Your government in action

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Do not deign to set a good example for your kids or make a bit of side money. The government will shut you down and make an example of you if you do.

SOURCE

USDA fines Missouri family $90k for selling a few rabbits without a license

Tue May 24, 12:55 pm ET

It started out as a hobby, a way for the Dollarhite family in Dixa, Mo., to teach a teenage son responsibility. Like a lemonade stand.

But now, selling a few hundred rabbits over two years has provoked the heavy hand of the federal government to the tune of a $90,643 fine. The fine was levied more than a year after authorities contacted family members, prompting them to immediately halt their part-time business and liquidate their equipment.

The Dollarhite’s story, originally picked up by local Missouri blogger Bob McCarthy, has turned into a call to arms for critics of the government’s reach and now has both Democratic and Republican lawmakers vowing to intervene.

John and Judy Dollarhite began selling rabbit meat by the pound in 2006, and as pets to neighbors and friends in 2008.

Raised on the three-acre lot on which their home sits, the rabbits were heralded by local experts for their quality and kept in pristine condition.

When a local pet store asked them to supply their pet rabbits, the Dollarhites had no idea they would be running afoul of an obscure federal regulation that prohibits selling more than $500 worth of rabbits to a pet store without a license from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Under the law, pet stores are exempt from regulation.

By by selling to pet stores for resale, the humble Dollarhites became “wholesale breeders of pet animals,” said Dave Sacks, a spokesman for USDA who defended the fine, even while admitting it “looks curious” to the average person.

That’s especially so since the Dollarhites face no accusation they mistreated any animals. Instead, they committed what’s called in regulatory parlance a “paperwork violation” under the Animal Welfare Act, a 1966 law intended to prevent the abuse of animals.

The fine is part of a campaign to step up enforcement of the law that has included levying fines on magicians who use rabbits in magic hat tricks. An Inspector General report prompted increased enforcement, Sacks said.

In an interview, Judy Dollarhite, who said she “passionately” voted for Ross Perot in the 1990s, told of her interactions with government bureaucrats that sound like they came from a libertarian’s nightmare.

Blissly ignorant about the licensing requirement, a USDA inspector arrived unannounced in November 2009 at the Dollarhites’ home. The inspector had viewed invoices at a pet store that was purchasing the rabbits, helping her track down the family’s home.

“This cage is a quarter-inch too small, you’d have to have this replaced,” the inspector told Judy Dollarhite, she recalled.

In fact, there are no actual written USDA standards for what constitutes proper care of a rabbit by a wholesale breeder of pet animals, Sacks said. Instead, the process is a “negotiation” between a USDA official and a breeder when they apply for a license.

The inspector left the Dollarhites’ home, telling Judy Dollarhite she needed a license and saying she would send an application, Judy Dollarhite said. But the instructions were unclear and the application never came, Judy Dollarhite said.

Two months later, in January 2010, another USDA official called, asking for a meeting with the Dollarhite family at their full-time business, a small computer store.

The inspector watched the store for an hour from his car before the meeting, and his physical appearance put off the small business owners.

“He was covered head to toe in filth. Jeans is one thing, but these were slicked. He had ‘Grizzly Adams’-style hair,” Judy Dollarhite said.

The inspector, whose name Judy Dollarhite could not recall, intimidated the couple, claiming to have interviewed their neighbors about their political beliefs.

Scared they would face a small fine for a part-time business that had only resulted in about $4,000-$5,000 in sales and $200-$400 of profit, the Dollarhites agreed during the meeting to immediately suspend their business, which the inspector said would help their case.

Over the next weeks, Judy Dollarhite traded all of her rabbit breeding equipment on eBay — rather than selling it so she could not be engaged in “commerce.”

Eight weeks after their meeting, the Dollarhites called a USDA office in Maryland. A man there said, “We’re going to make an example of you,” Judy Dollarhite said.

USDA spokesman Sacks said he didn’t know about the interactions between the USDA and the Dollarhites. Roxanne Folk, the USDA point of contact the case against the Dollarhites, declined to comment when reached by phone.

It wasn’t until April 19, though, that the Dollarhites received official word from USDA.

A letter from Sarah Conant, the chief of the Animal Health and Welfare Enforcement branch of USDA’s enforcement division, said, “Our investigation shows that you have violated the United States Code of Federal Regulations … You may … settle this matter by paying $90,643.”

A draft settlement agreement attached to the letter specified that the Dollarhites had, according to USDA’s investigation, sold 619 rabbits in 56 transactions over almost two years.

The Dollarhites told USDA they aren’t accepting the “offer.”

“My client rejects that proposal,” wrote their attorney, Richard Anderson, in a May 19 letter, noting that according to USDA’s own literature, its 6,000 annual enforcement cases average “a penalty of $333.33 per case, and yet you contend it would be appropriate my client tender a penalty of $90,643.00.”

