 |
Bovinity |
 |
|
|
REAL milk for British Columbia |
| BC government attention to our REAL MILK | ||
|
latest development on Wednesday March 18 2009, an Inspector from the Fraser Health Authority issued a Cease+Desist Order to our depot in Abbotsford. Immediately below is a letter which I've served on the Inspectors and the FVA today, March 23 2009 in short : it sets out why the Order is illegal, and what I shall do if they don't revoke it. ````````````````` Dan Dhillon, Inspector, And To George Rice, Fraser Health Authority, Chilliwack Health Unit On March 18th 2009 you issued an Order to Rockweld Farm prohibiting ¡°the distribution of raw milk for human consumption¡±. According to the Health Act, inasmuch as I am one of the shareholders in the herd that produced the milk which is the subject of your Order, I am a person aggrieved by itIn the Reasons for the Order you use the term ¡°cow share¡±, which gives me good reason to believe that on March 18th 2009 you were aware that the legitimacy of the arrangement by which we get our milk was acknowledged by the government. Records obtained through the FoI process show that a researcher within the Fraser Health Authority had downloaded parts of my internet website. On it are displayed letters to me from the Minister of Agriculture and also from the Director of the Health Protection Branch, acknowledging that what we are doing = ¡°cowsharing¡± in order to get raw milk for ourselves = is not a breach of the Milk Industry Act. Thus, the FHA certainly did have knowledge of those letters. You indicated to the Rockweld shopkeeper that you were aware of my appeal in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against the Order FHA Inspector George Rice issued to the Agister of our herd, namely Alice Jongerden. You, nor the manager to whom your Reasons refer, can claim ignorance of my position, as set out in my appeal, to wit : Section 56 of the Health Act RSBC creates two categories of milk : in one category is all milk which is ever ¡° ¡. exposed for sale, or deposited in any place for the purpose of sale, or for preparation for sale, and intended for food for humans¡±. In the other category is all milk which is not offered for sale. ¡®food for humans¡¯ is not a stand-alone category. The word ¡°and¡± there ties that phrase to the overall import of the section - foodstuff exposed for saleMilk produced by our dairy most certainly is intended as food for humans but is never for sale. Our milk does not fall in the category of foodstuff defined by section 56 therefore the Health Act does not confer power over it to an Inspector. Regulation 181/88 of the Health Act does not apply to our property, ie. the raw milk, which was always and only for our personal use and enjoyment. Section 56 (2) of the Health Act says The burden of proof that an eatable referred to in subsection (1) was not exposed or deposited for any purpose referred to in that subsection, or was not intended for food for humans is on the party charged An Inspector of a provincial Health Authority can presume a foodstuff is for sale, but as soon as he or she is given evidence otherwise - when it¡¯s pointed-out that the labels clearly say a jar of milk is ¡°NOT FOR SALE¡± - then he has no authority over it at all. Thus, the presumption of an Inspector that he has authority, is undone. They have no power over food in a place unless it is for sale. The Regulation cited in the Order is predicated upon the Milk Industry Act RSBC. That Act pertains ONLY to milk which enters-in to commerce. It does not pertain to milk produced by people for themselves, as long as such milk is not offered for sale. Section 1 of that Act distinguishes between a ¡°producer¡± and a ¡®vendor¡±. The definition of ¡°vendor¡± ends (b) ¡° ¡ but does not include a producer as such¡± It categorically excludes someone who is only a ¡°producer¡± yet not a ¡°producer vendor¡±.Section 2 of that Act says Application of Act 2 This Act applies to all vendors, whether co-operative associations or not, despite the Cooperative Association Act, or any other Act, or the terms of any contracts between producers and vendorsOur group of shareholders is indeed a ¡°producer¡± under the Act, but we are not a ¡°vendor¡±. Since we are not a vendor, milk produced by our private dairy is not subject to the Milk Industry Act. Since authority for the Health Act Regulation 181/88 relies upon the Milk Industry Act, but our milk is not caught by the Milk Industry Act, then Regulation 181/88 does not apply to it. You saw the labels on the jars of our milk which advertise it is NOT FOR SALE . After that you knew perfectly-well that the foodstuff at issue was not within the purview of the Health Act. Your Order is not only a nullity, but it is rank interference with the right of each shareholder to use and enjoy our property ¡ that would be, the milk produced by our cows. As you issued your Order with knowledge that it was contrary to, first ; the letter of the law, and second ; the express policy of the provincial government, your conduct was malfeasance of public office, not misfeasance ¡ malfeasance of public office.If you do not revoke your Order within 48 hours of service of this NOTICE, then I will certainly appeal it. Furthermore : on a separate track, I will certainly sue you and each and every officer within the Fraser Health Authority who was involved in its issuance, for the tort of malfeasance of public office. As someone aggrieved by your Order, I have the right under the Health Act to make full answer in order to discharge the reverse onus upon me. I am asserting my right to due process of law now. Should a formal appeal be necessary, one of the Grounds will be that you, and persons yet to be ascertained within the Fraser Health Authority, were well aware that the Order you made on Rockweld Farm was illegal ab initio. For which I require and hereby demand FORTHWITH A copy of all records, in any and every format, concerning the risk of illness from consuming raw milk A copy of every Order issued within the last ten years by the Fraser Valley Authority or its predecessor concerning raw cow¡¯s milk A copy of every Order issued within the last ten years by the Fraser Health Authority or its predecessor concerning raw goat¡¯s milk a copy of all records in any and every file within the Fraser Health Authority the term ¡°cow share¡± or the term ¡°herd share¡± or my name or the name of the Agister with whom I contracted to look after the herd of dairy cows in which I hold an interest , ie. ¡°Home on the Range¡±.¡¡ Govern yourself accordingly Gordon S Watson PO Box 63009 RPO Highgate Burnaby British Columbia V5E 4J6 Telephone 604 526 5324 email < justice_critic@shaw.ca >
I will be in the Supreme Court in New Westminster BC on December 9th 2008, for directions as to the conduct of my appeal of the Order which prohibits our Agister from "distributing" our milk to us. Following in the Outline are the Grounds for my Motion to have that Order set aside ============================= Outline Part 1
