David E. Gumpert, writing on Grist.org:
“For nearly a month now, Canadian rancher Michael Schmidt has been engaged in a hunger strike. For over 17 years, Schmidt has been crusading for the right to distribute raw milk to a few hundred Ontario consumers who own shares in his herd of cows. He says he has been unable to convince anyone in a position of power to discuss how he and other raw dairy farmers can simultaneously service their herdshare members and abide by public health safety concerns. Instead, as he told me last week: “My farm has been raided by armed officers, my family has been terrorized, and I have been dragged through the courts — first being acquitted and then being found guilty.”
Now, he says, he wants a personal meeting with Ontario’s premier, Dalton McGuinty. If he doesn’t get the meeting? “I am prepared to go all the way,” he says.
As of the start of this week, the hunger strike has mushroomed into a major drama in both Canada and the U.S. Many in the raw-dairy-centered “food rights” movement see Schmidt as their spiritual leader after he spent the last two years defending himself in Ontario courts, as well as traversing the U.S. and Canada speaking about what he sees as the stonewalling by public health authorities over raw milk availability and safety. Some supporters have tried hard to dissuade him from the hunger strike, worried that his sense of commitment could lead to his death, but he has steadfastly held to his tactic.
The office of premier McGuinty says the matter of a meeting with Schmidt is “under review,” according to a press spokesperson. When might the review be complete? “I wouldn’t want to speculate on that,” he says.
Schmidt’s reputation received a major boost in early 2010, when he won a case brought by Ontario public health officials and the Ministry of Natural Resources, under the direction of the Ontario Attorney General. He served as his own lawyer, and a judge ruled that because Schmidt’s herdshare members were privately organized, they fell outside the Ontario prohibitions on raw milk. The Ontario authorities appealed, though, and an appeals court reversed the decision earlier this month. Schmidt appealed further, and launched the hunger strike.
In just the last few days, a Facebook page called Support Michael Schmidt has blossomed from a few hundred to nearly 4,000 members, and the office of Premier McGuinty has been inundated with calls and emails. McGuinty’s staff has taken to removing messages of support for Schmidt on the premier’s own Facebook page.
The drama being played out in Canada is occurring against the backdrop of a number of recent incidents involving proponents of raw dairy, primarily in the U.S.
For example, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has declared, in response to a federal suit by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, that we “have no absolute right … to any particular food.” The strong message is that the government is the final arbiter of which foods are safe and unsafe.
The FDA stated in the same legal brief that it enacted a prohibition on interstate sale of raw milk in 1987 “after spending 13 years collecting and evaluating scientific information regarding the health risks of unpasteurized milk, holding a public hearing that resulted in over 300 comments, and ultimately concluding that consumption of these products was linked to the outbreak of serious disease.”
As if to echo the FDA’s argument, a Wisconsin judge several weeks ago issued a ruling against two raw milk dairies in the state, not only declaring their operations illegal, but concluding, in part, that the plaintiffs “do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or … a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow.” …”
The Bovine 
Go to this link http://library.georgegordon.com/ This is a law school.. The reason people get into trouble is because they do not know the law.. You most likely have a license, maybe your a corporation, maybe you are dealing publicly instead of privately in your contracts. You see private business is not regulated by government, public business is. If I do a private transaction with my neighbor and contract with him privately, (that mean privately) as in no bank account,check,credit card. As in you do not do any business with a paper trail. You do not open your door to the public, That mean by invitation only. You can not advertise to the public either. You most be the one to be asked first to contract, Then you right the contract terms. You even could put in the terms of the contract this person can not be a police man or any other government under cover agent. In other word divorce your self from all government state contracts and you will not be under their control. You see the state came to you gave a benefit of some kind and then put conditions on you.. It’s was a trap you see. i hope this helps you my friend..
Hi James,
You are forgetting that the state gets a piece of everything your make, even if it is a trade or barter. This crime is all tax evasion. The state puts you in jail for that crime.
First it is not a crime or tax evasion. Lets say 1 man takes the money of 4 people and goes to the store to buy a roast for dinner. That night the four people all sit down to eat the roast. Are you going to tax the people sitting at the table for eating? What if one of them eats twice as much as the other 3, or you going to tax him for that? What if one person does all the dishes, are you going to tax the other 3 for not cleaning up? What if a 5th person shows up at the last second and agrees to take out the trash so he can eat too? Are you going to tax the 5th person because they got a place at the table just for taking out the trash? These people have a private agreement between them. They all own the cow together. There is no tax evasion on a closed loop anymore than a father giving his son a silver coin with the understanding that he will use the money to drink milk that day. He make a contract with his son to have life, and milk gives you life so it should be argued that this is a God given right and not a man made privilege.. All contracts are verbal contacts first, the paper is just the best evidence of one. These people are not buying the milk,they already own the milk! What they are doing is giving it over to one party member to get supplies,do the clean up, prepare the milk, set the cow and so on. This first party is not and employee and the other 3 party members are not customers. They are all owners, no sell was made so there is no sells tax and it was never in the stream of commerce.