Happier days for the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund: Three years ago, Wisconsin farmer Vernon Hershberger stands with his wife outside the Baraboo courthouse, flanked by four jurors who helped acquit him of serious misdemeanor charges.
In a bittersweet anniversary, it’s three years ago this week that the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund scored its biggest win since launching in mid-2007: Its local trial lawyer led a legal team that convinced a Wisconsin jury to acquit farmer Vernon Hershberger of serious misdemeanor charges associated with selling raw milk and other food privately.
The case had far-reaching implications, convincing regulators in Wisconsin and many other states to back off of efforts to crack down on farmers for selling raw milk via food clubs, herdshares, and other private arrangements. There have been only a few other cases since, such as in Minnesota.
But, a couple months ago, the hostile private-food legal winds began blowing again, this time toward Pennsylvania farmer Amos Miller, as chronicled extensively on this blog. He has been warned and threatened by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Justice Department that he likely faces significant legal and regulatory actions to interfere with his sales of food to many hundreds of members of his private membership organization.
People close to the Hershberger case are remembering, yet again, the tension and anxiety that preceded his jury’s verdict. In a post on Facebook earlier this week, food rights activist Liz Reitzig recalled a late-night prayer vigil in the Baraboo, WI, courthouse just before the acquittals came down, at the start of Memorial Day weekend, 2013.
A number of the jurors in the Hershberger case were so moved by the events at the trial that they joined Hershberger’s food club (see photo above). And they are amazed at the similarities with the emerging legalities against Amos Miller. “Reading about Amos Miller’s predicament sure brought back memories of Vernon’s trial!” one juror wrote me recently. Hershberger himself has been providing support and guidance to Miller.
But where the FTCLDF was front and center with Hershberger three years ago, it seems now to care little about Amos Miller. Why? Perhaps because it is now pre-occupied with internal change. A few months ago, its president, Pete Kennedy, turned over the leadership to another veteran organization lawyer, Elizabeth Rich. And then, in just the last few days, another long-time FTCLDF lawyer, Gary Cox, announced to clients that he is departing the organization in July; an accompanying letter from Elizabeth Rich suggested the problems were at least partly financial, that FTCLDF could no longer afford Cox. The organization also has a relatively new executive director, John Moody.
In all the personnel shuffling, FTCLDF has failed to provide a single mention about the Amos Miller case, on either its web site or its Facebook page. When I asked Moody about why, he said, “No one has ignored this, it is merely a complicated situation that involves the attorneys discussing things and trying to get additional facts straight from Amos or others.”
As I said, things have shifted at FTCLDF. During the days of the Hershberger legal shenanigans, it linked to my blog and provided its own analyses about the complicated legal twists and turns in that case. Now, three years later, FTCLDF seems to have become a cautious, nervous organization as it publicly pretends that a farmer under the regulatory gun doesn’t even exist.
Nervous about what? Perhaps about finances. Or perhaps because the Hershberger case, together with a case in Minnesota on behalf of Alvin Schlangen, were pretty much its only significant court victories. Both those cases were handled by local trial lawyers. Over its nine years of existence, its main trial lawyer, Gary Cox, lost nearly all the big cases FTCLDF took on, from the Meadowsweet Dairy case involving farmers Barb and Steve Smith in New York to the Morningland Dairy cheese case in Missouri to the Farmer Dan Brown food sovereignty case in Maine to the federal challenge to the interstate ban on raw milk sales.
So I’m not sure where FTCLDF is headed, what its strategy is for resurrecting itself. I do know that its simple presence has been important in letting regulators know they could no longer run roughshod over small farmers and food producers.
Fortunately for Amos Miller, the legal landscape has shifted for producers of privately-distributed food, and he has other serious political and legal sources of support. And he has that support in significant measure because of the pioneering path plowed by the FTCLDF.
Interesting article, David. What’s the point? Should we support F2C? You seem to be making a case against. Is there another organization that does what F2C does? Or should we push for changes and, if so, what?
Good Qs, Sally. I think FTCLDF is at a crossroads of sorts. I was mainly pointing out the troublesome direction it’s taken since the high point three years ago. But the jury is out, as it were. I am not real hopeful, given its day-to-day leadership and its decision to withhold public support from Amos Miller. FTCLDF has never, in its nine years, let a persecuted farmer twist in the wind this way. Yet sometimes, a personnel housecleaning can help re-start an organization, make it mindful of its original mission, and help it return to its roots. As for supporting the organization, I think that’s up to each individual. I am remaining on the sidelines for now.
Well, at least throughout the history of FTCLDF it’s own players have been well remunerated, and that’s made it a raging success — up to now, as Gary Cox so dramatically punctuated. It’s pay to play, and where is the financial support for FTCLDF to boost attorneys up to speed on the Miller case? It’s going to be a big one with interstate issues to boot. And there’s the whole can of worms surrounding a death this time – this won’t be Junior Varsity stuff, you know. That’s a lot of pricey attorney time to invest in this thing. Amos Miller hasn’t nearly the assets to satisfy that sort of legal cost. Lack of donations and fund raisers proves the Miller case isn’t considered important enough for FTCLDF to work on. Instead of bawling out FTCLDF, David, you should be heading up fund raising to get the ball rolling on this. You know, better than most, that John Moody is a practical capitalist at heart. He knows there can be no such thing as a free lunch and he will manage FTCLDF accordingly. Save all your lecturing and philosophizing for the freewheeling followers who don’t have a nickel invested. You need to come through with coin if you want your tune played on the Wurlitzer.