1 I, Gordon S Watson, Applicant /Appellant, seek directions for conduct of the hearing of the Appeal 2 I seek Orders for a stay of the Order of Inspector George Rice pending the appeal of the Order the Respondents to produce certain materials the Respondents to make available for Discovery certain individuals Part II Basis for seeking relief Introduction 1 On July 9th 2008 Inspector George Rice of the Fraser Health Authority issued the Order, 2 the Order infringes my right to use and enjoy property in which I hold an interest, that being, a herd of cows. the Order infringes my right to contract, particularly, for ¡®agistment¡¯ of my animals the Order infringes my freedom of association the Order infringes my right to security of the person first ; in that it interferes with my food supply. 3 being aggrieved by the Order I have status to appeal it. 4 the context out of which the Order arose is set out in Affidavits which are part of the Chambers Record. History 5 - Responding to my lobbying efforts, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Health had each given me a Letter of Comfort acknowledging that the arrangement by which shareholders contracted with an agister to look after our herd of cows, was lawful. From 2003 up ¡®til the day of the Order we had been dairying with no problem. - Respondents were well-aware of our dairy, another way, because they had been notified of my Petition in the Supreme Court of British Columbia raising constitutional questions to do with cowsharing as a way to obtain raw milk legally. As part of preparing that Petition, in May 2007 I had spoken with Chief Veterinarian Merv Weztstein, telling him that we were producing raw milk for ourselves. He replied ¡®we ( govt. officials) won¡¯t bother you unless we get a complaint¡¯- in the spring of 2008 - even though they acknowledged in internal e-mails that they knew they needed a real complaint in order to move against us, but did not have one - officials of the provincial government set out to ruin our dairy - Respondents never did have a genuine complaint about raw milk from our dairy presenting a hazard to Public Health. They knew full well that since our milk was never offered for sale, it did not fall under the Health Act nor the Milk Industry Act : they knew that what they were doing, ie. contriving the Order, was contrary to the express policy of the Ministries of Health and Agriculture - After I originated the appeal I discovered in the Royal Archive the 1954 Report of the Royal Commission Report on milk marketing which stipulated that raw milk must always be available to those who wanted it. 6 As well as asking for directions about how I should proceed in the appeal. I am asking for special directions to remedy glaring obstruction / perversion of Justice on the part of the Respondents. 7 at the appeal proper, I shall challenge the Health Act Regulation 181/88. Its presumption that raw milk is always and only a vector for disease cannot be justified in the face of the evidence and experiences in other jurisdictions. It is patently absurd, thus invalid. At the Appeal proper, I shall challenge section 56 of the Health Act because it infringes my right to be presumed innocent 8 At the hearing proper I will rely upon the cases of WESTERN FOREST PRODUCTS INC and SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT acting as a LOCAL BOARD OF HEALTH Supreme Court of BritishAttorney General of Canada and Portland Hotel Society Supreme Court of British ColumbiaChaoli and Zeliotis and Attorney General of Quebec ; Attorney General of Canada Supreme Court of CanadaComplaint 9 To date, the Respondents refuse to produce the identity of a supposed complainant. By first concocting a ¡®complaint¡¯ when there never was one, then, refusing to co-operate in the Court process, wittingly obstructing my right to make my full answer and defence, they are misusing the powers and dignity and resources of the Crown to obstruct Justice Appellant /Applicant seeks a stay of the Order on the following Grounds 10 As defined in section 1 of the Milk Industry Act "producer" means any dairy farmer who produces milk;"producer vendor" means any person who distributes milk produced by his or her own cattle, but does not include a partnership, corporation or cooperative association owning or controlling more than 2 dairy farms on which qualifying milk is produced; "vendor" means any person dealing in milk, whether by purchase or sale or on the basis of delivery on consignment for sale, and includes (a) agents for producers and cooperative associations, if the agents and cooperative associations sell and distribute milk produced by their principals or by the members of the associations, and (b) a jobber, a producer vendor and a processor, but does not include a producer as such. And section 2 of the Milk Industry Act Application of Act 2 This Act applies to all vendors, whether cooperative associations or not, despite the Cooperative Association Act, or any other Act, or the terms of any contracts between producers and vendors. Thus not every ¡°producer¡± is necessarily a ¡°vendor¡±. As we co-operate in dairying for our own sustenance our private association is seen as a ¡°producer¡±, but we are not a ¡°vendor¡±. The Milk Industry Act is concerned with ¡°marketing¡± It requires that all raw milk produced by ¡°vendors¡± must be pasteurized on its way to market. But farming to produce food for ourselves does not involve marketing because our milk is never for sale. Since our dairy is not in the ¡°vendor¡± category, our raw milk is not required to have the life cooked out of it - known as pasteurization - before we drink it. Regulation 181/88 does not apply to what we do, nor to our contractor Alice Jongerden 11 We have the freedom to associate one with another for a legal purpose without having to get permission to do so from the government. The Milk Industry Act does not compel us to obtain a licence to take a dividend in the form of milk from our property, ie. cows which produces milk strictly for our own use. In the 1954 provincial Royal Commission on the marketing of milk. We find that the prime purpose of the Act was to From its inception, the Act concerned milk producers who were in commerce. The Act effectually created two categories: in one is all milk produced with intent it shall be sold at some point in time. In the other is all milk produced for personal consumption, but not for sale. Nowhere in the Report is there indication that the government ought to be empowered to regulate the use and enjoyment of private property, let alone, micro-manage British Columbians¡¯ food choices. Although it is tacit, there is a distinction in law between the raw milk from vendors, which is caught by Regulation 181/88, versus our milk. The Regulation does not apply to our milk, thus, the Order does not apply to our dairy 12 The Order is predicated upon Health Act Regulation 181/88, but that Regulation contradicts the spirit and the letter of the original Milk Industry Act Although it was amended in 1996, eliminating mention of the avenue for someone to obtain a certificate for retailing raw milk, which had been sections 3, 4, 5 and parts of 67 of the Milk Industry Act, the concept was never repealed. Thus provision for raw milk to be sold is ¡®grandfathered¡¯. The intent of the Milk Industry Act is expressed in the 1954 Report of the Royal Commission on milk marketing, to which Regulation 181/88 is adverse. Since the Regulation is invalid, the Order at issue is, too. 13 The evidence upon which the Order was based was obtained illegally. Whereas the Order purports section 61 of the Health Act as authority for searching the farm, in fact, Inspector Rice and the Respondents from whom he took direction were, at all times material to the incident, aware that raw milk produced by the Home on the Range herd was not caught by section 56 of that Act. Before he got there, Inspector Rice knew that he did not have authority to search the premises. Thus, whatever he seized and what followed from that illegal seizure, is precluded from consideration by the Court 14 The Order was uttered under false pretence. It pretends to be based upon Inspector Rice¡¯s statement that he saw Alice Jongerden ¡°packaging and distributing raw milk in violation of the Health Act¡± when in fact he, and the Respondents who directed him, were very well aware the raw milk which she was handling was not caught by the Health Act. At all times material to the incidents out of which the Order arose, Respondents knew that raw milk from our herd remains shareholders¡¯ private property, never being entered-in to commerce. Not being offered for sale, it