Skip to comments.Fedzilla is demanding I complete a 4-page survey ... about my garden! (vanity)
Posted on 01/06/2012 8:50:18 AM PST by matt1234
Are you ready for the vegetable census? Yesterday I received the 2012 National Agricultural Classification Survey from the US Dept. of Agriculture. It was accompanied by a cover letter stating (in large, bold font) that my response is required by law; and, if I do not reply, I may be personally visited. I am not and have never been a farmer or rancher. My land has never been farmed or ranched. I do, however, have a vegetable garden that I built in 2009. This garden is private and noncommercial. There is no illegal activity whatsoever on my property.
The survey is 4 pages consisting of dozens of questions. Among the pressing concerns of the USDA are the gender and ethnic origin of my operators. (I have none.)
I have no idea how I appeared on the USDAs radar. Possibilities are aerial surveillance or monitoring of seed purchases.
In full disclosure, the survey states that a recipient can opt out of the main portion of the survey if he answers No to the first four questions. However, the way they are written, it seems impossible for a landowner or renter to answer No. For example, one of these questions is Do you own, rent, or operate cropland, pastureland, or land with the potential for agricultural production? Ponder that. Doesnt all land have the potential for agricultural production? If so, a landowner or renter cannot answer No and thereby opt out. (Even a lot covered completely by a building has the potential for agricultural production because you can grow food on the roof or windowsills, or you can tear down the building.) So, the way I read this, if you own or rent land, you cannot opt out. Moreover, according to another of the first four questions, if you own one or more livestock animals, even a chicken or a horse, you cannot opt out.
This survey is patently absurd, in my case as a simple gardener, and in EVERY case, as evidenced by the surveys language described in the preceding paragraph.
Questions to fellow FReepers:
1. Does anyone have experience with this survey?
2. Any suggestions about my course of action?
3. What would John Galt do?
Wikipedia didn’t say it, some guy on wikianswers made the lefty claim.
Wikipedia says the population grew by 9 million.
As the Owner of 5 acres, I have been Stump Farming for some time. For those of you who are city dwellers that’s Tree Stump(s), from Tree’s that gave their lives, so I could have heat, and I don’t wish to trash there memory, for the warmth they provided.
We just got our 4-page survey, so we (Wife & I) have to be honest in the reply; it’s Space-Carrots and Jackalopes, Stump Farming, and Homo Sapien(s), hey we did raise 3 kids!;-)>
So Stalin-era propaganda still breathes!
That just shows that the KGB has always earned a good return on their misinformation and lies.
It’s no wonder it’s latter-day members ended up as the biznessmen and oligarchs of post-Soviet Russia.
There probably aren't enough "farmers" left to keep the current staff busy, so now they bother people that grow tomatoes in the back yard.
I bet you bought supplies with a credit card...with the new financial bill they can track what you purchase...they get your card billing address and sent that to you.
Just write on the survey that you would have filled it out but you already sealed it in the return envelope...
The agricats will get it.
The Census Bureau operates many surveys for many different depts, including the agricultural one you are talking about. How do you think you get the unemployment rate? The health statistics to monitor cancer clusters, etc... The fishing and wildlife to find out if there is a need for more rangers/parks and such. And on and on.
Being paranoid of surveys that have been around since the 40’s and 50’s is just asinine. And the purpose of the Census conducting is the privacy that the constitution affords you. Not even the IRS can access your data from these surveys. Hell, you don’t even have to give your real name.
Answer yes, they might give you a farm subsidy........
All land does not have the potential for agricultural production as the term is used by the USDA. Throw the thing in the trash. If somebody calls you, tell them no and hang up on them. If somebody visits your house, tell them that you do not wish to participate in any survey and close the door.
How do I know these things? My husband and I DO have a farm. We cultivate approximately 2,000 acres of row crops. I also do quite a large garden and sell some produce locally.
My husband, in the past, always participated in the survey -- sometimes by mail and other times via a phone call we received. A couple of years ago, a USDA representative showed up at the house to do some "follow-up" to the paper survey. I was working in the kitchen which joins our den via an open bar area. Some of the questions were getting creepy. Like, do you own your home? How much do you have in the bank? Do you finance it yourself or get a crop loan every year? Stuff that had nothing to do with agriculture or the crops we were planting.