I hope they straighten it out, whatever the issues are. Or i will pull support as its something i barely can afford, yet fund monthly. I love Pete Kennedy and all the good work he’s done for us in Palm Beach County.
I know the big cases are important as it all trickles down to us sooner or later- the outcomes. But, for me and what happened here (county was trying to abolish livestock ownership in essence by ordinance – no breeding stock allowed, selling limits per year, limits on number of animals, ACC to be involved livestock, fencing and building permit over reach, limiting uses on where we could have them on property, i.e.. 50 ft. from property lines when we only live on 1.3 acres and so on). Pete with FTCLD, was here in a heartbeat, and his presence, I believe, helped stop the assault.
The little things that they are doing are also part of the bigger picture. I have a great deal of solace regarding ‘they are here, when we need them’, If that changes us little people have nothing left that bolsters us.
If a change in leadership means a change in priorities then we need to know.
I had not been aware of these changes that have been happening with the defense team. I too feel it is very crucial that they stay available in whatever shape or form works best. Changes, even though they are challenging at times don’t always mean that the person or group is on the way out.
Although the FCLDF lawyers so far have not been like some others that I have met. By that I mean they are not the cut throat type that live in glass office buildings and are in it for the money! They are a group of people that believe in the cause and also believe in us! They have been there for a lot of us even if it meant working for mere pennies per hour.
It was mentioned about the many loses they have had. I strongly feel that a big reason for this is that we the people are not willing to stand up and be counted! We are too concerned about our own reputation or the other material and physical things that we like to hang on to. If it is really Truth that we are standing for let us be willing to stand up no matter what the cost and not depend so much on the lawyers, they are people too just like we are and have lives to live too. If it had not been for the hundreds of our members and other supporters that showed up at the hearings and at the trial our win wouldn’t be nearly as big. Imagine this! 1:00am Saturday morning after a week long trial the jury comes back with the verdict and there are still 100 people standing with us in the courtroom! ! Vernon Hershberger Wis.
These changes occuring may be very good. The parties mentioned who are leaving often gave counsel that was not sound. i personally experienced this when Mr. Cox advised our farmer to fold under pressure from Federal Govt. thankfully our farmers did not give up the fight and he succeeded in a most glorious way thanks to his courage and the intervention of our constitutional share of Bradley Rogers. Elizabeth Rich and John Moody are excellent leaders and have demonstrated courage and tenacity in battling for food rights.John Moody is known for involving himself in the government and employing his efforts to get laws changed. I look forward to what will come from this organization under the new management.
John Moody appeared on two of Tom Wood’s podcasts. These may be interesting to your readers.
http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-628-the-war-on-food-and-drink-freedom-and-one-group-thats-fighting-back/
http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-656-how-the-wholesome-meat-act-gives-us-less-wholesome-meat/
Since we are celebrating Vernon’s victory three years ago and puzzled why FTCLDF is seemingly leaving Amos in the lurch, let’s celebrate an unsung heroine who has been RIGHT THERE making things happen for farmers and raw milk.
While FTCLDF was inside the courthouse, Liz Reitzig basically did everything outside of the courthouse for Vernon.
This lovely and very lively community activist gathered the troops (to fill the courtrooms), fed us all real food each day and put together a great evening program featuring other real food luminaries like Joel Salatin, David, Mark Baker and Mark McAfee.
She stood by Vernon then, and guess who is standing by Amos Miller now? You got it.
Liz, I know you follow David’s blog. If you want to have a KICKASS FUNraiser for Amos, count me in, and I’ll come and help give camel rides.
Thank you for the way your love and passion play in the world. You’ve done a world of good for our raw milk farmers.
How about we create a Liz Reitzig-Not-On-The-Fence-Fund! You game?
Here’s Liz turning the tables and feeding the farmer. Vernon looks happy
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151595853663903&set=a.10151255223398903.486287.660028902&type=3&theater
Vernon and Liz – Her eyes ablaze with passion
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151603930953903&set=a.10151255223398903.486287.660028902&type=3&theater
Joel and David – Awesomeness
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151601883448903&set=a.10151255223398903.486287.660028902&type=3&theater
Just occurred to me that Amos donated food for most of the FTCLDF Fundraisers I organized – either as barters, discounts or straight out gifts.
He also helped tremendously coordinating shipments of supplies and foods (even those donated by other farmers) across the country for the FTCLDF without compensation for his time.
