Weve seen over the past year three individuals settle criminal charges growing out of Californias Rawesome Food Club case, with small fines, thus avoiding lengthy trials, huge legal costs, and possible jail terms. Last week, two other legal cases–these multimillion-dollar civil suits initiated by several of those prominent at Rawesome–came to trial in Los Angeles.
Victoria Bloch, one of the three charged criminally, but not party to the civil suits, attended the court proceedings and writes this retrospective of what happened in court, and how it all appeared to someone intimately involved in Rawesome from its earliest days. (She doesnt discuss one other pending casethis a criminal case against Sharon Palmer, James Stewart, and Larry Lucky Otting–concerning the financing of Palmers Healthy Family Farms operation in Ventura County. That case is due to come to trial later this year.)
By Victoria Bloch
Ive known James Stewart since 1999, just after I became a Weston A. Price Foundation chapter leader. Hard to believe now, but at that time the only steadily available raw milk in California came from the tiny Claravale Dairy (AltaDena, the brand I grew up with, was on its way out by that point), and James was their distributor. I met Aajonus Vonderplanitz while James was running an informal retail operation out of a rented garage across the street from his tiny apartment. One of the customers, he was a rather leonine presence with his full mane of sandy, coppery hair, pleasant yet somewhat aloof. James told me that Aajonus was a nutritional counselor, and I got the impression that James was following some of Aajonus dietary guidelines. I met Larry Lucky Otting, a classic Venice denizen, often barefoot, clad in rumpled linen, Hawaiian shirts and puka beads, as another Rawesome customer and one of Jamess numerous friends. (I evidently first met Sharon Palmer somewhere around 2005, when she came to a WAPF chapter meeting. But our introduction was brief, and I didnt realize wed met until much later. I really got to know her in 2009, when I started to work at her farmers market booth.)
The volatile combination of these four strong personalities can only be compared to the chemical reaction of otherwise basic substances: neutral, even benign elements, like water, can turn explosive when mixed with incompatible ones. And like explosions, there can often be collateral damage to innocent bystanders in this case, Rawesome and Healthy Family Farms customers, and the local (and to some extent, national) food community.
I dont know if anyone really knows what turned Aajonus against Sharon. According to Sharon, they never met (though in his deposition Aajonus claims otherwise), and other than peering through her fence, hes never visited her farm. In point of fact, before James carried Sharons products, he purchased conventionally grown chicken and eggs for Rawesome, about which Aajonus never raised a peep (or cluck). But early in 2009, he loudly proclaimed that Sharons chicken contained enormous amounts of sodium (which was shown to be false in a mysteriously missing lab test, and for which he never apologized). The hostility he maintained towards her from that point on, and which eventually perhaps inevitably spilled over onto James for standing by her, is undisputed.
Larry Otting, the title-holder to the land on which Healthy Family Farms operates, and thus Sharons landlord, started complaining to James that Sharon was not paying the mortgage on the farm early in 2009, just a month before Aajonus complained about salty birds. Cancelled checks and receipts failed to quash his complaints.
Of course Larry and Aajonus knew one another; both knew James, both were Rawesome customers. But the Otting-Vonderplanitz partnership seems to have ventured into some strange, dark places, and ultimately turned against James and Sharon in very public, damaging ways. It resulted, finally, in the spectacularly public rift between James and both Aajonus and Larry in September of 2010, just a few months after the infamous and much-publicized multi-agency government raid on Rawesome on June 30 of that year.
An emotionally charged series of emails from Aajonus was followed by launch of the infamous unhealthyfamilyfarm web site in December, under Larry Ottings ownership though it was clear that much of the content had probably been written by Aajonus. In January 2011, Larry and Aajonus filed a civil suit with more than 30 counts against James and Sharon, with charges including assault and battery (for having sold toxic chicken and eggs), elder abuse (because both Aajonus and Larry were over 60 years of age), and with enormous monetary damages (on the order of $4 million) attached.
Sharon, reeling from the panic that started among her customers and farmers market managers following the launch of the site, entered mediation with Larry. That happened in March 2011; it resulted in a hand-written agreement whereby Larry agreed to remove the website, stop talking about Sharon and her farm, dissociate himself from Rawesome, and other terms; Sharon was to bring property taxes and insurance payments current on the farm, and to fix any code violations (some of which came with the property), and the like. The site came down briefly, but came back up under a new owner. Shortly thereafter, the ownership changed to Right to Choose Healthy Foods Trust, Aajonus organization, and the site continued to cause significant problems for Sharon and her farmers market sales.
This was the basis of the cross complaint Sharon filed against Larry and Aajonus in February 2012, alleging defamation and breach of contract, and also seeking about $4 million in damages). In the slow winding way that court cases seem to take, the matter finally came to trial last week. Earlier court appearances and hearings before the Hon. Terry A. Green had reduced the original complaint to just two charges, all the rest having been dismissed with prejudice (meaning that they could not be re-filed). The trial would deal with these two charges, then move directly into Sharons cross-complaint.
Present last Monday morning, July 8, for the Vonderplanitz/Otting team were Aajonus; his attorney, Alex Herrera; Larry; his attorney, Warren Nemiroff; Jeff Slay, the vice president of Right to Choose Healthy Foods; and an unnamed would-be young farmer. For the Stewart/Palmer team, there were Sharon; her attorney, Art Carvalho; Arts law clerk/paralegal, Vaughn Greenwalt; James Stewart; and me. Larry was first on the stand. He apparently failed to understand that his agreement to remove the unhealthyfamilyfarm site in 2011 did not mean simply removing his name from it. He claimed to have no knowledge of whether Sharon had fixed the code violations, but did go on at length about the suffering he had endured at Sharons hands, the fines hed incurred as a result of the time it took to fix the code violations (although it turned out in subsequent testimony that Sharon had paid for, and Larry agreed to, the services of an agent who obtained abatement of fees from the county), her ongoing failure to pay the mortgage, putting his credit in jeopardy, and more in a similar vein.
