Rawsome foods raided by u.s. government

[Almighty1]

can you say slander?

intelligent debate is no place for slander tsk tsk tsk... i wonder if this implies something about you?

illogical fallacy. example?
Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man):

attacking the person instead of attacking his argument. For example, "Von Daniken's books about ancient astronauts are worthless because he is a convicted forger and embezzler." (Which is true, but that's not why they're worthless.)
or "Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist, so using information given by him, automatically makes it incorrect."

smh

were you on the debate team in high school?

Look who decided to show up... my comment was a response to a video he was actually trying to troll me with after every single one of his unfounded claims was dismembered by everyone in this thread. The video was removed by a mod


I am pretty much done arguing why this thread is pointless. The FDA raid was a result of more then a year of undercover work. During this perior undercover agents would pose as customers and purchase actual products from Rawsome. This has led to a 21 page report of Health, Safety and Policy violations which was the main cause for the raid. There is nothing to debate here.

During a year-long investigation, investigators made undercover purchases of unpasteurized dairy products from Healthy Family Farms stands at Los Angeles, Ventura and Santa Barbara county farmers markets and at Rawesome.

The products included unpasteurized goat milk, cheese, yogurt and kefir.

In one instance cited in the 21-page complaint, an undercover investigator received goat milk, stored in a cooler in the back of Healthy Family Farms van, in the parking lot of a grocery store.

I asked this before and you have failed to provide a straightforward answer: What exactly is your issue with this story?

In the OP you said that it was the Gag Order, you have been explained multiple times that a gag order is a standard practice in any trial. It is used to reduce jury contamination and helps minimize their bias.

Then you started the argument that there wasnt any real proof of a crime. This absurd statement was rendered obsolete via details of a year-long undercover operation and a long list of violations which were uncovered.

You keep pushing the point that this was an "attack" or to quote your own words

government-sponsored terrorism of American farmers

for which you have failed to provide any evidence except some over-inflated posts about nothing. And an article from a clearly biased source such as "NatureNews" This was not an attack against farmers, this was a climax of a government investigation into a group of people illegally selling potentially dangerous products with blatant ignorance for set safety standards and guidelines. These people willingly put the life of their customers in danger for a quick dollar. What makes this whole situation even more ridiculous is the fact that Rawsome foods was already raided once for same reason over a year before. They knew exactly what they needed to do to legally continue their operation, the fact that they chose to ignore the law again is a crime on its own.

The state of California is very open to the sale of Raw Milk as long as the source follows some very reasonable safety guidelines:

To sell raw cow milk directly from the farm to consumers, a producer is required to obtain a Raw Milk Sales Part 2 permit. Even if the farmer gives away one gallon of milk, a permit is required. To receive a permit the farmer must have:

• A Brucellosis ring test on file with the Department’s Division of Animal Industry.
• A Tuberculosis test performed on each animal.
• The farm operation must be enrolled in the Quality Milk Production Services (QMPS) program and must have a report showing that each animal was tested for pathogens, including but not limited to Staph. Aureus and E. Coli.
• The farm operation must have a milk sample tested for the following pathogens: Salmonella, Listeria, Escherchia coliform, E. Coli 0157:H7, Campylobacter, and Staphylocci. These tests are required initially and monthly.
  
• Satisfactory farm water test must be on file.

All of these requirements are very reasonable and have a clear purpose. Raw milk is at much higher risk of contamination because it doesnt have pasteurization to fall back on. California has quite an extensive history of milk related deaths caused by improper practices. These laws are in place to protect the public, the customers were not only consuming this milk they were feeding it to their children. The children dont have the option to make an educated decision based on their personal feelings, on top of that they are at a much higher risk to bacterial poisoning because their immune systems are still in relatively early stage of development.

This is a clear-cut case of a law being broken and the consequences that come with that. This is not a targeted attack at health food farmers, this is not a government act to limit the freedoms of its people. Like i have said before you dont have a valid argument to present against this.

---------- Post added 2011-08-07 at 07:59 PM ----------

in response to the italicized segment. i dont claim to be knowledgeable on the previous issue with licensing you mention. but since you do, do you mind providing said information you have in regards to this claim? i am interested in knowing about this issue. your saying that "I wonder if its because they knew their food wouldn't pass the quality control tests necessary for obtaining the proper licenses." is another question that i would be asking as well, but it also leads to other questions like; did they just not learn the lesson? or did they actually fix this licensing issue since and have been wrongfully accused now? basically this question should lead to multiple questions, all of which cannot be answered until full disclosure of all facts has been given to the public (or unless you are personally one of those accused of the crimes in the investigation).

From L.A. Times article About the First Raid which took place around one year ago

in the case of Rawesome, regulators allege that the group broke the law by failing to have the proper permits to sell food to the public. While the raid was happening at Rawesome, another went down at one of its suppliers, Healthy Family Farms in Ventura County. California agriculture officials said farm owner Sharon Palmer's processing plant had not met standards to obtain a license. Palmer could not be reached for comment.

