It Happens Again: Police In Ga. Shut Down Girls' Lemonade Stand

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Please, comparing laws pertaining to food services is a far cry from war atrocities. There actually is a basis for this law, health safety. By NOT backing up the law not only are they not doing their job they might find themselves out of one.

Please! How is it that the age old tradition of lemonade stands has suddenly become a "health issue" with actual basis in law?

I'll tell you this, sport; advocating suppressive legislation in support of imprudent police actions does not bode well for police in general. What I am saying is you are not helping police by making such thoughtless and tyrannical arguments.

God forbid you're a police officer. Children don't stand a chance with you.

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Please, comparing laws pertaining to food services is a far cry from war atrocities. There actually is a basis for this law, health safety. By NOT backing up the law not only are they not doing their job they might find themselves out of one.

This is why i said that the safety concern is understandable, even if i personally feel the enforcement was under the guise of safety.

How does a daily $50 permit to sell lemonade address safety concerns?

Do health inspectors come out and check the temperature of the lemonade, how the lemons are stored, whether the cups are not potentially exposed to bugs, dirt, etc?

C'mon.

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by Adyta

 

Blame that on the sue happy brethren you have down there. Someone get sick and who are they going to sue? The kids? No. The lawmakers that didn't do due diligence on a very small market BUT one none the less.

Edit: This is municipal CYA.

edit on 15-7-2011 by intrepid because: (no reason given)

This assertion has absolutely no basis in law, is factually incorrect, and is entirely untenable. The city cannot be sued by someone because they bought lemonade from children at a neighborhood lemonade stand. This is just not true.

If your cause is so just, why lie?

$50.00 for a temporary sales permit? WOW.

I pay $15.00 for my 2 year state sales permit.
I paid $12.00 for my permanent DBA (Doing Business As) registration through the county.
I paid $20.00 for my copyright registration through the state. I believe this is good for 15-20 years?

Defiantly just a income thing, i highly doubt the city(?) is going to do inspections on a $50.00 permit.

Would not a stand like this be considered like a garage sale? Where I live (and I believe most jurisdictions) there are exemptions for private garage sales needing permits.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Please! How is it that the age old tradition of lemonade stands has suddenly become a "health issue" with actual basis in law?

As I pointed out above sue happy people coming after YOUR tax dollars. Happens every day. Traditions come and go, my friend. It wasn't that long ago that slavery was a tradition. Did that make it right?

advocating suppressive legislation in support of imprudent police actions does not bode well for police in general.

You've got that backwards.

God forbid you're a police officer. Children don't stand a chance with you.

I'm not but thanks for making me a part of the topic.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Prove it then. I tire from your rhetoric. I think you'll be surprised with what you find.

reply to post by intrepid

As I pointed out above sue happy people coming after YOUR tax dollars. Happens every day.

Sue happy people who think they can actually convince a judge to hear their suit against the municipality because they bought a glass of lemonade from unlicensed children are as full as crap as you are on this one. The suit will never be heard.

Traditions come and go, my friend. It wasn't that long ago that slavery was a tradition. Did that make it right?

Traditions may come and go, the law remains the same. Legislation, on the other hand, tends to be used in the same way women wear clothes. Fashionable legislation is not law.

You've got that backwards.

Oh is that right? Are you advocating police in support of suppressive legislation, then?

Prove it then. I tire from your rhetoric. I think you'll be surprised with what you find.

You made the ludicrous assertion, you prove it. I defy you to show one instance where a municipality was sued because they failed to legislate an ordinance. Go ahead prove it, I tire of your propaganda.

Unless, of course, you genuinely believe that I should find you examples of all the case law that doesn't exist in order to prove your wrong. Your insistence I prove it only reveals your own profound ignorance of the law. I can't prove a negative, it is incumbent upon you to prove your positive assertion.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

You've got that backwards.

Oh is that right? Are you advocating police in support of suppressive legislation, then?

I said don't like the law? Change it. Not the cops fault that they have to enforce stupid laws. This one is imo.

You made the ludicrous assertion, you prove it. I defy you to show one instance where a municipality was sued because they failed to legislate an ordinance.

In other words.... you can't. Gotcha. Let me ask a question then. Who is responsible to the public for the safety of food sold to the public?

Originally posted by Dreamwatcher
$50.00 for a temporary sales permit? WOW.

I pay $15.00 for my 2 year state sales permit.
I paid $12.00 for my permanent DBA (Doing Business As) registration through the county.
I paid $20.00 for my copyright registration through the state. I believe this is good for 15-20 years?

Defiantly just a income thing, i highly doubt the city(?) is going to do inspections on a $50.00 permit.

