Tag Archives: Fines

Help Save New Zealand Raw Milk

Help Save New Zealand Raw Milk

Support Litigation Fund for Dairy Farmers

In one of the more draconian enforcement actions ever taken against raw milk producers, the New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industry (MPI) brought criminal charges against the farmers of nine different raw milk dairies for violations of that country’s Raw Milk for Sale to Consumers Regulations 2015 (the “2015 regulations”). Some of the defendants have also been charged with violations of the Animal Products Act (APA). The raw milk charges assert that by engaging in the supply of raw cow milk “a direct or indirect risk to human or animal health would be created.”

The Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) is aware of specific charges against three of the farms (two of the three are operated by pensioners). Cedric Backhouse and his wife (WAPF chapter leader Susan Gales) of Alt Energy Farm are each being charged with 26 violations of the 2015 regulations and the APA related to the distribution of raw milk and meat through a herdshare agreement; the potential penalties for each defendant are up to 19 years in jail and $1.8 million (over $1.25 million in U.S. dollars) in fines.

Phillippa (Pip) Martin and John Martin of Manna Milk are each facing seven charges with penalties of up to 12 years in jail and $545,000 in fines (over $380,000 US) for alleged violations of the 2015 regulations and the APA related to the distribution of raw milk through a limited partnership agreement.

Paul and Christine Ashton of Lindsay Farms are each facing five charges with penalties up to eight years in jail and $320,000 in fines (over $225,000 US) for alleged violations of the 2015 regulations related to the distribution of raw milk through a limited partnership agreement.

A majority of the farmers charged were operating under a herdshare or a limited partnership business model as a matter of survival after MPI issued the 2015 regulations affecting raw milk production and sales (the regulations went into effect in March 2016). The ministry promulgated the regulations as a result of a 2014 foodborne illness outbreak associated (or blamed on) raw milk consumption where seven people became ill.

The number of dairies selling or distributing raw milk is a fraction of what it was before MPI imposed the new regulations. It is considerably more difficult for the remaining dairies to make a living than it was five years ago. MPI’s enforcement action against the farmers–in addition to putting the charged farms out of business–is designed to create a chilling effect on the remaining farms and on farmers thinking of starting up a raw milk business.

ACTION TO TAKE

WAPF, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, is accepting donations to help pay legal expenses for the charged farmers. Donations are tax deductible to the fullest extent of the law. To donate, please use the link here (westonaprice.org/donate) and indicate the fund for ‘New Zealand raw milk’. (For those wanting to send a check, please specify that it is for “New Zealand raw milk”.)

MORE BACKGROUND

Before the 2015 regulations went into effect, it was estimated that as many as 200 farms were selling or distributing raw milk in New Zealand; today there could be less than 20% of that number still left.

A. Compliance Barriers

The cost to raw milk farms to comply with the 2015 regulations was in the range of $10,000-$20,000 per year for each farm regardless of what the farm’s production volume was—an expenditure that many farms could not afford. Beyond that, there were several ways that the new requirements significantly hurt the farmers’ ability to make a living.

1. Depot Permits and Burdens

Before 2016, farmers were able to deliver raw milk to a central distribution point (also known as a “depot”), a necessity given the distance between most farms and their customers plus the substantial amount of extra time it takes to deliver door-to-door. The new regulations required a permit for each depot the farmers were delivering to; otherwise, sales were limited to on-farm and to customer premises. Given the estimated cost of permitting each depot, out of the 26 raw milk farms that have registered with MPI (registration was also a requirement in the 2015 regulations), only one has obtained depot permits. Any customer wanting to pick up milk at the depot had to be registered with MPI as a transport operator. There are numerous recordkeeping requirements for a transport operator even when that individual is picking up milk for his or her own family.

2. Sell-by and Use-by Constraints

The most damaging provisions for farmers in the new regulations were sell-by and used-by requirements for raw milk. The regulation for a sell-by time states the following:

“The sell-by time for a lot of milk is the time that is the 30 hours after the commencement of milking for the oldest milk in that lot. (For example, if milking commenced at 7am on Monday 4 June, the sell-by time is 1pm on Tuesday 5 June, even if milk from a subsequent milking is added to that lot.).”

One of the registered farms estimated that this mandate cost them 30% of their business since the farm was unable to meet the time constraints in getting the milk to its more distant customers.

The requirement for the use-by date for raw milk “is 4 days after the commencement of milking for the oldest milk in the lot.”

3. Testing

Another onerous mandate for the farmers is on testing. Dairies are required to test for five different pathogens, coliforms, plate count, somatic cell counts, and “inhibitory substances” every 10 days. Estimates for the cost of testing are around $750 per month.