is exempt from the Health Act or the Milk Industry Act Inspector George Rice wittingly perverted Justice 15 The Order was invalid ab initio because, before it was issued, its subject, namely Alice Jongerden, had discharged the onus upon her to show cause why the raw milk was not such a foodstuff as is contemplated by section 56 of the Health Act. On June 16th 2008, as she stood there with him on the farm, Alice Jongerden told Inspector Rice that the milk was indeed for human consumption but it was not for sale. She called me on her cell phone, then handed it to him. I then told him the same thing. When he spoke with me, it was clear that Inspector Rice knew who I was vis-¨¤-vis the dairy. Internal government e-mails obtained later show that they were well-aware of my correspondence on the raw milk issue. Inspector George Rice had been briefed about the information published on my internet website, on which those letters are posted. Allowing for the purposes of argument, only, that the search was lawful, the moment we - two live witnesses - told him the milk was not ¡°exposed for sale¡±, we satisfied section 56 (2) of the Health Act. Lacking any evidence to the contrary, Inspector Rice thereafter had no authority to issue the Order. Absent jurisdiction, the Order is of no force nor effect 16 The Order is contradicted by the express policy of the Minister of Health. As Inspector George Rice, and Respondents from whom he took direction, uttered the Order, they were very well aware they were flying in the face of official approvals of our dairy which had been issued by both the Minister of Agriculture and also the Minister of Health. Copies of those approvals are contained in Exhibit ¡°E¡± in the Affidavit of Gordon S Watson sworn February 14 2007. Disregarding those policy statements out of an ulterior motive, Inspector George Rice and his accomplices committed malfeasance of public office 17 The Order is in conflict and must yield to the right of the Applicant / Appellant to use and enjoy his property, especially for self~medication. Even if - allowing for the sake of argument only - the Order is legitimate, it is superceded by the need of the Applicant/ Appellant and the needs of other individuals who hold shares in the herd, to use and enjoy our property - that being raw milk produced by our cows - for medicinal purposes. I have a long-standing deeply-held belief that fresh pure whole raw milk is a necessity for maintenance of, and to improve, my health. Wherefore my and other shareholders¡¯ joint and several rights to medicate ourselves, enshrined in section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, trump the Order
18 The Order is void for vagueness. The Order is unclear whether the farm on which our herd stands, and the premises in which our milk is actually packaged, and from which it was being distributed up until July 9th 2008, are caught by it, since the Order stipulates an address for a property with which our dairy has nothing to do. The Order is unclear whether or not it pertains to every place its subject, namely Alice Jongerden is, while doing business as ¡°Home on the Range¡±, or only if she happens to be at the address it sets out. Since Alice Jongerden has never set foot on the property at 49311 Prairie Central Road Chilliwack, the intent of the one who issued it is incomprehensible 19 The Order was the result of a conspiracy to pervert Justice. Materials received through the Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Act process show that the directing mind of the conspiracy had accessed my website and had knowledge of what I say there. Intra-governmental emails Terms ¡°imminent¡± and ¡°likely to¡± 20 The legal standard to be met when an Order is issued under the Health Act is, whether there was sufficient credible information to give rise to reasonable belief that a danger to the public health existed. No such evidence whatsoever was ever before the Fraser Health Authority nor any of the other Respondents such as the BC Centre For Disease Control about the raw milk produced by our herd. On the contrary ; Respondents wittingly avoided testing the sample of our milk for bacteria known to cause food poisoning. 21 There no evidence before the Fraser Health Authority capable of supporting the presumption that raw milk from our herd was did or was likely to endanger the public health. When they moved to ruin our raw milk dairy, Respondents were obligated to act in accordance with the meaning of ¡°likely to¡± as articulated in the case of Western Forest Products. They did the exact opposite 22 If Respondents say that all raw milk is always and only a vector for disease, they have to justify that position. If Respondents pretend that the batch of milk they sampled presented a hazard to the public health, then onus is on them to prove that much. Yet they have done the opposite ; the have hindered me getting the facts. 23 Accepting for the sake of argument, only, that the public interest was ever engaged : given the opportunity to get scientific proof that milk from that batch did contain bacteria which cause food poisoning to members of the public, Respondents avoided doing so. From that deliberate choice the Court ought to infer that that they knew our milk was OK, and didn¡¯t want hard evidence on the record which would embarrass them. 24 Absent evidence of harm, then, in light of the fact that we did drink it and we did enjoy it without any ill effect whatsoever, the Court ought to find as a fact that our milk was safe to drink 25 The beginning of the issue to be determined is the language of the Health Act. at section 1 ¡°health hazard¡± means (a) a condition or thing that does or is likely to ( i) endanger the public health (ii) prevent or hinder the prevention or suppression of disease (b) a prescribed condition or thing, or ( c) a prescribed condition or thing that fails to meet a prescribed standard 26 On the day the Order was issued, did the milk from our cows actually endanger the public health? It did not. All the rest of the milk in the batch from which the Inspector took a sample was thereafter consumed by its owners, happily. Absent evidence of our milk causing illness to anyone, the Court ought to assume the converse to be true : ie. by drinking it in good health, we have proven the raw milk from our cows to be safe ; it is the very opposite of a hazard to the public health 27 On the day the Order was issued, was the milk from our cows likely to endanger the public health? No : it could not endanger the public health because our milk is never made available to the public. Since the premise for the Order goes back to section 56 of the Health Act and to the Milk Industry Act, both of which are concerned with milk offered for sale then Regulation 181/88 does not apply to raw milk which always remains private property 28 Respondents do not have clean hands. There is no other, more logical inference to be drawn from the Respondents refusing to provide the most basic element of the appeal process, ie, the identity of a complainant, but that crucial documents are being hidden to prevent me getting the whole truth before the Court. 29 Emails between the Respondents show that they knew they needed a formal complaint as a triggering-event to proceed properly under the Health Act, but they did not have one. Respondents have stonewalled my repeated requests for that basic element of this matter. As a United States Court of Appeals has heldSilence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading ."United States v. Prudden , 424 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir. 1970), 400 U.S. 831(1970)There never was a complaint such as would have given the government entr¨¦e to our private dairy. Thus, the Order of Inspector Rice was a fraud from Day One. Refusing to divulge records which would prove that malfeasance, Respondents are perpetuating that fraud upon the Court : Fraud vitiates everything it touches. 