Would not a stand like this be considered like a garage sale? Where I live (and I believe most jurisdictions) there are exemptions for private garage sales needing permits.

Exactly. And this is why the issuance of said permit likely does NOT address the safety issue.

It's most certainly a revenue issue, and such a small town will use whatever means necessary to generate revenue (i know, i live in a small town).

I questioned the garage sale as well.

reply to post by intrepid

I said don't like the law? Change it. Not the cops fault that they have to enforce stupid laws. This one is imo.

I said those cops took an oath of office to uphold the law, and protect and defend the Constitution. So, if an act of legislation is contrary to that Constitution but cops are enforcing it anyway, they are necessarily violating their oath of office. They are also, under an act that has no validity, acting under color of law, simulating legal process, and obstructing justice.

You are entitled to your opinion, however, if you actually took the time to read case laws instead of just using your imagination on how law works, you would be surprised.

Many bogus acts or ordinances remain on the books because facially there is nothing unconstitutional about the ordinance, code, or statute, and the courts when upholding such dubious acts will always make clear that what is facially Constitutional does not mean that its application will be Constitutional. What this means is that the courts often throw the police to the wolves (those sue happy people you're talking about). The legislators are protected from lawsuit because it was the police who violated the rights of a person not the legislators.

In this regard, police have hundreds and hundreds of instances of case law they can point to in their defense when disobeying and order and keeping their jobs. The police do not have to enforce bogus legislation and shouldn't. They are protected from any repercussions if they disobey a direct order to unconstitutionally apply an ordinance in way that violates a person's right(s). This is not my opinion, this is a point of law, and a fact.

In other words.... you can't. Gotcha. Let me ask a question then. Who is responsible to the public for the safety of food sold to the public?

Do not think for a single second I will let you off the hook on this one, my friend. You are not, by any stretch of the imagination a stupid man, so we both know at this point you are willfully ignoring the truth in order to defend criminality.

Of course I can't prove to you that law suits that never happened don't exist. They don't exist! You are not stupid. You know precisely what that means.

Who is responsible for public safety when food is sold to the public? The public! Duh! Zo-Duh! Stop being so disingenuous, especially when it is in support of tyranny.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Who is responsible for public safety when food is sold to the public? The public! Duh! Zo-Duh! Stop being so disingenuous, especially when it is in support of tyranny.

No, the municipal government is responsible for food safety. Why do you think that restaurants post their municipal gov'ts inspection stickers for the public to see. THAT is actually another law but related.

I'm not supporting tyranny, just pointing out life as it is today. Not in the 50's, 60's, 70's or yesterday. CYA. That's what they have to do to keep people from taking tax dollars for lawsuits.

reply to post by intrepid

No, the municipal government is responsible for food safety.

No, the municipal government is not responsible for food safety. Those handling food are responsible for the food the sell.

Why do you think that restaurants post their municipal gov'ts inspection stickers for the public to see. THAT is actually another law but related.

That "another law" finds its legality under the law of contracts. This is what I was getting at when I first posted in this thread and spoke to Bond v United States. It is a major game changer for anyone who understands the law. If I, as a restauranteur, employ non-acquiescence when it comes to the bogus licensing schemes, I will no doubt be confronted by local government officials every bit as arrogant as you're being in this thread.

However, due to Bond v. United States, if and when the municipality attempts to close me down because I have refused to join their little licensing country club, I have more than enough standing with a federal judge, if need be, (that is only assuming a local and state judge will not hear my arguments), and that federal judge will be bound by the Supreme Court ruling, will understand I am challenging the jurisdiction of the officials attempting to apply an ordinance unconstitutionally and will, upon my request, impose an injunction on that municipality demanding they leave me alone until this mess gets settled in court.

I will continue, while in court, to use the same legal reasoning I am using here. Where the municipality has no leg to stand on, legally speaking, I have the State Constitution to rely on. A smart city attorney will advise their client, the municipality, to drop the case and leave me alone lest they watch their fragile house of cards come tumbling down, and they find themselves with licensing schemes struck down by the courts as unconstitutional because of the continual unlawful application of them.

I'm not supporting tyranny, just pointing out life as it is today. Not in the 50's, 60's, 70's or yesterday. CYA. That's what they have to do to keep people from taking tax dollars for lawsuits.

You will not find any case law to support your contention. Your casual claim that you're not supporting tyranny only pointing out that this is what we have today, and oh well, is hardly impressive.

The "sue happy" people you are referring to are people, if they were actually able to get a hearing, who were able to demonstrate some harm from government action. Your argument that a suit can be brought about the city because of legislative inaction is false. It is not true, and you will not, you cannot, find a single instance of case law to support your claim.

