Single mother arrested for selling home cooked food without the government's permission
A Stockton woman faces an impending trial and potential jail time after she joined a social media community food group, and sold some of the meals she cooked, which county San Joaquin County officials say is against the law.
Mariza Reulas was cited by San Joaquin County for selling an illegal substance, but it wasn't a powder, a pill or a plant. It was her bowl of homemade ceviche.
She, along with about a dozen others, were cited for two misdemeanors for operating a food facility and engaging in business without a permit.
In order to get the government's permission to trade home cooked meals, Mariza would have needed to pay the good for nothing paper pushers $139 for food consultation, and depending on how big her house/apartment is, any where from $318 to $342 for a Food Establishment permit. More than likely, complying with the arbitrary rules of parasitic bureaucrats would have rendered Mariza Reulas' Facebook food group infeasible because overhead costs would have exceeded any profits. One has to wonder if she would have been arrested for carrying out her food trade through barter or by giving her dishes out to friends for free with the expectation that they would reciprocate. The only likely motive is that the parasites felt gypped because they weren't getting their cut of her earnings.
If permission to sell, barter, or give away food can be denied based on someone's inability to pay extortion fees, it can be denied for any other life sustaining activity. In fact, it was not too long ago that an elderly man was arrested for feeding the homeless. All natural rights are corollaries of the basic fact that an individual cannot sustain his/her life without being allowed the freedom of action to do so. An obvious example of being deprived of the freedom of action requisite to engage in life sustaining activity is being incarcerated or detained. Being required to pay for permits to engage in life sustaining activity is a more subtle example, but the principle remains the same. In both cases the law of equal freedom is violated unless the victim is compensated for his/her loss.