Schmidt to appeal motion ruling

To put [the judge’s ruling in the post below] into context, the following is a brief synopsis.

Michael Schmidt answers questions from reporters after a motion hearing in Newmarket, on July 31.

We filed the motion.

The Crown filed a reply.

Upon commencement of the motion hearing, the JP clearly stated that he had read all the material and did not need any further information or discussion, unless either party had something further to add. In other words, he had his decision prepared in advance of the hearing. We indicated that we did have further information to add, because we had a reply to the Crown’s filing.

After Michael rendered his oral reply to the Crown’s reply, we provided to the Court and the Crown, in one binding, the text of our oral submissions. This provided the court with an opportunity to see our grounds for the motion in proper context.

The court recessed for 10 minutes.

Upon returning from recess, the JP read his decision and provided us with a copy of that text [in the post below].

The lack of desire to have the matter debated in court, the lack of substantive counter evidence by the Crown, the fact that the decision was drafted even before the start of the motion hearing, and the grounds, or lack there of, in the court’s decision only acted as further confirmation of our position. We are all the more resolute in seeking a just rendering on the motion and are appealing the decision with full confidence.

– George

R. v. Schmidt – Ruling on Motion

R. v. Schmidt

RULING ON MOTION

1. The Applicant brings a pre-trial motion seeking the following relief:

• Confirmation that the Health Protection and Promotion Act R.S.O. 1990 applies only to municipalities, boards of health and corporations;

• An order dismissing all charges pursuant to the Health Protection and Promotion Act R.S.O. 1990 (“The Act”) against the defendant [Applicant].

1. The motion rises out of charges brought against the Applicant by the Ministry of Natural Resources charging him with numerous offences in relation to his alleged distribution of unpasteurized milk products contrary to the provisions of The Act and the Milk Act. The trial has been set down for hearing in January and February of 2009.

The state steps in it – in Washington

So what’s it like living in a state where raw milk IS legal? It seems from the case described below that even the fact of raw milk being legal doesn’t adequetely protect raw milk users from what looks like arbitrary state interference in their dietary and business affairs. Wasn’t it Pierre Trudeau who came to the public realization back in the 60s that the state had no place in the bedrooms of the nation. So now we might well wonder what the state is doing in our refrigerators? Are they keeping us “safe”? Protecting us from ourselves? Or looking for a midnight snack?

This piece is excerpted from the blog of Kurtwood Farms, a certified grade A raw dairy in the state of Washington, down there in the US and A.

The State Steps In

“For the past two plus years this dairy has had a Grade ‘A’ dairy license. Issued by the Washington State Department of Agriculture, it gives me the right to sell milk, raw milk, to the public. The dairy is inspected, the milk tested, and product deemed fit for human consumption.

Raw milk is legal in only a limited number of states in the Union. Although the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance is a federal document (it also addresses raw milk laws) the states have the right to allow or not allow raw milk within their states. Raw milk is not eligible for interstate commerce. The state of Washington allows raw milk to be sold to the public and I am very fortunate for that law as are my customers.

Raw Milk Movie to Rock ROM Oct 23

TORONTO, September 26, 2008 – Snowy Owl Productions is pleased to announce that the film Michael Schmidt: Organic Hero or Bioterrorist will have its Canadian premiere at the 2008 Planet In Focus international environmental film and video festival in Toronto.

The screening will take place at the Royal Ontario Museum Theatre (ROM) at 7 PM on Thursday October 23rd.

MICHAEL SCHMIDT: ORGANIC HERO OR BIOTERRORIST
The story of raw organic milk in Canada and a consumer’s right to choose

This documentary film follows a year in the life of an activist farmer. It tells the story of raw, organic milk in Canada and the right of informed consumers to choose and procure the food they want to eat directly from farmers they trust.

The Milk Act of 1938 made it illegal to sell raw (unpasteurized) milk in Canada. In November 2006, twenty-five armed officers staged a raid at Michael Schmidt’s farm in Ontario, confiscating milk, equipment, computers and files. This film follows Schmidt as he struggles to continue providing his “farm fresh milk” while battling authorities, preparing for his trial, and attempting to find a political solution to legally provide raw milk in Canada.

New raw milk drinker, Motion update

Later today or tomorrow we should have a complete update on what’s happening with Michael Schmidt’s “Motion to Dismiss Charges”, which was heard in Newmarket court last Monday.

Also coming up will be news about Michael Schmidt’s new baby. Yes, apparently it’s true that a new raw milk drinker has joined the fold up at Glencolton farms. Stay tuned for the exclusive story.

And remember, you heard it through the bovine.