Food Freedom

Single Mother Facing Prison for Selling Homemade Mexican Dish to Undercover Cop

Prosecutor: 'I don't write the laws, I enforce them.'

|

Reulas
Screenshot via Fox 40

Mariza Reulas, a single mother, is going to trial and could be sentenced to a year in prison for selling a couple bucks worth of a homemade dish—her Mexican ceviche—to an undercover police officer.

Reulas, who hails from Stockton, California, is part of an informal potluck group on Facebook, where people who like to cook can trade recipes, cooking tips, and occasionally dishes. It's not uncommon for a someone to offer a small amount of money for an equally small amount of food, says Reulas.

According to Fox 40, someone in the Facebook group offered to buy a plate of Ruelas's signature ceviche, a Mexican seafood fish. That person was an undercover cop carrying out a sting: twelve potluck participants were arrested for selling food without a permit.

Reulas refused to plead guilty and accept a lesser sentence—probation—so her case is headed to trial. San Joaquin County Deputy District Attorney Kelly McDaniel defended her decision to prosecute:

"I don't write the laws, I enforce them. And the legislature has felt that this is a crime," said San Joaquin County Deputy District Attorney Kelly McDaniel. She says selling any food not subject to health department inspection puts whoever eats it in real danger, not to mention it undercuts business owners who do get permits to make their food.

She says the 209 Food Spot Facebook group was sent a warning before charges were handed down.

"Food prepared in a facility that does not inspect it creates a risk to the public," said McDaniel.

It's true that McDaniel didn't make the law. But the people who did probably intended for her to exercise discretion in cases like this one, where the alleged perpetrator didn't really do anything wrong. There's a world of difference between operating an illegal business and occasionally accepting some kind of compensation in exchange for a plate of food. The latter is none of the government's business.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

270 responses to “Single Mother Facing Prison for Selling Homemade Mexican Dish to Undercover Cop

  1. “Prosecutor: ‘I don’t write the laws, I enforce them”

    IOW, when they tell me to start shoving people into ovens, I’ll do it. I’m just doing my job. Fuck off, slaver.

    1. I wonder if Comey would find this prosecutor to be reasonable or not? Did he even establish mens rea before prosecuting?

      1. This prosecutor is clearly reasonable. He determined that the perp wasn’t a Clinton, nor,politically connected so her action justifies the full violence of the state in retaliation.

        1. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do… http://www.Trends88.com

    2. You won the effin internet Hyperion. The lengths at which gov’t will go to lock people up for BS like this is frustrating. If this was a politicians daughter that got caught up in such a sting, it would be swept under the rug.

      This is yet another case for the private production if security. Imagine the outrage if a private security went into someone’s home and put the cuffs on someone for cooking a effing meal and getting compensated for it by another consenting individual.

      Being it’s the arm of the state, they can never be shut down, nor would the folks running this sting be fired and a public appology issued for the officers engaging in such discusting operations. Don’t want to pay your extortion rate to fund the arm of the state? Oh well, you will be fined, and if you don’t pay the fines, your property will be confiscated. If you resist, well, stop resisting!!!! Boom boom boom, and possibly a flashbang to the crib. Because there might be a toddler with a gun that Hillary looses sleep over.

      1. The Libertarian moment!!!!…. is getting stomped on by a boot right now…..

      2. I beg to differ with you on one point, where you said “Being it’s the arm of the state, they can never be shut down, nor would the folks running this sting be fired.”

        This travesty can and must be shut down. If ever there was a need for a revolution to refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants, now would be the time. America hasn’t been a legitimate democracy for a long time, we have an oppressive government that abuses its power and the citizens.

        Americas government is a disgusting regime of tyrants and criminals.

    3. “Prosecutor: ‘I don’t write the laws, I enforce them”

      ‘I don’t write the laws, I just take professional pleasure & personally profit from destroying families, kidnapping innocent mothers @ gunpoint, extorting vast sums of money from them & putting them in cages like animals’

    4. In this case, suck off flavor.

      1. We can’t just have people eating food that other people prepare.

        1. They’re stealing jobs from deserving restaurant workers.

    5. “Prosecutor: ‘I don’t write the laws, I enforce them”

      Yeah, you just decided to spy on a facebook group and sting someone on it because your law-enforcement abilities are so thorough and awesome that you have that kind of power to universally monitor society in that way and immediately detect the most trivial violations of regulations. You’re just enforcing ALL of the laws EQUALLY, right?

      1. And of course, there was not one single serious crime going on that might have been a better use law enforcement time and money.

  2. “Mariza Reulas, a single mother, is going to trial and could be sentenced to a year in prison for selling a couple bucks worth of a homemade dish?her Mexican ceviche?to an undercover police officer.”

    Welcome to Murika, land of the free! Did you make sure to vote for Hillary?

    1. I can’t comprehend how anyone can think it’s a good idea to give government more power.

      1. If they receive free shit then they don’t think about that.

        1. The undercover was just upset that he didn’t receive free food. He was asked if he wanted to pay for the ceviche. Progtards cannot have free market gaining momentum.

        2. if the free market is so awesome how come there are still starving people?
          Obviously there is market failure.

          1. We don’t have free market in food. Let me know when we do have free market in the food industry
            and we can have a chat about all the starving people.

            Wait! That means a non-free market economy is responsible for starving people. Better get TOP WOMEN on it…immediately!

            1. Maybe if she had called it Pow-Wow-Chow instead of ceviche she’d have a case…After all her family fiction speaks to tribal origins and they won’t be able to prove intent in any case. No REASONABLE prosecutor would take up that case.

      2. What are you, some kind of free-market-worshipping idiot? I bet you think the market is God. Man you are so stupid, we need government to protect us from putluck dinner food poisoning. Do you think the market is going to regulate itself? HAHAHAHAHAHA That’s funny! I laugh at your idiotic faith in the magical market.

        1. I’ve seen this exact argument made seriously.

        2. Is the “magical market” like a magic carpet?

          we need something to protect us from putlucks.

        3. I for one whole heartedly agree with you. I’m glad the state takes money that I might otherwise squander to employ in the necessary and supremely important capacity of stopping people from conducting commerce without consent of the king, errrrrr, I mean legislature. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if people were just allowed to peacefully and consensually exchange? I mean how would the state fund further efforts to subjugate it’s vassals, I mean citizens, without the legitimate ability to take with impunity? Ohh that’s right, we don’t need tax receipts because we deficit spend and print any cash we require to make the state function. I forgot, carry on. Don’t let this criminal get off easy. I’m sure she has committed other crimes if we look hard enough.

    2. Well shit, we can’t have the WRONG people selling food without permission can we??

      Now if this woman was mishandling classified information unintentionally, they’d have to just let her go….

    3. You know she did, too, because “Trump bad man, hate women and Mexicans.”

      Sorry ’bout your bust, amiga! Serio.

  3. Fuck modesty. This kind of shit is why libertarians are better people than others.

    1. Of course. Libertarians would never even think about doing this type of bullshit to anyone else. But yet, the people who libertarians just want to ‘leave alone’, will vote for the people who WILL do this type of bullshit to them, every fucking time.

      1. What, no libertarian would ever think of interfering with someone’s right to exchange money for labor.
        Unless they are Hispanic and don’t have the proper permission from the government to work. In that case, it’s ok.

