Police Traveled 500 Miles To Seize Girl's Pet Goat for Slaughter
A 9-year-old backed out of a deal to sell her pet goat for slaughter. Local officials and sheriff's deputies used the power of the state to force her to go through with it.
A federal civil lawsuit alleges that sheriff's deputies from Shasta County, California, traveled across the state to seize a little girl's "beloved pet goat" for slaughter. New reporting details how they may have violated the law in doing so.
According to the lawsuit, in June 2022, Jessica Long and her daughter, who was 9 years old and only referred to as E.L., attended the Shasta District Fair. The fair includes a junior livestock auction, in which members of 4-H youth programs exhibit farm animals they've raised. At the end, the animals are sold to the highest bidders to be slaughtered for meat. The fair takes 7 percent of the sale, and the kids get to keep the rest.
In April, Long purchased her daughter a goat, whom she named Cedar. From then until the fair, E.L. "fed and cared for Cedar every day." She "bonded" with the animal just as she "would have bonded with a puppy" and "loved him as a family pet."
At the fair, state Sen. Brian Dahle was Cedar's highest bidder, pledging $902. But by then, E.L. had second thoughts about sending her new four-legged friend to die. She and her mother tried to withdraw Cedar from competition but were told that the rules forbid it. After the auction, E.L. refused to leave Cedar's side, sobbing next to him in his pen. At this point, before money had changed hands, Long and her daughter sought to terminate the contract: California law allows that "a contract of a minor may be disaffirmed."
Long told representatives of the fair that she would happily pay the 7 percent fee that would have resulted from the sale (in this case, $63.14) and took Cedar home. Anticipating controversy, she later took the goat to another farm in Sonora County, more than 200 miles away.
But in the following days, B.J. Macfarlane, livestock manager of the Shasta District Fair & Event Center, the state agency that runs the fair, called Long and told her that if she did not return Cedar, he would have her charged with felony grand theft. Long offered to let the fair association keep the entire $902, but Macfarlane would not budge. She also reached out to Dahle, who agreed that he "would not resist her efforts to save Cedar from slaughter."
In an email to the Fair Association, Long wrote of her efforts to "make it right with the buyer and the fairgrounds," mentioning Dahle's support and offering to pay for the goat "and any other expenses I caused." But Melanie Silva, CEO of the Fair Association, was unmoved. Silva wrote back that while she was "not unsympathetic" to E.L.'s plight, "please understand the fair industry is set up to teach our youth responsibility and for the future generations of ranchers and farmers to learn the process and effort it takes to raise quality meat. Making an exception for you will only teach [our] youth that they do not have to abide by the rules that are set up for all participants."
She concluded that it was "out of my hands" and that Long would "need to bring the goat back to the Shasta District Fair immediately." According to records received by The Sacramento Bee, Silva then emailed an official with the state's Department of Food and Agriculture, saying that an organizer of a local community barbecue "has contacted her lawyers regarding the theft of the goat donated to the bbq."
Two weeks after the fair, Shasta sheriff's Detective Jeremy Ashbee sought and received a search warrant, directing two officers to drive more than 500 miles in order to seize Cedar and return him to Shasta County. The warrant authorized a search of a goat rescue in Napa County, but Cedar was not there. After searching the rescue, the officers drove over to Sonoma County and took Cedar from the farm, even though that property wasn't listed on the warrant. (In a court filing, the officers contended that "no warrant was necessary to retrieve Cedar at the Sonoma Farm as they had consent from the property owner to retrieve the goat.")
In an amended complaint filed in February, Long claims the officers were then "required by law to hold Cedar or deliver him to the Magistrate" so the court could determine Cedar's ownership. But instead, they "independently deemed unknown third parties…to be the owners of Cedar" and delivered him back to the fairgrounds.
Perplexingly, Long is not certain what actually happened to Cedar: "At this time we don't have that specific information and we can only speculate," her attorney told the Bee. "While it hasn't been confirmed as a factual matter, we believe the goat Cedar has been killed."
Long filed a federal lawsuit in September 2022 against all three officers, alleging violations of the Fourth and 14th Amendments and seeking damages.
While Long and her daughter admittedly sought to terminate a contract, it's hard to imagine a worse state response at any stage of the process. If both Long and Dahle agreed to terminate the contract, and Long agreed to reimburse the fair for its share of the purchase, then who was harmed?