4. Records

Lastly, the regulations require that farmers not only keep customer names on file for MPI inspection but also every transaction with each customer as well.

B. Alternate Business Models

Many dairies, knowing they couldn’t afford the cost of compliance with the new regulations, went out of business before the new law took effect. Others–believing their only way to stay afloat was to not have to comply with the 2015 regulations–set up business models such as herdshare programs and limited partnership agreements, proceeding in good faith that giving their customers an ownership interest in their dairy livestock would exempt them from the new requirements.

C. MPI Raids

When fewer raw milk producers registered than MPI had anticipated, in 2019 the ministry launched “Operation Caravan”, an investigation of dairies that MPI suspected were not complying with the new regulations. The investigation included the extensive use of MPI undercover operatives. In December 2019 MPI obtained search warrants and raided eight raw milk farms and farmers’ homes around the country, seizing everything from customer lists to computer hard drives. Some of the raided farms shut down; others kept on going. After a year-long investigation, MPI filed criminal charges in December 2020. The Ashtons had registered Lindsay Farm with MPI months earlier, having been told by the ministry that any potential charges would go away if the farm was registered.

Backhouse and Galea are each charged with 17 counts of selling or offering to sell illegally home-killed meat; each count lists the amount allegedly sold as under $100 and one was for only $15.40. The potential fine for each of the 17 charges is up to $75,000. MPI has never accused Backhouse and Galea of making anyone sick with the milk or meat they produced.

An attorney representing one of the charged farmers has been unable to find evidence that any of the charged farmers made anyone ill with the milk they produced. Under the law, MPI can only prosecute those whose products pose a public health risk.

Arraignment for defendants is scheduled to take place in March.The accused farmers and the 250,000 New Zealand residents who consume raw milk need your support.

Please contribute to this effort to protect freedom of choice, strong local food systems, and the right of small farmers to make a living producing nutrient-dense food.

To donate, please use the link here (westonaprice.org/donate) and indicate the fund for ‘New Zealand raw milk’. (For those wanting to send a check, please specify that it is for “New Zealand raw milk”.)

Thanks for your generosity and your help in spreading the word.

READ MORE

LINK: https://www.westonaprice.org/help-save-new-zealand-raw-milk/

Image by Couleur from Pixabay

NZ’s PM Adern adds more new draconian powers of apprehension & detention to the corporation

The corporation parades as your government. Watch from 1min 15sec in for specific info on the changed law rushed through that Jami-Lee Ross spoke about in Parliament also. The first video below (Jami-Lee & Billy Te Kahika) was recorded outside Parliament at Thursday’s rally. The video below that is Jami-Lee’s speech in Parliament on 5 August 2020. EWR

Why are mainstream media outlets trying to censor footage of the Christchurch gun massacre? – the NZ govt’s response to the shooting is raising even more red flags than the shooting itself

“Government’s response to the shooting is raising even more red flags than the shooting itself” (NaturalNews.com)

The nworeport.me site comments “There’s a raging battle going on to scrub all video footage of the New Zealand mass shooting from the web, and leading the charge are the usual social media suspects: Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and the like. But why, exactly, don’t these platforms want people to see the actual evidence of what supposedly occurred down under at the two Muslim mosques where 49 worshipers are said to have been murdered in cold blood?

It would seem as though mainstream media outlets want the public to simply believe some written narrative without being allowed to actually see and interpret, with their own eyes, the event itself as it allegedly took place – the apparent intent being to control what the public believes, regardless of whether or not it’s true.

According to CNN Business, as relayed by Zero Hedge, Big Tech is currently engaged in a “struggle to deal with (the) New Zealand shooting video.” What this language actually means is that the major media platforms really don’t want people to see the video in question, and are actively trying to suppress the truth about what really took place behind all the media propaganda. ”

Further comment is made:

“In the above video footage [at the link which note can’t be seen in NZ anyway] which we were able to archive on Brighteon servers to prevent it from being scrubbed, you’ll notice that the first-person shooter angle more closely resembles a video game, as opposed to a real-life shooting. In one scene, you can even see bodies of the victims piled up before the shooter even fires his weapon.

Perhaps this is the reason why the mainstream media is trying to censor the footage – because it blows some major holes in the official narrative.” Read more at this link.

Even NaturalNews.com has  weighed in in a similar vein:

 “The live stream video of the shootings in Christchurch has been classified by the Chief Censor’s Office as objectionable,” reports Radio NZ. “Police said anyone in possession of the video of the shootings, or found to be distributing it, could face imprisonment.”