One Washington lobbyist for the industrial farming sector said the penalty was ludicrous. The rabbit sales “are on the scale of a high school 4-H project,” the source said.

USDA spokesman Sacks said the $90,643 fine “looks curious to say the least.” But he insisted it was necessary for USDA to punish violators to ensure businesses across the country register, putting them on the USDA’s radar screen for inspections and possible enforcement.

“This is the only way we can ensure these animals are getting the care they need,” Sacks said.

Meanwhile, Missouri lawmakers Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill and Republican Rep. Billy Long have contacted the Dollarhites, saying they’ll help intervene with USDA. And a Tea Party group is planning a protest at a USDA office in Ozark, Mo., office on Wednesday.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
SOURCE

Albemarle Road church fined $100 per branch for excessive tree pruning
By Brittany Penland
Correspondent
Posted: Saturday, May. 28, 2011

Every two to three years, Eddie Sales trims and prunes the crape myrtles at his church, Albemarle Road Presbyterian Church.

But this year, the city of Charlotte cited the church for improperly pruning its trees.

"We always keep our trees trimmed back because you don't want to worry about them hanging down in the way," said Sales, a church member.

The church was fined $100 per branch cut for excessive pruning, bringing the violation to $4,000.

"I just couldn't believe it when I heard about it," Sales said. "We trim our trees back every three years all over our property, and this is the first time we have been fined."

The fine will be dropped if the church replaces each of the improperly pruned trees, said Tom Johnson, senior urban forester for city of Charlotte Land Development Division.

"When they are nonrepairable, when they have been pruned beyond repair, we will ask them to be replaced," Johnson said. "We do that for a number of reasons but mainly because they are going to come back unhealthy and create a dangerous situation down the road."

Charlotte has had a tree ordinance since 1978, and when trees are incorrectly pruned or topped, people can be subject to fines, Johnson said.

Trees planted as a result of the ordinance are subject to the fines if they are excessively trimmed or pruned. These include trees on commercial property or street trees. They do not include a private residence.

"The purpose of the tree ordinance is to protect trees," Johnson said. "Charlotte has always been known as the city of trees. When we take down trees, we need to replace these trees."

Individuals who would like to trim their trees should call the city foresters to receive a free permit to conduct the landscape work.

Foresters will then meet with the person receiving the permit and give instructions on how to properly trim their trees, Johnson said.

The state Division of Forestry recommends that anyone trimming trees should be certified by the National Horticulture Board, but certification is not required to receive a permit.

On private property, fine amounts are based on the size of the tree improperly pruned. For small trees such as cherry trees or crape myrtles, the fine is $75 per tree. Excessive cutting can increase that fine to $100 per branch.

For large trees such as oaks or maples, the fine is $150 per tree.

Because there is a widespread lack of understanding on how to prune crape myrtles in the Charlotte area, Johnson said, residents found in violation regarding these trees are asked to simply replace them, and the fine will be lifted.

Sales said trees found in violation at the church must be cut down and replaced with new trees by October, but the church plans to appeal. Sales doesn't know how much it would cost to replace the trees.

"We trimmed back these trees in the interest of the church," Sales said. "If we were in violation, we certainly did not know we were."

Typically during the course of a year, Johnson said, about six private residents are found in violation of improper topping or pruning.

"We are trying to be pro-active and not trying to fine people excessively," Johnson said.

Brittany Penland is a freelance writer for the Observer's University City News. Have a story idea for Brittany? Email her at [email protected].
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
SOURCE

Fireworks shows need new environmental review
Court ruling could have sweeping impact
By Mike Lee and Christopher Cadelago
Originally published 2:06 p.m., May 27, 2011, updated 4:02 p.m., May 27, 2011

What started as a battle over fireworks shows led to a sweeping legal victory Friday for environmentalists that could stymie a wide range of events needing city permits, from the Rock ’n’ Roll Marathon to birthday parties held at parks.

“According to the strictest interpretation of this, jumpy-jumps and everything else would be subject to environmental review if this ruling stands,” said lawyer Robert Howard, who represented the La Jolla Community Fireworks Foundation in the case. “It’s a breathtaking ruling.”

Superior Court Judge Linda Quinn said La Jolla’s annual Fourth of July fireworks show requires evaluation under the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA.

The case, filed by the Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation in Encinitas, targeted San Diego’s approval of the La Jolla event but eventually drew in a broad swath of city permits. San Diego officials said they issue about 400 special-events permits annually, along with up to 20,000 park-use permits for smaller-scale gatherings — most of which would now need environmental assessment.

“San Diego issues thousands of these simple park-use permits over the counter with the only consideration being space, just as other cities do across the state,” said City Attorney Jan Goldsmith. “Existing law has never been interpreted to require a CEQA review for this. ... This decision opens the door to absurd results. This is the reason appellate courts exist and we plan to ask for their help.”

