Wisconson judge rules it's illegal to drink milk from your own cow

Started by Sassy, October 01, 2011, 11:27:14 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Sassy

http://glennkathystroglodytecabin.blogspot.com/

You will know the truth & the truth will set you free

Rob_O

That's going to go over real well in the second largest milk producing state in the US
"Hey Y'all, watch this..."


PEG688



Shouldn't this be in Glenn's under ground cabin thread?    Talk about off topic d*
When in doubt , build it stout with something you know about .

Sassy

http://glennkathystroglodytecabin.blogspot.com/

You will know the truth & the truth will set you free

Homegrown Tomatoes

I'd like to see what happened if the judge was told he can't eat/drink whatever he wants.  Bet that wouldn't go over real well.


Squirl

The judge simply ruled against a summary judgment motion.  Which simply means it goes to trial to be decided by a jury of their peers with a preponderance of the evidence.

The boarder & milker was the plaintiff's in the case. Which means they are the ones instituting the lawsuit.  What is interesting is they argued that the owner's of the cows have the right to do what they want with their milk.  I don't even know how they would have standing to make that argument.  The owners of the cows would. 

The ruling rules that in fact by milking the cows for a third party the farm is subject to dairy laws of pasteurization.  If the owners were milking it themselves or bringing the suit, it would be a different case.

Of course they website lists all the negatives of the order but not the caveat sentence right before it.
"This court is unwilling to declare that there is a fundamental right to consume the food of one's choice without first being presented with significantly more developed arguments on both sides of the issue."

The judge ruled against them because they put forward almost no legal arguments or precedence.  Bad lawyering gets bad rulings. He may still rule for them if they could put together a coherent argument.
What is interesting is this now has to go before a jury of their peers that they have to convince with a preponderance of the evidence their point.  This is in Wisconsin. Their argument is "we are not a dairy and don't have to comply with dairy laws. "  They walk like a duck and talk like a duck and they have to argue to ducks (farmers in Wisconsin) they are not a duck.


peternap

Quote from: Squirl on October 03, 2011, 12:24:58 PM

   Bad lawyering gets bad rulings. 

That pretty much says it all Squirl!
I get sick of trying to correct the "We'll sue" crowd. Litigation is expensive with a good lawyer and without one, you have to overcome an adverse decision in addition to the original problem.
These here is God's finest scupturings! And there ain't no laws for the brave ones! And there ain't no asylums for the crazy ones! And there ain't no churches, except for this right here!

CjAl

Are you a lawyer squirl? Listening to you is like talking to my wife with 30yr leagl secretary/paralegal background.

muldoon

Looks like he rendered that judgment on September 9th, and stepped down on September 30th.  (Likely due to pressure from it).  He is now a lawyer for Monsanto.


http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/%E2%80%98no-food-rights%E2%80%99-judge-quits-to-work-for-monsanto-law-firm/


Sassy

http://glennkathystroglodytecabin.blogspot.com/

You will know the truth & the truth will set you free

Squirl

Many of these conclusions are reasonable assumptions from the view point of outside looking in.

How the industry really works.  The average job Axley  Brynelson for a former judge (who get s to be called "honorable" for the rest of their lives) pays 200-300K, with little to no work.  The vetting process takes a very long time with that kind of salary.  He was applying for or had that job long before the ruling came out.  Denying a plaintiff's summary judgment motion against the government and leaving further briefing has very little significance in the law.  It's known as punting the issue.
A little insight.  A major corporation (M) get sued in W jurisdiction.   Corporation M has their own in house council and international law firms that regularly represent them.  W jurisdiction is not in' M corporations "back yard".  So they need to hire what is known as "local counsel."   Locals counsel's job is to make sure they don't screw up all the little rules of the local fiefdom.  So who is corporation M going to hire?  Well the law firm with the most former judges from W jurisdiction, law firm A.  So the local firm knows all the local rules, the lawyers are former colleagues and friends with the judge, and the judge and former judges at law firm A are going to have to interact on an ongoing bases for the rest of their careers.   This assures that corporation M doesn't do anything to piss off the judge and the judge doesn't do anything to piss off law firm A.  Where else is the judge going to get a job at triple his/her salary without doing any work?  It's known as "peeing in your own pool."  Some people theorize it even helps get a more favorable ruling.

Also the article discusses a second circuit ruling with covers mostly NY and CT, and has  nothing to do with WI.

Native_NM

I finally had time to read the case law associated with this thread.  On the surface, it appears this is another case of out-of-control government.  Digging deeper, it is not. 

First, anyone in Wisconsin who owns a cow can drink unpasteurized [UPM] milk.  This rule does not affect that right.  The court case actually deals with the corporate structure of the entities, and law(s) designed to protect the public.  If you as an individual decide to drink UPM, you bear the consequences alone.  Nothing prevents any of the plaintiffs from buying a cow, keeping it on their land, and drinking UPM. 

In this case, the court determined that the parties had created a a corporation with the intent of circumventing established law designed to protect the public.  The individuals in question did not actually have any real ownership in the herd, and in fact were buying from a dairy.  Under WI law, dairies may not sell UPM.  The Judge's statements in the final ruling are taken slightly out of context when pasted without a full understanding of the case law.

Interestingly enough, many of the same people who defend the farmers are probably the same people who rant and rally against evil bankers and corporations for forming shell corporations or foreign subsidiaries in an attempt to circumvent tax law, environmental law, or working conditions.

To summarize, anyone in WI has the right to drink UPM from a cow they personally own.  This includes a farmer and his family who operate a dairy, and consume UPM incidentally to the sale of pasteurized milk.    People in WI do not have the right to drink UPM from cows they do not own.  This ruling simply clarified clearly that the members of these co-ops did not own the cows.  Quite simple, actually.

http://walworthcountytoday.com/news/2009/sep/19/state-orders-elkhorn-farm-stop-raw-milk-sales-thro/
New Mexico.  Better than regular Mexico.

Squirl

Ok, here may be the more controversial statement:

I think the parents serving the raw milk to their kids and making them sick should be charged with child endangerment. Maybe this will help them wise up. Even with the massive amounts of warnings from almost the entire medical field, all the state and federal laws, and basic common sense, they still insist on giving their kids raw food.  Forcing your children to eat raw hamburger and giving them E-coli would get the same charge.  These parents are going to pretty far lengths to do this too, so intent is pretty well established.  Kids shouldn't have to suffer just because their parents are stupid.