This means, essentially, that linking to content the government doesn’t like is now a crime in New Zealand…

Government’s response to the shooting is raising even more red flags than the shooting itself”.

I personally viewed the footage spoken of when it first appeared albeit briefly on social media before it was taken down. I can certainly  affirm that what is said there is true. Another viewer who watched it several times (cited below) describes accurately the  many more anomalies also present. (The two videoed interviews  in a previous post also describe these same issues in great detail).

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/03/16/new-zealand-the-video-warning-do-not-watch-this-is-sickening/#

“I have watched this video…closely. many times

The streets were empty of people, apart from the two guys walking by and the guy in black trousers and a white shirt who directed him to go right at the bottom of the drive..

The shooter had three guns in the passenger well and three in the boot… why didn’t he use the ones in the front passenger well?

Where did the passenger go?

There were two Muslims ‘outside’ the mosque, and one (woman in black) doing something in the back of a lemon/green car in the carpark… but they were left alive? He began ‘shooting’ at people inside the mosque at 1.30.

Friday prayers are 12 noon and last one hour, so the mosque should have been empty, because the men had to get back to work.

Also Muslim men normally wear white or their best clothes for Friday prayers, but many of the victims appear to be wearing work clothes. It is tradition to keep the mosque spotless and not bring any dirt from outside. Hence they remove shoes and wash before prayers..

It is fard (obligatory duty) for men to attend Friday prayers, but not for a ‘slave’ a woman child or a sick person. And they use their own prayer mats.. but there were NONE in this video.

He shot two men going in to the mosque one of whom was wearing shoes and they fell INTO the mosque, but there was only one man wearing a blue sweater and shoes as he passed him. The other one crawled up the passage and was shot. But there was no blood and no bullet wounds…And despite one man being shot point blank in the face, his head did not explode or bleed. Then when the shooter came out first time, one man who had originally crawled up the passage was now facing out, right arm behind his back left arm up, and the guy in the blue jumper had been moved to one side and still no blood.

The shooter then goes into the road and begins shooting at nothing, up and then down the road. Cars passing by but it appears didn’t think to ring the Police? Goes back to the car where he left the boot open for any passer by to see the guns inside? Throws the used gun on the ground and picks up an identical gun from the boot and picks up what looks like a red petrol cannister.. Surely he could just have had a pocket full of magazines to replace as one was used?

9.52 someone still doing something in the back of the lemon/green car? Continues on past the car park to another drive where cars are parked but no people and shoots indiscriminately. No holes in anything.. Says ”It doesn’t look like it’s a bird today boys.” Goes back into the mosque where blood is now pouring from the two in the foyer of the mosque. Goes into the prayer room and begins shooting at the already ‘dead’ bodies, only three/four of whom are bleeding? When it should have been one massive pool of blood. He then goes to the ‘dead’ bodies in the left corner and shoots them all again, point blank but no holes or blood?’ Then leaves the mosque where the body facing out has changed position and now has both arms up as if he’s been lying on them. Shooter then begins shooting at someone fleeing in the garden , which then turns out to be a woman, who is laid at the bottom of the drive where his car is, calling ”help me”, so he shoots her twice and then three more times, this looks genuine.. He gets into the car and then appears to drive over her, but the car doesn’t jolt like it would over an obstacle. He looks through his mirror and adjusts his sat nav and says to the guy in the back, ”that girl’s dead” and scoffs.

Driving down the road and shoots his gun three times point blank in to the wind screen but doesn’t break the glass?? then shoots the side window, which does?

Chats to guy in the back ”Still time for the fuel” ”I left a magazine back there in the fire fight???” ;;shit happens.” Police sirens sound, but here is no acknowledgement from either men in the car. Shooter says. ”They were all scared, I got the men first because the women weren’t in yet”

”Remember lads, it’s subscribe to beautify.”

I know why this video is being hidden… It does not stand up to fine scrutiny.

From the very start, It did not ring true and felt like it was being filmed as part of a video game….

And the prestitute media rhetoric IMO is designed to create fear.

– There was another shooting outside Christchurch Hospital and multiple bombs were attached to two cars belonging to the suspects near the mosque.  – The explosives were quickly disarmed. The Gunman’s rampage began when he got into his car wearing military style body armour and a helmet saying ‘let’s get this party started’.

He then drove to the mosque listening to folk music and military tunes before parking in an alley around the corner.-

How in God’s name does anyone know this unless they were there.. or they wrote the scene?????

Video of police arresting the New Zealand shooter who had multiple guns??

Comment cited here: https://www.thevinnyeastwoodshow.com/show-archives/the-underwear-bomber-whistle-blower-kurt-haskell>

Easy to see why the video is banned with very stiff penalties for violation isn’t it? 

