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.

 

Wisconsin Judge: No Right to Decide What to Eat Without Permission from State

page: 2
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
The original reason the gov't forced pasteurization on the dairy industry was for taxes.

The gov't had no idea how much milk was being produced and sold so they had no idea what the taxes should have been. They forced pasteurization in order to cause every drop to come through a central processing plant where every gallon could be counted and thus taxes paid.

Why doesn't everybody know this?




posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by RisenAngel77
 


It looks to me like the "judge" has been eating the wrong GM food


We need to demand his medical records and determine what medication he been prescribed....

or what he buys on the street corners


He must be a Monsanto Magistrate


and probably was a ritilan kid....





posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
To all,

In the past, I have found it useful to look at original documents if they are available. By following two links from the source in the opening post, I found this. Clarification order
Normally judges don't have to issue clarification orders, but the plaintiffs requested one.

The judge notes that it isn't a very solid argument to say that since women can't be denied abortions or adults can't be banned from watching pornography in their homes, then citizens can't be denied unpasteurized milk.

His final paragraph is worth noting.

"Finally, it is clear from their motion to clarify that the plaintiffs still fail to recognize that they are not merely attempting to enforce their "right" to own a cow and board it at a farm. Instead Plaintiffs operate a dairy farm. (Emphasis added) As this court already said in its decision and order, if Plaintiffs want to continue to operate their dairy farm then they must do so in a way that complies with the laws of Wisconsin."

It seems like the posters are objecting to something the judge hasn't said, and that the judge isn't handing down a crazy opinion.

Charles1952



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
This is the inevitable progression from the drug war. (which I predicted many years ago)
Prohibition is where they declared they have a right over what you do to your own body.
Now you only have a right to eat what the government says you can.

While in this case, the issue is more about a farm not abiding by health guidelines for sale,
this does also bring to mind the FDA's push to ban herbal supplements and such.
It is by no means an event on an island as this judge would like to make it out to be.

It has broader social consequences, though the judge may be too daft to realize it.

edit on 30-9-2011 by pirhanna because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 





I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.


Well I hope you didn't swallow it back down, you'd need permission from the government to do that.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
The Feds under Obama tried that with Gulf oysters in 2009. The people of the Gulf Coast, particularly in Louisiana, threw a fit. A massive emailing campaign toward the FDA and the White House as well as a groundswell of support for the seafood industry made them back down. They backpeddled and shelved the law. The people in Wisconsin should do something similar.

Then again, look what happened to Louisiana the next year. Due to lack of regulation enforcement by the Federal MMS, BP and Halliburton were able to be criminally negligent and, along with many other environmental travesties, destroyed the oyster crop and crippled the industry for years to come. I smell a Skunk Works thread...

But seriously, what a bunch of knuckleheads we have in power these days.

La Oyster link:
www.npr.org...
edit on 30-9-2011 by radosta because: added link



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
I was hoping to see this thread. I found an article about this yesterday.

Its an illegal decision, and needs to be taken to a higher constitutional court.

The Constitution does NOT DEFINE people's rights, they have inalienable rights.

in·al·ien·a·ble/inˈālēənəbəl/
Adjective: Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor: "inalienable human rights"

The constitution renogatiates a select for areas of our infinite rights that the Governments want to intrude on.

Furthermore every person should be standing up on this and many other issues. Most of all do not follow crimes, and this decision is a fascist crime.
edit on 30-9-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)


This may be one of those great opportunities where a ridiculous court decision ends up backfiring on the bad guys and giving people some of their rights back. If it does go to a higher court, they just might end up reversing, and thus fully legalizing, and drawing attention to - people's rights to chug straight outta the udder.

*****Can anyone tell me how to "Flag" a post? I'm fairly new here and haven't figured it out yet. I'd like to flag this one! Also, what are the letters by each person's name, i.e. P 996 (posts?) F 84 (flags?) S 585 (stars?) W 6 (???) K 10 (???)****
APPRECIATE THE ASSIST!

edit on 9/30/2011 by dogstar23 because: I clicked my mouse too soon, sending millions of millivolts of electricity through the interwebs and posting the original post, before I added the edit



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
This is not a new law, it is an enforcement to an already existing law. A law that was put into place to try to help protect the general public from unscrupulous dairy farmers who did not follow basic sanitation procedures.

Do I think people should have the right to consume what ever they choose, damn right I do. But a dairy farm or any other place of business has the responsibility to provide a clean safe product as well. As seen in recent history this is not always the case, it has been proven that without some type of regulation people do not follow sanitation procedures.

I do absolutely despise the fact that this judge seems to think that the government can control what you do on your own property with your own dairy cows, consuming your own product is a lot different than selling it to the public.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by mileysubet
 


That's what really got me about it. I could see not having it just openly sold (though they should work on getting a licensing together to do so, if done properly), but to say the government gets to decide what people eat and drink? If that's truly what he thinks, he should probably rip his own throat out right now.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by SmArTbEaTz
 


Im sure you're going to gain a lot by shooting at some cops for your milk.

I look forward to this article to see if anyone is dumb enough to do it.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
What's next, you can't wipe your own butt without permission from the state? What if you ran out of toilet paper? Is using a newspaper illegal, because it's not a state approved wiping device?



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
There is an effective way to engage in a little payback here. Simply identify the system's own weakness & attack. This paper pushing public service is required to reply to all correspondence, so every time you want to eat something with milk in it you can email or write to the department for clarification on the your legal position. This will create a tsunami of red tape if enough people participate. 200 people sending 2 emails / day would be a good start. Imagine if 1000 people did it. It's been done here in Australia & was very effective. Good luck with it.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
The other issue here, is how out of touch this judge, and many are with the rest of the world. Do you know how many people don't have a choice between raw and pasteurized milk? Many would be happy to have access to either, given extremely poor living conditions.
This is a product of being a spoiled nation. This judge is more concerned with the law(if you even want to call it that) then he is about people even being able to put food/milk in their mouths. Do you think this would be illegal in the many poor and impoverished nations around the world? No, they'd be fighting you for your raw milk.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by CarpenterMatt
 

We've had more experience with it than the Australians, and have your little problem already solved. Send in twenty bazillion letters a day if you'd like. We'll simply hire more and more people to do the mind-numbing work of sending you a form letter, and raise your taxes to pay for them. Government gets bigger, and you get smaller.

Been there, done that.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Smacks of a police state to me. Whats next can't live in your home unless the state approves? When will the citizens of this country stand up to idiots like this judge and have him removed. Sounds like he's on a power trip.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by TreadUpon
The original reason the gov't forced pasteurization on the dairy industry was for taxes.




Interesting I never realized it but it does make sense.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by RisenAngel77
 

Seriously?,is this the kind of crap that you have to put up with in the US? damn it really is time you took your country back.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonegurkha
Smacks of a police state to me. Whats next can't live in your home unless the state approves? When will the citizens of this country stand up to idiots like this judge and have him removed. Sounds like he's on a power trip.


Well, they did prosecute (and convict) someone because he was making coffee in the buff in his own home. Sure, the conviction was eventually overturned; however, he was charged for it in the first place.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Ya right, again try it. What idiot redneck bastages. I will quote again Eric Cartman: "Suck my b*lls"
I will grow what I want and eat what I want



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by martianmallow
What in the hell?



an individual must gain permission from government to consume food.


Since when?

I grow more and more disgusted with our government by the day.

edit on 9/30/2011 by martianmallow because: (no reason given)


Hey did you get permission to grow that




top topics



 
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join