It seems right and fair that the FTCLDF help him in turn. Not sure what’s up with the FTCLDF radio silence.
https://www.google.com/search?q=crickets+chirping&oq=crickets+&aqs=chrome.2.69i59l3j69i60j69i57j0.9056j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
I don’t know the facts surrounding Amos Millers case so I can’t speak to that. However, I have worked with ftclfd attorneys Pete Kennedy, Elizabeth Rich, and Gary Cox. Did they always win or make the right decisions, no. But the mission of this organization is profoundly important. Change is hard – but it can also be good – time will tell. As Vernon alluded to in his response, the huge success of his trial that David is referring to was not only the result of lawyers in the courtroom. During jury selection the question was asked “have any of you ever heard of Vernon Hershberger?” All 90 people said yes! The trial lawyer, Glenn Reynolds (backed and paid for by ftcldf) was brilliant, yes, but in my opinion, it was grassroots organization that won that case. It started with an overreaching department of Ag, a farmer with grit and integrity, and the families he fed. Vernon stood up and fought back which inspired hundreds of people to spend literally thousands of hours engaging in community activism. Vernon’s food club members and raw milk supporters in Wisconsin were joined by food rights activists from all over the country who shared their skills, leadership and notoriety. Ftcldf was there every step of the way freely giving legal advise, but they were not responsible for the major community organization effort that made winning that case possible. A couple dozen people (you know who you are) spent 3 years of their lives making that happen. So whats my point? The concept of individual food rights as a matter of law threatens the status quo for the powers that be; no matter how good lawyers are they can not win these cases unless everyday people stand up and fight back along side them. The problem is most people just don’t understand the connection between food and freedom. Its a pretty small percentage of people who even know anything about raw milk. So if the goal is to win more cases for raw milk farmers, your going to need a lot more grassroots organization. Which means you need more activists (good luck with that one) activism is high stress, results in huge personal and family sacrifice, and doesn’t pay anything. Perhaps in their reorganization ftcldf should consider finding a few more good activists and give them a paycheck; could be a wining combination!
David,
While I highly respect your investigative journalism, I find that I disagree with your assertion that “it’s three years ago this week that the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund scored its biggest win since launching in mid-2007.”
Vernon’s victory in court was most certainly a community victory. While the FTCLDF played a role, it was not solely their victory.
Since I was heavily involved in the case from practically the beginning, I got to witness first-hand the level of community support that led to a court victory that week. It is important to note the different aspects at play for the jury to come back with such a stunning not-guilty verdict on 3 of the 4 charges.
Prior to the trial, there were years of hearings on Vernon’s case. When I stepped in and began helping organize community support for the hearings, they grew to huge events widely covered by local and national news. The local coverage was especially important. By the time the jury stepped into that courthouse, just about everyone in that small community had heard of the peaceful farmer, Vernon Hershberger, including the potential jurors.
My recollections that I recently shared, the ones you mention in your blog, I wrote because, three years later, I am still deeply moved by the community support. While the attorneys were inside the courtroom, there were many of us who organized to create something that “hundreds” of people wanted to personally participate in.
Part of the reason we had so many people there was because I, and others with me, (Max, Gayle, Jenny, Michael Schmidt, Derrick–to name just a few) worked tirelessly to make sure that people understood the implications of a win or a loss in this case. (Something it appears the FTCLDF does not take seriously anymore in regards to the campaign against Amos Miller)
One of the biggest shortcomings of the FTCDLF is its failure to work well with the organizations and individuals who make things happen outside the courtroom. Victories take community, they take teamwork and they take leadership. Sadly, these are three things FTCLDF is missing, in my experience.
My following recollections written May 24, 2016 are as you mentioned David, they were about the importance of community:
Written on May 24 2016
Three years ago today we waited in the Baraboo, WI courtroom for the verdict. It was late on Friday night after a strenuous week-long trial with extensive, stressful days in the courtroom. Vernon Hershberger, a peaceful farmer, was criminally charged for feeding his community. Many children, including the farmer’s own, attended days of the trial. As we waited anxiously for the jury to return their verdict, the minutes ticked into hours and the usually serious guards began smiling and talking to the children, entertaining them as bedtimes slipped away with still no verdict. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151603961373903&set=a.10151255223398903.486287.660028902&type=3&theater
Tensions from the week of trial had melted into a feeling of community friendliness. The guards, tasked with keeping order, had witnessed something they don’t usually see at trials–families, smiles, laughter, true community–as visitors and witnesses from around the country and internationally poured into this small Wisconsin courtroom in the quaint historical town of Baraboo.
We brought out bottles of fresh, delicious, creamy milk and shared amongst those who were there. Most of us had gone without dinner so we could witness the end of the trial. We all shared what we little we had left since nothing was open in the sleepy town.
The later it got, the more we anticipated the results: guilty and all farmers in the country operating privately could be charged criminally and jailed for the simple act of providing food to their communities without a license. Not guilty: we would have a different precedent–one that allowed community members to engage directly with the peaceful farmer of their choice–and, Vernon would go home with his family that night as a free man.
Many prayed as they sat in the courtroom well into the night. Vernon’s faith ever strong, he led prayers that others eagerly joined. It would be hours still before the jury would read the “not guilty” verdict. But as we waited, we enjoyed these spectacular moments when our connectedness as humans overcame the perceived seriousness of the situation.
Later, guards smiled and laughed with us. An apology was whispered by someone responsible for the enforcement that caused the charges. The jury, finally freed from their responsibilities, found out the real details of the trial, and were compelled to meet with Vernon. Not surprisingly, many became part of his food community.
The brilliant glow of this victory, continues to show us what is possible when we proceed as community.
I do agree
Liz does know the importance of grass roots community involvement and community building. The complexity of farmers via prosecutors makes it extremely difficult for people to stay involved. The reason is the long drawn out procedural issues, however it is clear that the imminent threat to the food supply suddenly creates anxiety and activates people.
