Minnesota takes milk war to the people

From David E. Gumpert, on the Complete Patient blog:

“The Minnesota  Department of Agriculture’s campaign against consumers is significantly more widespread than I first reported. And it is stirring up a hornet’s nest of outrage, and promises of defiance.

It turns out the MDA actually sent its love letters threatening criminal charges to nine or ten consumers of farmer Michael Hartmann—nine, according to a spokesman from the MDA, and ten according to consumers who have been comparing notes among themselves.

The MDA’s action seems designed to intimidate customers of Hartmann from offering their homes as voluntary drop points for his milk, meat, and other farm products—with the goal to deprive the farmer of distribution assistance from his customers.  But the consumers, mostly mothers, have begun organizing themselves under the auspices of the Raw Milk Freedom Riders. The organization issued a press release headlined: “Mothers Threatened with Criminal Charges Openly Defy MDA.”

The release includes this quote from Melinda Olson, one of those who received the warning letter described in my previous post: “The MDA’s harassment against mothers will not work.  We plan to ignorethis warning and continue operating as we are.  MDA should not waste taxpayer money investigating, prosecuting and jailing peaceful farmers and mothers for helping their communities secure fresh foods.  Our time to stand up against this tyranny is now!”

The organization indicated that not only won’t Hartmann lose his consumer supporters, but he will gain more help. “Dozens of individuals who are disgusted with what they regard as MDA’s overly aggressive tactics are expected to join in the same activity as these mothers,” the release states.

The MDA action is a surprising strategic departure from previous enforcement actions by agencies in other parts of the country, which have confined themselves to focusing on generally one to three targeted individuals at a time—usually farmers or food club managers– in an effort to isolate them, and discourage organized backing. By going after nine or ten individuals—and consumers at that–the MDA is clearly betting that it can handle a more complex enforcement situation. Most fundamentally, it is betting that it can outmaneuver the consumers, or wear them down, in a protracted legal battle….”

Read more on The Complete Patient blog.



Filed under News

28 responses to “Minnesota takes milk war to the people

  1. Perhaps it is time that “we the people” take the milk war to the criminals that are waging it. For starters publish the names and home address’s of any of the coward criminals that you can identify. After all they should be proud of what they are doing. Right? Fair is fair.

    They know our address’s, and everything about us, including the schools our children attend.Often this is required by law. Perhaps it is time to require any public official to do the same. To give his name, home address, and where his children attend school to any citizen that asks.

    Sound shocking? Then why are you not shocked that this is the way we the slaves are treated?

    • nedlud

      What is good now, is that there ARE blogs that don’t censor. Support these types of websites! Hopefully The Bovine is one, I keep a close eye, as close as I can….I still try to forgive (so to speak), but I can only forgive so much error and stupidity and the vulgarity of lies. It is definitely wrong to forgive (and forget) too much, as wrong as it is to forgive too little. Hopefully we can learn.

      When I first got going (on the internet) with my own story (about Organic Valley’s dirty secrets as they applied them to our farm, at the cost of our entire herd of ‘organic certified’ dairy cows, much heartache and misery and much of our unique, intimate, familial and personal ‘way of life’, and our, R-I-G-H-T), I first joined a website called Common Dreams. I was actually trying to get a forum established there, some public knowledge and support (for us) and to then to try to debate, online, someone representing Organic Valley about what they did to us on our small farm. I was rudely and crudely censored by Common Dreams first and then, kicked outright, off the site! I used to comment also at a place called Smirking Chimp, got booted from there too….there have been numerous other problems I have had at other sites. I shun all those sites and keep track of them so as to avoid them constantly. These types of sites are NOT friends to the people, whatever they call themselves or attempt to pass themselves off as….we call them ‘gatekeepers’.

      I now comment mostly at Op-Ed News and a few specialist sites such as this one. I do attack the ESTABLISHMENT and do so with vigor and even hatred, I tend to be angry sometimes, no doubt about it.

      Please keep freedom alive by supporting it. Support our (the common people) righteous anger over injustice!

      Thank you.


