Lawyer Shawn Buckley talks about Michael Schmidt and his campaign for raw milk and food freedom


Filed under News

32 responses to “Lawyer Shawn Buckley talks about Michael Schmidt and his campaign for raw milk and food freedom

  1. Enough can not be said for the sacrifice and attention that Michael is drawing to the fact that all people have inalienable rights.
    Thank you Michael.

    • Peter

      I am personally not convinced that anybody is suggesting we don’t have unalienable rights. I get that it is a common perception that we are losing our rights, but I would be interested to have someone highlight what inalienable right(s) we have been negated.

      • Are you kidding me Peter?
        We have totally lost our right to protect ourselves. Even in the United States in places like AZ these rights are a mere shadow of what they were 100 years ago. In the vast majority of the country you don’t even have the right to build a home the way you see fit and to live in it. With the so called property tax you can’t in reality even own property. You certainly can not choose what you put into your body. You don’t have the right to educate your children as you see fit.

        When you die in most places you don’t have a right to be buried how and where you wish. When going to court you do not have a right to be represented by who you wish. When ill, you do not have a right to contract with who you wish to aide you in your healing. You don’t have a right to travel. You don’t have a right to the wages you earn. You don’t have a right to even earn a living in many instances without a permission slip from your owners.

        Peter when you get down to it, serfs in the middle ages paid less in taxes than do Western people of today. Also when you look closely you don’t have any damn rights at all….. Most all of the things that I lament above about not having, my great grandfather exercised every day of his life as an inalienable right.

      • Peter

        Hi Joe in Missouri. Been reading all your posts, and I hear you loud and clear and concur with the essence of your perspective, but with a couple of important exceptions. Where a government has the right to create its own entities, it has the right to regulate/govern them. It is my understanding that US citizens are entities created by Washington DC. As such, they don’t have inalienable rights, but merely privileges. This is the public over which Washington DC has jurisdiction. On the other hand, American Nationals retain their inalienable rights, and are not part of the Washington DC public.
        Getting back to my initial comment, inalienable means just that. To suggest we lost them is to suggest that they are alienable. It is possible that those rights are often not recognized. But just because they are not recognized does not mean we don’t have them. Back to my original question, what inalienable rights have been negated?

      • Peter
        You are most frustrating to correspond with.
        It as if you find crossing T’s and dotting I’s the most important thing in
        communications and not the meat of the matter.

        Let me address a few of your points:
        Peter said “It is my understanding that US citizens are entities created by Washington DC.”
        Yes there is this lame 14th amendment argument that our Satanic government uses because they must have our permission to enslave us.
        This may clarify things for you:

        Peter said: “Where a government has the right to create its own entities, it has the right to regulate/govern them.”

        Or federal government has no rights other than those agreed to in the Constitution and then the Sovereign States and people have the 10th amendment nullification and also secession to deal with federal usurpation’s

        I find talking to Canadians about all of this as difficult as talking to Russians. The concept that government is not your God just seems to be beyond your mental capacity and comprehension.

        Peter said:
        “But just because they are not recognized does not mean we don’t have them. Back to my original question, what inalienable rights have been negated?”

        Absolutely true. And I am frustrated that you did not understand that from my earlier posts. I echo my earlier posts in answer to your question. We have no rights that have not been trampled and negated.

  2. Peter

    I find it fascinating to observe how many people perceive Michael’s plight to be one on principle, or one of freedom, and/or one of rights. And, in deed, it may be so. However, I ask again: Then why the aspiration for government regulations, or government permission?
    As Mr. Buckley pointed out, the original decision was beautiful, for it highlighted our right to choose. And I would suggest that Michael lost his appeal not by overturning the principles of the original ruling, but by fact of the matter. I almost get the impression Mr. Buckley didn’t read either or both of the court decisions.

    • “Then why the aspiration for government regulations, or government permission?”
      I also think that is the wrong way to go Peter. What is needed is an admission by the system that they do not have the jurisdiction to legislate in any manner when it concerns what foods we choose to ingest. If they merely grant the slaves permission to drink and sell raw milk, then nothing has been gained. The permission can be retracted at any time.

      • BC Food Security

        Joe ; Some states exempt small herdshares from some or all regulations. That is the focus and interest of some of the people here. Nobody has died yet from doing that ! They still need insurance and it is in their own interest to do monthly testing and operate a clean facility and understand the grass-feeding approach. I am not sure how far one could go in terms of allowing a large facility with 50 -100 or more cows to be exempt from any kind of legislation or regulation ? I don’t know any European country that does it that way either ? I think the more important thing is to have a change of consciousness where you genuinely feel that the government is your friend and wants you to succeed and will do everything in its power to help you to succeed ? I know in North America the relationship with big government is more antagonistic but I would like to suggest that there are places and spaces in the world where you do not have to be afraid of big or small government .