Even before the judge’s ruling was finalized, Chula Vista officials on Thursday pulled the plug on their July Fourth show in the face of funding shortfalls and environmental challenges.

The future of La Jolla’s event was fuzzy Friday. Organizers likely can’t complete the time-intensive and costly CEQA analysis by July 4, but Howard said he would ask the court to allow this year’s event while the case is appealed.

City Councilwoman Sherri Lightner, whose district includes La Jolla, said she hoped to find a solution. “We have to strike a balance that protects the environment but also allows our finest traditions to continue,” she said.

On Tuesday, the City Council ratified a long-standing city policy of exempting fireworks shows from special-events permits unless food or alcohol is sold. It was an attempt to shield pyrotechnics from environmental challenges, but Friday’s decision means CEQA still applies.

Environmental impact reports can take a year and cost tens of thousands of dollars.

“Does that mean every event has to get a full environmental impact report? No, but it means that the city has to undertake the burden and applicants have to undertake the cost” of a lower-level CEQA analysis, Howard said.

He said some “events” such as temporary Christmas tree stands have existing exemptions under the law, but many others don’t.

Alex Roth, a spokesman for Mayor Jerry Sanders, framed the suit as part of a “bizarre crusade to stop fireworks.”

“What’s next, a lawsuit against swimmers for polluting the ocean with their suntan lotion?” Roth said. (Alas, he may have just given the theme for their next absurd campaign against any and everything. -- j)

Marco Gonzalez, a lawyer for the environmental rights foundation, exulted over Friday’s win, which comes after months of criticism against him for challenging an American tradition.

“If you were to sum it up with one word, I would say ‘vindication.’ It’s vindication for the environment ... and it’s vindication for my client because of the amount of disparaging comments and general negativity that was thrown our way when we were told that our lawsuit was frivolous,” Gonzalez said.

Earlier this month, his lawsuit had spurred regional pollution regulators to adopt a new permit for fireworks shot over beaches and bays. The mandate, based on the Clean Water Act, was a national first.

Gonzalez said he also is breaking new ground in seeking reviews of fireworks shows under California environmental law.

“There are a whole host of impacts that we know occur from fireworks shows, from marine mammals to marine birds to water quality to traffic to noise to the air,” Gonzalez said. “We want it studied and we want it mitigated.”

Tony Manolatos, a spokesman for City Councilman Kevin Faulconer, stood by the council’s exemption for fireworks. “I think banning fireworks on the Fourth of July is un-American,” he said, “and I think the majority of San Diegans would agree.”

Gonzalez has repeatedly said that protecting water quality and coastal species is patriotic. :rolleyes:

By the by. San Diego is home port to the marines and navy who protect this scumbag's right to annoy other people at the risk, and cost, of their lives. -- j

Mike Lee: (619)293-2034; [email protected]. Follow on Twitter @sdutlee.
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Not that other government are any better -- or any more intelligent. :rolleyes:

SOURCE

Italian Seismologists Charged With Manslaughter for Not Predicting 2009 Quake

Published May 27, 2011 | FoxNews.com

Italian government officials have accused the country's top seismologist of manslaughter, after failing to predict a natural disaster that struck Italy in 2009, a massive devastating earthquake that killed 308 people.

A shocked spokesman for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) likened the accusations to a witch hunt.

"It has a medieval flavor to it -- like witches are being put on trial," the stunned spokesman told FoxNews.com.

Enzo Boschi, the president of Italy's National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology (INGV), will face trial along with six other scientists and technicians, after failing to predict the future and the impending disaster.

Earthquakes are, of course, nearly impossible to predict, seismologists say. In fact, according to the website for the USGS, no major quake has ever been predicted successfully.

"Neither the USGS nor Caltech nor any other scientists have ever predicted a major earthquake," reads a statement posted on the USGS website. "They do not know how, and they do not expect to know how any time in the foreseeable future."

John Vidale, a Washington State seismologist and professor at the University of Washington, agreed that earthquake forecasting is simply impossible.

"We're not able to predict earthquakes very well at all," he told LiveScience.

"One problem is, we don't know how much stress it takes to break a fault," Vidale told the site. "Second we still don't know how much stress is down there. All we can do is measure how the ground is deforming."

Not knowing either of these factors makes it pretty tough to figure out when stresses will get to the point of a rupture, and an earth-shaking quake, LiveScience explained.

The seven scientists were placed under investigation almost a year ago, according to a news story on the website of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) -- the world's largest general-science society and a leading voice for the interests of scientists worldwide.

Alan Leschner, chief executive of AAAS, said his group wrote a letter to the Italian government last year -- clearly, to no avail.

"Whoever made these accusations misunderstands the nature of science, the nature of the discipline and how difficult it is to predict anything with the surety they expect," Leschner told FoxNews.com.