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is why you never work with animals or kids.
When my little sister was 9, we purchased two young steer calves to grass feed on a bit of land we had in the Ozarks. She really wanted to name them.
So, my dad finally agreed, as long as he got to name them. Their names ended up being Sir Loin and Chuck. And 2 years later . . .
Friend of mine was raising cows for beef. I wanted to name one “Patty”...
“Dad” was thinking, but out in the country it is a general rule that you don’t name food (and you don’t eat pets).
I sympathize with the police that became embroiled in this because they might have been considerably conflicted by the orders they were given (if they weren’t at least somewhat conflicted they can reasonably be described as worthless sonsabitches), but on a practical they should realize that actions such as they took most surely convert some erstwhile conservatives and allies into defund-the-police supporters. As for the administrator of the fair who refused to take one of the several offered exit ramps before Cedar reached the abbatoir – a person of that demonstrated stripe will eventually cross someone who does not forgive and has the means and wherewithal to impose some “regrets”.
Agree
"“Dad” was thinking, but out in the country it is a general rule that you don’t name food (and you don’t eat pets)."
Going through that right now; We raised chickens, and my explicit purpose was to teach my son that livestock was livestock, not pets, and this is where your food is coming from.
So, naturally my wife lets him name them. Now 5 years later its time to refresh the flock, (No roosters allowed in this neighborhood.) and of course I can't add the chicks to a flock of mature chickens, they'd kill them.
So, I'm all set to process myself some chickens, and it's "Whoa, you can't do that to "List of cutey names"!"
My wife wants me to convert the coop to a duplex, for crying out loud, just so that the post-henapausal chickens can live on outside a stewpot. Man, that lesson got officially canceled.
You need to have your son kill the chickens himself. Do not back down on this Brett.
The chickens can die and you can eat them or they can die and you can't, but the chickens not dying isn't really an option.
Personally, I started with making the kids clean fish.
"I sympathize with the police...." Really? What's wrong with you? I sympathize with the little girl, of course, and more with the goat, dead or alive, than with the pigs, of course.
Lehto covered this today and specifically cited this article:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgg4bnlVCKU
+1
Or ever vote for a democrat. California needs a thorough cleansing.
There were no democrats involved in this story, fool
The CHUDboy is a right wingnut who can only maintain his hate boner by fantasizing about Demo genocide. Don't try and confuse him with facts.
Shasta County is a heavily Republican County. All their reps are Republicans. You're also talking about people in the agriculture industry, which as an industry is dominated by people who are politically conservative. The people you're mad at here are most likely diehard Republicans.
Republicans in the agriculture industry, political conservatives at the welfare trough.
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
Here is I started.……......>> GOOGLE WORK
"If both Long and Dahle agreed to terminate the contract, and Long agreed to reimburse the fair for its share of the purchase, then who was harmed?"
Egos were harmed. How dare a young girl defy the government!!!
This! And… This Government Almighty BLOAT… Really gets my goat!
BAAAAAA... Humbug!!!!
What does government have to do with it?
Yes, the proper lesson to the girl is that a contract can only be exited through the consent of all parties. Once the buyer consented to exit the contract (and whether the fair is a party to the contract is a valid point of debate), then that should have been the end of it. Had the buyer not consented to abrogating the contract, then all of this would have been in the right to continue to enforce and that would have been the proper lesson. Instead we have a lesson where power-hungry administrators will waste a bunch of taxpayer time and money.
Wow. You really have to wonder how small Macfarlane's dick and Silva's boobs are that this is what they have to do to prove how adult they are.
Great. You made a 9 year old girl cry. I hope you're proud of yourself. Assholes.
In fact, they are big enough assholes that I have to wonder whether there was something going on. Did Macfarlane ask Long out on a date many years ago and get turned down? I'm pretty sure I saw a movie about that.
MacFarlane wanted to fuck that goat. Well, ok, he actually wanted to fuck the 9 year old girl, but knew the goat was as close as he could get. But then he actually *found* a way to fuck the little girl, by executing her goat!
Silva is just a cunt.
Every time I see those names I instantly think of Seth MacFarlane and Henry Silva. So I’m getting some weird visuals here.
In a Shirley Jackson universe, the lottery for that goat would result in MacFarlane and Silva being sent for slaughter
christ, what assholes!
