Smithfield has to pay a $83 Million dollar fine for price fixing

At some point we are all just going to have to admit that having this company in our town isn’t such a great thing;

Smithfield Foods Inc said on Wednesday it will pay $83 million to settle litigation that accused several companies of conspiring to limit supply in the $20 billion-a-year U.S. pork market to inflate prices and their own profits.
The settlement with Smithfield resolves antitrust claims by “direct” purchasers such as Maplevale Farms that accused the nation’s largest pork companies of having fixed prices beginning in 2009.


So a company, owned by Communist Chinese Investors who have had to pay fines for EPA and DNR violations, who helped spread Covid in South Dakota, who might of lied about the American supply of pork and now is facing fines for price fixing somehow thinks they are doing us a favor by being here?

Hardly.

If I were in the State Legislature, on the County Commission or City Council I would be working diligently to close this place down.

Sioux Falls City Council has special meeting Thursday morning to bail out the city’s licensing agent . . . again

UPDATE: Apparently it was the fault of the applicant. Once I get more information I will post.

City of Sioux Falls Licensing Specialist Jamie Palmer (who mysteriously left the council as an assistant clerk to be promoted after Debra Owen’s termination) has been warned about this several times over the years;

The following alcoholic beverage item is requested for consideration on July 1, 2021.
The application was not received in time for consideration at a regularly-scheduled City
Council Meeting. The item meets the criteria set forth by State Law in which no notice is
required to be published and no hearing needs to be scheduled.

I even remember Erpenbach ripping her a new one about getting her ducks in row so they don’t have to approve these licenses last minute, or after the fact (this really happened). I wonder how many times the city council and mayor’s office are going to tolerate this incompetence before showing her the door? Oh that’s right, if you are a city director, your screwups are unlimited, unless of course your name is Chellee, Jason, Matt, Brad, Mike, TJ or the poor sap who flips people off while filling potholes.

I’m sure the likely excuse will be the city council hasn’t met for 3 weeks in a row for an official meeting, but the Levitt agenda has been out for well over a couple of months, Jamie knew this was coming.

Oh, and why hasn’t the council met in 3 weeks? Good question.

I’m sure we will see the same pointy fingers at Jamie asking her how she continually f’cks this stuff up and little else done about it.

Another symptom of cruise control government.

I still have to snicker a bit they are approving a liquor license, at a special meeting, at 10:30 in the morning on a Thursday. Well it’s NOON somewhere!

Many are questioning the legality of Noem putting the SDNG out for hire

UPDATE: You can see now Noem is backtracking on her ‘donation claims’;

Johnson would not disclose the amount of the donation. He said he has not donated to pay for any other National Guard deployments.

“Governor Noem welcomes any such donations to help alleviate the cost of South Dakota taxpayers,” Fury told Dakota News Now. He also said South Dakota law allows the governor to accept donations that are in the “best interests” of the state.

In other words, it will go into state coffers and NOT towards the Guard, we will still be footing that bill. I wonder how Noem will explain to Guard family members if one of the deployed gets injured in this little war game of hers?

Many eyebrows are being raised if Noem can take donations to fund the SD National Guard. The Guard itself is clear about it;

In general, it’s legal for private citizens to donate money to governments, though it’s uncommon that the donations are earmarked for something as specific as a Guard deployment.

The Guard also has made this statement;

“While we appreciate the many offers and people who care about our soldiers and airmen, we are not logistically able to accept donations of any kind.”

Of course Noem claims this;

When officials deployed the National Guard to Washington, D.C. after the attack on the Capitol, the price tag was nearly $500 million for two months. It included the cost of their travel, salaries, healthcare and other fees. Presumably, Johnson’s contribution is less than that and for far fewer guard troops. Fury said that the donation “was made directly to the state of South Dakota.” He went on to say that the governor welcomes any handouts to run their Guard.

If we really are getting the donation, how many actually believe this will trickle down to the Guard? Let’s face it, it is smoke a mirrors and in all reality, while Noem has the legal authority to send troops to Texas, I’m not sure I believe the private donation BS. Either way, our troops are not a private army that are guns for hire. I just wish her staffers would stop hitting her with the stupid crazy stick.