Liz is I think so much at the pulse of the dynamics that she might be more crucial in some cases than the FTCLD.
At the same time one should not underestimate the mental drain for non legally trained farmers to be attacked. Then FTCLD CAN DO LOTS OF GOOD
I agree as well. No matter how good the lawyer, a farmer is up against a biased justice system, that includes nearly all the judges. The judge in the Vernon Hershberger case would have convicted Vernon without a second thought, so clear was his bias. It was only a jury of his peers, citizens of the community in which all the organizing took place, that acquitted him so he could resume providing food to his neighbors. And organizing that community took a huge amount of behind-the-scenes hard work.
Prayer vigils and loading the courtroom are nice gestures and mostly harmless, even useful when things are going our way. But the mundane groundwork must be professionally laid by talented attorneys. And that doesn’t happen for the cost of bus fare and a dish to pass. I just think people are in la la land when they think these cases can be won with public activism alone. Especially the mess Amos Miller has landed himself in this time. This complicated case has the potential to end very, very badly for Miller and for everyone who is so publicly supporting his peculiar brand of civil disobedience, complete with ugly lab tests proving contamination and strong evidence of illness, possibly even someone died. Do we really want to stand up for that, is that really what we want people to understand is our definition of food freedom? The more discretely this Amos Miller mess can be forgotten, the better for every one of us. I think we should all be ponying up to pay FTCLDF to quietly plod through Amos Miller’s proceedings, however they work out. We need to focus our amazing grassroots activism on convincing people food freedom is a good thing and that raw milk is a good example of it, instead of trying to convince people that a dangerous fiasco like Amos Miller’s is what we are striving to have everyone’s kids exposed to. I know this straight talk will piss some people off but I believe we need to discuss this openly. The usual bosses will come back with the same old tune of all for one and one for all no matter what but that sort of jingoism really doesn’t represent what food freedom really means to most of us and what it can really mean to children of the general public if we can only push it through.
People forget that some of this same talk took place prior to the Vernon Hershberger case. Raw milk proponents who despised him for distributing milk privately, who want government regulated milk or nothing at all, whispered that his milk was contaminated, that his food club members were living dangerously by drinking his raw milk. We know that the CDC/FDA investigation into Amos Miller’s “contamination” and “strong evidence of illness” is likely fraudulent. The presence of listeria in raw milk hasn’t in more than a decade been known to cause a single illness in the U.S. We know that the “illnesses” blamed in Miller’s milk likely resulted from other conditions (advanced cancer in one of the individuals) and serious immune deficiency in the other.
The Wisconsin prosecutors introduced evidence at his trial that Hershberger was selling milk in any number of other states besides Wisconsin, as far away as Hawaii. Their suggestion: he didn’t deserve the protections of private contract sale.
Yes, just like you, any number of fair weather fans will push for “forgetting” Amos Miller, making him a sacrificial lamb. That is what the Big Ag and government apologists most want–division and cherry picking among our farmers. They tried it with Vernon Hershberger, Alvin Schlangen, and any number of others. That is the path to surrender of our basic rights as citizens, to contract for the foods of our choosing, including raw milk.
before chiding us with that “straight talk”, Maya Herndez, better get your facts straight. If you have ” … ugly lab tests proving contamination and strong evidence of illness, possibly even someone died.” = then let’s have them. So far, such documentation is conspicuous by its absence.
so far all that’s come out is anonymous accusations = par for the course the way Big Gag foments the urban myths about REAL MILK. THe nature of evidence is that it can be tested. If it can’t be tested, it isn’t evidence. Onus is on you to provide us readers of this forum the EVIDENCE upon which you base your fiery darts. If you cannot, then you’re doing the work of the Adversary … dividing very friends
@ Maya Herndez: In other words, you’re FOR food freedom/food rights if the conditions to fight for those rights are perfect, and only if those conditions are perfect. But let a little snag enter the picture and right away we should only be fighting for the people who don’t actually need it?
Where is the logic in that kind of thinking?
And if FTCLDF can help Amos Miller, they should be stepping forward with both feet to do so, right now, otherwise they should back off entirely and we should be crowdfunding for Amos to assist him in finding counsel who is actually interested in helping him and this cause. With just a little more blabbering from the FDA and the CDC about this one subject, it might just make enough headlines to get some lawyer to step forward – one who actually has principles and who wants to help the underdog. AFAIC, FTCLDF has turned their backs on him. I thought this sort of fight is what they do, I had no idea it was about the money. :seethelookoffeignedsurpriseonmyface: EVERYTHING is about money these days.
Here’s an article from Pete Kennedy at FTCLDF from April of this year (about a month ago). It’s a good article making several good points, but no real mention about helping small farmers when they’re in trouble, no matter what they produce.
http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/blog/2016/04/26/fda-taking-over-state-food-regulation/
There are always several ways to approach an issue, especially one of the magnitude of food freedom. But helping the producers of that food should be a first priority, in my book. I just think they are dropping the ball on this one with Amos Miller.
And, Maya Herndez, no one is brushing off food safety. I’m just saying what I’ve said from the get-go, and that is if we don’t have food rights/food freedom, the safety part isn’t really going to matter too much. If people can’t get their rights to buy these foods straightened out, we’re mired in the mud so deeply that safety won’t matter. To me it’s the least of our problems unless, as Gordon pointed out, you tend to believe the unfounded blather coming from the CDC and the FDUH.