30 The process whereby an Order under the Health Act is issued is in the nature of a citation for a show-cause hearing. A health Inspector who originates that process is the Prosecutor until the Attorney General takes over prosecution of the charge. In his capacity as the Prosecutor, that Inspector has the duty to disclose all material in his control to the Person named in the Order as well as to persons aggrieved by it, so those persons can know the case they have to meet. The Inspector¡¯s counsel, Guy McDannold, has refused repeatedly to discharge the obligation upon a Crown Counsel, to full disclosure. On a parallel track, the Respondents are hindering the Freedom of Information process in order to prevent me getting documents which will show they did conspire to commit an indictable offence, to wit, perversion of Justice The Serious Issues to be tried are 31 the legality of the search ; constitutionality of Regulation 181/88 ; constitutionality of section 56 of the Health ActBalance of Convenience favours granting the stay 32 the Order should be set aside until the appeal proper is heard on the basis of ¡°necessity¡±. Having it set aside would entail no loss at all to the government but there certainly is a loss to us who hold shares in the herd. What are we supposed to do with 40 gallons per day of perfectly good milk ¡ our food, our property? The Court has an obligation to prevent waste. 33 The Order greatly inconveniences us supplying our own food. It causes us extra cost over and above what we have already paid to the Agister for her services. Some of our shareholders have very small income, thus, that extra cost is onerous 34 Some of the shareholders need raw milk for their health conditions ; for instance, Rick Adams whose Affidavit speaks volumes
Dated : November 10th 2008 A. D. ________________________ Appellant / Applicant
This OUTLINE is prepared by Gordon S. Watson Whose address for delivery is : 7954 Elwell Street Burnaby British Columbia V5E 1M4
-------------------------------------------------------- September 8th 2008David Loukedelis, Privacy Commissioner Pursuant to the Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Act, I hereby request that the performance of the government agencies be reviewed in the matter of my request for certain records, as described in the enclosed materials I have good reason to believe that the government agencies have knowingly refused to provide complete copies of the records under their control because they realized such records will prove malfeasance of public office The overview is that for about seven years, I have been corresponding with Ministries of the provincial government on the topic of the availability of raw milk. I am not a registered lobbyist for any faction I came upon the idea of ¡®cowsharing¡¯ or ¡®herdsharing¡¯. In some states and provinces, if it is illegal to sell raw milk, individuals can agree to underwrite, jointly, the maintenance of dairy cow, or cows, so as to receive raw milk for our own sustenance. The practice of paying a farmer to look after one¡¯s livestock is known as ¡°agistment¡±. Agistment has been known in British common law since, at least, the 1300s. The boarding of horses is a good example of ¡®agistment¡¯ in modern times. I did organize a couple of small-scale raw milk dairies, in which all went well, but those agisters ceased operation for one reason or another. In 2003, I put to the Minister of Agriculture a query about govt. policy on ¡°cowsharing¡±. I was told that the govt. was not opposed. Later, in order to better clarify the policy, I put the query again to the Ministry of Health. I was told by the Acting Director of the Health Protection Branch, on behalf of the Minister, that they did not oppose us co-operatively dairy farming for our own food, on certain terms. From about May of 2007, we began a new cowshare which quickly gained members. We went from one cow to about a dozen, by June 2008. We went from just me and the Agister holding shares in one cow, to about 200 shareholders holding shares in a herd of about 16 cows Unbeknownst to us, the BC Centre for Disease Control and the Fraser Health Authority became concerned that we were ¡°selling¡± and/or ¡°distributing¡± raw milk. The material received so far shows that they set out to stop us even though they were well-aware that I had letters of comfort from both the Ministries of Agriculture and of Health. They knew that the procedure under the Health Act required a complaint as a triggering event. But there had been no complaint ; our little dairy was providing thousands of gallons of wonderful whole fresh pure raw milk to hundreds of households with not one single report of anyone getting ill from it. In fact, many of our shareholders give us unsolicited testimonials as to the dramatic improvement in their health attributed to consuming raw milk, or, as we call it : REAL MILK Our experience proved that raw milk dairying can be done safely here just as it is done in 28 of the united States, and the entire European Economic Community of 300 million people. Just for emphasis : the store on Her Majesty¡®s farm at Windsor Castle, in England, has raw milk for sale! My study of this topic over the last decade, alongside my communications with others promoting REAL MILK, prove that opposition to raw milk on the ground that it is a ¡°health hazard¡± is, in truth, primarily for restraint of trade, to benefit the corporate interests, rather than concern for Public Health. Even with the limited information I have now, I am confident that the records at issue will reveal that the Health Act Orders upon our dairy were motivated by people who have personal interests in the commercial milk supply system. The pretended ¡®complaint¡¯ was not a genuine complaint at all under the Health Act, but was motivated by malice. One of the things I asked for in my FoI request was the name of the complainant. The fact that they refuse to refuse to divulge that info - merely the lynchpin of their action - indicates that there never was a genuine complaint. I strongly suspect that that person - if he exists at all - will turn out to be someone who covets our success. Our Agister gets about $17 per gallon, gross, for handling our REAL MILK, versus about $3 per gallon for farmers who are locked-in to the quota system. The malice goes deeper than that : as our project asserts the right to use and enjoy our property, it embarrasses farmers who are effectually serfs in the centrally-dictated system of industrial agriculture ; the very system Karl Marx called for in his Communist Manifesto. Thus, there is a profound ideological contest going on here. The fatal flaw in that system of industrial agriculture is that, while it does seem to produce cheap food, that quantity is only an illusion. The image of abundance hides the fact that that food is seriously deficient in nutrition. North Americans who have had ¡®cheap food¡¯ for a couple of generations, are now reaping the consequence = expensive healthcare. Explanation of the profound malice underlying what¡¯s going on with the REAL MILK starts with the communist definition of ¡°peace¡±, ie. ¡®absence of opposition to socialism¡¯. The bureaucrats, and especially the leaders of the unions of Public Servants, are communists, dedicated to a One-World socialist government. They perceive any and every citizen who attempts to take care of himself outside the machinery of government, as their class enemy. Thus, no matter how seemingly small and insignificant someone is, simply producing food for themselves outside the quota system, the bureaucracy hates that individual because he dares to think for himself. The communist mentality sets out to destroy him. These officials abused the