Additional Information on the criminal background of the Healthy Family Farms owner

This isn't the first run-in with the law for Palmer (a.k.a Sharon Palmer-Ross), who was featured in the documentary Farmageddon. In 2000, she and her partner, Edward Rostami of Polo Financial Services, were indicted on fraud, conspiracy, bank fraud and other charges in what authorities labeled a real estate swindle.
Rostami and Palmer fled the country to avoid charges but were captured near the U.S.-Mexico border in April of 2000. Rostami was sentenced to a year in federal prison, while Palmer received three years probation including four months of home detention,according to the LA Times.

Your entire debate was based on the inappropriate conduct by the SWAT raid team. The allegations of SWAT present at the raid have been discredited as well

Forbes:

Update. It looks like it may not have been a SWAT team after all

The Huffington Post describes the police as “federal agents”. The LA Weekly makes no mention of a SWAT team either.

...the raid itself appears to have been pretty by-the-book, rather than a SWAT-style raid as originally reported by Natural News...

TheEpochTimes

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) joined forces with FBI and local officials (a total of five government agencies) to bust Rawesome

A bit more on the recent (second) Raid on Rawsome:

But this week, the police cleared the shelves of Rawesome, an establishment in Venice Beach, loading $70,000 of raw, organic produce and dairy products on the back of a flatbed truck.
And then, on Thursday, James Stewart, the proprietor, was arraigned on charges of illegally making, improperly labeling and illegally selling raw milk products, as well as other charges related to Rawesome’s operations. Two farmers who work with Rawesome were also named in the district attorney’s complaint.
Though it is legal to sell unpasteurized milk products in California, Rawesome, which has operated in Venice for more than six years, never obtained a license to do so — or, indeed, any type of business license.

So it looks like my hypothesis has been proven, they ignored the laws completely. They willingly sold products to their customers knowing that their facilities didnt qualify for a license. The fact that the authorities confiscated close to $70,000 of illegal products goes a long way to illustrate the amount of money Rawsome was generating. They chose not to fix their shortcomings and make their facilities compliant. They simply continued to make profit (and since they didnt have an actual business license, i can only assume that they never paid any taxes but this is just an educated guess. I havent yet found any evidence to support it) knowing selling their customers sub-par products. Since this isnt something that would be advertised i think its pretty safe to assume that a lot of their customers were not aware that they were buying Raw Milk from a place that has failed to meet the necessary requirements for obtaining a proper license.

[ThePalidius]

Look who decided to show up... my comment was a response to a video he was actually trying to troll me with after every single one of his unfounded claims was dismembered by everyone in this thread. The video was removed by a mod

I am pretty much done arguing why this thread is pointless. The FDA raid was a result of more then a year of undercover work. During this perior undercover agents would pose as customers and purchase actual products from Rawsome. This has led to a 21 page report of Health, Safety and Policy violations which was the main cause for the raid. There is nothing to debate here.

I asked this before and you have failed to provide a straightforward answer: What exactly is your issue with this story?

In the OP you said that it was the Gag Order, you have been explained multiple times that a gag order is a standard practice in any trial. It is used to reduce jury contamination and helps minimize their bias.

Then you started the argument that there wasnt any real proof of a crime. This absurd statement was rendered obsolete via details of a year-long undercover operation and a long list of violations which were uncovered.

You keep pushing the point that this was an "attack" or to quote your own words for which you have failed to provide any evidence except some over-inflated posts about nothing. And an article from a clearly biased source such as "NatureNews" This was not an attack against farmers, this was a climax of a government investigation into a group of people illegally selling potentially dangerous products with blatant ignorance for set safety standards and guidelines. These people willingly put the life of their customers in danger for a quick dollar. What makes this whole situation even more ridiculous is the fact that Rawsome foods was already raided once for same reason over a year before. They knew exactly what they needed to do to legally continue their operation, the fact that they chose to ignore the law again is a crime on its own.

The state of California is very open to the sale of Raw Milk as long as the source follows some very reasonable safety guidelines:

To sell raw cow milk directly from the farm to consumers, a producer is required to obtain a Raw Milk Sales Part 2 permit. Even if the farmer gives away one gallon of milk, a permit is required. To receive a permit the farmer must have:

• A Brucellosis ring test on file with the Department’s Division of Animal Industry.
• A Tuberculosis test performed on each animal.
• The farm operation must be enrolled in the Quality Milk Production Services (QMPS) program and must have a report showing that each animal was tested for pathogens, including but not limited to Staph. Aureus and E. Coli.
• The farm operation must have a milk sample tested for the following pathogens: Salmonella, Listeria, Escherchia coliform, E. Coli 0157:H7, Campylobacter, and Staphylocci. These tests are required initially and monthly.
  
