U.S. District Court Judge Edward G. Smith used the start of the Independence Day weekend to issue an inspection order that Miller’s Organic Farm allow federal regulators in, accompanied by law enforcement, beginning July 11.
The inspection, by agents from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and its Food Safety and Inspection Service, “shall continue day-to-day until complete,” the four-page order states, with the proviso that “USDA/FSIS shall complete the inspection with reasonable promptness.”
How are the safety and other “violations” the inspectors are nearly certain to find to be treated? According to the order, “within 90 days of completing their inspection, USDA/FSIS officers may return to Miller’s Organic Farm to determine whether any violations found have been cured. Officers shall not require any further order of court as authority to conduct this follow-up inspection.”
Of course, the USDA could use any violations it uncovers during the initial inspection beginning July 11 as an excuse to shut down the farm immediately.
The terms of the order itself require that “within ten days of the completion of all activities authorized in this Order, the United States shall file a brief report concerning the status of this matter. If defendants have complied with this Court’s Order and the administrative subpoena, this matter will be dismissed.”
While the order may be dismissed, the repercussions of the inspections will likely continue for a long while. In addition to a shutdown, there could well be fines, injunctions, and further investigations—the beat will likely continue on. You just know that after jumping through all the hoops the regulators jumped through to get this order, they aren’t going home empty-handed.
Judge Smith threw Miller a legal bone by requiring that “USDA will not infringe on defendants’ First Amendment right to freedom of expressive association.” I presume that means Miller’s members are free to get together and jump up and down to show how pissed off they are about what is happening to their farmer.
Remember, the regulators have had Miller in their sights for years. It took the disorder and confusion of last November’s Weston A. Price Foundation annual conference to provide them with the opportunity they had been seeking for years. They used animosities within the food rights movement to launch a raid, confiscate Miller’s milk, and then tenuously tie it to two serious illnesses in immune-suppressed individuals, and they were off to the races. It has all culminated in the carefully choreographed smiling-judge court hearing in Easton, PA, last week.
Nor are they about to let Amos Miller off easily, now that they finally have him in their grasp. Sure, they will try to emulate Judge Smith’s nice-guy attitude, but behind the smiles and “respect,” the regulators know exactly where they are going. It’s difficult to see a happy ending, without Miller’s association members taking up his cause in a big way.
Everybody who can needs to show up and camp out and record everything the USDA does, then post online.
In common law (protected by 7th amendment), there must be a wo/man filing a claim of harm or injury for there to be a crime. Miller has now been harmed and injured and can file a common law claim, to be ajudicated by the people (common law grand jury). Research common law. Youtube karl lentz. Learn your rights or be enslaved!
http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2016/06/national-assembly-training-conference.html
http://michiganassembly.info/ From DE FACTO to de jure – the process for which you have been looking…
http://annavonreitz.com/
Meaku,
Why would you want to promote common law when blind trust in “common law” is one of the major factors that has gotten Mr. Miller and the memberships that buy from him into a treacherous corner?
The simple, understandable and defendable fact that people are free to choose nutrient dense healthy GMO free, soy free and grassfed food products from Mr. Miller stands alone. People should rally on these merits (right to choose) and not on archaic legal wishful-thinking that you are proposing.
Furthermore, why are you promoting Karl Lentz? Karl’s bizarre legal strategies are proving to be losers. From what I gather via court records and mounting disgruntled Karl/common law clients, it is coming to light that he is not even winning the very simplest of court cases. It also appears that Karl may be profiting from people going to jail based on his ill advise. Why jeopardize thousands of people’s health and quality of life based on legal strategy that apparently has not, and most likely will not, work in this case?
Come to think of it, it is my understanding that Karl is widely known for staunchly defending Frank Russo, the man that reputedly molested his own (Karl’s) daughter. If memory serves me correct, Russo admitted to aggravated sexual battery and taking pictures of the young victim during some of the crimes. It was Russo’s own admission that got him arrested.
Even after Karl KNEW this, he still repeatedly and “publicly” threw his under-age daughter under the bus and called her a liar for reporting that she had been sexually molested.
Karl does not seem like a worthy leader to try and protect Amos, the consumers and the real food movement. Unfortunately, it appears that some of the main PMA strategies being used by small farmers have been established on flimsy hodgepodge concoctions of “common law” contracts that were drafted and sold by felons convicted of tax and Texas Joint Stock Company scams.
I honestly feel that the Real-Food Movement heroes and supporters deserve to be more informed on the “laws and rights” that they think they are “protected” by. “Laws and rights” they have spent money on (false sense of security and hope) to protect them in this exact and very unfortunate circumstance…
Could it possibly be that Mr. Miller and the Membership has been scammed?
David,
I read this very much differently. I think that the judge gave the Millers plenty of hope. If the Millers show a desire to cooperate or even comply with safety conditions, then the report submitted by the USDA inspectors to the court will reflect that willingness. There is even time to comply with any USDA requests or observations. That is all very hopeful.
If there is an interest in cooperating….the gate is wide open. If the agenda is anti cooperation….then David, you are right. This could be the beginning of the end. The Dogs just got through the gate.
