Michael Schmidt on the many mysteries of the Montana Jones and CFIA sheep-napping case now before the courts

From Michael Schmidt:

Patrick Lyster — part of the mystery? Photo from his website.

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.


Filed under News

4 responses to “Michael Schmidt on the many mysteries of the Montana Jones and CFIA sheep-napping case now before the courts

  1. thetinfoilhatsociety

    I read a lot on Tudor history, and on James, who followed them. I am beginning to feel as though our world is returning to the general ethos of those times.

  2. Level Headed

    If the CFIA is held accountable for it’s foolishness it will set a precedent for in all other episodes of their foolishness. Of course they should be accountable for their own recklessness, but will the courts agree?

  3. Re: Patric Lyster

    Being a sheep producer myself, and as such, from what I know of the protocol for being on the VOLUNTARY Scrapie Program, the producer is designated to either freeze the heads of any sheep over 1 yr of age that die,or they have to sacrifice 1 for the program annually. That, or they get training, which I understand Mr. Lyster did have, and are able to remove the obex themselves, then freeze it. A sheep head is very large to put in the freezer, and takes up a lot of room, whereas the obex is much smaller.

    Based on the science available to us and what is known about scrapie and scrapie transmission, that the most likely source in this particular case, because the ewe was already 14 months old when purchased, was her birth farm. The second positive on Montana’s farm (WHE 15S) is highly suggestive as to birth cohorts, since that ewe was born only 8 days apart from WHE 24S.

    All of the accusations that have been made
    – that Lyster botched the obex sample, that he misidentified the sheep (there was never any question about the identification of the sheep, tattooed WHE 24S by Montana herself),
    – that there was some kind of wrongdoing when the sample was sent in without the ear tag (the ear tag was meant to stay with the carcass, not be submitted with the sample)
    are pure speculation, not based in fact in any way.

    I have seen their posts, and they were just defending themselves from incorrect information and half truths posted by Montana. The WHOLE TRUTH should be told, not just what puts Montana in a good light, helps her gain sympathy to generate more donations and blames Mr. Lyster for her inability to accept that 2 sheep of hers had Scrapie and the Worldwide mandate is eradication.

    Fact is, due to the heritage breed, Montana was given 2 yrs to purchase an RR Ram and KEEP all offspring to replace the QQ animals that would be destroyed. This would have preserved her genetic lines. She outright refused and IMO brought all this misery on herself. Most producers that have a positive case, have all susceptible genotypes eradicated immediately.

    The compensation is very generous. She was offered $825 per unregistered animal and producers can get up to $1200 per registered sheep.
    As per: http://www.scrapiecanada.ca/government.html

    Unfortunately she had not registered any animals for 5 yrs prior to this incident. Which, to me, preserves nothing and weakens my belief that she was preserving the bloodlines much herself.

  4. Jim Shebib

    Confused the Food and Drug Regulations says that samples have to be divided into three portions, how do they do this with sheep?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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