  4. She must have used too much malicious intent in her recipe where it only called for careless disregard.

    1. If it was haggis I’d understand.

        1. Or tripe.

          1. Mexicans call that “menudo”.

            1. No, tripe = “tripas”. Menudo is a soup made with hominy and oftentimes has tripe as a meat.

    2. She must have used too much malicious intent in her recipe where it only called for careless disregard.

      And you had the nerve to mention leaving gems around this place.

      Nicely done, Sir, nicely done indeed.

  5. “I don’t write the laws, I enforce them. And the legislature has felt that this is a crime,” said San Joaquin County Deputy District Attorney Kelly McDaniel.”

    Here’s Albert Jay Nock’s comment on McDaniel’s style of thinking

    Once, I remember, I ran across the case of a boy who had been sentenced to prison, a poor, scared little brat, who had intended something no worse than mischief, and it turned out to be a crime. The judge said he disliked to sentence the lad; it seemed the wrong thing to do; but the law left him no option. I was struck by this. The judge, then, was doing something as an official that he would not dream of doing as a man; and he could do it without any sense of responsibility, or discomfort, simply because he was acting as an official and not as a man. On this principle of action, it seemed to me that one could commit almost any kind of crime without getting into trouble with one’s conscience. Clearly, a great crime had been committed against this boy; yet nobody who had had a hand in it? the judge, the jury, the prosecutor, the complaining witness, the policemen and jailers? felt any responsibility about it, because they were not acting as men, but as officials.

    1. Love that quote.

    2. They’re no better than Eichmann.

    3. It’s amazing how people will go to such great lengths to justify criminal activity. I read a nice explanation of the immorality of government: how can anyone possibly delegate to others the moral right to do something which they do not have themselves? I, as a private citizen, certainly have the right to self-defense, but that does not extend to enforcing my morals on others in any other condition. I have no moral authority to extract fines from my neighbor for selling food to people; how can any government claim to have that same moral authority? From whence came it? Surely not me, or anyone else, since not a singe person in the world has that moral authority as a private person; yet most of those people will gladly pretend that they and other government employees have that same moral authority, even while being utterly unable to show the provenance of that moral authority. Cops have to show continuous chain of control for criminal evidence; why do they not have to show similar provenance for the mere existence of their job?

  6. “I don’t write the laws, I enforce them. And the legislature has felt that this is a crime,” said San Joaquin County Deputy District Attorney Kelly McDaniel. She says selling any food not subject to health department inspection puts whoever eats it in real danger, not to mention it undercuts business owners who do get permits to make their food.

    Fuck you, you fascist piece of shit.

  7. Callin’ it your job don’t make it right boss.

  8. Interesting that there were prior warnings. How big a business is this group that it was targeted for enforcement? Is it the Uber of food trucks?

    1. Black market Mexican food is no joke.

  9. Carceral liberalism in action. Better she rots in jail than we apply something like mens rea, right progressives?

    1. Nah, they’d rather mens urea all over life liberty and property Jordan.

    2. But she was unregulated!!!!!!!! UNREGULATED!!!!

  10. “There’s a world of difference between operating an illegal business and occasionally accepting some kind of compensation in exchange for a plate of food.”

    No, there is not. Neither are kissing the Godfather’s ring or paying the vig.

    1. For low level stuff like this the mob would just threaten you and take their cut. This is way out of proportion to the “crime.”

  11. “It’s true that McDaniel didn’t make the law. But the people who did probably intended for her to exercise discretion in cases like this one, where the alleged perpetrator didn’t really do anything wrong.”

    I’m not convinced. There’s a counterargument against that sort of police/prosecutor discretion:

    Every law that isn’t uniformly and promptly enforced, all the time, contributes to public corruption because selective enforcement means someone is using it for blackmail or extortion — and probably thinks “that’s what it’s for” meaning blackmail and extortion have become the norm. So yes, the whole damn thing from prostitution to labor laws to export restrictions to monopoly busters. If you’re not going to enforce it for everybody, all the time, then get rid of it so you don’t have the temptation to become corrupt as you use it for blackmail, extortion, revenge, or for the harassment of dissenters.

    1. Nonselective enforcement works when laws are rare and fair.

    2. (Replying to myself, since I can’t edit)

      On the other hand, the punishment here does seem grossly disproportionate, and there is a case for “the law does not concern itself with trifles.”

      1. CEVICHE IS MADE WITH RAW FISH! SOMEONE COULD HAVE GOTTEN SICK FROM MEXICAN EBOLA!

        1. Don’t you have some pics of Mexican hotties to post ? The commenters look to you.

            1. Nice,you never diappoint

        2. Some, I assume, are good fish.

  12. It’s true that McDaniel didn’t make the law. But the people who did probably intended for her to exercise discretion in cases like this one, where the alleged perpetrator didn’t really do anything wrong.

    Sorry, but fuck that. Either you enforce the laws on the books or you don’t. “Discretion” is just a nice way of saying selective prosecution. The only way for idiotic shit like this to be struck from the books is for the state to enforce it until people revolt and demand it be overturned. The alternative is for the state to use laws to selectively punish those who don’t kneel when told to. And those laws remain on the books when they’re only occasionally used but disappear when they’re applied equally.

    Also “cases like this one, where the alleged perpetrator didn’t really do anything wrong” makes me think Robby might think there is a case where a transaction between willing participants for an agreed-to price could ever be illegal in a sane world. “There’s a world of difference between operating an illegal business and occasionally accepting some kind of compensation in exchange for a plate of food. The latter is none of the government’s business.” If the participants in the transaction both enter it willingly, then it’s none of the government’s business whether it’s food or any other product/service…in a morally upright society.

    1. “Discretion” is just a nice way of saying selective prosecution.

      The jury’s job is where the discretion comes in. A jury of your peers is a 12-man representative of We The People who have the last word on what the law is and what it ought to be. Of course, jury nullification – saying, no this isn’t what the intent of the law was or should have been and this person who may have broken the letter but not the spirit of the law deserves no punishment – is frowned upon by the experts and top men and administrators who think themselves better qualified than the public to do the public’s will. And then you become dependent on the goodwill of the administrators and goodwill is a marketable commodity.

      1. Reminds me of years back when the Dept of Ag passed new regs that basically outlawed all sales of homemade food with no exemption for bake sales and church suppers and that sort of thing. The Commissioner of Ag showed up in town here for the 4th of July parade and there’s his picture on the front page of the local paper – eating an ice cream cone sold by the Boy Scouts and made from nice fresh illegal homemade ice cream right there on the sidewalk. Naturally, this led to some “chuckle of the day” sorts of articles about the Commissioner “technically” breaking the very law he had helped craft. They later “fixed” the law by exempting churches and social groups and civic groups, with non-exempted groups magnamimously being granted the promise of a case-by-case review – i.e., we’ll let you know after the fact whether or not you’ve broken the law and good luck trying to figure out beforehand whether what you’re thinking about doing is legal or not. And that’s the way they like it, a fearful citizenry never sure when the iron hand of the law may fall upon their shoulder.

      2. I will never serve on a jury because whenever anyone in jury selection asks me if I agree to rule on the letter of the law, I bring up the hypothetical of traveling time and being asked to serve on a jury sitting in judgement of a runaway slave.

        The lawyers and judge know exactly what I’m saying without me risking them clearing the courtroom because I said “Jury Nullification” and everyone else in the courtroom gets to think about what they would do if they were on such a jury…

        1. Last time I was on a jury selection, the judge and I got into it because I wouldn’t agree that we could only rule on the law. I told her that no one can be asked to give up their right to follow their conscience.

