Missouri Appeals Court Rules Against Floating Horse Teeth

Almost 18 months ago, I shared the news:   Floating Horse Teeth Goes on Trial in Missouri.  Admittedly one of the strangest headlines I’ve ever written, the story had to do with Brooke Gray’s desire to continue practicing her profession of caring for horse teeth (i.e., “floating horse teeth”) in the state of Missouri.  Yesterday, I learned from the folks at the Freedom Center of Missouri that Gray appears to have lost her right to practice her profession in the Show-Me State.

In early January 2012, the Clinton County Circuit Court in Plattsburg, Mo., ruled that it can and will enforce a state law that forbids any non-veterinarian to accept payment for providing basic animal husbandry services.  The judgment allowed Gray, a young woman with eight years’ training and experience at removing sharp enamel points from horses’ teeth, to continue assisting Missouri’s animal owners—but if she gets paid for her efforts, she will be fined and possibly sent to jail.  The Freedom Center of Missouri, which represents Gray, had argued that the U.S. and Missouri Constitutions protect a citizen’s right to earn a living providing basic animal husbandry services.

Now, fast forward to present.  According to the Center‘s Dave Roland, the Missouri’s Western District Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the state can make it a criminal offense for non-veterinarians to provide basic animal husbandry services to Missouri’s livestock owners.

Noting that the Missouri Veterinary Medical Board had threatened criminal prosecution against a wide range of animal husbandry workers, including those engaged in such common, basic tasks as castrating or dehorning cattle, Roland explained, the court ruled the government may impose criminal penalties if these non-veterinarian workers are paid for their labor, despite long-recognized constitutional rights to earn a living in a common occupation and to enjoy the gains of one’s industry.

The decision came despite the fact that non-veterinarians have performed this task for hundreds of years in order to improve horses’ comfort and ability to perform for their owners.

“The court’s ruling effectively strips the right to enjoy the gains of your own industry clean out of the Missouri Constitution,” Roland said.  “What good is a constitutional right if the government can simply declare that it no longer applies?”

Gray was baffled by the court’s decision.

“I’m still trying to wrap my head around it,” she said.  “I’m helping horses and horse owners, not hurting them.  The court seemed to confirm that literally anyone is lawfully permitted to do this kind of work and that it is the sort of ‘industry’ addressed in the Missouri Constitution.  So why is it a criminal offense if a grateful horse owner pays me for doing that work?  It just doesn’t make sense.”

The appellate opinion also stated that while the work itself might be legal, it would be illegal for Gray to tell anyone else about her skills – despite the fact that this issue was not raised as part of the appeal.  The trial court had concluded that the government was not seeking to prevent Gray from sharing any information about her knowledge and ability, and the trial court expressly declined to include any such prohibition in its injunction.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has made abundantly clear that the government has no power to prevent citizens from sharing truthful information,” Roland explained.  “Brooke is very good at what she does and she has every right to tell other people about it, especially when the work that she’s talking about is perfectly legal.”

The Freedom Center of Missouri intends to seek further judicial review of Gray’s case.

“Missouri is home to thousands of workers who have for decades safely and affordably helped farmers and ranchers manage their livestock,” Roland said.  “Their services are essential to this state’s animal agriculture industry and both our state and federal constitutions guarantee these folks the right to get paid for their work.  We’re going to keep fighting to make sure that those constitutional guarantees have real meaning.”

"Three Days In August" Promotional PhotoBob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice, a nonfiction book that’s available in paperback and ebook via most online booksellers, including Amazon.com. His second book, The CLAPPER MEMO, is coming soon.

Chilling Video Provides More Reasons to Vote for Mitt Romney

If you need another reason to vote for Mitt Romney Tuesday, watch “Rampant Injustice,” a chilling video about the dramatic rise of raids against small business owners by out-of-control federal government agencies during the first term of President Barack Obama.

See also:

• President Obama’s ‘Brownshirts’ May Be Closer to Smashing Down Your Front Door Than You Think

Politically-Motivated Raids Punish Gibson Guitar

Wood Prompts Feds to Raid Gibson Factories

Vote wisely, folks.  Your future depends on it!

Bob McCarty is the author of “Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice,” a nonfiction book that’s available in paperback and ebook via most online booksellers, including Amazon.com. His second book, “The CLAPPER MEMO,” is set for release this fall.

Gardening Against the Law in Backwards Missouri City

During World War I and World War II, it was considered one’s patriotic duty to plant a “victory garden” in order to reduce food costs.  Doing such a thing today, however, could result in one man having to pay a hefty fine or worse if officials in the backward city of Ferguson, Mo., get their way.

