Wondering what happened in court out there in B.C. last week, with Fraser Health accusing Michael Schmidt and Gordon Watson of contempt of court? Well, the author of the Bank of Common Sense blog has been public spirited enough to write it all up and post the story, so we can all follow along:
“Why is raw milk such a contentious issue? I’ve gone through the big picture regarding raw milk in the previous link. But considering in British Columbia this affects a few hundred people, it seems that it’s out of line to spend over $200,000 in court fees.
I just spent a few days watching a court proceeding in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
The case is for contempt of court – Fraser Health Authority vs. Home on the Range[i]. The matter is so confusing, I’m not even sure if the correct people are in court. As a disclaimer, due to the testimony and cross-examination, sometimes I’m just not sure what the facts are. I’ve attempted to be as accurate as possible, but there might be some mistakes. And this post may be long and boring. As always, summary at the bottom.
Story in chronological order:
- A cow share is a private venture with members purchasing a share in a cow and paying someone weekly to take care of the cow. The dividends of the share – milk, yogurt, cheese – were distributed as a dividend.
- In June, 2008 – the cow share, which was called “Home on the Range” was inspected and found to be producing raw milk for human consumption.[ii]
- There were tests done that showed that the raw milk had excessive bacteria content. Considering that there have been no incidents reported from the members, there is a high probability that the tests were done incorrectly…”[iii]