But Miller is different from Hirshberger. And what if CDC and FDA are not conspiring to commit fraud in the Miller case? How can we shrug off the presence of listeriosis in Miller’s raw milk by saying the people who got sick probably had immune problems, especially when we know raw milk boosts immunity? And what tenet of food freedom champions free trade in contaminated foods, even if they come from my home kitchen? If ever we can achieve food freedom how long will it last if foods aren’t clean and safe? Won’t we have to make the distinction in order to save food freedom then? Why wouldn’t we go ahead and make the distinction right now? I would be interested to see how people on this site define food freedom and where they believe contaminated food fits in the definition. Not trying to be a pest but I just think we need to make clear exactly what we are all fighting for. I think if we shrug off safety the only way we will get to have raw milk is like they do in California where big farms are closely monitored for contamination by the state and big suppliers have recalls and interruptions in production all the time. That’s not my idea of food freedom. That’s the same old broken industrial food system of big players. So, food freedom — what say you all?
“I would be interested to see how people on this site define food freedom and where they believe contaminated food fits in the definition.”
Maya, “food freedom” is unrestricted access to consume the food of ones choice; anything else is an aberration of the concept of freedom. As to how contaminated food fits into that definition, then that indeed would largely depend on the nature of the contamination and how important that specific contamination is to each consumer and of course…tptb.
From my perspective I worry little about the presence of natural microbes and so-called microbial contamination, since I view more or less, the presence of such microbes as a given and a necessary component of life and healthy living. On the other hand, I am immensely concerned with the use invasive, disruptive, and unnatural methods, such as toxic chemicals, drugs and hormones in an attempt to control and manipulate food, human/animal health and the environment. It is those very methods (types of contamination) that consumers should truly be concerned with, since that is what’s largely responsible for making people ill…not a lone microbe such as listeria or e coli that is predestined to respond accordingly in an attempt clean up and survive that toxic assault.
I’m relieved someone finally dared to share an opinion. Thank You! So you’re saying food freedom (or maybe freedom food?) should be organic, all natural and I certainly agree with you. That’s a great point that probably needs more clarity in our fight. I remember back when the listeriosis thing first came up with Millers some said it came from additives in chocolate milk. Seems like that would be an unnatural thing and so we really wouldn’t want to rally our food freedom resources for that. Maybe just pay FTCLDF to deal with it without a lot of publicity, sort of what I was originally thinking. I guess I can see your point that if bacteria are a natural part of a farm that’s a good thing in the end. Probably the low immune systems in the listeriosis cases was due to an unnatural situation at the customer’s end, so I can see how it isn’t really Miller’s fault at all if they bought the milk and drank it when they shouldn’t have. Responsibility for food freedom falls as much on the customer as the producer, do I have that right? So there’s more to our message than first meets the eye. Thanks for your insight it is really helpful I think. A good start anyway! Anyone else have anything helpful to add?
get back to first principles, Maya : you err by giving the FDA and CDC and all the rest of them, the benefit of the doubt. From more than a decade of paying attention to the Campaign for REAL MILK, I assure you that they do NOT deserve it. Time and time again, when there is real evidence to be had in a case, the so-called ‘health authorities’ are caught outright lying through their teeth. They keep at it because they’re never called to account. Point being – you’ve been sucked in to accept the notion that Miller’s milk did have listeria in a given case. So far, it’s nothing more than a rumour rendered to official stationery.
Thank you David G. and Thank You Gordon W. Couldn’t have said it better myself!
Got “Real” Milk Maya???
Dear “Maya, mother of 4,”
In your May 29, 2016 – 12:34 pm post, you have the audacity to dismiss and devalue the role of the hard working common women and men as being “merely harmless gestures” when they turn to a higher power for strength and guidance? You suggest that when things are going “your” way a collective Spiritual harmony is “useful” to you/your attorneys?
I am a wolf hound, and I smell an agent provocateur…
You are using classic big-government enforcement tactics and language to try and belittle common folk into believing that big government, attorneys only, can make a difference when it comes to quality of life and individual rights. “Mundane groundwork must be professionally laid by talented attorneys.” You sound like a talented attorney, are you? Are you representing one and/or a firm?
You spew elitist jargon accusing people who made it to Vernon’s trial on a bus as if they are mere peasants with only lowly offerings of nutrient dense food as currency. Beggars and poor. Said trial was not a case of “people in la la land.” It WAS won with “public activism.” The best attorney in the world is a tree that falls deafly in a forest, without witness, if nobody can hold the judge accountable. Silent and without effect.
As for the mess Mr. Miller has gotten himself into… I think there is skullduggery that will come to light shining brightly on a jealous competitor who may have made a “secret deal” to stay out of the frying pan for continuous poor quality milk that has made many people ill, multiple times.
Your threats and gas-lighting regarding this being “very, very bad” for Mr. Miller, and your eluding to certain demise that will rain down upon anyone who does not bow-down and lick the boots of bureaucratic enforcers is cowardly. Seriously? You say, “everyone who is so publicly supporting [Amos’] peculiar brand of civil disobedience…” “… tests proving contamination and strong evidence of illness, possibly even someone died…”
To me, I interpret this as eerily close to actual CDC propaganda that is regurgitated over and over through corporate America owned media. Are you posting scripted material, or are you just plagiarizing?
