political activity

August 7th 2018 

The Honourable Adrian Dix
    Minister of Health
    Room 337   Parliament Buildings   Victoria  British Columbia  V8V 1X4

I write to inform your Ministry on an issue where there is a disconnect in the understanding of officials who deal with public policy regarding specific foods,  versus facts readily available.  Particularly : fresh raw milk for drinking.

A handy example of that mistake being : in 2017, over 400 people got sick from a disease outbreak caused by them having eaten B. C. oysters.  Forty more people have been made ill this year, that we know of.   It is not unusual that shellfish consumption results in illness -- the Centres for Disease Control has recorded 400 outbreaks caused by oysters, resulting in 2,982 illnesses, 82 hospitalizations, and 3 deaths.   In absolute terms, given that few people eat raw oysters, this sounds very much like a ?health hazard.?  Yet with this evidence before it,  the policy of Ministry of Health government of B. C. is :  such risk of harm to the public health is  'manageable'.

Clause 2(a) of the Health Hazards Regulation categorizes raw milk as a ?health hazard? but raw oysters are not.  Farmers who distribute milk for people to drink without par-boiling it first  - even those whose milk tests entirely free of pathogens ? are prosecuted.  At the same time B.C. Government provides funds to encourage the shellfish industry.  Recently, Agriculture Minister Popham met with members of the BC Shellfish Growers Association and expressed support for shellfish farmers in BC.  She said she met with them:
                        "to talk about how our Government can support the people behind this important industry.   As the Minister of Agriculture, I'm excited to work with BC's shellfish growers to support their production of internationally renowned seafood products."

    Raw milk is legal for distribution in 43 of the united States of America,  France, Germany and many other nations world-wide.  In England, the conclusion of a major review of its policy on raw drinking milk by the Food Safety Agency, was : to maintain the status quo whereby 100 or so artisanal dairies provide raw milk to anyone who wants it, perfectly legally.  Same in New Zealand.  But here in B.C.,   famers and consumers are under threat of up to three million dollar fines or three years jail under the Public Health Act  RSBC.   Hundreds of raw milk consumers
have written to the Ministry of Health over the last several years to ask for the law to be changed, with most receiving no responses to their letters.  The few people who did receive replies got dismissive form-letters citing outdated outbreak statistics (prior to 2012).

Public health policy staff will cite outbreak statistics to argue that raw milk can?t be legalized, but do they tell you: 
         ?    How many of those outbreaks were caused by farmers who were producing milk using methods intended
for pasteurization, not methods intended for direct consumption?   
         ?    How many farmers were RAWMI-trained?
         ?    How many farmers were testing their milk?
         ?    How many farmers had on-farm food safety plans?
When there is a raw milk outbreak, the Center for Disease Control in the U.S. does not gather this information.
Instead, it treats all raw milk as if it is the same.  This is not true. 

Note that ? unlike in Europe - training in how to produce raw milk safely only became generally available in North America after 2011 when the
Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) was established. Despite asking governments for the same kind of support in developing on-farm food safety system
as has been available since the mid-1990s to other agricultural sectors such as meat processors, the raw milk sector has been consistently refused, and had to develop its own system.   

Since the Milk Marketing Board refused to discharge its mandate to accommodate demand for REAL MILK ? by which I mean
whole fresh pure raw un-adulterated milk from grass-fed cows, raised humanely -  we turned to the model of dairying known as ?cowsharing?.   
In the court case where Fraser Health Authority prosecuted agister Alice Jongerden, Madam Justice Gropper designated me representative for people
who want REAL MILK for ourselves.   We?re not asking for raw milk to be available via commercial sales. Rather, we want your administration simply to acknowledge that we have the right to use and enjoy our own property ...  milk from our cows we own. 

  When Commissioner J V  Clyne wrote the report upon which the  Milk Industry Act   was predicated he said there should always be a way for people who want raw milk to get it.    As a raw milk consumer in B.C. ? one of thousands ? I want your government to start treating producers and consumers of all foods fairly.   I urge your advisers to repeal Clause 2(a) of the Health Hazards Regulation.  Let regulation of raw drinking milk be under the Ministry
of Agriculture, where it started and where it properly belongs.   

I've been involved in the Campaign for REAL MILK since 1999.  I know quite a bit more about it than people in your ministry, apparently,  do. 
I would appreciate an appointment to meet with you or your staff at your convenience, in order for me to educate all-concerned.   One of the things that needs to be dealt with, is =  the fact that the BC Milk Marketing Board payed $2000 to the constituency of a certain MLA, in 2009. Never before nor since, has the Milk Marketing Board contributed to a political party.  Coming mere months after the regulation at issue was imposed,  there is no other, more logical explanation for that transaction but that it was a payoff for the Liberals making sure that quota-holders in the dairy supply racket do not get embarrassed by consumers finding out how much better REAL MILK is, than what?s found on the shelves of retail stores, mislabelled ?homo milk?.  It doesn?t take a degree in political science to figure out that that kickback was for the Liberals to give color of law to ?restraint of trade?. I suspect that - one way or another ? that  bribe  is fungible to the $100 million dollar fund maintained by the Dairy Farmers of Canada for lobbying. Since the ?raw milk? file is your responsibility, then it is incumbent upon you to investigate why that money was payed to a political party. If a crime was committed, then call in the Criminal Justice Branch to prosecute those responsible for breach of section  121  of the Criminal Code : influence peddling.

?Since I started paying attention to this issue,  the state of Washington has gone from 1 tiny raw milk dairy to 43.   Point being ? that demonstrates consumer demand which officials there have found a way to accommodate.  Same with California, where Organic Pastures Dairy produces and delivers 70,000 portions per week, of wonderful wholesome REAL MILK, perfectly legally. And no one gets sick.  Thus proving there is a way to collaborate towards a solution which benefits everyone.

Gordon S Watson??#4    5177 William Head Road     Metchosin     British Columbia     V9C 4H5


my comment on the case as of June 8th 2013

below is a classic example of how,  what's reported by the media, is sometimes far-removed from what really happened

what was printed in the Chilliwack newspaper, and in the National Post,  and broadcast by CTV, are examples well-suited for a political science textbook, of how deliberate dis-information is put out in order to demonize / discredit people whose lawful activities pose a threat to a corrupt Establishment

Gordon S Watson

Justice Critic, Party of Citizens

The Editor, Chilliwack Progress

Newspapers are obliged to correct significant errors, therefore please allow space in The Progress for me to inform your readers about the finding of contempt of Court in the raw milk case. Your report that Mister Justice Wong found me guilty of ?selling? raw milk, is wrong. For the 6 years that our dairy operated, at no time did raw milk from our cowshare enter-in to commerce.    I'd set it up so some one purchased an interest in the herd as an entity, then got a portion of what was produced by our jointly-owned asset. Because we couldn?t get what we wanted, locally, we exercised the freedom to associate, and to co-operate in the use and enjoyment of private property, in order to obtain for ourselves fresh, whole, un-adulterated, un-cooked milk from grass-fed cows kept in humane conditions.

It?s important for people who follow this issue, to understand that the Milk Industry Act originally included sections whereby a farm could be certified to retail raw milk. Those sections are no longer in the Act, but it still differentiates between farmers who maintain cows/ goats in order to get milk just for their own use, ie ?producers?, versus dairy cartel quota-holders, ie. ?vendors?. Our privately-underwritten dairy was indeed a ?producer? but, since our milk was strictly for ourselves / not offered for sale, we were never a ?vendor?. If we had actually been selling raw milk, the Criminal Justice Branch would've prosecuted us for that offence ... but weren't, so they didn't.

Contrary to your report, my co-accused and I did not ?ignore? the injunction. In fact, from Day One and repeatedly during the 5-year ordeal of being hectored through Court, I pro-actively communicated with various agencies of the provincial government, pointing to Letters of Comfort which I had obtained years earlier, from the ( then ) Minister of Agriculture van Dongen, and also the Director of the Food Safety Branch of the Ministry of Health, exempting a cowshare from the pasteur-ization requirement in the Milk Industry Act.

Ironically, the lawyer for Fraser Health Authority, namely Susan Be-ach, advertises herself as a certified mediator, yet she point-blank refused to have this dispute go to mediation. I think she avoided resolution out of Court because she was all-too-aware the root of the trouble was not any real threat to the health of the public. Rather : it was members of the milk marketing scheme noticing and coveting our success. Trapped in ignorance ... half-a-century removed from present conditions, insulated from the discipline of the free market ? they didn?t appreciate that the engine of our phenomenal growth was : consumer demand.   As people wise-up to the fact that the insipid, pale, thin, par-boiled ersatz fluid adulterated with MPC, mis-labeled ?homo milk?, is not really milk at all, they go looking for the good stuff.

My 15 years? involvement in the Campaign for REAL MILK leads me to believe there is no other, more logical explanation of why a Health Authority ? supposedly at arm?s-length from politics ... visited this abuse of process on us, but that someone ( yet to be ascertained) within the Liberal administration, was moved by a bribe to employ color of law for ruining our private dairy.    Even if such crime wasn?t committed by the classic method ( raw banknotes in a brown paper bag ) a bribe can take many forms. For instance : contribution to a political party conveyed via a lawfirm so as to cloak it in solicitor/client privilege. Setting aside that accusation for lack of hard evidence = for the moment = I say that Fraser Health was used by the dairy cartel as its dog in this fight, because our demonstration of how private enterprise works, put them to shame. They ignored my letters to the Milk Marketing Board, wherein I asked how to go about filling this market niche, legally. Refusing to admit their own failing = that they were evading their statutory duty per the Acts which govern them = they arranged to have us framed-up as outlaws.

A quarter of a million dollar$ was filched from the Health Care budget for running a Stalin-ist show-trial.    For what?     To wind up with a dry judgment against a couple of guys who are indigent ? only because we had the temerity to go a?dairying without a licence from Big Brother! Everyone in the court racket got paid, meanwhile, I had to obtain an Order of Impoverishment, waiving fees, so I could file the paperwork just to defend myself.

Last week I received 190 pages of records I?d been demanding from the Ministry of Health for over 2 years. I now have hard evidence substantiating one of my defences to the contempt allegation = ?officially-induced error?. No mere co-incidence that those records were kept from me ?til the day before the judgment came down, so I couldn?t fully pursue it. In Court, I pointed out that government policy vis-à-vis raw milk for personal consumption was set out in the 2 above-mentioned letters, yet the quasi-governmental corporation acted utterly contrary to that express policy. The records show Fraser Health officers involved in the lawmaking process, meanwhile those of us who are directly affected by the regulation deeming raw milk a health hazard, were shut out of consultation. Our Court experience was wearing, but worthwhile, because it underscores the big question : ?who runs this province ?! Members of the Legislature elected to represent all of us, or, un-elected bureaucrats in the pay of special interests??

Had reporter Greg Knill extended the courtesy of allowing me to tell my side of the story, I would have given him a scoop : on Feb 16 2013, when we got down to brass tacks at the hearing in New Westminster, George Rice took the witness stand to give evidence against me. In cross-examination, I asked ?drawing from your experience of 33 years as a health inspector in the Fraser Valley, do you have any evidence of anyone ever getting sick from consuming raw milk?? To which he replied ?no?. So much for BC's 'evidence-based health policy' !!

The proposition that ?every jar of raw milk is teeming with bad bacteria and is therefore always-and-only such an enormous threat to the public health it must be outlawed?, plays well as media theatrics, but it does not arise from any genuine risk of harm to the public health. It is a fable concocted by the dairy cartel, for distracting consumers from the fact that the communist policy of industrialization of agriculture has stolen the very nutrition out of the mouths of our children.

British Columbians are suffering post-election hangover ? they need a bit of comic relief. Consider the spectacle of the Premier in her full-on cheerleader persona, campaigning as a champion of ?free enterprise?. Meanwhile her Minister of Agriculture got a standing ovation from egg producers, for promising that his govt. is dedicated to maintaining the supply management scheme! A quarter of a century since the Berlin Wall came down, BC consumers labor under the New Economic Plan of Josep Stalin - centrally-dictated supply management of foodstuffs. And, just as in the Soviet Union, dissidents such as myself are sent to gaol NOT for actually harming anyone, but for disagreeing with the Central Party line.

I could go on, explaining at length why ( with respect) Wong is wrong, but I?ll sing that song in the Court of Appeal

Gordon S Watson

Burnaby     British Columbia

June 8th    2013   A D


Report in the Chilliwack Progress newspaper

Two men convicted of civil contempt for selling unpasteurized milk from a Chilliwack farm will go to jail if they do it again, a B.C. Supreme Court justice ruled this week.

Michael Schmidt and Gordon Watson were both handed three-month suspended sentences for ignoring an earlier court order prohibiting the sale of raw milk from the Prairie Central Road farm.

They had argued that because the milk was being sold as a ?cosmetic,? and labeled ?not for human consumption,? the court order prohibiting the sale did not apply.

However, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Randall Wong, said there was little doubt what the two men were up to.

Said Wong in his ruling released Thursday: ?In this case, distributing raw milk as a purported cosmetic product was patent lip service and ruse to distribute raw milk for human consumption.?

The case stems from an earlier injunction granted to Fraser Health to shut down a so-called ?cow share? program initially run by Alice Jongerden. Called ?Home on the Range,? the operation paid its shareholders dividends in the form of raw milk and raw milk products.

In 2010, Fraser Health sought and received a permanent injunction against Jongerden, arguing she had breached the Public Health Act by packaging raw milk for distribution. Under the Public Health Act, milk that has not been processed by a licenced dairy is considered a health hazard.

Despite the injunction, a year later both Schmidt and Watson had assumed operation of the farm and continued distribution of the raw milk.

Under a ?new business model,? however, the products were labeled cosmetic and given names like ?Cleopatra?s Enzymatic Alpine Lotion.?

Fraser Health was not impressed. In August of 2011 it received a warrant to search the property. Nothing was seized during the Aug. 25 search, but Fraser Health Authority spokesman Roy Thorpe-Dorward said at the time that photographs of the farm on Prairie Central Road were being reviewed to determine if a permanent court injunction against the distribution of raw milk is being obeyed by the current farm owner.

Fraser Health concluded it wasn?t, and argued both Schmidt and Watson were in contempt.

Justice Wong agreed. ?I conclude that the evidence overwhelmingly establishes that both respondents, Michael Schmidt and Gordon Watson, are guilty of contempt of court beyond a reasonable doubt.?

The two were given a three-month suspended sentence, and one-year probation.

?Any repetition of this contempt during the probationary period will trigger the imposed sentence imprisonment of three months,? Wong added.

The two were also ordered to pay court costs

By Greg Knill - Chilliwack Progress

Published: June 07, 2013 3:00 PM
June 07, 2013 3:53 PM


March 2 2013

The raw milk finally thing came to a head in New Westminster last week, with me cross-examining Inspector George Rice on Affidavits he?d submitted in support of the charge against me, and my co-accused, Michael Schmidt.   One part will be the defining moment in the Campaign for REAL MILK in BC.  

Fraser Health alleged that we'd committed contempt of court by breaching the injunction in this case *.  Safety of raw milk was not the focus of the hearing, but, since it had taken a year and a half to come on,  Insp. Rice had had plenty of time to prepare himself for questions which he certainly knew I?d ask, given the opening.

In cross-examination in the Supreme Court of British Columbia I challenged this official to produce one single case of someone proven to have been made sick from drinking raw milk,  during his 33 years on the job in the Fraser Valley.   He admitted he couldn't. 

Insp. Rice was very ill-at-ease on the witness stand.   Realizing how ridiculous his answer came off, against the fear-mongering perpetrated by his employer against our private dairy for the last 5 years,  he started to expand on the notion that 'there were lots of instances in other jurisdictions'.    Being in full-on prosecutorial mode?,  I was delighted by his mistake so I pressed-in.  Fraser Health's lawyer realized that if I were allowed to continue,   her witness was going to look more foolish still.    So she stood up and rescued him with the excuse  `"he`s not an expert".  Having one of the officials whom the dairy cartel uses as the mainstay of their propaganda,  go to pieces under scrutiny,  was a delicious moment.

I remind all concerned about what was said in December of 2009,  when Fraser Health/ Vancouver Health dumped hundreds of gallons of raw milk from our private dairy down the sewer, on the pretext that it was "not fit for human consumption".  Then, the Chief Medical Health Officer got up on his hind legs on TV, braying that there were "many, many many many instances"  of people getting sick from raw milk in BC. ( Direct quote ; 4 "many"s) .  But later, when I demanded he substantiate that claim, Perry Kendall begged-off, saying that he had no such evidence,  but that 'there were lots in other jurisdictions'

Similarly, Fraser Health's claim that the water in Chilliwack needs to be adulterated with bleach, ie. chlorine,  is worse than unfounded by any actual threat to the public health ... it is insane.  

Gordon S Watson

Justice Critic,  Party of Citizens

* File 124618   Fraser Health Authority and Alice Jongerden et al.


Feb 21 2013 : Yesterday at noon,  Mister Justice Randall Wong released us out of room 208 in the New Westminster Lawcourts.   The case is now in abeyance while he considers what was put before him during 5 and half days *  His parting words were ?judgment is reserved  ? I have other cases to hear ? there?s a lot to consider so I may not rule ?til after the Provincial Election.? 


The role of Her Majesty?s Judges, is : to preserve the status quo, or, when necessary, to amend things so societal harmony is restored.   So, since British Columbians go to the polls on May 15th,  the situation this hour, vis-a-vis availability of REAL MILK is  = it continues to flow, for the nonce


Only late in the hearing did I catch-on to the big picture. On Tuesday afternoon, the judge responded to the opening of my final argument,  letting me know that he was aware of the 1955 Royal Commission on milk marketing.  With a coy smile he said  ?the Clyne Commission?. There isn?t one person in half-a-million who would know what that is.   So when, next,  he told us that he?d sat on one of the cases of the Milk Marketing Board versus Bari Cheese, I was elated, realizing that he was ?way ahead of me. 