I had to step in and excused myself into the conversation. Why do you need this information, I asked. Didn't get a good answer. She proceeded with another question. By this time my husband is looking at me with a half go-get-em look and half quizical. I asked the lady if we were required by the USDA or any other agency to provide this information. Oh, no, she said.
At that point I told her that we were on our way out to eat and pardon me if I go ahead and show you back to the door.
Right before Christmas, the lady from the local USDA office called my husband to do the survey by phone and he told her that he did not want to participate. She said goodbye. The survey that came in the mail got thrown away.
I just got one of those. Pitched it. Now they're wasting our tax dollars by sending me little postcard reminders every other day, which are also going in the circular file. If somebody shows up at my house, I'm going to tell them they have no Constitutional authority to demand that information, to have a nice day, and to get off my property.
Write in BIG BOLD letters “ALL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS RESERVED”
and send it back to them...
UCC 1-103 & 1-207
UCC 1-207 is Remedy from Colorable Statutory Law and UCC 1-103 is your
Recourse!!! Use UCC 1-207 to reserve your right and 1-103 to argueyo ur
rights, under the Common Law, in court. State must produce a flesh and blood damaged party!!
U.C.C. 1-207:4 Sufficiency of reservation.
Any expression indicating any intention to preserve rights is sufficient, such as
“without prejudice,” “under protest,” “under reservation,” or “with reservation of
all our rights.”
The Code states an “explicit” reservation must be made. “Explicit” undoubtedly
is used in place of “express” to indicate that the reservation must not only be
“express” but it must also be “clear” that such a reservation was intended.
The term “explicit” as used in U.C.C. 1-207 means “that which is so clearly
stated or distinctively set forth that there is no doubt as to its meaning.”.. ..
U.C.C. 1-207:7 Effect of reservation of rights.
The making of avalid reservation of rights preserves whatever rights the person
then possesses and prevents the loss of such right by application of concepts of
waiver or estoppel....
U.C.C. 1-207:9 Failure to make reservation.
When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation
thereof causes a loss of the right and bars its assertion at a later date....
U.C.C. 1-103:6 Common law.
The Code is “Complementary” to the common law which remains in forceexcept where displaced by the Code.. ..
A statute should be construed in harmony with the common law unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the common law.... “The Code cannot be read to preclude a common law action.”
My use of “Without Prejudice UCC 1-207” near my
signature on this document indicates that Ihave exercised
the “Remedy” provided for me in the Uniform Commercial
Code in Book 1 at Section 207, whereby I have reserved
my Common Lawright not to be compelled to perform
under any contract, and/or agreement, or bankruptcy that I
have not entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and
intentionally. And, that reservation serves notice upon all
administrative agencies of government — national, state and
local — that I do not, and will not, accept the liability
associated with the “compelled” performance of any unrevealed
commercial agreement, and/or contract, or
Perhaps some experts here can educate us on this:
Article III, section 2 of the organic Constitution defines the kinds of judicial power the courts have:
1. common law
At the common law - a crime exists only when there is a victim with actual damages like a broken arm.
In equity - otherwise known as civil law a private contract is or agreement is involved. For an action to be brought there must be a breach of contract and damages.
Maritime - or commercial contract law originates in the rules of trade upon the high seas between international merchants and is enforced by military organizations.
Admiralty - is armed enforcement of the laws of commerce(the law merchant)
All birth certificates, licenses, registrations, insurances, bank accounts, permits, titles, deeds, etc. are commercial contracts created under the UCC - (Uniform Commercial Code) and this is where the confusion begins. Most people do not know that commercial law cannot regulate private dealings between civilians much less where to draw the line.
Where does one draw the line?
The Uniform Commercial Code
The Uniform Commercial Code was adopted by all states in 1964 making it the supreme law of the land. Take a look in the first part of every Federal and State code books and you will the find the Uniform Commercial Code consistent throughout.
UCC 1-103.6 defines how contract law must be in compliance with the rules of the common law providing there is made a knowing reservation of common law rights.
“The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law.” (UCC 1-103.6)
What’s the remedy?