Originally posted by intrepid
As I pointed out above sue happy people coming after YOUR tax dollars. Happens every day. Traditions come and go, my friend. It wasn't that long ago that slavery was a tradition. Did that make it right?

Slapping chains on people, kidnapping them from their homeland, and forcing them to work for free for the rest of their lives is not even slightly similar to a couple of kids selling lemonade so they can go to an amusement park.

reply to post by Liquesence


its wrong. but it is just a case of them being bothered that no tax is being paid on the money earned. hence a permit, which you could look at as a tax on the earnings.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I fail to see how this is relevant to the topic. Your source:

When petitioner Bond discovered that her close friend was pregnant byBond’s husband, she began harassing the woman. The woman suf-fered a minor burn after Bond put caustic substances on objects the woman was likely to touch.

You are extrapolating, not using facts.

Originally posted by intrepid
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

I fail to see how this is relevant to the topic. Your source:

When petitioner Bond discovered that her close friend was pregnant byBond’s husband, she began harassing the woman. The woman suf-fered a minor burn after Bond put caustic substances on objects the woman was likely to touch.

You are extrapolating, not using facts.

Just how disingenuous do you intend to be in this thread?

1) Federalism has more than one dynamic. In allocating powers between the States and National Government, federalism “ ‘secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power,’ ” New York v. United States , 505 U. S. 144 . It enables States to enact positive law in response to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times, and it protects the liberty of all persons within a State by ensuring that law enacted in excess of delegated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions. See Gregory v. Ashcroft , 501 U. S. 452 . Federalism’s limitations are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the States. In a proper case, a litigant may challenge a law as enacted in contravention of federalism, just as injured individuals may challenge actions that transgress, e.g., separation-of-powers limitations, see, e.g., INS v. Chadha , 462 U. S. 919 . The claim need not depend on the vicarious assertion of a State’s constitutional interests, even if those interests are also implicated.

Extrapolate that!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


JPZ,

correct me if I am wrong, but because the girls are under 18, they could not sign a "contract" with the corporation of their local city to sell their stuff. Since they aren't able to "get a license" how do they fall under the enforcement of such matters?

I wholly agree with you on the notion that the "law" protects your food. How this kind of meme got into the general public is remarkable, the "law" does two things: raises revenue by contract, and raises revenue AFTER an event has taken place and a contract has been broken, via a suit, but it in no way does the law protect anyone from anything. The law says you can't place your semen in food, and food safety people say you can't either (regular folks figure it is a bad idea too) and YET, someone just did it. So how exactly did the laws prevent that from happening? How did the law prevent a suit? It didn't it just gave a reason for a suit, the law stops nothing.

Folks need to actually read the titles of the agency's that they think protect them. The Food and Drug ADMINISTRATION is not the Protect People Form the Mishandling of Food Organization. The Environmental Protection Agency is NOT the Human Protection Agency - there actually isn't one of those oddly enough. The EPA protects the environment from people because they see the word as an asset.

There are "laws" hundreds of millions of them - ignorance of those hundreds of millions is no excuse. These little girls are expected to know all of them already.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Extrapolate that!

I'm talking about municipal politics and their liabilities. Not that between the States and the Fed. Do you have anything that's relevant?

reply to post by intrepid

I'm talking about municipal politics and their liabilities. Not that between the States and the Fed. Do you have anything that's relevant?

I just told you the relevance in an earlier post. If I am forced to seek redress of grievance from a federal court, then Bond v. United States becomes wholly relevant, and certainly has relevance in terms of authority on a local and state level.

Your pretense that law is capricious and whimsical is rooted in willful ignorance. I have just watched you the past hour or so jump from one capricious thought to the next, pretending your whimsical arguments have not been destroyed with points of law, and legal facts.

I have pointed out that police officers have a duty to uphold the law, (the State Constitution being the Supreme Law of the Land in this case), and to protect and defend that Constitution. I have pointed to paragraph XXVIII which echoes the Ninth Amendment in that enumerated rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage any other rights retained by the people. I have pointed out that police officers who refuse to obey a direct order to apply an ordinance unconstitutionally are protected by law...and when you cherry picked a meaningless passage from Bond v. United States, I replied with the relevant ruling from that case.

All the while you pretend this hasn't happened. Your fantasy world will not get you any where in a court of law. The best you can hope for is that readers of this thread buy into your propaganda. Perhaps some will. The sane will not.

if fascist pigs are going to shut down a lemonade stand run by kids, then we should ban cops everywhere from going into donut shops.....bad cop, no donut for you!