According to a news release from Dave Roland at the Freedom Center of Missouri, Karl Tricamo never imagined that it would be especially controversial when he decided to plant a garden in his yard in order to secure cheap, nutritious, organic produce for his family.  Just to be sure, however, he looked up all of the relevant ordinances in the city just north of St. Louis and confirmed that he would not be violating any laws.

Tricamo found that nothing in the ordinances prohibit citizens from growing healthy, organic produce on one’s property.  In fact, the city’s zoning ordinances specifically allow residents to cultivate community gardens and urban agricultural uses in residential areas.

Because he planted the garden in front of his house instead of behind it, Ferguson city officials soon began to pester Tricamo, going so far as suggesting that his garden was illegal.  Roland describes the chain of events that followed:

In March, shortly after he had tilled the garden in preparation for planting, the city sent a letter commanding that the yard be covered in straw and planted with grass seed – even though nothing in the city ordinances requires yards to be planted with grass or prohibits the planting of a garden on residential property.

Six weeks later city officials sent another letter demanding the removal of the vegetables from his yard because the property was not zoned for “agricultural” use, but of course the relevant section of Ferguson’s zoning ordinances explicitly allows gardens to be grown in residential areas.  Then the City sent Mr. Tricamo a notice (below) alleging a violation of Ferguson ordinance number 7-133 – but that ordinance addresses the structural elements of residential buildings such as foundations, walls, windows and doors, stairways, chimneys, gutters, roofs, and buildings’ exterior surfaces.  It says nothing about yards.

When Mr. Tricamo confronted the City about this violation notice, they rapidly backtracked and claimed that it had been sent by accident!  The City said he should disregard the notice, but have continued to insist that Tricamo’s garden is illegal.

Coincidentally, Tricamo’s troubles are taking place just down the road from the city of Hazelwood, Mo., where city officials took issue with two Girl Scouts trying to sell cookies in the driveway.  Coincidentally, the same lawyers who represented the city of Hazelwood against Caitlin and Abigail Mills are representing the city of Ferguson.

This situation illustrates a common practice among some city officials, writes Roland in the news release.  When all else fails in their attempt to control citizens’ behavior, they sometimes just make stuff up.

Learn more about the case here.

After reading about this case, be sure to order a copy of my book, “Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice.” It, too, will make your blood boil!

Labor Department to Smother Press Freedom

This afternoon, I received an email from my friends at the Online News Association about a letter sent by the head of the Sunshine In Government Initiative to Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis.  In short, the letter implores Solis to reconsider the implications of her agency’s new “Press Lock-Ups Policy, which could inhibit the quality, accuracy and independence of news reporting,” before it goes into effect June 15.

Read the text of the letter (below) and see if you think anything remotely worthwhile can come from this soon-to-be-implemented policy of restraining the press:

May 8, 2012

The Honorable Hilda Solis
US Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20210

Dear Secretary Solis:

As a coalition of media organizations promoting the free flow of information, we write to express our serious concerns regarding the new “U.S. Department of Labor Press Lock-ups Policy Statement and News Organization Agreement” that was issued on April 10, 2012. The new policy threatens to undermine the accurate, complete and timely dissemination of independently produced news. We urge the Labor Department (DOL) to reconsider and delay implementing this new policy, better explain the problem the Department is attempting to address, and engage affected parties and the public before implementing any changes to current practice.

Specifically, we would like to meet with Department representatives to better understand the Department’s concerns with current practice, discuss our concerns with the Department’s new approach, and explore reasonable alternatives that avoid unnecessarily infringing on journalists’ ability to independently report timely, accurate information to the public.

Formed in 2005, the Sunshine in Government Initiative is a coalition of media groups committed to promoting policies that ensure the government is accessible, accountable and open. Members include the American Society of News Editors, The Associated Press, Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, National Newspaper Association, Newspaper Association of America, Online News Association, Radio-Television Digital News Association, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and Society of Professional Journalists.

For many years, media organizations have supported procedures to facilitate simultaneous release of sensitive government data that affect markets, and pre-embargo access is essential for media to disseminate information in a timely, accurate and independent manner. The public has benefited enormously from the process the Department currently uses. The practice used to this point ensures the simultaneous release of information while also providing time that enables reporters to place the new data in meaningful context. Distribution occurs through redundant, dedicated lines, assuring security and the timely release of information. This combination of simultaneous release, data placed in accurate context, and security is why other agencies of the U.S. Government which manage the release of market moving news use processes very similar to those currently used by DOL.

Under DOL’s new policy, however, participants would be required to remove their software, hardware, and dedicated lines from the DOL by June 15, 2012. Reporters would be required to use only government owned software and hardware. The use of modern news-producing software would be prohibited. All transmission would be via the internet, not via secure, redundant line. The DOL would own and operate the data lines, internet access and internet connections. As the government grows more concerned about cybersecurity, the proposed policy would create a single point of failure.

