WI Judge to Zinniker, FTCLDF: No "Fundamental Right" to Own a Cow, or Consume Its Milk...Am I Making Myself Clear?

Judge Patrick J. FiedlerThose raw milk proponents advocating "teach, teach, teach" may want to enroll Wisconsin Judge Patrick J. Fiedler in their first class--in the kindergarten section.

In response to a request from the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, the judge issued a clarification of his decision last week regarding his assessment of the constitutionality of food rights. The judge expanded on his original statement that such constitutional issues are "wholly without merit."

He explained that the FTCLDF arguments were "extremely underdeveloped." As an example, he said the plaintiffs' use of the Roe v Wade abortion rights case as a precedent does "not explain why a woman's right to have an abortion translates to a right to consume unpasteurized milk...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." Gee, I thought they both had to do with the right to decide what to do with your own body.

As if to show how pissed he was at being questioned, he said his decision translates further that "no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;

"no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;"

And in a kind of exclamation point, he added this to his list of no-nos: "no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice..."

You have to wonder if maybe even the regulators are getting a tad uncomfortable with the rulings coming from the nation's judiciary on food rights. Many of these individuals, biased as they are against raw milk, dabble in farming to some extent, or grew up on farms. This judge has gone way beyond what many of them have come to assume--that everyone has the right to own a cow and consume its milk Even in places that ban raw milk sales, there's nearly always a provision in state law that anyone who owns a cow has the right to consume its milk.

It seems Judge Fiedler is saying it's not a "fundamental right," but rather a right granted us by the state.

According to the judge's interpretation of Wisconsin law under the original decision, only "a license holder" or an individual "who has a bona fide ownership interest in the milk producer" can make milk available. The judge added in this new interpretation: "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."

Is it safe to say that under the judge's interpretation, anyone who owns a cow operates a dairy farm? I don't think I want the judge's answer to that question. If you live in Wisconsin, it seems you have only one remaining choice, a highly personal choice, if you truly do believe you have certain "fundamental rights."

***

At long last, a major media outlet is giving credence to European studies suggesting that raw milk reduces the incidence of asthma and allergies in children. (This is a followup study indicating that it's a protein killed in pasteurization that provides the allergies/asthma protection.) Yes. Fox News plays up all the warnings about raw milk's dangers, but discerning consumers will get the message. If the scientific research says it's good, and the FDA and CDC say it's bad, well, it must be good.

good analysis david.

"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." "no, Plaintiffs to not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd; "no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;"

When people in "high places" say such stupid things, their words need to be broadcasted verbatim to the masses.

teaching is very important, it is also important to tell what all the responses are. People need to understand what these laws and the new laws that are being shoved onto them means to them as an individual...

OT: http://sanevax.org/sane-vax-inc-reports-human-papillomavirus-hpv-dna-contamination-in-gardasil-to-fda-requests-public-safety-investigation/

There is no doubt that the HPV DNA found in the vaccine represents an adventitious agent left over from the DNA recombinant manufacturing process with potential adverse impacts on health safety of those vaccinated. "

Perhaps saying the vaccine causes retardation was not the correct term of what it does cause?

Perhaps Gary Cox could comment on the difference between a legal person and a natural person, and how the law is required/designed to treat the two entities.

We have allowed our systems to blur the distinction--now to the point that even judges see men ONLY as artificial, legal entities. Judge Fiedlers words provide the evidence. Not only the right to come to agreement with ones neighbor is now considered illegal, but even the right to eat one's own home-grown food may soon be usurped.

Legal persons, created by the state, may very well be prevented by their creator from eating home-grown food without a license, or even from eating home-grown food at all. States, after all, naturally migrate toward totalitarianism, and people, lazy and bribed with state-provided benefits, have historically been extremely lax about controlling their controllers. Nevertheless this is still America, where natural men have their natural rights guaranteed by their Constitution, at least to the degree they assert those rights.

Judges must be made to understand that natural men cannot be tethered by state-authored rules made for legal creations. Educating judges (and legislators, and bureaucrats, and regular citizens) is accomplished best when natural men firmly asserting their rights, even when the act of asserting them is punished by misguided, powerful statists.