You ask, “Do we really want to stand up for that, is that really what we want people to understand is our definition of food freedom?” To answer your question, YES! I personally will stand up for Mr. Miller (or any other respectable farmer) and all of the common folk, the beggars and the poor. Freedom of choice, and the right to engage in fair trade with the farmer of MY choosing is by ALL-means, the PURE definition of “food-freedom.”
The rest of your first post really perks my senses. As a wolf hound, I smell blood. I smell the blood of the perceived “weaker” farmers not fully licked from your lips. I smell an agent provocateur for the far over-reaching agencies and/or a “secret deal making” farmer. Or maybe it is the smell of a fat juicy steak (stake) to be served to attorneys that will work for profit-only at the expense of poor bus riders?! Do you know what I smell even more? I smell fear. It is my opinion that you want common folk “ponying up to pay FTCLDF to quietly plod through Amos Miller’s proceedings, however they work out” as long as your attorneys get paid regardless of the outcome.
I do not think your crooked “straight talk will piss some people off” at all. In-fact, I agree that, “we need to discuss this openly.”
You claim “the usual bosses will come back with the same old tune of all for one and one for all no matter what but that sort of jingoism really doesn’t represent what food freedom really means to most of us.” What “bosses” are you referring to, and who is “most of us?”
To re-cap Ms. Herndez (mother of 4), you are very quick to throw a farmer to the wolves. Once these agencies taste blood, it will only embolden them. Your farmer and the foods you rely on will be next unless as you suggest, he is making “secret deals” with the wolves…
My understanding of “food-freedom,” is the peaceful right to purchase or barter with any farmer and producer for the foods of our choice. You seem to be advocating the use of force to take this choice away from the thousands who do want food produced by Amos Miller, obviously from a farmer you do not feel deserves the right to engage with people that have freedom of choice. What does food-freedom mean to you, Ms. “Mother of 4?” Does it mean the ability to control what others put in their bodies solely based on your view of what is right or wrong? Or is your meaning of “food-FREEDOM” based on what you personally would or would not feed your children? It seems you would like to also make that choice for other mothers. You seem very disingenuous.
In politer terms, you seem to baselessly defend an organization that fails to provide basic transparency to those whose hard-earned money is used to supposedly fight these battles. No one in this blog thread, not Mr. Gumpert, not Ms. Reitzig, not Vernon, Gayle, Gordon or Cathy nor any of the comments so far suggest that FTCLDF has not played a role in some of the food-freedom victories, including Vernon’s. The comments are solid in saying that these cases and these types of things cannot be won in the courtrooms alone. Think about it. It is very foolish to think that an organization with such an abysmal track record such as FTCLDF, does not have work quality improvement to do. I, for one, would like to actually see how much fundraiser money goes to farmer’s defense and how much money goes into individual pockets. Transparency will strengthen their waning reputation.
Regarding your second post, you profess, “But Miller is different from Hirshberger. And what if CDC and FDA are not conspiring to commit fraud in the Miller case?” This again perks my keen agent provocateur identifying senses… You throw one of “us” under the bus and bolster “our” enemy. I emphasize “us and our” because I find it hard to believe that “you” understand what “we” are striving for. How are Mr. Miller and Mr. Hirshberger’s cases so fundamentally different?
You use the phrases “tenet of food freedom” and “we have to make the ‘distinction’ in order to save food freedom.” Very divisive and legalese in nature. It appears you are looking to secure a legal victory in favor of the CDC and FDA by the very nature and Spirit of your language. Corporate America elitist rules lording over individual common folk circumstances. This perplexes me greatly if you are in-fact NOT an agent provocateur.
Ms. Herndez, you are by no means a pest. I think your well-crafted message (red flag) is a great lesson to those of us who would want to enjoy a more Kumbaya (picture of a warm, cozy community without conflict) life.
Regarding your third post, opening with the challenge, “I’m relieved someone finally dared to share an opinion.,” you perform a textbook tactic of deflection and re-direction. Here is my solicited opinion:
1. This is not about organics as you obviously know.
2. You once again sully Mr. Miller and bolster the CDC and FDA.
3. You enforce your elitist promoting and common folk devaluing stand to, “just pay FTCLDF to deal with it without a lot of publicity…”
4. You try and gain acceptance with your very contradictory statement, “I guess I can see your point that if bacteria are a natural part of a farm that’s a good thing in the end.” And, “I can see how it isn’t really Miller’s fault…”
Ms. Hernandez, if you are not an agent provocateur, your next comment possibly should be an apology to those of us in the trenches, and those of us who SUPPORT our farmers/food providers of CHOICE.
In closing, thank you for your elitist and mollifying compliment of, “A good start anyway!” As for your request of, “Anyone else have anything helpful to add?” I have just added mine 😉
Thanks Zak, great analysis. I agree 100% with your agent provocateur case.
