Whatever happened to the Rawesome Three (James Stewart, Sharon Palmer, Victoria Bloch)?
Whatever happened to the felony case against the Rawesome Three?
Whatever happened to Rawesome Food Club?
The door is locked and a protest sign adorns Rawesome Food Club in Venice, CA. We know the answer to the third question–just take a look at the photo I snapped in the Venice section of Los Angeles today. The tiny Rawesome Food Club remains locked up tight, adorned by a large sign of protest.
The judge overseeing the case in Los Angeles County Criminal Court, Upinder Kalra, seemed to be wondering about the first two questions at a hearing today on the case. The hearing was ostensibly about setting a date for a pretrial hearing, at which a judge will decide whether there is enough evidence to proceed with a trial.
“We need to proceed on probable cause,” Kalra told the assembled defendants and the lawyers from the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office.
But there were technicalities to work out. James Stewart, the owner of Rawesome, had previously decided to represent himself in the case, and today filed a motion to withdraw his not-guilty plea, under which he agreed to not have anything to do with raw milk or the Rawesome club. “I was unaware of my constitutional rights” when he made the plea, Stewart told the judge.
The judge told Stewart he needed more specific reasons, related to the evidence in the case. But since Stewart hasn’t seen the “discovery”–the state’s evidence–because it was in the hands of his original attorney, the judge ordered the L.A. County District Attorney’s office to ensure he receives the information by Feb. 8.
Moreover, according to an L.A. County District Attorney lawyer at the hearing, his office is still awaiting information from other agencies to possibly add to its evidence in the case. A lawyer for one of the Rawesome Three said he had been told the D.A. was seeking information from other agencies to determine if additional charges might be added to the 13, mostly related to sale of raw milk, originally listed.
The judge agreed to put off until March 2 setting a date for a pretrial hearing, which is then supposed to happen within 45 days. The two sides at the hearing present highlights of their expected evidence, in an effort to convince the judge as to whether the case should go forward to trial, go forward with reduced or added charges, or be thrown out.
After today’s hearing, I spoke with George Castello, a Deputy District Attorney for the L.A. County D.A.’s Consumer Protection Division. He downplayed the potential importance of reports from other agencies. “There are additional reports likely to come in,” he said. But he indicated that not only was he unaware of which agencies might still be submitting reports, but that “it is not accurate to say more charges might be coming.”
Castello indicated that he is still familiarizing himself with the case, having assumed oversight of the case when Kelly Sakir, a deputy district attorney who oversaw the case from the beginning, was transferred to other duties. “This whole thing is going to get sorted out in a couple of weeks. We’ll see where we are at in mid-February.”
Matt Bromund, an attorney representing Sharon Palmer, said afterwardsthat the simple fact that the authorities who raided Rawesome June 30, 2010, and again August 3, 2011, seized and destroyed practically all the food with “no discrimination,” indicates to him that, “The goal was to shut down the business…This case is not your ordinary criminal case.”
Maybe the clearest thing to come out of the latest legal twists and turns in this case is that the Rawesome Three are well entangled in the jungle that is America’s criminal justice system–a system based heavily on delays, continuances, and long waits. Nearly six months have gone by since the Rawesome Three were arrested, charged with the first felonies in a raw dairy case in recent years, and briefly jailed…and there isn’t even a pre-trial hearing scheduled. Perhaps tangling them up in that thicket was part of the intent here?
**
A federal judge shot down a long-shot attempt to gain a preliminary injunction against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s enforcement of the prohibition on interstate raw milk shipments. The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund had made the request based on the FDA’s enforcement of the interstate prohibition against two Amish farmers.
Judge Mark Bennett said the FTCLDF’s effort to connect the separate cases against the Amish farmers with the cases of the plaintiffs in the organization’s existing case against the FDA wasn’t convincing to him. “The FDA would be unduly hampered, and the public interest would be damaged, by enjoining enforcement of still-valid regulations intended to protect the public from food borne illnesses resulting from the consumption of raw milk…The plaintiffs have shown no threat to them that would outweigh the threat to the agency’s legitimate enforcement actions and the public interest. I find that the lack of any threat of irreparable harm to the plaintiffs here and the balance of the other factors against issuance of the requested preliminary injunction make it unnecessary for me to consider the plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.”
He said the FTCLDF case against the FDA is “a matter of some complexity that will be addressed” at some point upcoming. Stay tuned.
I need some help. I need REAL NEWSPAPER headlines from raw milk outbreaks in local papers and what the headlines say "Raw milk sickens…" or "milk sickens,", etc.
I need these from ALL over the country – the recent california, any others, and the like.
If you can help, much appreciated as it will be used to dispel one of the major myths about raw milk and its effect on PMO milk.
You can email this info to eleew18 AT juno DOT (the symbol, yes all this is to help with spam) com
Or email me there and I will provide a physical mailing address if you need to snail mail stuff.
Much appreciated!
