Silence of the lambs

From Michael Schmidt:

Lambs to the slaughter.

Seeing the coverage of the latest CFIA killing spree to enforce the genetic cleansing policy by our bureaucrats supported by countless OPP “peace officers” painfully reminded me of the many documentaries about Nazi Germany and all those who “just did their job”.

As I more and more hear this excuse by police or bureaucrats I wonder how much have we learned from the past.

Canada and it’s law enforcers keep bragging about their important role in keeping this country safe and how they are protecting us from ourselves, because they know better.

Watching documentaries about Germany’s slide into the darkest period of history is indeed revealing because of so many similar expressions, and explanations why drastic Government actions are necessary.

We indeed have reached in North America a level of a sophisticated dictatorship which artfully creates the illusion of freedom and at the same time breeds exactly the kind of law enforcers, who just do their job and are very proud to do whatever it takes to demonstrate power; because they can.

David Eagelson, head investigator into the disappearance of the Shropshire sheep, has already skillfully demonstrated his skills eerily resembling interrogation tactics of Nazi Germany.

On the one hand, he comes across as smooth and over friendly, the next minute threatening  everyone with dire consequences unless they confess voluntarily.

He has an army of investigators at his fingertips, calls as many OPP and local police as back up as he wishes and bulldozes into farms and homes because of his apparent calling to protect the current status quo — a cosmetically refined and improved dictatorship with not only  one dictator but many bureaucrats, who are sensing the gratification of control and power.

Dialogue is not an option for them. Dialogue might indicate weakness and might threaten their authority.

It is far better in their eyes to spend millions of dollars in an investigation to find those members of the FARMERS PEACE CORP than to engage into a proper dialogue with Montana Jones as to how to save rare genetics.

I am just waiting to hear from them saying, “we do no negotiate with terrorists”. Anybody who questions regulations based on economic policies might fall into this category.

Where do we go from here?

Montana Jones is on the verge of losing her farm due to the ongoing hardship imposed on her. The easiest way to get rid of her and her feisty nature to fight for her sheep is to bankrupt her, take the sheep away, pay no compensation and keep killing more sheep and lambs, but only a few at a time, to increase the pain and to demonstrate to her that questioning the authority of the CFIA is not acceptable and falls into the same category as questioning the legitimacy of the SS in Germany. If you do you are doomed.

Never ever should we as society tolerate this development.

It is a growing nightmare coming true. We are never safe when we sleep, and trust that somebody will protect us.

What is the worst scenario we have to live with in the Shropshire case?

If no charges are coming.

If they just opt to scare, threaten and raid people without being accountable in the court of law.

What is the best case scenario?

If they charge Montana Jones and me and a few others accusing us of conspiracy to commit an offense.

I just got off the phone with another high ranking lawyer who followed the Shropshire saga wanting to take on this case. He is not the first one who has called me.  Yes there are lawyers who do understand the fragile state we are in. One of them is the ever critical constitutional lawyer Karen Selick, standing on guard for Canada and it’s few remaining liberties. She is one of the brave lawyers of the Canadian Constitution Foundation. She has become a true farmer’s friend. Thank you Karen for standing by and helping Montana.

Between the worst and the best case scenario there is another option, which can be always and anytime engaged without cost and pain.


If this dialogue is not happening then going to court is a necessary process to expose in minute details the outrageous actions of agencies out of control.

None of those who are facing potential charges in the Shropshire saga are afraid to face the courts because the courts at least provide the stage for accountability. Here it will become public record how bureaucrats, or dictocrats have been abusing their positions.

I cannot wait for another courtroom drama to help expose what state we are in.

The silence of the lambs demand a public outcry, so that politicians begin to listen.

See you at LIVESTOCK A CALL TO FARMS this Sunday.