• Satisfactory farm water test must be on file.

All of these requirements are very reasonable and have a clear purpose. Raw milk is at much higher risk of contamination because it doesnt have pasteurization to fall back on. California has quite an extensive history of milk related deaths caused by improper practices. These laws are in place to protect the public, the customers were not only consuming this milk they were feeding it to their children. The children dont have the option to make an educated decision based on their personal feelings, on top of that they are at a much higher risk to bacterial poisoning because their immune systems are still in relatively early stage of development.

This is a clear-cut case of a law being broken and the consequences that come with that. This is not a targeted attack at health food farmers, this is not a government act to limit the freedoms of its people. Like i have said before you dont have a valid argument to present against this.

im going to start with the first three bolded sections.
A. your condecending attitude is not needed nor warranted.
B. re read the thread starting post. the only thing i personally wrote in it was the first sentence. the rest was copy and paste of an article i read.
C. to answer your question about my issue with this story. i had previously formed an opinion without doing the proper research i usually do, made a misinformed opinion hastily, was corrected, and retracted my statement. currently i have no opinion on this story until the trial is over, all the facts are presented, and the case is finished. then and only then will i make my opinion.

in regards to the bolded italicized statement.
you sir are completely incorrect. i never said there was not proof of a crime, i said that nobody in this thread has proof of a crime. nobody here is involved in the investigation in any way. nor is anybody here one of the accused. the only people that would have information that is factually correct without a shadow of a doubt would be the accused, and the investigators. anybody in this thread can only reasonably assume they are guilty, but are not privy to the actual facts. nobody here has read this 21 page complaint, or worked on this case. nobody here has been grouped into the accused and charges filed against them involving this case either. can you debunk that? do i need to make it clearer for you?

example
you hire me to be a lumberjack. i got my lumberjack suit on, my chainsaw, ready to work. our job is to chop trees down that are over 10 feet tall, because we have to according to the law. and if any tree chopped down is not 10 feet tall, there are severe penalties for you and i. in order for me to do so, i have to give you a written statement saying that i have personally measured every tree i intend to cut down and believe to my best ability that my measurements are accurate. i provide you with this statement, so you give me a piece of paper giving me lawful power to do the job. i go out into the forrest, and chop down the trees. you call me on the walkie talkie and ask "you chop down those trees yet?" i say "sure have ill bring them in."
how do you know that i did not chop down a tree under 10 feet? yes it is reasonable to assume that because i could get into trouble for slacking on the job, do you know for an absolute fact that i did not? if you were my boss, in this case, would you truly just say, meh he prolly did it right, i dont need to double check his work?

the example above is why we have court rooms, and trials. we do not have police running around like sylvester stallone in judge dredd playing judge jury executioner.
what i am saying is that multiple people are acting like sly stallone without double checking the lumberjacks work.

hopefully after you read this post you will not feel the need to respond. i personally am done trying to argue the difference between reasonable opinion, and factual evidence. but hopefully i clarified the difference to you.

i would literally shit myself if i found some of the posters as my judge in a court case, or on a jury in a court case i was being charged with.

[simfeld]

the way you wrote this was if youre trying to appeal to the tea party

[Almighty1]

CLIFFNOTES OF THE OPs BATTLE WITH LOGIC

Disclaimer: Read at your own risk. Possible side effects include, but are not limited to: facial injuries resulting from excessive /facepalming, conditioned hate for the word "logic". Fear of anyone in a uniform or a suit including the police, judges, doctors, business men, govt officials and milkmen. Strong desire to make and wear a tinfoil hat.

The First Statement Made by OP, (its actually the second statement, but according to the OPs logic the first statement was copy and paste and not his words and even though he has based most of his argument on it, doesnt count)

My comments are addressed at the op in 1st person

Originally Posted by ThePalidius
no these are false accusations by law enforcement that will not hold up in court. but the fact that they raided them, stole their money, product, and business materials, will undoubtedly put them out of business.
this is a strong arm tactic by government, on behalf of big agraculture, to stomp out any competition in business. raw foods are the healthiest period, all store bought foods are gmo infested. GMO (genetically modified organizm) are known to cause permanent infertility after 3 generations in rats. no official human studies have been done.

you are the one that has been making some extreme, un-educated assumptions based off a biased hippy source since the first page

You then take it one step further, making even more uneducated assumptions about the quality of the products being sold and government's hidden agendas accusing people of being blind and lacking logic

Originally Posted by ThePalidius
food, healthy, unpoisoned, no, and if you just believe what the government tells you, just because they are the government and must have reasons, without asking what these reasons are, you are failing in logic and discovery of the truth miserably.

Originally Posted by ThePalidius
rawsome foods was a local private by contract food supplier (within accordance to all applicable laws[what exactly were you basing this claim on?]) it would be unwise to assume because they were charged, that they are guilty.

