TODAY in STUPID - Woman prosecuted for selling $12 of food on Facebook
Is it me or is the world going crazy?
I have a lot of respect for the police and the criminal justice system, they do a tough job and tend to get tarnished by the criminal actions of a small minority of ruffians in their ranks that get a lot of the attention.
In modern times a lot of organisations are facing cuts so one would assume that law enforcement agencies and departments would be ensuring that they maximise their efforts in dealing with real crime.
In a write up on Ars Technica today they describe the case of Mariza Ruelas, a single mother who has been prosecuted as part of an undercover operation to crackdown on people selling food on Facebook without the appropriate licenses in California.
She sold $12 worth of a food called ceviche which is a Central/South American dish containing cured (and hence raw) fish. This is apparently prohibited without a license.
Excerpt from the article:
By December 2015, Sgt. Herrera decided to go after six different women, chosen at random from 209 Food Spot. One of those women was Mariza Ruelas, a 37-year-old single mother of six children. Posing as Paine, Herrera went to Ruelas’ house, handed over $12, and walked away with 32oz of ceviche. (He did not respond to Ars’ request for comment.)
Six months later, in June 2016, Ruelas and five other women received a court summons for their arraignment to face state-level misdemeanor criminal charges for operating a food facility without a valid permit and engaging in business without a permit to sell. None of them were amongst those who had received prior warnings from the EHD.
I fully understand the need for food safety and shutting people down if they are giving people food poising, but in this case the actual motivation for the prosecution is purely the fact that she does not have the right licenses.
She is not accused of making anyone ill.
Further the prosecutors have been pushing her to make a plea deal which she has thus far refused as she is afraid of the potential effect a criminal record could have on her employment prospects. (It seems that several other women have been charged as part of the same case and they have already given in to pressure to make a plea deal.)
I don't blame her for sticking to her guns:
Your tax dollars at work
Since when is not having a permit a reason to get a criminal record? Further is this a good use of public and police resources? Should this not be a matter of civil rather than criminal law?
I thought undercover work was for catching terrorists and mobsters not cracking down on housewives providing people with food?
This is something that at the very worst requires a fine or some other kind of civil sanction. Involving the whole criminal justice system seems like complete insanity AND a waste of money to me. - Not to mention the unfairness of criminalising someone over something so inappropriate.
Maybe I am naive but I have not thus far heard of Environmental Health Departments (EHD) and law enforcement teaming up in this way before.
What do you think?
Have you heard anything like this before? Am I overreacting? Is Mr Pibb actually the same as Dr Pepper in a Jekyll and Hyde sort of way? Was Garfield not actually as funny as I thought when I was a child?
Have your say in the comments.
If you like my work and aren't already, please follow me and check out my blog (I mainly discuss photography but I do other topics too) - @thecryptofiend
Photo Credits: All photos are taken from my personal Thinkstock Photography account. More information can be provided on request.
(Verification for me here: http://www.aapicture.com/about-me)
Unfortunately, the problem here seems to be they needed to make a certain amount of arrests to make this "undercover operation" appear to bear fruit.
In my opinion, it seems this poor woman was randomly targeted because: 1) They were running out of time and needed a certain amount of defendants, or: 2) They couldn't find that many people doing it and had to take what they could get to make the agreed upon number of arrests.
I think there may be a discrimination case here as well. I say this because I live in an apartment complex with a heavy Latin American population, and cooking food at home and selling it to family and friends and other customers in the complex seems to be commonplace, like part of their culture. It's a way for a female to earn extra money and contribute to the household. Depending on a person's financial situation, it could mean money to feed their children.
While I admit that yes, Ms. Ruelas was in fact breaking the law(s), but I believe that the punishment certainly does not fit the crime. The response was extremely heavy. This is a woman who was selling a couple of pounds of a classic Latin seafood dish here and there. I sincerely doubt that she was running an "illegal ceviche factory." It's likely she didn't even realize she was breaking the law (although ignorance is certainly no excuse).
