Barbara and Steve Smith had bad news and good news on the legal front in their suit against officials of New York’s Department of Agriculture and Markets yesterday.
The bad news was that their lawyers were rejected in their effort to obtain a temporary restraining order, which would have had the effect of immediately ending the ongoing harassment at the Meadowsweet Farm in Lodi.
The good news was that the judge who heard the request scheduled a hearing Jan. 22 to decide on whether to issue a temporary injunction.
According to Gary Cox, the lawyer for the Smiths and the limited liability company that owns the dairy’s cows, the state judge needed to be convinced their case had a “substantial” likelihood of success on the merits before issuing a temporary restraining order.
In my experience covering legal matters, temporary restraining orders also depend on the judge’s perception that state actions, like the ongoing inspections of Meadowsweet Farm, are so abusive or constiutionally questionable that they need to be halted immediately.
According to Gary, if on Jan. 22 “the court grants the preliminary injunction, then that will mean that NY Ag and Mkts will be prohibited from conducting inspections, issuing administrative actions, conducting searches, or taking any other type of civil, criminal or administrative enforcement actions against either the LLC or against the Smiths. If the preliminary injunction is issued, it will remain in full force and effect until the parties go to trial on the Smiths’ complaint for declaratory judgment. Then at the trial, we will either win or lose. If we win, then the preliminary injunction becomes a permanent injunction.”
Once again, in my experience, simply getting a hearing on a preliminary injunction is positive news. It suggests the judge sees potential merit in the case—otherwise, everything would have been rejected until the case came to trial. It also moves things along much faster than otherwise.
According to Gary, “The hearing in January will probably be an oral argument without evidence or witnesses.”
It will be interesting as well to at long last hear the state’s side of the story, which it hasn’t been willing to share so far. I’ll go out on a limb here and predict we’ll hear a lot from the state about "protecting the public."
On a related issue, I’d like to respond to Lacedo’s question on my previous post as to whether I was suggesting the bureaucrats and politicians are conspiring to serve agribusiness by going after small farms like Meadowsweet. Not that I don’t think that happens, but I was only referring to the fact that the bureaucrats in effect work for the politicians. The NY Department of Agriculture and Markets is part of the executive branch of government, and thus effectively under the control of the governor. But it’s the legislators who approve the budgets that pay the bureaucrats their salaries. If farmers and consumers get pissed off at the ag inspectors and raise enough of a ruckus, eventually the governor and legislators will hear about it, and begin asking the bureaucrats how it is they’ve alienated the public so badly. Bureaucrats definitely don’t like getting those kinds of questions, since sometimes in the aftermath, heads roll and budgets get cut.
Thanks for responding to my question. In light of the coordinated assault on milk labeling in Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Jersey, described by Shirah at Unbossed, I must consider the probability that we are witnessing a two-pronged attack on non-corporate milk. As I wrote earlier this month, I believe this is part of the overall intent to monopolize the majority of food, including the seeds from which our staples and vegetables are grown.
As observers of the Bush administration’s appointments of industry executives and lobbyists to gut the executive departments (J. Steven Griles being one of the more notorious) know, it is via the administration (or abuse) of the law that the corporations intend to have their way, out of view of the public, and out of the control of the legislatures. The way in which these state departments of agriculture operate is redolent of a corporate police state. They behave like brown shirts. Why would a government agency do this? And why do they focus so intently on a handful of tiny producers? Have we become so inured to such assaults that we fail to see the pattern?
If the bureaucrats, in the cases discussed here, are ‘working for the politicians’, then the politicians must be working for the corporations. I hope you will be delving into the campaign contributions at the local and state levels, of those legislators on the agriculture committees. The work that Shirah has done, exposing the connections of the phony Pennsylvania ‘Food Labeling Advisory Committee’ members to Monsanto makes it very clear that Monsanto has appropriated control of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. How they did that needs to be determined. Who was responsible for staffing the PA Dept of Ag with a bunch of Monsanto foxes? I’d guess that the same thing has happened in Ohio, New Jersey, and other states.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4629
These are the same people behind the environmentally disastrous Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) that raise most American pigs, and the National Animal Identification System.(Thanks to Mary Zanoni, the advocate against NAIS, for the alert.) I don’t mean to single out Hillary, since I don’t think she’s any different from most of the other candidates in this respect. It just shows how these industry people cover their bets and keep open all options…how the big-party candidates warmly embrace them…and why they really aren’t all that much different from each other.