          She said that if I was on a jury, I would take an oath to rule only on the facts and not the law. I told her in the courtroom, that I would never take such an oath because it was wrong.

          Judge was very, very upset that a peon would not agree that they must rule only on the facts of the case and not the law itself.

        2. That jury charge that their job is only to rule on the facts and not the law really bugs me. The judge and the prosecutor are public servants, are they not? The jury is the public. Isn’t that the idea behind sovereign immunity, that the government is us and that suing the government amounts to suing yourself for acts you yourself committed against yourself? It seems to me the jury – as representatives of We The People – is being asked “did this person violate your law and is this what you intended when you made this law?” The jury can rule any way they please, they are the sovereign.

          And the argument I’ve seen that we really need to overhaul the jury system because the laws are too complicated to expect the average man-on-the-street juror to understand seems to me a pretty good argument that the law is the problem. If I’m on the jury and I can’t understand what the law is, I’m assuming the defendant didn’t understand it and the average person can’t be expected to understand it and laws the average person can’t be expected to understand are illegitimate laws. Not Guilty.

        3. Way to wreck it, hero. The statists appreciate your making it easier to keep juries composed of 100% sheep who lap up whatever bullshit the prosecutor lays out for them.

          A few years ago, I was on a jury in a possession-with-intent-to-distribute case. Once they swore us in they locked us in a jury room until the trial began. Of course several of the jurors started discussing the selection day where we faced the lawyers and the defendant, and at least 6 of them were referring to the defendant as “the drug dealer” in this conversation. Before we’d heard a single word of evidence.

          That’s what normal people dodging jury duty produces.

          1. Way to wreck it, hero. The statists appreciate your making it easier to keep juries composed of 100% sheep who lap up whatever bullshit the prosecutor lays out for them.

            The alternative appears to be to lie in a courtroom. While I agree that ultimately, I’d prefer to serve on a jury… if I have to lie in court to do so, pass.

            1. There is another choice: agree to rule on the letter of the law, and do so when the time comes to give a verdict.

              The defendant is far better off with someone who will hold the prosecution to their burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, than with whichever govt employee/retiree/unemployed person replaces you on the jury.

              1. So I’ll convict someone for, say, possession of marijuana, and live forever with that on my conscience? No thanks.

                1. So I’ll convict someone for, say, possession of marijuana, and live forever with that on my conscience? No thanks.

                  If you say something that gets you kicked out of the jury pool, and are replaced by somebody who will vote guilty automatically because they hate drugs, and besides want to get out in time for Bingo night at their church… shouldn’t you have that on your conscience too?

                  If they can convince you to vote guilty, they can convince anybody to do so.

                2. Like it or not, jury duty is integral to our court system and is a check and balance to government power.

                  Just because the powers that be want to corrupt it and push you off a jury, does not mean you should let them.

                  Every case I have tried, the prosecutor has made a mistake on proving elements of the crime. Man up and look for that lacking element of the crime and find the defendant no guilty without lying.

            2. Lying is fun. You get to fool people…people who’d otherwise hurt you or other people. And there’s nothing they can do about it, bwahahaha!

              I did it & hung a jury in a federal narcotics trial, & I rubbed it in on them afterward.

              1. Not very smart. If you admit that you lied on the jury questionnaire, which usually contains an indirect question about jury nullification (such as “Will you obey all the judge’s instructions about coming to a verdict?”), you can be charged with perjury.

                1. Never lie to police, government officials nor on government forms.

                  Be cleaver and skirt the lawlessness of these corrupt government officials by saving your fellow American.

                  The government hates to use juries rather than will the punishment upon a defendant.

            3. There is a comedian named Doug Stanhope who basically said that you should never dodge jury duty because it’s the most easily impactful thing you can do to help another person. And if you go in there and it’s some dumb-shit charge for a victimless crime, vote not-guilty.

              1. Love Stanhope. Seen him live. Gonna see him again Dec 1.

        4. Agreeing to something with a gun to your head is unenforceable. There aren’t very many people who would consider any promise under such conditions to be valid.

          Thus so I consider any such “agreement” with any coercive government. I will gladly take the false oath, then derail it in the jury room. I will not do so publicly; I will find all the holes I can, say there’s something fishy about the police testimony (there always is, by definition), and refuse to find someone guilty for a victimless crime. My conscience will be entirely clear, and I would have no trouble telling the prosecutor and judge the exact same thing.

          They lie to me, hold figurative guns to my head all the time, with the explicit threat that the guns will become literal. They are thugs.

          1. You are free to say you will not follow the judge’s instructions to your heart’s content. You’ll just be kicked out of the jury pool, which is not coercive at all.

            Somebody else who you don’t know, might get coerced because of that choice, but that’s not enough to render the oath invalid.

            1. The judge represents a coercive government. That is enough to render any oath invalid.

              Yes, I am free to ignore the coercive government. I am also free to ignore the coercive burglar with a gun to my head, or the coercive locomotive coming down the tracks I am standing on.

              1. O….
                K…

                Do you consider the oath that witnesses have to take before testifying also to be coercive and invalid?

                1. Sorry, you’ve used up your allotment of pretend-to-be-obtuse questions.

            2. You are free to say you will not follow the judge’s instructions to your heart’s content. You’ll just be kicked out of the jury pool, which is not coercive at all.

              Somebody else who you don’t know, might get coerced because of that choice, but that’s not enough to render the oath invalid.
              He didn’t say he would disregard judge’s instructions.

              Scarecrow said that holes in evidence would be used to find not-guilty.

              BTW: Reasonable doubt is usually ignored by many jurors, which is not following judge’s instructions. Many criminal cases that I have defended involved clear reasonable doubt, which is why my clients were acquitted.

        5. You have to stop being so right when preparing to sit on a jury. Nod your head, tell them what they want to hear to get on a jury.

          The time for principles is after you are on a jury panel and vote your conscience. Stick to that vote no matter what the statists vote and try and push you. Don’t mention jury nullification or anything else that can get you kicked off a jury. Explain the evidence does not show ______ and stick to your guns. Run out the clock because most statists are not willing to actually impact their lives for the defendant. They will give in sooner or later or the defendant will get a mistrial which is almost as good.

    2. The only way for idiotic shit like this to be struck from the books is for the state to enforce it until people revolt and demand it be overturned.

      And if a few eggshells have to be cracked in the process of making that omelette, so be it?

      There’s a legitimate case for prosecutorial discretion: when the law is generally a good law but following it literally in a certain situation leads to unjust outcomes. Yes, jury nullification is supposed to fix this, but it’s better if the prosecutor never brings the case, given the expensive and time-consuming nature of modern criminal trials.

      In this case, it’s clear that the intent of the law is for the public to be able to trust that businesses that sell food have been inspected. If you’re doing something weird like buying food from a random amateur cook on Facebook, you presumably know that they’re not getting inspected by the health department, so applying the law in this case is stupid. But writing that distinction into the law is going to be hard.

      Obviously, prosecutorial discretion can be abused, but this wouldn’t have been such a case.

      1. If the intent of the law cannot be easily deciphered from reading it, then it needs to be rewritten. Pretty simple concept.

        1. No — defective laws need to be thrown out and all prior convictions revoked. If the legislature can’t be bothered to write clear laws, it is nobody else’s business to try and second guess their intent.

