it?



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by anumohi
 


Um...you do realize your post likely breaks the law and that you could get in a whole lot of trouble for it?


BOO WHAA



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by anumohi
 



Originally posted by anumohi
BOO WHAA


Not smart.


edit on 20-9-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by anumohi

Originally posted by KySc5
www.thecompletepatient.com...

I'm confused.......What do you all think?

post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions


The police are federalized and so are the judges. He is reading off a sheet. Next thing they will say is you have no fundamental right to breathe.---------

edit on Wed 21 Sep 2011 by Hellmutt because: removed quoted post



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by anumohi
 



Originally posted by anumohi
BOO WHAA


Not smart.


edit on 20-9-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)

First of all i made no threats to anyone, so that ends the discussion



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by anumohi
 


Whatever.

Perhaps you should really reassess what kind of agent for change you wish to become....

Are you just like what you ridicule and despise? Or do you really offer a meaningful alternative?

Food for thought.


People in this country need to get a grip.

edit on 20-9-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by anumohi
 


Whatever.

Perhaps you should really reassess what kind of agent for change you wish to become....

Are you just like what you ridicule and despise? Or do you really offer a meaningful alternative?

Food for thought.


People in this country need to get a grip.

edit on 20-9-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)


the people in this country had a grip until the judicial system and the government pulled the rug out from everyone. now it is just them against us on our dime


and by the way, we have the the right to stop them by whatever means




top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join