Did you fly out here to report on the Rawesome court case? No raw milk rally this time? No update from Real Food Rights? Is support flagging or are people just forgetful?
I happened to be in the L.A. area, on my way to Las Vegas for the County Sheriff Project convention beginning Sun evening.
http://www.countysheriffproject.org/
I don't think there was any thought given to a rally around this event–this was a technical hearing (though I hear in your Q some desire to see "support flagging").
I think the real action Friday was going on in a Wisconsin courtroom, at a hearing for dairy farmer Vernon Hershberger, who has been charged with three misdeameanors and ordered to halt farming on behalf of his food club members. According to news reports,
Hershberger asked the judge in the case to lift the ban on his farm's production, set as a condition of his release on bail. He said that not only is his family financially dependent on the buyers club, but its members depend on the food it provides. Here's the statement that really got to me:
" 'To most of them, it is not a matter of preference, but a matter of life or death,' Hershberger said in court Friday, adding that people who depend on his food may face 'malnutrition or death' if they don't receive it. He said God and the Bible would not allow him to cease distribution."
At first reading, I thought what he was saying sounded overly dramatic. But then I realized it wasn't dramatic at all. In fact, it encapsulates the dilemma of the government's approach quite well.
Apparently members of his club agree. They packed the courtroom, and two women protested so strongly in the courtroom that they were forcibly removed.
http://www.wiscnews.com/baraboonewsrepublic/news/local/article_01388a64-4951-11e1-b183-001871e3ce6c.html
The judge denied Hershberger's request to change his bail terms, saying something to the effect that the law was being applied equally to him as to others. But what the judge was actually saying is that everyone who pushes for access on a private basis to nutrient-dense food deserves equally to be starved. Or am I missing something?
David
Youre not missing anything. The judges indifference to the plight of others results from his decision to narrowly focus on the law, which obstructs his ability to exercise compassion and reason. This begs the question why would an individual of his stature allow the law to influence his decision in such a way?
Ians Voice cries out to all of us to truly question our motives and actions vis–vis the law.
http://iansvoice.org/default.aspx
Ken
That one in a million estimate is thrown around allot with vaccines. It is merely a slogan used by many in the health care industry in an attempt to mitigate fear of the vaccine and in no way should be considered factual.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm59e0602a1.htm
risk assessment should take into account that influenza and influenza-like illnesses are associated with significant morbidity and mortality, including a hospitalization rate of 222 per 1 million population and a death rate of 9.7 per 1 million population for H1N1-associated illness, as well as possible increased risk for GBS
Ken
no, you're not "missing something" … you've articulated a vivid cartoon of how ominous it gets, all eyes drawn to the law enforcer's upraised truncheon
What was Hershberger's crime? … doing what the God of Israel commands us, His people, to do = separate ourselves from the Pharaonic system
having been framed-up for opposing the Will of the Tyrant. and now loaded aboard the railroad called the 'justice system' … It will be most interesting to see how many are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with him, the day the thugs in the uniform of the state, move in to enforce the Court order. Half a century ago the Poet Laureate sang "the cops don't like you, and man they expect the same"
this is the humiliation stage, on the way to the Cross
but "all things work for good, for those who are the called ( the Elect) according to His purpose"
"But what the judge was actually saying is that everyone who pushes for access on a private basis to nutrient-dense food deserves equally to be starved. "
This appears to be true.
"As for working in the system…I'm going to play devil's advocate here. If the system of repression goes as far back as has been stated (and I can see it), how can you work within that system for change, as you suggest Bill? Will there not always be a system designed to take you down in your efforts since they are not playing into the hands of those with power?"
I think that we need to have an "inside-outside" strategy. There are those who will work within the system and those who work outside of it. My choice is to work in the system, because raw milk cheese is legal.
However, it is foolish to think that we can simply opt out of food licensing requirements, and expect this to be a winning strategy in the long run. Regulation of food and drink is an ancient practice. The laws of Kosher, for example, are a food code that is thousands of years old. In Wisconsin, our food licensing laws date to the 1830's (before we were even a state) and were originally passed to protect consumers from misbranded food.
Our current food system is profoundly undemocratic. This is a symptom of much larger problems in American democracy. But it does not mean we should give up on reform and surrender to a complete "laissez-faire" free for all, which will really only multiply the already existing problems.
The "libertarians" who wish to make this an issue about personal choice are missing the whole point. Yes, a consumer should be able to choose to drink raw milk. But the question is whether a producer has to take responsibility for the safety of a product that they sell? Unless that responsibility is taken seriously, we can expect this repression to continue.
Also, political power is not a one-way street. Although the system is inherently repressive and corrupt, there have been effective and successful efforts at reforming it throughout history. The biggest problem today is the incredible influence of corporate money in our political process. IMO, unless the issue of corporate power is effectively addressed, we cannot even begin to have a serious public dialogue about other issues like raw milk, food sovereignty, social justice, civil liberties, etc…