ARGH. Reading this judge's words makes me so angry.

Correct me if I am wrong but why is no one talking about the 9th Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Does our Constitution limit our ability to "eat the food of our choice", or to "own a cow and drink it's milk"? NO! Therefore since it is not an enumerated right, isn't it inherently our right according to the very law of our land? I don't recall seeing this argument anywhere.

<side note> @Mary Martin -- I am an avid drinker and supporter of raw milk, but I have been waiting on pins and needles for each new installment of Chris' story. Thank you for sharing your experiences with us. I have learned so much already!

@David -- I love this blog -- thank you for all your research and hard work.

Nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. Albert Einstein.

The judge is manipulating the law, in an attempt to legitimize a regulation in order to give bureaucratic regulators greater enforcement clout. His decisions is one done out of desperation in an attempt to shore up the crumbling integrity of the system and to quell a public that has chosen to defy with increasing boldness any and all attempts to prevent them from acquiring the foods of their choice.

These bureaucrats cant think any further ahead then their controlling noses.

Ken Conrad

Have we read and do we understand the judge's ruling in this case?

As corporations and legal fictions, we do not have "fundamental rights".

"Fundamental rights" are reserved for flesh and blood human beings.

When we act and contract in ways that define us as legal fictions we are bound to the terms of the contract and the statutes and rules that regulate them.

If you haven't, read my analysis of this case here:
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2011/9/6/state-regulators-can-do-no-wrong-wi-judge-rules-in-favor-of.html?currentPage=2#comments

ONLY when we act as natural persons will the statutes be unable to touch us. One does not act as a natural person when one hires an attorney. An attorney is a court-sanctioned "representative" of the legal person.

It would do this movement good to stop relying on attorneys and for us to start understanding the intricacies of the statutes and rules ourselves.

Judge Fiedler writes:

"The court stands by its decision and order and continues to believe that the Plaintiffs' constitutional claims are 'wholly without merit' because they are extremely underdeveloped."

"...extremely underdeveloped."

The quote below is from the Wisconsin Parents Association (WPA) webpage, a homeschooling organization. Please keep in mind that the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) is the organization after which FTCLDF was patterned.

"Please share this information with others. People need to know that following the Home School Legal Defense Associations (HSLDAs) counsel is dangerous to individuals and to all homeschoolers. You may understand the importance of filing the form correctly and maintaining our good homeschooling law, but not all homeschoolers do. Tell them and support WPA.

"Despite the fact that the homeschooling form PI-1206 has worked well for 27 years, HSLDA is counseling Wisconsin homeschoolers to change their filing in ways that would undoubtedly result in individual families being charged with truancy and in court cases and/or legislation that could lead to greater regulation of homeschooling in Wisconsin."
http://issues.homeschooling-wpa.org/2011/09/your-help-is-needed-to-counter-a-new-threat-from-hslda.html

Bad legal advice, court cases and potentially more regulation? Sounds familiar...

Interestingly, this is a comment from a woman named Wendy Jensen on WPA's Facebook page:
"Over the years, I've watched HSLDA go downhill - especially when they introduced federal legislation to 'define' homeschooling, among other things. In addition, every state HSLDA has gotten involved in hs legal issues, they have ruined the laws - those states have THE WORST hs laws in the Nation. Perhaps HSLDA started out on the right foot, with right intentions. But honestly, what I observe from their words and actions, I see a love of money as the root of it all. It's not really about what is best for homeschoolers anymore."

And again, from WPA's webpage, linked above:
"This incorrect information is coming from outside agitators, that is, from a national homeschooling organization not based in Wisconsin. According to the HSLDA Web site, Scott Woodruff, the HSLDA attorney responsible for Wisconsin, is not licensed to practice law in Wisconsin, does not live in Wisconsin, has no known attachment to Wisconsin, and, like other HSDLA staff members, does not live under Wisconsin laws."

The principle lawyers for FTCLDF do not live in Wisconsin and are not licensed to practice law in Wisconsin.