Sharons testimony was more straightforward. She explained that to fix violations, she had to engage the services of an engineer, get drawings approved by the county, and perform the actual work herself with limited funds to pay for it all. With the drop in income resulting from the hostile website, completing repairs took longer. Among other things, she said that Larry had forbidden her to make mortgage payments directly, instructing her to send checks to him instead (which she testified that he often failed to cash, sometimes for weeks at a time). She discussed the damage that the unhealthyfamilyfarm site had done to her farm and her business. Aajonus lawyer asked a series of questions along the lines that perhaps Sharons reputation had suffered not from the site, but as a result of the government raids on her farm, but he did not gain much traction on this since, as she testified (and as occurs in other communities where small farms are set upon by regulatory and law enforcement authorities), local community support actually increased following the raids.
Tuesday morning, the trial was replaced by settlement negotiations, which continued throughout the day, and an odd incident took place. For a few minutes that afternoon, I was the only person in the courtroom besides Aajonuss supporters (on Tuesday including a former Rawesome member and her husband); Aajonus came into the room to let them know what was going on. He spoke loudly enough that I knew his words were for my benefit as well as theirs. He said that these people (e.g., Sharon and James) had no remorse, so he had no remorse. The former Rawesome member said something to the effect that criminals have no remorse. Aajonus said he wouldnt settle, that he wanted to go to trial, and that he would be videotaping on Wednesday. (This was apparently in defiance of the judges refusal to allow him to videotape on Monday morning–something that had not been cleared before the trials start–resulting in Aajonus threat of an undefined action against the judge.)
Wednesday morning, Aajonus had apparently changed his mind about whatever settlement terms had been discussed the prior day, and hours of additional negotiation were needed before he consented, along with Larry, to final terms.
The final appearance before the judge was brief. Sharons attorney stated that a settlement for both cases (the complaint and cross-complaint) had been reached. The Hon. Terry A. Green thanked counsel for bringing this hard-fought case to a successful conclusion. But before proceedings were adjourned, Aajonus requested and was granted permission to make a statement: I came to get justice. I have been undermined all the way, and am walking out without justice. I want you to know I feel that way. A bit startled, Judge Green responded, Im sorry you feel that way. A moment later, Aajonus left the courtroom, and the judge turned to the room at large and asked, somewhat rhetorically, What did I do?
The settlement is confidential, except for a statement to be signed by both Aajonus Vonderplanitz and Larry Otting regarding the truthfulness and accuracy of the information on the hostile website (unavailable as of this writing).
I myself, as a former happy member of Rawesome, as a former enthusiastic volunteer/workerbee for Healthy Family Farms, as an active WAPF chapter leader, as a passionate member of the broader community of people who want access to fresh food from farms run by farmers we know (and yes, as collateral damage in this whole messy situation due to my own arrest in 2011), also ask my community, What didnt you do? I mourn for Rawesome, I mourn for the Healthy Family Farms that could have been thriving by now, rather than fighting to stay alive. And I mourn for the willingness of the larger community to cut and run when faced with accusations of wrongdoing, without verifying or investigating what ultimately was started by a personal feud combined with stubbornness and greed.
What did I do? would seem to be the plaintive question each former Rawesome member, each formerly enthusiastic Healthy Family Farms shopper (and each loyal Healthy Family Farms current customer, too), and each member of the larger community might be asking just about now.
Sylvia, that seems to be your knee-jerk response every time Sharon Palmer’s name appears anywhere. I wonder if you even read the post. I don’t think you do Victoria’s nuanced reporting and analysis justice with such a simplistic view.
People who knowingly deceive others deserve no quarter. To put her in context as if to imply that she was wrongly accused or horribly misunderstood, whether by the law or other people is ludicrous.
A lesson should be learned. Learn it and move on.
It is sad to see Victoria ever effected by this group. She is a wonderful and totally harmless person.
Mark,
I think you need to be careful how broadly your paintbrush strokes are spread, especially about the “private club nutritional fetish…” you refer to. The animal leasing model pioneered at Rawesome is being used successfully by dozens of small farms around the country, including those owned by Vernon Hershberger in Wisconsin and Alvin Schlangen in Minnesota. Those models were upheld as legitimate private associations, outside public food and retail licensing, by juries in those states. Aajonus Vonderplanitz, who formulated that leasing model and later defended it in those places, unfortunately let the emotional turmoil described by Victoria Bloch interfere to such an extent that Rawesome self destructed. But the difficulties encountered by Rawesome–the result of both abusive law enforcement and personality conflicts–shouldn’t be used to suggest that the private model for distributing nutritionally dense food is so flawed that only a public model providing for universal sale and marketing of raw milk can work.
Well said. There are many roads to the access of nutritionally dense whole foods. Each region of America has its own path as required by the depth of corruption in that specific area. My broad brush paints with some real frustration because of the destructive infighting that I have seen. Each day I teach, I battle and work and hope for normalized mainstream access. As long as raw milk is at the fringe it will be vilified as fringe along with all of the fringe baggage.