Filed under News

23 responses to “Silence of the lambs

  1. Gary

    Thanks for sharing your direct experience Michael. When I saw the Berlin Wall in Dec 1985, I felt a deep sense of gratitude for the freedoms I had experienced during the first 25 years of my life here in Canada. In a word, East Berlin felt icky, and that is how my Canada feels now in 2012. I am taking action. If not me, then who, if not now, then when? See you at LifeStock.

  2. nedlud

    Thank you, Michael.

    Btw: There is a cattlecar with your name on it.

    We are in much worse shape now, than ever it was with Nazi Germany circa 1936, or East Germany, circa 1961, or Stalinist Russia, whenever it was the great magnificent Stalin decided to go on a ‘cleansing’ (ie., killing) spree. This is due to two things, people’s attitude toward government authority (their dependence on it, especially in America) and to the technology that government now possesses to implement and sustain, its -uhhh- policies.

    So this is what I keep telling people.

    What is yet to come, will be God-awful (times a few billion, if you like to count lives wasted, and trillions upon trillions upon trillions if you like to count dollars and cents).


    Tell me the German word for ‘insane’.

    We are there and yet, not there, not even close. Scary deluded and willfully obedient (to government) people abound.

    I fully believe it will get worse.

    Much worse.


  3. Callaghan Grant

    Well said, Michael! It appears the CFIA is festering with socciopaths. I’d like to see this all go to court so they are held accountable and end their careers in jail. In fact I wonder why you famers don’t start a class action suit against both the CFIA and the agents personally for CONSPIRACY TO DENY CIVIL RIGHTS. It’s a felony in the US. I hope it is in Canda as well.

  4. The Ontario Family Farms organization will be support Montana Jones on September 30.

  5. ok… I like the article but it Needs spell checked, and some grammar fixes… because when people read it, as it is, its going to effect the credibility…. I wont share it as it is, because I’m afraid of making the movement ‘look bad’. things Must be Professional in this arena and Not look as tho a 2nd grader wrote them… its hard enough already to get people to take this stuff seriously…. >.<

    • thebovine

      What you were reading was rather the unedited English of a man who is not a native English speaker, which we posted in a hurry. It’s now edited and should read more smoothly. Thanks.

    • BC Food Security

      Thank you Kissindra . You are 100% correct. The other side of the coin If you look at Montana Jones flyers and posters (for Lifestock) and website you see that everything is so colourful , beautiful and well laid out. The artwork and photography is excellent as well. The result is that her event increases the enthusiasm of people far and wide to participate. The cause IS important but honouring the participants with a professional impression completes the circle.

      • Reread and shared! Its just the knowing how much everyday people want to blow this movement off with very little excuse… Its a ‘close to home’ thing for Me as well. The government here in the States, WA. State to be specific, has been wetting its feet with a Q-Fever scare and seeing if they couldnt get rid of people and shut farms down that way. My Mother owns a small Raw Dairy. But she fought them and they backed down. But I bet ya, it wont be the last time… they too used False Positive testing to try and scare, and do, what ever they wanted. But my Mothers no push-over. So I Do make sure to read everything here and keep up and share it with Her and Publicly via my page and her dairy page… ThankYou for editing this article so I could share it!!!! 😀

  6. This brings to mind the famous experiment of Stanley Milgram on “Obedience to Authority”. Any readers who are not familiar with it can read a summary on Wikipedia, here:

    In essence, the experiment showed that a shockingly high percentage of the population is willing to follow orders given by authority figures, even when they are being instructed to take actions that are morally indefensible.

  7. rainhard

    well said! See you there.

  8. They do pay compensation for the destroyed sheep. Check with Ontario Sheep at

  9. To Clare45: The ability to pay compensation under the “Health of Animals Act” (the federal statute governing this situation) is COMPLETELY at the discretion of the government. They are not required to pay, and have paid Montana Jones nothing whatsoever.

    Their current excuse as to why they have not paid is that Montana is under investigation for possible complicity in having made the 31 sheep disappear in April, 2012. However, the CFIA had already killed 10 of her sheep prior to the disappearance of the 31, and they have not paid her a penny for any of those ten either.