Perhaps we should see these as words of warning?

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/health/2011/09/15/2011-09-15_dr_ozs_arsenic_in_apple_juice_claim_doesnt_hold_water_fda_says.html?r=news

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2011/09/15/dr-besser-vs-dr-oz-apple-juice-showdown-on-gma/

http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/dr-oz-investigates-arsenic-apple-juice

Dr. Oz is getting flack for stating arsenic in apple juice and over 60% from china......You go Dr Oz! he is well liked, it will be hard for tptb to smear him.

In a sense this is what advocates are up against. You buck the system, be prepared to fight.

September 15, 2006

It was so wonderful to be in a real hospital. My anxiety level dropped dramatically knowing Chris was being medically cared for by a group of nurses and doctors who were extremely on top of things. This is how I envisioned a PICU should be. Not the MASH unit we had just left.

We had long talks with the attending physician (the top doctor who makes all the calls in the PICU) and with one of the 3 nephrologists who would be caring for Chris over the next 5 weeks. There was lots of confusion about why Chris wasnt sent directly to LLUCH first. They have always had a great working relationship with our HMO and over the past 20 years all of their HUS patients had been sent to this PICU. Later we discovered that a few years back, our HMO no longer contracted with LLUCH.

This was the day Chris diagnosis was changed to from Shigella to E.coi 0157:H7. There were two reasons his diagnosis changed. First, Shigella/HUS is a diagnosis that happens in 3rd world countries, not the US. Second, Lauren Herzog had been at LLUCH for two days. She is the other girl that drank raw milk and developed an E.coi. 0157:H7 infection which turned into HUS. Confidentiality prevented the doctors from sharing this information with us. Unbeknownst to us, there was another child ill with HUS and she also drank the same brand of raw milk. I also told the doctors that Chris had eaten spinach.

The nephrologist explained how the Shiga toxins would march though his body doing damage and their job at LLUCH was to assist Chris body until it could work again on its own. The timeframe for the Shiga toxins do be finished wreaking havoc was 10-14 days. He was diagnosed on the 11th, so this was his 4th day. We had a ways to go.

We also discussed the antibiotic he was given. The nephrologist printed out two research studies for us to read. He told us the research wasnt conclusive on the subject. He was trying to help us put things into perspective. We were so angry about the antibiotic being given and then experiencing 3 days of hell at that PICU. We had already experienced so much trauma and it was only day only day 8 in the hospital. It felt like I had already aged 10 years.

We learned all the medical lingo and what numbers should be improving for Chris. We passed the hours waiting for lab results. Everything was computerized, so information was instant. I kept track of important information in the binder. As each day blended into the next, it was difficult to remember all medications and everything that was done to him. As time passed, it was used as a resource for quick information and review. There were 3 attending physicians, 3 nephrologists, different nurses (day and night shift) dialysis nurses, and soon to be many more added to the list of people caring for him.

As the day progressed, Chris started turning for the worse. He received dialysis and another blood transfusion. He had dry heaves all day long and was in pain. He was completely exhausted. His breathing was becoming more labored and his heart rate began to slowly increase.

By late evening, Chris was not doing well. He was going into crisis. At around 1:00 a.m. a large team of doctors came into the room. Remember what the nurse told me the day Chris was diagnosed with HUS? If 10 doctors come in the room, it is not good.

(Note: 5 years post HUS, I now know this was the pivotal stage in Chris illness. This is when kids die from heart failure or have strokes and their brain dies. This is what the nephrologist meant when she told us things would get worse before they get better.)

On a brighter note....

Raw Milk was just given a huge boost this week by the publishing of the "GABRIELA" EU Raw Milk Study. Now the FDA has a serious challenge. Two huge EU studies, both peer reviewed and both internationally published, both confirming that raw milk ( not boiled farm milk but real raw milk this time ) is highly effective to protect and heal asthma, allergies and ecxema.

Thank you David for the reference above...here is the actual published study.

http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(11)01234-6/abstract

They were able to isolate the actual whey proteins and other elements that stabilize MAST cells and cause the positive effect.