Honestly this went better than I expected. I figured the sheriff's deputys would have shot the goat right in front of the girl. Possibly cut off its head and shaken its blood out all over her.
I mean, we're talking about cops, here.
Possibly cut off its head and shaken its blood out all over her.
I don't think Satanists allow cops in their organization.
It’s pretty baaaad.
At least the politician realized how bad it would be to insist on the contract's enforcement, and tried to take back his purchase.
So, what exactly is going on here? Why did they make this girl a scapegoat?
Ha, ha.
I think they explained it. Might not be enough of a reason to have driven you or me to do this, but they did explain their motives, and they were not crazy motives: They want it clear that, you sign one of these contracts, it WILL be enforced, crying child or no crying child, so don't sign unless you mean to deliver.
As for the legal issue, I'm assuming that the contract in question was co-signed by the parents, and was with the faire. The former point obliviates the ability of a minor to back out, and the latter renders the decision of the final buyer to back out legally irrelevant.
That just leaves bad optics, which strictly speaking isn't something the police are supposed to take into account: "It would look bad if we enforced your perfectly valid contract in this case, so sucks to be you!"; Nah, that's not a good idea.
If I've heard the story correctly, the "rules" said they were supposed to hold the goat until the civil matter was resolved, so I expect the Shasta County Sheriffs to take a member of Silva and MacFarlane family and execute them. Rules are rules.
Contracts are civil matters. You can get the police to help you enforce a civil judgement (evicting a holdover tenant, seizing property that should be returned to the successful plaintiff), but aren’t those all things that happen after trial? You certainly don’t destroy the property in question pending a civil trial.
Correct.
Is co-signing really the normal procedure? She wasn't buying the goat on credit... If the contract was with the kid (the human one), then it was voidable. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22274799-goat-complaint
The complaint states that the kid was the owner of the goat, not the parents, so the fair's contract for exhibition and sale was with the kid. Then it says she "disaffirmed" it even before the auction had taken place--which the fair refused to acknowledge and went ahead with the auction.
Once she disaffirms the contract, the kid doesn't have to give the fair anything: no goat, no meat, no money. And that is why you never enter into a contract with a minor...
I can't say about California, but, where I live (Pennsylvania) a minor can't enter a binding contract. A minor also can't own property. That would mean that the Parents would have had to sign the contract and would own the goat. Hell when I went in the Navy a bit before my 18th birthday my Mother had to sign paperwork to allow my pay to go to me instead of her.
That’s some real psycho shit right there.
This wouldn’t have happened if the 4-H’ers were growing goat meat in a chemical vat.
Because Nobody would buy that crap.
The same place we're going to be growing children.
Nah the little girl has an unhealthy codependent relationship with the goat and likely needs to be medicated for depression. Then forced to watch the goats slaughter. It’s the only way to be sure she doesn’t fuck up again.
Is the kid even a member of 4H? The kids in that generally know the life cycle and are prepared so 9 may be a bit young regardless. Seems mom didn’t know what she was signing her kid up for and they ran across a couple of pretty tyrants with zero empathy.
It sounds like they did know, but circumstances changed. The mother has mentioned elsewhere that in the previous year, the little girl lost 3 of her grandparents and it sounds like her attachment to the goat was what helped get her through that. That's why she changed her mind.
No excuses. Yes, we can acknowledge that the days spent with the goat while it was alive will clearly be the best days of her life, as it’s only gonna get worse from here on out.
Welcome to earth, bitch.
"No one is above the law."
Which makes knowing what the law is fairly important.
That girl just learned a valuable life-time lesson - the state will kill you if they want to, won't think twice about it.
The willingness of the modern state to use lethal force against its own (non-criminal) citizens is pretty well established (try underpaying your taxes by $0.05). [What many states have is a general resistance to using lethal
forcepenalities against rapists and murderers, including those whose victims are children.] What is remarkable is how little they will kill you for if you try to resist the magisterium, though I supposed in resisting your original sin is magnified by “contempt of ___________”.And the state will take whatever the fuck it wants from you. The more you cry, the more they salivate.
I would have just said "Sorry, it escaped. You can go look for it." And point at the miles of national forest that stretches out beyond my land.
I heard that the goat was lost in an tragic boating accident. Along with several firearms.
They really got her goat
Feeling sheepish about it.
They should have just butted out.