“The making of a valid Reservation of Rights preserves whatever rights the person then possesses, and prevents the loss of such rights by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel.” (UCC 1-207.7)
It is important to remember when we go into a court, that we are in a commercial, international jurisdiction. If we go into court and say. “I DEMAND MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!”, the judge will most likely say, “You mention the Constitution again, and I’ll find you in contempt of court!” Then we don’t understand how he can do that. Hasn’t he sworn to uphold the Constitution? The rule here is: you cannot be charged under one jurisdiction and defend yourself under another jurisdiction. For example, if the French government came to you and asked where you filed your French income tax of a certain year, do you go to the French government and say “I demand my Constitutional Rights?” No. The proper answer is: “THE LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO ME. I AM NOT A FRENCHMAN.” You must make your reservation of rights under the jurisdiction in which you are charged, not under some other jurisdiction. So in a UCC court, you must claim your Reservation of Rights under UCC 1-207.
UCC 1-207 goes on to say...
“When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a reservation thereof, causes a loss of the right, and bars its assertion at a later date.” (UCC 1-207.9)
You have to make your claim known early. Further, it says:
“The Sufficiency of the Reservation: any expression indicating an intention to reserve rights is sufficient, such as “without prejudice”. (UCC 1-207.4)
Whenever you sign any legal paper that deals with Federal Reserve Notes, write under your signature: “Without Prejudice (UCC 1-207.4).” This reserves your rights. You can show, at UCC 1-207.4, that you have sufficiently reserved your rights.
It is very important to understand just what this means. For example, one man who used this in regard to a traffic ticket was asked by the judge just what he meant by writing “without prejudice UCC 1-207” on his statement to the court? He had not tried to understand the concepts involved. He only wanted to use it to get out of the ticket. He did not know what it meant. When the judge asked him what he meant by signing in that way, he told the judge he was not prejudice against anyone... The judge knew that the man had no idea what it meant, and he lost the case. You must know what it means!
Without Prejudice UCC 1-207
When you use “without prejudice UCC 1-207” in connection with your signature, you are saying, “I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed contract or commercial agreement.
UCC 1-207. Performance or acceptance under Reservation of Rights.
A party who, with explicit reservation of rights, performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as “WITHOUT PREJUDICE, UNDER PROTEST” or the like are sufficient.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207
Your autograph is among your most valuable assets. It is not a good idea to autograph a contract without reserving your rights. If you must carry a driver’s license you should get a new one with a reservation of rights above your autograph on the license itself. As a matter of fact it is wisest to reserve your rights in any agreement, just in case there is some small print that suggests waiver of your God given freedom.
UCC 1-308 now replaces UCC 1-207
Does anyone sign their name “Without Prejudice UCC 1-308”?
Submitted by juliusbragg on Sat, 01/10/2009 - 22:41
Daily Paul Liberty Forum
No matter what’s in it, it must comply with the Paperwork Reductions Act.
During the big census rush somebody came to the door with a handwritten name tag claiming to work for the census bureau. He tried to ask questions like “how many TV’s do you own? How big are they?” etc. When I refused to answer he tried to guilt me into it by saying “But if you don’t answer, the survey won’t count.” I ended up shutting the door in his face, but I was very glad I’d answered the door armed!!!
You did good!!!
I don't think I'd bet my life, livelihood or future on that.
I have had these surveys (if it’s the one I’m thinking of) that are broad ag interest data collectors. I used to run a number of bee hives for commercial purposes and they were on me like a duck on a junebug. IIRC, they were snooping into gardens, produce production, etc. In short, anything to do with agriculture - no matter at what scale.
Tell them you raised petunias for a sick aunt and swear to never do it again.
I don't know.
But the department of Education is looking to arm up:
Does the Ag Dept have a SWAT team yet?
I don't know.
But the department of Education is looking to arm up:
Do you have any links for the NOAA?
From Pravda in 2008: Famine killed 7 million people in USA
It doesn't seem to be so much an old Soviet Union play as a "New" Russia play to excuse the Ukrainian Holodomor at the same time with a tu quoque argument.
In 2008, Russia Today published an article by Russian historian Boris Borisov in which he argued that the condemnation of the Holodomor by the U.S. House of Representatives was unjustified, that the number of victims were exaggerated by sloppy analytical methods and that the accusations of intentional causation of the famine were politically motivated and not based on fact. He argued that if the same methods used by researchers of Holodomor were applied to the Great Depression, it would lead to the conclusion of "seven to eight millions of American victims of the man-made catastrophe" in the same post-1929 era. The article further compared the policies of presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt with the policies of Stalin and the New Deal Public Works Administration with the communist Gulag.
I’m getting a huge laugh out of the humorous/facitious answers to your question!