As often happens in law,  a seemingly tiny thing opens up a festering sore which then winds up in Court.   Unbeknownst to us for the last 6 years,  the mere existence of our little private dairy called-in to question the premise of the entire dairy supply system ? if not in all of Canada, certainly in BC.   We stumbled-in to the maw of the what I'd hoped to avoid.  On the day I met her, I told Mrs Jongerden : ?if there?s one thing we don't want to do, it?s taking on the Milk Marketing Board. And if there?s one thing we REALLY don?t want, it?s to get put on trial for ?contempt of Court??.  But here we are ? a chip on a tidal wave of geo-politics. 


For the last generation, people like me = your archetypal baby-boomer = coasted-along in a life of ease, consuming ?way beyond my production,  putting the difference ?on the tab? while people of  3rd world countries worked and saved. Now, they hold trillions of $$?s-worth of our Treasury Bonds. Not only are they out of patience with us rolling-over our I.O.Us, they?re suspicious that the house-of ?cards which the US fiat currency is, will dis-integrate. 

The usury cycle is around 200 years, which is where America is, today.  At this point, the creditor demands something of substance, instead of more worthless paper. If they don?t get it, war ensues on one pretext or another.     Twenty years ago, people would have laughed at any suggestion that the Canadian Wheat Board would be done away with. Yet that govt. monopoly did end last summer. Similarly, behind the scenes the Powers-that-Be are figuring out how to make getting rid of the dairy / poultry supply management schemes, politically palatable. In order to avoid the chaos of war, Canada is re-organizing its agriculture sector,  to produce high-quality, high-priced foodstuffs, just to pay the interest on those bonds.  Same as New Zealand did.   In that scenario,  protection of local farms and industry will be sacrificed on the altar of globalism.

When the Bolsheviks eviscerated Russia, the major blunder they made was, genociding the Kulaks. With the deaths of those white christian class enemies of communism,  went the accumulated farming expertise of 2 thousand years. Thereafter, the Soviet Union survived only because it was secretly subsidized by the Wall St. Banksters. The globalists won't make that mistake again. They will see to it that the local market not only exists, but becomes a matter of pride of place. Hence, all the attention to farmer's markets. 


I got across to the judge in final submission, that,  when the Bari cases started ( back in about 1989 )  British Columbia was over-supplied with milk,  within the milk marketing scheme. All the players across Canada were trying to minimize their own penalties by dumping milk inter-provincially, and to foreign markets = the classic mercantile game of ?beggar thy neighbour?.    2 decades later,   British Columbia does not now produce enough fluid milk to meet the needs of  our own citizens.  This drastic change in circumstance requires there be accommodation for private suppliers.  

We long ago explained why it is NOT about the risk of harm from consuming milk that hasn?t been par-boiled ( Pasteur-ized).  That?s a fable perennially trotted-out for fearmongering by the dairy cartel.  I see our case as along the line   Donahugh and Stevenson, a trivial incident which became the premise for modern British law on consumer protection


In many ways, Court is theatre.  And Susan Beach, the lawyer for Fraser Health, certainly knows it. She gave her client its moneysworth,  as Harridan-for-Hire,  harping-away like a buzz-saw about what bad guys Michael Schmidt and I were. "Contumacious contemnors !" ... she called us!   Having operated in the upper echelon of govt. in the capital city (Victoria) she?s used to people deferring to her.  What she didn?t realize ?til it was too late, was ;  the insolence of office which is her stock in trade, cut no ice with us ... a couple of blokes who simply don?t care about the prestige she?s gained in 20 years before the Bar. 


Launching into my final pitch,  I acknowledged to the judge that I know the courts aren?t interested in political rhetoric, so I?d be short.  Then I ?swung for the fences?,  ringing-in a photo of my Dad on the front line in the Korean War, mention of my ancestor Robart FitzWalter at Runnymede at the sealing of Magna Carta; Jan Kozak?s brilliant essay AND NOT A SHOT IS FIRED ?  connecting those dots right down to my ultimate point :  this case is about the right to use one?s private property in the face of mindless bureaucrats attempting to implement the First Plank of the Communist Manifesto.  Those in the gallery thought it good entertainment!


 I feel we jammed them up good and proper ...  the apparatchiks came off looking like such bunglers, that a verdict of "officially-induced error" is likely.  With egg all over their faces, they'll think long and hard before coming at us again. For them, the easy way out will be what ought to have happened long ago = consultation with those directly affected. 

Half a century ago,  Bob Dylan sang  ?Ain?t gonna work on Maggie?s Farm no more?   Regardless of the outcome,  Michael and I had fun playing our parts in this ?trial by ordeal? which drew the line in the sand for many many people who will not accept serfdom on the Global Plantation.


The fellowship in the halls of Justice, was precious.  I am very impressed by the number of people who told me they were praying for us in this matter :  ?The prayers of a righteous man availeth much?.


Gordon S Watson

Justice Critic, Party of Citizens

Feb 21 2013


 * /  file 124618 |  Fraser Health Authority and Alice Jongerden et al. 


my comment on the case as of Feb 16th 2013

To those interested in the Campaign for REAL MILK

A mere year-and-a-half after the charge was layed, the trial to do with raw milk dairying in British Columbia got underway last Wednesday.  It used up 3 full days in Court, and continues on February 18th,  probably for 2 more days.  We left off with Michael Schmidt?s counsel, Jason Gratl, having taken him through the evidence in chief.  On Monday morning, when we re-convene at 10 am, he?ll be back on the witness stand to be cross-examined by the lawyer for the Fraser Health Authority, namely Susan Beach.


Mister Justice Randall Wong is our judge. If anyone knows how it?s supposed to go on an allegation of ?breach of an injunction? it would be him, having been one of the judges who presided over prosecutions on charges of ?contempt of court? against people who?d blocked roads to stop logging in Clayquot Sound, back in the  1990s : MacMillan Bloedel and Simpson.  He?s an excellent judge ? calm, friendly, listening carefully to what we say.


Right out of the gate,  I stood up and 'grabbed the bull by the horns?, arguing that the allegation was properly in the nature of contempt of Court to a criminal degree, so it ought to proceed according to Criminal Rules. The authority for which was : the commentary in Martin?s re sections 9 and 10 of the Criminal Code,  plus the very same cases Miss Beach, and the Agent for the Attorney General Miss Bevan,  had put forward, ie. AG for BC and Tony Poje /  Everywoman?s Society and Bridges.   Pointing out that my and Michael Schmidt?s Affidavits controverted the Affidavits of the Fraser Health employees upon which the charge was based,  Mr Gratl and I submitted that they ought to be presented for cross-examination. The judge did not immediately rule one way or the other   ? he simply moved on.   But it soon became apparent that we were indeed into the full-blown criminal trial I?d wanted all along, rather than the civil procedure predicated in paperwork,  for which the Prosecutrix was prepared.  Late on Wednesday, the judge directed her to have the Fraser Health employees there the next morning


The testimony / cross-examinations of Regional Director Tim Shum and Inspector George Rice took up all Thursday and the morning of Friday.  They did what bureaucrats do when their conduct is scrutinized ? pretend to be forthright,   staying tight to an obviously-rehearsed script. 

My major score was, drawing-out from Insp. Rice the fact that the complaint which began this whole nonsense in 2008, came from Merv Webstein, then the Chief Veterinarian for the Minister of Agriculture in the Fraser Valley. That is a bombshell because, Insp Rice told the court that there certainly are hard copies of that complaint = emails / letters, etc.  Exactly the stuff I?ve been asking-for, for over 2 years, meanwhile the Ministry of Health used delay to ?game the system?, so as to prevent me exposing MAL-feasance of public office.

That is the same Mr Webstein with whom I had a phone conversation, on May 26 2007, when we started the Home on the Range cowshare.  I?d called him to find out where we could get our cows tested for bovine diseases, and get our milk tested for coliform count.  In that friendly conversation,  he told me that he grew up on a farm in Saskatchewan, happily drinking raw milk 'til the day his mother started cooking it on the stove, to Pasteurize it. After which, he stopped drinking it because he didn?t like the taste.  Our conversation that day left off with him saying ?as long as we don?t get any complaints, we won?t bother you?  ?We?, meaning, the Ministry of Agriculture.  This new info. is delicious because it enables me to go back to Square One,  open them up and expose wrongdoing on the part of the govt.

What?s coming in to view, is ; my role in this raw milk thing is akin to what happened in 2 other major controversies. Back in the early ?90s, when I started poking-around the govt. files to do with the abortion providers, I caught them out of order a few ways, but didn?t quite manage to do major damage to their racket.  Later, though, the master-mind of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society, namely Dave Stupich, wound up in prison, convicted of a few indictable offences. That all started the day I sat down with Corporal Brown at the RCMP ?E? Div. Headquarters and layed out a pile of documents showing  $$ from provincial accounts being laundered through a supposed "non-profit society" Everywoman?s, to the NCHS, ultimately back to the NDP for partisan political purposes.


Same with the furor in 1994,  when my ( then) lawyer, Jack Cram, made accusations of very serious wrong-doing within the govt. child services, right up to the top of the Judiciary.   To distract people from paying attention to him, the Law Society arranged to have Mr Cram ?taken down?, then stashed in a padded cell at Vancouver General hospital for a week for a psychiatric evaluation. Of course he was always as right as rain, but that's how the wicked game is played when a dissident starts getting serious media coverage.   A couple of years later when the dust settled, I used his evidence to lay a criminal charge against a sitting Justice, and the Law Society and its agent who had sat down in private,  to fix the outcome of a matter then before that judge. My charge was "stayed", but, arising from it, Denis Murray was appointed Special Prosecutor to investigate  Provincial Court Judge David Ramsay. Ramsay eventually went to prison convicted of ?breach of trust?, for having abused his position to obtain sexual favours from women before his court.

In both those instances,  corruption had ripened to the point of being overwhelmingly obvious, yet officialdom would not do its duty.  All I did was to light the fuses on the sticks of dynamite which blew the logjams skyhigh


As this raw milk thing unfolds, I sense the same kind of scandal looming. Evidence is falling in to place concerning the ?abuse of dominance? being perpetrated by the dairy cartel and its accomplices in government!     I have no doubt that a politician or 2,  and other officials yet to be ascertained, did take bribes to cook-up the Regulation outlawing raw milk.  I predict someone's going to the penitentiary before all is said and done, but it won't be the Defendants in the matter of Fraser Health and Jongerden


For the immediate purposes of the Campaign for REAL MILK,   the best thing adduced from the Fraser Health officials, was : enforcing the regulation which outlaws raw milk is very low priority.    Excuse being :  no lab. in BC will do the test necessary for proving such stuff is not Pasteurized. Consequently,  the nanny-state-ists don?t care about a local supply of raw milk as long some little artisanal dairy doesn?t come to their attention via reports of people showing up in hospital emergency rooms with food poisoning.  So milkmaids & cowboys from New Westminster to Guelph Ontario can sleep a bit easier with that knowledge 

There were a couple of moments of levity, such as when Insp Rice made the mistake of asserting that ?raw milk is a health hazard?, thus allowing me to ask, ?did he have any actuarial tables of risk of harm,  to substantiate that??  As he floundered, his opinion was revealed as the urban myth it is, to the amusement of the gallery.  One minute her witness presented himself as a scientist whose opinion prevails in a court of law,  but when I skewered him,  Miss Beach quickly got to her feet to rescue him before his embarrassment was complete, bleating  ?he?s not an expert?

In light of what I?ve learned hanging around Courts for the last three decades,  I just shake my head at Miss Beach?s performance ? petulantly going-on about ?the Rules? after it?s obvious she?s lost the point ; talking-over a judge who?s been on the Bench longer than she?s been before the Bar.  I feel like giving her a bit of free legal advice :  ? The card of  ?feminst privilege?  is not trump in this venue, ma?am. So no more pouting, eh?  Early in the going I predicted she?d go to pieces once we got down to brass tacks.  And she did,  personifying The Peter Principle  = people rise to the level of their incompetence : she may be an accredited mediatrix, but she ain?t no Barrister

I feel like the trial is going well for us. The Plaintiff simply has no evidence to substantiate the charge that I ever did breach the Court Order prohibiting me from "packaging / distributing raw milk for human consumption".  A wad of paper of items printed-off the internet,  purporting to be Affidavit evidence that I and my co-accused must have been doing so, since we were / are  notoriously involved in advocacy on the raw milk cause' ,  is all circumstantial.  So what?  In the little star-chamber feminazi tribunals wherein she makes her living, Miss Beach gets away with murder, but she's finding out that Cyber-Hearsay has no weight in this real court of law, before a Judge from the Old School who knows what British jurisprudence is

at the outset, Mister Justice Wong told Susan Beach that, since there's a constitutional challenge underway, even if he were to find us in contempt, he wouldn't sentence us 'til that Constitutional Question is dealt with. We've already accomplished the main thing  =   sending it  'into overtime', keeping the Fraser Health miscreants at bay,  so the REAL MILK keeps flowing past the date of the BC provincial election, when the law will be changed.  

The big reward for me in all this is ; meeting in person real people whom I only know from the internet ... supporters of the Campaign for REAL MILK. Especially : it?s a joy to behold beautiful milk-fed babies in the arms of young moms and dads!   The lady who started me in all this, midwife Laurie B., showed up and we exulted in seeing the next generation being breast-fed in the very halls of Justice ? no more powerful articulation than that, of Michael Schmidt?s aphorism:  ?raw milk is love? !!


Gordon S Watson

Justice Critic, Party of Citizens Who Have Decided To Think For Ourselves & Be Our Own Politicians
February 16 2013 AD

My Response to Fraser Health's Application citing  me for contempt of the Court Order in this case

S 124618

New Westminster Registry





BETWEEN :                          FRASER  HEALTH  AUTHORITY                   PETITIONER


AND :                     ALICE  JONGERDEN   carrying on business as  HOME ON THE RANGE ;
                                JANE DOE  and  JOHN DOE



Application Response of   GORDON S WATSON

THIS IS A RESPONSE TO:  the notice of application of  Fraser Health Authority




            I do not consent to any of the Orders for which the Applicant has asked




            I oppose the Court granting each one of the Orders for which the Applicant has asked




            This section does not apply to me




1              The milk which is the subject of this matter is produced by a herd of cows which is registered with Jersey Canada as being owned by the HOTR syndicate.  That syndicate in an informal group of individuals,  membership in which changes constantly, as they redeem their shares in the herd, and new people buy shares in the herd. Since September 14th 2010, Michael Schmidt has been the Agister for the herd.  I own two shares in the herd. 


2              At tab 1 of the MATERIAL TO BE RELIED ON  are the letters exempting the raw milk produced within a private dairy for its owners,  from the requirement in the Milk Industry Act that all milk for human consumption has to be Pasteur-ized.   These same letters were entered in to file 124618 on February 1st 2010, during the hearing of the Petition


3              At tab 2 of the MATERIAL TO BE RELIED ON are excerpts from the Report of the provincial Royal Commission in to milk marketing which I copied from that volume in the Royal Archive.    At tab 3 are excerpts from the Milk Industry Act as it was originally, which I copied from the volume of statutes in the library of the Law Courts, at 800 Smithe Street Vancouver 






4              This matter is ultra vires the powers of a Health Authority.   The power to originate a charge of, and to punish for,  contempt ex facie,  arises from the Criminal Code.  Thus, originating and conducting a prosecution for contempt of Court where loss of liberty is at stake, falls properly under the purview of the Attorney General. 


5              Section 88 of the Public Health Act entitles a Commissioner in an enquiry convened under section 86 of that Act to go to the Supreme Court and apply for an Order compelling a person to be committed for contempt,  as if in breach of an Order of the Supreme Court.  But, other than that section, which is strictly limited, there no power within that Act for any officer of a Health Authority, nor a Health Authority itself as a legal entity,   to originate an application for contempt of Court. 


6              Section 119 of the Public Health Act empowers the Lieutenant General to make regulations concerning more and different powers than are in that Act, for the purposes of exercising powers already provided for, or performing duties in that Act.   In section 5 of the Public Health Act Inspection and Orders Regulation BC Reg. 52/2009  the circumstances in which an officer of a Health Authority may apply to a Court are set out.   Nowhere does it mention that an officer of a Health Authority may originate an application for a finding of contempt of an Order made by the Supreme Court   Nowhere in any other regulation pursuant to the Public Health Act, is there  authorization for the legal entity of Fraser Health Authority to originate a charge of contempt of Court


7              Since there is no authority in the Public Health Act for a Health Authority to prosecute an allegation of contempt of an Order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, then the purported Applicant lacks status in the first place.  Without statutory foundation,  the Court ought to declare this so-called application a nullity.




8              The action out of which the Order at issue herein arose was utterly illegal from the start.   Madame Justice Gropper simply refused to acknowledge my argument, made on paper and in person,   that Fraser Health Authority is statute-barred by the Attorney General Act Chapter 22 Revised Statutes of British Columbia, from even filing the paperwork in the Registry. The Act says


Duties and powers


2              The Attorney General


(b)       must see that the administration of public affairs is in accordance with law,

(c )      must superintend all matters connected with the administration of justice in British              Columbia  that are not within the jurisdiction of the government of Canada

(e)       is entrusted with the powers and duties �

( i )      has the regulation of and conduct of all litigation for or against the government or a            ministry in respect of any subjects within the authority or jurisdiction of the legislature �


10            In the Affidavit of Tim Shum, at page 3,  is a copy of the Summary of Meeting which says

"Tim indicated that Health Protection is the enforcement department of FH.  Health Protection's mandate is to enforce provincial public health legislation".    

Since the Director of Food Safety operates under aegis of the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport,  there no question that this matter is  "litigation for or against a Ministry".  If so, then where is the Health Protection Branch in this thing?    Answer : nowhere in the material delivered to me, nor in the previous rounds of file 124618, is it mentioned.  At tab  4  of the MATERIAL TO BE RELIED ON is a copy of correspondence in which Sara Bevan - speaking officially for the Attorney General - says that the ministry is aware of the lack of compliance with the law, but they think it doesn�t matter.   Thus, this present attempt at prosecuting me flies in the face of the basic law of British Columbia.   After they framed a law in mischief so they could bother us for the dastardly deed of co-operating in farming for our own sustenance,  the Applicant and its legal counsel flout one of the foundational laws of the Province! 


