Okay, let’s get a few things out into the open here. There’s an exchange following my Thursday posting about Sharon Palmer in which Joe Slow brings up a run-in with the law that Sharon Palmer had back in 1999.
I was aware when I wrote about her that Sharon had had a past legal problem because the sheriff’s press release says so. (“A background check of Palmer’s criminal history revealed a prior felony conviction for fraud,” says the release.)
I didn’t bring it up in my posting because, as Robert Monahan rightly points out in comments on the post , it really has nothing to do with this case, and its mention in the sheriff’s press release is actually another example of the questionable police tactics in this entire case.
But I did speak with Sharon about it before I posted the account of her arrest. Based on the writeup about it that Joe Slow refers to (why is it that people like Joe Slow won’t use their real names?), there is a key heading: “Mastermind Still at Large.”
The “mastermind,” Edward Rostami, was Sharon’s husband, and he really ran the mortgage enterprise described in the article. Sharon says she had little knowledge about operations at the firm. When the shit hit the fan, and Rostami disappeared, the authorities went after Sharon. “He left me with three kids and nothing else. They (the authorities) thought if they held me, they could get to him.” Didn’t work.
So they held Sharon on $12 million bail for nine months. Her kids, ages one, three, and four, were parceled out among relatives. (Unfortunately, these kinds of cases are more common than we realize, with single moms often the victims–another dirty little secret of American law enforcement.) After nine months in jail, the deal came down to this: If Sharon pleaded guilty to fraud, she would be released and get her kids, and life, back.
She took the deal (what choice did she have?), completed the divorce, and resolved to start a new life producing density-rich healthy food. She was doing great, until Dec. 18, when the Ventura County Sheriff decided a single mom with three young kids would make a great demo for the troops on undercover and SWAT team tactics.
There’s one further little irony in this mess. The key legal issue that seems to have gotten the sheriff into a twit—about using an unlicensed production facility—is not only very much debatable, but an issue that came up in the famous California spinach E.coli 0157:H7 illnesses of September 2006, that sickened 205 and killed three. (Let’s not forget, no one’s even hinted that Sharon’s goat cheese got anyone sick.)
I’ve been looking further into the spinach case in the course of researching my book about the raw milk issue, and according to the state’s report, it turns out that the Dole plant partly responsible was using a new unlicensed facility to clean and otherwise process its spinach (see page 44 of the report). I can’t seem to find any reports of any Dole officials being handcuffed and thrown into jail without warrants in connection with that case, or even being politely served with warrants. Did I miss something?
Of course not. We’re not only dealing with double standards to go with slander and inuendo in these kinds of cases, we’re dealing with cowardly law enforcement officials not worthy of the badges they wear.
It appears the new administration will be more of the same by those who are chosen, I am not expecting "change".
My heart goes out to Susan Palmer and her children. Being victimized twice by government bullies. Spending nine months in jail, separated from her infant and toddlers? Being abandoned by her husband was probably a blessing, considering what a cad and psychopath he seems.
It’s clear from the prior post that California is really trying to put small farmers out of business. Their pretext couldn’t be more clear in the Susan Palmer case, revealing the true evil purpose. Is there a test that could be done on the pasteurized cheese, to prove that it wasn’t made from raw milk? Wouldn’t that prove that it had to have been made at the certified location?
The only reason law enforcement is after her is she does not pay her way, she is still scamming people out of money and many feed stores around Ventura County. She has 4 pending lawsuits against her and a arrest warrant was issued for her arrest on 12/05/08 for Appearance and Examination of Judgment Debtor.
http://www.ventura.courts.ca.gov/via/CaseInformationSummary.aspx?CaseNo=56-2008-00324387-SC-SC-VTA
She has just been served for another Apperance and Examination of Judgement Debtor, lets see if shows up for this one.
http://www.ventura.courts.ca.gov/via/CaseInformationSummary.aspx?CaseNo=56-2008-00324389-SC-SC-VTAAnother case has been filed against her for writing bad checks to a local hay dealer for over $9000.00,
http://www.ventura.courts.ca.gov/via/CaseInformationSummary.aspx?CaseNo=56-2008-00333883-CL-CL-VTA
Drink unpasturized milk and dairy products, I dont care – Just dont try to protect swindlers.
Again the tools US Marshall, state police, county police and this time their corporate sponsors.
Monsanto Investigator In Illinois laughs They Are Doing " Rural Cleansing"
by Linn Cohen Cole
http://opednews.com/articles/MONSANTO-investigator-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090110-871.html
HMMM the way 2009 is unfolding are we going to wish we were back in 2008?
I will drink my raw milk and eat my germ filled raw butter, drink thick raw cream and eat raw cheese. My DW and I have a perfect track record to back up what we are eating in a total of 10 years on medicare we cost the system nothing not one penny nor any insurance compay either.