A brief review (forgive me for repeating, but there may be new readers here): James Stewart contracted with Sharon Palmer to supply eggs for Rawesome late 2006, making Rawesome one of her customers; she also sold eggs at a handful of farmer’s markets. At that time, she was producing eggs with organic certification. In early 2008, she leased the farm at her current location, and in June of that year, moved everything to Santa Paula. She purchased new chicks at the time, since demand for eggs was growing. Anyone familiar with chickens knows that they start laying reliably around 6 months of age. She had not yet built the full shelter for her laying hens that she now has, so the chicks went into the chick barn and the hens into pens with only minimal shelter, where the mountain lion that lived in the canyon could pretty much have his (her?) way with them. Not all the chickens were killed, but enough that Sharon knew she could not supply her farmer’s market stands AND Rawesome. She asked her customer, James, if he would like to procure eggs himself until her flock got back up to speed, or if he’d like her to pick them up for him. (She’s asked the same question of her restaurant customers at the farmer’s market during summer when the hens lay less.) He asked her to do so, and she supplied Rawesome with Nichols Canyon eggs (in Nichols Canyon boxes) for about 6 months, at which point her flock was back to speed and she was able to supply eggs directly.
I keep mentioning that James was a customer of hers because it makes a difference. James wasn’t part of the farm anymore than Sharon was a part of Rawesome, even though they certainly became friends. I become friends with some of my design clients, too, but it’s not my job to tell them what to do with the documents or sites I produce on their behalf after I complete the job and send the invoice. No more was it Sharon’s job to let her customer’s customers know about the eggs; she kept them in the Nichols cartons, for goodness’ sake! So yeah, she outsourced a product on her customer’s behalf, and the customer knew about it, too. And James has said he knew about it. Guess what? That’s not deceit.
The fact that her business suffered because a person in a position of some authority in the community launched a website full of sweeping, inflammatory accusations which got passed along for the usual reasons such information gets passed along is not hard to understand. It’s just sad. But it’s not ludicrous.
Sylvia, I certainly don’t expect to soften your heart or open your mind, which in this case you seem to have decided to keep closed, but I just can’t stand by and not say something in response. You have my deepest respect overall, and I promise that if someone ever says something bad about you in any venue, I will make sure to verify it before I either condemn you out of hand or pass along the gossip. If I can’t verify it, I also promise that I will let it alone. Would that you (and a few others I can think of) would do the same.
Sylvia, don’t think you read what Victoria said. James was Sharon’s customer. Sharon informed James. James has said, in an article published here, that he should have taken care to inform his customers/members.
“Stewart says he told Rawesome members who inquired when they first saw the Chino Valley boxes that the eggs were outsourced. What about members who didn’t inquire? “I should have put up a sign,” Stewart told me. “Yes, I should have. Did I have intent not to put up a sign? No.”
http://thecompletepatient.com/article/2011/october/13/i-can-explain-says-sharon-palmer-she-admits-outsourcing-eggs-not
I am about to board a plane for Asia and do not have time to write what happened from the “good-guys” perspective, as 2 attorneys stated at the court last week. I had no idea about the length of time that Sharon, James and Victoria profited on selling commercial food as organic at Rawesome and at farmer’s markets at 2-3 times the price. I videoed most of the testimony and I will make it available to everyone in several weeks. It is a lot of work. The fraudent-3some have no shame or remorse but simply keep denying their crime. Not for much longer though. There is no mercy in my heart or mind when corruption at the expense of the health of others is profitable and there is no remorse. Last Thursday when I videoed the testimonies from actual witnesses, I was more heartbroken than before. The betral of all 3 of them to our plight for the best of health is so outrageous, it may boggle your minds as well. They peddled commercial food to people using my Right To Choose Healthy Food membership contracts stating my quality of food; criminal and shameful.
(Editor’s note: I have removed a paragraph of this comment because, in my judgment, it contains libelous statements.)
I wish for all of you a happy and healthy week.
If so, that was James Stewarts responsibility as the manager of the buying club, not Sharons.
Sharon was 100% honest with the person she was supposed to inform, that being James, the purchaser for her product. She didnt even know most of the Rawesome members. It was a temporary measure while Sharon rebuilt her chicken numbers after the mountain lion killed much of her flock. Which is exactly what happened.
Or are you referring to the arsenic that the Unhealthy Family Farm website claimed was in Sharons chicken? The very same test results that were shown by Mike Adams of Natural News to be falsified. http://www.naturalnews.com/036064_Sharon_Palmer_Healthy_Family_Farms_chicken.html
The website against Sharon is STILL up and STILL as error-ridden and libelous as it ever was. And Aajonus STILL lists himself with a PhD even though it has been shown to have been purchased from a diploma mill. The truth has suffered deeply in this case, though it looks like some of the truth is finally coming out.
Thank you, Victoria, for your balanced, even tempered article here. I would love to see you continue writing on issues surrounding whole healthy food, nutrition and the like.
Blessings to you!!
Oh, Victoria. The lab tests showing high sodium levels indating salt was fed to animals or soaked in their dead carcases did not mysteriously disappear. It was given to James. James has it or it was seized by LA and Ventura Counties.
If you look at the photos when members and I picketed Los Angeles County legislature for raw milk in 1999 and 2000, you will not see James, Sharon or Victoria in the photos. When five of us lobbied congress in Washington, DC everyday 18 hours daily for 3 months for raw-milk freedom, you will not see any image of James, Sharon or Victoria. You will see 4 volunteers and me. When I had a special meeting with Congressman Ron Paul to include Ralph Nader regarding raw milk legislation in 2009 in Washington, DC, James, Sharon and Victoria were not there. They did not even help fund any of it.