    • Peter

      It might be appropriate to recognize that, in a civil society, individuals may act/be as ordinary citizens, or hold public office (job). The two are different capacities. As a private individual, no disclosure is required. The individual, while in his/her public office, is subject to full disclosure. But when they sign out (go home), no disclosure of the private lives are required.
      I believe an objective observation will show that very very few public officials have any “beef” against you/me. Their predominant perception might be that we are ‘ignorant’ and need oversight/protection. They are not vindictive, have no ill intent, and most usually believe they are doing the right thing. I strongly suggest against lashing out at enforcement officers. They are not the source of your/our challenges.

      • Peter
        There is poison in our water supplies, one of the most toxic metals on the planet in our mouths, and injected into our children’s bodies. Not a thing at the supermarket fit for human consumption, and I am sure all of this is just an accident or a coincidence. 600 million people have died by demo-code this century, and rulers are benevolent and defiantly not psychopaths. It must just all be a conspiracy theory and I was mistaken by all of the above assertions.

      • Peter

        @tittiger – I would suggest appreciating the difference between legislators and enforcement officers. I believe one would be hard pressed to find a conspiracy among enforcement officers to undermine your health by adding poison in the water supplies. I’m not saying there are no conspiracies… I’m just suggesting that your “beef” is likely not with the enforcement officers. They may just be the unwitting executors of the conspirators.

      • Peter my “beef” is certainly with enforcement officers. Have you forgotten the lesson of the Nuremberg Trials so soon? Doing something immoral,or un-lawful does not excuse doing so – no matter who told you to do it, or what ever excuse you may have for doing wrong.

      • Peter

        Fair enough… If you think you have beef with the enforcement officers, I suppose you can deal with it civilly (due process), or uncivil (anarchism).
        The original poster suggested disclosure of address of officials (and/or other private info)… For what purpose? Perhaps it was just me, but it had an undertone that did not suggest civility.
        You sighting the principles of the Nuremberg trials suggest the former.
        If you proceed with the civil route, the burden would fall on you to show that the enforcement officers had ill / criminal intent. I’m just suggesting that the guy responsible for ensuring there is proper fluoride in the water probably has no ill intent and is not conspiring against you. If, however, you can show that he knows that the consequences of following orders is surely detrimental to another person’s well being, you have a case, per the Nuremberg principles.

  2. aed939

    What exactly did those letters say? Can we see a sample letter with the personal information redacted? I am guessing the key point here is a confusion of the word “distribute”, as is often the case with buying clubs and dropoff points, but need to know the specifics of the charges and the business model. In a nutshell, a distributor is an actor in the supply chain that positions product for subsequent sale. If the distributor is not a reseller, and the product is not subsequently sold further down the supply chain, then the person is not acting as a distributor in the business definition of the word, which is the appropriate use of the word here.

    • aed939 – this is United Nations agenda 21 and the codex. No matter what you do they are going to come after you. That is what you and most of the population have to get through their heads.

      “There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. ” ~(paraphrased: Page 406 of Ayn Rand’s, Atlas Shrugged )

  3. My opinion is that what it is going to take to turn this whole mess about food rights around is exactly what these mothers are doing but with many more people doing exactly the same thing. When there are enough of us in both countries making taking a strong stand things will begin to change. I think these mothers are awesome and I am watching with much anticipation to see what happens!

  4. Peter you post has not shown up here but is in my mailbox so I will respond none the less….

    Peter said:
    Fair enough… If you think you have beef with the enforcement officers, I suppose you can deal with it civilly (due process), or uncivil (anarchism).

    ~Peter there is no longer due process as it relates to the criminals that have taken control of our government, if there ever was due process. Additional I could give a tinkers damn about what you call civilly as our governments are anything but civil. What concerns me is justice. I also disagree strongly with your inferences about the lack of monopoly on force. (Anarchy) The word (Anarchy) has been raped and contorted just like the words, democracy, niggardly, and so many others.

    The original poster suggested disclosure of address of officials (and/or other private info)… For what purpose? Perhaps it was just me, but it had an undertone that did not suggest civility.