The case could have a "chilling effect" on scientists, he noted.

"It reflects a lack of understanding about what science can and can't do," he said. "And frankly, it will have an effect of intimidating scientists ... This just feels like either scapegoating or an attempt to intimidate a community. This really seems inappropriate."

Judge Giuseppe Romano Gargarella said that the seven defendants had supplied "imprecise, incomplete and contradictory information," in a press conference following a meeting held by the committee 6 days before the quake, reported the Italian daily Corriere della Sera

In doing so, they "thwarted the activities designed to protect the public," the judge said.

Boschi's lawyer, Marcello Melandri, has been taking the news badly, reported the AAAS story. He was particularly stunned because -- despite of the near impossibility of predicting earthquakes Boshi had been indicating that a large earthquake would be coming, though he did not say when.

Melandri told the AAAS that Boschi never sought to reassure the population of L'Aquila that there was no threat. On the contrary, the INGV head made it clear that "at some point it is probable that there will be a big earthquake."

In addition to Boschi, those facing trial are:

* Franco Barberi, committee vice president;
* Bernardo De Bernardinis, at the time vice president of Italy's Civil Protection Department and now president of the country's Institute for Environmental Protection and Research;
* Giulio Selvaggi, director of the National Earthquake Center;
* Gian Michele Calvi, director of the European Center for Training and Research in Earthquake Engineering;
* Claudio Eva, an earth scientist at the University of Genoa; and
* Mauro Dolce, director of the office of seismic risk at the Civil Protection Department.

©2011 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
The second is a local matter. You have a solution to avoid those laws. Federal rules & regulations are the real crime.

congrats jim you found yerself some crazies. dollarhite? what kinda fuckin' name is that?

When those crazies are government, it's an issue for all of us.
 

2minkey

bootlicker
yeah, but that shit has always and will always go on. there's gonna be a certain number of freaks in any job, gubmint or otherwise. would be nice if it was easier to fire 'em though. "employment at will" is kinda nice in that sense.
 

Winky

Well-Known Member
wrong again, doesn't it ever get old?

Since when can a private company levy a $90,643 fine against you?
Has Geico ever fined you $4,000?
Has your local garden shop required you to pay to have an
environmental impact study before you planted petunias?

Can a private company send a swat team to your house
have you beaten down and hauled off in chains?

yeah there's no difference whatsoever between a Wal-Mart cashier
and Eric Holder?

24exuo1.jpg
 

2minkey

bootlicker
um, yeah, dude, the walmart chimp is much easier to fire.

seems you're not firing on all cylinders this morning.

what is it about making it easier to fire them and/or employment at will that you object to?

you're so obsessed with your own whining that you're getting all bound up in response to comments that reflect your own views. golly, you're as confused as RM aren't ya?
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
yeah, but that shit has always and will always go on.

One more reason to limit federal governent. Some (hell, most) regulations make sense, on some level. Unfortunately, once it goes into effect, there is no controlling those crazies. They have rules & regualtions & they're gonna damn well use 'em.
 

2minkey

bootlicker
no argument on that one.

and what about people that go drunk with legal powers in the corporate world? enron, fer instance? i guess i'm just saying that kind of nutbaggery isn't just in the gubmint.
 

Winky

Well-Known Member
I have a dream!

As a businessman you make your decisions based on how
they will effect your profit margin.

Not one Federal regulation improves the bottom line!

And as a consequence no one benefits except perhaps the government
or some lobbyist backed special interest group.

The outrageous rate at which corporations are taxed is only a part
of the damage that is done to American business.

Set our businesses free!
 

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Yep. Dancing can get you thrown in the can in DC. We gotta protect our monuments from those American citizens, now, don't we? After all, they could wear holes in those marble floors with all that dancin' and stuff.

Video at the bottom of the linked article.

SOURCE

Five People Arrested in D.C. for Dancing At U.S. Monument

Published May 29, 2011 | FoxNews.com

A group of people in Washington, D.C., protesting a recent court decision that says expressive dancing is the same as picketing and marching, were arrested for just that -- dancing, MyFoxDC reports.

A dance-in at the Jefferson Memorial led to five arrests and a violent clash with U.S. Park Police. The incident was posted on YouTube and appears to show officers using force to push the arrestees to the ground.

MyFoxDC reports that a spokesman for Park Police says the agency is investigating complaints officers overreacted.

Despite the court ban on dancing in certain areas of national monuments, the protestors say they plan to be back next Saturday at noon.

Click here for more on this story from MyFoxDC.
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
This isn't the first time this has happened. There is a story somewhere in these threads of people sayign the Pledge of Allegiance & being forced to stop.

I think the only thing worse than the police being forced to enforce assinine laws is that someone actually had the temerity to create a situation where some idiot politicians felt the need to act.
 
Top