I do hope you never loose your freedom of choise to consume the other stuff or your freedom of speech to speak as you will.
Joe are our freedoms in jeoprady or not?
His participation on this site however and the nature of his attack prompts me to question his sincerity and integrity.
Ken Conrad
The extreme measures used against her make a lot more sense if they were intended to send a message about her herdshare contracts as opposed to a licensing dispute over some cheese.
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/jan/11/raw-milk-issue-a-mix-up-says-dairy-owner/
NASDA currently has seventeen Policy Statements on topic areas developed by the NASDA membership – "These topics are consistent with the guiding principles outlined in the policy statement titled ‘Guiding Principles for Agricultural Competitiveness and Working Partnerships.’ NASDA policies are the operational, working policies that guide our efforts to influence the development and implementation of sound policy and programs at all levels of the federal government."
On a hunch, I took a look at Policy Statement #4, "Food Regulation and Safety." In section 4.3 "Roles and Responsibility" buried about half-way into the document are two paragraphs under "Milk Quality-pasteurization" that are very interesting:
"Only pasteurized milk, milk products and properly aged cheeses should be sold for human consumption. Sale includes distribution by use of animal or herd sharing, bartering, exchange or agistment. In those states where the sale of unpasteurized milk is authorized, those products should be labeled ‘Not Pasteurized and May Contain Organisms that cause Human Disease.’
Apparently healthy cows and goats can shed in their milk organisms which are pathogenic to human beings and may cause diseases such as brucellosis, Campylobacter enteritis, salmonellosis, and tuberculosis; and inasmuch as milk handlers may introduce pathogenic agents during the handling of unpasteurized milk (including certified raw milk)…"
What is most disturbing about this policy is that NASDA, an organization consisting entirely of the heads of the state departments of agriculture, has decided entirely on its own in opposition to various state laws and court decisions that all milk sold for human consumption should be pasteurized. Furthermore and contrary to various court decisions, NASDA has decided all by itself that herd shares, bartering, exchanges and boarding contracts are all "sales"!
I would just chalk this up to departmental hubris, were it not for the fact that this is a policy statement guiding all departments of agriculture, who are also members of NCIMS – the National Conference of Interstate Milk Shipments. NCIMS (http://www.ncims.org) is responsible for writing the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO), which is the template legislation for milk and dairy production that is mostly adopted as-is by many dairy producing states. The topic of raw milk and herdshares has come up in past NCIMS conferences, and no action was taken during the last one. The next conference is scheduled for this April in Orlando Florida, and the danger is that one of the committees may decided to insert language into the PMO defining herdshares as "sales" or banning them entirely. States often adopt the PMO with a very cursory review if at all, and it would be very easy for Ohio, New York or Pennsylvania to suddenly find that herdshares are illegal under their state’s revised code. There are many people keeping an eye on NCIMS and the PMO, and we would certainly have advance warning if the PMO was changed to disallow herdshares.
One final tid-bit that I found was that during the NASDA’s midyear meeting in February 2008, Director Kawamura of California submitted an action item requesting "NASDA to conduct and update a survey on raw milk regulation and food safety issues at the state level." This item was moved to recommend, passed by the membership and is presumably being implemented. We can only speculate to what nefarious purpose this survey has been or will be used.
Who do they intend survey?
Ken Conrad
I would guess that NASDA formed an internal committee tasked with putting together a survey asking specifics about each state’s raw milk legislation and any disease outbreaks linked to raw milk consumption reported in that state. The survey would then have been turned over to each NASDA member, who would have assigned someone in his or her department to complete and return it.
I can imagine that this survey could then be used as a tool to induce changes in the PMO. For example, they could say that state X allows retail raw milk sales and had X1 number of "raw milk outbreaks", while state Y disallows raw milk sales and had no "raw milk outbreaks." Clearly state X is endangering the public health, and the PMO must be changed to disallow raw milk consumption.
But Sharon is not honest about the products she sells and this puts her buyers at risk and I just don’t think that is in sync with the whole raw movement.
Just my two cents.
There is an overall concept here of "know your farmer." Recently, a raw milk drinker (Elizabeth) noted dishonesty on a raw milk website, and worked with the producer to correct it (perhaps an example of "self-policing"). The final outcome was a struggle between ideologies, a representative of children who became sick from raw milk, and a the right to choose producing/distributing/selling/buying raw milk. But, ultimately there was some progress (see David’s posts about ideology).
Bottom line – there is no place for dishonesty when selling or giving away any food. As consumers, it is important to try to do research and make the best choices. And, it is the duty of regulators to enforce the laws and regulations (yet, not overstep boundaries), in order to protect the public health.