Important research from Sharon Zacchinelli:
It was pointed out on one of the newsgroups thanks to the keen eye of someone that there is more to the enforcement section than was previously thought.
Let’s look at the US Code:
TITLE 7 CHAPTER 55 § 2204g
(d) * Enforcement*(2) * Refusal or neglect to answer questions * A person over 18 years of age who refuses or willfully neglects to answer a *question*, which is authorized by the Secretary to be submitted to the person in connection with a census under this section, shall be fined not more than $100.
-Cornell Law
You see what they’ve done? In the title of section 2 the word is “questions” and then in the definition it says “question”. A little matter of the ’s’.
[In otherwords, multiply $100 times the number of questions to get the fine… Hmm… If it wasn’t the government I think that would be defined as extortion or something. -WVJ]
But, as Amanda Pomicter at USDA in Washington, DC (202) 690-8127 told me when I called this morning, “We never enforce it.” Well, good, that makes me feel real comfy.
An interesting side note to this. I was researching to find more information and happened upon the ‘Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics Summary and Recommendations from May 2007‘
There are two mentions of NAIS. On page 10 under *State of NASS* is says:
NASS mailed over 1.0 million Agricultural Identification Surveys (AIS) during the first quarter of FY 2007. This mailing was a screening form used to determine the agricultural status for names gleaned from various sources. Unfortunately, the AIS acronym raised a lot of anti-NAIS (National Animal Identification System) sentiment and confusion. This will need to be avoided in the future.
The other mention is on page 7 it says:
2006 Recommendations and Responses:
• The Advisory Committee recommends to the Secretary of Agriculture, that while acknowledging the importance of maintaining individual confidentiality, NASS be granted access to the National Animal Identification System for the purpose of producing statistical data summaries.
• No final action or decision has been made at this time.
I wish that the USDA head official would drop by and actually answer questions like this in writing rather than leaving us all guessing. They could be helpful and resolve this question quite easily. After all, they are civil “servants” and OUR employees…….
Comment Jack Uster — January 12, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
Jack comment #1…Since we’re “wishing”…I wish the USDA head official would stick his head up his ass and go play in traffic..
I didn’t give them the right to any information.
As far as the $100 fine and “we never enforce it” comment, good, I’d never pay it. Since when did one unelected “Civil Servant” agency become the legislative and judicial branch rolled into one? Making laws and metering out fines is in my humble opinion a little out of their jurisdiction.
Henwhisperer, my e-mail is screwed up will try to contact you this coming week after it is corrected.
Comment Bob Constantine — January 12, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
Right on Bob!
Comment LEE — January 13, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
Maybe if the USDA spent less of its time and resources on its Nazi activities it would be able to perform its legitimate duties, like meat packer inspections without the constant screw-ups.
“E.Coli Fears Cause Minnesota Firm’s Ground Beef Recall
Posted on Saturday, 12 of January , 2008 at 9:14 pm
ROCHESTER, MINN—Rochester Meat Company, a Rochester, Minn., firm, is voluntarily recalling approximately 188,000 pounds of ground beef products because they may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.
The problem was discovered through an investigation initiated by the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services and the California Department of Public Health into five illnesses in Wisconsin and one illness in California. Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a physician.
The ground beef products subject to recall were produced on Oct. 30, 2007, and Nov. 6, 2007. The products subject to recall were shipped to distributors nationwide for further distribution to restaurants and food service institutions. These products were not available for purchase by consumers in retail establishments.”
Comment Patricia Hampton — January 14, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
This just in from a poster on Oklahoma Against NAIS with full permission to cross post:
Well I finally got thru to speak to someone about the book we are supposed to fill out for the Ag Census. I was very polite and informed the lady that there were some questions that really bothered me. I asked if the government really needed to know if I had a handfull of chickens to aid in cleaning the corrals and for eggs for my family. she said no, the really only pages I needed to fill out were pages 2 and 3 and if I were uncomfortable about answering the other questions to just leave them blank. I then asked why does the government need to know how many personal horses I have for riding and going to an occasional show. Her answer floored me. She said that the government needs to know how many animals are out there and if they seem to think there is a shortage of say, Quarter Horses, then the government can contact horse people and ask them to raise Quarter Horses. I could not belive it. Then I asked why do they want to know if I have internet and high speed internet. Her reply was so that if there are enough people who have internet, then they can send information to them via the internet. What happened to answers being confidential? I then asked why in the world did they need to know if I had any barns built before 1960. Her answer was that there was a group of people wanting to preserve old barns. Again, what about confidentiality? I then asked if this tied into the NAIS program. Here’s the scary part, she said that there are different orginazations that use the information provided from the census. My final question was this: What is the penalty for not filling out the census and sending it back. Her reply was there was a fine of a couple of hundred dollars but they never inforce it. If I were to toss the census, they would keep sending me one until I sent it back. Then they would call and then they would show up at my house asking if I needed help filling it out. “So it’s just better if you fill it out so they won’t bother you” is what her final statement was. I politely replied, “I don’t have to answer my phone and I can ask people to get the hell off my property” and I thanked her and the conversation was over.
Comment Henwhisperer — January 15, 2008 @ 11:39 am
They wanted to know how many personal horses so that they can contact these people and ASK them to raise them? I think they mean TELL us what we can raise. The census is confidential. Yep I believe that one…….and who cares if I have a barn built before 1960 what they gonna do come and haul it off because some one preserves them? I think her comments tell us VOLUMES about what our gubment really wants.
Comment Goatster — January 22, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
The barns are about these other lovely little UN instruments—preservation of ‘view shed’. If you have an old barn, they don’t want you to be able to raze it because it ‘adds to the bucolic ambience’ of the countryside. It’s a whole nother side of the coin.
[Don’t shovel the roof off and the ice & snow storms will do a wonderful job of razing the bucolic buildings… Lowers the taxes too. -WJ]
Comment Doreen — January 23, 2008 @ 7:20 am
I know of someone that works at the Rochester Proccessing Plant, they bring Canadian beef in to the fourth floor, unbox it, and comingle it with US beef. I bet that’s where the E. Coli came from same as the last time. Some days the Canadian packing plants don’t have an inspector on site. USDA’s solution was to send our people there to check for E-coli. Nice that we have to foot the bill.
Comment Paul-Martin:Griepentrog — January 24, 2008 @ 10:44 pm