If the contract was made with a minor it is invalid. If the parents signed the contract. It is valid. I have a feeling that the parents did have to authorize the sale and this whole ordeal is about saving face with their daughter.
In either case, this story is little more than a distraction from important matters. We have much bigger goats to fry.
I was forced to sign up for Social Security when I was a minor, if I wanted to work and earn money, which I did. How is that a valid contract?
And when I signed up they said I could retire at 65. Now they're saying 67. How can one side change a contract unilaterally?
Flemming v. Nestor
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/363/603/
Your parents sold you into slavery for a tax deduction.
Q: How can one side change a contract unilaterally?
A: When one party is the government. (Is now, has been since the government was formed - not just "our" government - any government. As far as voluntarily contracting with the government, let me ask:
There is a poker game. One player (always the same one, incidentally) gets to say, after the betting and before the hands are displayed, the "winning order" of hands. (It changes from one hand to the next; in other words, sometimes it will be declared that a pair of deuces beats three aces.) Would you play in that game?
> Would you play in that game?
Depends, is the other option available "starving to death"?
Isn't government grand?
There never was a contract where Social Insecurity is concerned. The government taxes your paychecks and gives the money to old people you don't even know. The government _may_ eventually give you money from taxes on others' paychecks or from the general fund, but there's no legal link between these two things.
Well I will never again donate to 4-H
From then until the fair, E.L. "fed and cared for Cedar every day." She "bonded" with the animal just as she "would have bonded with a puppy" and "loved him as a family pet."
GSG-9 (German counterterrorism unit) recruits have to raise a chicken. And then kill it.
Then they graduate to killing humans.
Well, most of their recruits are not children...
In Survival and Evasion during my military service 2 buddy pairs (4people) were given either a chicken or a rabbit. We got a rabbit. I had it in my hands petting it and asked the others guys where they were from. NYC, Buffalo, Los Angeles...point was none had ever hunted or killed their own food. I took the rabbit by the back legs and slammed it against a tree killing it instantly. Guess who had an entire rabbit to himself for supper? People have become divorced from where their food comes from and what is involved in it which is what this Fair was teaching kids.
In my experience with free-range chickens, they aren't lovable, and you may be waiting for the day when you can kill the damned thing.
who was harmed?
I'll go with the Shasta District Fair and the Shasta sheriff's office. I mean, after this who's going to want to attend the fair or be associated with the Shasta sheriff? Have these entities never heard of the Streisand effect? Besides, they're probably related to the awful soda brand which can't help.
Let's say your local gun range or hunting club held a gun auction and one guy, who'd only been a member for a year, backed out because he decided he didn't want to part with Grandad's 1911 or M1 and the police got involved, you cancelling your membership?
As I pointed out below, we've got actual trannies executing schoolkids that Reason refuses to cover and in a legitimate libertarian "OK, who owns what and who has agency to sell it?" 'headscratcher' we've got people disavowing community events that are over 150 yrs. old (if they don't predate The Constitution).
I can only hope the author bent the facts to create a rage and tear jerker article. Otherwise I would expect these low-IQ officials to pay a lot of money as I doubt the county or association indemnifies them.
The cops, of course, can be total shit weasels and justify it be saying they're "just doing their jobs".
Could one of the lawyers here explain this to me? How they could get to “felony grand theft” of the goat if neither the money nor the goat changed hands?
Even if the girl and her parents had taken the $902 and ran with the goat, they would have stolen $902 cash, but even then I don’t see how they stole the goat.
And even if someone signs a contract, and they fail to perform, I thought the only remedy was cash. I mean, if Amazon fails to deliver I can get my money back but I’m pretty damn sure I can’t get sheriff's deputies to go seize the merchandise from the Amazon warehouse.
Stealing 902 bucks won't even get you a ticket in California.
Actually, I think that is $2 over the limit for which they won't file charges.
Which, yes, is insane in itself...
I'm not a lawyer and one may (probably) correct me in this but money does not have to change hands, I think. The property in question which is the goat was turned over to the Fair as a condition to enter the contest which means it was the Fair's property the minute it stepped on Fair property or even before that. If you agree to sell a car to someone and sign the contract then it is stolen before money changes hands the rightful owner is not the seller but the person who was going to buy it even if no money had change hands yet.
