Texas police shut down girls' lemonade stand, demand permit

a reply to: Ashirah

Don't blame Texas.... We don't like our cops either.

It is still a stupid story. Think I'll look for Overton Police FB page and plaster this story all over it with thinly veiled contempt.

a reply to: alienjuggalo

Why there couldn't be a setup similar to garage sales? You call in when you're going to have one and that's that.

Overton is barely Texas. And certainly it sounds nothing like our part of the world. But West Texas is very different from the folks out east. The stuff you see happening in east Tx, like Jasper, just wouldn't fly out here.

Texas is not alone. Massachusetts last winter got massive amounts of snow, and some teens were helping to blow/clear snow off walkways for neighbors, and they were fined. Police said they needed a business license costing around $350.00 to do that kind of work.

This of course also hurt the older people they were working for, as keeping the snow cleared off is mandatory in some areas.

a reply to: alienjuggalo

Better off setting up a donut stand , probably ups the chances of getting away without a ticket.

The girls should set up a page online outlining their plight with the fun police and accept online donations, then splash it all over social media and watch the cash flow in lol I would donate hahah

originally posted by: Domo1
This is not the cops fault really. Blame whoever voted in the people that made the laws. Yeah they could have brushed it off, but that could bite them in the ass with our overly litigious society.

Also, it doesn't even end up affecting them.

The Green sisters say they will set up their lemonade stand this Saturday from 10:00am until 12:00pm. This time, though, they will be accepting donations.

This is a dumb story. There's no victim. No one's rights are being trampled. The cops obeyed the law and people are complaining. It would be unfair to allow anyone to operate without obtaining the permit. Next thing you know it's the seedy taco truck and people are vomiting poop. If the kids had been fined or something I would be pissed at the cops. I'm pretty sure almost every police officer in the world thinks this is a stupid policy, I highly doubt they get a hard on when some jackass reports that the kids don't have a permit.

Your argument is ignorant. Cops pick and choose when to ticket or enforce law. I myself have gotten away with speeding tickets. Why enforce a permit against children. Lemonade day was last month and stands were up in the hundreds in my city. Same permit laws, not one enforcement. Explain the reason to that if cops just follow the law...

Everything is biased. Cops mood, attitude, and biases effects the outcome of every stop or call.

Okay,


First, let the girls know that they did nothing wrong; the system is wrong.

Second, Open the Lemonade stand as before however make a sign that says "Wish lemonade"

Explain to patrons that they wish they could sell the Lemonade for their father's present however the local regulations have stopped them thus they "wish" they could sell the lemonade.

Patrons will still buy the empty cup of non-drink and they will learn a valuable lesson in marketing and make the local LEO feel as they should (Foolish).

It would be best if they put a phone number of the bureacracy that made the regulation phone number on the cup for potential client's comments.

My $0.02 worth


a reply to: alienjuggalo

I shouldn't be surprised by the trolls on this thread...but I actually am.

S&F for the OP. I'm sure the cops and the code enforcer had nothing better to do than to bust up a lemonade stand ran by two little girls. Glad they didn't make any sudden moves or try and pour the cops a cup of lemonade, they may have been tazed. Or worse.

I'm so over this country sometimes. What a ridiculous waste of tax dollars and resources.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
Personally, I would like to know who brought it to the attention of the police. Was it a local convenience store businessman that called it in, since it was cutting into his beverage sales without the requisite expensive licenses and shakedown payout (I mean "taxes")?

Maybe they are trialing their new drone technology,using it to find the high value targets.....

Since lemonade technically must be refrigerated to prevent the growth of bacteria

good enough reason for me.

Just not the same country I grew up in where these kids would be praised, not stifled.

One would think it would be enough that the government is going to be taxing the two of them for the next 80+ years of their lives. But nope! They've got to get them while they're young. There's a life lesson for you:

You have to pay the government for the right to work.