How, all of a sudden, did they become champions for raw milk? What did they do to champion raw milk? The articles about their involvement gave no explanation just awarded them the honor. That seems truly false credentials. I worked 38 years before I was offered and accepted my honorary doctorate. My work precluded the award not the other way around. Yet, here I am attacked for my honorary doctorate, not my impeccable work. An honoray doctorate is not an advertisement for academic achievement. It is an award for out-of-the-box work whether you accept the university as credible or not.
James supplied raw milk and clandestinely promoted it when it was not legal but he did not influence the public or any legislator. Did James, Sharon or Victoria (3some) visit each of the Los Angeles County legislatures with me to discuss raw-milk issues after the county health department had banned it in 1999? Did the 3some attend every Los Angeles County Medical Milk Commission meeting from 1997-2000 to educate them on the science of raw milk with me? Did either of them write a word of my and Dr. Douglass’ Supplemental Report In Favor of Raw Milk that got the law changed, allowing raw milk in Los Angeles without certification and that cause the dissolution of the misnomered Medical Milk Commission? A law that the most adept biological attorney in Los Angeles said I would never accomplish.
Sharon was either in jail or in felony criminal proceedings during some of that time. As far as any history with raw milk, Sharon’s introduction was a herd of goats. Neither James or Sharon traveled to the California Capital in Sacramento in 2009 for the hearings and testimony in favor of healthy raw-milk regulations. Sally Fallon and many others did, including me.
One person remarked to me that whoever was handling James and Sharon’s support campaign is remarkably good even though the bits are mostly fabrication. The 3some even got Mike Adams, the self-proclaimed “health ranger” to attack me. Adams libelously reported that I was the governments chief informant in the Rawesome raid against the 3some. However, DA records show that it was Christopher Girard.
I interviewed Girard and he had no problem admitting that he got the criminal procedings against Sharon started. He stated that he wanted to stop the food-fraud in which he was involved. Girard claims that Sharon deceived him, told him that all of the food he sold for her at 3 farmer’s markets was beyond organic and from her farm. He testified to the DA’s office that Sharon conned him and his family into selling commercial food not from her farm and commercial-quality-food produced at her farm as beyond organic family produced food.
He testified that after a year of selling for her, he bgain working for her at the farm on occassions. Over a period weeks, he discovered that only a fraction of the food could have been produced at the farm and all of the feed-bags were commercial with soy and corn (that could only be GMO) as the main contents. When he saw her thawing and repackaging the commercial meats and eggs, he felt sick. He continued to sell the food for a few more weeks to take care of his family and still feels badly about it, but “I had to feed my family”. Not an excuse but he feels remorse and has done everything to gain restitution.
I had not met or spoken with anyone in the Los Angeles DA’s office. I made one trip to Ventura County DA where HFF is jurisdictioned. I tried to file food-fraud charges against Sharon and HFF. I said nothing against or about Rawesome. I told them that James and Sharon were involved in food-fraud. Ventura DA said that they were not interested in our food issues and attacked the validity of my membership and animal-lease contracts. I suggested that he could always contest it in a courtroom with a jury. He did not respond.
Although none of that rant was about me, and the document that Adams compared to mine looked nothing like mine, Adams ranted on and on. The school’s logo and imprint were different. Mine stated an award for original work in nutrition. Theirs stated academic achievement. Every thing Adams argued had nothing to do with me and my honorary doctorate. One year later, Adams changed the photo of the other person’s credential to look more like mine. Did Adam’s stooped to fraud to protect his libelous butt?
Adams associated me with the 2 people who paid thousands of dollars for their fake credentials but did not present any documentation that I paid anything for mine nor that mine was fake or from the same scam website that no one can find. Where is the evidence? His smear campaign on me was based solely on inferences and comparisons, not credible journalism.
Adams even got Alex Jones Show to character-assassinate me through association with the same incomplete investigation. Consider the Adams’ false assumptions: Two false credentials were generated by an online mill university, and therefore Aajonus is from the same mill. Two false credentials bearing the same university name as mine are false, therefore Aajonus’ is fake.
What kind of a research-reporter does hack work like that? Prior to that incident, I had blind faith in Mike Adams’ commentaries. However, from that time until now, I read or listen to his reports with great scrutiny. He exaggerates everything, side-tracking issues and using hyped language that fails to report the story.
Is Mike Adams part of the government conspiracy to get control of the food people eat. Similar to David Gumpert, he definitely has an excellent cover and one most people would not believe is false. I do not know for sure about either of them being government agents but I see them both attacking me rather than thanking me for my actions, years of battling government to save everyone’s rights to healthy food.
Both have certainly taken the sides of Sharon, James and Victoria in the face of very damning evidence against the three, without proper investigation. Or, maybe they do not want factual evidence. If they are working against food-freedom, they have already chosen sides. They may make statements that appear objective favoring both side but that would be to maintain the facade.
Does any one get that allowing Victoria to post a commentary in which she basically degrades me and my work to protect all of us from food-fraudists, speaking as if she were a seasoned psychologist, a dichotomy? If Adams’ and Gumpert’s true intents were to protect our rights to choose, grow and eat healthy food as well as build cohesion in the food-freedom movement, why would they attack the one person in this Rawesome fiasco that has tangibly proved to help everyone acquire rights to healthy food for decades, especially raw milk?
There are so many assumptions from commenters here that it could make Truth vomit based on Victoria’s grossly incorrect infomation. As I stated, most of Victoria’s accounts of what transpired are fabrications. There was no agreement about non-disclosure on anyone’s part. I would never have signed such an agreement.
I agreed to give them UnhealthyFamilyFarm.com in the settlement because the judge felt it was Larry’s and Larry agreed to take it down. The judge thought that he should not have sold it to me. He was going to sanction Larry for a lot of money. It had nothing to do with its content, it was the fact that Larry agreed to elminate it. That and the fact that the case was going to be heard by a judge and not a jury forced me to settle the case so no one got anything and no one admitted to anything.