In this case, the contract states that you can enter the fair on the condition that the goat becomes the property of the fair. Both agreed to it so the goat is the fair's property. If the lady decided at that point she didn't like that and took it back then it's stolen property and the fair is well within it's rights to get the law involve to recover it's property. The involvement of a pet goat of a little girl is just sob story nonsense to obscure the misbehavior of the mother. If she didn't want to turn the goat over to the fair for slaughter after the contest she shouldn't have entered it in the first place.
That is helpful. In the absence of the contract making the goat the fair's property, the matter would seem to have been a breach of contract between the little girl and her mother and the successful bidder, a purely civil matter, not larceny.
I’m not a lawyer and one may (probably) correct me in this but money does not have to change hands, I think.
IME, 10-yr. 4-H member, the Fair and the auction are two separate entities. Your goods are not surrender to the Fair as part of the competition (barring destructive competition, you can't have your cake-baking trophy and your cake too). Frequently, you can show dozens of animals across species as it's relatively trivial to hand out more/fewer ribbons, but participation in the auction is more limited, especially if there are fewer buyers/donors.
Usually, the auction is conducted separately as (in addition to the distinction from show above) many animal owners (both buyers and sellers) are also breeders who may not want to slaughter the animals. In the typical fashion for auctions, which is analogous to a consignment model. You retain ownership of the goods right up until the hammer falls. This is the point that many/most seem to fail to recognize. There's an auctioneer or agency involved, both the Fair and The County have liabilities even for auctions that run smoothly. Obviously, nobody goes to a 4-H fair to buy a million-dollar stud horse or bull (or goat) but, for $1000 rabbits and $900 goats, the sum cost is distinctly non-zero.
Thanks for the clarification. Is this the standard 4H rule across the country?
Again, 4-H is only part of the show. There are county fairs that happen entirely without 4-H. I'd say where 4-H is involved, it's the standard model 4-H cleaves to, but it's impossible that there's not some variability county-to-county and state-to-state. Especially post-COVID.
That is so ba-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-d!
Tough lesson for a 9 year old kid, but when you sign a contract you have to honor it (unless you are a college student with an advanced degree).
"Long and her daughter sought to terminate the contract: California law allows that "a contract of a minor may be disaffirmed."
That only works if a parent had no knowledge of the signing. More than likely mom or dad actually signed or cosigned the contract.
"Just glad the cops didn’t have to travel 501 miles to seize the goat, that would have made the story awful. Also personally goat meat is not that high on my dietary menu.
People fail to honor contracts all the time.
and the property in question is returned to the rightful owner in this case, the fair. What is your point?
How are they determining the owner ? The girl is the owner until the bid ? Dahle is the winner of the bidding, is he then owner ?
How does the fair interject themselves into the mix ?
If Dahle won the bid, does he not get to say what happens to the goat ?
I don't think there has to be a bid. The girl entered the Fair and as such immediately turned over ownership to the Fair. It was right there in the contract. If the mother didn't read it then sucks to be her but i'm going to guess she knew it full well.
Dahle should have taken possession and sold it right back to the kid for his purchase price. Absent that, the fair wasn't going to lose any money, could have cut the kid some slack instead of being self-righteous.
The law also said the goat was to be kept alive until the civil matter was resolved, but you know, rules for thee and not for mee.
The thing that my over 40 years of living on this planet has taught me is that "the rules" are only for those without power. I don't think you can find a more clear example.
A quick google suggests that, under California law, there is no requirement that parents have no knowledge of the contract. https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2007/fam/6710-6713.html#:~:text=6710.,6711.
The facts may not be as clear-cut as the complaint alleges, but assuming they are as stated, the fair had no legal grounds for enforcing the contract after the kid voided it.
I'm reading Michael Moorcock's Elric Saga, and this reminds me of the war between Law and Chaos. Chaos is wild and uncontrolled, but Law is just as bad, sticking to rules in all cases, regardless of outcome.
baaaaaa baaaaaa q
Seriously, next election cycle, replace the local sheriff with the little girl's new goat.
The point of the event is to teach children to let go of emotional attachments to food, something that is necessary for farming. That’s the reason they insisted. The buyer behaved the way you would expect from a man traditionally. Still, that probably wasn’t smart from a PR perspective in California.
Officials in the State government could probably warm a lot of hearts by pouring sand in that 4H Club's future permit paperwork...