    ~ The purpose Peter if is was not clear was to instill fear of we the people in our governments. Mr. Jefferson got it right “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” Is not instilling fear in the people the modus operandi of all governments? Why do you have a problem with we the people doing the same?

    You sighting the principles of the Nuremberg trials suggest the former. If you proceed with the civil route, the burden would fall on you to show that the enforcement officers had ill / criminal intent. I’m just suggesting that the guy responsible for ensuring there is proper fluoride in the water probably has no ill intent and is not conspiring against you.

    ~ Intent is irrelevant Peter. I don’t can any more about the intent of people that poison our water supplies than I do the soldiers that killed Jews with poison gas. They are both criminals.

    If, however, you can show that he knows that the consequences of following orders is surely detrimental to another person’s well being, you have a case, per the Nuremberg principles.

    ~They had better hope I do not get on their jury because a person putting rat poison in the water that children are going to drink would get the death penalty from me unless they were mentally retarded with a very low IQ. Anyone else I would hold responsible.

    They say you can’t fix stupid. I disagree…. the gallows not only works it is sometime necessary.

    • Peter

      Forgive me, but your reply comes off as being more emotionally charged rather than one of composed rational thought. If that is not the case, I stand to be corrected.
      PS – I concur that Jefferson had profound wisdom – and I couldn’t agree more with the quote you provided. However, the disclosure of private information does not, imho, empower “we the people”. In deed, it undermines the basis of civil society – the adherence of rights. Remember, two wrongs don’t make a right.

  5. Peter I should hope that I am emotionally invested in any task that I undertake.

    Knowing where public officials live is precisely what empowers the people. How are you going to make someone accountable when you don’t know where they live? Do you think the founders tarred and feathered tax collectors who they did not know where they resided?

    You are right 2 wrongs do not make a right – but it is the State that is committing the only wrong. If they do not want us to know where they live then perhaps they should find an occupation that does not involve the pilfering of men’s efforts and the suppression of their rights as this is universally what politicians do.

    • Peter

      I am suggesting that, in objectively contemplating what is fair, politics and emotion are best to be removed from such function. It is much like a good scientist who remains objective in his research.

      I would like to suggest again that your “beef” is likely to be with the legislator who decided fluoride should be added to the water, and not the guy executing the order to do so.

      Even then, I would suggest that a civilized approach to dealing with the situation is more appropriate than resorting to stalking, or banging on his door, or what have you…

  6. We will have to agree to disagree. I would not give a pass to the guards at Auschwitz and blame only Hitler and the Reighstag as you seem to believe.
    I think blame belongs on all involved, and when it comes to this level of evil what you call civility is the last thing on my mind. You sound as if you would be “civil” to a rapist that broke into your home and was attacking your wife. Civility has no place in this battle Peter. Civility only has a place when the person you are dealing with is being civil, and our criminal governments are anything but.

    You be “civil” lose the battle and be a slave. I choose another route…..that of liberty at any cost.

    • Peter

      The guards at Auschwitz is consciously participating in the trespassing of rights. This is criminal, and falls under the Nuremberg principles you sighted. So is the rapist. I believe most government officials are not consciously participating in the trespassing of rights. The guy adding fluoride to the water probably genuinely believes it is for your benefit, and not to your detriment… I regret that the essence of this was not picked up upon by way of my earlier posts. I hope I have been able to clarify and put things into an appreciable context.

