From Michael Schmidt:
Let me begin with the statement that many disputed facts with regard to the mysterious sheep-napping case are in front of the court and cannot be revealed according to some RULES.
Let me state as well that it appears as if the prosecution seems to know the rules but likes to enforce them only when the accused appears to have abused them and disregards the rules whenever they see fit.
But all of this seems to be part of a society dominated by complacency and conformity.
Let’s explore the many mysteries, which surround the incredible saga of the lost sheep.
Mystery number one
Did Montana’s Shropshire sheep have scrapie in the first place??
In a democratic society one should expect that a government agency first should be required to provide proof “beyond reasonable doubt” of the existence of disease, before eradicating a herd of heritage sheep.
What makes this case very suspicious in the first place is the refusal of the CFIA to consent to a transparent and complete review of the tests and the willingness to have an independent review or independent tests done.
Even before the disclosure revealed the shocking failures with regards to demonstrating due diligence on behalf of the CFIA, the lack of proper oversight of the CFIA and it’s powers warrants a complete review and change in its governance by Parliament.
NO, there was no conclusive proof establishing the fact that Montanas sheep had scrapie.
Mystery number two.
Who is Patrick Lyster?
Scrapie was found on his farm in Alberta, which apparently is a farm where a lot of sheep come and go.
Patrick Lyster is a key person for several reasons:
1. He took the critical samples without CFIA oversight from several deceased sheep, stored them in a freezer and labelled them.
2. Years ago apparently he had confessed in private conversations, that he thought the scrapie sheep was a ram from the US.
3. As the press or Internet blogs report about this case, he and his partner write very long and revealing comments, some of them very aggressive. Why is he so defensive? Is he hiding something? Is he under pressure from the CFIA?
Mystery number three
Why is the CFIA acting so strange?
1. By trying to “legally” and against the wishes of the defendants remove their lawyers.
2. Why did they subpoena Montana’s Lawyer as a witness?
3. Why are they applying for a publication ban, when normally the ban is only requested by the defense in order to protect the accused? None of the accused are afraid of publicity or an unfair trial. In fact, the public needs to know everything surrounding this case in order to be able to demand accountability from Government agencies.
4. Why are they not forthcoming with the disclosure requested already two years ago?
Mystery number four
Internationally the CFIA’s mandate is to makes sure that all trade requirements with regards to reporting disease status like BSE or avian flu are met.
1. Why does the CFIA display such incompetence in our and in so many other previous cases?
2. Knowing the above, why are they aggressively prosecuting those who question their authority instead of reviewing their own procedures and protocols?
3. According to some sources the USDA demanded answers from the CFIA with regards to the obvious mishandling of this sheep case. Why???? Has this been all along a trade issue?
4. Why are the accused charged with conspiracy and yet those who apparently covered up, misled and intentionally altered procedures required under their own protocols still committing fraud. It is hard to predict where this is going?
The biggest mystery however is:
Why is the CFIA so obsessed that it risks it’s already tarnished reputation by continuing the legal harassment with little chance of success, but big chances that all their failures will be gradually exposed?
May be their lawyer does not know the difference between sheep or cows. He certainly is milking the taxpayer with great satisfaction. One actually could indeed ask whether their lawyer is in fact defrauding the public.
One Mystery solved!!!!!
The publication ban is necessary in order to prevent the public from knowing that they are getting fleeced.
Editor’s comment: Last we heard this case was in preliminary hearings. Then came news of the publication ban. Now we don’t know whether preliminary hearings are still proceeding in secret or whether they have concluded. We don’t know if there was a legal challenge to the publication ban, or what the decision was, regarding that. We also don’t know when the hearing of the actual case will commence and whether or not that will be made secret by the publication ban that was made during the preliminary hearing, or whether it will be rendered secret by a future publication ban. In fact all this talk of a publication ban is purely second hand. We’ve seen no official communication regarding publication bans on this case.