However, someone I know purchased UnhealthyFamilyFarm.org without connection to Larry. That person will post everything at that site including video testimonies that will make everyone’s head spin about Sharon and Victoria. Everybody already knows the evidence against James and food-fraud.
Victoria’s misquoting me in my words to the judge and the judge’s feigned innocense seemed beyond arrogant, as if she were flaunting the voice David gave her by allowing her to post blog on his site. I paid for the court reporter and had it recorded. Even Victoria’s account of who was present for the Plaintiffs was wrong. The Vice President of Right To Choose Healthy Food Jeff Slay was not present. Where did she get that? I asked Mr. Slay to join us at trial via phone and email but at the last minute, he was unable to attend. Is Victoria part of the group who is illegally tapping my correspondence?
Posting on this website for me is like trying to get fair press in a major newspaper against government rhetoric about food-safety. I hope people are laughting. David has over-censored 3 of my postings because he says that my posts are maliciously libelous. One…maybe two paragraph were inapproriate but he eliminatged 15. However, he asked me to try rewriting those posts.
His posting of the Victoria Bloch-is-good blohg is distressing considering the evidence implicating her in food-fraud with infamous Sharon Palmer. David stated in an email to me, “Their goal in going after Rawesome was divide-and-conquer, and they succeeded in that goal beyond their wildest dreams thanks in good measure to you forgetting who the real enemy was/is. As you continue your rants against Sharon, Victoria, etc., they can only laugh harder and congratulate each other more.”
Again, David, you seem to be part of the problem. The 3some’s acts have nothing to do with Rawesome except in your and other’s minds. You, Mike Adams and someone’s PR have put them there. Nor do they have anything to do with the food-freedom movement except for people giving them audience there, including you.
Causing bodily harm to individuals is a serious offense and I have every intention of proving that food-fraud may have caused it. Not because I have some crazed mania like a rabid prosecuting attorney but because the evidence is irrefutable, especially considering they have produced absolutely no solid evidence to the contrary. People were harmed. I was harmed. Or doesn’t that matter for the greater good of the food-freedom movment?
I was evidently incorrect when I stated that Jeff Slay was present; I didn’t recognize the person, and someone (I really don’t know who) thought it was probably Jeff, and I passed that along. Glad to get the record straight. Everyone else was accurately identified. I took notes throughout Monday’s and Wednesday’s proceedings, and my version of Aajonus’ closing statement was very close to his; I don’t perceive any way in which the slight difference presents Aajonus in a bad light.
Regarding the settlement, Aajonus had an attorney present (who he neglects to mention completely in his account, as though Larry Otting was the only one of them represented by counsel), and he did not have to agree to settle. All he had to do was refuse, and he would have had the day in court he says so adamantly he wanted. So why does he make it everyone else’s fault that he didn’t get to testify?
The civil case being discussed here has nothing to do with raw milk. Why bring it up, and why discuss me, or Sharon, or anyone, to establish whether or not we are “heroes”? That’s certainly not a role into which I’ve cast myself. I was caught up in circumstances. Was Sharon looking for a fight about raw milk? Of course not, that’s ridiculous. She, too, was caught up in circumstances, not seeking a fight to become a raw milk hero. Nor was James looking for the hero role. In fact, the only person thus far who seems to want to ensure his heroic position in regards raw milk is Aajonus.
In point of fact, I’ve always credited Aajonus with doing a good thing by playing such a significant role in returning raw milk to the City of Los Angeles after the Milk Board opted to block all but certified raw milk from store shelves (when up until that time, both certified and grade A were allowed).
But other people were there too, including several members of the fledgling Weston A. Price chapter, rallying on the court steps, packing into the courtroom. When Aajonus says that he and his “members” rallied there, I have to ask, “What members?” There was no food club with members at that time. He doesn’t believe I was there. Why would he have seen me? He didn’t know me any more than I knew him.
And since he and I have never really had a conversation with one another, other than “Hello” as we passed each other on occasion at the place variously known as the garage or the lot or Rawesome, we don’t know each other now, either.
The difference is that I am willing to see him as a full person with some positive points and some negative points. In addition, I can see the effects that his egregious diatribes and attacks have had on other people and on our community. But he apparently only sees me as a cartoon character to use as a target, along with anyone else who does not acknowledge him in the way he wishes to be acknowledged, or who doesn’t bow down to his self-aggrandizing mix of fact and fiction.
This is not a person who inspires me to fight for food rights. I have plenty of real heroes to rally around, like Sally Fallon-Morell, Liz Reitzig, David Gumpert, Mark Baker, Vernon Hershberger, dozens of fellow WAPF chapter leaders, and dozens and dozens of hard-working farmers. For that, I am truly grateful.
Aajonus,
The bottom line on the Girard and other testimony (some of which I include in my new book) is that both the Ventura County and L.A. County D.A.s (they were working cooperatively on much of the Rawesome/Palmer investigations) declined to prosecute. Whether they didn’t believe Girard or you, or didn’t think the allegations important enough, or some other reason, we’ll never know–what we do know is they rejected your allegations.
The bottom line on your civil suit against Palmer/Stewart, in part alleging the same food fraud, is that a judge basically threw it out. You can say the judge was corrupt or you settled because the judge was about to assess Larry Otting a big financial penalty (perhaps because he found the web site you put up to be defamatory), but the end result was the same. Your allegations of fraud were rejected.