11            I and all British Columbians are entitled to know the law by which we�re supposed to govern ourselves.  At tab 5 of the MATERIAL TO BE RELIED ON are letters I wrote to the Director of Food Safety and to deputy Minister Hazelwood.  After failing to get a reply from Director Lambert within a reasonable time, I called him on his cellphone. He told me he would provide a full answer but he never did.  The previous Director of Food Safety had no problem providing a clarification of government policy.  Neither did deputy Minister Hazelwood ever answer me.  Their failure to respond appropriately, and timely, is studied negligence.   There is no other, more logical explanation for it but that they were directed to hide out,  in order to prevent me having artillery for my political campaign of advertising that raw milk is available, legally,  via cowsharing.  


12            By now it is bleeding obvious that this allegation of contempt was concocted not for anything to do with a real threat to the health of the Public, rather, by officials moved by the dairy cartel, to abuse the process of Court as a way to vex their political opponents on the raw milk issue.  Wherefore the govt.�s refusal to answer me was part of a criminal conspiracy to hide its own negligence and wrongdoing, on the issue of availability of raw milk, and to prevent me having the documents so that I could defend myself in the prosecution which I suspected was being framed-up against me.  


            FULL  DISCLOSURE


13            In October 1993, I was the seventh person to make use of the Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Act, after it came into effect.   At an Xmass party later that year, one of my cousins who then worked for the Ministry of Attorney General,  told me that they had been given a day-long seminar about how to seem to comply with the Act, yet do the minimum of actually producing what was requested.   Her first-hand information, along with my experience over 18 years, proves that that pattern not only continues, but is worse than ever. At tab  6 of the MATERIAL TO BE RELIED ON is a summary of how bad it is now.   It is well known that politically-loaded FoI requests are flagged for oversight by political operatives within the Ministries, then treated very carefully.   This is what�s going on with my FoI requests to Fraser Health being delayed


14            Since 2008, after making demands to Fraser Health Authority under the Freedom of Information protocol,  various branches of the provincial government, and two other Health Authorities,  delivered dribs and drabs of information.   But there�s an awful lot more they haven�t.  At tab  7 of the MATERIAL TO BE RELIED ON is correspondence from branches of the government, showing how laggardly they are complying with the law ;  anywhere from a month to half a year behind in fulfilling their legal duty.  This pattern gives me good reason to believe and I verily do believe that officials at the very top echelons of government were well aware of court action being prepared against me, and that the delays in providing records are being co-ordinated so as to hinder my ability to defend myself in Court


15            The Petitioner has gamed the system in order to stall me from obtaining material to which I have a right. There is no doubt in my mind but that such activity is done wittingly, in order to prevent me

a] embarrassing certain officials by proving out of their own internal communications, that they knew all along there was a duty incumbent upon the government to make a way for a farm to retail raw milk, pursuant to section 40 ( (3) q of the Milk Industry Act, yet they deliberately frustrated my attempts to have that law put into effect

b]  exposing a criminal conspiracy to obstruct /pervert /defeat Justice


16            Proof of the malfeasance of the applicant is seen in the document at tab 8 of the MATERIAL TO BE RELIED ON,  coughed-up mere months ago, after 3 years� of asking.  It proves that from the very first, officials within the government outright lied to the Minister about the legitimacy of cowsharing.   It has on it the name of Perry Kendall md. But most likely,  Dr Brian Emerson, deputy Minister Larry Pedersen and someone named �Pat Ruth�  will have had input, too. Internal emails in Fraser Health which I have obtained via FoI show that they had been monitoring my website for a long time, prior to this ADVICE TO THE MINISTER. Since I had posted on that website the wording of the two letters from government which I had in hand, then these officials could not have been ignorant of the fact that milk from cowshares is exempt from the requirement in the Milk Industry Act that all raw milk for human consumption, be Pasteur-ized.  That lie-by-omission was done so the Minister would portray members of cowshares as outlaws. All,  as part of demonizing raw milk in the public mind for an ulterior, illegal end. 


17            The Reasons for Judgment of Madame Justice Gropper in this file end with her advising all-concerned to seek a remedy with elected representatives.  In his Reasons for Judgment in the appeal of the verdict in Michael Schmidt�s Ontario case,  Mister Justice Tetley opines that the raw milk controversy is a political issue.   It never was about any genuine threat to the health of the public posed by raw milk from cowshares. At tab 9 is the transcript of remarks made by Dr Beals proving that consuming raw milk from artisanal dairies is 35,000 times less risky than  any other foodstuff  available in commerce.   The regulation outlawing raw milk for human consumption was concocted as a political measure to maintain the market share of monopolists who operate food processors.  At tab 10 of the MATERIAL TO BE RELIED ON is evidence that this government entertained representatives of the dairy cartel while hiding that what they were doing would interfere with the civil right of members of cowshares.  Records I�m after will show that there certainly is a concerted effort at the very highest levels, to demonize raw milk producers, in order to shut us out of supplying a niche product,   so those who hold quota under the Milk Marketing scheme can maintain dominance and profitability.    That activity is the offence of �abuse of dominance� contrary to the Competition Act Revised Statutes of Canada 


18            This same material is owed to me, another way, by lawyer Sandra Beach, as part of her duty under the Canons of Professional Ethics of the Law Society when acting as a Prosecutor. She is obliged to disclose all material which may be useful to me in making my defence to the charge I face.     That means =  just to start with =  copies of all records under control of each of  :  Fraser Health Authority ;  Vancouver Coastal Health Authority ;  Northern Health Authority ;  the Health Protection Branch of the Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport ;  the Ministry of Attorney General ; the Ministry of Agriculture,  wherein my name is mentioned, or which have to do with the cowshares in which I hold a property interest,  as well as files about the raw milk issue.  


19            I cannot properly prepare my Response until certain material -  which the Applicant owes to me, and is long-overdue under the Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Act - is produced.    I demand FULL disclosure,  FORTHWITH



20            At tab 11 of the MATERIAL TO BE RELIED ON is an email sent to a man who held a share in the Home on the Range herd, by the legal counsel for Fraser Health Authority.   Out of the Petitioner�s own mouthpiece, here is proof that the Order sought was only against Alice Jongerden and people whom she employed in her business.    The Petitioner did not ask for an Order prohibiting shareholders from going to the farm, taking,  using and enjoying their property, ie. milk from a herd of dairy cows in which they held an interest.   Judge Gropper did not hear argument for an injunction prohibiting everyone and anyone in BC who milks a cow for their own sustenance :  all she was entertaining on February 1st 2010 was an application for an Order to do with the conduct of those Persons defined in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Petition.  It was not available to the learned judge to expand the ambit of the Petition as filed.    


21            At paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Petition of Fraser Health Authority in this file, the persons targeted by the Applicant are defined.   At tab 12 of the MATERIAL TO BE RELIED ON  is a copy of an email from Fraser Health manager Tim Shum to Inspector George Rice, during the time they were trying to frame-up Alice Jongerden for contempt of Court,  indicating the same thing, ie.  they knew there is a distinction between employees of Home on the Range who were caught by the Order, versus those who were simply shareholders in the syndicate which owned the HOTR herd.


22            At the hearing on February 1st 2010, I told the judge that if Fraser Health Authority wanted an Order which would catch every single person in BC who milks a cow to get raw milk for themselves,  the Petitioner would have to notify all those people, so as to give each and every one of them the opportunity to exercise their right to speak to the issue.  To which submission Madame Gropper merely rolled her eyes.   


23            Point of paragraphs  20 to 22 being : in the Petition,  the Court was asked only for an Order against those described as Respondents.  It was not available to the Court to enlarge the class of Respondents, without canvassing both sides.   Therefore the Order consequently made did NOT prevent people who simply owned shares in the herd from taking home their private property, ie.  their milk. Guy McDannold Tim Shum and the officials within Fraser Health knew the Order applies only to Alice Jongerden as she packaged / distributed raw milk for human consumption under the brand name Home on the Range, and individuals who assisted Mrs Jongerden doing so.  Since September 14th 2010, my legal personality as one holding an interest in the herd of cows for whom Michael Schmidt is the Agister, is quite separate and distinct from the persons to whom the Order applies. Another of my capacities is,  one who is part of the directing mind of the Our Cows cowshare. In that role I am quite separate and distinct from my capacity as someone who helped Alice Jongerden package /distribute raw milk for human consumption under the brand name Home on the Range. In those aforesaid capacities I am not caught by the Order.


24            After the Order at issue was pronounced, Guy McDannold counselled Northern Health Authority how to go about deceiving friends of mine who were then operating cowshares up that way, as to its import.  At tab 13 of the MATERIAL TO BE RELIED ON are copies of material served upon them. They were told that the Order was a dragnet in which they were caught,  when in fact, Rule 20-3 of the civil rules says the opposite.   As the officers of Northern Health knowingly misled Lisa Graham-Knight and also Leslie McConnachie, by telling them that they were in danger of prosecution and fines and jail, intending thereby to intimidate those women from doing something which they had the right to do - ie. make a living by providing agistment services -  those agents committed the crime of extortion.  As he supplied his professional services to aid and abet said extortion,  Guy McDannold thereby committed the crime of counselling an indictable offence



25            Applying for a Warrant to Search on the Grounds that he wanted to get information with which to determine whether the March 18 2010 BC Supreme Court Order was being contravened - as he says at paragraph 12 -  Inspector Rice was out of order from the very start.  In his Grounds for Belief, Inspector Rice omitted certain facts, the omission of which caused Justice of the Peace Blackstone to be deceived as to the real purpose of the search.    The powers granted under the Warrant were strictly limited to carrying out duties as a Health Inspector. The Warrant did not authorize him nor any other official to gather information and/or things for any purpose other than carrying out his duties as defined in the Public Health Act.  Inspector Rice had no authority to gather information nor seize things for a potential prosecution for contempt of a Court Order.  


26            The Warrant was obtained by Fraud.    FRAUD VITIATES EVERYTHING IT TOUCHES    Whatever material presented in the Affidavit of George Rice sworn September 9th,  2011, that was obtained under that invalid Warrant, is inadmissible in this matter. The Court ought to reject every thing derived from that illegal search.   Without that tainted material, there is no evidence to substantiate the allegation against me 



27            At tab 10 of the MATERIAL TO BE RELIED ON is a printout from the Registry of lobbyists showing representatives of the Dairy Farmers of Canada influencing provincial government policy on the financial benefit of producers and the health benefit of consumers � the very points on which the raw milk controversy focuses.   By entertaining stakeholders who were there to promote their opinion that raw milk is dangerous to the  �health of consumers�,  yet avoiding hearing from members of cowshares on that same point,  the government acted illegally when it cooked-up legislation to outlaw all raw milk.  That section of the Regulation is unconstitutional and so is the Order founded on it


28            At tab 15  of the MATERIAL TO BE RELIED ON is the title page for the Dairy Products (Hygiene) Regulations 1995 of the United Kingdom of Great Britain ( where raw milk is sold happily to 50 million people).   The pre-amble shows how such a thing is supposed to be done in the British Parliamentary system �

� � after consultation in accordance with section 48 (4) of the said Act with such organizations as appear to them to be representatives of interests likely to be substantially affected by the Regulations,  hereby make the following Regulations: --�


29            In April 2011,  Justice Sandra Griffin struck sections of the Public Education Collective Agreement Act, S.B.C. 1998, c. 41  because it was brought in without the government properly consulting people directly affected by it.  That ruling in BC TF and David Chudnovsky and Her Majesty the Queen in right of British Columbia  was predicated upon the ground articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Health Services and Support versus British Columbia,  [ 2007 2 SCR 39 ]    Section 7 of the Public Health Act Transitional Regulation is unconstitutional for the same reason.  When the regulation goes down in the Charter Challenge now underway, so will Madame Justice Gropper�s Order 




30            Over the course of 8 years, I was given formal statements of government policy which led me to believe that cowsharing is a legitimate way for people to get pure fresh whole raw milk for ourselves, outside of the commercial system. Since the government refused to provide evidence otherwise, when I asked for clarification, then I am entitled to rely on those letters as the last word on the topic and to govern myself accordingly.

 31           First and last, this matter is in Court because the government neglected to do its job properly, as stipulated at section 40 ( 3) ) q)  of the Milk Industry Act RSBC.   At tab 16 of the MATERIAL TO BE RELIED ON is my correspondence with the Milk Marketing Board.  Obviously, those officials had not done their homework so as to remember the protocol for certification of a farm from which I could retail fresh, pure whole raw milk to the public.  This repeated failure of the government to discharge its statutory duty   brings in to play the defence to the Applicant's allegation against me, known as 'bureaucratic indifference / officially induced error'.    At tab 17 of the MATERIAL TO BE RELIED ON is an explanation of how this defence works.


32            For 60 years, until August 2011,  Section 40 ( 3)  q of the Milk Industry Act was part of the law of the province,  articulating the Spirit of the Report of the Royal Commission on milk marketing.   This present administration ditched that section for no good reason, only in an attempt to hide its own refusal to do its duty.   The Order which is at issue in this prosecution flies in the face of the law as it was,  at all times material to the charge against me.


33            At section 103 of the Public Health Act, there is a categorical defence to a charge under that Act.   I assert that doctrine in my defence against the allegation of contempt of Court :  I sincerely do have the longstanding belief in a set of facts which exonerate me. First ;  that the government had a duty to provide a way for me, and others,  to get raw milk, but because it wouldn't,  it was lawful for us to underwrite a private enterprise,  and go a'dairying, then use and especially enjoy ! what our cows produce ; second, that the exemptions I obtained from the Minister of Agriculture and the Ministry of Health,  superseded in authority the Order which is at issue herein,  because it was made by a Judge who refused to consider those letters = the will of the Legislature = as evidence when they were literally on the Bench in front of her



34            An accused is entitled to know the charge he has to meet.  The material delivered by the Applicant does not sufficiently particularize the act, or actions, whereby I allegedly breached the Order of Miriam Gropper, J.


35            In the  1990s, I was involved in a political controversy on another topic.  My experience in that one parallels what has gone on with the raw milk issue since 2008, in that, as I did things back then,  to engage the attention of the electorate and also consumers by publishing my criticism of the government so as to expose the partnership in criminal activity of certain politicians and officers of the Crown, I was seen as, and identified publicly by those whom I criticized, as their political enemy


36            It later came out, in the Report of Special Prosecutor Richard Peck,  that the Attorney General of the day had met lobbyists for the abortion industry at the office of the Criminal Justice Branch to discuss lending the powers and resources of the government to frame me up for prosecution in order to suppress me exercising my rights to freedom of expression and of association.  That meeting was when they started lobbying for legislation outlawing all anti-abortion protest in the whole province.   The minutes of that meeting show Attorney General Gablemann directing Ernest Quantz,  head of the Criminal Justice Branch,  to provide video cameras, then teach them how to provoke altercations with me, and others, so as to make an evidentiary basis for a prosecution for contempt of the Court Order around the abortuaries.    Ernest Quantz then personally coached the staff of those places how to bother anti-abortion protesters,  so as to get an excuse for running to court.  When that much was accomplished, the Criminal Justice Branch appointed a Special Prosecutor to prosecute me.   At the outset of the charge  -  same as this one = contempt of an injunction -  I complained that the material served did not give me enough information with which to prepare my full answer and defence. Mister Justice Hogarth directed Special Prosecutor Donald Sorochan  to provide me with a Bill of Particulars.    Later on, in the prosecution of David Stupich, in the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holdings Society scandal,  I had the satisfaction of seeing Special Prosecutor Sorochan prove my initial claim that some of the  'charities' which had  been laundering money back to the New Democratic Party were running the abortion mills.    


37            At tab 18 of the MATERIAL TO BE RELIED ON is the Judicial Notice issued in my 1994 trial for contempt of that Court Order.  I proved in a court of law that providing the means to carry out an abortion which was not genuinely therapeutic, is still a crime.  The baby who was consigned to death that day by her own parents was eliminated because she was female.  They got rid of her so they wouldn't have to pay the dowry expected by their culture for a daughter.   After formally acknowledging that what I was doing in that incident - to wit, pleading with the father for the life of the unborn girl, by word and moral suasion - was an attempt to prevent a crime-in-progress, the judge sent me to gaol for 21 days.  I fold that story in to this Response to make the point that what Fraser Health Authority is doing - aided and abetted by employees of the Crown all the way up to deputy Minister of Health Andrew Hazelwood, the Chief Medical Health Officer and Dr Brian Emerson, deputy Minister of Health Larry Pedersen,   along with other corrupt officials yet to be ascertained - is more of the same ... carrying on a campaign of vilification against our private dairy, especially me, because I am seen as a political enemy of the government.  Them hectoring us through court, on the pretence that providing raw milk for ourselves constitutes a hazard to the public health,  is utter nonsense and they know it.  Official powers are being lent for an improper purpose - ie.   distracting citizens from finding out about criminal activity going on in high places.   Psychologists call it �projection�


38            Not least in this pattern of corruption is the mis-conduct of lawyer Guy McDannold as he suborned perjury from George Rice in the last round � coaching Inspector Rice to swear falsely that Alice Jongerden had given him  permission to search the farm without a Warrant, then entering that false affidavit to Court in order to mislead Madame Justice Gropper at the hearing of the Petition.  In the most recent round,  Guy McDannold�s lawfirm prepared the documents for the Search Warrant.  The Grounds For Belief he submitted to obtain the Warrant to search the farm on August 26 2011, deliberately deceive the Justice of the Peace by omitting a crucial fact about the situation.  Particularly : on February 18th 2011, speaking as counsel of record for Fraser Health,  Guy McDannold told Justice Gropper that his client �was stepping back from the matter and would not enforce the law while the constitutional challenge to section 7 of the Public Health Act Transitional Regulation was underway�


39         Until and unless I have a Bill of Particulars in which the precise act, or combination of actions of mine, are at issue on this present allegation, I am unable to prepare to make my full answer and defence. 


                LACK OF EVIDENCE


40            One day as I sat in the gallery of the Provincial Court, I heard Judge Edmund Cronin say
                                "the nature of evidence is that it can be tested. If it canit be tested, it isn't evidence"

The material at issue is ridiculously flimsy. The notion that copies of something printed-out from the internet, amounts to evidence, is absurd.   Unless I am allowed to test it by cross-examining the author of the various pieces, then what I am faced with is nothing more substantial than glimmers and reflections rendered from a crystal ball.  There is no evidence against me to substantiate the allegation.




