The criminal charges filed against three individuals associated with the Rawesome Food Club in Venice, CA, have gotten me thinking much about the trial of the Chicago Seven.
It’s been a while since we’ve had a good old-fashioned political trial. The last important one that comes to mind was probably that of the Chicago Seven, back in 1969. The defendants included such anti-Vietnam-War and black rights luminaries Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, David Dellinger, and Bobby Seale. They were indicted for violating the Civil Rights law by crossing state lines to incite the riots outside the Democratic National Convention in August 1968. (Of course, the riot was by Chicago police, who beat mostly peaceful demonstrators.)
I (gulp) remember it well, for it helped take (more of) the wind out of the government’s pursuit of the Vietnam War and the crackdown on dissidents. Yes, there was still more to come (the murders of demonstrators at Kent State), but we were already well on our way to, at least psychologically, abandoning the Vietnam War
.
The trial went on for months at the end of 1969, into the beginning of 1970, and it’s funny to read about some of the things that happened there. This from Wikipedia: “One day, defendants Hoffman and Rubin appeared in court dressed in judicial robes. When the judge ordered them to remove the robes, they complied, to reveal that they were wearing Chicago police uniforms underneath. Hoffman blew kisses at the jury.”
Five of the defendants were found guilty, and sentenced to five years in jail, and fined $5,000; at the sentencing, Jerry Rubin offered the judge LSD. Talk about a three-ring circus. But those guys were committed, and fearless. (The guilty verdict was eventually overturned on appeal, and the U.S. Justice Department at that point decided not to re-try.)
One of the things the trial did was to seal the reputation of William Kunstler, one of the defense lawyers for the Chicago Seven, as a defender of political and civil rights.
Might a trial of the Rawesome Three do the same thing for Christien Petersen? He’s the lawyer representing Virginia Bloch, one of those jailed last week for assisting farmer Sharon Palmer, who supplied eggs and chickens to the club (and at one time supplied goat’s milk).
Both Petersen and Fred Sayegh, the lawyer representing Rawesome manager James Stewart, are associated with the Foxx Firm, a Los Angeles area law firm. Sayegh is the partner of The Foxx Firm, Christopher Darden of O.J. Simpson fame is “Of Counsel” to the Foxx Firm, and Christien Petersen is an associate of The Foxx Firm. (Darden was part of the O.J. Simpson prosecution team from the Los Angeles County District Attorney.)
Petersen isn’t anxious to speculate about what a trial of the Rawesome Three might look like, focused as he has been, first, on getting Bloch out of jail, and since then on getting himself up to speed about his client and about food rights issues. He’s being assisted on the food rights matter by Gary Cox of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, who is acting as co-counsel for Bloch.
Petersen isn’t even sure the case will come to trial, since all the publicity that could result from a trial about food rights could mitigate against this case being taken to trial by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office.
But if it does come to trial, Petersen expects a long and involved proceeding. He’s already been told by the prosecutor’s office to “expect voluminous discovery”–the documentation underlying the state’s case.
“They had two sets of undercover agents on this,” he told me. “That’s a hell of a lot of work for milk.”
If the Rawesome Three do come to trial, one thing is for sure: it won’t be a criminal trial, it will be a political trial.
***
There’s a new defender of food clubs that is emerging from the rubble of the Rawesome raid. It’s heavily oriented toward mothers who are worried that the recent actions against Rawesome and, just a few months earlier, against Amish farmer Dan Allgyer, could endanger their access to nutrient-dense foods. I just wrote an article about it at Grist.
I also mention in that article a suit filed by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund on behalf of three California herd share owners against the California Department of Food and Agriculture and the Santa Clara County District Attorney. They had sent a cease-and-desist letter to the owners of Evergreen Acres, a San Jose farm supplying herdshare owners with goat’s milk.
The case makes for interesting reading, especially the part about how the herd share owners “have the inalienable right to own a goat…(and) to consume the milk from their own goat…” It’s all so basic and simple.
***
Finally, there’s an excellent first-person account at Southern California Public Radio of what it’s meant to one person to be a member of the Rawesome Food Club, and to experience the raw food habit. It’s by Jennifer Sharpe, who contributes to All Things Considered. She’s been helpful to me in my reporting on Rawesome over the past year.
WE ALL NEED TO UNITE and put our $$$$$ where our mouth is and DONATE! I just did! We gotta do more than just sit at our computers!!!! ACTION…MOOVEMENT!!!! REVOLUTION…..WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
nancy
This can't be beneficial to the FTCLDF…..can it?