The point is that this is not a proper use of criminal justice resources. It's going to cost thousands if this case were to go to trial. And if I was the defendant, I would certainly retain an attorney or simply exercise my right to have a public defender and take it to trial. I would definitely NOT accept a plea. I think that the State will be hard pressed to make it's case. You have a single mother of 6 children who cooked and sold a little bit of seafood to help feed her family. I doubt any jury of her peers will want to find her guilty. While the jury is only supposed to deliberate on the evidence presented in court, let's face it -- that's not really the way it works.
Heck, some of the jurors may be in the exact same financial position as the defendant and completely identify with her.
I'll bet if she gets a decent enough public defender who pushes hard for a trial the State may even drop the charges or lower them so that it's just a fine and will not appear on her criminal record.
Honestly, this is completely ridiculous. Prosecuting single mothers of six children for selling two pounds of ceviche on Facebook? Is that what it's really come to?
Not exactly the crime of the century.
Thanks @contentking for such a brilliant response. You outlined my thoughts better than I did. Yes it seems she is being scapegoated and there may well be racial issues or simply the fact that people think she is poor and would cave in easily to the pressure. I think for normal law abiding citizens anything involving the law is very scary, lawyers are expensive and there is tremendous pressure to just do what the authorities ask.
I agree 100% with everything you just said.
Let's hope she or her lawyer don't lose their nerve.
The article said she was chosen at random, which, if true, discounts any racism. But it's still about power and control. Under the banner of saving us from ourselves, we are no longer a free society. Raw Milk providers are raided by jackbooted, armed men, lemonade stands are shut down, they even want to stop homes from using firewood for heat. Authoritarianism is rife, and the recent election, while not making it as bad as it could have been, hasn't made it any better.
True and it seems to be gradually getting worse. There was the case of that guy who was choked to death for selling single cigarettes.
Exactly. That's why the tax stamps on tobacco can get you thrown in jail.
Except he wasn't choked to death, the choke hold was really a headlock and if you watch the video you can see it was only used for about 7 seconds. He died because he was laid on his belly, which pushed his fat into his diaphragm, blocking his ability to breathe. The same thing would happen to me right now.
Still a horrible result, but as a life-long Martial Arts instructor, I have to point out the difference between techniques. He wasn't choked to death for selling cigarettes, he died because officers don't receive full training on how to safely restrain obese prisoners. They would have much rather put him in those profitable jails, that's what they get paid to do.
The police officer is still responsible either way. It is unbelievable that it would happen over a cigarette.
and how is that even illegal?
Well, it was over a history of similar complaints and resisting arrest with violence. But yes, the various officers should still be held responsible for negligent manslaughter. I believe the city should be held responsible for poor training of the people we pay to go out and do the jobs we don't want to do. There were several officers and a supervising officer there, that man should not have died.
Actually ,everybody in that city is partly responsible, they vote in the laws and the mayor who runs the copshop.
All good suppositions, however, they are irrelevant to THE LAW.
She did not break a law, she violated a code. Else, the state would be doing wrong by selling the privilege to break the law.
If she goes to court, with a lawyer, she will lose. (unless something else happened like the police didn't follow procedure, or do not actually have evidence.)
Let me make this clear, IF SHE GOES TO COURT, WITH A LAWYER, SHE WILL LOSE!!
The reason anyone would not agree with me is because they do not know what COURT or LAWYER means.
(but then again, she could get lucky and have a jury that knows jury nullification)
Read _Gulag Archepeligo_ to understand what jack booted thugs do. It is not about crime, it is about rounding up people.
You can also read http://www.constitution.org/lrev/rodell/woe_unto_you_lawyers.htm
which I am slogging through right now.
Arrest Proof Yourself by Dale C. Carson is a much lighter read and will give you an overview of the corruption involved in the system. This book is a must read for anyone in the USSA.
http://www.dirtycopperstopper.com/docs/Arrest%20Proof%20Yourself.pdf
Actually, I have a pretty good idea of how the and the courts work, as I hold a college degree in Criminal Justice.