41            For about a decade, I was the reasonable man,  attempting to dialogue on the issue of availability of raw milk. Our cowshares had no problem 'til the dairy industry noticed how well we were doing, as informed consumers rejected their product and sought out REAL MILK.   The root of this trouble is not harm from the availability of raw milk from artisanal dairies, rather, from covetousness.  As evidenced by the federal government phasing-out the Canadian Wheat Board, elimination of the milk marketing scheme is next on the agenda of globalism. The dairy monopoly is terrified it's next on the chopping block.  This commotion around REAL MILK is them lashing out at us as convenient whipping-boy ... only a distraction in the theatre of politics


42            Thirty years of slogging around in the stables of the legal system makes one a bit weary and jaded.  What a treat then, to find on page 5 of the Notice of Application some comic relief ;  Miss Beach using a quote from Judge Bouck's admonition about preserving the rule of law.   Here we have the Fraser Health Authority repeatedly breaking one of the basic laws of the land = the Attorney General Act, and categorically exempted from section 5 of the Offence Act RSBC so it is not bound by the same laws all the rest of us natural peoples must obey,   while hauling me and my friends before the Magistrate for simply taking the fruits of our labour.  


43            Silly me for believing that since my grandparents were pioneer farmers around here I could just keep on doing what they�d done out at Colony Farm, and on Sidney Island, then on the ground that is now the campus of UVic, and on the old Sayward Farm at Cordova Bay � milk a cow for our own sustenance!   I urge all-concerned to have a look at what the Bible - which is an essential part of the furniture of Court - has to say � the part where the prophet Isaiah warned our ancestors what would happen when we disdain our God, and his food laws � �wrong is put in place of right, and right is put in place of wrong, and the man who cries for Justice maketh himself a prey�  


44            The eminent jurist (quoted by Miss Beach) got it partly right.  What he didn�t foresee is how soon the Quango-es*  known as �health authorities� would become the insolent monsters we contend with today, as they decide which laws they�ll obey, or not.   * quasi-governmental agencies


45            At tab 19 of the MATERIAL TO BE RELIED ON  is the text of the Loyal Address spoken to Her Majesty the Queen wherein Chief Justice MacEachern reminded all-concerned that British Judges are the independent custodians of the law, part of whose role is to govern relations between citizen and state.   As seen in the last couple of rounds of this case 124618,  Fraser Health Authority has transmogrified from a creature of the Legislature supposed to serve the people,  into the biggest ugliest thug in the neighbourhood � its minions dumping perfectly good milk down the sewer on the pretext of a regulation which was dreamed-up secretly,  to suit commercial interests.   There is no worse tyranny than that carried on behind a Badge of authority.  


46            70 years ago, my father and my mother and my uncles,  joined the Canadian Army to go half way round the world to �fight for freedom�, or so they were told. They came back bloodied and battered, thinking totalitarian-ism had been beaten into a smoking ruin over there.   Yet within my lifetime, I�ve seen my country sabotaged from within by race traitors � degenerating into the same kind of police states as the black fascism of Hitler & Mussolini and the red fascism of Josep Stalin.  I mean this so-called �Health Authority� attempting to lord it over us, rather than simply carrying out its proper role as a civil servant.  At tab 20 of the MATERIAL TO BE RELIED ON is an explanation of how this came about : Fraser Health is revealed as one of the �authorities� created by the communists for subverting our way of life   The only hope for us here and now, is,  Judges who know their duty to be loyal to the principles enshrined in the Coronation Oath, and can muster the courage to do it


47            Five days is far too short a time to prepare a proper response to the application.  As is obvious from the email at tab 12 of the MATERIAL TO BE RELIED ON,  the applicant has been preparing its case against me over for over a year,  yet I�m expected to put together my defence in 5 days.   At the hearing I will be making a Motion for an extension of time to prepare, and for a Motion that since loss of liberty is at stake, the trial must be carried out under criminal rules so that I can take the witness stand, and call witnesses to give evidence, and cross-examine my accuser




1              letter from Minister of Agriculture John van Dongen to me ; already in file 124618


2              letter from Director of Food Safety Duffel  to me ; already in file 124618

                letter from Paul Bailey to me : February 16 2007 :  �policy has not changed�


3              excerpts from Milk Industry Act


4              letter from Sara Bevan Legal Services Branch


5              my letters to Director of Food Safety Lambert / deputy Minister Hazelwood


6              newspaper article about Freedom of Information process


7              responses from Freedom of Information departments




9              transcript of Dr Beals� speech


10            printout from Registry of Lobbyists


11            copy of email to Rick Adams from Guy McDannold


12            copy of email from Tim Shum to George Rice  / March 24 2010


13            Public Health Act Orders served on L McConnachie and L Graham-Knight


14            n/a


15            pre-amble to Dairy Product ( Hygiene ) Regulation 1995


16            correspondence with Milk Marketing Board


17            statement by Special Prosecutor re : defence of officially-induced error


18            Judicial Notice


19            Loyal Address


20            Essay :  AND NOT A SHOT IS FIRED


21            Affidavit of Dr Ted Beals ; already in file 124618



The application respondent estimates that the application will take four full days of Court



[    ]  The application respondent has filed in this proceeding a document that includes application respondent�s          address for service



Date   03 / 10 / 2011

Monday 3rd of October 2011 A. D.


Gordon S Watson




S- 124618 New Westminster Registry




 BETWEEN                                            FRASER  HEALTH  AUTHORITY                                           Petitioner


AND :                                     ALICE JONGERDEN ;  JOHN DOE ;  JANE DOE                            Respondents



Further  and  additional  Response  to  Claim  

after particulars were received  May 15 2012 

PART 4 :             FACTUAL BASIS



Continuing the numbering of paragraphs from  Volume One
48            On September 27th 2011, Inspector Rice was notified by Health Canada of its legal opinion concerning the substance produced by the Our Cows cowshare.  From then on, he knew that it is a cosmetic in accordance with the Food and Drugs Act 
Revised Statutes of Canada   page 35 of my complaint to the Law Society     


49            On May 15th 2012 I delivered to the Law Society my complaint about the way Susan Beach has obstructed /perverted Justice in this matter   Tab 21  of the MATERIALS TO BE RELIED UPON 


50            On May 16th 2012, via email, I received a message from Susan Beach?s office supposedly providing Particulars of the allegation,  as Ordered by Justice Williams on April 23 2012

51            On May 19th 2012, I became aware of the lawsuit Timberwolf Log Trading Ltd.  versus 
Her Majesty the Queen in right of British Columbia
  2011 BCSC 142    Summary at Tab 22 of MATERIALS TO BE RELIED UPON  


PART 5 :                LEGAL BASIS


52                Although the Prosecutor?s letter to me of May 15  2012  Tab 23 of the MATERIALS TO BE RELIED UPON   says that the charge is comprised of only the two dates of August 26 2011 and November 25 2011,  yet what was supplied as particularization points to paragraph 3 of Affidavit of Kelly Suksdorf #1 Exhibits B / D   indicating that something I did, or failed to do, on October 19th 2011, is an included offence.    For over 7 months I tried to have the allegation clarified.  But no ;  as of this writing,  I am unable to show cause because the time-frame of the charge is ambiguous.    As set out in my complaint to the Law Society,  Susan Beach?s insolent, repeated refusal to discharge the minimal duty of a Prosecutor has obstructed Justice.     I still don?t know precisely the conduct, or failure to act,  for which I am on trial.  At the arraignment when the judge asks  ?Do you understand the charge??,   I will have to say  ?no?.     


53            If applied to this matter, the principles used in the Timberwolf  case, are all that?s necessary to have it punted-away.   The reasoning in Timberwolf substantiates my position that Inspector Rice?s Search was illegal from its inception, even before he executed it.    The Warrant was invalid, primarily, because,  by knowingly withholding from the Justice of the Peace information of fundamental importance to the whole issue,  Informant Rice breached his duty to make full and frank disclosure.   First ;   referencing section 7 of the Public Health Act Transitional Regulation in his GROUNDS FOR BELIEF,  he omitted telling the JP that its constitutionality was being challenged.  The validity of the Warrant to Search turns, partly,   on the question as to whether that Regulation is ?reasonable?, following the decision in Regina v. Collins 84 S.C.C. [1987]     I say that it was not reasonable because it was implemented contrary to due process of law, and for a corrupt purpose.  Wherefore the injunction based on it was illegitimate.       Second ;  he omitted stating that Fraser Health Authority had advertised that it would not enforce that regulation pending the hearing of a Court challenge to it Tab 24  MATERIAL TO BE RELIED UPON.        Third ;  knowing full well that the Order of Madame Justice Gropper was predicated upon the Milk Industry Act,  Informant Rice omitted telling the JP about the letters of comfort which exempt me and people with whom I associate in cowsharing, from the requirement in that Act for raw milk we get from our herd,  to be Pasteur-ized.       Exemptions at Tabs 1 and 2  MATERIAL TO BE RELIED UPON  in Volume One of my Response to Claim.       


54            The Warrant was invalid secondarily,  because,  the day he searched the farm Inspector Rice was neither an official of the Province of British Columbia, nor was he an official of the Dominion of Canada.   He was not a constable of the provincial police force, nor was he any other species of peace officer.    Best I can figure out ; George Rice was in the employ of a quasi-governmental corporation which is categorically NOT part of the government of British Columbia.   At Tab 25 MATERIAL TO BE RELIED UPON  is the legal opinion of the Attorney General on that point

55            At pages 3 to 9 of my complaint to the Law Society are the Information to Obtain the Warrant and the Warrant. Issuing it, Justice of the Peace Blackstone rejected the second part of the Informant?s GROUND FOR BELIEF 12.  because contempt of Court is an indictable offence, pursuant to section 9 of the Criminal Code.   According to the reasoning in Timberwolf,  the Act is to be read narrowly.   The Warrant authorized a provincial Health Inspector to inspect the premises for purposes,  only,  of taking action under the Public Health Act.   Nowhere in the Act is there a section empowering an Inspector to investigate suspected breach of an injunction.   Thus, as Insp. Rice conducted a search with intent to use information so-gained for laying a charge of contempt of Court,  he acted outside his office.  He had no authority to take away information in the form of photographs which he intended to use as an evidentiary basis for a charge other than a cause arising from the Public Health Act


56            At page 3 paragraph 13. of the FACTUAL BASIS  in the  NOTICE OF APPLICATION,  the Prosecutor says

?During the inspection on August 26 , 2011,  it was determined that the farm was still producing raw milk and/or raw milk products for human consumption including raw milk in jars in refrigerated coolers, bricks of raw milk butter in the walk-in cooler and raw milk yogurt?    

What I have been provided so far as ?evidence? is,   that, on the premises on August 26 2011 Insp. Rice noticed jars and other stuff labeled as various kinds of cosmetics.  The list of things seized makes no mention of a sample package having been taken.  There is no evidence that substances in the packages observed by Insp. Rice that day nor on November 25 2011 were raw milk or stuff processed from raw milk.  There is no evidence the cosmetics were packaged for human beings to ingest.    Lacking evidence how some yet-unidentified person ?determined? what was in the packages on either of the two dates at issue,  then the Prosecutor?s statement remains surmise.  
Her assertions are not proved :  It is not proper for the Court to assume something not in evidence.   

57            The REPORT TO A JUSTICE FORM 5.2 SEIZURE OF PROPERTY  as partially filled-out by George Rice is significantly defective in that : first,  he failed to mention things he actually did take away, particularly ;   information in the form of photographic images, which, at law,  are ?things?.   Second :  he made a false statement by affixing his signature at the bottom,  thus pretending himself in the capacity to be  PEACE  OFFICER,  when he was not a peace officer.    The whole episode to do with the Warrant was bogus from start to finish.     Anything and everything gathered under it must be excluded from evidence in this prosecution



58            The Order of Madame Justice Gropper is fatally flawed in that the regulation upon which it relies was invalid ab initio,  having been implemented contrary to due process of law.   An invalid Order need not be obeyed. 

59                Following on from paragraphs 27- 29 in Volume One of my Response to Application.  The Terms of Union by which the colony of British Columbia joined the Dominion of Canada bind the province to govern ourselves in accord with the British North America Act 1867  as the English did, and do.  That Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom at Westminster England is part,   but not all,  of the constitution of Canada.    Despite the worst efforts of race traitors in high places to send understanding of how our nation is supposed to be governed ?down the memory hole?,  people like me keep the memory green.  In this instance, that translates into reminding all-concerned that the law of England IS the law of British Columbia per section 2 of the Law and Equity Act 
RSBC    Seen at Tab 15 of Volume One,    is the pre-amble to the regulation concerning how raw milk dairying shall be carried on in England.   Essential to the process is, that, ahead of time, governors consult with those affected.    Unless the Prosecutor or the Agent for the Attorney General can point to a moment when representatives of the citizens of British Columbia ever enacted a law to change that principle, then it?s the way things MUST be done here.       The government of British Columbia had a positive duty to follow that same process when implementing section 7 of the Public Health Act Transitional Regulation.   Yet it knowingly evaded that duty.  Unless the Attorney General can show good reason why it was not so-followed,  then it was enacted contrary to our system of government.

60            At the contempt hearing for Alice Jongerden, I could hardly believe my eyes when the legal counsel for Fraser Health Authority waved a clipping from a newspaper at the judge, as though it was some kind of ?evidence?.  Similarly in this round,   newspaper clippings are presented as exhibits ostensibly supporting the charge.   If so, then the Claimant can?t object if I introduce one buttressing my argument that expectation of consultation is sine qua non in the British system of representative government :  quotes by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada as to the concept that judges may rely on unwritten principles, as such are   ?norms that are essential to a nation?s history, identity, values and legal system?    Tab 26

61            The Interpretation Act  
Revised Statutes of British Columbia  says

8  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.

Onus is on the Agent for the Attorney General to show what was the true object of section 7 of the Public Health Act Transitional Regulation.     When I put in a formal Freedom of Information request to the Health Ministry for copies of records of all incidents where drinking raw milk had made someone ill, over the previous decade, the answer I got back on official stationery was :  they had none.   Thus, the previous regulation outlawing raw milk
[ 181/88 ] had been put in place a propos ? nothing.  In 2010 when I made the same request again,  for copies of all material the Legislative committee used to substantiate section 7 of the Public Health Act Transitional Regulation,   the answer I got back was :  they had none.   Rationale given me was = the govt. relied-upon the opinion of the Centre for Disease Control, in Atlanta Georgia.  Examining what the CDC has on that topic,  one finds it?s not much more than a scrapbook of newspaper clippings ? a collection of anecdotal reports about anonymous people.   The very opposite of true science.  

62            There are no actuarial tables with which to do assessment of risk of illness from consuming raw milk. When I asked Director of Food Safety, Tim Hazelwood, how it came about raw milk is categorized as ?high risk?,   he refused to tell me.   After 15 years paying attention to this issue, participating in 4 cowshares, consulting with the people all over North America who are experts on raw milk dairying,  I know that the outlawing of it is not based on reasonable assessment of evidence.   Rather ; it is part of the dairy cartel committing the offence of ?abuse of dominance? contrary to the Competition Act 
RSC.   There never was evidence of cowshares in British Columbia then,  supplying  ( in the past tense )  raw milk to their members,  actually posing any threat to the public health.   But those cowshares did pose a threat to the milk supply management system because when people find out what REAL MILK tastes like, they quit buying the swill merchandised as ?homo milk? coming out of the Marxist model of industrial-ized agriculture.    Informed consumers will happily pay a premium for the artisanally-produced gourmet product.    Holders of milk quota, terrified by seeing loss of market share in a genuinely free market,  employed professional lobbyists,  for section 7 of the Public Health Act Transitional Regulation to be implemented to have the supply of REAL MILK suppressed.     Day by day its ultimate purpose becomes clearer.  A large factor in the success of the Campaign for REAL MILK, is, consumers voting with their dollars to support farms where animals are treated humanely.  Which explains why there?s an Ag-Gag law, now before the Legislature as Bill 37,   making it an offence to tell the truth about how bad the conditions are in the confined animal feeding operations producing ?homo milk?.  But even that one, as unconstitutional as it is,  was proposed after consultation with those whom it will affect

63            The only way the Attorney General could justify the regulation at issue in this matter, is, to provide evidence amounting to a threat to the public health, ever posed by distribution of milk for human consumption, and which was intended to be consumed un-cooked,   so serious that distribution of all such milk had to be outlawed.       AND  that it was necessary to do so by way of a secret process.      At Tab 27  MATERIAL TO BE RELIED UPON are items showing how the govt. ought to, and does,  consult with people who are directly affected by another proposed enactment : especially, the letter from the Minister spelling-out the protocol.     Failing such justification for the way section 7 of the Public Health Act Transitional Regulation was brought about, then it was never genuinely remedial.    It was cooked-up contrary to due process of law, not for any good reason to benefit British Columbians : but corruptly,  wherefore it was invalid from inception.     When the unconstitutionality of that regulation is discovered,  then the Order of Madame Justice Gropper -  lacking proper foundation ? must be deemed invalid


64            From September 27th 2011, on,  Fraser Health Authority had in hand evidence directly on-point to this matter,   which is exculpatory.  Logically, the Prosecutor would have had it shortly afterwards.     That information being : the email to George Rice in his capacity as an Inspector with Fraser Health Authority advising him that the stuff produced by the Our Cows cowshare was seen by Health Canada as cosmetics. Further ; that the opinion of the legal services branch of Health Canada ? that would be the federal Department of Justice ? could not say definitely as to whether the primary transaction involved in cowsharing amounts to a ?sale?.    That information was withheld from me until April 16th 2012 when I received it by surface mail consequent to a Freedom of Information request,  not  from the Prosecutor.    As explained in my complaint to the Law Society :   for Susan Beach to persist with this prosecution after her client received that legal opinion,  is reprehensible.    Hiding it from the Court and from me amounts to the crime of obstruct / pervert Justice.  Fraser Health Authority does not come to Court with clean hands. 



