Michael Schmidt looks at the judiciary and recent raw milk / food rights cases

From Michael Schmidt’s Reflections of a Candidate blog, from a post titled “Are the Courts Failing Us????”

“Is Justice Paul Kowarsky the only one who has the courage or the wisdom?

Let Children judge to have more justice than we have now.

As I am following countless legal proceedings across Canada and the US, I begin to question the truly independent role of the courts. I question if they are setting themselves up for being accused to simply follow the corporate/government agenda and therefore will experience a huge loss of credibility.

The image of ruling as an independent body from Government on the merits of the case seems to be tainted based on a string of recent rulings across this continent.

It appears that more and more the courts play second fiddle in determining how justice is constructed. I have seen fundamental rulings overturned based on a Government appeal. I have seen rulings which appear to be based on fear instead of truly questioning the merits of the case.

I have seen rulings where the assessment and weight of certain potential risks is differently adjudicated between Government-licensed food and food provided by farmers direct to consumers.

I have seen the weight courts put on Government agents testimony and I have seen how dismissive they can become if a farmer or consumer brings forward his side of the story.

I truly question if in fact we the people are still protected by the supposedly independent courts against Government harassment and Government control.

The mockery Government is making of the courts by trying to insinuate their “genuine concerns” about the safety for the people is astounding. I begin to look at the courts nature as a chess game of legal procedures which might bring down the very nature of its function.

Government should never ever have a preferred status, a greater credibility rating, and more money to prosecute its own people than those trying to defend themselves. I sincerely question if in fact we have truly equality in front of the law, since less or no consideration has been given to the aspect of equal resources available to run the trial. Or consider that the dead bodies from the Maple Leaf Listeriosis outbreak seemed to be of no significant value compared to the incredible value of the dead body of a perceived potential raw milk death (which has not been documented in the last 20 years). Or consider the countless bodies due to medical drug failures and medical errors.

• We have thousands of recalls and reports of food borne illnesses due to contaminated processed foods.
• We have had severe outbreaks of illnesses due to pasteurized dairy products
• We have well documented serious health problems related to processed milk.
• We have crying mothers telling their stories how raw milk positively changed their lives.
• We have cigarettes kill every day people
• We have GMO foods approved against the will of the people
• We have been taken away through regulations the right to choose our own destiny.

The courts seem to maneuver themselves into a point of no return.

Case Law determines the outcome of most of the cases. I have studied court rulings in favor of Governments based on faulty and deceived facts presented by Government. Why? Because of a biased determination of proof beyond reasonable doubt. However, those individuals fighting against Government seldom have the resources to appeal. Therefore the faulty ruling will become case law and binds the next Judge in its ability to rule freely. It also solidifies the cases in favor of Government

As more these food rights cases get squashed, ignored or even ridiculed by the courts, as more complicated it gets to prevent the future hijacking of the courts by Government.

Just scream E-coli and the judge will shudder in fear and panic. The dismissive arguments brought forward by Government to ignore the notion that people’s rights for food should be fairly and just considered weigh heavier than a mother’s concern for her child.

Testimony of people experiencing drastic health improvements through the consumption of unprocessed foods gets pushed aside as hear-say and anecdotal.

Most courts seemed to be on auto-pilot as soon they hear raw milk.

You are guilty by association.

That brings me to the point of trying to figure out, if we all along put our focus too much on politics and Government instead of educating judges in the court room.

I have seen too often the legal game and power play artfully displayed as “true concerns” by Government lawyers. They are sometimes very good at that. But they can also be very bad at that. It makes no difference. As soon they play the fear card most judges cave in and become part of the Government enforcement team.

When I attended the Appeal Hearing in Alberta at the beginning of this week, I heard the consoling voice of James Murray the Government lawyer telling the panel that they have no power or jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the rights of people to consume raw milk. He then stated that the proper way for us to do that would be, by lobbying Government and Members of Parliament to change the law.

I call this phenomenon Lawyers in Lala- land. The reality is depressing to say the least.

The Kowarsky Cow Share Ruling of last year is a very rare example of a judges independent research, independent spirit and desire to rule wisely. Kowarsky understood what it takes to provide a ruling beyond the common trend of convenience and “who cares anyhow”?

Kowarsky seemed to be a tough judge with a unique interest in the case.

Oh no, he did not favor us at all in all the proceedings. He was tough and sometimes not very friendly for a good reason.

But he came back with a groundbreaking ruling, artfully composed in a legal language the commoner could understand.

It was a piece of art, a dissertation about law and a well composed finale to a dramatic opera…..”

Read it all on Michael’s blog.