      • Interesting thread that I have read, decided not to bother with, and then was drawn back to for some reason as I read the remarks of two people who nobody knows the true identity of go back and forth about this. I’ve been meaning to write a blog post for my own blog on this issue for a while now but my own blog has taken a sad back seat to the work with the raw milk consumer campaign so I will attempt to do it here quickly. I have to say in this instance I agree with you Peter on this one. The people enforcing the laws are doing their jobs the same way that we all do what we are paid to do and they may or may not believe what they are doing makes a lot of sense but they need to feed their families, they need to work and they have chosen a career that isn’t always popular with everyone. Then there are those who completely believe what they have been told and taught and are doing their jobs feeling like they are doing good whether we happen to agree with them or not. When I talk to health officials and others on the raw milk issue, it is obvious that these are not stupid, arrogant, uneducated people. These are people totally indoctrinated in what they believe to be true and are doing their best to “save” us much like a door to door religious person does. The vast majority totally believe what they are saying and are very sincere in their worry about us drinking raw milk. Education is an interesting thing. Of course there are the Hitlers of the world and the power high enforcement officers but these are a small group and not the norm. The conscious mind collects information that gets implanted into the subconscious mind and it takes something radical to change that deep a belief. A person who has gone through school with a dream of protecting the public as an enforcement officer of any kind has a moral duty to themselves to uphold the law and do so to the best of their ability whether they are CFIA or police. Same with a scientist. All the way through school they are indoctrinated with “facts” and “research” that proves whatever the school, teacher, curriculum wants them to learn. Scientific research is very subjective and can tell the researcher what they want to see. In our world those scientists that look outside the box and buck the status quo are often ostracized and their research isn’t funded so we don’t see much done on controversial subjects unless a drug or chemical company sees a way to make a profit from that controversial issue. We can be assured that if a drug company could find a way to patent raw milk and make a fortune from it, the research to prove it’s value to human health would already have been done. Where the problem is 90% of the time is in the laws that someone set up at some obscure time back in history. Something that has been in effect for a long time becomes “truth” and changing that mind set isn’t a easy thing to do. It can be done and it has been done in the past but it takes strong advocates and the backing of others to create the space for that change to happen. How many things do we all believe that when we really search our minds for “facts” to support it, we aren’t sure where the belief came from? The subconscious mind is a powerful tool but it’s like a computer. We and society program it and our minds collect evidence all around us to “prove” our theories. Only a percentage of society manages to break free of that programming and question the status quo. Does that make everyone else wrong? Should I hate the health department officer I spoke to last week about the raw milk debate or should I think he’s an idiot because he doesn’t agree with me? What good would that do? He has a family, probably children and his only experience with raw milk has been when he’s been called to an investigation because someone has allegedly gotten sick. Of course he believes what he said to me in the best of intentions. Just as it is possible to change a core belief for a person to improve their outlook on life, using techniques such as hypnosis, it is possible to affect small changes that start to change the core of the problem which is the laws and the systems that denounce anyone, scientist or lay person, who believes something different and tries to create change. We who do drink raw milk are convinced of its’ benefits because we have seen the changes it has made in our bodies and our children’s bodies. A scientist used to “proving” a theory with double blind placebo controlled research isn’t going to give that much credence and how can we blame them? Unless they were raised on raw milk, have had an experience themselves with it or have a close friend or relative who has why would they dismiss everything they have learned to believe a lay person who claims raw milk has helped them? We see this in all areas of medicine. The medical doctor who has seen patients get well using natural remedies enough times to open a small crack in their minds of question, is much easier to talk to about the possibilities of natural foods and ways of healing. Still their hands are tied because they are looked down upon by their contemporaries if they investigate too far. Fortunately for us many are though and when enough do, natural medicine will gain it’s rightful place as a healing tool in the mainstream and become another “truth”. It’s just a sign of our times and a condition that is changing slowly like turning the titanic. If we can affect a small change in the minds of politicians so that we can open a door for raw milk we will see that 20 years from now raw milk will be accepted as a health truth. An example of that is that almost any European born person I speak to doesn’t understand what the whole hoopla is in North America with raw milk. They remember going to the neighbour with a pail and bringing home raw milk. To them it is normal. In Spain, when I walked the Camino, I stayed at a farmhouse one night and was served raw milk straight from the cow. No warning about it, not even an explanation that it was raw, it simply is a healthy food they have had for centuries and was natural for them to share it with me. It was awesome by the way! :0) We all tend to rally against the injustice and sound like we are blaming the messenger instead of the faceless beaurocarcy that created the closed door to reason in the first place. I am often guilty of that myself when I get frustrated at the closed doors that are so hard to open. Blaming the messenger and creating violence to stop them isn’t going to change the core beliefs that keep these laws in place. Persistence and education from our side is going to chip away at them. We do have rights that are being one by one eliminated but is it one enforcement officer, no matter how cocky he might seem, to blame for that? We elected the officials that are taking away those rights and we continue to fund the pharmaceutical companies by collecting money for cancer, running to the doctor for drugs etc.