powers at their disposal with the end in mind of destroying our little raw milk dairy. Lacking a genuine complaint about its actual health-full-ness, they concocted a Health Act Order and slapped it on one of the depots where our milk was stored for pickup by shareholders. They outright lied to the proprietor, telling him he was ¡®in jeopardy of ten years in jail and a $200,000 fine¡¯. They concocted another Order and served it on our Agister at the farm. Both Orders were predicated on Health Act Regulation 181/88. Yet these people knew all the while that our milk is not subject to that Regulation. Raw milk produced by our dairy is only for our own private use. It is never entered-in to commerce, thus it is categorically exempt from both Health Act and the Milk Industry Act. Their perfidy is revealed by the fact that when these people conferred with Craig Jones, who is counsel with the Constitutional Law Group with Legal Services Branch of the Attorney General, he told them that what we were doing is not illegal. Failing to get the answer they wanted, they went shopping outside government for a lawyer who would give them a pretext for moving against us. The partial records I have received so far show that their ¡°researcher¡± accessed - and, probably, printed-out - the website where I published my enquiries and the letters in which officials stated government policy vis-¨¤-vis cowsharing : < www.freewebs.com/bovinity > With knowledge of these letters, they must have known that what they were doing was contradicted by their superiors ¡ that what they were doing was wrong. In each instance, when one was served, I immediately made a request for the records concerning how these Orders came about. As well, on a separate track, I originated appeals in the Supreme Court of British Columbia to each of these Orders. Researching the law in order to prepare my appeals, I went to the Royal Archive in Victoria and read the Report of the Royal Commission on milk marketing. The Commissioner mentioned that raw milk was then = 1954 = being sold to the public by farms which were certified by the province to do so. Commissioner J V Clyne directed that the Milk Industry Act should have an avenue so that those who wanted raw milk, could always get it. That provision was in the Act until its last amendment, in 1996. Never having been repealed, provision for sale of raw milk from farms so-certified, is still part of the spirit of the Milk Industry Act, being ¡®grandfathered¡¯. Raw milk has always been legal for sale in British Columbia, even if that fact was forgotten. The officials involved now know all this because I spelled it out. Now that I¡¯ve caught them, they are hiding the evidence that they committed malfeasance of public office. Rather than come clean and resolve the issue so we can have the best food in the world, unhindered by ignoramuses doing their job wrong, the bureaucrats have circled the wagons. Which is the exact opposite of the good government to which I - and all British Columbians - are entitled. It is the duty of the Privacy Commissioner to compel production of all the records, in order that corruption is exposed, so it can be remedied. Gordon S Watson Box 63009 RPO Highgate Burnaby British Columbia V5E 4J6 Telephone 604 526 5324 email < justice_critic@shaw.ca > ========================= On Monday June 16th 2008, an officer from the Fraser Health Protection Authority showed up at the morning milking and took a sample of our milk. The Wednesday afterwards, I spoke briefly with Mr Jones on the phone who acknowledged ¡°there are constitutional issues here¡±. The crux of it being that producing REAL MILK for ourselves is the exercise of our right to use and enjoy our property, versus the law which prohibits ¡°distributing¡± raw milk. By phone on Thursday I asked George Rice what we could expect next. He said that they - the govt. people - will have a conference call next week on this issue On June 30th 2008 a Cease&Desist Order was slapped on the Fraser Delicatessen, then the authorities watched as all the good raw milk was poured down the toilet. They did that with full knowledge of our year-long project proving that raw milk is not necessarily a ¡®health hazard¡¯ A good analogy for arguing that raw milk can be safe to drink ¡ if produced and handled properly ¡ is the way the govt. deals with quality of water delivered out of public water systems. From time to time various disease-causing bacteria are found, and a ¡°boil water advisory¡± is issued. In such cases, the tipoff is sick people. Yet those who choose to, can still use that water at their own risk. In extreme cases, the water supply is condemned as a public health hazard. But when that happens in one locale, every water system in the province is not shut down Same with independent producers of REAL MILK. This week in Washington state, Dee Creek farm pleaded guilty to having shipped dirty raw cow's milk across the state line, three years ago. But all the other raw milk dairies in the state, were not shut down then. In the last year, our cowshare operation has delivered thousands of gallons of REAL MILK to hundreds of share holders and their households. We haven¡¯t had any report of anyone getting sick from it. Since concern about "risk to health" has been demonstrated to be manageable, why stop us? On July 9th 2008 at about 7 pm our Agister was served an Order to 'cease and desist' "distributing" raw milk. Unhappily, we must comply with it or they'll take the thing sideways in to 'contempt of Court' process, which is a no-win situation. For now, shareholders are not getting their milk delivered. We are trying to find out the scope of the order so as to allow for those who can, to pick up their milk at the farm. This may be an ad hoc fix for a short time only Below is my appeal. I will be pursuing it "with vigah" ... our cows are still out on the best pastures in the world, and giving fresh pure whole raw milk which is being made in to wonderful X-factor butter 'til we get the fluid milk back on track =================================================== Appeal of Health Act Order S 114027 New Westminster Registry IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA RE : In the matter of the Health Act RSBC 1996 c 179, as amended, section 102 And in the matter of the Milk Industry Act RSBC 1996 c 289 as amended BETWEEN : GORDON S. WATSON Appellant AND : MINISTER OF HEALTH GEORGE ABBOT FRASER HEALTH PROTECTION AUTHORITY INSPECTOR GEORGE RICE PERSONS YET TO BE ASCERTAINED Respondents NOTICE OF APPEAL as amended August 7th 2008 WHEREAS on July 9th 2008 George Rice acting for the Minister of Health in his capacity as Public Health Inspector for the Fraser Health Protection Authority, made an Order in the form attached to this Notice of Appeal (¡°the Order¡±) AND WHEREAS an appeal lies to this Honourable Court pursuant to section 102 of the Health Act RSBC 1996, c 179 as amended : AND ON NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENTS George Rice, Fraser Health Protection Authority, TAKE NOTICE THAT Gordon S. Watson of the City of Burnaby in the Province of British Columbia hereby appeals the Order on the following Grounds : Grounds First reason why the Order is invalid 1. The Order is invalid because the Regulation from which it claims authority does not pertain to the Person who is its subject, namely Alice Jongerden dba ¡®Home on the Range¡¯. The essence of the bargain which I and the other shareholders have with her is that we pay in advance for agistment services of our jointly-owned cattle. Under this agreement, known as ¡°cowsharing¡± / ¡°herdsharing¡± the Agister delivers dividends from our jointly-owned asset, ie. milk from our cows, to shareholders but to no one else. She is not engaged in commerce ; she is not ¡°selling¡± nor ¡°distributing¡± raw milk for sale, as contemplated by the Milk Industry Act nor is that milk ¡°offered for sale for human consumption¡± to anyone but those who already hold an interest in the herd. 2. The Milk Industry Act came about after the 1954 provincial Royal Commission on the marketing of milk. Prime purpose of the Act was to ¡°provide for the maintenance of a steady and adequate supply of fresh safe milk of thoroughly satisfactory quality to the consuming public at a reasonable cost¡± - page 161 of the Report It created two categories : in one category is all milk produced with intent it shall be sold at some point in time. In the other category is all milk produced for personal consumption, but not for sale. From its inception, the Act concerned only milk producers who were engaged in commerce. 