If the buyer was amenable to cancelling the contract but the fair wasn't, why didn't the buyer just take possession of the goat from the fair then sell it back to the family?
I'm sure no one thought it would go as far as it did. The Shasta fair guy had some perverse need to flex and really show these people who ran the show
Apparently, the winner of the auction only bought the meat, not the goat.
Looks like a parent had an opportunity to teach a child a valuable lesson about where her food comes from, and a lesson about responsibility. Instead she learned to whine to try to get her way. She learned that from a parent, who evidently was never taught this is not the way the world works.
And most of the people reading this story seem to have the same attitude.
It's a shame taxpayer dollars had to be used to enforce this contract. The government would have never have been involved if the parent had been a parent and allowed her daughter to learn a lesson..
"Instead she learned to whine to try to get her way. She learned that from a parent, who evidently was never taught this is not the way the world works."
Not the way the world works? Citation needed.
Anyway, the underlying question - whether seizing the goat was legal - is now before the courts, and not having studyied the record, I'll just wait and see what the legal situation is.
If the people who reclaimed the goat turn out to be legally in the wrong, then that would be a valuable learning experience for them, too.
And if the parents lose the suit, they too will have a valuable life lesson about when it's worth it to spend money on a losing cause.
An education is bound to be had by all.
If the contract is valid and can be complied with, the parties to the contract can generally insist on specific performance.
The agricultural fair has a good argument that specific performance is required, given the nature and purpose of the sale. In fact, that's the argument they have been making. If they let people back out of these contracts, there would be no point to the event.
It would have been more practical for the fair to let that one kid back out, and next-time emphasize to entrants that the animal will be transferred and likely killed. If, every once in a while, some a kid backs out, then that kid wasn't meant to be a rancher anyway.
This is about the legal case, not the goat.
I would agree that the kid should not have been so coddled by these idiot parents, but the law is on the kid's side. That is (or should be) how the world works.
I'm not so sure it's on the kid's side if the parents co-signed the contract.
In an amended complaint filed in February, Long claims the officers were then "required by law to hold Cedar or deliver him to the Magistrate" so the court could determine Cedar's ownership. But instead, they "independently deemed unknown third parties…to be the owners of Cedar" and delivered him back to the fairgrounds.
They dun goofed.
Again, if the kid makes a turquoise necklace and the parents put it up for sale in a consignment shop and the child, with
buyer'sseller's remorse shoplifts it, that's a crime.Maybe it gets ameliorated by remuneration or in-kind donation, maybe it doesn't. Considering the 9-yr.-old almost certainly didn't load up the goat and drive it home without the parents' knowledge or consent, it certainly seems actionable. And if you're the "consignment venue" you certainly have a reputation to uphold.
Being cruel to kids to accustom them to shut their mouth and tolerate being treated cruelly as an adult is not actually the genius idea that you think it is.
The negative press they are getting on this should teach the Shasta County fair people a lesson on trying to force an issue just to make a point. Also they apparently circumvented issues by using their contacts at the sheriffs department.
$907 for yearling kid?
For that price you could get the pet goat '43 was reading about when the plane hit WTC
It's perfectly ordinary that the winner of these auctions pays well over the commercial value of the livestock; They're not just buying "a" goat, they're buying "the winning" goat, and being over-paid for the goat is part of the prize for having won.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I'm now creating over $35,100 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,100 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link----------------------------------->>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
Doesn't a valid contract require an exchange of some consideration?
If they withdrew from the contract prior to the auction - which this account suggests - doesn't that invalidate the contract (and the auction of the animal)?
There were promises made on both sides; promises are consideration sufficient for the creation of a contract.
Unfortunately (for the fair), one of the parties making the promises was a minor (who can freely disaffirm most contracts under the law).
Sure. Use that argument with the bank for that loan on the new SUV. You just decided you didn't like the contract so are not going to honor it. What happens? They take the SUV back. Same thing here. Why are you making excuses for a snowflake like that?
Because she is a MINOR. Being a minor affords you the right to disaffirm contracts under the law, which she DID. That is why savvy people don’t make contracts with minors, and the reason why they have a legal case against the fair.
You're really going to call a 9 year old girl who lost three grandparents the previous year during which she was raising the goat a snowflake? Do you think that makes you an honorable person in some way?