Originally Posted by ThePalidius
there is no proof for a lack of license, only a claim that there is a lack of license.

You continue to argue that there is no proof of crime, failing to aknowledge any logical points made, ignorantly pounding the point that there is no evidence of a crime, accusing others of making assumptions while you continue to do so.

there is no proof for a lack of license, only a claim that there is a lack of license.

Completely ignoring all logic

All business licenses are a matter of public record and can be looked up by anybody by visiting a government office. The police could not lie about them not having a license if they tried.

I know this for an absolute, positive, 100% fact, because I have looked up these sorts of licenses before for news stories. You have to go down to an office and look up the junk yourself in many cases due to woefully outdated computer systems, but it is all there.

and make assumptions, accusations and generalizations by attacking the credibility of law enforcement and their abilities to follow protocol especially in such a high profile case

Originally Posted by ThePalidius
you assume that all police always follow perfect procedures. there are many examples where this was found to be untrue, you also assume that police could not lie, yet it is also proven numerous times that they in fact do lie. all the time, officers are convicted of perjury, falsifying evidence, and even more cases of these examples are covered up all the time.

in regards to the other part of your statement, you are again assuming that although public record, that the police actually did their job perfectly by the book to a t. which until further information is given about this case, you can not accurately claim and be logical in your reasoning.

This is my favorite part: where you take on a personality of a lawyer and start tossing random accusations such as "slander" around

Originally Posted by ThePalidius
you are right there is only hearsay regarding the claim "they werent read their right" but you claiming i fell for anything is a total misrepresentation of me and slanderous. can you provide a link that shows raw, unprocessed foods, are dangerous or will eventually sicken or kill the consumer? and also can you provide proof that they broke any FDA safety rule? i have bashed no man or woman in this thread, only the illogical claims made by others. seems to me the only person who was slandered in our exchange is me.

You continue to completely ignore common sense while making some really absurd claims

In order to have a search warrant, police must first have that warrant issued by a judge. Now, if I was a judge (and I'm not), and police were asking me for a search warrant for a food dealer, claiming that they were selling raw and unpasteurized food illegally without any sort of permit, I would require proof of such lack of permit before issuing a warrant. To get this proof, I would get testimony from whatever agency holds these permits and licenses saying that they do not in fact have a permit for this business in question, and then I would issue the warrant.

Police do not 'randomly decide to raid.' Raiding without a warrant would be a serious criminal offense, and, just like those permits, warrants are a matter of public record. If that warrant did not exist, then we would all know about it. The only time searching without a warrant is permitted is when there is 'just cause.' Just cause is things such as 'the police officer saw a shotgun in the back of a guy's truck' or 'there is an arrest warrant for the man I just pulled over and searching his vehicle is just cause due to suspicion.'

People often underestimate how much information in the US is a matter of public record and cannot be hidden by anybody. It's absolutely mind-boggling how much stuff you can find out by only filling out some forms. To claim that such a thing could be hidden now, in the age of information, is even sillier. I'd even do it myself, if I was still being paid to. If you'd like to do the legwork, here's some simple steps: call the general hotline for California's government offices (you can find it on www.ca.gov ) and then find out what agencies handle warrents and what agencies handle permits and the like. You can then contact those agencies and file a form or two and have that information faxed to you. I'm not sure if they're able to e-mail it yet, but they could only do fax back when I was having to look into it.

Originally Posted by ThePalidius
excellent post, well thought out! but then again your point is still based under the assumption that the police, have followed the rule of the law to a t. which has been proven to be unreliable, especially in los angeles county. corruption is rampant among police. so you still have to wait to see if they actually did or not. it would be illogical to come to any definitive conclusion regarding this matter until the whole story plays out.

If the police did all of the things you are claiming that they did, then this entire incident would fall to pieces in an actual court of law. There's no hilarious government conspiracy. I think I made it pretty clear that the police, or anybody else for that matter, would be unable to hide it.

Murderers - actual murderers, who almost are undoubtedly guilty - walk free when because a search warrant was handled improperly. Because a single piece (of sometimes pointless) evidence was mishandled. Murderers walk free when proper legal procedure isn't followed. There is plenty of reason to believe that proper procedure has been followed here, and if it hasn't, that it will soon be known to have been followed incorrectly.

In order for this entire thing to be covered up, there would have to be multi-level government conspiracy aimed at these raw-food sellers that spread through nearly every section of the legal system. To even suggest such a thing is preposterous in its absurdity. They would have to falsify warrants, destroy paperwork, and get everybody in on it from the ground level all the way up to the appeals court and supreme court.