65            No evidence has been submitted on the essential elements of the allegation,  that :

on August 26th 2011, at 49211 Prairie Central Road Chilliwack,  Inspector Rice determined what he observed in packages there, was in fact raw milk which had been packaged for human consumption
on August 26th 2011, I myself did package raw milk for human consumption

on August 26th 2011, I myself did distribute raw milk for human consumption
on August 26th 2011,  I did authorize, permit or encourage someone else to package raw milk for human consumption
on August 26th 2011,  I did authorize, permit or encourage someone else to distribute raw milk for human consumption
on November 25th 2011, I myself did package raw milk for human consumption

on November 25th 2011, I myself did distribute raw milk for human consumption
on November 25th 2011,  I did authorize, permit or encourage someone else to package raw milk for human consumption
on November 25th 2011,  I did authorize, permit or encourage someone else to distribute raw milk for human consumption



66            No evidence has been submitted to do with the essential elements of the allegation that I did breach the Order

?by  publishing and advertising on the internet of a new cowshare organization for the production and distribution of raw milk and/or raw milk products for human consumption?.

To prove that much would require substantiating each link in the following chain,  without a gap ;     

            connection of me to authorship of the items which presented as exhibits in the Affidavits

that, on the dates at issue,  I had an agreement with the individual or company, which owns and also maintains the hardware enabling the internet website she points-to as hosting the items presented as exhibits in Affidavits


            that, on the dates at issue,  I had an agreement with the individual or company, which maintains the software enabling the internet website she points-to as hosting the items presented as exhibits in Affidavits, 


            that, on the dates at issue,  I had an agreement with the individual or company, which maintains the software enabling the internet website she points-to as hosting the items presented as exhibits in Affidavits,  allowing me to post and/or edit what is presented on that internet website


            that I was the one who actually did install those particular items on the internet website she points to.

And on and on down the moments,  each of which is a crucial link in a chain of continuity of any evidence.    But there is no such evidence.  And even if there were,    the very idea that publication of statements of my policies in the political campaign, did contravene the Order of Madame Justice Gropper,   is non-sense / absolutely anti-thetical to the core values of my nation.     Susan Beach is worse than incompetent as a Prosecutor :  she spent so much time in the artificial hot-house of the human wrongs industry that she lost touch with what goes on in a real Court of Law


67            In my complaint to the Law Society I explain my status as a ?politician for life?.   It is hilarious that the charge against me includes publishing my political opinion on October 19 2011 in person, as well as via internet.   I?m still guessing about that date though :   who knows?    I sure don?t.   I?m at a loss to understand how convening a political meeting was ?reckless? or otherwise ?offends the spirit of the injunction?, especially,  since the final paragraph of Madame Justice Gropper?s REASONS for it suggested that the remedy for those of us wanting raw milk for human consumption to be legalized, is to lobby elected representatives. On October 19th 2011, I was informing my fellow citizens how to go about doing that.    

                               Does it get any crazier than me being put on trial for doing what the Judge recommended?!   



68            My old man used to say 
?there?s nothing so useless it cannot at least be used as a bad example? 
Take the Affidavits of Sarah Innes and Kelly Sukstorf,  please!   They could be used in lawschools for a lesson in  ?how not to go about it?.    Who cares what Misses Innes and Sukstorf  ?verily believe?  about the wads of paper they compiled?   The most they actually have knowledge of, is :  they pushed buttons on some hardware, in order to compile pages with which Susan Beach desperately hoped to paper-over her incompetence ? the old ?blind ?em with BS? routine.   Affiant Sukstorf gave the trick away, cooking hers up two months after the Claim was originated. It doesn?t take a law degree to figure out that the Prosecutor read my first Response, only to realize there was no evidentiary basis for her allegation.   Those gals have no knowledge as to the veracity of what?s printed on those pieces of paper they set out as Exhibits.   Those flimsy photocopies of pages produced by a printer which was tied to a computer, ostensibly rendering to hard-copy glimmers from a screen, which was connected intermittently by wire and wireless,  to a piece of hardware likely on the other side of the planet, supposedly operated by someone unknown, in some unknown place,  is  ?cyber-hearsay? ? a dozen times removed from being able to be tested.   It is not evidence at all.    What?s in the Affidavits of Innes and Sukstorf is irrelevant 

69            If this Honourable Court does entertain those Affidavits, then, it must consider the threshold questions :             
                                             ?what is the nature of such material in the first place ??
           and after that
                                             ?what is the probative value of such material??  


70            Since there is no evidence establishing the connections necessary to prove the charge at all, let alone, beyond a reasonable doubt, then the entire allegation is baseless so ought to be dismissed  with costs in the cause awarded to me  


All of which is respectfully submitted to this Honourable Court



Gordon S Watson


May 15 th 2012

Law Society of British Columbia


1          This is my complaint about the misconduct of your member, Susan Beach, as she prosecuted an allegation of contempt of the injunction in the case of Fraser Health Authority and Alice Jongerden ; John Doe ; Jane Doe    file 124618 Supreme Court of British Columbia New Westminster Registry. What Susan Beach has done is not mere professional misconduct : several different ways she committed the crime of obstruct / pervert / defeat Justice.   


2          In her resume published on the internet, Susan Beach says she was called to the Bar in BC in 1992.  At that time, lawyers were obliged to make the Barrister?s Oath.  Unless she?s since disavowed it, on Sept 19th 2011 when she originated the claim against me on behalf of Fraser Health Authority,  she was bound not to engage in frivolous lawsuits, as well as,  to uphold to rights of citizens.  Contrary to those obligations,  Susan Beach enabled her client to bring on the claim with no evidence to support it. So doing,     she prostituted her professional services for no good reason but only as a way for her client to use it to vex me and my co-accused.   


3          In her resume published on the internet, Susan Beach presents herself as being experienced as a criminal defence lawyer.  She cannot plead ignorance of the minimal duty of a Prosecutor to provide a Defendant with the particulars of the charge.  In the matter of which I am complaining,  Susan Beach not only failed to provide the essential elements of the charge but, when I brought it to her attention, repeatedly,  she adamantly refused to do so over the next 7 months.  By point-blank refusing to produce particulars, she interfered with my right to make full answer and defence.  Worse ; when she became aware of information which went to the crux of the matter,  which anyone would immediately see was exculpatory,   she withheld it from me. 


4          The background of how this thing got to Court is, as I related to Mister Justice Williams on April 20th 2012.   A CD recording of the hearing can be obtained from the Clerk of the Court by making an application for an ACCESS ORDER.    For purposes of this complaint, I shall start in August 2011, with the Note to File made by Fraser Health Authority Inspector George Rice.  Previously, in an application for a Warrant to Search the farm, he had told the Justice of the Peace that his intent was, to gather evidence for a charge of contempt of the Court Order, as well as for purposes of the Public Health Act.  But the JP did not authorize a Search on the Ground that the Inspector wanted to collect evidence for a charge of contempt of Court.    The Warrant as issued was  ONLY for purposes of the Public Health Act.  As he went on the property that day, Inspector Rice was authorized to do ONLY things prescribed in the Public Health Act.  One of the main lines of my defence to the allegation, is : it is not available to a public health authority to prosecute an allegation of contempt of Court - that being not only the responsibility, but the statutory duty of the Attorney General, pursuant to the Attorney General Act  


5          His own note shows that Inspector Rice was very well aware that the liquid in the jars he examined pursuant to the Warrant was being provided to its owners for use as a cosmetic.  Whereas the Order of Madame Justice Gropper, referenced in his Grounds in the Information to Obtain the Warrant,  pertains to raw milk produced at that place for consumption by human beings.  Nowhere in his Affidavits entered in this matter, is there even one word, proving that what he found on the premises did contravene the Order which is the crux of the charge.  As she prepared the paperwork purporting her allegation,  Susan Beach must have known that there was no evidence to prove it.  Her action of filing the charge was nothing more than heaving a load of bull manure at the wall, hoping some would stick. On April 20th 2012, that manure hit the fan.  A mere 7 months after I was served with Notice of the charge,  I finally got to have my say about the refusal of the Prosecutrix to supply me with the particulars.   On April 23 2012, Mister Justice Williams ordered her to provide them, along with a Notice of the Evidence she intends to use at trial.   Although the judge did not say ?forthwith?,  of course he meant ?right away?.   Now 3 weeks from hearing the Oral Reasons, Susan Beach hasn?t so much as sent me an email, let alone served me properly, with what was Ordered by the Court


6          It is very important that the Law Society appreciate that I am in jeopardy of ?loss of liberty?.  In order for the Court to find that I breached the injunction, the test set out in the case of Workers? Compensation Board   v.  Moore   ( Court of Appeal British Columbia 2011 BCCA 407)  would have to be met : beyond a reasonable doubt.    Justice Williams? ruling on April 23 2012 effectively meant that the allegation against me was always void for vagueness.   Wherefore it was a nullity.   From the day it was filed, until the time of this writing,   no evidence has been produced of the very most basic of the elements necessary to prove the charge ; vis ; that any human being had consumed raw milk produced by cows standing on that farm.     Let alone that I did anything to supply or distribute such to anyone


7          The history of this travesty shows that from the very first instance, Fraser Health Authority knowingly disregarded facts which did not suit its agenda. That agenda being : to shut down our raw milk dairy to suit the business interests of the dominant corporations in the dairy market, which mis-conduct is the offence of ?abuse of dominance? contrary to the federal  Competition Act.  


8          In June 2008,  Fraser Health Authority inveigled Perry Kendall, the Chief Medical Health Officer, to mislead the (then) Minister of Health as to the situation with our private dairy,  known as a ?cowshare?.   The  ADVICE TO MINISTER  given by Dr Kendall is proof that the Chief Medical Health Officer was very well aware that our cowshare had 2 separate Letters of Comfort, categorically exempting us from the requirement in the Milk Industry Act, for all raw milk for human consumption to be par-boiled / Pasteur-ized.  Yet Dr Kendall withheld that information from the Minister.   It?s called ?lying by omission?.                      


9          For the preliminary hearing on December 6th 2011 both Susan Beach and the agent for the Attorney General of British Columbia, namely Sarah Bevan, each entered the case of Everywoman?s Health Care Society and K. L Bridges  as authority for how prosecution of a contempt of a Court charge goes.     I just happened to have on hand the original transcript from one of the rounds in that matter, in which I?d been a Defendant.   On Dec. 6th 2011 in support of my application for a Bill of Particulars,  I read aloud the excerpt where Mister Justice Hogarth ordered the Special Prosecutor to provide me with a Bill of Particulars.  Even lawyers ? as dedicated as they are to perverting common sense -  would admit that that bit from the case upon which she was relying,  ought to have been authority enough to convince Susan Beach to do the same.    But no.  


10         That day, the courts were overbooked so we never got started on most of the Motions.  Mister Justice Blok ruled on only one,  adjourning the rest to another day.  Note Bene that in the Order there isn?t a syllable mentioning whether particulars provided to that point in time were deemed sufficient.      Yet in her letter to me of January 9 2012, Susan Beach presented the notion that the issue was settled.    When my old man went to officer?s school in 1942, they taught him, ?in war, never discount stupidity?.    One cannot be that stupid yet hold a Certificate of Practice.  There is no other, more logical explanation, but that Susan Beach attempted to deceive me in order to get me to quit bringing to the Court?s attention her refusal to discharge the minimum duty of a prosecutor. 


11         By way of her client which gets Billions of $$ out of the accounts of the province, Susan Beach has a blank cheque for costs to do her damn?dest.     I don?t.    So I?m not going to pay for copies of the Affidavits entered in to this prosecution which are purported as evidence in support of the allegation.   It is incumbent upon the Law Society to get them out of the file.    Suffice to say : the totality of the evidence is,  that I did say that I?m ?part of the directing mind of the cowshare?.     So what?  Proving that   raw milk produced on the farm was for human consumption, and that I facilitated supply / distribution of such,  would take  evidence ? by which I mean real evidence, not the ridiculous handfuls of paper printed-off as ephemera from the crystal~ball known as the interent.   So far I have received nothing of any consequence       


12         The run-on sentence in the letter to me of November 29 2011, in which she says ?we are seeking a contempt of Court Order against you based upon the following:?

Condoning and encouraging other persons to act in a fashion contrary to the spirit or letter of the Court Order as this is also Contempt of Court by internet publications authored by yourself and the holding of the Raw Milk Information Night.

reveals Susan Beach as being woe-fully  ?unclear on the concept? of what?s required in a prosecution for contempt.  In fact,  Madame Justice Gropper finished-off her Reasons for the injunction, saying the exact opposite ;

?It is not my role to excuse the respondents from the application of the law or to grant them the remedy which they seek.  The remedy for the respondents is to convince the government to change the legislation.?



13         In the election of 2001, I stood as a candidate for the Party of Citizens.  From then on, I?m a ?politician for life?.   In my calling as a political activist on the raw milk issue, as well as several others,  I convene meetings at the Keary Street Hall in Sapperton.  On October 19 2011 I spoke there advertising it as a Raw Milk Information Night.  So doing,  my activity was what the Court recommended = educating the electorate as to the facts so they could think for themselves,  in order to effectively lobby Members of the Legislature about the Campaign for REAL MILK.   Does it get any crazier than for Susan Beach to charge me with doing what the judge told us to do?!   When I tell people about the low-lights in this absurdity,  they shake their heads in dis-belief.    Your member is the one who has brought the administration of Justice in to disrepute, not me.  


14         Besides raw milk, the other topic I spoke on was, the trial of Russell A Porisky.  I followed his career for about a decade.  For the last 6 years, I?ve warned anyone who?d listen that he was leading people into a lot of grief.   That night,  I predicted he?d get convicted, and that he?d get sentenced to at least 4 ½ years in prison.  See the front page of last week?s Province paper, for how right I was.  In his Reasons for conviction, Mister Justice Myers used one of the phrases I used repeatedly as I criticized the Porisky scam ? that he was peddling ?word majic?.   Just a co-incidence?  Or,  indication that the judge did a bit of research on the internet?  Point being ;  on October 19th 2011, I was discharging my promise to the Provincial Court judge who let me off from going to gaol for having failed to file returns of income, that I?d go back to Keary Street and tell that group what I?d learned about how to cope with the income tax.   On October 19th 2011, I was engaged in my calling ? presenting my political opinion so people can understand communism in order to find a way to cope it, particularly,  the Stalin-ist dairy supply management system and the iniquitous income tax      


15         On March 27th 2012 in the hallway of the New West lawcourts, I told Susan Beach ?you don?t have so much as a nail on which to hang your case?.   In response to me again demanding particulars, in front of 2 other lawyers,   she sneered    ?you?re not getting a Bill of Particulars!?


16         By way of Affidavits,  FHA Inspector George Rice was the chief witness against me.  As of September 27th 2011, he had knowledge that Health Canada considered the raw milk produced by the herd of cows at the farm at 49211 Prairie Central Road Chilliwack, to be a cosmetic falling under the federal Food and Drugs Act.   Enclosed find a copy of the email informing him of that.  It is very important that the Law Society appreciate that Health Canada didn?t dream-up that legal opinion themselves.   It was provided by the Department of Justice of Canada, after nearly a year of them thinking about it.   Precisely when Susan Beach found out about Health Canada?s position is unknown to me - but it wouldn?t have been too long after Inspector Rice got it. 


17         Since it certainly can be seen as exculpatory, then, as the Prosecutor,   the minute she learned of that emailed legal opinion,  Susan Beach was obliged to deliver to me a copy of it.   Lacking evidence that the raw milk was being supplied / distributed for human consumption,  she must have realized that that opinion negated her client?s claim to jurisdiction over the raw milk in question.    A competent Prosecutor would have rescinded the allegation against me that very hour.   Instead, she hid it until April 18 2012 when it was provided by Inspector Rice pursuant to a Freedom of Information request.  It never was provided to me properly within the prosecution.


18         I remind the Law Society that a few years ago, in the middle of the Tax Honesty Movement, I caught your member Ross G Young -  then acting as the Agent for the Attorney General of Canada up in the Kootenays -  having knowledge that an agent for Revenue Canada had sworn then entered 7 false affidavits into Provincial Court, yet when the Accused remonstrated with him, Mr Young neglected to do anything about it for 4 months.    Eventually he did enter a stay of the charges against my friend Joe Rudolf, after letting him twist in the wind,  all that time!   Outraged, I layed private Informations charging Young and his accomplices with obstruct/ pervert /defeat Justice.  Judge Hogan and also Judge Philips agreed with me, and issued process.    Of course the Criminal Justice Branch stayed the charges to get their friend off the hook. But I?d made my point. The capper in all that,  was,  the letter from the head of the D o J for BC,  Robert Jarvis  (?),  who admitted that what I?d said was all true, then gave me a half-baked apology on official stationery saying    ?we?ve asked them not to do it again? !   


19         On April 20th 2012, we were in chambers on the preliminary Motions to do with the contempt of Court allegation.  In the afternoon, after hearing me make my submissions, Mister Justice Williams asked Susan Beach if, on December 6th 2011,  Mister Justice Blok had ruled on my Motion for a Bill of Particulars.  She replied saying,   ?he was of the view that particulars were sufficient.?  Direct quote  
So doing, Susan Beach bald-faced lied to the judge.  She attempted to get him to accept that that issue had been settled previously, when she knew perfectly well it had not been settled.   


20         I find it more than a bit puzzling how Susan Beach thought she could get away with such a childish lie.   I guess she?s so used to lies upon lies and still more lies being ?just business as usual? in her game, that she assumed she?d never be called to account.   When I started, back in the mid 80s, and caught lawyers redhanded lying in the Courtroom, Judges ? at least the ones with enough integrity to show embarrassment at what they were saying - would tell me there was nothing they could do about it, and to take my complaints to the Law Society.  So please don?t waste precious cellufibre telling me to take this complaint back before that same Judge


21         Perhaps there are a few people around there who will remember me from the 1990s, as one of the most prolific complainers about crooked / incompetent / outright criminal lawyers.  I gave up when it became bleeding obvious that the job of the Law Society was,  not to actually discipline lawyers, but to run interference for racketeers when they got caught.  All part of me getting a legal education the hard way.  For comic relief, ask Miss Whittow about me suing the Law Society in Small Claims Court. Don?t forget that out of that case came Judge Puhatcz?s line ?Mister Watson may well have framed an action which has never been brought before?