          And all cases of determining whether laws are defective need to be tried by jury alone, no chance for a judge to overrule them, no appeals to judge-only appeals court. By definition, if any jury finds a law unclear, confusing, inconsistent, or otherwise defective, then it is not easily understood and IS defective and MUST be voided in its entirety.

          1. Jury trials are a friggin expensive and time-consuming way to determine that a particular application of a law is unjust. Why not cut it off before charges are even filed? Otherwise the process becomes its own punishment.

            1. Not sure what you mean. I see laws being ruled defective in two ways.

              1. As a part of any trial, where the jury decides the law at issue is too confusing, unclear, etc.

              2. As a direct charge on its own, where anyone covered by the law can get a jury trial on the law itself without having to break the law to trigger a standard criminal trial.

              As for expense, the hell with that — governments have far more impact on expense with all their shenanigans. Wasting a few more dollars to void laws which would have resulted in far more trials and expenses is a good deal money-wise and justice-wise.

              1. Interesting ideas, though you also have to weigh that the defendant suffers expense and loss of time when you insist that they be charged and tried.

                In this case, the law is crystal clear. If you sell food that you prepared, you need a license. Period. Were we to write an exception into the law to make this “single mother”‘s activities legal, it would actually make the law less clear.

                1. I would love for all laws to be applied equally by robots or whatever. If speeding laws, or lane-change-without-blinker, or stops and right turns and all other traffic laws, were applied by cameras to everyone equally, requiring jury trials to prove them, we’d lose about 99% of the current crop within weeks from the backlash.

                  If idiotic subjective laws like insider trading had to be inspected by juries, they’d be gone too, for inconsistent enforcement if nothing else.

                  If a law allows leeway in when it is judged violated, then that leeway turns the rule of law into the rule of men. I am fine with cases being judged by juries, I am fine with parties settlig and dealing to avoid the expense and uncertainty of jury trials. I am not fine with cops and prosecutors deciding on their own initiative when to let someone go and when to charge them. That way lies the madness of HRC getting off for far worse security lapses than hundreds and probably thousands of people who have spent time in prison and had their lives ruined.

      2. If a law requires prosecutorial discretion it’s safe to infer that it’s a shitty law that doesn’t deserve to exist.

        1. No matter how well you write a law, there are going to be edge cases where applying the letter would be unjust, and/or loopholes for people to break the spirit of the law if not the letter.

          1. Then take the damned case to trial. Leave that to juries. When prosecutors make the call, rule of law has become rule of men.

    3. Either you enforce the laws on the books or you don’t. “Discretion” is just a nice way of saying selective prosecution.

      You think this wasn’t selective prosecution? Because the cops normally monitor Facebook to look for illegal dinner parties?

      You really think the cops have the time to sit around on Facebook equitably enforcing food safety regulations ?

      I guarentee you that this cop *when out her way* to find someone to sting. It’s even likely that she targetted this woman out of some personal Facebook vendetta.

  13. Good job. You’ve made Sgt Schultz into a more discerning authority figure.

    1. From time to time ,late in the evening I grab a snack and watch that show. It still cracks me up.

  14. ‘I’ve sent boys younger than you to the electric chair. Didn’t want to do it, I felt I owed it to ’em.’

    1. Gunga galunga.

    2. GAS CHAMBER!

      Now, how ’bout a Fresca?

      1. Details,details. Give me a break,I’m on beer 4. Being a Browns fan,it’s not nearly enough.

  15. an undercover police officer.

    “I don’t write the laws, I enforce them. And the legislature has felt that this is a crime,” said San Joaquin County Deputy District Attorney Kelly McDaniel.

    These heroes are stopping crime in one of the most dangerous cities in the nation. Thank you, brave undercover officer and thank you even more brave DA. Thank you for keeping the people of Stockton safe from such violent criminals.

    1. People often argue against drug legalization saying that if you legalize drugs, the dealers won’t stop committing crimes, they will move on to some other crime like extortion or kidnapping. While it is arguable that this is true for drug dealers, it is certainly true for police. A few years ago, such an undercover sting group probably would have been involved in marijuana drug enforcement. I wish they could find a better use of their time.

      Just a quick check on the Transparent California website shows that in Stockton in 2015, there are 321 jobs with the title “Police Officer.” 253 out of 321 make over 100K in pay and benefits. Only 5 have zero overtime pay.

      1. People who speak like that pretend that all criminals are the same. A criminal is a criminal. No, drugs are a black market. Their sale is governed by supply and demand. That includes the labor component of it. There’s really nothing else you could sell in this country illegally that would make up for the loss of drugs. That includes pussy. Just wanted to go on that little rant.

        Legalized drugs could very well lead to a temporary spike in violence in gang activity. Some of those involved in the sale of drugs would look for something else to get their hooks into. But there’s no replacement for them that would work in modern America unless they just went old school mafia/Italian mafia and just extorted people for protection money. But that sort of racket is in theory easier to detect and prosecute than a consensual transaction.

        1. If we legalize drugs the dealers will just switch to dealing child porn and Mexican ceviche.

          1. Or even harder foods, like pure Columbian Ceviche.

      2. 253 out of 321 make over 100K in pay and benefits

        Retiring after 20 with 80% of their salary running potluck stings and arresting everyone in their school district: ACLU: Over-Policing in Stockton Unified Remains Rampant, with 3,000 Police “Incident Reports” Each Year, including this gem:

        In 2012, an SUSD officer restrained a kindergarten boy with zip-ties and removed him from school without notifying his parents, after which the five-year-old with ADHD was charged with battery on an officer.

        1. In 2012, an SUSD officer restrained a kindergarten boy with zip-ties and removed him from school without notifying his parents, after which the five-year-old with ADHD was charged with battery on an officer.

          Wait, and they weren’t sued the fuck out of existence?

    2. Minnesoda used an undercover officer to nab a bartender who sold Wisconsin beer in Minnesoda. The bartender and the manager were each charged with a felony.

      You can’t even pretend it was a health issue in that case. The real offense was that the Wisconsin brewer refused to pay Minnesoda taxes to be licensed.

      Charging people with a felony because they were trying to give their customers a drink that hadn’t paid the tax money.

      1. Let’s not get into the aggressive PAY ON TIME racket the BATF runs on licensed liquor production houses. It’s all about the fucking revenue, top to bottom.

    3. I have the sudden urge to have a couple Bud’s. Bravo Crusty

  16. Wait till they get the ‘ universal background ‘ checks for guns for all private gun sales. You won’t be abble to sell a shotgun to your neighbor without risking years in prison.

    1. That’s why you never register guns. You sell them without the government ever knowing who originally owned the weapon.

      As far as the government knows, I have zero weapons and zero ammo and zero bullet proof vests and zero magazines for the weapons that I don’t have.

  17. How did the human race ever survive the REAL DANGER that comes from eating food which hasn’t been “inspected” by TOP MEN?

  18. As bad as McDaniel is, she’s still not as bad as THE GODDAMN SWIPE TO NAVIGATE REASON ON MOBILE.

    Can’t you get an intern to turn that crap off inbetween doing Mangu’s pedicure and applying fresh wax to Nick’s jacket?

    1. Hey,Robbie’s hair won’t comb it’s self.

  19. Staying on the theme of a downer evening, I’m watching Saudi Arabia Uncovered on NetFlix. There aren’t enough woodchippers in the universe for that shithole.