What fascinates me is the absence of the FDA with regards to CFR 1240.61 and interstate commerce of raw milk. The USDA does not regulate milk….so what happened to the dairy side of things? Sounds like the FDA whimped out and is having the USDA do their dairy dirty work( with meat being the surrogate ) for fear of having a bad precident and another Hirshberg.
The government sure is glumsey when it comes to enforcement. They seem to be very much out of their comfort zones and fumbling all over themselves.
When the FDA acted against OPDC years ago,( interstate commerce of raw milk ) they acted with certainty, focus and defined action. They did not fumble once …..at least until the federal judge spanked them hard and gave them nearly nothing. But that was at the very end of the action after months of focused fear based harassment.
Sounds like the FDA is absent. Interesting. This entire affair started because of interstate commerce of raw milk….that is FDA territory.
Mark,
I agree with you about the USDA standing in for the FDA. I was told that one of the lawyers at Amos Miller’s hearing last week was from the FDA. I couldn’t confirm this, because of the four or five lawyers, several didn’t identify themselves when they cross-examined witnesses (while others did identify themselves).
But where you get lost is over “the agenda.” It’s not a matter of whether it is anti-cooperation or not. It is over whether Amos Miller will be free to sell food products privately to people who want to contract with him to buy what he is selling. That’s all.
You sound like the regulators. If he just “cooperates” and gets a PA raw milk permit and obeys the state’s regulations prohibiting him from selling all the raw dairy products people want, yes, all is fine. In the process, he will set further precedent against herdshares, cow shares, food clubs, and other private arrangements for the free exchange of food. As I’ve said before, the public regulated system is fine for those who choose it, like you and your customers. It isn’t fine for many other farmers and consumers, who want certain foods produced from the farmer of their choosing.
Mark
I doubt the regulators have a genuine willingness to “cooperate”. In this instance their idea of cooperation is based on might/force whereby Amos Miller is being compelled via “the law” to cooperate. Is this cooperation or coercion?
Indeed, forced government cooperation certainly leaves “the gate…wide opened” for increased regulatory intrusion and enhances their power to interfere into the private lives of individuals.
H.L. Mencken suggested that, “The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man (Amos Miller) who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos, (so-called food safety strategies). Almost invariably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And if he is not romantic personally, he is apt to spread discontent among those who are”. Emphasis in brackets is mine
On this Independence Day, I send my best wishes for Amos Miller to prevail in the latest development in the governmental interference with his farm. May he continue to provide wholesome, nourishing food to all who want it. There is a place in our society for public regulation of food distribution, but Amos’ model isn’t it.
David,
I look forward to seeing how this all turns out. In my school of hard knocks….I have not seen a private arena of markets. All I have seen is the regulated market. I have however….witnessed the government sanction and directly authorize the private sale of products. Ie….RMAC in CO and cow shares in Oregon. Outside of that….the socalled private contract sales are a wishful ghost.
If private contracts are sanctioned…..let me be the first to line up to sign up. So far….I have not seen any light at the end of that tunnel.
Not true, Mark. Vernon Hershberger sells all kinds of raw dairy in a state (WI) that bans public sale of raw milk, and has refused to allow private sale as well. That’s because a jury of his peers said he could do that. Same with Alvin Schlangen in MN, where the state has been relentless in cracking down on raw milk sales. But a jury of Alvin’s peers also acquitted him of criminal charges, allowing him to sell privately.
In a number of other states as well, including your own state of California, many farmers sell all manner of foods privately, including raw milk, without government sanction.
I think the Amos Miller case is a desperate federal effort to crack down on a mode of sale that is highly threatening to the control mentality of the regulators, and of conventional farmers, who see the campaign against private food sales as protection against a growing source of competition.
David, you are right about the legal precedents on intra state sales. I should have been more clear. I meant to suggest that interstate sales have no legal precedents. The fda slammed OPDC hard many years ago….ever since it seems that they just do not care about interstate sales in defiance of CFR 1240.61.
“When a ruling aristocracy uses the heel of the boot of the State to create fear and oppress average citizens for their beliefs, there is no other word for it but tyranny. The appropriation of unaccountable authority by medical trade and the militarization of public health in the 21st century should be of concern to every person who values life and liberty.”
http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/June-2016/defending-religious-exemption-to-vaccination.aspx
When power is given to bureaucrats, even good intentions will inevitably be lost when the DNA of mankind comes into play. That DNA is unwavering and always tries to gain more control.
“Can you imagine working in an atmosphere where the honest employee fears the dishonest employee, and not the other way around?
How can anyone trust the FDA’s claims that a particular food or drug or medical device is safe to eat or put in or on your body, when the former director of the agency, Margaret Hamburg, has been accused of racketeering?”
*******************
“What is clear is that the FDA is in dire need of top to bottom reform. Better still would be to abolish it and start all over with food and supplements in a different agency.”
********************
Both of those quotes are taken from this link: http://healthimpactnews.com/2016/systemic-corruption-at-fda-reported/
No agency should be trying to “control or regulate” both foods and drugs. Both of those subjects are so large as to need their own agency, IMO. Personally, I’d rather not have the elitists and the tyrannicals looking after my well being, but that’s just me.