22         I remind the Law Society of the time I layed a private Information against the deputy Premier and his high-falutin? lawyer who thought they were ?above the law? ? calling a Judge at home to have an Order changed to suit the political agenda of the party then in power.  Before doing that,  I tried to get someone in authority to deal with the grave insult to Her Majesty?s Courts,  but they all begged off.   So I did it myself.   Of course it was whitewashed away, but the upshot was ;  even my political enemies commended me for having gone to the trouble of shovelling some of the ordure out of the halls of Justice.


23         I say all that, above, to emphasize that I am one of the most experienced laymen in the laying of private Informations.  I don?t do it just to pass the time.   I?d much rather be out on the farm, looking after the cows.   In this matter, I exhausted my efforts,  trying to get the people at the Ministry of Attorney General to take conduct of this matter as they  MUST  according to the Attorney General Act.   But they shirked their duty.  I?m at the next stage =  giving you-all one final chance to do something about it. Unless the Law Society takes her wrongdoing as seriously as is warranted, I will lay a private Information against Susan Beach and her client,  Fraser Health Authority,  the Person ultimately culpable, with the crimes described below.  



COUNT 1             Susan Beach?s act of originating the allegation on behalf of Fraser Health Authority, when -  holding a Certificate of Practice ? she must have realized there was no case against me,  is the crime of conspiring to pervert Justice contrary to sections 139 and  465 1 (b)  of the Criminal Code.    


COUNT 2             In her capacity as Prosecutrix,  Susan Beach?s studied,  repeated refusal to provide me the particulars of her allegation,  is the crime of obstruct / pervert Justice contrary to section 139 of the Criminal Code.  And let?s not hear any stupid noises like ?she didn?t accomplish it because the Court has remedied it? : the attempt  IS  the crime. There is no burden on the Informant  ( who is the Prosecutor until the Attorney General takes over, never forget)  to negate a potential defence.  And let?s not hear any stupid noises such as came back from my complaint that David Bellamy was a party to the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holdings Society frauds.  In that one, the mealy-mouthed excuse was,   ?he was just a cipher for his client.?    In this thing,  Susan Beach committed some of these crimes on her own, without the knowledge of the directing mind of the Fraser Health Authority.  Or did she?!


COUNT 3             Susan Beach?s withholding of the email to Inspector George Rice in which Health Canada stated its official legal opinion,  was a breach of her duty to produce every thing tending to exculpate the Accused,  timely.   That witting negligent performance is the crime of obstruct / pervert Justice contrary to section 139 of the Criminal Code.  And let?s not hear any stupid noises like ?she didn?t accomplish it because she eventually  remedied it? :   preparation of my full answer and defence was very significantly impaired by her preventing me from having that material in hand. 


COUNT 4             As she prepared the legal documentation for the Cease and Desist Order against Elizabeth Speitelsbach, having in hand the legal opinion from Health Canada notifying her client Fraser Health Authority that the substance in question, was a cosmetic, thus not under provincial jurisdiction,   Susan Beach did aid and abet her client to pretend authority which it did not have. Issuance of such an Order is the triggering event, by which the Inspector brings some one across the threshold into the process leading to the Supreme Court of British Columbia.   Therefore the act of issuing such an Order is juridicial in nature.  As Susan Beach deliberately participated in an abuse of that juridicial process,  she did conspire with Fraser Health Authority to pervert Justice contrary to sections 139 and 465 of the Criminal Code.        


COUNT 5            As she prepared the legal documentation for the Cease and Desist Order against Adrian and Annette Goyer, having in hand the legal opinion from Health Canada, notifying her client Fraser Health Authority that the substance in question, was a cosmetic, thus not under provincial jurisdiction,   Susan Beach did aid and abet her client to pretend authority which it did not have.   Issuance of such an Order is the triggering event, by which the Inspector brings some one across the threshold into the process leading to the Supreme Court of British Columbia.   Therefore the act of issuing such an Order is juridicial in nature.  As Susan Beach deliberately participated in an abuse of that juridicial process,  she did conspire with Fraser Health Authority to pervert Justice contrary to sections 139 and 465 of the Criminal Code.


COUNT 6            Susan Beach misled Justice Williams for the sake of making him believe that the question of the sufficiency of the particulars had been settled, when she knew full well that that issue had not been settled.   Her second lie to the court that day was ; making excuse not to produce the entered Order when Justice Williams asked for it.  It is inconceivable that she did not have it within all her material.    She evaded handing it up to the Bench because she realized she?d just been caught lying.  Each of those two moments of attempting to deceive the Court is a separate Count of obstruct / pervert / defeat Justice, contrary to section 139 of the Criminal Code.    

 Gordon S Watson

Justice Critic,     Party of Citizens Who Have Decided To Think For Ourselves & Be Our Own Politicians

 7954 Elwell Street     Burnaby     British Columbia    V5E 1M4

email <[email protected] >



New Westminster Registry


wording of the NOTICE of Constitutional Question

S-124618   New Westminster Registry



Between :                                 Fraser Health Authority



And :                Alice Jongerden carrying on business as Home on the Range
                        Jane Doe and John Doe





TO  :                Attorney General of Canada

AND TO :        Attorney General of British Columbia


TAKE NOTICE THAT   I, Gordon S Watson being one of the Respondents in this matter,  do question the validity of section 7 of the Public Health Act Transitional Regulation on the Ground that, when His Excellency Stephen Point signed Order in Council 51/2009 the Lieutenant Governor was deceived in his Grant :  those his advisers who composed that regulation had failed to consult organizations representing interested parties who would be substantially affected by its section 7,  wherefore that particular section was implemented contrary to due process of law.     Authorities for this Ground are the cases of
Health Services and Support  versus  British Columbia    [ 2007 2 SCR 39 ] 

            BCTF and David Chudnovsky  and  Her Majesty the Queen in right of British Columbia  

                                                                                                                                             Supreme Court of British Columbia April 2011


Dated this  13th  day of  October  2011 A. D.


Gordon S Watson,     Respondent

To : the Registrar

          Law Courts, Begbie Square

                                                651 Carnarvon Street  New Westminster   British Columbia V3M 1C9



S 124618

New Westminster Registry�@




AND :      ALICE JONGERDEN carrying on business as HOME ON THE RANGE ;
                 JANE DOE and JOHN DOE


The petitioner applies for the following Orders :

1. A declaration that the Respondent, Alice Jongerden carrying on business as Home on the Range, is in contravention of the July 8 2008 Health Act Order ordering her to cease and desist the distribution of raw milk for human consumption.

2. A permanent injunction Order prohibiting the Respondents and anyone having notice of the Order from packaging and/ or distributing raw milk and / or raw milk products for human consumption.

3. Costs of this proceeding.

4. Such further and other relief as appears just and appropriate to this Honourable Court.

The petitioner will rely on Section 48 of the Public Health Act; S.B.C. 2008, Chapter 28, and Section 7 of the Public Health Act Transitional Regulation B. C. Reg. 51/2009 [ previously the Health Hazard Regulation B. C. Reg. 181/88]

At the hearing of this petition will be read the Affidavit of Bill Koberstein #1, a copy of which is served herewith.

The facts upon which this petition is based are as follows :

1. The Petitioner, Fraser Health Authority, is a health authority established under the Health Authorities Act, R. S. B. C. 1996, Chapter 189, and has jurisdiction and responsibility for enforcing the Public Health Act, S. B. C. 2008. Chapter 28, and its Regulations [ formerly the Health Act, R. S. B. C. 1996, Chapter 179 and its Regulations ]

2. The Respondent Alice Jongerden, is a business person who carries on a business known as Home on the Range from 49211 Prairie Central Road, Chilliwack, B. C.

3. The Respondent, Jane Doe and John Doe, are persons whose names and whereabouts are unknown and who participated in the Home on the Range business with the Respondent, Alice Jongerden.

4. The Respondent, Alice Jongerden, packages and distributes raw milk and raw milk products for human consumption under the brand name �eHome on the Range�f for Jane Doe and John Doe and others.

5. The Public Health Act Section 15, provides that a person must not willingly cause a health hazard, or act in a manner that the person knows, or ought to know, will cause a health hazard.

6. The Public Health Act Transitional Regulation B. C. Reg. 51/2009, Section 7, provides that milk for human consumption that has not been pasteurized at a licenced dairy plant in accordance with the Milk Industry Act is prescribed as a health hazard [ formerly the Health Hazard Regulation B. C. Reg 181 / 88 ]

7. On July 9, 2008, the Respondent, Alice Jongerden, was ordered to cease and desist the distribution of raw milk for human consumption.

8. 8. The Respondent, Alice Jongerden, did not appeal the July 9, 2008 Health Act Order ( third parties did appeal that Order but have not proceeded with the hearing of the appeal on its merits).

9. On December 18, 2009, a further inspection of the Respondent�fs business operations at 49211 Prairie Central Road, Chilliwack, B. C. was undertaken and the Respondent Alice Jongerden was found contrary to the above mentioned Order, the Public Health Act, Section 15, and Public Health Act Transitional Regulation, Section 7, to be supervising and directing the packaging of raw milk for distribution for human consumption under the brand name �gHome on the Range�h.

The petitioner estimates the application will take 30 minutes.

Dated : January 11th 2010             { unintelligible scribble }

                                                     Solicitor for the Petitioner

This Petition to the Court is filed and delivered by Guy McDannold, of the firm Staples McDannold Stewart, solicitors for the Petitioner, whose place of business and address for delivery is 2nd Floor - 837 Burnette Avenue, Victoria British Columbia V8W 1B3 Telephone ( 250 ) 380 - 3008


immediately below is the Order issued in the summer of 2008, upon which the prosecution is founded

the address is incorrect


logo) fraserhealth HEALTH PROTECTION

This is an ORDER issued pursuant to section 63 of the BC Health Act and as a result of an inspection conducted under authority of Section 61 of the BC Health Act.
Reason or reasons the Order is made:
On June 16 2008 During my inspection of Home on the Range, I observed That you were packaging and distributing raw milk in violation of the Health Act, Health Hazard Regulation - BC Reg 181/88
The following action must be taken by you :
This action must be completed : ( box checked )  Immediately upon issuance of this ORDER, OR
(box not checked) On or before ____________ ( date/time )
A further inspection or inspections will be conducted to ensure compliance with this ORDER.  Failure to comply with the terms of this ORDER may result in the issuance of a Violation Ticket, prosecution or other legal action as may be appropriate to enforce this ORDER.  The BC Health Act provides that a Public Health Inspector may remove a health hazard at the expense of the person directed by notice to remove it.
Section 102 of the BC Health Act provides that this ORDER may be appealed to the Supreme Court of British Columbia within ten (10) days of the date of service.
July 9, 2008   (signature of Public Health Inspector)   604 702 4950


Health Act      HEALTH HAZARD REGULATION  as it was that day

B. C. Regulation 181/88    Order in Council 822/88

Definition  inclusion

1  The definition of "health hazard" in section 1 of the Health Act includes milk for human consumption that has not been pasteurized as required under the Milk Industry Act at a dairy plant licenced under the Milk Industry Act


below is my Response to the Petition


RESPONSE of GORDON S WATSON as amended January 30 2010


Basis for opposing relief

Whereas Fraser Health Authority has attempted to originate a Petition for a declaration and also for an injunction against Alice Jongerden : JANE DOE and JOHN DOE ; and I am one of those Persons in this category, thus am affected by the Orders supposedly sought, I oppose the granting of each of those on the following Grounds

I      Status

1. This pretended Petition is a nullity ab initio.   Fraser Health Authority lacks status for originating such a cause of action. The Ruling in the case of Regina versus Michael Schmidt says almost everything that needs to be said to explain why this Court ought not to entertain it at all.

2. After studying the law around �ecowsharing / herdsharing�f, for a year after the trial, Justice of the Peace Kowarski pronounced that the cowshare run by the Defendant Schmidt was a private enterprise, therefore, its operation did not come within the ambit of laws concerning protection of the health of the general Public. Our cowshare in British Columbia very closely parallels the one Michael Schmidt runs in Ontario. �gCowsharing�h is a vernacular term, better known in British jurisprudence as �gagistment�g. The ruling in the Schmidt case is directly on-point what we, ie. shareholders and our Agister dba Home on the Range, are doing.

3. The Act which the pretended Petitioner proposes as authority for an injunction applies only to matters concerning the health of the general Public. The Public Health Act SBC does not give the Court power over our private dairy.

II Abuse of the Court Process

4. The Petition ought not to be entertained, at all, since Counsel for the Applicant misled the Court in the originating documents

5. On the NOTICE OF HEARING Counsel for the Applicant pretended that

A �gThe parties have been unable to agree as to how long the hearing will take �c�h In fact, counsel for the Petitioner, namely Guy McDannold, never even attempted to contact the Respondents, let alone did he consult with any of us about the time. As an officer of the Court, Mr McDannold has a duty to abide by procedural fairness. Having failed to discharge that minimal duty, to start with, he ought not to be suited.

B �gthe time estimate of the applicant is 30 minutes�h. Lawyer Guy McDannold well knows that thirty minutes is an absurdly small amount of time for this matter to be dealt with properly. The paperwork in this Petition refers to an Order made under the Health Act, as it was in 2008. Appealing that Order, I brought on a Constitutional Challenge to the Regulation cited in that Order.

6. Last time Mr McDannold and I were in Court, before Mister Justice Brown on December 19th 2009, on the very same issue, it took the better part of an hour just to get directions for the exchange of documents. The proposition that this Petition will take 30 minutes, is laughable. I estimate it will take one full day, at the very least. And that�fs not counting the time for expert witnesses whom we are entitled to call for making our full answer. In the trial of Michael Schmidt, expert witnesses took up four full days of Court.

7. Witnesses for whom I would apply for leave to put on as experts are :

Mark McAffee who runs Organic Pastures which sells $5 million per annum of raw milk in California ; Michael Schmidt whose farm has provided raw milk to shareholders in Ontario for two decades ;
Sally Fallon spokewoman for the Weston A Price Foundation ; David Gumpert author of the book �g
Raw Milk Revolution Behind America�es Battle Over Food Rights�h

8. Originating this new, separate action, while an appeal of the same Order on the very same issue, is in abeyance, the Applicant is out of order.

9. Rule 1 (5) says �gthe object of these Rules is to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every proceeding on its merits�h Judges all the way up to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada have remarked how the expense of litigation is preventing ordinary people accessing the Courts. This suit was not brought for any purpose genuinely in the interest of Justice, but is an underhanded tactic to vex the Respondents and wear us out financially, while Fraser Health - funded out of the public purse - has endless �edeep pockets�f to hire lawyers. In light of the object of the Rules �c for expense to be minimized �c the proper way for Fraser Health to have that Order considered is via a Motion within my appeal S114027 New Westminster Registry, rather than this new, separate action.

10. in his paperwork for the Petition, lawyer Guy McDannold states

3. The Respondents, Jane Doe and John Doe are persons whose names and whereabouts are unknown and who participated in the Home on the Range business with the Respondent Alice Jongerden

Counsel for the Petitioner knows very well Home on the Range is a business which provides agistment services to the group of individuals who own the cows. Lawyer Guy McDannold knows full well

a ] that I certainly am one of the Respondents in the category �eJohn Doe�f, and he has my address for service at his fingertips

b ] the names of about 50 of the shareholders who are in the category of Jane Doe / John Doe, because that information was seized by Fraser Health Inspector Ron Asplin

c ] out of extensive correspondence, and as set out in my appeal of the Health Act Order in 2008, the arrangement whereby Home on the Range provides agistment services to individuals who have an interest in the herd of dairy cows. From the material I supplied to the Petitioner in my appeals of the Health Act Order of July 2008, and otherwise, he is very well aware of the distinction between the capacities of Alice Jongerden, her business entity and that of the owners of the herd. The informal group of owners is a �eproducer�f pursuant to the Milk Industry Act, but Home on the Range is not. Many of these people go out to the farm and help Alice Jongerden do the chores, including packaging our milk and making dairy products. Whether or not they get paid to do that, is immaterial. The way this Petition is set out, it can be seen that they are persons in the category �gJANE DOE and JOHN DOE�h.

Pretending as a fact in his Grounds for this Petition, that share members
�g �c participated in the Home on the Range business with the Respondent Alice Jongerden�h so it appears that the agister and her customers are identical, when counsel for Fraser Health knows they�fre not, is misleading.

11. In my previous experience with Fraser Health, on my appeal, I caught them lying to the court. Misleading the Court herein, again, Fraser Health is attempting to do obliquely what it cannot do directly. That is : obtain an Order which would very seriously impact over 350 households, preventing shareholders getting their food and medicine, while evading the duty to give those people proper Notice of the Hearing so we can all exercise our right to speak to the Motion.

III Pretended Petitioner has not exhausted due process

12. The argument for a Declaration and injunction relies upon the Milk Industry Act. Petitioner is out of Order to attempt to originate a new application predicated in that Act, without having treated the Respondents according to the protocol set out in it. The Milk Industry Act Standards Regulation stipulates that two samples of milk must be taken, two weeks apart, on the producer�fs premises, before a dairy could be considered to be in violation of the standards. With this Petition, the Health Authority has run to Court after only one test, which was not taken according to the method. Evading the statutory duty set out in the Milk Industry Act Regulation, so treating us differently than other producers, Fraser Health discriminated against our dairy and it did so for a political purpose, which is a denial of equal treatment under the law.

IV Persons who are directly affected have been denied their right to due process

13. Petitioner originated the Petition with the style of cause including JANE DOE and JOHN DOE as Respondents, but lawyer Guy McDannold did not include that category of Respondents on the Notice of Hearing. Some of the people in the category �gJOHN DOE and JANE DOE�h are individuals who hold shares in the herd of dairy cows for which Alice Jongerden is the Agister, each of whom will be directly affected by the Order sought. Not only has the Petitioner�fs counsel not served those people Notice of the Petition, the Notice of Hearing does not mention that category.