You yourself call your claims to be "far-fetched" and yet continue to argue that they are based on logic. This is basically around the time you start to beck-peddle from your original statements

Originally Posted by ThePalidius
A. i have not claimed anything, i merely suggested it as a possibility, giving a reason as to not assume other people are correct in their claims that were unfounded in logic.
B. there is no way to prove the non existance of a "hilarious government conspiracy."
C. your paragraph on murderers gives my points strength.
D. yes your last paragraph is true, for a cover up, there would have to be a multi-level government conspiracy aimed at the accused. but to suggest it is not possible is an absurdity, not the other way around. until facts disproving an existance arrise, the existance there of is a possibility. (far fetched does not equate to untrue, or impossible) this is what you call sound logic.

You disappear for a few pages and come back to comment on the validity of the law, completely avoiding all the logical posts that have been made and completely changing the subject

Originally Posted by skrump
Laws should not be passed to put the issue of WHAT IF to rest.

Nobody should have to surrender their rights because of a WHAT IF until it turns into "IT'S HIGHLY LIKELY"

Even if Raw milk hospitalized roughly 15,000 people in the U.S a year it still doesn't warrant being outlawed, If it killed 15,000 a year on the other hand I might be a little more sympathetic to a law that bans it.

Originally Posted by ThePalidius
this is the post i most agree with! defend the liberty and freedom of choice for all or it perishes! it is not fair to expect freedom for you but not for others, even if their lifestyle choices are odd in your opinion, unsafe in your opinion, or whatever.

i love freedom above any other choice.

Then you say something completely...rediculous (sorry cant think of a better word) you basically argue that we shouldnt limit anything and just allow people to make their own choices. If someone else becomes a victim of those choices (i.e. an innocent person getting stabbed by a crackhead while being robbed) then we can use the law to punish them. You basically say that any preventive laws shouldn't exist

Originally Posted by ThePalidius
if you really analyze the law, you only need a few basic laws. do not steal, kill, or physically injure anybody. you cannot legislate morality. but we can most likely agree that those three things are bad to do to somebody. prison is obviously not a deterrence for smoking crack, a crack head needs his crack. but the illegality of crack dosent make me not smoke crack. me not wanting to become a crackhead prevents me from smoking crack. its personal choice, if said crackhead, steals, kills, or physically injures anybody they should be punished but thats it. and if you think about all these industrial regulations on food, or medicine, ect. the business owners, and doctors who dont provide quality product, or care will be eliminated by healthy competition and good old fashioned honest investigative reporting. and if they are guilty of any of the three due to their lack in quality they should be punished. the regulations limit choice, but still do not guarantee the security they claim to provide.

Then you find a friend

Originally Posted by Sotos
Hey Tang,

Its not all as black and white as you think and never forget the "law" is created and amended by those in power.

These days the FDA and your government are more interested in making money than protecting your health. They side with big food corporations and companies like Monsanto to do this, passing bills to allow GM food to be fed to everything that can fetch a dollar. I suggest you watch Food Inc to broaden your horizons somewhat and come out of the dark.

Also check out this site with the relevant source biography:
http://www.realmilk.com/foodborne.html
If this short text incites you to obtain more information this online PDF file is a fantastic read although somewhat long at 55 pages.
http://www.gardenstaterawmilk.org/do...idtbookpdf.pdf
Wake up guys, we are getting screwed left, right and centre by those who claim to look out for our needs. I'm not politically minded but love my food and its getting harder and harder to know what we are putting in our mouths ever day...

Not wanting to sound like an internet nut job, but did you know the US made it illegal for Iraquis to grow any new seed variations in Iraq? Forcing them to buy genetically modified seeds supplied by US corporations like Monsanto and thus enslaving them to buy new seeds every year.

Here is information on this:
http://www.grain.org/article/entries...gainst-farmers

Here is directive 81 as well for you if you can make sense of it
http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulat...atents_Law.pdf

I suggest anyone who reads this and has the slightest interest in what is happening to food around you to google Monsanto and read what comes up.

Originally Posted by ThePalidius
wow a fellow logical thinker, and using actual government documents? and sources to verify claims made? you sir deserve a high five!

I Belive Kinettic has hit the nail on the head with this one

So the only person in this thread to some what share your views is the only logical one? Get off your high horse, half of your "logical arguments" are only logical to YOU. The have been many posts in this thread with similar logic, yet since they dont share your sentiment of the situation, you try to dismiss them by twisting their statements and countering with your own illogical fallacies.
Its funny how far conspiracy theorists and those with close minded views will go to prove that theyre the only ones right in a discussion...

Originally Posted by ThePalidius
then kindly point out my illogical fallacies. you also seem to think i was imposing an opinion on anybody, which i did not. i only refuted their logic.

Ok, we will start with your 2nd post in this thread. The illogical claim that these accusations are false(1), the they "Stole" their money, produxts, etc (2) and that this whole thing was somehow orchestrated by "Big Agriculture" to keep the little man down (3), all "raw" foods are healthier (4) (proof?), All store foods are GMO infested (5)(proof?)

