Re: Denial of Petition #5

Peter Weber,

You will note that she did not quote one statue or regulation in her denial letter.

Let’s go over her letter:  

1. No need to quote anything that has to do with the PRB, it is an unethical, unfair, and a illegal board.    So, whatever the board recommends, it will always be tainted and corrupt, and without legal standing.

2. Ross stated the petitions were valid before she sent them to the PRB meeting.

3. Ross is accusing the dairyman and the writer of the petition of cheating and confusing the dairy industry and that we were warned about the printed dates. We did not cheat or confuse the industry.

• You saw the preprinted dates before she sent them to the PRB but was surprised that it got past the PRB and then she used the preprinted reason to stop the vote. 
• There is nothing in the Civil Procedure Codes, or the Food and AG codes to back up those reasons she gave to invalidate the petitions, in fact just the opposite, you will find that a date on a contract or a petition in the state of California is not required, only the signature.  Though a date is nice but not required.
• There was zero confusion among all our petitioners.  It spelled out exactly what we were doing with those petitions and why we had different dates on the petitions. I have attached the letter that went out with those petitions.
• When a person signs any document, he tells the world that he agrees with what he is signing.   Worst case scenario is any signer that did not like the printed date, they could have blacked it out and wrote another date in its place.

4. The third paragraph of the Secretary’s letter:

• Who has no principles? – this denial is another example. Look at the composition of the PRB.
• Ross only supports recommendations from the PRB that deny the rights of the Non Quota Producers.  Look at the composition of the PRB.
• Ross believes in a fair petition process, – Ross has denied 6 petitions without discussion of the merits of the petition or the legality. Look at the composition of the PRB.
• What part of her denial is an appropriate determination? Look at the composition of the PRB.
• Unforeseen circumstances – She just mentioned in her denial letter that we had been warned about the pre-printed dates and CDFA did not see that on over 350 petitions.  What was unforeseen was the phone call denying what was already declared valid.

5. When they mentioned this allegation of preprinted dates making a petition invalid, at one of the PRB meetings, it was immediately challenged.   We gave Diaz over three cases and two codes sections, which completely refuted her allegations. We also asked her to give us any law anywhere that would back up a decision of invalidating our petitions because they had a printed date on the petitions.  We have received nothing from Diaz to this day.

6. We knew well in advance that Ross would never allow any petition that we came up with; to go to referendum, so we thought it expedient to gather all the signatures at once instead of every six months and dealing with the derision they receive from the welfare quota boys.  It was fast efficient, and the dairy men knew what was going on with Petition #5. 

7. Ross said our petitions were inaccurate.  Show us one.  Are we allowed to use a typewriter or a stamp with our signature on it or is it legal to use an e-signature on a computer.   Everyone we talked to knew what they were signing and agreed with the petitions and the process.

8. Please have Ross define who is creating confusion and uncertainty.

In conclusion, we firmly believe that Ross will not do the right thing or legal thing, and that is evident by the composition of the PRB.  We wouldn’t even have to be doing these petitions if we had a secretary that was neutral.  Ross should have announced a hearing and then called a referendum when she got over 2100 petitions calling for a termination or reapproval of the QIP.  Her survey that shows a greater majority do not like the QIP, and Ross still does not do what is required.

So, in the future, tell the Secretary to save paper, just send out a simple sentence like this:

I Secretary Ross of the Department of Agriculture, deny your petition.

Reason, because I say so, and don’t bother me anymore.

Sincerely,

Craig Gordon