Even though the legal system has rejected your interpretation of events, you continue to repeat them over and over, as if by doing so, the allegations will somehow become true and accepted, and you will be vindicated. My sense is that the more you repeat the same stuff, the more people you turn off and the more credibility you lose.
As I suggested in my comment to you about “divide and conquer,” you did much better when you developed leasing agreements for farmers around the country, “rescued” them from overbearing enforcement actions, and helped present a united front to authorities. You seem to have lost sight of that purpose in your apparent obsession to gain some kind of revenge against members of your local community, and for whatever reason, you can’t let go of it.
Victoria, according to 2 very important witnesses that interacted with you for at least 1 year at farmer’s markets, people I do not even know, one who you gave nutritional advice and guidance, testified that you sold them Sharon’s food as beyond organic, ALWAYS from the farm and grass-fed. They stated you never said anything about soy and corn being in the feed. Both of them saw the feed bags at the farm with soy and corn as the top ingredients. One testified that you gave him RTCHF membership agreement, he signed it, paid you the memership fee (that you never gave to RTCHF) and you took it the signed contract and money. Witness Christopher Girard gave one of the labels from the feed-bags from HFF to the DA’s office with soy and corn as the top ingredients.
Since you repeatedly countered all evidence about the food-fraud with only your words of assurances rather than photos and documents, your opinon and assurances are moot.
Placing someones words in quotes means that you are stating their exact words, not some variation. During the entire courthouse fiasco, I did not see you touch a pen and paper once. Interesting that you took copious notes. When I have seen David and other reporters take notes, it can be seen, you see more of them writing than watching and musing.
I did not state that food or raw milk were not involvwed in the Stewart/Palmer/HFF fiasco, I said that Stewart and Palmer were not champions for raw milk or food-freedom. Just because James sold and drank raw milk does not mean he was a champion for it. The same with Sharon. According to witnesses, Sharon rarely drank her own goat’s milk and ate nothing but regular supermaket commercial food.
As I stated and you do not seem to get, Victoria, is that I dismissed my part of the trial because justice had already be thrown out by Judge Green when he would not allow a jury to decide the case. Judge Green showed nothing but prejudice through the entire 2 years of hearings. Oh, that’s rightl, you would not know anything about that because you were not present. Did you read all approximately 2,000 pages of every proceeding? A person who did that would know something about the case. Even for an attorney reviewing a case, it would be difficult to assertain what was happening because the Superior courts in Los Angeles no longer employ court reporters. That is the greatest assault on citizens oversight of judges I have every seen.
Such silly, points you made. I did not give a list of who was present, I simply stated some evidence that your reporting was grossly inept and wrong on minor details that the larger details should be viewed with extreme scrutiny and probably dismissed entirely.
The issues that you need to address is your part in the food-fraud and how it probably injured a lot of people who had no idea why they had such extreme symptoms. But because of their faith in James, Sharon and you, they had no idea of the industrial toxins that were in the foods you sold as from HFF.
Keep in mind that this is a measurable genetic disorder and that clinical researchers are very clear on the statistics. If you know 22 people, one of them has this brain dysfunction. Furthermore, they know from testing that for the most part the prisons are NOT full of these folks. So if they’re not in prison, they live and work amongst the rest of the 95% of us.
We must ALWAYS question the motives of our leaders. Very bad people can do very good things if what they truly want is the attention and power doing those good things will bring them.
I have spent enough time on Victoria’s ingredibly deficient, erroneous and fabricated blog. I wish you all good, clean and health-giving food, health and happiness, especially to those who deserve it. 😀
Doesn’t your behavior sound like anyone trying to create disinformation and confusion. Do you think that you can have it both ways? You said you had proof that the government had been/was monitoring my emails, phone calls, etc., why do you think that they could not sabotage the trial so it would leave people confused about the truth? Your blog seems to be basking in governments’ defeat of the truth of food-fraud, lending only to the opposite of many people’s testimonies against the 3some.
Would you be willing to have someone else post a blog here about another’s experience with Victoria in which she claimed always that the foods were from the HFF, always beyond organic, and of course in writing on HFF banner “ALWAYS grass-fed” using my contracts as evidence of food purity?
Do you get the fraud just from the HFF banner that stated ALWAYS GRASS-FED, and you ask anyone who has been at the farm, hundreds, there was no grass for the meat or laying chickens ever?
How can you ignore that fact that she purchased $125,000 worth of product and sold it as from the farm? As I stated, I spoke with Sharon on the phone from Rawesome at least 6 times when she assured me that they chickens were fed organic feed with no soy or corn from HFF? Do thoes facts mean anything to you?
Since you have not give them credence over all of the evidence gathered by police and witnesses, have you just sabotaged your cover to everyone with any logic and rationale? If not, will your cover be exposed to everyone once the testimony hits the internet? However, for you as an agent, it wouldn’t matter because your work is over. Job well done?
You sure had me fooled until you published Victoria’s fabrications and all of the defending of the 3some without journalistic objectivity.
Just as I stated to the advising prosecutor from Wisconsin at Vernon’s trial after I testified, should I say the same to you, “You should be ashamed of yourself”?
Aajonus, the only reason I will even devote a little precious time to respond to your rabid attacks is out of respect for the fact that you have been a leader in the food rights arena, Libel is a legal term, that refers to defaming someone else in print. The courts, based on our First Amendment rights to free speech, have given individuals wide latitude to libel others if the others are “public figures.” That’s how the various scandal sheets get away with printing all kinds of nonsense about movie stars and other celebrities having affairs and fatal diseases and such. You, James Stewart, Sharon Palmer, and Victoria Bloch all qualify as public figures at this point. There is a limit even to the garbage that can be spewed at public figures, though–they can sue and win if the libelous statements can’t be proven to be true, and are found to be based on “malice.” A case could probably be made that your attacks on the various people here are based on malice. I used the word “truth” in a legal sense–if a court ruled that your attacks were “true,” then the person suing you would need to prove “malice” as well, and that is usually difficult to prove. Maybe not so difficult in this situation regarding Victoria, Sharon, James, and others.