    1. Just started watching it. It isn’t it wonderful that they’re our good friends and faithful allies?

    2. Glad I don’t do Netflix, reason number 2 or so.

  20. None of this is any of the government’s business.

  21. I mean what do you want california to spend its huge budget surpluses on? Its not like there’s anything more pressing they could be doing

  22. not to mention it undercuts business owners who do get permits to make their food

    Ding ding ding; aaannnddd the money quote.

    Anyone want to guess who dropped the dime?

    Follow the money. Always follow the money.

    1. Big Food Truck strikes again.

  23. Pigs gotta oink.

  24. I would hope that if the prosecutor *really hated* this law she’d resign rather than enforce it.

    That would keep her conscience clear, wouldn’t require her to do any selective enforcement, because enforcing the laws wouldn’t be her business any longer.

    (and maybe a few resignations would generate pressure to get the law changed)

    But if she has any objections to this law, they’re not as important as her career ambitions.

    Now, maybe this is a good law, or at least a law that’s in the right ballpark and protecting the public health. Public health, after all, is a legitimate function even of a night-watchman state.

    But if the law is wrong, she can’t insulate herself by saying she has “no choice” but to enforce it. She has the choice to quit her job.

    1. Presumably, prosecutors are good lawyers, meaning that if they go into government service they’re taking a pay cut vis-a-vis what they could make in private practice.

      If a prosecutor makes more than (s)he could in private practice, that would be a good reason not to elect them prosecutor in the first place.

      So I’m assuming she could simply become a private lawyer and increase her income.

      So her option of resigning doesn’t mean leaving her family to starve, there would be a really soft landing. Or so I would hope.

      1. Oh, I see it’s an assistant prosecutor.

      2. But if she has any objections to this law, they’re not as important as her career ambitions.

        “Prosecutor” is a career stepping-stone and no prosecutor campaigning for higher office has ever run on their record of compassion and mercy. “Vigorously enforcing the law” is right at the top of the list of proud accomplishments on their resume’.

      3. Presumably, prosecutors are good lawyers, meaning that if they go into government service they’re taking a pay cut vis-a-vis what they could make in private practice.

        That’s actually a pretty good indication that you’re *not* good at what you do. Very few people work for less than they could get elsewhere.

        There might be a *few* prosecutors who think they’re making a sacrifice for the public good – not enough for me to give any particular one the benefit of the doubt.

        1. My remark had an element of sarcasm in it.

    2. That’s okay. If this goes before a jury, then the jury can simply nullify. “We the jury find the defendant not guilty”.

  25. “…That person was an undercover cop carrying out a sting: twelve potluck participants were arrested for selling food without a permit…”

    I, for one, sleep better at night knowing my welfare is the concern of such diligent LEOs.

    1. Nothing to cut. And if you tried to cut they would keep doing little bitch shit like this and stop responding to assaults and robberies.

  26. The banality of evil once again…

  27. She should have just given the food away to some homeless or something… Oh.

  28. There’s a world of difference between operating an illegal business and occasionally accepting some kind of compensation in exchange for a plate of food. The latter is none of the government’s business.

    No Robby, there really isn’t, and neither one should be criminal.

    1. FUCK YOU AND YOUR “ILLEGAL BUSINESS” RACISM !!! IT’S AN “UNDOCUMENTED” BUSINESS !!!

  29. It would be nice if Groovus or someone weighed in on this, as far as the actual public-health risks ameliorated – or not – by these sorts of laws.

    Are they makework for “health officials” or do they actually make food safer?

    If the latter, it’s a legitimate function for a night-watchman state.

    Though I’m not sure about a food-swapping Facebook group.

    1. safer in this context means safer from contagious disease, not from salt or lard or whatever.

    2. I can see the desire of consumers to be assured that the food they are eating is both safe, and what they are paying for, as opposed to, say, rancid stray cat being sold as fresh grade-A beef.
      But, does that require state violence to accomplish? First, most companies have no desire to poison their customers, civil liability is an effective remedy, and industry groups could certify clean and safe companies, leaving consumers a choice whether to risk foods without those certifications.

      1. I would still want to know how the law dealt with the risk of contagious disease, but not being an expert, I’ll just say if they can show that a regulatory regime would make outbreaks of infectious disease less likely, I’d listen to their case.

        1. would be nice for Groovius to show up, but my gut feeling is that most food born illness only effects the people who comes into contact with the food, those people are not themselves contagious.

          1. Probably, though if they’re serving a large number of people that could be a lot of infections before it’s caught.

            That’s not saying I endorse all regulations based justified by chanting “public health,” but at least the advocates of regulation are operating in an area where government has a right to be, so I’ll listen to their evidence.

            1. I suspect the threat of liability, and of loss of customers, may do more than the health-inspector’s visits to keep the food biz clean.

              1. Yet, with those suspicions, and the private alternative of industry safety groups, you still are open to the need of state violence?

                1. Civil liability involves state violence, so you’re open to it to, aren’t you?

                  1. hmmmm…. I suppose, although there are versions of AnCap that don’t rely on the state to enforce civil rulings. But yes, I concede your point. The difference being that in the one case, the violence is being used after a court ruling, while the other is being used proactively.

            2. Given that government regulators can not be held accountable for failure to regulate – they are, IMO, illegitimate whatever the rationale.

    3. Are they makework for “health officials” or do they actually make food safer?

      If the latter, it’s a legitimate function for a night-watchman state.

      NO ITS FUCKING NOT!

      Sorry. Sorry, I just get worked up when people start talking like its the government’s purpose ‘to make things safer’.

      90% of the problems and things we complain about from government is because they’ve been trying to make things safer.

      And that’s not government’s purpose anyway. Government’s purpose is to safeguard our rights.

      Period.

      1. I immediately clarified that I was referring to infectious disease.

        To borrow your terminology, infecting someone with a disease without their consent violates the Non-Aggression Principle.

        I wasn’t talking about protecting us from salt and sugar, etc., etc.

        1. There’s a difference between ‘infecting someone without their consent’ and ‘having an infectious disease’.

          And there’s a difference between both those and selling you some food that has a chance to have gone bad.

          The first is a proper crime. The second is just life. The third is buyer beware.

  30. Single Mother Facing Prison for Selling Homemade Mexican Dish to Undercover Cop

    who she then ate

    1. If it were a White Privilege dish, they would most certainly look the other way …

  31. I just dropped off my ballot (Colorado makes it insanely easy to vote). Straight libertarian ticket, when available. Didn’t bother to research the judges, just voted against retaining any of them. No on every tax increase (fuck the children and the arts), and, voted against open primaries in Colorado. Open primaries are bullshit.
    Also, voted against ColaradoCare, because, duh.
    Also, Broncos getting ready to smackdown the Raiders.
    Also, Carrie UnderWOULD, ami right?

    1. Hmmm…

      It looks like she was in such a hurry to get to some of her own concerts that she forgot to put anything on over her underwear. I’m surprised she doesn’t catch cold.

    2. “…No on every tax increase (fuck the children and the arts)…”

      We have a ballot measure, backed by the teacher’s unions, the mayor, the supervisors; oh, just about anyone who really luvs them some kiddies. This time, the backers swear we really need it, yessireebob, that the money will be used to improve safety in the schools, and we’ll get smarter chillunz. Just like 4 years ago (the unions got raises).
      I’m betting it passes.