      • Peter

        @ Margo
        Thank you for your well put commentary. I appreciated how you elaborated and spoke to the fact that many highly educated and noble people proceed based on a deep seeded belief, and how hard it is to change that. In the same way that many (officials, scientists, etc.) seem to not even contemplate, let alone investigate the virtues of raw milk, I find most people are uninterested in contemplating, let along investigating the source of our rights. I suppose our comfort level in exploring new domains varies from one individual to another.
        In our world those that look outside the box and buck the status quo are often ostracized and dismissed. Sometimes politicians see a way to usurp and spin their findings for their own gain or to score some political points. As such, I suppose courage is in the eye of the beholder… It takes courage for a politician lead people along, while another has the courage to buck, and not be lead by such a politician.

  7. Margo,
    It matters not if these public servants believe they are doing good. They have no right to do what they are doing. I have a sense of being in a room filled with lobotomized individuals after reading your arguments.

    It matters not how indoctrinated, or how zealously they worship the State. They would barbeque your child on a spit, and eat it if the State told them that this was the thing to do. I guess you would argue that this would be OK because they were sincere in their beliefs.

    Government schools have purposely created nations full of such demonic people. But none of this changes the fact that people are responsible for their actions.

    People do not have a right to interfere with the Inalienable, God given, 700 year old right of Englishmen to contract with one another. You are giving in to the mob rule of the majority. You are justifying this mob rule. Where as our Republic was set up to stop this very thing. To keep the dictates of the majority no matter how well intentioned from usurping the rights of the minority. You sound very much like the Nazi’s at Nuremberg parroting that they were just doing what they were told to do.

    Both of you ignore the elephant in the middle of the room and that is what these public servants are doing is heinous and no amount of word crafting will change that fact.

    Your attitude is a great example of how “The road to hell is paved with good
    intentions ………” It is the attitude that you hold that creates, empowers, and perpetuates much of the evil in this world.

    The bottom line is that people must be responsible for their actions if we are to have any semblance of justice, and humanity in the world.

    • Nobody is ignoring the elephant in the room. Peaceful resistance and the creation of change without bloodshed doesn’t happen without some form of understanding what the core of the problem is and working without hatred. I know from reading this blog for a while now that I have no desire to face off with someone who doesn’t give their real name when posting, so to each their own.

      • Peter

        “the creation of change without bloodshed doesn’t happen without some form of understanding what the core of the problem is and working without hatred”
        Well said. Thank you 🙂

      • Margo and Peter it would be nice if the word was the way we want it to be.

        Ayn Rand said this nicely:
        “We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.”

        And history teaches us the almost all of the time violence is needed to one degree or another when confronting violent people. You can ignore reality. I choose not to.

    • Peter

      @ inalianblewrights
      It appears to me that there is an underlying in-congruence in your perception between rights, and the administration of them. You sight responsibility, justice, and “humanity”. I would challenge by what or who’s virtue, and by what system such is to be judged/executed? I’m not looking for your answer… but I think you are. For what it is worth, IMO, you are ignoring the elephant in your room.
      As it relates to attitude, it might be beneficial for you to reflect on the fact that you come off as though you are a victim of “others” or “the system”, or what have you. As such, you are yourself, imo, not coming from a place of responsible… Just saying.

  8. Mine Peter mine. I (we the people) are the source of all government legitimacy and it is MY right to determine these things. It certainly is not my servants (the government) right or place.