    The government is under no legal obligation to pay compensation. If Montana sued for compensation, she would lose. This is a completely immoral law, in my view, but it is the law that our esteemed politicians chose to enact. It has been in place for many years.

    Canadians do not have property rights. When the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was introduced by Pierre Trudeau back in the late 1970s, the first draft did contain property rights. It was the provincial premiers of most provinces who wanted property rights removed from the Charter. I think the premiers of BC and Manitoba were the only ones who would have accepted a property rights clause.

    • Callaghan Grant

      So you’re all serfs. I think something great could come out of this if the Candian people will grow some gumption. You need a new bill of rights and they need to be acknowledged as “inalienable” and given you by God who created all of this and all of us. I say this not for religious reasons but because what the king.queen gives you can be taken away by the same. What God gives, no governmental power has the right to remove.

    • Peter

      If we don’t have property rights, then we don’t have the right to our labor. If we don’t have the right to our labor, then we can’t also say we are free. As such, the right to labor is inherent to the right to liberty. If the charter recognizes our right to liberty, provision at law must be had for the right to property. Is it possible that there is a distinction about what property we have a right to own (i.e. labor), other property that is owned by the state, for which we can obtain the privilege to use (i.e. automobile)?
      I’m not saying sheep are or are not the property of the state. However, I see a contradiction between the right to liberty (as per the charter/bill of rights) and the statement that we simply don’t have (any?) property rights.

      • Callaghan Grant

        I am with you, Peter. It would make all of this redeemed if this caused Canadians to stand up and assert their property rights. Montana had the liberty to breed the sheep, to spend time and effort and money that all belonged to her to raise those sheep and the the government can just come and usurp ownership of that liberty and those resources that SHE invested in those sheep — to say NOTHING of the FACT that the rare genetics she is preserving are the property of the Candian people as well. The trees in Canada belong to the people. The minerals belong to the people. The salmon swimming up your rivers belong to the people. NOTHING BELONGS TO THE GOVERNMENT WHICH IS A FICITITOUS ENTITY GIVEN *ALL* OF ITS POWERS BY THE PEOPLE OF CANADA. Time to take their names and kick some bureaucratic asses.

  10. Peter: You make a valid point. Unfortunately, it is one that the judges in the Supreme Court of Canada didn’t grasp back in the 1980s when Charter jurisprudence was being made. These days, that contradiction is entrenched in our law, and when I go to court and make the kind of argument you made above, they look at me as though I came from Mars.

    • Peter

      He/she who destroys the means destroys the end. If there be no provision for any property rights (our body and labor being first and foremost), then they have destroyed the means to liberty. Perhaps there is another element at play. I argue that ownership entails responsibility, and that responsibility requires thinking. As such, freedom exists only to those who exhibit the ability to think. It appears the system regards everyone as being “not thinking”, and thus the burden falls upon the “free” individual to prove that he/she is free / responsible (strict liability?). As such, perhaps the right to liberty and freedom are in deed tied to our mental capacity. It has been my experience that most people are so heavily guided by their emotions (perceive with a subjective need to be right paradigm – perceive things through a political lens) that they fail the test to think objectively (consistency in thought / principle, regardless of self/ego preservation). IMO, the all prevalent victim mentality is a strong, if not sure sign of a strong subjective influence.
      Anyway, perhaps our civil liberties and property rights are not there because we exist, but depends on our ability to think. Case and point: 10 year old children don’t have property rights, or the right to liberty. They are subjects until they can demonstrate sufficient mental capacity (i.e. traditionally presumed at 18 years old?).
      Anyway, my 2 cents worth.

      • miro

        Interesting thought Peter, I am not sure I fully grasp it. It seems a little abstract for me to fully grasp it, as yet. You seem to be approaching the subject of law from the underlying ideas behind law. Which I agree is the exact approach that is needed to understand law and apply law, or can I even say create law or be lawful.