It sure as hell makes me someone that follows the rules and doesn't think Im special. They should never have entered the goat in the first place. The mother must have known beforehand what the deal was. That makes her a douchebag.
The rules were clearly stated. All that irresponsible mother has done is show her daughter that rules everyone else has to follow don't apply to you if you don't like them. Raising another whinny snowflake Antifa rioter one person at a time.
Just say that you are a grown adult who can only get off on bullying children. That's what you really mean.
Congratulations to Shasta County. They have just created a lifelong PETA-extremist-vegan-eco-terrorist. We truly create our own demons.
PS - I hope the monetary cost of this debacle was worth the bruised ego.
I'm sorry my goat Cedar has escaped and left a note saying it was fleeing to Mexico to live out the rest of its days. This right here is my ... completely new goat with a different collar, named ... Maple. Who has nothing to do with the fair. Prove me wrong.
Prove me wrong.
^Tell me you've never raised livestock without telling me you've never raised livestock.
Seems like this trick would only work if you were dedicatedly trying to steal the goat. Otherwise, "one goat is as good as another" seems like the obvious outcome that you, somehow, only imagine working in your favor.
If one goat is as good as another, they would have taken the money and bought another goat and got on with their lives. Instead, they sent the Police goat gestapo 500 miles to get that particular goat… not one just like it, not a new one, not a reasonable compromise, … that goat in particular like a mob hit. Why ?
If one goat is as good as another, they would have taken the money and bought another goat and got on with their lives.
Or taken Maple in place of Cedar since they were at the farm anyway. Or is that somehow not an option for the goat that you totally didn't steal and aren't now lying about in order to cover up the theft?
And, again, if you think they don't mark the goats, pay attention to coloring, leanness, posture, attitude, etc., etc. you really are getting to be a retard who doesn't have the first clue how anything works.
If both Long and Dahle agreed to terminate the contract, and Long agreed to reimburse the fair for its share of the purchase, then who was harmed?
State fair authoritarian pride?
Many libertarians also agree that contracts are ultimately binding unto the ends of time itself. Rothbard would agree, there's no way to get out of contracts, they supercede all of morality. They are absolute and ultimate.
I disagree. This kind of radical propertarianism is bullshit. The family was willing to make restitution, but the government had such a hard-on for absolute fulfillment of the contract that it went and killed the goat. It's what happens when legalism trumps common sense.
Common sense says taking something that belongs to someone else is theft. As indicated below, if I give something to a consignment shop and then shoplift it, even if I pay them for whatever display and sale services they provided, I've still damaged their reputation. Free to negotiate it out of consignment, free to buy it out of consignment, (mostly) free to negotiate with potential buyers at the POS, not free to take it and then say, "It's OK, I'll pay for it now."
As someone who cried when (then) Sen. Dan Coats bought his pig at auction, the police involvement was pretty ridiculous along a number of lines. However, the story is missing a lot of context and I am on the Shasta County Fair Board's side.
First, anyone who buys an animal for slaughter at a 4-H auction isn't buying an animal for slaughter. They're usually making a donation. This doesn't occur to a 9 yr. old, but by the time you're 13ish, you should recognize that $100 for a rabbit, $500 for a pig, and $900 for a goat doesn't make any sense. Whether they're donating to the fair, 4-H, the specific 4-Her, or other is the buyer's prerogative.
Second, the auction doesn't normally automatically mean slaughter. Buyers are usually fully allowed to have the animal(s) delivered to their property, resold at market, sent to their processor, or processed by whomever the fair has contracted to do the processing (at cost). Dahle was likely the latter and, frequently, in this case, as long as *some* meat shows up at the dinner table, the buyer doesn't or may not even be able to care (depending on the fair's contract with the processor).
Ultimately, it's a little bizarre that the fair doesn't already have some sort of penalty or "donation in kind" clause for this. Not every animal that makes it through the auction arena makes it to the private residence or processor and not every animal that shows necessarily goes to auction (frequently 4-Hers are limited to the number of animals or number of species they can auction but not show). Certainly you couldn't misrepresent yourself or your animal, but there is/was all kinds of horse trading that goes on in the sale barn.
Ultimately, at the end of the day:
Number of Christian schoolchildren slaughtered by trans activists reported on by Reason: 0.
Number of goats auctioned for slaughter reported on by Reason: 1.
Fuck you, get some priorities Reason.