This new policy also would have the practical impact of inhibiting the quality, accuracy and independence of news reporting. Unpublished newsgathering information is privileged and protected from compelled disclosure under the First Amendment. Requiring news organizations to draft news articles on government-owned and government-operated computers would give the government unfettered access to unpublished draft news stories and will necessarily inhibit journalists from producing thorough, timely and accurate reporting based on market-moving information.

While the Department has alluded to alleged security breaches, the Labor Department has yet to explain its specific concerns this new policy proposes to address. The parties directly affected and the public cannot evaluate whether any change in procedure, including the new approach the Department announced, is appropriate to address the underlying problem.

We are committed to working with you to better understand any concerns about the current practice and explore reasonable, mutually acceptable solutions, and we would welcome a dialogue to better understand this problem and explore less drastic alternatives. Most immediately, we urge you to delay this policy change and meet with interested media representatives to discuss our concerns.

We thank you for your consideration and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Rick Blum, Coordinator
Sunshine in Government Initiative

Copied: Senator Michael Enzi, Senator Chuck Grassley, Senator Tom Harkin, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator Jay Rockefeller, Congressman John Conyers, Congressman John Kline, Congressman George Miller, Congressman Lamar Smith, Congressman Fred Upton and Congressman Henry Waxman

I suspect this effort by the Obama Administration, via the Labor Department, is a dry run for efforts that will follow if little public outcry is heard.  And if you think the news media is doing a bad enough job already, just wait until the government has its thumb press down even harder.

Check out my new book, Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice.

Rabbit Raisers Defeat USDA, Won’t Pay Any Fines!

Remember back in May when I reported disturbing news about John and Judy Dollarhite facing $4 million in USDA fines for selling too many bunnies?   That news was followed by a dozen and a half posts about federal agents bullying the Nixa, Mo., couple as well as several others across the country — even magicians who pull rabbits out of hats!  Well, there’s finally some good news to report about this case.

On their Facebook page, USDA Bunny Tyranny of the Dollarhite Family, the Dollarhites announced victory Tuesday night:

“We have a signed settlement with USDA. It isn’t everything we had hoped for because there wasn’t an apology included for all the nightmares we have endured these several months. There is no fine. They stipulated a 2 year ban on obtaining a USDA license, which we never wanted, nor can I ever envision us wanting anything to do with USDA. Thanks to: Clair McCaskill and her office staff, Glen Chambers (Roy Blunt’s chief of staff), and Billy Long for their tenacity and support in getting us to this point. Thank you to Clay Bowler for breaking the story, Bob McCarty for picking it up from there, Dr. Gina Louden (internet radio host), Beth Ann with the Common Sense Coalition Radio, Dave Gahary (internet radio host and journalist), Donna Osborn (editor of Christian County Headliner) Trent Loose, Super Dave (internet radio host). In addition to the former list; thank you, thank you, thank you to our friends and even total strangers that have prayed and called into legislators, USDA, and APHIS to voice your opinions on this situation. We are so thankful for all of you! Today, John and I celebrate 24 years of marriage. This is an anniversary we’ll remember always. Most of all, we give glory to our Lord and Savior for His strength and guidance.”

I take this as a sign that out-of-control government agencies can be brought under control when Americans band together to fight for what’s right.  And prayer helped, too!

Congratulations, John and Judy!

Floating Horse Teeth Goes on Trial in Missouri

Brooke Gray has never had a client complain about her work, and several licensed veterinarians in Missouri have been so impressed with her abilities that they refer clients to her and they even entrust their own horses to Gray’s care.  Still, because one licensed veterinarian wanted to eliminate competition from people like Gray, the government is now attempting to make Gray the first non-veterinarian animal husbandry worker in Missouri to be stripped of her right to earn a living.

At 9 a.m. Central Monday, Gray will be represented by attorney Dave Roland of the Freedom Center of Missouri as she fights for the right to practice her profession in a courtroom inside the Clinton County (Mo.) Courthouse in Plattsburg.

What does Gray do that makes her such a threat to veterinarians?  She floats horse teeth.   If you’re not familiar with that specialty, watch the video below, and I think you’ll understand.

Throughout Missouri history, farmers and ranchers who needed help with branding cattle, castrating hogs or shoeing horses, they could call upon a neighbor or a skilled temporary worker, according to a Freedom Center news release.  Even after the state of Missouri began regulating the practice of veterinary medicine in the early 1900s, no one ever thought the law would prevent non-veterinarians from providing this state’s animal owners with basic animal husbandry services.  Today, things have changed.

Missouri’s livestock industry currently depends on as many as 10,000 non-veterinarian workers who help service this state’s 3.9 million cattle, 2.9 million hogs, 81,000 sheep and 281,000 horses – to say nothing of chickens, turkeys, and goats, according to Roland, but the Missouri Veterinary Medical Board has decided that animal owners should no longer be permitted to have neighbors or skilled non-veterinarians assist with their herds.