Guaranteed a Pharma drug company will attempt to create a new drug from this.

The good news is that it will have to be a "raw drug" and there are very few of those arround....a raw drug is called "RAW MILK". No faking it...the study also pointed out that proteins were changed by heat and that was a cause of allergies etc...

Mark

(Reposted from David's Prior blog entry . . . I have been really busy these last few days and have been offline)

Better late than never so here goes . . .

My brush with Salmonella (it is in the gastrointestinal tract of ruminants and poultry . . . can live for a long time in the soil but is sensitive to UV light . . . . my animals have been strip tested repeatedly for this pathogen . . . so far nothing has shown up on our farm . . . I believe it is related to confinement of livestock and unsanitary conditions) was my husband's illness with it when he was a college student . . . he was hospitalized and was very, very sick with it . . . as a farmer, that is why I am so fond of testing for it . . .for DH's peace of mind . . . .

Several years ago I took my first batch of home raised (from egg, chick to adult) roosters to a USDA processing facility for poultry in New Market, VA.

The manager regretfully decided to take my birds in (he dealt with mostly egg layers from CAFO farms) and informed me that my birds would be tested for all kinds of diseases (including Salmonella) and if any of our birds were sick or carried anything . . . the entire lot would be destroyed.

I dropped off my birds the night before in a home built cage and came back the next day after a sleepless night to a beaming manager who literally ran down the steps to meet me and my four year old son. . . he said that my birds were the healthiest he had ever seen in all the years that he had been an inspector . . . no salmonella or any other pathogens found. He handed me two iced boxes with my birds and told me to bring more any time . . . I think I paid 99 cents each for processing. These were a heritage breed . . . not a cornish X and were raised freely on pasture and garden scraps with minimal grain.

Fast forward 8 years later . . . to a small farm that we purchased a little over 5 years ago in Maine . . .

Our healthy pasture raised heritage poultry is now highly regarded . . . and are sold to some of the best restaurants in Maine . . as well as some very dedicated customers. . . I now sell out of nearly all of my produce . . . and everyone can't wait for our first State Inspected Lamb cuts from our Icelandic sheep. . . . this is called "QUALITY" with no certifications what-so-ever needed . . . .Like Salatin . . . we have an open door policy on our farm . . . and have a licensed farm store.

I have been called in as a witness in the past for animal rights cases due to my own approach to husbandry . . . so I don't fear animal rights activists . . .my own vet calls our farm the "Club Med For Sheep" . . . so no worries here:)

As a farmer . . . you have to care for your customers . . .and your livestock equally . . .that is what the Local Food Movement should be all about . . .

Just this past year, I have had shepherds calling me now for advice (been raising Icelandic sheep now for nearly six years and have not had a death yet from parasites or diseases) . . .from all over the country due to my own approach to husbandry . . . and I try to help them the best that I can . . . that is what TEACHING is all about.

I am a farmer who chooses to consume raw milk from an excellent licensed dairy . . . that choice is something I am willing to fight for . . . not only as a farmer . . . but as a consumer . . .

Kind regards,

Violet
www.kilbyridgefarmmaine.blogspot.com

After thinking about the judges ruling and after digesting the FDA position on ...."no foundational right to health or specific foods", perhaps we are viewing this all backwards.

Maybe a reverse approach would work better.

Perhaps instead of claiming raw milk is essential and a right, perhaps we should reverse the argument and start claiming we have a right to refuse to eat foods that cause illness. One look at the top of the most allergenic foods in America shows pasteurized milk....nmero UNO. A judge may look more kindly if a lawsuit was all about our right to refuse a food that is scientifically proven to be illness producing.

Then....provide the PARSIFAL and the new GABRIELA study as proof that raw milk is not illness producing. Then you can defend your right to health.

I can not find anything in our constitution about food. So the judge is correct in a narrow and uncreative sort of way. When judges are forced to be creative we are asking for problems. We need to provide judges with choices that they can make and be politically correct. They are spineless. They like their jobs....another American weakness.