14. Petitioner is very well aware that there are over 350 such shareholders. I and Respondent Jongerden rely, partly, on affidavits yet to be sworn by us, and also, by individuals in the category JANE DOE / JOHN DOE. Organizing composition and collection of these affidavits will take at least one month. Lawyer Guy McDannold is attempting to have all those shareholders caught by an injunction while he precludes them from exercising their right to speak at the Hearing. For the Petitioner to set down a hearing in such short time, whilst deliberately neglecting to serve each of the persons who are entitled to speak to the matter, is a witting attempt to pervert Justice.

15. From the middle of December 2009 until the present, and continuing, Fraser Health and Vancouver Coastal Health in cahoots with the BC Centre for Disease Control, fomented a smear campaign in the newsmedia against our dairy. They presented a set of so-called �elab test results�f which were obtained by avoiding the protocol for testing raw milk. That was done so they could hold up the fabricated �eevidence�f of purportedly �gcontaminated�h raw milk as a pretext for slandering our dairy. Spokesmen for the Health Authorities have said that they intend to ruin our raw milk dairy one way or another. This Petition is not genuinely in the interests of Justice, but is a nuisance tactic in an ongoing campaign, all over America, to discredit raw milk as good food.

V As for the application for a Declaration that Alice Jongerden was in breach of the Health Act Order made July 9th 2008

16. The first reason why the Order of July 9 2008 made under the old Health Act was invalid ab initio is because the Regulation from which it claimed authority did not pertain to the Person who - ostensibly - was its subject, namely Alice Jongerden dba �eHome on the Range�f. The agreement which I and the other shareholders have is that, individually, we pay her in advance for agistment services of our jointly-owned cattle. Under this agreement, known as �gcowsharing�h / �gherdsharing�h the Agister delivers dividends from our jointly-owned asset, ie. milk from our cows, to us but to no one else. She was not then �gselling�h nor �gdistributing�h raw milk for sale, as contemplated by the Milk Industry Act nor is that milk �goffered for sale for human consumption�h to anyone but those who already hold an interest in the herd.

17. The Milk Industry Act came about after the 1954 provincial Royal Commission on the marketing of milk. Prime purpose of the Act was to

�gprovide 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�h - page 161 of the Report

It distinguishes between �gproducer�h and �gvendor�h. That distinction makes for 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.

18. The Milk Industry Act requires that all raw milk produced by vendors must be Pasteur-ized on its way to market, but, since our dairy operation is not a �gvendor�h then Regulation 181/88 never did apply to what were doing, nor to our contractor Alice Jongerden

VI Second reason why the Order of July 9 2008 is invalid :
Regulation 181/88 contradicted one of the objects of the Royal Commission on milk marketing

19. 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

20. By way of Freedom of Information requests, I asked the Ministries of Health and of Agriculture and of the Attorney General for all material on hand at the time Regulation 191/88 came into effect, underpinning its rationale. I was told there was none. The Cabinet does not just sit around making up law to pass the time, or because they get paid by the word : there has to be a good reason for new legislation. Unless the Petitioner can come up with evidence of some hazard to the Public Health presented by all raw milk immediately prior to that Regulation being proclaimed, for which it was the remedy, then it always was without logical foundation.

21. In 1954, Mister Justice J V Clyne, sitting as Commissioner on the provincial Royal Commission in to milk marketing, heard a hundred witnesses vive voce, and read hundreds of submissions, over a full year, canvassing the core issue of this matter - ie. compulsory Pasteur-ization of milk sent to market for human consumption. His conclusion was that there must always be a way for people who want raw milk, to be able to get it. That aspect was expressed in sections 3, 4, 5 and 67 of the original Milk Industry Act and continued in force until it was amended in 1996. As part of the material in support, see an excerpt from Hansard where the Legislature discussed one of those farms getting such a licence. If Fraser Health says that the Public Health suffered back in those days because a few people sold raw milk to a niche market, onus is on the Petitioner to prove it. In July 2008, Petitioner mis-used Regulation 181/88 to frustrate one of the original objects of the Milk Industry Act.

22. 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 ought to abide by the findings of the Royal Commission

23. 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 109 of the Report the Commissioner says

�c. 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. �c

24. 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 for my appeal of the Health Act Order, 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 Commissioner spelled 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.

25. 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.

VII Third reason why the Order was invalid from the start

26. Section 56 of the Health Act as it then was, created two categories of milk : in one category was all milk which was ever �g �c. exposed for sale, or deposited in any place for the purpose of sale, or for preparation for sale, and intended for food for humans�h. In the other category was all milk which was not offered for sale. Anticipating that the Petitioner may say the milk in our dairy undeniably was
intended for food for humans�h thereby placing it under the jurisdiction of the Health Protection Authority, I say the word �gand�h there tied that phrase to the overall import of the section - foodstuff exposed for sale. �eFood intended for humans�f was not a stand-alone category.

27. On July 9 2008, milk produced by our dairy most certainly was intended as food for humans but was never for sale. Our milk never did fall in the category of foodstuff defined by section 56 therefore the Health Act could not have conferred power over it to an Inspector. 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 was void

28. On June 16th 2008 when Inspector Rice announced the purpose of his visit, Alice Jongerden told him �gwe�fre not selling milk.�h That plain statement ought to have ended his visit right there and then. Yet he replied �gwe think you are�h. Onus is on the Petitioner to prove that the subject of the Order ever offered milk for sale, as the term �gsale�g was then defined in the Milk Industry Act. 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, Petitioner refuses to disclose any evidence to substantiate the assumption of Inspector Rice. That�fs because there is none. Therefore the Order ought to be set aside for that reason, alone

29. 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 �gcowsharing�h or �gherdsharing�h. 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 two government Ministers acknowledging that the Milk Industry Act did not outlaw cowsharing, our understanding always was, and continues to be, that what we were doing that day was quite legal.

30. The progress of our �gcowshare�h was well known to the Petitioner because I informed the branches of the government, every step of the way. Particularly, by visiting the office of the Legal Services Branch to discuss the topic generally with Craig Jones, counsel to the Attorney General in the Constitutional Law Group. Its success - legally providing REAL MILK outside the quota system - is dramatic proof that, given the opportunity, informed consumers will reject the stuff produced by industrialized agriculture merchandised as �ghomo milk�h, in favour of pure fresh whole unadulterated raw milk from cows on pasture.

31. In that the Order was based on a single sample of our milk which, when tested, did not show bacteria harmful to human beings, the Petitioner�fs own pre-emptory action proved that our raw milk dairy was being carried on safely. The success of our farm over the preceding year disproved the presupposition of Health Act Regulation 181/88. The testimony of expert witnesses in the case of Regina versus Michael Schmidt put the boots to the dairy cartel propaganda that �eevery pail of raw milk is always and only teeming with bacteria harmful to human health, ergo, inherently a hazard to the Public Health�f. Predicated as it is on a demonstrably incorrect assumption, Regulation 181/88 of the Health Act is patently absurd, therefore invalid. The Order of July 9th 2008 goes down with it

32. The Order references a sample taken by Inspector George Rice, to wit, a jar of raw milk with my name on it. Petitioner 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 �c 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 Petitioner 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. 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 did not have a single report of illness from consuming it

33. 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 2007 BCSC 1508
It was incumbent upon the Petitioner to abide by that standard for determining what constituted a health hazard. On the day the Order was issued, Petitioner was obliged to know the legal terms �gpresently�h versus �gimminent�h, to appreciate that distinction when determining if some thing is a hazard to Public Health and to abide by the evidentiary standard in the Health Act. The Order was unreasonable in that the Petitioner 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

VIII Medical necessity

34. At all times material to the incident from which the Order of July 9th 2008 arose, it was incumbent upon the Petitioner to comport with the ruling in the BC Supreme Court case Portland Hotel Society and the Attorney General of Canada as the standard for determining what constitutes necessary health treatment. Petitioner had in hand evidence showing that I, and many of those who held shares in the herd, did so motivated by our sincere longstanding belief that fresh whole unadulterated raw milk is necessary for our health.

35. When he issued the Order in question, 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.

36. 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, Petitioner acted utterly contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Health Act If this matter does come to a proper hearing, I will be putting on the witness stand twenty people who will testify as to the dramatic improvement in their health brought about by raw milk from our dairy. . The Order unduly interfered with my right and the right of other shareholders per section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to self-medicate.

IX Malfeasance

37. At all times material issuing the Order on July 9th 2008, the Petitioner had in hand extensive correspondence from my lobbying effort towards having raw milk available legally. From that material the Petitioner was well aware that raw milk dairying is being done successfully in Washington State, and the majority of the US states. Petitioner was well aware that raw milk is bought in other places by Canadians to be brought back in to British Columbia legally, declared as groceries. Petitioner was aware that it is perfectly legal for someone to use and enjoy within British Columbia, raw milk which was bought out of the Province. Petitioner has never issued an Order pursuant to the Health Act to do with raw milk brought into Canada, under the pretext it was a hazard to the Public Health.

38. 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 was co-operating in underwriting our herdshare, are asserting the right to freedom of association, and also, the right to use and enjoy our property, ie our cows, as we go a�fdairying for our sustenance.

39. Petitioner is responsible for knowing the laws which govern the Ministry under which it operates. 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. Government officials cannot plead ignorance of the two Letters of Comfort 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 �graw milk is disease-ridden and a hazard to the Public Health�h, all, in order that consumers will never find out otherwise, and the dairy cartel can get away with profiting from selling an inferior product

40. 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 �gwith our legal side�h. On July 9th 2008 I told Inspector George Rice about those two letters referred-to in paragraphs 38 and 39. I warned him that he would be acting illegally 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 �gthe law�h required a shareholder to be directly involved in the care of the animals. Since there is no such �glaw�h, Mr Rice could only have been referring to A/Director Ron Duffell�fs 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

41. 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.

42. 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 �gthere are constitutional issues�h 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 �glast week�h. 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

43. Petitioner knew, or ought to have known that, twice, the World Trade Organization has censured Canada for its quota system of milk supply. Petitioner knew, or ought to have known, that the milk marketing system in Canada is operating contrary to trade agreements to which Canada is signatory. Petitioner is 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 of July 9th 2008 is an attempt to curtail milk supply outside the quota system, rather than for any good reason to do with a health hazard

44. 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 what comes out of factory farms. Tiny as it is, our herdshare is perceived as a threat to the profits of the governments�f friends, ie the Dairy Cartel, because we have proved viable the concept of consumer-directed agriculture. 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 and medicine which I prefer and need

45. 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. As well, it is medicine for some of our shareholders. Petitioner abused its powers under the old 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 Petitioner to do obliquely that which it cannot do directly.

X As for the application for an injunction

46. The Petitioner relies upon Public Health Transition Act Regulation 51/2009 which is predicated upon the Milk Industry Act. As explained above, milk produced by our privately-underwritten dairy does accord with the Milk Industry Act in the first instance. Raw milk from a �eproducer vendor�f does have to be Pastuer-ized on its way to market, but since our milk is never commercialized, it does not have to be Pasteur-ized. Raw milk from our dairy is not caught by Public Health Transition Act Regulation 51/2009.

47. Notice the word �gPublic�h in the title which is crucial to that Regulation. Our dairy is a private enterprise. What we private citizens do to feed ourselves is not within the purview of the provincial government. Not being in the public domain, Regulation 51/ 2009 does not apply to our private dairy.

XI Petitioner has not met the test stipulated in the case of
Western Forest Products and Sunshine Coast Regional District

48 There is no evidence that our raw milk dairy does present a hazard to the health of the Public. Lacking any evidence, then, according to the standard set out in the case of Western Forest Products and Sunshine Coast Regional District the injunction ought not to be issued

XII Constitutional Challenge

Pursuant to the Constitutional Question Act RSBC, this is my NOTICE that at the hearing of this matter I will challenge section 48 of the Public Health Act on the ground that it is contrary to section 2 (i) of the Attorney General Act RSBC. Thus Fraser Health is statute-barred from originating any action on its own, and in particular, this purported Petition.

All of which is respectfully submitted

Gordon S Watson

The Respondent�fs address for delivery is :

7954 Elwell Street Burnaby British Columbia V5E 1M4

Telephone 604 526 5064


2010 BCSC 355 Fraser Health Authority v. Jongerden[5/3/2010 10:01:54 AM]



Citation: Fraser Health Authority v. Jongerden,

2010 BCSC 355

Date: 20100318

Docket: S-124618

Registry: New Westminster



Fraser Health Authority



Alice Jongerden carrying on business as

Home on the Range, Jane Doe and

John Doe


Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Gropper

Reasons for Judgment

Counsel for Petitioner: G. McDannold

Alice Jongerden, carrying on business as Home on the


Jane Doe and John Doe:

In Person

G. Watson

Place and Date of Hearing: New Westminster, B.C.

February 1, 2010

Place and Date of Judgment: New Westminster, B.C.

March 18, 2010


[1] Fraser Health Authority, the �petitioner�, seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting the respondent, Alice

Jongerden, carrying on business as Home on the Range, from packaging and/or distributing raw milk and/or

raw milk products for human consumption.

[2] The respondents oppose the application.


[3] The petitioner, Fraser Health Authority, is a health authority established under the Health Authorities

Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 180, and has the jurisdiction and responsibility for enforcing the Public Health Act,

2010 BCSC 355 Fraser Health Authority v. Jongerden[5/3/2010 10:01:54 AM]

S.B.C. 2008, c. 28 [the Public Health Act] and its regulations, formerly the Health Act R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 179

and its regulations.

[4] The respondent, Alice Jongerden is a businessperson who carries on a business known as Home on

the Range in Chilliwack, British Columbia. The respondents Jane Doe and John Doe are persons who

participate in the Home on the Range business with Alice Jongerden. Alice Jongerden packages and

distributes raw milk and raw milk products for human consumption under the brand name �Home on the

Range� for Jane Doe, John Doe and others.

[5] On July 9, 2008, Alice Jongerden was ordered to cease and desist the distribution of raw milk for

human consumption by order of the Public Health Inspector under the provisions of the Health Act. The order

was issued pursuant to s. 63 of the Health Act and was a result of an inspection by the Public Health

Inspector under s. 61 of the Health Act. The inspector gave the following reason for the order:

On June 16, 2008 during my inspection of Home on the Range, I observed that you were packaging

and distributing raw milk in violation of the Health Act, Health Hazard Regulation - B.C. Reg. 181/88.

The order required that Alice Jongerden take the following action:

�cease and desist the distribution of raw milk for human consumption�.

[6] Alice Jongerden did not appeal the July 9, 2008 order. Third parties have appealed the order but have

not proceeded with the hearing of the appeal on its merits.

[7] On December 18, 2009, the Public Health Inspector conducted a further inspection of Alice

Jongerden�s business operations in Chilliwack and concluded that, contrary to the order of July 9, 2008, and

contrary to the Public Health Act, s. 15 and the Public Health Act Transitional Regulation, B.C. Reg. 51/2009,

s. 7 [the Transitional Regulation], Alice Jongerden was supervising and directing the packaging of raw milk

for distribution for human consumption under the brand name �Home on the Range�.


[8] The relevant statutory provisions are:

Public Health Act

Must not cause health hazard

15 A person must not willingly cause a health hazard, or act in a manner that the person knows,

or ought to know, will cause a health hazard.


48(1) Without notice to any person, a health officer may apply, in the manner set out in the

regulations, to a judge of the Supreme Court for an order under this section.

(2) A judge of the Supreme Court may grant an injunction restraining a person from

contravening, or requiring a person to comply, with

(a) a provision of this Act or a regulation made under it, or

(b) a term or condition of the person's licence or permit issued under this Act, or an order

2010 BCSC 355 Fraser Health Authority v. Jongerden[5/3/2010 10:01:54 AM]

made under this Act,

if satisfied by evidence on oath or affirmation that there has been or will be a contravention of this

Act, the regulations, the licence, the permit or the order.

(3) A judge of the Supreme Court may order a person to do or refrain from doing those things the

judge considers necessary if satisfied by evidence on oath or affirmation that the person is interfering

with or obstructing, or will likely interfere with or obstruct, a person who is exercising powers or

performing duties under this Act.

(4) A judge of the Supreme Court may grant an interim injunction or order until the outcome of an

application commenced under this section.

Public Health Act Inspections and Orders Regulation, B.C. Reg. 52/2009

Applications to court

5(1) An application to court may be made by submitting information on oath in the following form:

(a) for a warrant under section 47 of the Act, Form 2 of the Schedule;

(b) for an order described in section 49 (3) or (4) [protect public health] of the Act, Form 3

of the Schedule.

(2) An application for a warrant under section 47 of the Act may be made

(a) in person, or

(b) if the health officer making the application believes it would be impracticable to appear

in person, by telephone or other means of telecommunication.

(3) A warrant may be issued in the following form:

(a) for a warrant under section 47 of the Act, Form 4 of the Schedule;

(b) for a warrant under section 49 (4) of the Act, Form 5 of the Schedule;

(c) for a warrant under section 50 (4) of the Act, Form 6 of the Schedule.

(4) An application to court for

(a) an injunction under section 48 of the Act, or

(b) an order described in section 50 (3) or (4) [protect personal health] of the Act

may be made by filing an application in accordance with the Rules of Court.

Public Health Act Transitional Regulation


1(1) In this regulation, �Act� means the Public Health Act.

(2) A reference in a regulation made under the Health Act to

(a) the Health Act is to be read as a reference to the Act, and

(b) a public health inspector or a sanitary inspector is to be read as a reference to an

environmental health officer.

Health Hazard Regulation (unpasteurized milk)

7 Milk for human consumption that has not been pasteurized at a licensed dairy plant in

accordance with the Milk Industry Act is prescribed as a health hazard.

Position of the Parties


2010 BCSC 355 Fraser Health Authority v. Jongerden[5/3/2010 10:01:54 AM]

[9] The petitioner relies on s. 7 of the Transitional Regulation which deems raw milk to be health hazard.

Ms. Jongerden does not dispute her involvement in the distribution of raw milk and raw milk products.