This case is expected to be decided Tuesday.  Stay tuned for details of how it turns out.

UPDATE 9/28/11 at 9:50 p.m. Central:  Hurry up and wait.

UPDATE 1/05/12 at 4:45 p.m. Central:  Below is the text of some not-so-good news in the form of a news release issued today by the folks at the Freedom Center of Missouri:

Court: Missouri Farmers Must Hire Vets for Basic Animal Care

Hired Hands May Be Prosecuted, If Paid

The Clinton County Circuit Court in Plattsburg, Missouri, has ruled that it can and will enforce a state law that forbids any non-veterinarian to accept payment for providing basic animal husbandry services.  The judgment allows Brooke Gray, a young woman with eight years’ training and experience at removing sharp enamel points from horses’ teeth, to continue assisting Missouri’s animal owners—but if she gets paid for her efforts, she will be fined and possibly sent to jail.  The Freedom Center of Missouri, which represents Gray, had argued that the U.S. and Missouri Constitutions protect a citizen’s right to earn a living providing basic animal husbandry services.

“I just hope that people understand that this case is not just about me,” Gray explained.  “The law makes it a criminal offense for a non-veterinarian to get paid for any act that changes an animal’s physical or mental condition. The Board has already determined that this applies to animal massage, castration and routine vaccinations, and the Board’s executive director even testified that the law could eventually be applied to pet grooming!”

“Missouri is home to thousands of workers who have for decades safely and affordably helped farmers and ranchers manage their livestock,” said Dave Roland, director of litigation for the Freedom Center.  “Their services are essential to this state’s animal agriculture industry.  But in the past few years the state Veterinary Medical Board has been threatening to prosecute these workers simply because animal owners are paying them.  I’m afraid that Brooke’s case is just the tip of the iceberg.”

Gray has never injured an animal and received high praise from the very animal owners the government relied upon to make its case against her, yet the Veterinary Medical Board filed suit against Gray in September 2010, in response to a complaint submitted by a veterinarian in nearby Clay County who sometimes works on horses’ teeth.  That same veterinarian, who has filed similar complaints against several other animal husbandry workers, admitted at trial that he has injured more than one horse in his own efforts to work on their teeth. Two other veterinarians testified in support of Gray, stating that they have been so impressed with her skill that they do not hesitate to recommend her to their own clients; one of those veterinarians has even entrusted Gray with assisting the vet’s own horse.  Several witnesses also testified that due to the very limited numbers of large animal veterinarians, requiring animal owners to hire veterinarians for simple tasks, such as branding or castrating cattle or shoeing horses, would greatly increase the costs of animal ownership and could actually reduce the level of care that animals receive.

Roland said that Gray and the Freedom Center intend to appeal the court’s ruling.

“The Missouri Constitution guarantees a citizen’s right to enjoy the gains of their own industry,” Roland said.  “Exactly one hundred years ago the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that this means that the government cannot deny someone the right to be paid for performing work that would otherwise be perfectly legal.  Especially when so many Missourians are already struggling to find jobs, we believe that this common-sense principle still applies and that the higher courts will uphold Brooke’s constitutional right to earn a living.”

UPDATE 2/20/2013 at 8:03 a.m. Central:  Brooke Gray lost her first appeal.

If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Follow me on Twitter @BloggingMachine. Thanks in advance for your support!

Politically-Motivated Raids Punish Gibson Guitar

On the morning of Aug. 24, federal agents raided Gibson Guitar Corporation factories in Nashville and Memphis on the premise that the use of wood from India that is not finished by Indian workers is illegal.  But that’s not all!  Even more disturbing facts have surfaced about the raid since then, leading many to conclude the raids were part of a politically-motivated operation.

Fox News Channel reporter John Roberts offered the most recent revelation about the case Wednesday (above).

In addition, we’ve learned several other details about the case from multiple news sources:

C.F. Martin Company catalog (PDF).

1.  Gibson employs non-union workers while the company’s main competitor, CF Martin Company, employs union workers;

2.  Gibson’s CEO donates primarily to Republican political candidates while Chris Martin IV, the CEO at CF Martin Company, donates primarily to Democratic candidates; and

3.  Several guitars in the C.F. Martin Company’s catalog (above) contain the same East Indian Rosewood as the guitars made by Gibson, according to Gibson officials.

Imagine how hard it must be for Henry Juszkiewicz, Gibson’s chairman and CEO, finding himself up against the Chicago thugs disguised as the Obama Administration.  It’s time for all Americans, especially those who play guitars, to buy Gibson at every opportunity!

If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Follow me on Twitter @BloggingMachine. Thanks in advance for your support!