This was only your second post in this entire thread (Your first was a copy and paste, no real "YOU" in it) and were already up to 5. All these accusations are without basis or fact, thus making them illogical (at least by your standard of logic portrayed in following posts)

you start making claims that those disagreeing with you are slandering you even though a mod assures you that nothing of this nature happened

Originally Posted by ThePalidius read over this entire thread, you can not name 1 time where i slandered anybody personally. yet you can count multiple attempts to discredit my opinion illogically. shameful really.

Nobody is slandering you or attempting to insult you, if they were, I would have reported them and made sure they were dealt with as such. That's a warning for anybody, by the way, don't do it. However, proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt' has been given to you many times - it is your choice that you are willfully ignoring it.

What follows is about 10 pages of pure nonsense where you jump from one topic to the next covering "The Burden of Proof" Logic while making claims without any validation. About judicial and law enforcement misconduct as well as continuing to argue that there is no evidence of a crime committed and that its more logical to believe that the police raided someone without any evidence then to believe that the accused party could actually be breaking the law.
You throw around phrases that simply make no sense such as "logical fact" because a fact is a fact regardless of logic. Just because something is logical doesnt mean its a fact, and just because its a fact doesnt mean that its logical.

Originally Posted by ThePalidius
you still are trying to argue that reasonable assumptions equal logical fact. not true, this whole response is a case of this. the response you quoted me on only says the same thing, a reasonable assumption does not equal logical fact. it can however eventually be proven to be logical fact, but not until all the evidence is provided in court. i even provided examples as to why and how you cannot possibly make the statement that reasonable assumptions (all we have at the moment is partial evidence, conjecture, and drawing of conclusions from opinion. of which you have stated this partial evidence, conjecture, and drawing of conclusions leads you to reasonably assume you know what happened) that it is actually logical fact. yet somehow because it seems straight forward to you, you cannot say without a shadow of a doubt that you are correct. you can believe it, you just cannot factually prove it.

oh fyi: a "reasonable assumption" is synonymous with "logic" in fact they are pretty much same thing


Which basically brings us to the end where you abandon all of your previous comments and go from arguing that "there is no proof of crime" to "no one in this thread has proof of the crime"

you sir are completely incorrect. i never said there was not proof of a crime, i said that nobody in this thread has proof of a crime. nobody here is involved in the investigation in any way. nor is anybody here one of the accused. the only people that would have information that is factually correct without a shadow of a doubt would be the accused, and the investigators. anybody in this thread can only reasonably assume they are guilty, but are not privy to the actual facts. nobody here has read this 21 page complaint, or worked on this case. nobody here has been grouped into the accused and charges filed against them involving this case either. can you debunk that? do i need to make it clearer for you?
i would literally shit myself if i found some of the posters as my judge in a court case, or on a jury in a court case i was being charged with.

To summarize it all all i have to say is this
10/10 OP you are hands down troll of the year. This will definitely be a thread im going to re-read again and again simply for entertainment purposes

[homeric]

This thread... why is it still going? Go to the beach or something guys

[Almighty1]

This thread... why is it still going? Go to the beach or something guys

because a reasonable assumption is not a logical fact and a logical fact is a logical fact that is not a reasonable assumptions o_0

[I stand in fire]

just read this article, kind of disturbing. thoughts?

Rawsome Foods owner, Victoria Bloch was released from jail in LA County last night, but only under the condition that she completely give up her First Amendment rights and refrain from talking to anyone about the case. NaturalNews has confirmed this gag order was placed on Victoria and is also going to be placed on James Stewart and Sharon Palmer as a condition of their release (they are reportedly making bail today and may be home by this evening).

This gag order is, of course, an effort by the California court system to try to quell the rising tidal wave of public outrage against the armed government raids against a raw dairy farm and private buyer’s club — a raid that many people who witnessed it described, in their own words, as “government terrorism” against the People.

First, the government attempts to take away their right to engage in commerce and enter private contracts. Then, the government vandalizes this buying club, steals their cash, destroys their entire product inventory and steals the computers from the store. The owners (and conspiring farmers) are arrested at gunpoint and taken to jail without even being read their rights. And finally, to top it off, they are slapped with a gag order which prohibits them having their First Amendment rights so that they might tell their side of the story.

This is a total assault on freedom by the government.

NaturalNews has learned that under this gag order, these raw milk advocates are prevented from:

• Speaking to any member of the press.
• Tweeting or blogging about the raid.
• Posting anything on Facebook or websites.
• Sending emails about the case.
• Communicating in any way, verbally or non-verbally about the government raids conducted against them.