Wow, you have strong opinions! Not all stitched seamlessly together but I get the general drift. It is noteworthy that nowhere did you address the issue of contamination of some of the food. See, I think of food freedom as including a reasonable expectation the food isn’t going to make one of my four kids sick (you were more than a little dismissive of my kids in your comment and that tells me a lot about you). I guess you are right when you point out how that part of my expectation is similar to that of those government agencies but I’m not an “agent provacateur”, or at least I don’t think so. I’ve never worked for an agency in my life and I’m sure as heck not a lawyer, just a soccer mom here in H-town. Now I sort of regret bringing any of this up because the “bosses” I mentioned that predictably would get pissed off are people like Mr. Gumpert who decides what discussion is allowed and he has censored at least one of my messages so far and probably will censor this one too. He certainly doesn’t subscribe to any liberal definition of “freedom” when it comes to shielding his readers from discussion he fears might be provocative or probing around his own intentions. I must conclude the idea of food freedom is really only used by you and Mr. Gumpert and some others in your little mutual admiration club as a red herring, as a convenient platform from which to project your generalized angst and crankiness. You do the true food freedom movement a disservice but I suppose you know that and do not care. You seem always to be just looking for a fight wherever you can find one but I’m looking for clarity on how to move the food freedom movement forward to make the world a better place. Maybe I’ve wasted my time and effort here. My regrets. At least you seized another opportunity to vent your spleen and conjure up more conspiracy and spy drama, so you must be secretly pleased.
Just a procedural note. I have decided over the last several months to limit posts by anonymous commenters, based on complaints by commenters who openly identify themselves. This has long been a sore point for many on this blog, so I am trying this middle-road approach.
I consider “Maya” an anonymous commenter. Two days ago, I wrote him/her an email when he/she wrote several comments in succession, and I explained the restrictions on anonymous commenters. I was seeking some confirmation of the email address and his/her identity (not for public disclosure). I didn’t receive a response, and so held several of the comments. I have allowed the above comment to be posted, but further comments will be at my discretion. As I said, this applies only to anonymous comments.
Fine. I promise never to bother you again and I would appreciate it if none of you contact me either. My husband kind of bawled me out over my interest in food freedom and he said sort of tongue in cheek I was becoming one of the “whackos”. I have no intention of admitting he was right, even after my eye opening experience here. I’m still interested in raw milk and in food freedom so I think I will see what the Weston Price group has to offer and it looks like I should have gone there first. I just thought you had broken with WAP because you were independent thinkers. That was my own stupid mistake! My apologies for disturbing your little “kumbaya” bitch fest. Have you considered simply closing comments to all except the 4 or 5 devoted followers who blindly agree with you? It could save you all a lot of upset and wasted time defending what you are trying and failing to accomplish. No hard feelings I hope. I really don’t think you guys being so pissy is anything personal – I bet you are like that with all the girls ;>)
Maya
It’s been great, Maya, In the meantime, you might work on your fiction writing skills.
“Maya”, Zak and the others pretty much covered it, but incase you just arrived here on planet earth…any food from any source can become contaminated.
@ Maya Herndez: Please don’t come to this forum and tell us how to feel or how we should react to something. Thank you.
David is correct…all he asked was for “Maya” to be transparent about ?her/?his/?it’s identity, just like we all are here on The Complete Patient. Any “entity” who refuses to do so is NOT who they say they are…period! Therefore, they have no credibility; and just like “Maya” they end up insulting the group, which is no big deal to me since it might as well be a “computer generated entity” talking smack!
Zak, me thinks you really hit a major nerve…good call.
“Like we all are on here”, including the unidentified “guest” above?
@ Will: The following post of David’s didn’t do it for ya?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
David Gumpert
June 1, 2016 at 8:08 pm · Reply
Just a procedural note. I have decided over the last several months to limit posts by anonymous commenters, based on complaints by commenters who openly identify themselves. This has long been a sore point for many on this blog, so I am trying this middle-road approach.
I consider “Maya” an anonymous commenter. [b]Two days ago, I wrote him/her an email when he/she wrote several comments in succession, and I explained the restrictions on anonymous commenters. I was seeking some confirmation of the email address and his/her identity (not for public disclosure). I didn’t receive a response[/b], and so held several of the comments. I have allowed the above comment to be posted, but further comments will be at my discretion. As I said, this applies only to anonymous comments.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If that doesn’t explain his reasons for the anonymous or guest posts, I don’t know what will. Besides, this is David’s blog and he is free to run it however he wishes, that’s the bottom line. Snarky stuff from people who won’t answer his email requests aren’t going to cut it here. If he emailed you would you answer? If so, why not provide a last name with your comment?
Will… I have been posting here from the INCEPTION of Davids web-site/blog. Yes, I don’t blog every article, or even what you might consider as “often.” But you can look at past history of this blog and find many of my posts. David will acknowledge that fact.
So, please just chill…there is NO deceptions here!
In the Stockman GrassFarmer there is a front page article by Becky Gillette about the Amos Miller Farm. Title: Organic Farm Provides Raw Milk Products and Hard-to-Find Healthy Foods for Private Members.
Camel milk is one of the foods produced at Miller’s Organic Farm.
https://www.stockmangrassfarmer.com/index.php
@ J. Heckman: You’ll need to provide a direct link, otherwise it’s impossible to find anything at that site because there is no search feature. I went to the “articles” section but it is made up of older articles, nothing newly written. Thank you.