In today's climate, I absolute disagree that she would lose if she opted for a jury trial.
As I stated earlier, we all know that the jury is supposed to consider only the evidence allowed in by the court.
HOWEVER, I also know that juries consist of human beings, and if she truly gets a jury of her peers, NOT 12 rich white people, she has a really good shot at being found not guilty.
Just as most people who read this article believe that it's a complete waste of taxpayer funds and public safety resources, the jury will also realize this.
If I were her lawyer, I would push for a trial because I don't believe the state would actually allow this to go to trial. In other words, keep pushing for a trial until they offer a suitable deal.
A suitable deal, in my opinion, means that the charge is dropped from a misdemeanor to a violation, and that a small fine is paid, let's say $100 + court costs. In fact, even better than a fine, since the poor woman has 6 children to feed, maybe 8-10 hours of community service + court costs ($25-$50 in most states).
It's bad enough that the actual arrest will probably hinder her from finding decent employment for the rest of her life, whether she is found guilty or not, since that type of information is made public and readily available for free on the internet.
All in all this is just a HUGE misappropriation of funds and resources. Those cops could have used all of that time they used to conduct this "investigation" on going after REAL criminals like killers, rapists, drug dealers, pedophiles, burglars, etc.
Also, I don't fall for this "random" bullshit, either. I still say this investigation had racial undertones.
Seriously, I don't know what this country is coming to.
Anyone who believes that the United States is actually a "free" country is either deluded or has been asleep for the last 20 years.
Well I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the difference between codes and laws. Thanks for the links:)
nothing is ever certain. everything is always in constant flux; change is the only constant.
you say she will loose the case but there are possible probabilities that she will win the case....as nothing is impossible
I think she could win. Sometimes good and common sense does prevail.
I will pay forward all upvote cash 100x to the local soup kitchen in her honor!
Muy buena tu idea, te vote y te sigo por ello.. Me sigues ?
Cool:)
Ummm... you have stated many assumptions... and? They are all wrong.
I used to believe like you do. Until I opened the hood upon these govern-cement institutions. Then I was aghast. Looking deeper, I am seriously horrified.
Did you know that half of homicides are not even investigated?
You know that stupid show on TV about crime investigation? CSI or something. Where there is this forensics doctor that keeps going over 8 cases looking for a clue to finally solve them... Well, if we had a "reality" moment, the chief of police would come in and say, why are you looking at those 8, while you have this stack (camera pans over to an entire wall sized stack of folders) to look into?
Get your day in court? You believe the judge is fair and impartial? You believe the lawyer you hired is on your side? You believe that you are in an American court? You believe you know what the words mean that they are speaking about you? You believe "all rise" is just a meaningless gesture at the start of court? If you believe any of these, you haven't even begun to look into the court system. I would like to say that it is 180 degrees opposite... but that isn't far enough. If you are not horrified, you don't know yet.
The police and the justice system are not about stopping criminals, they are about filling prisons and raking in fines. In carrying out this operation, they will trample all over your rights, that you don't even know you have.
Such as, the plea bargain offered above? She should have seen a judge first and have been shown habeas corpus. (or shown what she is actually being charged with. The DA does not have any authority to lay claims against you, they have to do so in court. Everything the DA does before then is intimidation tactics.)
The court doesn't have (normal?) U.S. flag in the building for one. The judge is dressed in black for a reason. And you can't be tried unless you are of a dead corporation's name...
They have no authority whatsoever. It is manufactured consent. Which is (very) scary...
In the courts they have an admiralty flag. In England, you have the law of the land. Outside of England, you have the law of the sea, as in you are on a vessel.
Thus, inside a court, when you "all rise" your are placing yourself under the control of the Queen of England. You give up your common law rights, and you place yourself under THE LAW OF THE SEA.
(Lawyers do not pay social insecurity tax, because they are not The U.S. citizens.)