But as you’ve acknowledged, matt1234, the info in post #28 has good details from others who’ve received the form.
I’ve never received this myself, tho certainly folks in my area must. Gotta go with ottbmare’s #20 in advising you not to overthink it. Do you envision yourself mass-production factory farming on that spot? ‘Cause that’s how I read it. So ‘no’ to question one.
Now me, I’d ignore the thing altogether. If followed up in person: “You’re threatening legal action over that? Preposterous! I thought it was a scam and threw it away! Still do.”
Which is the position I’d stick with if they push.
Look at how low-key the face to face confrontation was handled by JustaDumbBlonde (not!) in #109. Nothing personal, no need to take it out on the contractor dispatched to your home. Just a polite refusal that doesn’t stand out from all the other refusals they surely must get.
Last census, I got a door knocker. Informed up front that I would answer only the single Constitutionally required question, she made a half-hearted attempt at getting my answers to the rest of the short form. Nothing I could do to hide my race, but we went thru the motions so she could feel like she was earning the paycheck honest. I chuckled all the way thru and we parted on a friendly enough note.
Oh, and as to how you were chosen to receive this survey in the first place? There’s little trust in the gov’t in this house, but paranoia should be tempered by the amount of scam mails that come bearing tidings of one’s having been chosen due to some special, unlisted trait to qualify for “this rare offering.” As possible as any of the other theiories, your address may have been plucked by a computer from a particular demographic area.
Remember the big swine flu panic a couple of years ago? Apparently my unlisted, nonpublished, never-divulged phone number was conjured by a computer and printed on a CDC phone survey call list. As I later learned from CDC’s website, they were checking pubhlic perceptions to the flu panic & availability or not of vaccinations. The callers didn’t have a clue who I was, but by God and by damn my number was on THE LIST and I was downright expected to comply with their questionare. That is, until I came up with the magic words, “Add my number to your Do Not Call List, and immediately ceast and desist calling me.” The guy tried to argue but I refused the bait & hung up. That’s when the calls stopped.
No I don’t but from what I have read some time back after the WTC2001 crap every federal department was given a SWAT team to be at their disposal.
Things will get ugly.
Right. You drop in on somebody’s home, you gotta be ready to get hustled out. That it was done politely did not provoke her into marking you for more a more invasive meeting later, I assume.
I think my mood upon contact, and especially being taken by surprise, would determine my taking visible umbrage or polite misdirection. Some intrusions almost demand an offended and offensive response, even tho it renders bad consequences. On my home territory I’m sort of a grizzly bear.
There are small crops which can be grown which are quite profitable on less than 50 acres, even 20 acres such as various berries and fruit. Watermelons, cucumbers, tomatoes, sweet potatoes and so forth are pretty good money crops. The keys are good soil and good water. They are not crops which will make millions but they can make for a comfortable life. But the wild hogs are a huge problem in this part of the country causing enormous economic losses. Efforts to control them have been virtually useless because they breed so fast and so numerous.
Thanks for the info. Up here berries and such are garden items not crops.
Are the hogs considered varmints? Is it open season or restricted.
With a small operation such as we have, not much is required in the way of large equipment which is needed in the type of farm you operate. Nor do we have to hire much help. Expenses are low as a ratio to income.
Always open season on feral hogs.
Load up on ammo and go varmit hunting. Equipment expense for our crops are outrageous (250k minimum for just a tractor or combine). When my mom was little we had about 20 hired hands, now we have one. The changes in technology and equipment have made it much more efficient.
For example, if I choose to grow an orange tree on my property, the feds will argue that by growing oranges for my own personal use, I am foregoing purchasing oranges from Florida at my local grocery store, thereby impacting interstate commerce by reducing the demand of oranges from Florida.
To the feds, that makes my orange tree a part of interstate commerce.
Now, Florida does not have a right to a permanent, flourishing market for its oranges, but a good central planning czar might think there is some potential overriding interest in sustaining the Florida orange market, and therefore make my personal growth of oranges illegal.
Either that, or they will deem my personal orange supply to be "Cadillac oranges," and mandate that I purchase a certain amount of Florida oranges anyway, to preserve the national Florida orange market.
They'll say that it's not fair that so many people are growing their own oranges, and if the Florida orange market collapses due to low demand or unregulated competition, the inner city poor and minorities won't have their fair share of oranges.