3. The Milk Industry Act requires that all raw milk produced by vendors must be pasteurized on its way to market, but, since our dairy operation is not a ¡°vendor¡± then Regulation 181/88 does not apply to what we do, nor to our contractor Alice Jongerden Second reason why the Order is invalid 4. Regulation 181/88 negates one of the objects of the Royal Commission on milk marketing. 5. Section 8 of the Interpretation Act RSBC says Every enactment must be construed as being remedial, and must be given such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects 6. I asked the Ministries of Health and of Agriculture and of the Attorney General for all material on hand at the time, underpinning the rationale for Regulation 181/88. I was told there was none. 7. Respondents mis-used Regulation 181/88 to frustrate Mister Justice Clyne¡¯s stipulation that a law which came out of his Commission must ensure that those who wanted raw milk could get it. For four decades, up until the Milk Industry Act was amended in 1996, that exception was enshrined in its sections 4 and 5, whereby someone who wanted to sell raw milk to the Public could have a farm so-certified. The Public Health did not suffer simply because a few people sold raw milk to a niche market. 8. When interpreting an Act, jurists start with as much of the material which can be located, of what was before the Legislature when the Bill was under consideration, as well as what was said about it in the Chamber. One of the blind spots of the Premier of the Day ( 1954 ) was his refusal to allow a written record ; until about 1972, British Columbia was the only government in the British Commonwealth which did not have a Hansard. Thus we cannot know what discussion was on the floor of the House leading up to passage of the Milk Industry Act. Bearing in mind that the author of the Report was an eminent judge who heard many hours of vive voce testimony from dozens of stakeholders, as well as reading extensive written submissions, to come to his conclusions, the government is bound to abide by the findings of the Royal Commission 9. at page xiii of the Report the Commissioner says 10. Pasteurization -- For the reasons given in the report, pasteurization should be made compulsory throughout the Province, subject to exceptions in the case of small communities where the cost of a pasteurization plant would be prohibitive, and where there should be rigid rules for inspection in lieu of pasteurization. Provision should be made for a further exception in the case of raw milk dealers, who would be subject to special inspection and classification so that persons desiring to drink raw milk should be able to exercise their choice. Containers for raw milk should be clearly marked. at page 106 of the Report the Commissioner says ¡. I have no hesitation in recommending that the Legislature enact laws providing that all milk intended for human consumption in any part of the Province and all milk products manufactured for human consumption should be pasteurized. There would, of course have to be certain exceptions. I do not suggest that a person who really wants to drink raw milk and is prepared to accept the risk of doing so should be deprived of that privilege. There is undoubtedly a market for raw milk, and I think that farms producing milk which is intended to be sold for human consumption without pasteurization should be subject to special inspection, as is presently carried out on a number of farms on Vancouver Island, and should be given a special grade such as triple A. All unpasteurized milk should be clearly labelled so that no one should drink it without realizing that he is running the risk attendant upon drinking raw milk. ¡ 10. Thus whole fresh pure raw milk was being produced and delivered to appreciative consumers while this Royal Commission was underway half a century ago. Preparing my Constitutional Challenge to Regulation 181/88, I tried to obtain records of farms which had been certified to sell raw milk to the Public under various Acts, but was told by the Freedom of Information branches of the Health and Agriculture Ministries that those records had been destroyed according to a directive. So the best evidence we have that raw milk was once upon a time in British Columbia, offered for sale legally, is contained in the Report of the Royal Commission. The Commission spells out that the inspection of dairy farms had broken down, thus milk quality was unreliable. Inferior quality milk came to market cheaper than milk produced by farms with higher standards. Meanwhile raw milk dairies were operating to higher standards, concentrating on the health of the cows along with best handling practices of the milk : exactly what we formed our herdshare dairy to do for ourselves. 11. Regulation 181/88 was not introduced for anything to do with the Public Good. It was contrived for an ulterior motive, that being : to run independent farmers off the land as part of the communist agenda to consolidate control of the food supply under corporations. Ergo, as Regulation 181/88, founded as it is on a false premise - that all raw milk is always and only teeming with disease from the moment it comes out of the udder - is patently absurd. An absurd law is a nullity ; the Order falls with it. Third reason why the Order is invalid 12. Section 56 of the Health Act creates two categories of milk : in one category is all milk which is ever ¡° ¡. exposed for sale, or deposited in any place for the purpose of sale, or for preparation for sale, and intended for food for humans¡±. In the other category is all milk which is not offered for sale. Anticipating that the Respondents may say the milk in our dairy undeniably was ¡° intended for food for humans¡± thereby placing it under the jurisdiction of the Health Protection Authority, I say the word ¡°and¡± there ties that phrase to the overall import of the section - foodstuff exposed for sale. ¡®Food intended for humans¡¯ is not a stand-alone category. 13. Milk produced by our dairy most certainly is intended as food for humans but is never for sale. Our milk does not fall in the category of foodstuff defined by section 56 therefore the Health Act could not confer power over it to Inspector Rice. Regulation 181/88 of the Health Act did not apply to our property, ie. the raw milk, which was always and only for our personal use and enjoyment. Lacking jurisdiction, the Order of Inspector Rice made July 9th 2008 upon Alice Jongerden dba as Home on the Range is void 14. On June 16th 2008 when Inspector Rice announced the purpose of his visit, Alice Jongerden told him ¡°we¡¯re not selling milk.