        It seems to me that most of our more recent societal approach to law is more like a game of S.O.S. Looking at what has been written and seeing where there is room for more to write, with there being little chance of finding space to write where it has already been written. I suspect we are getting to the edge of the paper by now.

        Is it really based on thinking? or capacity? or competence? and what is the difference between them? And then, such things seem to be related to ideas of commonality for purposes of reasonability which seems to involve notions of demonstatability. So one may indeed have capacity and competence in a field of knowledge, yet be absent of the demonstrative to support an argument before the common. Like it may well be possible that an individual may understand the realm of health and medicine, yet, without them being approved by others who are deemed competant in the field of knowledge, before the common it is deemed uncertain. I guess this is the role that corroboration, or backing, plays to reason itself. And brings to mind the value of certainty, or apparent certainty, in the overall scheme of legal perspective.

        Property law and rights seems to have gone from being about a thing to being about an idea, or from a noun to a verb. Essentially we are arriving at the point where one may be garnered the right of ownership, and that may mean having virtually no right to use, as the use is a domain that has been garnered to others or granted claim by others. So that with the granting of a thing one must also seek the granting of use through the show of competant capacity corroborated by others that have so laid claim to such or similar competant capacity in the particular field of knowledge, and where others have corroborated to such a measure are also then responsible for the misuse (conflicts in the realm of ideas and their rights) of such property. So it may be argued, for instance, that a corroborating institution like the college of medicine could in fact be liable for the incompetence of a medical doctor. Of course , they specifically will have put forth such a clause in their legislation that would in fact exclude them from such an argument, it is non the less reassonable as it is exactly the corroboration of competent capacity that is their reason for existance. .

        So, ownership implies responsibility which implies competent capacity that requires a coraborative mechanism to develop a greater apparent potential of certainty in a field of knowledge..

      • Peter

        Really like your train of thought. Hadn’t thought that much about the element of corroboration. I will chew on that for a while. Thank you.
        As for property rights going from being an thing to an idea I believe is merely a change in perspective or appreciation. I will state in the affirmative that rights are themselves merely an idea, and always have been. They are essential for civil conduct, or the administration of what is (perceptually) fair; judgement of what is right and wrong (which is impossible, but we try…). In the end, rights are only as good as our ability to defend them. I believe the Supreme Court of Canada stated that a right is a claim recognized by law. A claim is a mental position. As an example, if one was to say “I own this tree”, what would his/her friends or neighbors have to say about that? And the question I like best is: What does the tree, or nature have to say about that? I would suggest that the tree’s answer would be “I am as I am, that I am”. That one thinks he owns something is ultimately an illusion / a fiction / a construct of the mind. Where responsibility is a product of ownership, it too can thus be seen as merely a mental position, and thus an illusion.
        But back to the court room and their administration of right and wrong, one can witness a Justice’s testing the comprehension / competance of an accused when he/she is waiving his/her right to a trial. Very interesting (and, on the surface, not interesting at all 🙂 Anyway, more food for thought…

  11. Norm Boisvert

    is the Universal Declaration of Human Right a channel to try and get something going?
    can this over rule our charter?
    i live in Northern Ontario my property(farm) is Federal and going through the courts just on ownership bases, i have to prove to a judge a own the property. the deed is mine free and clear it’s payed for .The municipality of Iroquois Falls whant to take my property by using municipal act, crown reservation. the municipal act does nothing to protect it’s people it’s a rule book for towns to do what ever it wants. Sorry for the rant . this is not freedom we are slaves to the corperations. Michael i’m with you what you do on your property,animals,money as long as no one gets hurt IT’ YOUR RIGHT.

    • Peter

      The UN Declaration of Human Rights is not binding. It is merely a declaration. It is basically just an articulation, or explicit recognition of human rights. But human rights are not derived from such documents, nor is it derived from the Charter. Human rights are not given to you. They simply are.

  12. Pingback: I AM LAMB 1413. Now What Do I Do? « Written in Blood

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