In reviewing the mission statements of the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) and the Farm Food Freedom Coalition (FFFC), I get the impression that donations to the FTCLDF will be funding more direct legal activities such as helping individual producers defend themselves against the government actions.
Donations to the FFFC will be funding activities that are more in the poliitcal arena, such as trying to get the regulations/laws changed. Does that seem to be the gist of it or have I missed something here?
http://www.rense.com/general94/raw.htm
Your first statement may have been most accurate…"I don't know who Leon Stein is…" When I see stuff about chem trails and UFOs on a site, my antenna go up. Moreover, his questioning of FDA involvement in interstate commerce won't go far with most judges. And who is the FTCLDF lawyer now involved in pushing NAIS? Don't think he/she exists.
The big reason there is little in the way of legal precedent about food rights is that it hasn't been an issue until the last few years, until our rulers decided to confiscate people's food and otherwise interfere with access to food, supposedly in the interests of food safety.
David
"Got no need to beat you. Just want to go my own way."
While it may be true that "there is little in the way of legal precedent about food rights is that it hasn't been an issue until the last few years", there is legal precedence regarding the tyranny of the FDA in other matters, particularly nutritional supplements. In that arena, an attorney like Jonathan Emord has a good track record in applying constitutional principles, and has won victories over the FDA numerous times, as has the Alliance for Natural Health. Does FTCLDF have any actual victories going head to head with the FDA?
This what Stein wrote that concerns me:
—————-
Where does it say in the Constitution or in law that anyone has an inalienable right to own a goat? To drink raw milk from their goat? To board a board a goat? Rather than go after the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) for what it is doing and challenging its authority to do so, or any basis on which it is doing so, or the bizarre legal distinctions it is making, why is FTCLDF putting anyone's rights in the hands of a court to decide if they exist?
By designing such an argument based on rights that are not spelled out in such a form anywhere, the FTCLDF opened the door to the FDA to assert in court as they are doing right now in the raw milk transport case, that
"There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food."
"There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds."
"Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish."
FDA's brief goes on to state that "even if such a right did exist, it would not render FDA's regulations unconstitutional because prohibiting the interstate sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk promotes bodily and physical health."
"There is no fundamental right to freedom of contract."
If the FTCLDF has no chance to win with its current arguments, what of the obscene precedents it would leave in its wake – the removal of the human rights around food, around contracting and around everyone's health.
But how could a judge possibly agree that the rights FTCLDF has put on the table exist in law?
Yet, there are other arguments to be made. In the transport case, the FDA likely doesn't even have jurisdiction and could have been stopped right there. Where is that argument? Why is it not being made? Or other arguments that deal more directly with what the FDA is doing and holds them accountable with specifics in law so a judge could rule favorably?
The public's concern about access to the food of its choice, to contracting freely and most certainly to its own health – the most basic of human rights – mean it has reason to watch closely the arguments being put forward. Are they winning arguments or are they dangerously ill-conceived? Is this a legal group with a history of success in protecting farmers or one that has lost many farming cases?
————————
Please note that I am not anti-FTCLDF and I have no personal agenda against them. I am concerned for the movement overall, and the perilous times we are currently entering in the judicial realm. With the battle now being concentrated in California, I hope others get involved beyond just FTCLDF.
Additionally, as a consumer, I am glad these two were caught because I don't want to feet my children unclean food, especially when I pay top dollar and go to great lengths to find pastured products.
what exactly do you expect them to do? Turn this behemoth around in one year? They are in it for the long haul. They have to weigh each case carefully. They are doing an excellent job!
To know them is to love them. Get on board, call them if you have a gripe – they listen,
They are with us. I believe in them. It all comes down to you. Donate, empower them!
-Blair
They now are holding a second showing at a venue with seating for 1000. I have been asked to bring James to this showing. He can not speak because of his GAG order. But I sure can. The judge placed the GAG order on James to keep the jury pool pure and reduce the risk of a tainted jury pool.
Sorry Judge. It is my goal to taint every potential juror in America. Between Farmagedon, the OPDC education outreach efforts, the Internet, WAP, FDA harrassmen, FTCLDF and etc…..the news of raw milk is spreading wildly.
I doubt this ever gets to trial. It is definitely a political judicial melodrama.
This court makes me gag.
Replace this Judge.
Replace the District Attorney.
Replace the Sheriff.
Replace the five County Supervisors.
Vote. Them. Out.
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
We need to be very careful to see what evidence there is before joining into this one.
If there was fraud, we need clear talking points. The state had no right to intervene because of the milk, but every right to take these people to task for their fraud, deception, and the like.
we need to show that even among our own, lying, distortion, deception, will not be tolerated for the sake of personal gain/profit. We have an opportunity to wisely wait and then make a call. Anyway we can make sure this happens?