      • BC Food Security you said:
        “I am not sure how far one could go in terms of allowing a large facility with 50 -100 or more cows to be exempt from any kind of legislation or regulation”
        If government does not have the right to regulate one cow it does not have the right to regulate 10,000 cows. There is a thing called the free market and no one would make you drink milk from a large herd that you choose not to drink from. Force is the MO of governments not the free market.

        As far as trusting government I can not think of anything more foolish under the sun. You give a group of mentally unstable (yes these are the types attacked to government service) people a monopoly on the use of power and then you trust them? I can not think of a more sure recipe for disaster. We need much more powerful checks and balances on governments than we currently have.

      • BC Food Security

        Joe : I was not saying that we should automatically trust big government or big business. The government has to earn this trust. Surely you will agree that there are cool municipal governments out there i.e Nelson BC bans GMO farming or Saltspring Island (elects a Green Party MP for the first time in Canada ! ) or Ashland , Oregon or Arcata California etc. I was trying to imagine what it would look like if a state or province wholly endorsed an organic farming and green living approach ? For example I believe the state of New Mexico has endorsed the “Transition Town” principles . I don’t see the problem of government as all “black and white” but due to space limitations here we sometimes make it sound that way ?For example in Germany , I have seen the Minister of Agriculture openly endorse “Organic Farming” like it was no big dea at all . But in North America you would never ever hear of a federal minister endorsing chemical free farming (so far at least ) . This has to change and it WILL change . Right now a North American federal minister of government who endorses chemical free or organic farming would either have to quit his job , be fired or else apologize and retract his statement. Do you see the difference in “consciousness” here ? Comparing what other people do in other jurisdictions is really important and really, really helpful. I would even want to thank the 78% of the US that allows raw milk in some form. Because it gives us some kind of hope in Canada . There are certain unique rules and regulations are totally insane in Canada but in different ways than the US or Europe. If we did not have you guys, as an example, south of the border (mostly) doing it right we would be royally and totally screwed (as far as raw dairy herdshares go ) .

    • BC Food Security – I agree that in this venue it is hard to articulate everything.
      In short the “nice” things that you attribute to government are totally outside of what government should be doing. Government is not there to endorse organic farming. The end does not justify the means and the means is not government. Government should at the very very most protect our God given rights. Leave the rest to the people and the free market. 🙂

      • BC Food Security you said: “If we did not have you guys, as an example, south of the border (mostly) doing it right we would be royally and totally screwed (as far as raw dairy herdshares go ) .”
        I think that any political system that strays far from the concept of inalienable rights is screwed and will be screwed. Most peoples of the world believe that government is their God and the dispenser of their rights. This is the root of the worlds problems.

        You must stand on principles or you stand on nothing.

        What example did Locke, Paine, and Jefferson have when they forged ahead?

        Stand on principles or you stand on nothing.

  3. BC Food Security

    Peter : The facts of the matter in court is one thing . The facts of the matter in life is another . The facts of the matter of life is that Michael Schmidt has figured out a way (backed up with 35 years of blood,milk and tears ) to raise and milk primarily grass fed cows so that the milk is safe to drink and ,more importantly , much more nutritious and even healing. But Michael knows that a certain leap of understanding is required to do it right and so not every novice farmer who dabbles with marketing raw milk will get it right without training and constant testing and safeguards and feedback. So Michael proposes that the government train itself for a new regulatory role in doing that. In the state of Colorado the herdshares are “self-regulated ” . But this is unusual . Mostly a state or municipal authority is at least loosely involved .
    We are seeing this successfully done now in 39 states and almost all EU nations . Sorry Peter but we are all impatient to move the dialog to a new level. We are not here to engage only in dualistically motivated mind games however stimulating and mind-expanding that may be ! Last but not least , we have a right to form an opinion based on facts on the ground about whether or not the BC or any other government is sincere about evolving to a new understanding on this issue or even holding any kind of dialog at all. We have very good reason to conclude that the BC government’s behaviour in this issue is not just about safety, science , law or anything altruistic . No doubt there are elements of that too . But there are also elements of a cold-blooded monopoly and powerplay happening here. And that’s where activism, principle and personal authority come into play with or without the courts .