As I told you via email, I am not interested in having my blog used as a launching pad for libelous attacks, even if the person making them thinks they are “true,” and I have deleted a few such attacks over the years, most recently a few of yours. As I also told you, you can attack me all you want, and I’ll decide if I want to defend myself. I won’t tolerate you launching vicious and repetitious personal attacks on others any further. This is a blog, a place where people post opinion pieces, and then have discussions about the pieces. I published Victoria Bloch’s piece as a combination report/analysis/opinion, the same as I have published other guest pieces. You are welcome to write something, and I will decide if it fits in with the blog’s overall theme and approach. If it’s a litany of repetitious attacks, I won’t publish it.
As for the revelation that your (and other) email was being read, that came from legal documents filed by government enforcement agents as evidence to delay full disclosure of Rawesome search warrant documents. You’ll have to read my book, and the footnotes that spell out exactly where that information came from, if you want the details.
And as for me being a government agent, I guess I must be an unpaid one, doing it for the glory of country. I always thought agents were supposed to be paid, but guess my checks have been lost in the mail somewhere.
I am not equipped to assess the accuracy of the pictures or anything else on that website. In this day and age, software tools allow all kinds of doctoring of photos that is difficult to detect. I have just pointed out that when Aajonus and his associate, Larry Otting, went to the Ventura County District Attorney with the material on that web site, the DA refused to take any action against Sharon Palmer. I have also pointed out that when the two filed a civil suit against Palmer, using info from that site, the judge dismissed it. In addition, Otting, who apparently owned the web site, agreed as part of mediation efforts more than a year earlier to take down the site, and didn’t. Aajonus agreed as part of a new settlement to end the civil suit he filed, and a countersuit by Sharon, to take down the site, and apparently it still hasn’t come down.
This summer, a work-related trip has brought me to southern California. Being in the area, I attended the trial. I am the person who was labelled by Victoria as “an unnamed would-be young farmer”. I was present at the trial all day Monday and all day Tuesday. I was not present on Wednesday.
I read this blog on a regular basis, but do not post. However, upon seeing factually-incorrect statements in Victoria’s report, vicious attacks on my friend and nutritional advisor, inconsistent use of censorship, and inconsistent enforcement of forum policy, I was compelled to create an account and write something from my perspective. I have made a sincere attempt to phrase things as diplomatically and respectfully as possible, and I hope that my words do not end up in a black hole.
Victoria’s account of the persons present at the trial is incorrect. Aajonus has already pointed out one error. Victoria replied, acknowledging the mistake, and claiming that “Everyone else was accurately identified.”
This claim is incorrect. Victoria’s account contains additional inaccuracies. In particular, several people were not identified at all.
On Monday, in addition to Aajonus, Larry, James, Sharon, Victoria, the attorneys, the judge, court personnel, and myself, *l* and *s* were present.
On Tuesday, in addition to Aajonus, Larry, James, Sharon, Victoria, the attorneys, the judge, court personnel, and myself, *r*, *t*, and *e* were present.
Since these five people are not public figures, I have only written one letter of their full names (using UNIX wildcards), in order to protect their privacy. Some were witnesses, and others were observers. Since these witnesses did not have an opportunity to testify in court, perhaps the term “would-be witnesses” is more appropriate. I was told that there were more would-be witnesses, who were not present on Monday or Tuesday, and were expecting to testify on Wednesday or Thursday or possibly Friday. In particular, one would-be witness flew in from very far away. In light of this, I am not surprised that Aajonus is angry and upset.
If Victoria had the intention of writing a report of the trial, and, in particular, “accurately identifying” all individuals present, then she should have, at the very least, attempted to directly speak with those individuals. She had an opportunity to do so when she was waiting in the courtroom while negotiations were being held. Instead, she kept to herself, and made incorrect assumptions about the identities and marital statuses of people who were sitting a few meters away from her. When I arrived in the courthouse on Monday morning, the first person who I recognized was James. I introduced myself, and had a friendly conversation with him. After a few minutes, Sharon arrived and joined our conversation. I would have been happy to speak with Victoria as well. In fact, it appears to me, that the only reason why I was even mentioned in Victoria’s report, is because of my conversation with James and Sharon.
I understand that it may not be easy to speak with someone who is “on the other side”. However, that is one of the jobs of a reporter or journalist. For example, I remember reading David’s account of his (unsuccessful) attempt to have a friendly conversation with a top FDA official (John Sheehan, if I remember correctly).
It is surprising to me, that other than Victoria, no employees, volunteers, friends, or supporters of HFF were present at the trial. It is my understanding that HFF is quite a large operation, and that numerous employees are needed to take care of all the animals, sell the food at markets, etc. For about two years, I volunteered at a small organic permaculture farm in Canada. I know the farmer, and the community within which he is embedded, quite well. Hypothetically, if he were falsely accused, and sued, for selling industrially-produced food, and I had certainty that he was innocent, then I would do everything in my power to help defend and support him, and I know that several other of his close friends would do the same. The courtroom would be full of supporters. In light of this hypothetical reasoning, I find the absence of HFF supporters in the courtroom to be troubling. In fact, it is my understanding that some of the would-be witnesses for the plaintiffs are former HFF employees.