The following post is not something I can claim as my own, although I wish I could. We may know the gist of complex subject and make short concise quips of pertinent logic but it is rare that you come across someone who can quickly and completely breakdown a baffling social conundrum in such eloquent laymen's term. When you do, you just have to get out of the way so as many people as possible can hear it.




posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:17 PM
The video, tragically, perpetuates the gross misunderstanding of what capitalism actually is. It is not enough to expect to be let off the hook by qualifying this corporatism as a "different kind of capitalism" because corporatism is, quite simply, not capitalism. 
There are three basic tenets to capitalism. 
1.) A free and unregulated market place 
2.) Massive competition 
3.) A stable currency backed by wealth where all can agree upon its value. 
Not a single tenet is in play in today's "free and open market". It is yet another tragedy that so many foolishly refer to the economic system in play today as a "free and open market". When some bureaucrat comes knocking on the business door of a sole proprietor who is a shoe maker and demands to see the license that "allows" this sole proprietor to make shoes, it is patently absurd to call this a "free and open market". 
Of course, a sole proprietor is not a corporation. A sole proprietorship is neither legal, nor is it illegal, it is quite simply a business owned by one person, where full responsibility for that business is accepted by the business owner. A corporation, on the other hand, is a legal artifice created specifically to avoid any responsibility for the business itself. 
When these legal artifices are created and their primary purpose of existing as a corporation is to avoid liability, or at the very least, only accept limited liability for the actions of the business it makes sense then that there would become a need for regulation of that business. 
This is a cycle not at all mentioned or acknowledged by this very brief episode featured by the O.P., and that is the cycle of application for a corporate charter in order to obtain limited liability, and once this charter is granted then the process of lobbying legislatures for personhood begins so that corporations may enjoy an equality under the law, even though their very nature creates an inequality, necessarily separating themselves from the sole proprietor who accepts full responsibility. Once this "personhood" is granted, and after the regulatory agencies are created to regulate the artificial person with limited liability, it is only a matter of time when that artificial person demands that the real person become regulated as well...after all, it is only fair and due process of law, that an artificial person be given the same equality under the law that a real person technically enjoys. 
Thus, the corporation that screams for regulation demands that all business is regulated, and stupidly, we the people not only acquiesce to this nonsense, we nod our heads with an affectation of wisdom and call this capitalism and free and open markets. It is, as it always has been and always will be, our fault. As long as we are willing to play fast and loose with words, and accept that words evolve in meaning depending upon our apathy towards them, then we most assuredly get the government,and the economy we deserve. 

The fact of the matter is that because a corporation exists by grant of charter, this means that what has been granted can be revoked. Indeed, states attorney generals revoke corporate charters regularly, they just don't revoke the corporate charters that do the most damage and instead revoke those corporate charters of small to mid-size businesses, that arguably never had any business incorporating to begin with...which leads yet to another aspect of the problem... 

The priest class lawyer set who've bamboozled the public into believing incorporating is a sound business decision. These mystics we call lawyers are, in fact, as officers of the court, not at all representing you, but are representing big government and when they advise you to incorporate what they are in effect telling you is that it is better to ask the state permission to to business than it is to simply do business by right. 

We most assuredly get what we deserve.

That buyer has a choice of many different sellers, and when the competition is massive, this implicitly tells us that the majority of these businesses are too small to affect the aggregate economy if they fail. 
However, under a free and unregulated market, or an open economic system, corporations should have a chance to exist and compete. This complicates matters a bit because a corporation is more likely to grow in size than an sole proprietorship. This complication is not so bad as long as the "personhood" of a corporation is understood to be separate and distinct from the personhood of a real live human being. The corporation, by its nature, requires regulation, but just because that corporation as a "person" is being regulated does not mean it has the right to demand under the guise of equality under the law that real live people become regulated as well. When every body is regulated then we have a regulation of the market. If only the corporations are being regulated, then it is not the market that is being regulated, just corporations. 
The real problem, in my estimation, is not that agencies such as the FDA, EPA, FCC, and SEC exist, nor is it a problem that corporations use their wealth to lobby politicians. The problem lies in the average persons ignorance of the law.