    • Peter

      Your comments seem to suggest that you back Michael’s request for some form of government regulated raw milk.
      Let us say there are regulations which a raw milk producer has to abide by (and perhaps even has to buy quota). If you don’t, there will be farm raids, fines, and the like. Now, someone stands up and says he/she doesn’t agree with those 2/30/70 year old laws. That producer declares the law to be immoral, and continues to sell raw milk without doing anyone any harm. One day, 25 armed officers raid the farm and charge the producer for failing to adhere to the regulatory law. Now he has to pay a fine, even though no one was hurt. The recipients of the milk cry foul and say there is no justice. Have we elevated to a new level?
      Now, because of regulations, it is plausible that significant capital is required to get going. As such, it is very plausible that the less than 2% of people farming today is reduced even further as a consequence, not to mention the participation of big farmers and big corporations, and the centralized processing of raw dairy. Are we any further ahead? In a manner of speaking, yes. The consumer will, in the immediate be happy, at the cost of the future of food production. Some might suggest throwing away the intellect in favor of our subjective emotional fears/egos that cause many to compromise.
      I truly hope you are successful in moving your dialog to a new level. I would remorse if my commentary is holding you or anyone else back from growth.

      • Kurtis

        Just what we need. Another quota and dairy management system. Fight to free people of shackles only to ask them to accept another.

        The current system started out as one to free and protect farmers and look where it went very quickly.

  4. rainhard pitschke

    No one can win in court. It’s too late. If an offence against ‘statutes’ has occurred, that can’t be denied…one can only plead guilty with apologies and/or excuses. Anything else is contempt because the ‘facts’ are only the record of what’s in the judge’s hands BEFORE the trial. ‘Plea bargaining’ is just two-way bribing or begging. The smoke and mirrors drama of lawyers, means nothing. It’s all about business, not rights or fairness. You have surrendered claim to either by showing up! It proves one’s incompetance at negotiation to need an arbitrator. Of course they will drag you there, so a person of integrity can only act as Michael has. The only way to fight for rights is the same way they do. Lay a larger charge against them and with bonds, affidavits, indemnify the judge from having to find a verdict of guilty…..and threaten his own and the entire chain of employees’ bonds to legally operate too. If they want to do business then charge whatever you like….like they do. Millions. Tens of millions.
    Or hand them back the foundational document…..the original birth certificate….and walk out. You never signed up for any of this… signed away all your other rights incrementally for a ‘SIN’ card, driver’s licence, health card, etc. You can hand them back individually and claim ‘no contract’, but, like in ‘Hold-em’ poker….if you really mean it, and can assume total, not limited liability….like a man who knows he has rights and freedoms….you go ‘all in.’….You don’t care about the outcome either.

    • Peter

      There is no obligation to participate in the court process. It is only for those who are seeking civil remedy. If one doesn’t want a civil remedy, that is not a problem. “They” have a place for you too. But he/she must recognize that it is their own function to defend and protect their rights. As such, one has no standing to complain, or seek what is fair. It is the law of the jungle. I concur that when one is free within, it doesn’t matter if others beat you up, throw you in jail, send you to a psych ward, kick you off their land, or kill you. And you would likely not be participating in this type of dialog, and one would not have to bother sending back the birth certificate. But if one is still perceiving or speaking of “rights”, they are only applicable/enforce in the context of a civil society. For those who are inclined to throw away the courts of law as a means of protecting their rights, I always say: careful what you ask for.

      • Peter you seem to be a victim of the Stockholm syndrome. Your masters the State have you – the slave – so indoctrinated that you defend them.

      • Peter

        Your prerogative to see it that way.
        I do believe I see your perspective, and I believe you and I have more in common in our perspectives than you realize. I realize that my perception may not be completely holistic, and am forever endeavoring to make it more so. As such, if there is a particular comment, phrase, or element of perception which seems nonsensical to you, I would really appreciate engaging in constructive dialog, rather than engaging in categorizing and dismissing each other.
        That you suggest I am a slave, or that “the state” has me speaks to a gross disconnect between who I am and how I see things, and how you see me.

      • rainhard pitschke

        I’m concerned about your sanity peter….but you’re not alone…most people do think like you. “There is no obligation to participate in the court process.” Michael chooses to waste his life in court and ruin himself? He does so because he is dragged kicking and screaming! Civil court is exactly what I am recommending everyone does. The birth certificate is THEIR jurisdiction…the maritime/admiralty court’s. On land we have our own courts and they would never prevent a farmer from selling good milk. I sincerely hope you (and all good people here) will digest the basic true history being revealed finally by people like Santos in this 5 part lecture.
        He explains what I just posted to the ‘attorney’ called ‘Karen’.

  5. Richard when you said “No one can win in court. It’s too late. ”

    You have hit the nail on the head and 99% of the discussions here are merely people flapping their gums with nothing of consequence coming out.
    They system is broke – and trying to frame your stagey and arguments within it’s boundaries borders on insanity.