Yes. Why one is given a birth certificate being born from water to a vessel. To be certified before your feet touch the ground.
Great response.
Thank you I may be naive in some respects but I do also try to keep a positive perspective.
I like to believe the best of people but I have gradually become more disillusioned with the systems and power structures.
Perhaps I will need to revise that opinion even further as I experience more life:)
That's a tough one, but where I live in the Philippines people eat a lot of ceviche, and many people end up with tapeworms because of it. I eat it too, but sparingly. So there really is a danger, but this lady should only get a little slap on the wrist, imo.
Yes that risk does exist but it is up to the people eating it. There are risks that are similar with eating smoked salmon, sushi, sashimi, steak tartare. The reason the woman is being prosecuted is not because of this, it is because of not having the right permits. I don't think that is a criminal act. Also if I choose to eat a risky food like for example something which is raw I think there is some responsibility on me for that too.
All licensing is to protect vested interests, not the people. That's just the excuse they use to prevent competition against the larger companies who have lawyers and believe they could claim to your business because of it.
All licensing is controlling...
No one needs a driver's license to drive for example... Yet everyone thinks they do. Including people, Police, and DMV workers...
True. To some extent you need people to collude with you in order for it to work.
Totally correct! :(
I fear you may be right.
It may not be all licences, but I've sat in meetings where the town worthies voted on "safety" measures which they openly stated were really to keep people from harming their income stream by running small businesses out of their homes. In a memorable case it was women cutting hair for their neighbors. That was 30 years ago and all they wanted was a town license, now you have to have accredited training and a half a dozen licenses.
Wow. That is amazing that they would actually admit to it!
Yeah, it was like, "I have three beauty salons and some of my customers are going to their neighbors to get haircuts between visits to my shop for perms. We need to shut that down. Can we make some safety regulations?"
I would assume so, I attend a lot of City Hall meetings and I've heard similar, but often only hinted at, things all over, Certainly In Florida, as above, but also in Vermont (they love their regulations up there, and here in Kentucky. The guy who runs the Zoning board in Winchester owns three restaurants in that small town and shut down two requests for new diners in the town. "Too much traffic", code words for too much competition
Wow! I wonder if this sort of thing is happening everywhere and we just don't hear about it.
Especially America is going crazy! Don't think you would be prosecuted for that in Europe, nor in Cambodia where we live now. However, it doesn't surprise me as I have heard that in some states it is illegal to collect rainwater or grow your own veggies in your own garden. Too crazy for words!
Not just America. I think there have been similar crazy cases here. Not exactly the same but in the same sort of vein like people being prosecuted for "stealing" food from supermarket bins that would otherwise have been thrown away.
It looks like they are just making an example of her to scare people into compliance, this isn't about her not having a licence it's about protecting corporate intrests and making it harder for small start ups.
Yes I fear that may well be the case.
↑ Exactly! ... Fear into manufactured consent...
So she didn't actually do anything wrong as she didn't cause loss or harm. And loss / harm was caused to her. Seems things may need to be tweaked back in another direction.
Also shared on twitter
Disclaimer: I am just a bot trying to be helpful.
Exactly! Thanks for sharing.
That's crazy! I somewhat remember hearing @gardenofeden having to deal with legal concerns just for giving food away to the poor and hungry.
While I'm sure the laws were reactionary to some prior issue, police still get to somewhat choose what they investigate and enforce (is it still illegal to drink beer from a bucket while sitting on a street corner in arkansas?)
They have to have better things to do and people to bother. :(
Sadly that doesn't surprise me.
I have heard of people getting in trouble here in the UK for "stealing" food that supermarkets were going to throw away.
They would rather the food went into landfill than got eaten for free.
Luckily it seems that some supermarkets and restaurants are realising that this is very bad PR and have started donating left over food to homeless shelters and charities but it is still the minority.
This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.
Learn more about and upvote to support linkback bot v0.5. Flag this comment if you don't want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts.
Built by @ontofractal
Thank you:)