The thing to keep in mind is that what essentially took place was both fraud and theft. If the parents had bought the goat at auction and requested it be delivered to their house alive, the other bidders got beat at a fair auction. If they negotiated with Dahle, before or after the sale, that he have it delivered somewhere alive, again, a fair auction.
Taking an animal that's been sold to someone at auction is theft, even if the buyer is (eventually) OK with it, the broker/auctioneer/venue still suffers as a result. Just as much as if you put your stuff up for sale in a consignment shop and then got caught shoplifting it. It doesn't necessarily require a State-wide goat hunt or that the animal be slaughtered, but per quintessential libertarian sensibilities, it's not a victimless crime.
Nobody disagrees with you about stealing. You are completely missing the part where every sane person is trying to figure out ownership at each stage of the argument.
In normal consignment sales, “The person who places the item (the consignor) with an agent (consignee) to sell the item, still retains ownership rights until the item is sold. ”
But they got the police involved and turned into a kerfuffle , as is wont to happen when the police get involved in anything. If it was a regular consignment, then the family was completely within their rights to change their minds before the auction; and then the winner would fully be within their rights to give it back to the girl after the auction. What is confusing is how the fair gets a legal say in anything when they are not at anytime owners of the goat; yet they called the cops and enforced a death sentence that nobody but them wanted. And the police went along with it because ... reasons ?
You are completely missing the part where every sane person is trying to figure out ownership at each stage of the argument.
No, I'm not completely missing it and no they aren't sane. They're pretty much playing the same retarded game as the people who want to neuter kids, give them puberty blockers, and then tell them they can keep their fertility.
Auctions are ages old and the rules aren't new. They put the animal up for auction and a bid was accepted. At that point, the fair, auction agency, county, or whatever amalgamation of the organization putting on the auction is responsible for delivering on the goods sold. You state yourself: "Nobody disagrees with you about stealing." A goat was stolen, police retrieved it.
I agree that there's a libertarian case to be made about a State-wide goat hunt that certainly exceeded even the inflated price of the goat, but the "sane" people pondering who owned what, when are the same vein of "What is a woman?", "Sure, women can't dance topless in a thong in front of children, but how about *men*?", and "How does an auction work?"
What a progressive state.... I can walk into the local Walgreens and walk out with $999 of unpaid merchandise and then shoot smack while leaning on the side of the building....
But attempt to not sell my goat?
This shit is too bizarre....
More proof that officers, in any capacity, should have to certify, separately in Constitutional Law, BEFORE being allowed to enforce any laws. How many lawsuits would this save taxpayers on 1st Amendment grounds let alone vs the 4th and 14th Amendments?
This is California crime fighting at its best. But don’t forget boys and girls you can always shoplift up to $950 with impunity. That’s enough to buy a goat! Stupid tyrants.
This illustrates why there can be no IQ test for government employment. No one over 100 would ever be hired.
As someone whose kids have shown animals at fairs, who lives in midwestern farm country, and whose relatives own livestock, I have a couple of thoughts on this issue.
I understand why some of the rules are there and it is somewhat true that fair animal showing programs are run by and supported (lots of money) by active farmers. But, it is not true that the show animals themselves have anything to do with actual production animals. These animals are not breed and raised to be production animals. All of them that win, are breed and raised to be show animals. It is an animal beauty contest or animal body building contest.
All the animals that win contests in just about every division are bought specifically to be fair animals and born and raised for that purpose. People make money specifically by selling young specialty stock to kids (or parents) often for more money than a grown animal would bring at market.
Therefore it is disingenuous for the fair board person to be talking about teaching kids about agriculture. It used to be many years ago that you had to be able to know and show how much the animal cost, what you fed them, what the input costs were, etc., but not any more.
My family brought real farm livestock and were never able to win anything. Often we got specifically mentioned that they were just regular farm hogs, yet we had more animals there than anyone else. We helped make the fair go, but no longer. They don't want actual production animals. They want beauty contestant animals. They want a dog show. They are basically asking people to raise the animals like pets, not livestock, so why make such a big deal out of one family treating the animal like a pet?
Online, Google paid $45 per hour. Nine months have passed since my close relative last had a job, but in the previous month she earned $10500 by working 8 hours a day from home. Now is the time for everyone to try this job by using this website…
Click the link—↠ https://salarycash710.blogspot.com/