      1. Part of the ballot initiative explicitly said that it would be used for cameras in the schools, and other safety measures. Public schools are already enough like jail, give the kids a break. And, if you really need more money, get rid of some administrators.

        1. “Part of the ballot initiative explicitly said that it would be used for cameras in the schools, and other safety measures.”

          To be honest, I didn’t read far enough to find that .but it wouldn’t have made a bit of difference. Four (or 8) years ago, it was written in the measure for a bond issue that they were going to use it for seismic-safety building up-grades.
          Not sure how to find the link, but it was later decided that better paid janitors qualified under that requirement.
          So I fully expect one school will get a camera (yeah, keep them buggers under surveillance!) and at the next negotiation, the head union thug will say “Look, youze gots lots of dough! Pay up!”

          1. you in Aurora? ’cause otherwise, you’re voting on a different initiative.

    3. Two years ago, Fairfax County had a budget surplus that they had to get rid of. Rather than giving taxpayers a pro-rated refund, they decided to give county employees a raise.

      Now they’re bitching about not having enough revenue to fund the public schools, and thus demanding a prepared meals tax. For the children. I would have thought the county workers would be willing to take a pay cut for the children, but maybe not.

    4. “Also, Broncos getting ready to smackdown the Raiders.”

      Gotta mention: The ‘9ers didn’t have a bye week this week, so they lost. They’ll have some used players and coaches available cheap at the end of the year.

      1. Also, smackdown of raiders not going according to plan, yet

  32. We’re a nation of laws. Except when we’re not. OK boys, ship ’em out!

  33. It’s true that McDaniel didn’t make the law. But the people who did probably intended for her to exercise discretion in cases like this one, where the alleged perpetrator didn’t really do anything wrong.

    Nope. Nope. Nope. What does a plain reading of the law say? That’s what the legislature intended.

    1. Don’t give them credit for something they’ve never shown any inclination for in the past.

    2. Don’t give prosecutors the benefit of the doubt when their past actions have made it emphatically clear that ‘prosecutorial discretion’ is not for ‘people who didn’t really do anything wrong’ and is for ‘people who are well-off’.

    3. Forseen consequences are not ‘undesirable’ nor ‘unexpected’.

    4. This sort of shit should not be regulated by the state in the first place.

    The law says what it says. We already know that cops will go after penny-ante bullshit like this instead of serious crimes because its easier. We know prosecutors will prosecute ‘crimes’ like this because its easier. Given what the RAW say and given the past performance of police and prosecutors, anyone who is capable of writing a half-coherent sentence in *any* language would know what the consequences of this law are.

    Robby Soave|Nov. 6, 2016 7:01 pm

    Ahh.

  34. There’s a world of difference between operating an illegal business and occasionally accepting some kind of compensation in exchange for a plate of food. The latter is none of the government’s business.

    No, there isn’t. Once you accept a contract to provide something for compensation you’ve done business. Scale does not make a difference. Its thinking scale makes a difference that allows people to think there is a certain level of business that is properly outside the scope of government regulation and a threshhold triggering that regulation.

    And everyone has a different idea of where that threshhold is.

    That’s all bullshit.

    There is business and it should all be outside the scope of government regulation or all inside it. Otherwise you’re going to have to come up with a meaningful distinction between what she’s been doing and what Nabisco’s been doing.

  35. Ceviche? More like Ceviche Guevara!

  36. Oh, good, it looks like the prosecutors exonerated the poor woman because she didn’t have criminal intent.

    Oops, sorry, my mistake, that’s just Comey exonerating Hillary Clinton for the second time.

  37. Latest emails don’t change conclusion that Clinton shouldn’t face charges

    Then . . . what’s the fucking point? Why are we spending resources on this?

    1. To add to the entertainment value of the election?

      To create the illusion of a close race?

    2. To make Comey feel better or something. I think it was to make him look good after it came out that emails were on Weiners computer – had to have that out before the election.

  38. This is an area that screams “libertarian issue”. There is absolutely no reason for state violence. Industry groups could easily certify food that was safe and clean, or companies that meet best industry standards.

    1. It’s not remotely that easy. Industry certification bodies have every incentive to become a rubber stamp.

      Yes, in theory the certification body might become less trusted if somebody gets sick from “certified” food, but you and I both know people don’t pay attention to that stuff.

      UL is the gold standard for such bodies, but (a) most people I know have no idea what UL is or what their reputation is at any moment, and (b) plenty of people get electrocuted by UL-certified hair dryers and it’s chalked up to user error. Then there’s Hebrew National, which is lauded as another “private food inspector” but what they’re checking for is kosherness, which wouldn’t even have any effect on the food consumer if it were violated (at least until the afterlife). So their success is hardly evidence that private food inspection certification works.

      1. Hebrew National is evidence that private inspection agencies *do* work – when you give a damn about the certification.

        And UL is a nominally private lab, but is in practice an arm of the government. UL has no particular incentive to be good at what it does because its now an ‘official’ inspection agency whose cert you have to get in order to sell in the US. If they pass on bad shit what’s going to happen to them? Approval for a fee increase? Look at CSA in Canada to see an agency that is openly corrupt and DGAF because its in bed with the Canadian government.

        1. Hebrew National is evidence that private inspection agencies *do* work – when you give a damn about the certification.

          Who verifies that Hebrew National is in fact doing their job properly?

          I guess you could say Yahu-Wahu does, but to put it charitably he’s not exactly been on the ball about punishing those who harm His People the past century or so.

          1. “Who verifies that Hebrew National is in fact doing their job properly?”

            Wooosh!
            The buying public, imbecile.

            1. The quoted text says HN is kosher….

          2. The people buying products specifically for that seal.

            If they didn’t trust them then no one would pay them for their mark.

            Who’s verifying the government agency inspecting commercial kitchens? Not a damn soul.

            1. You guys don’t seem to understand the meaning of the word “verify”. It is not a synonym for trust, hence the “but” in Ronald Reagan’s famous phrase.

              Customers are in no position to verify that the certifying organization is actually checking what they’re supposed to be checking — if they were, they wouldn’t need the certifying organization in the first place. The only way the certifying org can get caught not doing the checks is if (a) a product gets through that’s so grossly noncompliant with the certification that the consumer can tell, or (b) something bad happens that can be attributed to the checks not being done.

              With OU and K-of-K (thx HM) there is no way (b) would happen as eating non-kosher food has no effect in real life. Yeah, (a) can still happen, so if a Hasidim finds a cloven hoof in his Hebrew National hot dog then yeah, they’re busted, but that’s highly unlikely even if they’re not doing their job.

    2. In both cases you’re going to get the same violence – the difference is between a law mandating state inspections and a law mandating you pick a state certified inspection agency.

      ‘Voluntary licensing’ only works for Jews and Muslims apparently.

      1. ‘Voluntary licensing’ only works for Jews and Muslims apparently.

        It only works for them because what they’re inspecting for has zero health effects other than making sky-daddy unhappy with you. If they let meat with 2% pork content get the Hebrew National seal of approval, would anybody notice?

          1. LOL. Sure they would. Do Semites have special pork-detectors in their tongues or something?

  39. Even if they did intend for her to “exercise discretion” the law is wrong. The government has no business proactively regulating potential harms on property that is not held in common. Actual harms deserve correction and penalty to prevent them in the future, but going after what can potentially cause problems justifies just about anything.

  40. Of course the Deputy DA is trying to have it both ways… she claims to be just enforcing the law and may not like it on the one hand, then turns around and defends the law and its application in this case on the other.

