WND has more, of which this is but a sampling:
"We had a sheriff's department group of about 11-12, I don't know, 13 men come into our home. It was violent, it was belligerent, they didn't identify themselves," Jacqueline Stowers said.
She and 10 children were forcibly herded into a room and held there for at least six hours, she said.
"In the meantime we had people with guns inside and outside," she said.
The legal representatives said a report from the sheriff's department said one of the deputies "even snatched a cell phone out of the hand of a teenage son who was attempting to call Mr. Stowers (during the raid)."
"In addition, the complaint alleges the governmental authorities confiscated all of the Stowers' personal food intended to provide for and nourish them all through the winter months," the organizations said.
The complaint also seeks a preliminary injunction against the Department of Agriculture and declarations stipulating that Manna Storehouse and the Stowers are not a "retail food establishment" under Ohio's Food Safety Code. As a private cooperative, Manna Storehouse is exempted from the Food Safety Code, the organizations said.
Officials with the Weston A. Price Foundation, a nutrition education non-profit, said several of its members had been participating in the co-op, but now their food supplies are disrupted.
The Buckete Institute's spokesman, David Hansen, said, "The use of these police state tactics on a peaceful family in simply unacceptable."
He described the situation, "Officers rushed into the Stowers' home with guns drawn and held the family – including 10 young children – captive for six hours. This outrageous case of bureaucratic overreach must be addressed."
The case argues the right to buy food directly from local farmers; distribute locally-grown food to neighbors; and pool resources to purchase food in bulk are rights that do not require a license. And it suggests the right of peaceful citizens to be free from paramilitary police raids, searches and seizures is guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 14, Article 1 of the Ohio Constitution.
"The Stowers' constitutional rights were violated over grass-fed cattle, pastured chickens and pesticide-free produce," said Maurice Thompson, the law director for the Center of Constitutional Law. "Ohioans do not need a government permission slip to run a family farm and co-op, and should not be subjected to raids when they do not have one. This legal action will ensure the ODA understands and respects Ohioans' rights."
Center officials noted there has never been a complaint filed against Manna Storehouse or the Stowers related to the quality or healthfulness of the food distributed through the co-op.
The
Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund is helping the Stowers. Here's more
from their website:
The lawsuit filed by Maurice Thompson of the Buckeye Institute and Gary Cox (General Counsel for FTCLDF) focuses primarily on two issues. The first is the constitutionality of the paramilitary style execution of a search warrant against a peaceful family (only women and children were home at the time of the raid) whose only alleged crime was failure to obtain a permit (a third degree misdemeanor under state law). As the complaint points out, the affidavit of ODA Agent William Lesho that was used to obtain the search warrant did not indicate that the Stowers were dangerous, that they would destroy evidence, nor that there were exigent circumstances related to executing the search warrant that would justify the use of force or threats in the execution of the warrant.
The deputy from the Lorrain County Sheriff's Department who served the warrant to the Stowers' daughter-in-law Katie is a member of the Northern Ohio Violent Fugitive Task Force (NOVFTF). According to information posted on a federal government website, NOVFTF is a "collaborative, four-county law enforcement effort spearheaded by the U.S. Marshals Service that is dedicated to the pursuit, apprehension, and successful prosecution of violent adult fugitives across the Northern District of Ohio with outstanding state and federal felony warrants for gun crimes." The complaint includes a detailed description of the excessive nature of the raid. Click here to view Jacqueline's account of the raid.
The second issue in this suit, and one with a potential impact on private food distribution clubs throughout the country, is whether state law actually requires the Stowers to obtain a food establishment permit. The Stowers' contention is that since Manna Storehouse is a private cooperative they do not need a permit. A review of the Ohio Uniform Food Safety Code indicates that the Stowers have an arguable claim that Manna Storehouse is not required to obtain a permit--a claim that should have been given consideration by ODA and LCGHD before resorting to a search warrant.
A year ago, the end of November:
...registered sanitarian Dorothy Kloos called the family and asked to inspect Manna Storehouse in order to determine whether the facility should be licensed. The Stowers informed Kloos that they would first like her to send documentation showing the grounds on which Manna Storehouse would be required to obtain a permit. Kloos agreed and the conversation was ended.
However, the following day, Kloos and two other government employees came to the property unannounced, trespassed on the family's property, and attempted to conduct an unauthorized inspection. The family told them to leave. At that point, Kloos handed them a letter which was basically just a cut and paste job of the state codes on operating a retail food business and the state's rights to enforce those codes. There was nothing in the letter about Manna Storehouse and why Kloos believed it was a retail business.
Jacqueline Stowers responded on December 10, 2007 to the information by sending a letter to Kloos stating that the family was not operating a retail food establishment and that "any perceived activities that might resemble a retail food establishment would fit under the statutory exemptions for licensure provided by state law." Jacqueline Stowers specifically asked Kloos to provide "copies of any statements, complaints, letters or similar materials that, pursuant to your letter, lead you to believe we are operating a retail food establishment . . . ." She also made the same request concerning Kloos' belief that the Stowers were "conducting any activities" that would not fit under the statutory exemption for licensure.
In the letter, Stowers warned that she would take legal action against Kloos if she came on the family's property again without the Stowers written permission. Stowers also requested that all future communications between the LCGHD and the family be in writing. Instead of answering the Stowers legitimate questions and clarifying the reasons for the belief that Manna Storehouse needed a permit, LCGHD referred the matter to the Lorain County Prosecutor's office asking the prosecutor for a response to the Stowers' letter. The Prosecutor's ofice subsequently requested assitance on this case; and on September 16, 2008, James Boddy of LCGHD sent a letter to Charles Kirchner of ODA's Food Safety Division requesting that ODA "assist the Health Department in gathering evidence regarding the Manna Storehouse operation and, if this operation must be licensed, assist the Health Department in preparing case prosecution if necessary."