Join the online revolt against government-sponsored terrorism of American farmers

Meanwhile, public outrage is rapidly spreading. A viral Tweet campaign has been launched that has people tweeting #rawesome and#farmageddon across the web (http://www.naturalnews.com/033243_ra...ial_media.html), and a new video has just been posted by Sarah Brown that interviewed several people who witnessed the raid. Watch this video to see government terrorists stealing computers and business files from Rawesome Foods:
http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=C3E893...B97B579F08F7F5

or see it on YouTube at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzlrSCqTBBE

What exactly is the government claiming that they did? You failed to mention it in your post. The US government don't do these things lightly or just because they don't like someone.

[AssaultDrone]

Food is a bit different, A rocket launcher you can kill others, food at most you can harm yourself, not many people buy raw milk to slaughter masses of people. Truth is people used to drink raw milk all the time. Cellphones also are deemed by the UN to have a 30% to 40% chance over those who don't use them, to cause cancer. Yet they are not banning those. and that's far more dangerous than raw milk.

you're thinking in extremes there :P

I realize I was going a bit extreme. At the same time the idea I was responding to, that 15000 people being hospitalized each year wouldn't be a big deal, is a bit extreme in the other direction.

[BruceInc]

What exactly is the government claiming that they did? You failed to mentioned in your post. The US government don't do these things lightly or just because they don't like someone.

They were knowingly selling Raw Milk products that didnt meet the necessary standards. They continued to do so even after being raided once before. They were greedy bastards that charged people up to $6-7 per gallon of sub-par milk that they didnt have proper license to sell. They operated without a business license for over 6 years. They put the health of their customers in danger and violated multiple health codes and regulations.

this thread is basically about everyone trying to convince the OP that he is wrong while he continues to come up with completely ridiculous, ignorant and absurd statements. its actually pretty funny, you can read the cliffnotes here to save yourself the trouble of browsing through 20 pages of BS

Cliffnotes:
http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post12618578

[lukz]

E-COli in Sprouts, spinach, tomatoes...

Brain eating bacteria in Beef that causes actual holes in tissue...

Why are we mad the government did this?

I don't want holes in my brain, and I don't want bacteria to cause me to die.

(yes I posted this very simplistic as if telling a 2 year old, if this encounter doesn't make sense, you are dumb)

I agree raw foods have health benefits, but until we can 100% GAURENTEE the safety of such foods, it won't happen.

[BruceInc]

E-COli in Sprouts, spinach, tomatoes...

Brain eating bacteria in Beef that causes actual holes in tissue...

Why are we mad the government did this?

I don't want holes in my brain, and I don't want bacteria to cause me to die.

(yes I posted this very simplistic as if telling a 2 year old, if this encounter doesn't make sense, you are dumb)

I agree raw foods have health benefits, but until we can 100% GAURENTEE the safety of such foods, it won't happen.

From what i understand its perfectly legal to sell and produce raw food as long as you obtain proper licensing and maintain a check list of regulations. Apparently these guys thought the law didnt apply to them. I stumbled on this thread just recently and it peaked my attention because I heard about this story at work last week. I took a few min to browse the previous pages and I think that its a pretty general consensus that the govt was not doing anything wrong, in fact i think OP is one of the very few that doesn't see it that way even though there has been plenty of evidence presented to prove him wrong.

---------- Post added 2011-08-08 at 08:14 AM ----------

I never took a vaccine in my life and never take medicine, and never get sick. And I live in Montreal, so living in a big city my exposure to these things should be high. I just eat healthy. I just think everyone wants a cure, or everything can be fixed with a cure, but noone wants to prevent.

Do you even know what a vaccine is?

Yes, I am not talking about Vaccines, I am talking in general terms. More about the business side as the bigger problem.

I LoLed So hard. I am literally awestruck by the amount of fail in this thread and by the fact that the OP and a certain other individual *COUGH* *COUGH* seem to have a monopoly on it.

[Exill]

I didn't read the entirety of this thread but one thing...

LOL at anyone complaining about not being read their rights. Since when is it required to be read your rights if you are arrested? Swooped off to jail without even being read their rights zomg!!!

Miranda Rights are only needed if you are in custody and/or not free to leave and you are being questioned. If both of those haven't been met, no need for Miranda...so yeah swept off and taken to jail without being read your rights is generally a widely accepted practice. ^^

[Deleted]

On a side note pasteurisation or cooked milk allows the milk companies to sell milk with pus in it! Around 60% of cows that are injected with the growth hormone develop mastitis which is an infection of the udder and this creates pus that goes in your milk.

What, don't you guys have pasteurized organic milk over there? - Pasteurization without pus.

---------- Post added 2011-08-08 at 01:39 PM ----------

I don't agree with everything Alex Jones says ...<snip> but some of what he says is true, whether you like it or not

You're familiar with the boy who cried wolf, yes?

alot of his stuff is actually documented, he shows the news paper clipping

Ooooh, he shows news paper clippings, does he? Well that changes everything!...
(I trust you can sense the sarcasm)

Here's a suggestion for you, provided you insist on following his show: The next time Alex Jones shows a news paper clipping... Read the news paper clipping and mute Alex Jones!