The FDA certainly has jurisdiction over a corporation, and they certainly can find jurisdiction over a licensed business, but whether they have actual jurisdiction, or more correctly subject matter jurisdiction over a natural person who has not applied for any license to do what they do by right is questionable, even dubious, and well worth challenging. 
It is absurd to acquiesce to licensing schemes that have no jurisdiction over a person. A corporation, as a "person" is subject to most jurisdictions regarding regulatory agencies. A natural born person is not necessarily so. If a natural person is not subject to regulation and a regulatory agent begs to differ, then only reasonable response to that agent is; "Oh yeah? Tell that to the tree! I am doing what I am doing by right, Mr. So back the hell off!" Of course, try that today, and Mr. Joe Governmentagent will not back the hell off, and it then becomes necessary to fight this battle in the halls of justice. Here is where it gets real sticky because too many of us have been conditioned that our battles in the halls of justice can only be fought by signing over power of attorney to an officer of the court. The reality is that competent assistance of counsel is always a good idea and most attorneys can be competent, but cannot be competent as long as they are bound by their oath and fealty as an officer of the court.

This means that in order to free an attorney from this oath and fealty an individual should not sign over power of attorney, and handle all legal battles pro per, only using an attorney as competent assistance of counsel. This allows that attorney to help you in the real sense of help instead of help as betrayal.

www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=

Jean Paul Zodeaux
a reply to: fshrrex

originally posted by: Feltrick
a reply to: alienjuggalo

Pretty dang ridiculous! On the flip side....

Someone buys lemonade at the stand, becomes ill and goes to the hospital. They sue the girl's family and, since no permit was issued or laws enforced, they sue the city. Sure, they knew the risk but figured the girls complied with city laws/ordinances.

On another flip side....a man in his twenties sells BBQ without a permit and when he is given a ticket cites the girls lemonade stand as his excuse.

And yet another flip side....

If no permits are required for 8 yr olds, I get my kids to sell hotdogs to raise money for my Chipotle addiction. Hey, you didn't require those other girls, why require mine.

Ridiculous yes but often times the truth is.

I've got another flip side. Everyone involved get some common f**king sense and let these little girls have some innocent fun selling lemonade. This was not a "business" making a thousand dollars a week. It was kids trying to make a little change that they weren't even planning to spend on themselves.

This kind of hits home for me because recently two of my kids (11 & 8) decided to go door to door selling cups of smoothies they made. I thought, sure go ahead, have fun. They will probably come back with a couple bucks to spend on candy, etc. To my surprise they came back with over twenty dollars. I asked what they will spend it on. They responded, "We want to donate it to a charity". I was very proud of them.

This day in age, when a great deal of kids are lazy, selfish brats, it's refreshing to see some kids that appear to be doing the right thing. It should be encouraged, not shut down like an illegal food truck.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Just not the same country I grew up in where these kids would be praised, not stifled.

From all the movies and cartoons i have seen over the years wich play out in US suburbs , you would always see children with a lemonade stand , I find it very iconic.

Also the Children learn how to make money the honest way , they have to do some sort of effort and it teaches a good lesson in how to make money by working for it.

The cops should have said to each other : hey atleast they ain't shoplifting or lighting garbage containers on fire and leave it at that .

a reply to: jtrenthacker

This day in age, when a great deal of kids are lazy, selfish brats, it's refreshing to see some kids that appear to be doing the right thing. It should be encouraged, not shut down like an illegal food truck.

You are right on the money with this my friend , this is exactly how i think about it.

and kinda reminds me how my parents used to have me do a paper round , for a few Gulden ( the Dutch currency before the Euro)

Took me 3 days a week , the money was gone in half a day , but only later they explained to me that they wanted to teach me a lesson that if you want to spend money, you first have to get money by working for it.

This is probably one of the most valued life lessons i have learned , and i probably would be in a less fortunate position if i had not take on this working mentality.

a reply to: lordcomac

Does anyone else remember a time when the officers would have stopped and bought lemonade from the girls?

Yup.

I remember that world.

And you guys always laugh at us old farts when we get all nostalgic about "the good ol' days"...

Pfft.

Heres what they SHOULD have done:

Put up a sign:
"Free Lemonade with KettleCorn"

ALSO

"Crowdfunding for Fathersday
Accepting donations starting at 1$"

a reply to: jtrenthacker

Understand and I don't support shutting down the stand, just providing possible reasons why.

It seems ludicrous to shut down the stand but there are reasons. If a law doesn't apply to all, then it applies to no one. Probably some bureaucrat said that on the way to shut down the stand.