An inspector at LCGHD says, seemingly with a straight face and belief in the rightness of his cause, that the reason the department did not respond to this letter is
because they didn't like the tone. It was 'inappropriate.' They're sensitive, I guess, and there's some sub-clause nobody knew about whereby they are excused from following the law if they dislike the 'tone' of a letter sent in response to one of their agents dealing with the public in a deceptive fashion and illegally trespassing on their private property.
Instead of answering their questions and explaining why they believed the Stowers were operating a retail establishment, the Ohio Department of Agriculture sent in an undercover agent, not once, but twice. He says the first time the Stowers told him to come back later, because it was a holiday. They say they just told him to go away, they weren't selling anything. This is a puzzlement, given the discrepancy of the two stories, and the fact that we weren't there. However, there is a small indication to outsiders that Lesho's version (he's the under-cover food cop) isn't entirely accurate The second time he came back with a story about his ailing mother desperately needing their eggs. If, as he says, the Stowers merely sent him away because it was a holiday and they were 'closed,' why did he feel the need to ramp up his story and try some emotional manipulation with the sick mother story?
They say he was persistant, and he wouldn't leave, and they finally gave him a dozen eggs, for which he insisted on leaving an unsolicited donation.
He says he completed an application of membership in the co-op as well. I don't know what the Stowers say, or whether they may have let him complete it just to get rid of him, whereupon they roundfiled it.
At any rate, for the crime of letting Lesho leave the property with a dozen eggs without a retail license (a third degree misdemeanor) the department then treated them like drug dealers:
Lesho sought the authorization to seize "any records with an indicia of hidden wealth and/or fruits of illegal income; any contraband as probable cause exists that illegal activity is being conducted from the establishment."
And the Stowers gain even more credibility points over Agent Lesho when we learn
from John Loeffler that:
The Ohio Department of Agriculture has apparently been chastised by the courts in previous cases for over-reach, including entrapment of an Amish man to sell raw milk, which backfired, when it became known that the man gave milk instead of selling it to a state undercover agent, refusing to take money for what he believed to be a charitable act. The Amish literally interpret the Gospel of Matthew (5:42) to “give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.”
I think working in a bureaucracy does something to your brain. When we lived in Nebraska, the FYG was born at home. Our midwife told us that our particular county was known amongst home-birthers as being the most obtuse when it came to birth certificates for home-birthed babies.
When I called to see about getting ours, the bureaucrat on the phone wanted me to answer all sorts of strange questions, like how many other children I had (including by adoption), where each of them had been born, whether they had also been home-births or not, and other personal information that had nothing to do with this baby or any birth at all. I asked her why she needed to know that to issue a birth certificate for this child. She told me that everybody always had to answer those questions.
I said that might be so, but what I was asking was, "Am I required by law to answer these questions to get a birth certificate."
She said yes, everybody always answered them.
I said yes, that might be so, but what I was asking was, "Am I required by law to answer them for a B.C., and if so, could she please give me the statute number?"
She said yes, I was, that nobody else ever had a problem answering them.
I repeated myself, and she said that doctors always fill out that information for hospital births, it was routine.
I said yes, that might be so, but what I was asking was, "Am I required by law to answer them for a B.C., and if so, could she please give me the statute number?"
I am not exaggerating. We went round and round, with her repeatedly refusing to answer my question but instead just assuring me that some version of 'but everybody does it' ought to satisfy me.
I think I said something like, "I don't seem to be explaining myself very well, I am so sorry. I am asking you what is required of me by law, and you are answering me by telling me what everybody else always does. But I'm kind of quirky. If I did things just because everybody else does, I wouldn't have had a home-birth. So what I am asking isn't 'what does everybody else do,' but what does the law require of me, and where can I read this for myself?"
At which point she replied in disbelief:
"Are you refusing to answer these questions?"
I replied very, very carefully:
"I would be delighted to answer any and all questions required of me by law. I am not refusing to answer any questions that I am required by law to answer in order to get my child a legal birth certificate. I am only refusing to answer any questions that you are not authorized by law to require of me. If you can give me the statutory requirement, then I will answer those questions."
Like Kloos, she agreed to get back with me. It wasn't an uncivil conversation at all- she seemed more surprised than angry, and I had worked hard never to sound impatient. I kept a smile in my voice throughout. I thought that over-all the conversation ended well.
And two weeks later we received a mildly threatening letter from the department threatening some sort of legal action because we 'refused' to answer questions about our home-birth as required by law. We called the department back and explained our position again, pointing out that it was frustrating, when I'd been promised a copy of the statutes in question, to receive instead this false accusation and misrepresentation of what I'd said instead of the promised explanation.
Fortunately, that bureaucrat responded by mailing us the legal information we'd wanted with a form (and lo, and indeed, behold, all the questions the first minion had asked me were NOT required), and we straightened things out with a minimum of fuss and bother.
As mentioned before, failing to obtain a retail license for a food business is a class 3 misdemeanor. The department could have resolved their issues with the Stowers with some communication, and at most, a fine (assuming, just for the sake of the argument, that the Stowers are even guilty). They preferred brute force, a no-knock search more suitable to a gang of drug-dealing mafia lords than a headcovering woman with a parsel of homeschooled children, drawn weapons, and the confiscation of the entire year's meat supply for a family.
Posts