[nbm02ss]

Having grown up on a dairy farm there is absolutely no way I would consume any raw milk products....and our cows were on pasture 365 days a year with hay rolled out for them in the winter time.

[Penguirrel]

I like my milk from a cow, in some process that they call "Sweet Acidopholous" (no idea what it is but have been drinking it my whole life), to a supermarket, into my cereal.

[Deleted]

Oh look, propaganda and conspiracy theories. It's the government's job to stop people poisoning the population with improperly treated and contaminated food, deal with it instead of spinning it as "baww baww gumment is cracking down on our legit business".

[Sooba]

which proves my first point, its not black and white, its the process and sanitation, which is the issue. Raw milk isn't bad, its the way they are kept. So if someone got sick off raw milk, its the farmers fault for not taking proper precautions yes? and would this shit on the utters happen if they weren't crowded in tiny stalls? and in an open field? a lot less likely , cause the cow wouldn't be forced to hover over thier own shit 24 hours a day, they would be moving around the pasture grazing like most pasture animals do. Plus they would be eating their normal diet of grass, and not forced to eat food like corn. So taking the cow out of its more natural way of being probably doesn't help.

It does not prove your first point. It disproves it. You need to take some classes in logic. You made a comparison between human mothers and cows... and it failed. Additionally, the anatomy of a cow is what's in question, not dairy farm practices. A cow's udder is simply not sanitized enough to produce a safe product, no matter the conditions. So that point fails too.

You keep trying to bring corporate bullying into this when it's very evident there was none. You keep trying to bring improper treatment of animals into this when there was none. In short, YOU KEEP PULLING SHIT OUT OF YOUR ASS. It's not there. GO. AWAY. There are legitimate places to discuss all of that stuff. This isn't it. You picked the wrong thread and don't know when to give up, or when to be gracious and admit you were wrong.

---------- Post added 2011-08-08 at 11:23 AM ----------

and I'm not making it up
who you talking to ? bye

There we go. This post says it ALL. He's a troll. Just put him on ignore.

---------- Post added 2011-08-08 at 11:25 AM ----------

Oh oh, he found someone else to try to show his superiority over. Ignore him Diurdi

More trolling

---------- Post added 2011-08-08 at 11:37 AM ----------

can you say slander?

intelligent debate is no place for slander tsk tsk tsk... i wonder if this implies something about you?

illogical fallacy. example?
Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man):

attacking the person instead of attacking his argument. For example, "Von Daniken's books about ancient astronauts are worthless because he is a convicted forger and embezzler." (Which is true, but that's not why they're worthless.)
or "Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist, so using information given by him, automatically makes it incorrect."

smh

were you on the debate team in high school?

Wrong and wrong. This isn't slander, as proven by my quotes he is a troll. As proven by our thread he is incapable of following logic OR he is incapable of admitting when he has shown to be wrong. So either stupid or immature, take your pick. If you continue to support him, you will unfortunately be discrediting yourself.

Everyone knows what Ad-xxx fallacies are. This isn't ad hominem. You seem incapable of being able to tell the difference. We prove him wrong and he is incapable of admitting defeat and is therefore (as stated before) stupid or immature. We did not make the argument "You are stupid and therefore wrong." Hell, we didn't even get nasty and say "You are wrong and therefore stupid" (Which isn't a fallacy by the way). No, instead we let him hang himself on garbage after garbage post. Then we considered the source (A garbage dispenser) and discredited him. Perfectly viable. Incidentally, Alex Jones gets hung for the same reason.

Normally at this point I make the somewhat condescending remark of "try again." But you know what? Don't. It's over. You got THRASHED. 21 page document AND a 1-year police undercover investigation. That you're still trying to say "but you can't proooooove it" is hilarious or sad. I'm not sure which yet.

I WASN'T on the debate team in high school. You know why? It was inhabited by too many people like you who enjoyed the sound of their own voice or typing and were so thick as to not see actual reasoning. You keep tyrying to play the "you can't know" card even though, we actually KNOW now. It's public record.

Mod Warning: Don't call other people trolls. Just ignore, report & move on

[General Vezax]

If there is a law against selling unpasteurised dairy produce without a specific license, and they sold unpasteurised dairy produce without said licensse, they really had it coming IMO.

Page 1, thread should have ended right here.

[ThePalidius]

<snip>

Mod Warning: No backseat moderating!

[ElmoMcBeastly]

I just wanted to encourage my fellow pro-milk revolutionaries to continue fighting the anti-milkists and their vile plan to remove our life-giving bacteria from natural milk. Our struggle will never end until all milk is free of the anti-contamination constraints enforced upon it by the jack-booted forces of public health! I dream of one day drinking milk that is at least, say, 50% bacteria, for maximum healthful efficacy. It should slowly goop out of the jug; green and lumpy, smell like a natural, healthy cow patty.