This is the exact wording in the manuscript describing conclusions from the GABRIELA study:

"The long-term solution to the asthma epidemic is thought to be prevention and not treatment of established disease and nutritional interventions might represent an interesting avenue. However, on the basis of current knowledge, raw milk consumption cannot be recommended because it might contain pathogens. Once the mechanisms underlying the protective farm milk effect are better understood, ways of processing and preserving a safe and preventive milk can be developed."

Link to the online abstract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21875744

MW

Interesting . . .

http://host.madison.com/news/local/crime_and_courts/article_f25f22b3-4a89-50e3-8d32-06da1adb92f2.html

Looks like the judge in hearing this case in going back into private practice . . . .

But I am pondering this and I have to agree with the Judge on this:

As an example, he said the plaintiffs' use of the Roe v Wade abortion rights case as a precedent does "not explain why a woman's right to have an abortion translates to a right to consume unpasteurized milk...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."

David, I respectfully disagree with you here . . .a woman's right to an abortion has absolutely nothing to do with the fundamental right to consume raw milk . . .I think this argument just ticked off a conservative judge who really liked to rule on Criminal cases . . . life and death so to speak . . . I sensed this from reading his bio . . . I think the FTCLDF pushed the wrong buttons yet again. . . . and they should have argued this case differently . . .which is why they lost . . .

I was hoping that the Law Firm he was going to had Big Ag clients to brag about . . . this does not seem to be the case . . .but correct me if I am wrong . . .

Kind regards,

Violet
www.kilbyridgefarmmaine.blogspot.com

"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 way I understand this statement is that the judge is saying I don't have any right to consume whatever I want. He is asking for arguments from both sides of the issue.

I don't see where there is anything to argue about... I eat what I choose, what is so difficult about that?

Abortion rights is a touchy subject for many and many are biased on this issue. If the judge is saying I have no right to consume raw milk, then who gives drug addicts, alcoholics, smokers or those who participate in risky things the right to do them? Who gave the judge or anyone the power to dictate what I consume? Eating processed foods, taking medications can be dangerous.

"This is the exact wording in the manuscript describing conclusions from the GABRIELA study:"

MW

Your link said the same as Marks link.... Please post where the study stated what you posted....

Mark said:
"I can not find anything in our constitution about food."

This is precisely why this right is our own! If it's not enumerated in the Constitution or in our laws, the right is inherently our own! Why is this argument not being raised? Why doesn't the FTCLDF use this argument rather than an extremely hot-button abortion/privacy argument?

Our Federal government is supposed to have limited power, and what is not spelled out under our laws is supposed to be reserved for WE THE PEOPLE.

I would really like to know why nobody is taking this avenue to argue for food rights.

Alice

Alice,

This is a state issue, not a federal issue.

Please try to understand the difference between natural person and legal person. You as a natural person have rights, but you as a legal person only have the "rights" that the state tells you that you can have. If your mother registered a birth certificate for you, took out a Social Security Number for you, if you have a driver's license, if you are using Federal Reserve Notes as currency, etc., you are acting as a legal person.

In the cases presented here of the Zinnickers and Craigs, they (and their farmshare members) are acting as legal persons under contract with the state, and thus only have the "rights" enumerated in the contract with the state.

The federal government and all state governments and their agencies are private corporations, not public institutions, and as a legal person you are their property.

"State Of Wisconsin in Madison, WI is a private company categorized under Legislative Bodies, State Government."
http://www.manta.com/c/mm80nhv/state-of-wisconsin

"Congress, United States in Washington, DC is a private company categorized under Legislative Assemblies."
http://www.manta.com/c/mm3v4pf/congress-united-states

"United States Marine Corps in Frederick, MD is a private company categorized under Marine Corps."
http://www.manta.com/c/mmd4m1x/united-states-marine-corps

We may not like this, but we need to understand the statutes as they are currently written while we work to make the necessary changes (if that's what we want). We will never win if we continue to participate on their playing field without understanding the rules. We will lose every case if we think otherwise.

If we participate in the System, we give the System jurisdiction over us. Thus, the best participation is NO participation.