    • BC Food Security

      I personally would never have the fortitude to go to court or endure what Michael has endured. I would probably have changed careers or moved to a friendlier country rather than try to change the system in Canada.
      That being said Joe I am not sure that you understand the Publicity/Marketing and Media side of it ? Michael is a “Master Showman” . So these “boxing matches and arguments” with the government while important are sometimes a sideshow to get the public engaged , involved and educated . This is both an art and a science. I am grateful that Michael has turned his adventures into an experience we can all share in and grow from . Although i would prefer he not have to take any more “body blows” from the government just to keep a small and simple herdshare going for his few hundred coop members in Ontario . Getting back to my original point , you never know when all these different “sideshows” , marketing campaigns , blogs, concerts, rallies ,articles, talks and more will trigger the “hundredth monkey ” effect and create such a huge public groundswell that forces the government to wake up. It takes indomitable faith to stick with it til the end. Michael obviously has a rock hard conviction in the vision and goodness of what he is trying to do. Since most people never stick with a cause like this and make such life long sacrifices they understandably may not understand what he is doing most of the time. As much of it is illogical in real time i.e the hunger strike or refusing to pay the fine even if some wealthy person volunteers to pay it etc.

    • rainhard pitschke

      Oh! Another lawyer. When this liar sits in that sterile ‘boardroom’, waving his hand magnaminously with such reasonable dignity and even a straght face, what is he doing? His job. He is an attorney. His job is to ‘turn over’ flesh and blood people and turn them into words on pieces of paper so the judge can act exactly like a medieval ‘inquisitor’ and have the man’s skin….pro-se-cute. A disgusting game and lawyers swear an oath to be the pimps. He celebrates the ‘spirit’ of the man who gave everything to this lousy pile of words. You will all be dragged into a real court soon. The court of the heart. There you will convict yourselves, just like you get people to do in yours. You have hidden the truth. You are all the trustees and exectuors of the estate. The real man shows up as the benefiary…and you ‘turn him over’ into another trustee….your employee. Your only hope is to repent and deny your oath…yuk, yuk!
      BTW…how’s the fight for ‘rights’ going for victims of the G20?

      • rainhard pitschke

        Nothing on your ‘buddies in bondage’ website about G20 victims. Only niggly little cases about ‘freedom of expression’, rights of ‘trans-genders’, etc. This milk thing is safe too. None of you have the balls or ovaries to join with the people in real defense. Commonlaw defense. None of you are allowed to expose the scam of the ‘Crown’….because you’d be killed. And you are cowards!

  6. BC Food Security
    I am a very myopic person I guess and I tend to minimize other approaches.

    I do appreciate all of your other opinions though.

    My principles are all that I have. Principles are all that any man really has.
    What more than our word can we stand on when the day is done? Others waffle on many things. I try not too.

    • BC Food Security

      Joe : If my “showman” analogy makes sense then you understand why I don’t find Peter’s approach to things i.e endlessly dicing up and splicing up little pieces of the court room experience and later media scrums to see if they were “logical” enough to be of much value in the big picture . Definitely it has some limited value when weighing and choosing words in the court room . For me the more interesting and important thing is to see the public getting engaged and involved since we all agree that the bureaucracy in this case is too stale for any kind of innovative thinking by itself and will only modify itself if it is forced to change. Of course this takes some kind of faith as well. You have to believe or hope that it might be possible in the first place or why even bother ?

      • Peter

        I appreciate your “showman” analogy. I think you have hit the nail on the head. In deed, logic is not the name of the game. And I concur that Michael has a pile of courage to do what he does. No doubt about it. Claiming that there is no justice, that we are losing our rights, or what have you, void of logic, just part of the showmanship, are a play on the general discontent of people, and thus is perpetuating and feeding the all pervasive victim mentality.
        Let us not cry that there is no justice, for we admit that we proceed without logic. My general concern about your comment regarding the big picture is: who’s big picture? Yours, mine, or Michael’s? Which one do we employ/prop up as being “right”? Please understand that, by nature, there is no right or wrong. They are simply a construct of the mind. Everything simply is, and we can construct whatever we like. Question is whether you agree or not. And if you don’t agree, do we impose it on each other… like regulations…

    • Peter

      I would like to suggest that, if you are able to entertain a broader perspective, inclusive of other principles, winning in court is by no means impossible.
      It is my impression that your myopic perspective has you in a perspective, and does not allow you to try to see “my” perspective, or “their” perspective, or another perspective. I have no suggestions… only expressing my observation… Not a judgement.

  7. BC Food Security

    Peter : Do you drink raw milk regularly ? Have you ever tried raw milk ?

  8. BC Food Security

    Yes I sometimes drive to the US border to legally obtain it. It is a rare luxury for those able to obtain it in Canada .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s