  41. While I am sympathetic, I think its important to follow the law strictly.

    Ever wonder why there are tamale ladies and no tuna fish sandwich ladies?

    Why does my neighborhood have a Mexican pushcart of snacks but no American version?

    Because law enforcement has turned a blind eye to illegals breaking these kinds of laws – unlike if a white guy was pushing a hot dog cart.

    p.s. if you don’t like in California and don’t have a tamale lady. Don’t worry, you will soon. They are delicious!

    1. You taste tamale ladies?

      1. I also like in California, apparently. I need a beer.

      2. mmmm… (drools) tamale ladies

    2. We actually did have a pulled pork sandwich operation for one day.

    3. uhmm… I’m going to say that I would rather risk a bad tamale rather than a bad tuna samich.

      1. I chose that on purpose, but keep in mind the lady in the story was selling ceviche.

        1. ok, fair point

        2. You guys do know what ceviche is, right?

          Its *cured* fish. Fish cured in citric acid. It ain’t the same as canned tuna or potato salad. Its cured. Its what they do to preserve meat before refrigeration.

          1. That is not accurate. It’s not really ‘cured’, and the acid does little to nothing to prevent food spoilage.

            Acid ‘cooking’ turns the fish/seafood opaque, similar to heat cooking, but does very little to kill or inhibit bacteria growth as the acid level is not high enough.

            Ceviche is great, but it’s on par with sushi. It must be prepared and eaten fresh.

            Most likely Ceviche evolved solely as a masking technique for the amine-smell that seafood generates very rapidly in warm environments. The acid will scavenge up the fish-smelling amines and make the food taste/smell fresher, even though it isn’t actually any fresher.

          2. Its an analogy.

    4. Ever wonder why there are tamale ladies and no tuna fish sandwich ladies?
      \Why does my neighborhood have a Mexican pushcart of snacks but no American version?-

      AN WHYCOME AINT THERE NO BALONY ON WONDERBREAD OPSHUN @ TACO BELL DRIVE-TRU

      1. Did someone steal your account? This and your previous comment are the dumbest I’ve ever read from you.

      2. Nvm, I understand the context of your dismissiveness.

    5. Uhm, I don’t know about you but I live in a place that’s about 85% Mexican-American – and its not the *illegals* running the taco stands, selling tamales, bacon-wrapped dogs, etc.

      And its not the police turning a blind eye to ‘the illegals’. Its that there are certain types of food that are suited to carts – and most American cuisine is not – and there are people in specific economic conditions where running a cart is desirable and white Americans on welfare do not have the incentive to man a cart for 12 hours a day.

  42. Stockton declared bankruptcy a couple of years ago, but its public officials have the resources for sting operations on unauthorized sales of ceviche- not to mention prosecute said “offense”.

  43. Stockton declared bankruptcy a couple of years ago, but its public officials have the resources for sting operations on unauthorized sales of ceviche- not to mention prosecute said “offense”.

    1. Its also an extremely high crime city, as in real crimes, not potluck dinners.

      1. Real crimes are really hard to investigate and prosecute, and might be dangerous. Bullshit crimes like this are incredibly easy and safe, not to mention potentially lucrative for the city.

        1. Yeah… The city… right… That’s where the money goes.

  44. Someone should raise money to hire a top notch law firm to ensure this Prosecutor does not win a single case in future and her law career is effectively over.

  45. I be certain …that…my best friend had been realie taking h0me money part-time on their apple laptop. . there friend brother haz done this 4 less than 10 months and as of n0w paid the loans on their h0me and bourt a brand new Cadillac .
    look at this
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.factoryofincome.com

  46. What jury nullification is for.

    Prosecutor tried to get an easy conviction and is now forcing jail time because she dared to stand up.

    Remember, the biggest bully is the state. Government is just the word for the injustices we do against each other

  47. “No reasonable prosecutor…”

    My ass, Director Comey. Hand in your resignation.

  48. Hey… I did not give the order to kill all the Jews. I just kill all the Jews.

    1. This goes through my head whenever I hear the phrase. “I don’t write the laws. I just enforce them.”

      1. Yeah. Every time one of these fucks uses that argument, the press should ask them about Nuremberg.

        1. I have before. The PoPo tend not to like that argument. =D

          1. Surprised the average police officer even knows the reference.

    1. “OK, boss, here’s the printout of the names of all our spies in Russia.”

      “Great, just leave it on the coffee table. I want to read it on the subway tomorrow.”

      (Just kidding, she wouldn’t take public transport)

      1. “Oh, I just learned that we have to recruit a bunch of new spies to replace the old ones.

        “I need that list of new spies…where is our new maid, Olga?”

        “Is being right here, Madame President, and here is list.”

    2. The Clintons named their DC residence “Whitehaven”? You kidding me, bra?

      1. They’re white, and they can get away with stuff, so it’s like a haven…what’s your problem with this fully accurate name?

        1. They could call it Mordor or Puppy In A Blender and she’d probably still have the election in the bag.

          1. It’s called Barad Dur you fucking casual.

            1. At least I know enough to put an accent mark over Barad-d?r.

              1. Gay.

              2. Gay.

    3. i don’t know why anyone with a brain* thinks the comey letter says anything at all that matters.

      but the fact is that if the FBI didn’t recommend charges for the evidence they already had in their investigation of the ‘mis-handling of intelligence’ case…? there’s absolutely nothing “new” they could find which would have made a difference. they had sufficient evidence 1000x over already. No one who followed the investigations would have ever thought these new emails would have made any difference at all in that matter.

      the difference that *matters* is that comey’s Oct 28th letter led to the general public being aware of 2 things =

      1 – that the mis-handling of govt business was so inept that huge swaths of govt communications were sitting on the laptop of a sex-criminal ex-husband of her assistant

      and

      2 (in my mind the only really important detail) – that it turns out that there have always been *multiple* criminal investigations into Clinton going on, and the “FBI choice to not pursue charges” was really only relevant to a single one of those.

      i know people will say, “hurr durrr doesn’t matter all the boobs will think this new letter means she’s innocent”… but i really don’t think it matters at all. And even among people so shallow as to not really understand whats been going on, it wouldn’t change their vote regardless.

      1. When will Comey/Lynch say/do anything that matters?

        One supposes there’s a hell of an airtight case being build up for a reasonable prosecutor.

        1. I doubt anything will come to a head until long after the election is over, and there’s 2 possibilities

          1 – trump is pres, and he either tells prosectutors to run wild on her, or not
          2 – hillary is pres, and she tells the DoJ to stop everything cold and burn the evidence
          – at which point everyone involved goes to the press and there’s a 3year perma-scandal.

          Bo/Tulpa in the other thread acted like as long as DoJ can fire people, they can keep a lid on anything. its bullshit. they can’t keep a lid on anything. and if you thought the “attorney general firing-scandal” was a shitshow, imagine that if the firings occured when the subject of the investigation was the clintons themselves?

          this shit is going to go on for *years* if hillary wins.

  49. Should play the race card at her trial. I find it hard to believe this wasn’t racially motivated.

    1. JUDGE: “What happened to the exhibits?”

      JURY FOREMAN: “Exhibits? I thought they were lunch!”