From the above post, it is not clear to me how Wisconsin Judge Patrick J. Fiedler got pickled in the LEGAL COOL-AID; it is clear that Judge "'no-no" Fiedler's court is off the Constitutional Reservation.

Hooking up abortion with food? Who the hell thought of that one? Let's get out of here. Even if it is 4 am, start gnawing, we got to go. How did that happen? This is terrible. No more drinking for us, no sir. I'll just have milk, thanks. Is there a newspaper here? No, I've seen yesterday's. Do you have a copy of the Constitution? Good. Thanks. This milk is good, is it from that little farm down the road? You know, we had a school cow, two actually, where I went to school. We kids did all the work and milking and stuff and the whole school drank the milk, man was that good! I miss those days something terrible. There was one kid who couldn't drink the milk but he pitched in as much as anyone with the work. I really miss those days. It was great.

Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard

"The federal government and all state governments and their agencies are private corporations, not public institutions, and as a legal person you are their property."

I would bet the majority of Americans would say they were public institutions and that no one "owns" them (the people, that would be akin to slavery).

"If we participate in the System, we give the System jurisdiction over us. Thus, the best participation is NO participation. "

How can you not participate? You have to use money to pay taxes on property, buy food that you cannot produce yourself, use a divers license, etc.

"I don't see where there is anything to argue about... I eat what I choose, what is so difficult about that?"

What's difficult is that when we raise or buy alternative, healthier and local foods, raw milk included, it shrinks income from CAFO, PMO and processed foods, and those companies are now getting distinctly annoyed and worried by the increasing loss of income.

Government doesn't like it either, because they want everyone, including would-be farmers, to work in a factory or an office or a CAFO/PMO/processed food plant, to earn taxable dollars, and to buy those ultra-processed phoods in grocery stores with your taxed dollars; plus this way CAFO/PMO/processed food plants, grocery stores and all related employees have more money to tax than small farmers and their families, who prefer to live on less and raise healthy local food for sale... and eat it for free, untaxed.

We're ALL supposed to put our noses to the official 8-hour grindstone, make a lot of money, get taxed on a lot of money, spend a lot of money, and go to the hospital with our insurance coverage (provided by employers or the government) when we get sick from grindstone stress and bad food.

That's the American Way, don'cha know... it's what's made us the "superpower" we are today. And if significant and increasing numbers of the population want off that carousel, it's going to cause a problem.

Hence, the governmental fight against private food distribution and the court judgments we're seeing now: "Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice..."

No one is ever going to legalize the sale of raw milk under the argument that we have the fundamental right to eat what we want etc. To do so is to set the precedent for allowing the argument that we have the right to consume whatever drugs we want. That just isnt going to happen in the USA.
We need to fight for the right to sell a product that is proven safe for human consumption :in example...if we can prove it is safe, then we can sell it, just like they are allowed to do for raw oysters,sushi, raw cider etc.
There are caveats to everything in commerce, ie:n order to sell raw fish for sushi it has to be prefrozen for a certain amount of time, etc.
Let's stop dancing around the issue and PROVE the safety of the raw milk, this isnt rocket science!

"To do so is to set the precedent for allowing the argument that we have the right to consume whatever drugs we want."

Actually, it would acknowledge that we have rights. Which as you say, isn't going to happen.

Frederick Douglass: Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.

Or as J. Stanton's mother put it:

http://www.gnolls.org/2502/what-was-your-wakeup-call-and-a-review-of-jeff-oconnells-sugar-nation/

"We dont get what we want: we get what we are just barely willing to tolerate."

Milky Way,

"The long-term solution to the asthma epidemic is thought to be prevention and not treatment of established disease and nutritional interventions might represent an interesting avenue. However, on the basis of current knowledge, raw milk consumption cannot be recommended because it might contain pathogens. Once the mechanisms underlying the protective farm milk effect are better understood, ways of processing and preserving a safe and preventive milk can be developed."

Think RAW MILK INSTITUTE standards and proven record of safety.

When a track record of extremely low bacteria ( posted to the internet for all the world to see ), zero pathogens and zero illnesses and no deaths....bingo....we win, farmers win, consumers and asthmatic kids win. We all win.