    • Peter

      I believe it is possible some people may not agree with you, and so it is very possible that a dispute arises. Would you be inclined to have disputes between two parties settled void of civil law (“law of the jungle”/might/bullying/biggest gun wins), or by some “civil” process (neutral 3rd party/arbitrator/judiciary). I’m not saying either is right or wrong. Just trying to find some common ground from which we can build up and see at which point our perspectives vary…
      Also, given your “right to determine these things”, in your perception, I am curious where does the court comes in as it relates the “the government” or “we the people”? Does the court get it’s power also from “we the people”? Does it get it from “the government”? From somewhere else? What do you perceive to be the role of the court? Do you have an opinion about the court, and whether it needs an overhaul? And if so, I’d be interested in hearing what you think it might look like. Or do you think we should just abandon it, and let everyone “determine things” for themselves?

  9. I am at a loss of words at your world view. My call for government to rightly do what it was created to do. i.e. protect my rights – you characterize as “the law of the jungle.”

    The system we currently have in place I would characterize as “the law of the jungle”. I have extensive experience with our legal system, and I can honestly say I have never received justice from it. (I simply could not afford to buy it as that is what justice is – a purchased service – not a right as it should be.) I live very much more in fear of government, and the criminal injustice system that I do of criminals.

    I would welcome what most people inaccurately call anarchy to our current injustice system (law of the jungle) as I would at least be able to seek justice. The world would most likely be a more peaceful place as I doubt that anyone would be foolish enough to think it worth the loss of their life to keep me from minding my own business, drinking raw milk, smoking a plant, distilling some alcohol, earning a living, educating my children as I see fit, or 100,000 other peaceful activities. In this world of what you probably call “anarchy” without the benefit of hired thugs would you risk your life to prevent me from peacefully minding my own business? I think not Peter.

    I again assert what we have now is the law of the jungle. A the every least we should get back to the rule of law where government protects rights rather than violating them as they do now. As things now stand government is the most dangerous enemy that your average man has in his life.

    • Peter

      In my world view, “the court” is not “the government”. While I concur that it is one of the three branches of the government, it isn’t (or shouldn’t be) political. It has been my experience that most people lump “the court” in with the “political government”.
      I believe it is the proper role of the government to protect it’s citizens. While the legislators are to recognize and adhere to our rights, it is the role of the court to ensure those rights are protected, and the executive branch execute that protection.
      I asked you specifically about the courts, because your commentary seems to suggest that you do not make a substantial distinction between “the government” and “the courts”.
      What we have now is, imo, not law of the jungle, but all out ignorance among the populace, about the proper role of the government, and perhaps even more importantly, ignorance about the role of the courts. The court is often not a friend for those who are seeking emotional/biased/subjectively favorable justice. It has been my experience that the majority fall in this category.

      • Peter I think we would have to agree that all “governments” (which I define as a monopoly on the use of force) fail miserably. The people fail to be educated. They people fail to keep an eye on the government. And a criminal element that I usually describe as psychopaths take the government over.

        Seeing as this has never worked in the history of mankind you would think we would be looking for other paradigms. I lean towards a society with no monopoly on anything. All interactions are voluntary rather than being enforced at the end of a gun. A real free market.

        The common law or the mala en se law would be enforced no matter what, by the honest citizens of the land you can bet your bottom dollar on that one, and free market solutions would come up as how to handle criminals. Research the Icelandic free state if you would like to see a real world example of how this might work out.

        When I hear peoples knee jerk tales of “anarchy” and how dangerous the world would be, I can do nothing but laugh. Would it ever be possible under the demonized word anarchy” for a group of psychopaths to take half of what every citizen makes and use it against them? Would some gang in this dangerous world of anarchy be able to openly put a poison in the water supply of most of it’s citizens for 40 years? Would this fictitious gang ever get enough power to keep all the citizens of the land from having access to healthy food? Would this gang be able to enforce a dental monopoly that put mercury and fluoride in the mouths of it’s citizens? Would this fictitious gang be able to print money to fund wars of aggression and enslave young men to go murder others by the millions through what is euphemistically called a draft?

        This imagined scary monopoly, to my rational mind could never in any conceivable way become one thousandth as dangerous as the gang that we now have that calls itself government. Sure there will be wrongs and problems but they will never rise to the scale that we have today.

        Even God warned his people about having a king in the old testament. It look to me looking at the world around me, that God knew what he was talking about.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s