Brunners and the DATCP

[Guest guest]

Please keep us informed as to what is happening with the lawsuit.

Perhaps a once a week update to this forum would not be unwelcome.

If the DATCP is prepared to drag the lawsuit out until the public

forgets about it, perhaps we ought to be prepared to send a letter or

letters at least once a week until they drop it.

This is a very important lawsuit and the winning of it by you could

open doors in the rest of the states for the rest of us.

[Guest guest]

I would gladly give weekly updates - IF it's okay with everyone else here.

I don't want to make a pest of myself

I do agree, this suit could possibly open doors to changing the laws in

other states. In fact, we're seriously considering NOT playing their waiting

game, and perhaps filing a countersuit. Just to get things fired up a little

that is. We are in a position here that could really rock the boat - if we have

enough people backing us that is.

Any opinions on this? Suggestions? Anything?

Thanks,

Janet

----- Original Message -----

Please keep us informed as to what is happening with the lawsuit.

Perhaps a once a week update to this forum would not be unwelcome.

If the DATCP is prepared to drag the lawsuit out until the public

forgets about it, perhaps we ought to be prepared to send a letter or

letters at least once a week until they drop it.

This is a very important lawsuit and the winning of it by you could

open doors in the rest of the states for the rest of us.

[Guest guest]

Janet-

>In fact, we're seriously considering NOT playing their waiting game, and

>perhaps filing a countersuit. Just to get things fired up a little that

>is. We are in a position here that could really rock the boat - if we

>have enough people backing us that is.

> Any opinions on this? Suggestions? Anything?

While it's probably best to get some sound strategic advice from someone

who knows the regulatory, legal and governmental terrain in your area, I

bet a counter suit would be a good idea. It would keep your cause in the

public eye and it would more aggressively seek to establish your right to

sell raw dairy.

Good luck!

-

[Guest guest]

Hey there,

Okay, so I have spent the past two hours researching this issue (it pays to

be a law student!

I have to immediately say that I am not a lawyer and this is not legal

advice, just some information I found worth sharing....

I am not finding much. I tried to see whether share programs were defined

as selling, and found nothing on an federal level or in Wisconsin. (This

case can only be files in state court because federal court would not be

able to hear a case against the state (State soverignty).) That does not

mean they're not there, but that the most obvious (and not so obvious)

search terms were not getting me anywhere.

Unfortunately, it seems that a share program was attempted by a farmer in

VA, who tried to sell goat milk and that was found to be illegal. She

seemed to have a campaign going, to no avail.

NOTE: These decisions come from courts of a different state, meaning the

holding would NOT apply to this case. However, judges will often look to

what other states have done.

Carbaugh v. Solem 302 S.E.2d 33 Va.,1983.

The Supreme Court held that: (1) program by which goat owner leased goats

to lessees, who were then entitled to receive all the " by-products "

produced by designated goat in a 24-hour period, including its milk,

violated regulations, and (2) state officials were entitled to an

injunction prohibiting goat owner from further violations of regulations.

In detail:

Program by which goat owner leased goats to lessees, who were then entitled

to receive all " by-products " produced by a designated goat in a 24-hour

period, including its milk, violated regulations of Department of

Agriculture and Consumer Services, including regulation prohibiting sale of

raw milk and raw milk products.

Violation with which owner was charged was sale of raw milk produced by the

animal, and it was immaterial that title to goat never passed, because

title to milk passed when owner completed act of delivery.

Kenley v. Solem 375 S.E.2d 532 Va.,1989.

The Supreme Court held that goat owner's selling undivided interests in

goats and charging maintenance fee for transfer of unpasteurized milk to

buyers of interests violated regulation.

In detail:

Goat owner's selling undivided interests in her goats and charging

maintenance fee for transfer of unpasteurized milk constituted selling of

milk in violation of regulation prohibiting sale of raw milk and milk

products and was not a mere delivery of milk.

Payment of maintenance fee assumed that buyer of interest would get a

gallon of milk a day and, if goat was not producing enough milk so that

there was at least one gallon, goat owner supplied deficiency from her

share of goat's milk, and as such maintenance fee, geared to amount of milk

each owner received, was nothing more than a sham for payment for gallon of

milk received by owner on that day.

I did an online business seach to find the courageous woman and farm

who tried to get the milk out and her info is:

Satyrfield Dairy Goats Route 29 N Charlottesville,

VA (434) 973-6505

It may be interesting for you (Janet) to contact her and hear her thoughts,

and also to find out what she did in the aftermath of the devastating

decision.

Hope that helped.

Ramit

_________________________________________________________