¡± That plain statement ought to have ended his visit right there and then. Yet he replied ¡°we think you are¡±. Onus ought to be on the Respondents to prove that the subject of the Order or anyone else associated with our raw milk dairy, ever offered milk for sale before the Order was issued. Lacking such, then the power conferred upon Inspector Rice to inspect for a hazard to the Public Health, ended. Alice Jongerden did discharge the - utterly unconstitutional - reverse onus set out in the Health Act. To the time of this writing, Respondents refuse to disclose any evidence to substantiate the assumption of Inspector Rice. That¡¯s because there is none. Therefore the Order ought to be set aside for that reason, alone 15. Starting with one cow in May 2007, and growing to 11 cows in milk on the day the sample was taken by Inspector Rice, about 200 households were providing ourselves with fresh whole unadulterated raw milk via an arrangement known as ¡°cowsharing¡± or ¡°herdsharing¡±. We have not had a single report of anyone becoming ill from consuming milk from our herd. During that time none of the ministries of Health, nor Agriculture nor the Attorney General told us to stop delivery. With letters in hand from the government condoning cowsharing, our understanding always was, and continues to be, that what we were doing is quite legal. 16. The progress of our ¡°cowshare¡± was well known to the Respondents because I informed them about it every step of the way. Its success - legally providing REAL MILK outside the quota system - is dramatic proof that, given the opportunity, informed consumers will reject the stuff produced under the communist model of industrial agriculture merchandised as ¡°homo milk¡±, in favour of pure fresh whole unadulterated raw milk from cows on pasture. 17. In that the Order is based on a sample of our milk which, when tested, did not show bacteria harmful to human beings, the Respondents¡¯ own pre-emptory action proved that our raw milk dairy was being carried on safely. The success of our farm over the preceding year disproves the presupposition of Health Act Regulation 181/88, ie. that every pail of raw milk is always and only a hazard to the Public Health. Predicated as it is on a demonstrably incorrect assumption, Regulation 181/88 of the Health Act is patently absurd, therefore invalid. The Order goes down with it Unreasonable-ness 18. The Order references a sample taken by Inspector George Rice, to wit, a jar of raw milk with my name on it. Respondents had that sample tested for phosphatase, only. Presence of phosphatase indicates the milk had not been cooked because the test for complete pasteurization is the absence of all enzymes ¡ the very enzymes needed by the human body to digest milk! The copy of the test result which I received evidenced nothing presenting a threat to the Public Health. The fact that the Respondents did not embargo the entire batch of milk on site July 9th 2008, and did not direct the laboratory to test for pathogens, proves that they expected the milk to be free of disease. Otherwise they would have seized it and dumped it immediately. At all times material to the events out of which this appeal arises, our milk certainly was fit for human consumption. We know so because after the Order was served, prohibiting our Agister bringing it to us, shareholders had to go out and get that very same milk. We drank it and we have not had one single report of illness from consuming it 19. The last word on what constitutes a threat to the Public Health is found in the ruling in the case of Western Forest Products and Sunshine Coast Regional District It was incumbent upon the Respondents to follow that standard for determining a health hazard. Respondents - and all of them - were obliged to know the legal terms ¡°presently¡± versus ¡°imminent¡± and to appreciate that distinction when determining if some thing is a hazard to Public Health. The Order is unreasonable in that the Respondents acted not only with no evidence the milk in that jar, or any of our milk, ever presented a hazard to the Public Health, yet with proof positive to the contrary Medical necessity 20. At all times material to the incidents from which this appeal arises, it was incumbent upon the Respondents to comport with the ruling in the case Portland Hotel Society and the Attorney General of Canada as the standard for determining what constitutes necessary health treatment. Respondents had in hand evidence showing that I, and many of those who hold shares in the herd, do so motivated by our sincere longstanding belief that fresh whole unadulterated raw milk is necessary for our health. Attached to this Notice and served herewith is one example, being the unsolicited testimony of a father concerning his son. Attached to this Notice and served herewith is the editorial of the Globe & Mail newspaper of August 4th 2008 touching on self-medication 21. Inspector George Rice and those from whom he took direction, erred by disregarding that standard even though the Ministry of Health was well aware of it. 22. With no evidence of any real threat to the Public Health, yet with evidence in hand some shareholders needed it for maintenance of their health, Respondents acted utterly contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Health Act The Order unduly interferes with my right and the right of other shareholders per section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to self-medicate, as explained by the ruling in Portland Hotel Society and the Attorney General of Canada Malfeasance 23. Officials had in hand extensive correspondence from my lobbying effort towards having raw milk available legally. From that material the Respondents were well aware that raw milk dairying is being done successfully in Washington State, Oregon, California, Texas et cetera. Respondents were well aware that raw milk is bought in other places by Canadians and brought back in to British Columbia legally, declared as groceries. Respondents were well aware that it is perfectly legal for someone to use and enjoy within British Columbia, raw milk which was bought out of the Province. Respondents have never seized raw milk brought back over the border from the united States of America under the pretext it was a hazard to the Public Health. 24. Particularly, Respondents had in hand a letter to me from the then-Minister of Agriculture van Dongen as well as a letter from the previous A/ Executive Director Health Protection Ron Duffell, both of which acknowledge that I and those with whom I co-operate are asserting the right to use and enjoy our property, ie our cows, as we go a¡¯dairying for our sustenance. 25. Respondents are responsible for knowing the laws which govern their Ministries. It is hard to believe that the combined expertise of the upper echelons of the Ministries of Health and of Agriculture and of the Attorney General could have missed the plain meaning of the Health Act and the Milk Industry Act as those Acts concern themselves with raw milk, explained in paragraphs 1 to 14 above. Government officials cannot plead ignorance of the two letters which approved our herdshare. There is no other, more logical inference to be drawn but that those who directed the Order be issued knew that what they were doing was wrong, yet proceeded anyway in furtherance of a plan to ruin our dairy so as to perpetuate the myth that ¡°raw milk is disease-ridden and a hazard to the Public Health¡±, all, in order that consumers will never find out otherwise, and the Dairy Cartel can get away with profiting from selling an inferior product 26. On June 18th 2008 I spoke with George Rice by telephone about his seizure of my property on June 16th 2008, at which time he told me that, after that sample of milk was tested, there would be a conference call the following week ¡°with our legal side¡±. On July 9th 2008 I told Inspector George Rice about those two of the letters referred-to in paragraph 24. I warned him that he would be acting illegaly if he served the Cease and Desist Order. Mr Rice replied that he was not aware of them then got off the phone. A day later when one of our shareholders, namely Linda Meadows, asked Mr Rice on the phone what was going on, he told her that ¡°the law¡± required a shareholder to be directly involved in the care of the animals. Since there is no such ¡°law¡±, Mr Rice could only have been referring to A/Director Ron Duffell¡¯s reply to me. Every official who exercises power under aegis of the Ministry of Health has a duty to know and to abide by the law which governs his office. For Inspector George Rice to serve the Order after my warning that the Ministry of Health had in hand good reason for him not to proceed, is studied negligence 27. That hearsay about the telephone exchange between George Rice and Linda Meadows gives me good reason to believe and I verily do believe that George Rice and those from whom he took direction as they issued the Order were very well aware that they wittingly acted contrary to the spirit and the letter of those official replies. 