A chapter in my new book on food rights is entitled, Since When Are We Afraid of Food? I detail some of the reasons for the sometimes irrational concerns about food dangers that have developed over the last twenty years, resulting in what sometimes seems like endless regulatory and media warnings about the dangers of getting sick from food.
Im not sure I fully appreciated how deeply the fear has embedded itself into our culture until I learned what the Wisconsin judge in the criminal case against Vernon Hershberger had to say about his food fears at the pretrial hearing in Baraboo last week.
I have pieced together the judges remarks from several sources who were present when the judge, Guy Reynolds, went on what can best be characterized as a rant about food safety. The lawyers in the case were sparring at the hearing over the extent to which Hershbergers lawyers would be able to question regulators from the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) about their decision in June 2010 to issue a holding order against Hershberger that had the effect of shutting down his tiny farm store. The defense lawyers want to inquire about what concerns the regulators might have had about the safety of Hershbergers food that prompted them to raid the farm, place tape on his stores refrigerators, and pour blue dye into a vat containing his dairys raw milk.
Nothing doing, said Judge Reynolds. The jury is not going to hear evidence concerning the disputed quality of this food…That is not what this trial is about.
Why would the judge deny defense lawyers the opportunity to question the state about specific concerns the regulators had about the safety of Hershbergers food such that they felt compelled to shut his farm down?
It seems as if Reynolds has determined the state has absolute and unquestioned authority over making the determination that any food in Wisconsin could potentially make people sick. The policy of the state is, as I understand the law, is that the agents of the state are trained to make that call (about whether food might be unsafe) because it is food, the judge stated. Should unsafe food make it into peoples hands, there is no remedy. What is the remedy if someone is seriously ill or dead? It is one of those things…
As a result, he concluded, no evidence can be presented about was it good food or was it bad food.
When one of Hershbergers lawyers pleaded that the stakes were so high–that Hershberger could go to jail–that the lawyers should be allowed to explore what drove the investigators to determine that Hershbergers food was potentially dangerous, the judge cut him off. We arent going there.
In other words, DATCPs decisions are beyond questioning when it decides, for whatever reason, that even a slight possibility exists that individuals could get sick from particular food.
The judges conclusion has already had a ripple effect. In a motion filed today, the Wisconsin Department of Justice asked the judge to quash a subpoena issued by Hershbergers lawyers requiring two state officials–Cheryl Daniels, a DATCP lawyer; and Steve Ingham, who in June 2010 was head of DATCPs Division of Food Safety and signed the holding order against Hershbergers farm–to testify as witnesses at the trial. As part of its argument that the two individuals testimony would be not relevant, the prosecutors noted that to the extent that the defendant would seek to have either of these witnesses testify regarding the grounds, or basis for the holding order, this Court has already ruled that such testimony is not relevant and is inadmissible in this matter.
The judges endorsement of DATCPs complete authority over Wisconsin food seems to clarify his string of pretrial decisions seriously limiting what the jury will be allowed to hear on the case. He has already ruled that there be no consideration of whether Hershberger had criminal intent when he defied the holding order, or whether raw milk is inherently so dangerous that the regulators felt compelled to shut down his farm.
I wouldnt want to bet against Judge Reynolds excusing the two state officials from having to testify at the trial.
Social scientists call what TPTB are doing, something to the affect of: Fear-Then-Relief Technique
This technique preys on your emotions. The manipulator causes high levels of stress/anxiety and then abruptly relieves that stress/anxiety. After this sudden mood swing, the person is disarmed, less likely to make mindful or rational decisions, and more likely to respond positively to various requests. Fear mongering is what they have done to the public.
http://news.yahoo.com/house-panel-oks-farm-bill-035322812.html
The last bit of the story was not surprising.
OT: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013/05/16/fecal-germs-in-public-pools-should-you-worry/
It’s OK to swim in a public pool with poop, yet poop in the milk is bad?
As always follow the money and do your own research before buying: http://news.yahoo.com/bayer-acquire-herbal-medicine-maker-steigerwald-114419841.html
***
This effort costs money. Many people worked many hours to put this in the public eye. Please, if you can, help with the cost of public awareness. Go to this link and do what you can. Thanks!!
https://www.wepay.com/donations/vernon-hershberger
Big news!! Nevada state senate committee just passed raw milk bill…. This bill already passed the assembly. Even after Mary Martin begged the committee to kill the bill. Even after FDA John Sheehan wrote long nasty letters.
One more vote and it goes to the governor!!!!
Posted April 25, 2013 12:30 PM ET
I know this may be a little hard to follow but I must post it again because we are again talking about food safety. This is my breakdown of a CDC article on a resent cucumbers, salmonella outbreak. It is a typical example of what the CDC passes off as a so call out break of foodborne illness.