It will be very bad if we are caught defending crooks. I think they have stated they have mounds of evidence – will we have an opportunity before trial to see some of it and know if Palmer has been gaming people? If we could see if they have found bucket loads of invoices and other clear evidence of wrong doing, it would settle this very quickly.
And we need to encourage clubs to not do foolish things, like offer ":day passes": and the like. If we want to be different then we need to offer something truly, substantively different.
http://gawker.com/5830458/san-francisco-cops-jam-cell-phones-to-prevent-protest
More than likely he was referring to Judith McGeary who sits on the board, and as far as I know is not involved in any of the cases as an attorney. I don't know if she is on the Texas BAR and could participate in future cases there or not.
Blair: it is not a "mistrust" of FTCLDF that I was expressing, but simply a discussion regarding their legal tactics and whether or not they have been effective, and will be effective in the future. I believe such discussion is healthy.
It is true that Sharon Palmer and James Stewart are not the ideal faces for the movement and that Rawesome is not the perfect test case. However, they were not charged on any of their alleged shady practices. The charge was conspiracy to sell raw milk. How to do that is the question.
As John M says we need to have no tolerance for fraud in the movement. At the same time we need to defend our right to eat what we choose and to make private contracts with farmers in order to do so.
Their abandonment of the principles of a self-governing society of free individuals is significant and should determine their futures here.
They can submit resumes and file applications directly with the Iranian Council for the Discernment of Expediency (obtain endorsement of the Council of Guardians first, of course (they may know how to do such things already)).
Our officials might be a much better fit, there. Overarching governing principle: please the Mullah.
Tainting the jury pool would not worry our Honorable Judge.
Destruction of private property would not require the fig leaf of taking samples for our five County Supervisors.
A big Mullah thumbs-up and you just go do it.
No pesky voters.
No accountability.
Another big glass of PMO milk, please.
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
"How to do that is the question" should have been at the end of the 3rd paragraph instead of the second.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-neuroscience-of-gut
I have first-hand knowledge that FTCLDF consulted with someone 3 years ago who made the same argument that Leon Stein makes in his article, that the best way to go after them is to challenge their jurisdiction. His advice was ignored and the lawyers at FTCLDF no longer consult with him.
Here's a thought for you. Instead of attacking others in the raw milk movement, why don't you (and those like-minded) start your own legal defense fund with lawyers or legal consultants who share your views? See how far that gets you.
I do not agree with everything that FTCLDF fund has done either. They have wasted precious resources defending Michael Hartmann, who IMO is a giant liability to the movement because of his other reactionary political entagelments and complete disregard for food safety. I still support the foundations mission, and I think they are well-intentioned, just perhaps not always using the best of tactics.
Just a thought, Lola. FTCLDF does not need to be the only game in town. There is nothing to stop you from starting your own defense fund.
Gary Cox settled my huge FDA CFR 1240.61 challenge 3 years ago. He worked with me to design a defensive ( part offense part defense )strategy and saved my butt big time. I have nothing but deep respect for FTCLDF.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/pharmaceutical-companies-lose-protections-on-facebook-decide-to-close-pages/2011/07/22/gIQATQGFBJ_story.html?fb_ref=NetworkNews
Looks like big-pharma is running scared from the pending unleashing of PUBLIC COMMENT on their facebook pages.
Should this really surprise us? When has big business ever liked the opinion of the public?
Just to clear something up, FTCLDF did not handle any of Michael Hartmann's legal matters–he hired his own attorney(s) to handle his legal challenge to MN Dept. of Ag (and resulting trial and contempt-of-court hearings). This isn't to say he didn't have conversations with FTCLDF attorneys, but my understanding is they didn't get involved in officially representing him as they have in taking on other cases involving farmers under regulatory pressures.
David
I know first hand that FTLDF, Steve, and Pete have done much to improve our working relationship with our state regulatory agencies. And Judith McGeary-she has been a member of the Texas Bar since 1997-I have worked with hershe is an excellent attorney and tireless advocatewhom I have tremendous respect for.
As to armchair lawyers and strategists-it is great to discuss legal theory-but againand speaking from experiencemany of the most elegant legal theoriesare the farthest thing from your mind when you have crossed the bar and are standing alone at the podium in court focusing every fiber of your being on the issues at hand.
Here ya go!
<a href="http://dprogram.net/2011/08/14/naturalnews-publishes-names-of-government-agents-who-masterminded-rawesome-foods-raid-mike-adams/">NaturalNews publishes names of government agents who masterminded Rawesome Foods raid</a>