  50. Totally fucked.
    Craft Beer.
    Candy glass shards of sunshine.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dV7AqFYkaY

  51. Whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump becomes president, American trust and confidence in government will keep dropping. And that’s a big probolem.[sic]

    Actually, for a libertarian, that’s not a problem. That’s a good thing, and it’s high time Americans understood that the government is not worth of either trust or confidence.

    1. Nor treasure and lives.

    2. That’s a good thing, and it’s high time Americans understood that the government is not worth of either trust or confidence.

      Sadly, the result will be more government that is not worth either trust or confidence.

  52. This arrest and prosecution are just straight up evil.

  53. These fucking commercials…I’ve seen two different commercials, each featuring a “lifelong Republican” distraught about Donald Trump’s sexist rhetoric. They’re voting for Hillary because they don’t want their daughters and granddaughters thinking this stuff is okay.

    Because we ALL TAKE OUR FUCKING CUES FROM FUCKING POLITICIANS, apparently. When I was a kid in the 1980s, I would comb my hair into a faux-pompadour, make a bunch of optimistic speeches about America’s future, and give financial aid to my Salvadorian classmates.

    By the way, you Trump-grabable so-called Republicans, if you don’t want a man in the White House to use his power and prestige to exploit vulnerable women, then maybe you shouldn’t vote to put Bill Fucking Clinton back in there.

    1. The first Repubs for Clinton commercial I saw ended with the line “Trump is uniquely unfit for office, even ffor a Republican.” Insinuating that Republicans in general are unfit for office. I have to wonder what clueless idiot thought taking a jab at Republicans was a good idea in an ad aimed at Republicans.

      Some times I wonder if Trump’s campaign isn’t behind some of thee ads and the Dems just haven’t noticed them yet.

  54. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  55. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    —————— http://YoutubeJobs.Nypost55.com

  56. In other news, Electoral officials are reporting an increasing number of write-in ballots for “Woodchipper”.

  57. By this cop’s logic, people who pitch in money for a dinner party are guilty of high crimes.

    The only way to rectify this is for the cop, the prosecutor, and the judge to be arrested and charged with harassment and possibly stupidity, if that is possible.

  58. I get why idiot politicians write these stupid laws.

    What I don’t understand is why anyone agrees to arrest someone for something like this.

    And when they realize how pointless and meaningless their life’s work has become, they should just paint the inside of their tax-funded cruiser a moist shade of grey.

  59. “…someone in the Facebook group offered to buy a plate of Ruelas’s signature ceviche, a Mexican seafood fish. That person was an undercover cop carrying out a sting”

    I think I found the problem

    1. Obviously we have too many cops if they have enough time on their hands to go after people selling homemade food on Facebook groups.

  60. I don’t write the laws, I enforce them. And the legislature has felt that this is a crime

    She’s right. Everyone here and a lot of other places like to blame the cops and lawyers, but voters elect legislators and could easily vote out legislators who enact policies they don’t like. There’s a reason voters don’t do that.

  61. Obviously she didn’t offer the correct bribe in the form of declaring the income.

    No, seriously, fuck the government and fuck people who think this bullshit is okay. This is exactly what the bootlicking fans of “regulation” ask for. Fuck anyone who doesn’t think there is too much regulation if this is the result.
    Fuck every last one of them, may they all die in fires.

    1. Why not save the trouble of lighting fires and just…

      Fuck them all to death!!!

  62. Wake-up call. In this country, and particularly in CA, everything is the government’s business. We citizens almost have no private lives any more, and it’s our fault.

  63. So bankrupt Stockton, the deadbeat city that can’t pay its bills, has money to waste on this bullshit. Fuck your pensions government mooches.

    1. Waaah, we need more money for our pensions because we’re doing Facebook stings.

      1. Most likely the cop was settling a personal score while at the same time pension spiking, so two birds one stone

  64. Another ADA attempts the N?remberg defense.

    It isn’t even true. DA’s have very wide discretion about which charges to pursue.

  65. And the legislature has felt that this is a crime…

    Seems like an odd way for a prosecutor to characterize the law. Does it matter how the legislature feels about it ? Or the black letter law as written. Just seems odd to say “the law is the law” and then go all “feelz”.

  66. Bet you she cites all sorts of “intent” and “common sense” approaches when she doesn’t charge a pig who murders an unarmed innocent.

  67. This article is highly distorted. The Facebook group is not an “informal potluck group on Facebook, where people who like to cook can trade recipes, cooking tips, and occasionally dishes.” It’s a group with over 10,000 members whose stated purpose is the buying and selling of homemade food items. The group’s rules section contains the following:
    .
    “*DISCLAIMER*
    It is each sellers responsibility to ensure they are in compliance with local permitting requirements & food that is sold is prepared in a permitted kitchen.”
    .
    Ms. Reulas apparently violated her city’s health codes concerning the sale of food to the public. And she did so while selling UNCOOKED seafood.

    1. But if she gave the food to do wine to eat for free then you’d be fine with it…

      1. *someone, not do wine

  68. Food Nazi’s gone wild! Enter legislation of PTA fundraisers, you know, like where parents contribute home-made goodies baked in the average semi to unsanitary household conditions for the PTA to sell to the general public so the kids can buy pencils, pens and writing supplies. Yesterday’s SJW’s promised a chicken for every pot, Today’s SJW’s offer one food inspector in hazmat gear to monitor pot-lucks and cupcake sales. Horrors.

  69. Fucking kulaks. I hope they throw the book at her. We have people not to participate in dangerous unregulated food black markets and get the fuck back in the official bread line.

    1. *have to teach people not to…

  70. I’ve eaten at night markets in Asia and Mexico. Only place I’ve got food poison is in a restaurant in an affluent suburb of San Francisco

    1. Only place I ever got food poisoning was at a prestigious publicly funded university cafeteria.

    2. gambler’s fallacy

  71. Plenty of licensed facilities make mistakes and get people sick everyday. Safety is not an argument for government intervention where it has no business. Paying a bribe does not guarantee you provide a safe product. Safety should be in the hands of individuals who subscribe to a service that inspects and ensures proper training of personnel. That service can then provide the business with a bond and a seal of approval for the wary customer to depend on. Reason, not force, is the answer. Victimless crimes are not crimes at all. Tired of the rampant government wasting money on idiotic things. Go after violent offenders and forget the rest.

  72. “Food prepared in a facility that does not inspect it creates a risk to the public,” said McDaniel.”

    No, the real dangers to society are people like this disgusting excuse of a human such as Kelly McDaniel. Prosecutions and lapses of human decency are not uncommon, in fact, they’re standard practice. American citizens aren’t free, and America isn’t a democracy.

    Until we stand up against tyrants like Kelly McDaniel who abuse their position of power & authority, more and more people will suffer. Freedom is incredibly difficult to attain but is easily lost. Thomas Jefferson once said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Now, more than ever, is the time to restore liberty with the blood of tyrants, starting with people like Kelly McDaniel who deny the fundamental rights & privileges that are core to democracy.

  73. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  74. “There’s a world of difference between operating an illegal business and occasionally accepting some kind of compensation in exchange for a plate of food. The latter is none of the government’s business.”

    The former is none governments business. Since when do the so-called libertarians at Reason think we need food inspectors?

    1. Because sensible libertarians don’t wish to go back to the days of short life expectancies due to the myriad of infectious and toxic things found in poorly handled and prepared food.

  75. who cares? It’s California.

  76. “I don’t write the laws, I enforce them.”

    …and rational jurors can nullify them.

  77. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  78. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  79. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.