1. Illness; diarrhea and not cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, lactose intolerance etc. Aren’t these what the public would naturally assume the state is referring to when they say illness?
2. Food; only agricultural commodities and not canned food, cakes, cookies, candy, soda, chocolate milk etc. They are totally ignoring the really toxic foods that make up a major part of our diet. They actually have us afraid of spinach and sprouts, two of the healthiest foods.
3. Outbreak; 73 cases in 3 months, while the nearly 300 million other cases of diarrhea in this country are not even acknowledged.
4. Association; cucumbers, because 67% of the 45 ill interviewed ate cucumbers while only 44% of the well people surveyed ate cucumbers and not because of any actual Salmonella contamination found.
5. Blame; 2 Mexican producers because 6 of the 45 ill interviewed eat their cucumbers and not because of any actual Salmonella contamination found.
Can’t anyone see how absurd this is? DATCP has redefined adulteration and misbranding(it now means the exact opposite of what the consumer would assume). They have redefined milk. They have redefined the dairy industry. They have redefined themselves and they have redefined food safety.
This has EVERYTHING to do with raw milk sales. Man is allowed by his creator to do anything he wants as long as he brings no harm to any other man. Who can tell a farmer [man/woman] that they cannot sell raw milk, eggs, beans, etc…… ? No man can. What we have here is a foreign-owned, bankrupt corporation telling people what they can and cannot do. This is what we are fighting. The “cure” is moving the court to common law jurisdiction where a corporation, or it’s representatives, cannot speak and are incapable of “filing a verified claim”. Man files claims. Only man can verify. Corps, govs, estates, etc file complaints. Claims trump complaints. Fairly simple. The good part is that this is not patriot, freeman, nut-job stuff. We still have common law jurisdiction in this nation. We just aren’t using it. It’s time to start looking into using it so that we can get back to doing what we want to do [free will]. “Judges” are aware of this. It’s just that they make more money when they keep people in administrative court. Vernon could change the jurisdiction of the court to a court of record [common law]. That would eliminate any BAR members from participating and would reduce the “judge” to the position of magistrate. What Vernon has against him are COMPLAINTS, not CLAIMS. In common law jurisdiction, a complaint is no good. And, the plaintiff[accuser] MUST be there. In this matter, I believe, the State is the accuser. Well, then the State must be there physically so Vernon can “face his accuser”. Can’t happen. The State is a fiction. Can’t sign a claim and can’t show up in person. Bam. He’s outta there. No verified claim? No accuser? No case! “See ya later and if you don’t cease and desist, I will file a claim against you, the man, in a court of record, for violating my God-given right to do as I please as long as I bring no harm to another man or woman”.”
Common Law, or Natural Law, has but one law: do not harm anyone or their property (property being an extension of self through labor). Under Natural Law, if you believe someone has harmed you or your property, you make a claim against them. Where’s the contract, where’s the injured party? No claimant, no crime. “Victimless crimes” do not exist under Natural Law.
Vernon Hershberger’s trial is about breach of contract, nothing more. Please read the charges against him:
http://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetails.do;jsessionid=3E070233B6BCFF5826B2E50931854DB4.render6?caseNo=2011CM000696&countyNo=56&cacheId=FC6308F256B5766B35637A3378B93852&recordCount=4&offset=0&mode=details&submit=View+Case+Details
Three out of the four charges are for failure to secure the proper license. This has nothing to do with milk safety, that’s why the judge will not allow food safety to be part of the defense. All the state is concerned with is whether or not Vernon got the proper licenses if he sold food. Yes or no? All else to them is irrelevant.
Now if this trial is about breach of contract, what contract is Vernon breaching? If Vernon has any state license – driver’s license, state issued ID, marriage license, and/or if he’s paid taxes, etc. – anything where he’s claimed the name VERNON HERSHBERGER (a corporate Crown-owned name, see the Bankruptcy of 1933) is the same as the flesh and blood human being – he is contractually bound to follow the statutes. He does not know this, but the state does, the judge does, and FTCLDF does, too.
As far as moving Vernon’s case to Common Law court, I have no experience with that and I’ll concede to Bildo to comment on that. What I do know, however, is that if there is no victim there is no crime. Vernon’s case wouldn’t make it to court, as no one (flesh and blood human being) is making a claim against him.
Nadine Ijazs recent presentation to the BC Centre for Disease Control on raw milk myths and science
http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/nadine-ijazs-recent-presentation-to-the-bc-centre-for-disease-control-on-raw-milk-myths-and-science/