28. After Inspector Rice seized my property on June 16th 2008, I had a brief phone conversation with Ministry of Attorney General counsel Craig Jones on June 18th 2008, about the seizure of our milk at the Fraser Deli, Mr Jones acknowledged ¡°there are constitutional issues¡± around cowsharing. In the exchange on the cellphone on the morning of July 9th 2008, Inspector George Rice told me that he had been on a telephone conference call with Craig Jones ¡°last week¡±. I have good reason to believe and I verily do believe that in that conference call, George Rice was advised that I had originated Petition #104023 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia at New Westminster which asks for Declarations of Right to do with raw milk dairying. It is more logical than not that the conference call mentioned the letters which approve our herdshare model for raw milk dairying. Wherefore Inspector Rice knew, or ought to have known that the validity of the Order was dubious, at best 29. Respondents knew, or ought to have known that, twice, the World Trade Organization has censured Canada for its quota system of milk supply. Respondents knew, or ought to have known, that the milk marketing system in Canada is operating contrary to the trade agreements to which Canada is signatory. Respondents are well aware of and sensitive to the looming disruption and threat to the profitability of stakeholders in the milk marketing system posed by the WTO rulings. The Order is an attempt to curtail milk supply outside the quota system, rather than for any good reason to do with a health hazard 30. Governments federal and provincial which co-operate in the Stalinist model of a centrally-dictated food system are worried, especially, by consumers who are now farming co-operatively after losing confidence in industrial agriculture. Our herdshare is perceived as a threat to the profits of the governments¡¯ friends, ie the Dairy Cartel, because we have proved the concept of consumer-directed agriculture viable. Issuance of the Order is unfair because it imposes communism over my right to use and enjoy my property cooperatively, so as to ensure the quantity and quality of food I prefer and need 31. The Order is an attempt to regulate the milk supply disguised as the exercise of authority to terminate an existing hazard to Public Health. That sham is undone by our having demonstrated whole fresh unadulterated raw milk, particularly the batch which is the subject of the Order, is some of the best food in the world. Respondents abused their powers under the Health Act not for any reason genuinely to do with Public Health, but out of an ulterior motive, which is to prop up the failing milk marketing scheme. It is illegal for the Respondents to do obliquely that which they cannot do directly. Political activity 32. There is no other, more logical inference to be drawn from the timing of service of the Health Act Order on the Fraser Delicatessen on June 30th 2008 along with the Order of July 9th 2008 on Alice Jongerden, but that the Minister of Health perverted the powers and resources and dignity of the Crown for an illegal purpose, which is : suppression of the Campaign for REAL MILK in British Columbia. That is political activity outside the purview of the Health Minister. Recrimination 33. Issuance of the Order was not truly for protecting the Public from a real hazard to health, but rather, recrimination against me for holding the Respondents accountable for their actions in a Court of law 34. In October 1993 I was one of the first people to avail myself of the Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Act RSBC Shortly afterwards, my cousin, who was then working in the Ministry of Attorney General, told me that employees of the ministry had been given a day-long seminar in how to pretend to comply with requests pursuant to that Act, meanwhile divulging as little information as possible. In the years since then, as I applied the Act and used information so-gained to embarrass the government of the day on certain political issues, I became known as one of the ¡°frequent flyers¡±, which term is slang within the bureaucracy for citizens who know the protocol and use it often. It is well known within government that FoI requests which touch on politically-sensitive issues are flagged for special attention of the Minister 35. On June 18th 2008, after the seizure of my property in Chilliwack by George Rice, I made a formal Freedom of Information demand to Craig Jones of the Ministry of the Attorney General for all records concerning that seizure, particularly the name of the complainant. 36. After the seizure of a sample and detention of my property ( the raw milk ) which was being warehoused at the Fraser Delicatessen on June 26th 2008 I made another formal Freedom of Information demand to David Jantzen at the Coastal Health Authority for all records concerning the seizure, particularly for the name of the complainant 37. From June 26th 2008 and on, my property was in cold storage at the Fraser Delicatessen plainly marked with tape bound around the bunch of jars, on which tape was a legal warning that the stuff was embargoed. So situated, that milk in no way constituted a hazard to the Public Health. 38. On June 30th 2008 the property of the shareholders in the dairy herdshare was dumped down the toilet at the Fraser Delicatessen at the direction of Vancouver Coastal Health Protection Authority Inspector Vanessa Oulette. 39. On July 3rd 2008 I originated my appeal of the Health Act Order made June 20th 2008 upon the Fraser Delicatessen, then served a copy of it to the Coastal Health Authority and the Minister of Health. 40. Hearsay received since June 30th 2008 set alongside a curious mistake on the Order of July 9th 2008 leads me to believe that the complaint upon which Respondents acted originated with a farmer who holds quota in the milk marketing system. That information inclines me to believe and I verily do believe, that the motive for the complaint was covetousness, not any real concern for Public Health. I believe that the Respondents realized the FoI process would expose them as having proceeded on a complaint when they knew it arose from malice rather than any legitimate hazard to Public Health. I say that the destruction of my property at the Fraser Deli on June 30th 2008 and the Cease & Desist Order of July 9th 2008 were part of a plan in which the Respondents calculated to provoke me to do and/ or publish something which they could then use as a pretext to prosecute me, thereby deflecting scrutiny of their own misconduct. All in furtherance of a unethical campaign to frustrate my seven years¡¯ effort to get REAL MILK flowing legally in British Columbia. amended this 7th day of August 2008 A. D.___________________________ Gordon S Watson Appellant The Appellant acts in person The Appellant¡¯s address for delivery is : 7954 Elwell Street Burnaby British Columbia V5E 1M4 Telephone 604 526 5324 Fax number 604 526 5064 by prior arrangement
|
|
Create a free website at Webs.com
|