The U.S. Justice Department has withdrawn its subpoena of Indiana raw dairy farmer David Hochstetler to appear before a federal grand jury.
He was scheduled to testify tomorrow in Detroit, in connection with an outbreak of illnesses linked by public health officials, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, to the milk of his Forest Grove Dairy. But yesterday he received a certified letter saying that his subpoena was being withdrawn.
Ross Goldstein, a U.S. Justice Department trial attorney, noted in the letter that Hochstetler had previously stated to him that Hochstetler wouldn’t answer questions or produce documents based on his Fifth Amendment constitutional rights. “Based on your representation that Forest Grove Dairy is a sole proprietorship and that you refuse to produce any responsive documents based on the assertion of rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution against self incrimination, I write to advise you that you are released from the subpoena until further notice.” He was advised to retain all documents in the case.
Sheriff Brad Rogers of Elkhart County, IndianaWhile it’s not clear exactly what kind of maneuvering led to the federal pullback, one factor working for Hochstetler may have been the efforts of his county sheriff, Brad Rogers of Elkhart County. He wrote a letter to the Justice Department warning it not to conduct inspections of Hochstetler’s farm without a warrant from a local judge. In the process, he got into a debate over the limits of federal power and the U.S. Constitution with the Justice Department’s Goldstein.
Earlier this month, Rogers emailed Goldstein that there had been “a number of inspections and attempted inspections on (Hochstetler’s) farm…” He warned that “any further attempts to inspect this farm without a warrant signed by a local judge, based on probable cause, will result in Federal inspectors’ removal or arrest for trespassing by my officers or I.”
That prompted Goldstein to cite the U.S. Constitution’s “Supremacy Clause,” which he said “has been interpreted since the earliest days of this nation to mean that federal law trumps state law whenever the two conflict.”
Goldstein argued further that the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act allowed federal agents “to enter Mr. Hochstetler’s property…without a warrant at all–pursuant to a long line of federal cases…” Moreover, he warned the sheriff that federal agents could arrest him– “that the ‘refusal to permit entry or inspection as authorized by section 374’ is in itself a federal criminal offense, which under certain circumstances is a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to three years…”
During an interview, Rogers responded to Goldstein’s argument, “When you assert that federal law trumps state law, it is a distortion of the intent, content and extent of the supreme law of the land–the U.S. Constitution-seen through a myopic and misunderstood view of Article VI, section 2 (The Supremacy Clause).”
He also asserted that “the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act could be deemed unconstitutional if and when challenged vis-a-vis the Tenth Amendment juxtaposed with The Commerce Clause.”
He added that “our form of government was based on the principle that all officials exist to secure ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.’…Such ‘cosmetic’ regulations will never ‘trump’ those principles. The citizen in question is a good man and has committed no crime. He is an upstanding member of this community. He does not have to allow access to his property for the FDA to conduct random inspections.”
Aside from the sheriff-prosecutor debate, the affair had received publicity via this blog and an article I wrote for Food Safety News, detailing how extensive testing of Hochstetler’s milk in 2010 had shown no signs of campylobacter, and how FDA officials had targeted Hochstetler and another farmer, Richard Hebron, of Family Farms Co-op, in meetings in 2009.
The matter of Hebron and the grand jury is still up in the air. He was scheduled to testify before the federal grand jury with Hochstetler tomorrow in Detroit. He told me he is currently in the process of working with the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund to submit documentation to the Justice Department that his farm also is not registered as a corporation or a cooperative, but is a sole proprietorship.
When I asked Hochstetler, who is Amish, whether he was relieved about the turn of events, he said, “I never got too excited about it. It is spiritual warfare between good and evil and if we have God on our side, we will win.”
***
The grand jury investigation of Hochstetler and Hebron is directly related to tomorrow’s Raw Milk Freedom Riders event in Wisconsin and Illinois.
The Raw Milk Freedom Riders are challenging the interstate ban on raw milk shipments, which is the federal regulation used to go after Hochstetler and Hebron. The event tomorrow will involve a group of Chicago mothers, acting as “agents” on behalf of other moms, traveling to Wisconsin to pick up milk at a raw dairy there and returning with it to a Chicago park, where a demonstration will be held. There’s a report on the demonstration as well in the current Food Safety News.
The FDA has failed to recognize agents acting on behalf of individual consumers as being outside the realm of the federal prohibition. The rally will be at Independence Park, 3850 West Irving Park Road, Chicago, IL. 60618, from 11:30 to 2.
One final reason to attend: you’ll get to meet Michael Schmidt, the raw dairy farmer who is traveling from Canada to attend the rally. Given all that is going on north of the border to stamp out raw milk, it’s pretty amazing that he would take time to come to come to this American rally. I hope to see some of you there.
Its great to see Richard Hochstetler receive support from his local sheriff.
I hope all goes well at the event, I live about 31/2 hours north of Michael, I dont know him personally, however please give him my regards and gratitude.