Are you referring to takings or protection from self-incrimination?
In California, they recently made it legal for police officers to "inspect" ones cell phone during a traffic stop, and not needing a search warrant to inspect. The natural response is to password protect the cell phone and then let the police "inspect" the locked device to their heart's content. They can turn it on, open the back, look at the battery, but they cannot view the contents without the password.
If I'm ever in a situation where a police officer asks to inspect my cell phone during a traffic stop, I will gladly hand over the phone, but if asked for the password I will refuse on 5th amendment grounds of self-incrimination. Without a warrant describing the probable cause for the search, what they're looking for, and where they are looking for it, anything else is just a fishing expedition and I can't be compelled to provide incriminating information. Handing over my password would be setting myself up for whatever the police might be trying to do.
I'm wondering if these surveys that have no rational basis for being sent can also be argued to be a fishing expedition where no probable cause exists, and to answer them would be de facto self-incrimination if the federal government then goes on to harass you with the information that you provided.
I would think so. Unfortunately my default position has become not to talk to government employees, dog catcher, cops, tax man, whoever. No good can come from it.
I am on the mailing lists of several seed companies, and I haven’t yet gotten a letter like that.
Are they looking at vegetables grown directly in the ground or are they including the potted tomato plant on the patio?
We used to grow tobacco on ten acres and that was plenty of work (and a good income), but it was closer to the Mason-Dixon Line, too. Look into medicinal herbs used in supplements and other niche crops that will grow in your area. A lot will depend on your soil and climate conditions there.
Our little farm is bordered on three sides by a farm/ranch that is several thousand acres which is about 20 miles long and several miles wide. They grow a variety of crops, cattle, horses and elk. Everything is relative with the theory of diminishing returns or whatever it is that drives us.
I don't think I'd bet my life, livelihood or future on that.
My Social Security card says "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES" (in caps) on it, and that sure has changed.
'Guide' wild hog hunts.
Turn those lemons into lemonade and save the crops, too!
We know someone who also received the survey. I'm wondering if it was sent because they have an ag exemption on their property taxes.
Anyway, I did a little research and found this.
I noticed in the comments below the article that the fine for not completing the survey is $100, but the fine for supplying false information is $500. One poster claims that no fines have been issued, but the article is from 2007.
I'm unsure what the people we know will do with the survey. They haven't decided yet. They are wondering why the requested info is ANY of the gov's business!
Mostly in the ground, but the survey also asks about nurseries and greenhouses. The survey seems created for farmers. That is why I was surprised to receive it. I'm not a farmer.
“Guide wild hog hunts”.
We have done so the past two years. The first time around sixteen hogs were killed. Last year we managed only five. A couple of the hunters used bows and arrows. They were deadly.
Most of the hogs were caught in a cage baited with corn and molasses.
Thank goodness, God, and JimRob for FR.
Here’s another weird story about this survey. My sister just got one in the mail today. She’s lived in the same home for about 20 years and has never gotten one of these surveys before. The home is on less than a half acre, zoned residential, and in a residential area. She said that if you fill out the first four questions with a “no”, you’re then provided space on the survey where you’re asked to write a note stating that you’re not farming.
My husband and I received this survey in the mail. On the front is stated that by Federal law we are required to fill out the survey. We do live on one acre of zoned residential land, which is also agriculturally zoned, although no one has more than two acres in this area. One neighbor has horses and several have their own very small home gardens. One has a few chickens. We did fill out “no” on those first four questions, so we didn’t have to fill out the rest of the survey, but we HAD to write a note at the top of the survey stating that we don’t farm. We wrote the word not. Now that word can be interpreted a couple of different ways like; not farming or no, not farming . . . NOT! We do grow a few tomato vines and a small stand of raspberries, which according to the survey is farming! We purposely wrote a vague, ambiguous note. It is just NOT the government’s business what we grow to eat ourselves. As also required, my husband did print his name, phone number and date on the bottom of the fourth page. This survey is clearly a result of that ridiculous bill passed last year that was the first step toward regulating local farmer’s markets, fruit stands, etc. Our talk show hosts warned that it would also lead to regulating food grown by individual homeowners for their own use. America needs to wake up; our rights are being eroded faster than I can water my 4 tomato plants.
I haven’t looked at the gardening thread yet - is this stuff in there? Here’s the 2nd thread of this nature.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.