This will be a long term fight, but will win....gauranteed. In CA we have County Ag Commissioners drinking and advocating raw milk. This is progress.

We have elected County Sherrifs that now say that they "will not be used by government agencies as the Raw Milk Police".

Things are changing!!!

I was initially disgusted with the judge's stance on ownership. And after thinking about his claims concerning the Progressive idea that ownership rights aren't legally recognized, I think that the Commerce Clause (1.8.3), the 2nd and 4th Amendments (The right of the people to be secure in THEIR (emphasis added) persons, houses, papers, and effects, ...) and the eminent domain aspect of the 5th Amendment reasonably indicate ownership rights.

On the other hand, I am glad that legal ownership rights are implied by key constitutional clauses. After all, if owning cows and their products was an express right that everybody had, then wouldn't we have a welfare state which corrupt, Progressive politicians could easily exploit, doing even more damage to the country than they've done so far?

WRITE, CALL AND FAX THIS FOOLISH JUDGE!!!

Judge Patrick J. Fiedler
Phone: 608-266-4325
Fax: 608-266-4080

Dane County Courthouse
215 S Hamilton St. Room 8103
Madison, WI 53703-3292

I did not see the FTCLDF arguments, but it sounds like there is a need to be more precise. First, the plantiffs (DATCP) need to establish jurisdiction. They are claiming jurisdiction over any dairy farm, but if their authority comes from commerce or public health, it needs to be a commercial dairy farm--one that sells milk in a market open to all comers. A herdshare is not a commercial dairy farm.

In terms of rights, I do agree with the FDA that a person does not have a fundamental right to any food of their choice--through commerce--which is the domain of public health regulation. However, this authority to regulate or prohibit the sale of items to protect public health does not extend to household production. Consuming the milk from your own cows is household production.

Then regarding the right to own a cow and drinking the milk from your own cow--it is allowed unless there is a statute against it. When I say statute, I mean a state law. The DATCP cannot regulate or prohibit it.

I am not a lawyer, but hope this helps.

"If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

"If we can control fuel we can control the masses; if we can control food we can control individuals." -- Henry Kissinger

Judges do not make law they are to uphold the existing law. Our rights are to be secured by all agencies of civil government, the executive, legislative and judicial as well as their appointed bureaucracies. This is evidenced in our Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

We do not consent to civil governments trampling our rights. Should they continue we have a remedy.

"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

We are not rebelling they are! We are not the criminals they are! They are NOT the sovereign we are !

They lose their authority when they step over the line. Without authority they are nothing more than a band of thieves and robbers trying to rob us of our our life and liberty as free men and sovereigns.

There may not be a fundamental right to own a cow, but legal philosopher H L A Hart forcefully argues that to recognize someone as a subject of rights implies that you recognize his fundamental right to be left alone. The right to own a cow and drink its raw milk unmolested would follow from that.

gee, do i have the fundamental right to pet my own cat?

This is deplorable. "Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice;" What??! Next they'll be after my garden and chickens.

I blogged about this here, please read: http://madameagrarian.wordpress.com/

Yikes!!!

This is all quite simple. Roe v Wade was decided on a legal principle called "penumbra." A penumbra is the conical shaped dark zone (shadow) cast by a body (planet) in space such as the lunar and solar eclipses.

Roe v Wade applies rather nicely as the right to choose by a woman is covered under "the penumbra of the pursuit of happiness."

The Judge has it totally backwards and will be easily reversed unless his superiors are in league with the Agenda 21 slave

wrayedwards@gmail.com

While I vehemently disagree with this judge's ruling, it isn't without precedent.

As an acquaintance pointed out to me, this was settled long ago in the Supreme Court, Wickard v. Filburn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

In short, the government has a right to regulate your own personal economic activity when it is counter to what the government desires and the greater good of the people in general. In this particular case, the argument is going to be that allowing the production of raw milk poses a potential danger to the public, thus anybody producing milk - even for themselves - must submit to government regulation of how it is produced.