Amanda
I take issue with a lot of what the industry says, and that is why I switched over to organic farming practices in the early 1980s. You need to think for yourself, as well as take a little more time to thinking this issue through and perhaps, answer some of my questions.
You and the industry are the ones that are misleading and who aught to use a different term. Either youre closed or youre not anything in between is a deception.
I dont disagree with your dairy expert; however I would add that there are numerous other factors that could lead to E coli shedding in a herd apart from the new stock.
Ken Conrad
"Do these birds, animals and insects I mentioned not harbor the organisms you are concerned with? If so do you not think it is impractical an misleading to suggest that a closed herd is attainable in order to mitigate exposure to these ill defined food born illnesses."
Yes, birds do have pathogens. However, experts agree (as it appears you do) that you can reduce risk by not bringing in new animals. Under this commonly-used definition of "closed herd," you can reduce risk. Just as employees should wash their hands and dairies should clean their pipes, any of these factors that can be controlled ought to be considered in developing a safety plan.
My comments were in the context of a dairy milking just over 200 cows (from my eyeball analysis) bringing in 161. If anyone can find an expert who would say that many new animals would not put a herd under stress, do have them post here.
Amanda
There is too much bullying going on on the part of the government toward small farmers. This has to stop. How, I am not sure, but we need more local people, like Sheriff Rogers.
It's about time that our government did what it's supposed to do: be a servant to the people, not to the corporations and the politicians.
THANK YOU SHERIFF ROGERS, FOR STANDING UP for Mr. Hochstetler.
I agree wholeheartedly, Bev. I just hope that they are not 'retreating' only to go concoct another scheme. To target small farmers, no less a god fearing Amish farmer who for sure is not hurting anyone, is really appalling.
My question about the Chicago freedom ride: "the FDA has failed to recognize agents acting on behalf of individual consumers as being outside the realm of the federal prohibition."
I am not trying to be dense, but what does this "freedom ride" hope to accomplish?
The Raw Milk Freedom Ride is challenging the FDA's refusal to recognize agents as being part of the private buying exercise. It previously said that individuals bringing raw milk across state lines for their own personal use won't be considered in violation of the federal prohibition. It hasn't done the same for agents, who are acting on behalf of individuals. So the Freedom Riders will consist of mothers serving as agents, who will be testing the prohibition by bringing raw milk from Wisconsin to Illinois on behalf of other moms.
It's not an easy distinction to understand at first glance, but it is important because it determines whether each individual going across state lines for milk can only do it for themselves, or whether they can bring milk back on behalf of friends and neighbors.
David
Ah, got it…I understand the difference now! This should be interesting…Good luck!!!
Kristen
I am confused by this statement in your 2nd paragraph "I write to advise you that you are released from the subpoena until further notice." He was advised to retain all documents in the case."
So FDA sent him this letter just yesterday? Sounds hokey to me…the "until further notice"!
I don't trust them one bit and wonder what will they concoct next!
I also thought part of that ban on interstate stuff was the actual "sale" of the milk and we are not selling it tomorrow it's being given away.
nancy – an "agent"
see you at the park tomorrow
So Vernon Herschberger is now being brought up on criminal charges. But this part is most fascinating: "The charges were brought by the state Department of Justice acting as special prosecutor for Sauk County." The locally-elected DA couldn't/didn't/wouldn't find enough to bring charges so that state stepped in. Huh.
http://www.examiner.com/human-rights-in-national/no-more-corporate-personhood-la-unanimous
Perhaps you missed it, but all of the progressives and socialists living in Madison (I'm NOT talking about the suit-and-ties who run the capital building) passed a similar referendum just recently:
http://www.freerangelongmont.com/2011/05/07/wisconsin-referendums-oppose-corporate-personhood/
See, we have more in common than you know…
http://earthfirstnews.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/wisconsin-politicians-plot-the-destruction-of-penokees-hills/
JURISDICTION: Ah… the federal government has no jurisdiction on private land in a state unless the feds attained jurisdiction through: 1. An entity performing commerce across state lines, 2. Federal grants w/ "contractual strings", 3. The feds complied with USC Title 40 255 (Int. note #14), 4. The state requested assistance of the feds, or 5. The Sheriff requested assistance of the feds.
The jurisdictional area of the federal government is limited through the Constitution (Article I, 8 (17))- as not into the states. Clearly confirmed through the 9th & 10th Amendments. (Note: the States were born on July 4th, 1776 and created the federal government the States ratified the Constitution in 1788.) THE SUPREME COURT HAS SPOKEN and CONFIRMED STATE'S RIGHTS!: Printz v. U.S., & recently (Aug 2011) U.S. vs. Bond.
LAWSUIT PREVENTION: How to arrest a rogue federal agent in a county, without the sheriff and county getting sued by the feds? Use the county grand jury to issue an indictment against a rogue federal agent. A complaint can be also submitted to a SPECIAL federal grand jury (this is easy and powerful!) Website w/ more info: http://www.hidden4thbranch.com/?page_id=212