Please note, saying that this is a false flag event, is not implying there were no deaths, as the interviews explain. What is being said is that the video shown to the public is likely not a real & true record of how it played out (we are led to believe it is head cam footage) … ie not the real footage of events, rather a mixture of real plus possibly rehearsal or other footage. To understand this a must watch are the two interviews with Ole Dammegard  (researcher, author & international speaker) who has examined similar events for 36 years now, predicting and even stopping some. 

RELATED, MEDIA WISE:

Globalists, Foundations & Controlled Journalism – Fact Checking, Fake News & Phony Philanthropy

The REAL Face of ‘the fact checkers’ – learn who is Censoring & Controlling the Information You Receive

And just who are the ‘fact checking crew’? Parading as humanitarian, the real face of who is checking the ‘facts’ won’t be surprising to some of us. You know, those same old names that pop up everywhere there is cause for concern. Names like Bill & Melinda Gates, Google, George Soros, Rupert Murdoch, FB & many more. Their far reaching tentacles are everywhere on the planet. read more

 

 

UK Police Begin Stopping Citizens Who Avoid Facial Recognition Cameras

Photo: prepforthat.com

From prepforthat.com

London’s Metropolitan police are stopping citizens who attempt to hide their faces from facial recognition technology at Stratford Station. Police, under siege from advocacy group backlash, put out a statement saying “anyone who declines to be scanned will not necessarily be viewed as suspicious.” But even this statement may not be true.

Campaign group Big Brother Watch says that a man who viewed facial recognition warning signs near the station used a ski mask to hide his face. Police used facial technology cameras while inside a parked police van.

“He simply pulled up the top of his jumper over the bottom of his face, put his head down and walked past,” said director Silkie Carlo.

“There was nothing suspicious about him at all … you have the right to avoid [the cameras], you have the right to cover your face. I think he was exercising his rights.”

Carlo, speaking to the Independent, said that she witnessed plainclothes police follow the man and eventually confront him. According to Carlo, the police demanded the man show his identification. The man turned over his id, but Carlo says the police remained in an “accusatory and aggressive” mode.

“The guy told them to p*** off and then they gave him the £90 public order fine for swearing,” Ms. Carlo added. “He was really angry.”

London Police Claim Facial Recognition Technology Stops Are Judgment Calls

A spokesperson for the Metropolitan police says that officers are told to “use their judgment” when citizens hide their face from recognition cameras.

 

“Officers stopped a man who was seen acting suspiciously in Romford town centre during the deployment of the live facial recognition technology,” a statement said.

“After being stopped the man became aggressive and made threats towards officers. He was issued with a penalty notice for disorder as a result.”

In other words, the man on trial for using the “F word.” The police arrested eight people on the same day by way of this technology. The crimes the people were wanted for varied.

Witnesses claim that people are commonly being pulled over for pulling up hoodies or shirts to cover their faces.

Liberty human rights group say that one man was stopped for “looking like someone” on a government watchlist. The person was misidentified.

London officials will continue to tout their successes, which are those facial recognition efforts that result in the arrest of violent criminals. Unfortunately, the exchange of privacy for more safety and security hardly results in more safety and security. Consequently, citizens will end up under a nanny state that monitors and tracks. That’s already the case in the UK and a result many in the United States hope for.

In the United States, the CIA potentially used home routers as spying devicesWalmart openly discussed spying on customers. The times, they are a changing, in case you haven’t noticed.

Author: Jim Satney

PrepForThat’s Editor and lead writer for political, survival, and weather categories.

 

SOURCE:

https://prepforthat.com/uk-police-begin-stopping-citizens-who-avoid-facial-recognition-cameras/

Rainwater collection being criminalized in U.S. – from Natural News

This is alarming to say the least … is it a sign of things to come? As yet New Zealanders are not prevented from collecting rainwater … and may it remain that way. On the other hand, as per my previous post, the competition here is hotting up with corporations already extracting our precious water resources and selling them abroad.

This article is from Natural News:

(NaturalNews) You might be aware that it is illegal to collect rainwater on your own property in some states, but did you know that doing so could actually land you in jail? That is exactly what is happening to Gary Harrington of Eagle Point, Oregon. He is now facing a 30-day jail sentence and fines of more than $1,500.

His crime? Harrington has been collecting rainwater in three reservoirs on his property, and the government doesn’t like it. In Oregon, all water is considered property of the state whether it flows from the tap or falls from the sky.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/049679_rainwater_collection_Oregon_government_dependence.html#ixzz3aHQJazjd