Thats because they are old school, you need to buy the paper. But if you’re a grazier it is well worth it.
After months of radio silence on Amos Miller by FTCLDF, I suddenly read on its site an article suggesting FTCLDF is going to be representing Amos Miller after all. 1. Does Mr. Miller know? I find it fascinating that “Maya” says a condescending and sarcastic goodbye to the loyal Miller and Gumpert supporters on June 2, 2016 after unsuccessful attempts to garner funding for FTCLDF through gas-lighting and fear mongering tactics, and then on June 3, 2016 John Moody writes a fundraising article on the FTCLDF website using the Miller case and information from Mr. Gumpert’s blog:
“How Low Can the Government Agenda Against Local Food Go? – By John Moody June 3, 2016.” Maybe it should have been titled, “How Low Can FTCLDF Fundraising Go?”
Mr. Moody, 2. When are you starting the Miller defense? 3. I am curious as to what legal strategy you will be using.
You make the plea for money using Mr. Miller’s serious situation stating that, “Help small farmers like the Millers and Donate Today. When you donate $100 or $150 now during our Annual Appeal, you’ll even get one of these inspiring gifts!”
4. How much money are you earmarking for Mr. Miller’s farm and customers and how much are you pocketing for unknown “like the Millers” funds?
You mention Amos Miller and his farm four times throughout your fundraising plea as if you are coming to the rescue… I would love to see the promise to Mr. Miller you have made. I ask you again, 5. what commitment have you made to Mr. Miller as to so boldly use his name and Mr. Gumpert’s blog to solicit funds for FTCLDF?
6. Why have you not posted Mr. Gumpert’s stories on your website? It seems to me you are usurping the hard work of others for FTCLDF credibility gain (much needed) and un-earned wages… I have to commend you though, you did give Mr. Gumpert a [miniscule] FOOTNOTE and BROKEN link to make it appear this story is legit and not a shameless fundraiser for FTCLDF profit.
Oh, lest I forget like you conveniently did… that, “blogger and food activist” that “did what we would expect the regular media to do and actually investigate the case(s),” those two hard working and relentless protectors of food freedom, truth and producer choice… those bonafide heroes… their names are Mr. David Gumpert and Ms. Liz Reitzig. Two people you are taking credit for in this pathetic plagiarized fundraising hack for FTCLDF profit.
http://www.davidgumpert.com/cdc-misconduct-raw-milk-death-victim-treated-advanced-cancer
I am challenging you Mr. Moody and FTCLDF board of directors to do something remotely decent to save face. I challenge you to openly account for every penny you take in from the time of the above mentioned article (June 3, 2016), and exactly how much goes to actually helping Mr. Miller and “small farmers like Millers.” And then how much goes into non-case related expenses and coffers. And if your organization has a fraction of the integrity and credibility that you claim, I challenge you to open your books and show how much money in the past has gone to successfully defending “small farmers,” and how much has gone to non-case related expenses and wages…
Zak, I appreciate you coming to bat for Liz Reitzig and me in terms of credit for our reporting on the supposed raw-milk-illness victims from the CDC report. Also for seeking transparency in FTCLDF’s fundraising for Miller’s farm and other small farms. However, I personally applaud the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund for finally doing what is right in identifying the Miller farm as being inappropriately targeted by government regulators; better late than never, as they say. I guess I accept that the FTCLDF has shifted its ways of relating to the public in the John Moody era compared with its startup period during the Cathy Raymond era. Organizations inevitably change over time–in this case, I’m just hoping it will stay true to its original intentions and ideals.
@ Zak: I think you’re onto something. Amos Miller has enough “activist supporters” to make a crowdfunding situation a viable alternative and I don’t think FTCLDF liked that possibility. Too many changes at FTCLDF lately and people are not comfortable with situations like that.
there’s a lot more to the crowd-funding thing, than just taking in $$. Do you think a farmer has time to run the financial arm of what soon amounts to = a political party? Update a website / correspond with supporters et cetera …?? Hardly. Then who’s going to step up and do all the cerebral work – which becomes a full-time job, for nothing?
…. The Farm to Consumer Legal Defence people are already functioning, to the best of their ability. Attempting to valve-off support in another direction, is suspicious
Gordon, the point here is that Amos Miller’s farm has many hundreds of members, many of them seriously committed to the farm’s ongoing survival and health. You are correct that the farmer has little time to handle crowd funding. Fortunately, the members, who are grateful for the wonderful food the farm produces, will take on those responsibilities. There is a precedent: Vernon Hershberger’s members came from miles around and actually performed key farm chores, including feeding cows and handling distribution tasks, along with helping run his web site and organize courthouse rallies, while Vernon tended to his legal defense. There are lots of people here who are committed to the farmers who put themselves on the line to produce good food.
@ Pete: I detest the formatting at this blog. This is my third attempt to post a short reply to Pete and because of the Captcha thing I’ve lost both of my previous efforts. Grr. But Pete, you can read older works by clicking on the *articles* button at the top of the page but most that I viewed were from 2011 – 2012, etc. I’m going to search a bit farther to see if I can find the article by Becky Gillette which might have been printed up elsewhere online. I’d buy the magazine but I no longer live on the ranch, and I usually end up subscribing to magazine and then they fill up my magazine rack, untouched except to drag them in from the mailbox.