Finally, I will comment on the discussion concerning doctorates. I am currently employed at an academic institution, and I know a thing or two about the process of writing and defending a PhD thesis. Out of all the PhD theses that I have read, most spend over a hundred pages reviewing and parroting known results, and contain only marginal original work. Theses containing a substantial amount of truly interesting, innovative, original, and groundbreaking work are the exception, not the rule.
Moreover, it is extremely rare for a supervisory committee to carefully scrutinize all the details in a PhD thesis, because it would take too long. Most professors will only read the Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusions, and skim the rest. They want to have an interesting discussion with the candidate, give a positive recommendation, and get back to their own work. In many instances, a candidate will “pass”, and be awarded a PhD, even if they do not truly deserve it and their work is of low quality. Nobody wants to fail a PhD candidate. Sometimes, it makes not only the student, but also the supervisor, look bad. Moreover, it is a nightmare for the committee, and can sour relations between colleagues. Generically, a PhD candidate fails their defense only in the event of horrible misconduct that is uncovered at the last minute (such as extensive plagiarism, or forgery of experimental results). In such a situation, awarding a PhD would make the university (and supervisory committee in particular) look bad. In fact, prior to a formal defense, the supervisor is usually required to look over the thesis, and confirm that it is “examinable”, in order to avoid the ugly situation of a possible fail.
I have read Mike Adams’ article concerning the legitimacy of Aajonus’ PhD, and I find the whole situation troubling. Did Aajonus purchase his degree from a diploma mill, as Adams claims? Or did somebody dupe Aajonus into accepting a fake honorary degree, in an attempt to discredit him? I have no first-hand knowledge, but I find the latter possibility to be quite plausible. After all, one does not speak out against the medical profession and pharmaceutical industry, and publish a book with the disclaimer “Although the author would like to, he does NOT imply or suggest that anyone interfere with medical procedure”, without making a few enemies. Moreover, anybody who has read Aajonus’ publications can easily discern that they are not the result of studying mainstream nutritional science at a university, but rather, the result of taking one’s health into their own hands when conventional nutrition and medical treatment have brought them to death’s doorstep.
Moreover, I would like to point out that NaturalNews in general, and Mike Adams in particular, have a heavy pro-vegan and pro-supplement stance, at odds with the principles of WAPF and a large portion of the raw milk community. For example, some of Adams’ news articles concerning raw milk freedom contain statements reeking of vegan moral superiority, along the lines of “ personally, I do not drink the milk of any mammal ”. In my opinion, all articles on NaturalNews should be carefully scrutinized, and taken with a large grain of unrefined sea salt. However, to their credit, NaturalNews does have many good articles on the dangers of the medical profession and pharmaceutical industry, and the erosion of freedom and liberty in America, as well as humorous comics.
In closing, I would like to say that I consider the fraudulent sale of industrial-quality food as “organic” (as defined by RTCHF, not as defined by USDA) to be the highest form of betrayal and breach of trust in the health-food community, and I encourage everybody to personally visit the farms from which they obtain their food, not only for a guided tour, but also to volunteer help with various chores and farm duties. It is quite plausible, that in the not-too-distant future, the only people with access to health-giving food will be those living on farms, and those with a close personal connection to a farmer.
Best wishes for health and healing,
-Michael
Expert witnesses in the court of law may be challenged as to their credentials, and if they fail, their “expert” testimony is disallowed. An expert witness who fails to know HIS OWN credentials is either lazy or dishonest.
As for my degrees, I have a Bachelors of Science degree in Mathematics from one of top technical schools in the country. I have also earned a Masters of Music Degree in Conducting. Both are legitimate.
Regards.
Music degree eh? Now that’s interesting, and is my first love in life. I grew up (kinda) in Boston during the punk rock evolution, then transitioned to the MIDI world since I was an electronic technician and that’s what came easy.
But back to the topic. I’ve learned a lot about raw milk and it’s health benefits from Victoria Bloch. But even from her, who has earned my trust, I still read with a critical scientific mind. For a result to be accepted scientifically, it must fit into a coherent total view. If it doesn’t, while the result may still be correct, yet it must be held as tentative until more data comes in to resolve the conflict. But I observe that a lot of people appear unwilling to hold an idea as tentative, or they tend to reject science altogether as bunk. I think this is because they find doubt to be emotionally intolerable. Just a thought.
A good friend of mine shared this bit of wisdom with me that sums up this situation perfectly:
“You Don’t Have To Disrespect And Insult Others Simply To Hold Your Own Ground. If You Do, That Shows How Shaky Your Own Position Is.” ~ Red Haircrow
Accusations without evidence? Ah, mainstream propaganda. Also, “consumers are claiming again that the unpasteurized milk is causing illness” is a distortion, it is the government regulators making those claims. Show me who and where the sickened people are.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2013/08/do_you_drink_raw_milk.html
When I refer to the honorary Ph.D. now, it is with irony. However, I still have not seen any evidence that the university was a fraud. May be I was setup, as was suggested. Or may be, the university was a failed university. I am a graduate of the British American Drama Academy at Stanford University. It was very legitimate. Our professors were Richard Dreyfus, Marsha Mason, Ann Jackson and Ed Asner. It did not survive beyond 1993. You cannot find anything on the internet about it today.
The only evidence that was produced about Richmonds University was that a website company used that universities name on forged degrees. When I argue that point and the point that mine is irrefutably an honorary doctorate given for my life’s work in nutrition, I am not claiming the honorary doctorate is valid. However, since I cannot prove that the British American Drama Academy at Stanford in Palo Alto, California ever existed, do you want me to claim that that one is also fraudulent?