Sioux Falls already has laws on the books to combat panhandling

While the city is correct it is hard to manage panhandling due to the 1st Amendment, they can only solicit face to face and not impede traffic which can mean fines for the solicitor and the contributor;

32-27-1. Yielding right-of-way to pedestrian making proper crossing–Regulated intersections–Violation as petty offense – The driver of any vehicle upon a highway within a business or residence district shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the highway within any clearly marked crosswalk or any regular pedestrian crossing included in the prolongation of the lateral boundary lines of the adjacent sidewalk at the end of a block, except at intersections where the movement of traffic is being regulated by traffic officers or traffic direction devices. However, no pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. A violation of this section by a driver is a petty offense.

32-27-3. Local ordinances regulating crossing at controlled intersections – Local authorities in their respective jurisdictions may by ordinance require that at intersections where traffic is controlled by traffic control signals or by police officers, pedestrians shall not cross a roadway against a red or stop signal, and between adjacent intersections so controlled shall not cross at any place except in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.


CITY OF SIOUX FALLS ORDINANCE –> CHAPTER 130.000
SOLICITING. Asking for money, objects of value, or soliciting the sale of goods or services with the intention that the money or object be transferred. The goods sold, or services rendered immediately at that time, and at that place.
Soliciting shall include using the spoken, written, or printed word, bodily gestures, signs or other means with the purpose of obtaining an immediate donation of money or other thing of value or soliciting the sale of goods or services.

PROHIBITED ACTS:
(1) No person shall solicit in an aggressive manner in any public place.
(2) No person shall solicit on private property without first having obtained the permission of the owner or other person lawfully in possession of the property.
(3)No person shall solicit an operator or other occupant of a motor vehicle while the vehicle is in motion or part of traffic on a street or highway. This prohibition shall not include the advertisement of the sale of goods or services to be accomplished when the vehicle is no longer on a public street or highway.
(4) No person shall solicit by stating that funds are needed to meet a specific need, when the solicitor does not intend to use the funds to meet that need or does not have that need.
130.999 Any person violating any provision of this chapter, for which no other penalty is provided, shall be subject to the penalty provisions of §10.999 (Up to $500 Dollar Fine)

131.001 – Disorderly Conduct:
A person commits disorderly conduct when he or she knowingly:
(a) Creates a disturbance of the public order by an act of violence or by an act likely to produce violence;
(b) Engages in, promotes, instigates, encourages, aids or abets fighting or any similar violent threatening or tumultuous behavior;
(c) Makes or causes any unreasonably loud noise;
(d) Addresses profane, obscene or abusive language or threats of violence to any person present so as to create a clear and present danger of violence;
(e) Refuses or fails to cease and desist any peaceful conduct or activity likely to produce a breach of peace where there is an imminent threat of violence and where the police have made all reasonable efforts to protect the otherwise peaceful conduct and activity and have requested that the conduct and activity be stopped and explained the request if there is time;
(f) Fails to obey a lawful order of dispersal by a person known by him or her to be a peace officer under circumstances where three or more persons are committing acts of disorderly conduct in the immediate vicinity which acts are likely to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, annoyance or alarm;
(g) Loiters, crowds or congregates on the public streets or sidewalks so as to unreasonably obstruct or interfere with pedestrian or vehicular traffic or use thereof or so as to create an unsafe condition for vehicular or pedestrian traffic or use of the street or sidewalk and who fails or refuses to disperse and move on when ordered to do so by a police officer;

As you can see, the city has plenty of ‘tools in the toolbox’ to combat illegal panhandling yet the only thing they (whoever they is) seem to be doing is putting up random traffic marquis for 24 hours and calling it good. Cruise control government, once again at its finest. I think we should give the panhandlers the addresses of all the city councilors and mayor and drive them to those neighborhoods to set up shop. I bet you could raise a lot of money on White Church Lane.

(MLZ contributed to this post with ordinance references)