Therefore, pursuant to s. 15 of the Public Health Act, Ms. Jongerden is willingly causing a health hazard or

acting in a manner that she knows or ought to know will cause a health hazard.

[10] Section 48 of the Act provides that an injunction may be ordered when there is a contravention of the

Public Health Act or its regulations. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that Ms. Jongerden, carrying on

business as Home on the Range, is in contravention of the Public Health Act and its regulations. The

petitioner is seeking a statutory injunction based upon that breach.

[11] The petitioner relies on three decisions of the BC Court of Appeal regarding statutory injunctions:

Maple Ridge (District) v. Thornhill Aggregates Ltd. (1998), 54 B.C.L.R. (3d) 155, 162 D.L.R. (4th) 203 (C.A.)

[Maple Ridge cited to B.C.L.R.]; Langley (Township) v. Wood, 1999 BCCA 260, 67 B.C.L.R. (3d) 97; and

Regional District of East Kootenay v. Lloyd Hegland et al., [1981] B.C.J. No. 580 (C.A.) [East Kootenay],

which stand for the principle that where legislation is enacted in the public interest, as s. 15 of the Public

Health Act and s. 7 of Transitional Regulation are, and a breach is established, a statutory injunction should

be granted.


[12] The respondents assert that they have established a �cow share� where the registered members of

Home on the Range, along with Ms. Jongerden, own shares of the cows which she cares for on her farm.

The raw milk and raw milk products are only available to members of the cow share. The packaging is

specifically marked �not for sale� in order that the public understand that the raw milk and raw milk products

are available only to those who are members of the cow share. Members of the cow share want to enjoy raw

milk which they see as �real milk� before it is adulterated or changed.

[13] The respondents rely on R. v. Schmidt, 2010 ONCJ 9, [2010] O.J. No. 223 [Schmidt]. The respondents

assert that the BC Supreme Court should consider the Schmidt decision and take into account that Ms.

Jongerden�s business is also a private enterprise.

[14] The respondents assert that the petitioner has not established that milk is a health hazard. In order to

do so, samples must be taken and tested to demonstrate that the raw milk has created a health hazard.

[15] Several respondents made submissions that raw milk is a medical necessity and that raw milk is basic

sustenance. They assert that if raw milk is a health hazard, than so is breast milk. They further argue that

access to raw milk and raw milk products is a basic human right and therefore they have a right to choose to

consume raw milk and raw milk products.


[16] The respondents rely on Schmidt. In that case, the defendant, Michael Schmidt, a dairy farmer, was

charged with 14 counts of possessing, distributing or selling milk and milk products which were not

2010 BCSC 355 Fraser Health Authority v. Jongerden[5/3/2010 10:01:54 AM]

pasteurized or sterilized; two counts of operating a plant or distributing fluid milk products without a license

under the Milk Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.12, and three counts of failing to obey a public health inspector�s order

under the Health Protection and Promotion Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.7 [HPPA] by storing and displaying

unpasteurized milk and milk products. He was acquitted of all charges.

[17] Like the respondents in this case, Mr. Schmidt formed a cow share. The milk and milk products were

provided for a fee only to people who were registered shareholders in the cow share program. The cow

share members had membership cards and were fully aware that they were receiving raw milk. No one could

receive raw milk or raw milk products unless they were members. If someone wished to become a member,

Mr. Schmidt tried to establish whether that person was serious and, if they were, he would give the interested

person a product to try in advance. Mr. Schmidt did not sell raw milk to the public. Mr. Schmidt argued that

he provided a service for the members of the cow share which included feeding, cleaning and housing the

cows, along with bottling, cooling, milk separating and cheese making.

[18] Kowarsky J.P. considered the purpose of the Milk Act and stated at paras. 114-115:

[114] Succinctly put, the scheme of the Act essentially embodies a process for the control of the

production and marketing of milk and milk products in the Province of Ontario. In relation to the

prosecution of people who are alleged to have contravened any of the provisions of the Act, I refer to

section 25 of the Milk Act, which states under the heading "Rebuttable Presumption" as follows:

In any prosecution for an offence under this Act, the act or omission of an act, in respect of

which the prosecution was instituted, shall be deemed to relate to the marketing within Ontario

of milk, cream or cheese, or any combination thereof, unless the contrary is proven".

(Underlining for emphasis).

[115] I find that the presumption in section 25 clearly places the onus on the defendant in this case

to rebut that presumption by proving to the court, on a balance of probabilities, that the cow share

program as it was established and is being run by him, does not constitute "marketing within Ontario"

as set out in section 25.

[19] At paragraph 119 of the decision, the Justice of the Peace concluded that Mr. Schmidt had rebutted

the presumption set out in s. 25 of the Milk Act for the following reasons:

a) The stated purposes of the Act envisage the control of milk production for marketing and

commercial purposes in Ontario, but Purpose is not inherently more important than other contextual

factors, and cannot be relied on to justify adopting an implausible interpretation; (4th Edition at page


b) The specific inclusion at the end of the definition of "marketing" of "commercialisation",

"commercialiser", "commercialis�" makes it plain and obvious that commercial marketing in its

broadest sense is what is meant by the term "marketing";

c) Utilizing the Latin interpretive guide: inclusio unius est exclusio alterius it seems apparent that

the specific inclusion of those terms in the definition was to clarify that the term "marketing" as used

by the Legislature means commercial marketing within the general public, and excludes a small

group of people who have come together by private agreement, such as the cow share program

established by the defendant, for the purpose of obtaining raw milk products from him, by buying

shared ownership in his cows for the duration of the milking life of the cows;

d) Marketing implies advertising and offering products for sale to the general public, who are

required simply to pay the requested price for the products; the undisputed evidence of the defendant

is that there is no advertising or selling of his products to the general public whatsoever, and that in

2010 BCSC 355 Fraser Health Authority v. Jongerden[5/3/2010 10:01:54 AM]

both the farm store and the blue bus where his milk is stored, there are clearly visible signs


"Members Only".

e) The definitions of the words "distributor" and "plant" in section 1 of the Act are:

"Distributor" means a person engaged in selling or distributing fluid milk products directly or

indirectly to consumers.

"Plant" means a cream transfer station or milk transfer station or premises in which milk or

cream or milk products are processed.

[20] Kowarsky J.P. concluded at para. 21 that the Ontario legislation refers to the public at large, it does not

include Mr. Schmidt�s dairy operation as it is currently conducted, because sales of his dairy products are

absolutely restricted to members of the cow share program. He also found that Mr. Schmidt did not require a

license to operate �his dairy product enterprise� as he did, that is, in distributing raw milk products to

members of the cow share.

[21] The Justice of the Peace went on to consider the purpose of the HPPA and considered its purposes as

described in s. 2:

124. The purpose of the HPPA is set out in section 2 as follows:

a. to provide for the organization and delivery of public health programs and services,

b. the prevention of the spread of disease, and

c. the promotion and protection of the health of the people of Ontario.

[22] On this point, the Justice of Peace considered that because the raw milk and raw milk products were

only available to individuals who willingly became members of the cow share, they did not constitute the

�public� or the �people of Ontario� per s. 2 of the HPPA and therefore, Mr. Schmidt�s actions did not frustrate

the stated purposes of the legislation.

[23] The respondents assert that Schmidt ought to be binding on this court. They say that it stands for the

proposition that cow share programs, where raw milk and raw milk products are available only to members of

the cow share, are not embraced by s. 15 of the Public Health Act and s. 7 of the Transitional Regulation.

[24] While the cow share program undertaken by Mr. Schmidt in Ontario is the same or similar to that

undertaken by Ms. Jongerden in British Columbia, that is the only similarity to be found. The provisions of the

Ontario Milk Act are not similar to the provisions of the B.C. Public Health Act.

[25] There is no provision in British Columbia�s Public Health Act which creates a rebuttable presumption

like that contained in s. 25 of the Ontario Milk Act. It is the view of Kowarsky J.P. that Mr. Schmidt had

rebutted the presumption that his milk or milk products were related to marketing within Ontario, because his

products were only available to members of the cow share. The Transitional Regulation, on the other hand,

is quite clear that milk for human consumption which has not been pasteurized at a licensed dairy plant in

accordance with the Milk Industry Act, is a health hazard.

[26] The question of whether the milk or milk products are distributed to the public or to members of the

cow share is of no relevance in British Columbia. Raw milk is deemed to be a health hazard by regulation,

2010 BCSC 355 Fraser Health Authority v. Jongerden[5/3/2010 10:01:54 AM]

and s. 15 of the Public Health Act �prohibits a person from willingly causing a health hazard�.

[27] Further, the B.C. legislation does not provide the court with the opportunity to consider whether or not

raw milk is a health hazard. It does not require that samples of the raw milk be taken or tested or provided to

the court. Raw milk is presumed to be a health hazard under s. 7 of the Transitional Regulation.

[28] There is a further significant distinction between the matter before me and that before Kowarsky J.P.

Mr. Schmidt was charged under the provisions of the Ontario HPPA and Milk Act and the crown was required

to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The case at bar, however, is a civil matter where the

petitioner seeks an injunction in relation to a breach of a statutory provision.

[29] Based on the foregoing, I decline to follow the Schmidt decision of the Ontario Court of Justice,

Provincial Offences Court.

[30] The petitioner has established a breach of the legislation. It is in the public interest to have the law

followed. In accordance with the cases relied upon by the petitioner where the breach is established, an

injunction ought to follow. In Attorney-General v. Harris (1961), 1 Q.B. 74 at 95, referred to in East Kootenay

at para. 18, Pearce L.J. observed:

A breach with impunity by one citizen leads to breach by other citizens, or to a general feeling that

the law is unjustly partial to those who have the persistence to flout it. ]

[31] Likewise, in Maple Ridge, Cumming J.A. noted that, generally speaking, a court should not refuse to

grant a statutorily based injunction protecting the public interest on discretionary grounds:

[7] The source for the injunction in the case under appeal is statutory, and not equitable. Factors

that might be considered by a court in an application for an equitable injunction will be of limited, if

any, application to the grant of a statutorily based injunction. ...

[9] Where an injunction is sought to enforce a public right, the courts will be reluctant to refuse it

on discretionary grounds. To the extent that the appellants may suffer hardship from the imposition

and enforcement of an injunction, that will not outweigh the public interest in having the law obeyed.

See Saskatchewan (Minister of the Environment) v. Redberry Development Corp., [1987] 4 W.W.R.

654 (Sask. Q.B.); aff�d [1992] 2 W.W.R. 544 (Sask. C.A.)

[32] In Langley (Township) v. Wood, the court expressly referred to the Maple Ridge decision and the

decision of the Supreme Court in that matter at para. 17:

The court has no discretion to deny the Township an injunction once a breach is established. In

Maple Ridge (District) v. Thornhill Aggregates Ltd. (June 23, 1995), Doc. Vancouver A910317

(B.C.S.C.) [Chambers]), the court said at para. 34:

In my view, there is no defence to the claim of Maple Ridge for an injunction, because the

public interest is at stake in the enforcement of a zoning by-law. It is the task of Council, not

this court, to determine where the public interest lies. If the public interest is engaged and a

permanent injunction is being sought, the court�s only role is to determine whether a

defendant has breached the by-law the municipality seeks to enforce.

[33] The cases cited above make it clear that my only role is to determine whether the respondents have

breached the legislation. There is no dispute that Ms. Jongerden, doing business as Home on the Range,

2010 BCSC 355 Fraser Health Authority v. Jongerden[5/3/2010 10:01:54 AM]

has breached the Public Health Act and its regulations. It is not my role to excuse the respondents from the

application of the law or to grant them the remedy which they seek. The remedy for the respondents is to

convince the government to change the legislation.


[34] The injunction sought by the petitioner is granted.

[35] Counsel for the petitioner sought an order that the respondents� signature on the form of the order be

dispensed with given that there was a number of respondents who appeared at the hearing. I will grant that

order. The petitioner will provide an enterable copy of the order to the respondents.

�Gropper J.�


sytle of cause




        THIS INJUNCTION APPLICATION coming on for hearing at New Westminster, B. C. on Monday, the 1st day of February 2010, and on hearing guy McDannold, counsel for the Petitioner, and Alice Jongerden, appearing in person, and G. Watson on behalf of the Respondents, Jane Doe and John Doe ; AND JUDGMENT being reserved to this date :


1.    The Respondent Alice Jongerden carrying on business as Home on the Range, has contravened the July 9, 2008 Health Act Order ordering her to cease and desist the distribution of raw milk for human consumption.

          THIS COURT ORDERS that :

2.    A permanent injunction is hereby issued prohibiting the Respondents and anyone having notice of this Order from packaging and/or distributing raw milk and/or raw milk products for human consumption.

3.    The Respondents pay to the Petitioner costs of these proceedings on Scale B.

4.     Approval of this Order by the Respondents is hereby dispensed with.

signature M Gropper J.



Guy McDannold,                                                                                         digitally signed by Yee Richard

Solicitor for the Petitioner                                                                                     Registrar

checked as to form: smf


26 August 10 stamped as filed in the New Westminster Registry

style of cause


Name of applicant  : Fraser Health Authority

To : The Respondent

Alice Jongerden, carrying on business as Home on the Range

49211 Praire Central Road Chilliwack BC. V8W 1B3

TAKE NOTICE   that   an application will be made by the applicant to the presiding judge or master,  at the courthouse at Law Courts, Begbie Square, Carnarvon Street, New Westminster British Columbia on Tuesday September 14 2010 at 9:40 a.m. for the order set out in Part 1 below


1.The Respondent Alice Jongerden be found in contempt of the March 18 2010 Supreme Court of British Columbia Order by packaging and distributing raw milk for human consumption.

2. The Respondent Alice Jongerden be punished for that contempt of Court


1.  On March 18 2010 this Court declared that and ordered  that :

a)   The Respondent Alice Jongerden carrying on business as Home on the Range, has contravened the July 9 2008 Health Act Order ordering her to cease and desist the distribution of raw milk for human consumption

b)   A permanent injunction is hereby issued prohibiting the Respondents and anyone having notice of this Order from packaging and/or distributing raw milk and/or raw milk products for human consumption

2.   On March 24 2010 the Respondent Alice Jongerden was personally served with a copy of the entered March 18 2010 Supreme Court of British Columbia Order

3.   On July 9 2010 an inspection of the farm on which Alice Jongerden carries on the business known as Home on the Range was conducted

4.   During the inspection Alice Jongerden admitted that she continues to care for the cows,  milk the cows and package raw milk for distribution to cow share members by way of delivery or pick up by the members

5 The Home on the Range website outlines the range of raw milk products available to its members

6  The jars of raw milk have a sticker which states " not for human consumption" and a notice is posted on the refrigerator in the barn on the farm outlining Ms. Jongerden's response to the March 18, 2010 Court Order

Part 3:    LEGAL BASIS

1.  Supreme Court Civil Rule 22 - 8 and the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of British Columbia giving the Court power to punish for contempt of Court.

2.  In North Vancouver (District ) v. Sorrenti,  2004 BCCA 316 theCourt of Appeal stated:



"As this court stated in Topgro Greenhouses Ltd. v. Houweling, 2003 BCCA 355, " [t]o knowingly breach a court order is to commit contempt of the court.  All that is necessary to establish the contempt is proof of deliberate conduct that has the effect of contravening the order ; an intent to bring the Court into disrepute or to interfere with the due course of justice or with the lawful process of the Court is not an esssential element of civil contempt".



... Rather, the petitioner must show both conduct which was in breach of an order and that the concuct was intentional - although as has been seen, intention may be inferred from the circumstances of a given case. If the circumstances support such an inference,  then in practical terms, the defendant is likely to be convicted in the absence of positive proof that his or her disobedience to the order was in fact accidental or unintentional.  In this regard,  it is not sufficient for the defendant to show that he or she did not intend to interfere with the course of justice."


3.   In HEABC v. Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assoc.  2004 BCSC 762 the British Columbia Supreme Court outlined considerations with respect to civil contempt of Court including :

"[17]   As to sentencing considerations in a matter of civil contempt,  a useful summary is offered by Chief Justice Green


[18]   There, these ten principles are set out:

1.  The inherent jurisdiction of the court, as a superior court, allows for the imposition of a wide range of penalties for civil and criminal contempt ;

2.   Deterrence, both general and specific, but especially general deterrence, as well as denunciation,  are the most important factors to be considered in the imposition of penalties for civil, as well as criminal,  contempt;

3.   The impact that the contemptuous act has had on the general public,  particularly in relation to health and safety matters, is a relevant consideration in determining the level of penalty;

4.    It is the defiance of the court order, and not the illegality of any actions which led to the granting of the court order in the first place, which must be the focus of the contempt penalty;

5.   Imprisonment is normally not an appropriate penalty for civil contempt where there is no evidence of active public defiance ( such as public declarations of contempt; obstructive picketing; and violence)  and no repeated unrepentant acts of contempt;

6.  Where a fine is to be imposed, the level of the fine may appropriately be graduated to reflect the degree of seriousness of the failure to comply with the order;


1.  Affidavit of George Rice #1

The applicant(s) estimate(s) that the application will take 90 minutes.


TO THE PERSONS RECEIVING THIS NOTICE OF APPLICATION : if you wish to respond to the application, you must

(a)   file an application response in Form 33 within 5 days after the date of service with this notice of application or,  if the application is brought under Rule 9-7 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, within 11 days after the date of service of this notice of application, and

(b) at least 2 days before the date set for the hearing of the application, serve on the applicant 2 copies, and on every other party, one copy, of a filed copy of the application in response and the other documents referred to in in Rule 9-7 (12) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules.

Date August 26, 2010                                                                                                                                                  illegible scribble

Guy McDannold

Lawyer for the Petitioner

Fraser Health Authority



style of cause
ON THE APPLICATION of the Petitioner, Fraser Health Authority coming on for hearing at New Westminster British Columbia on Tuesday, September 14th, 2010, and on hearing G. McDannold counsel for the Petitioner Fraser Health Authority and the Respondent Alice Jongerden appearing in person;
1. The application by the Respondent Alice Jongerden to adjourn this contempt of court application to Thursday October 14, 2010 is granted on the following conditions:
a)  that there will be no further production or distribution of raw milk by the Respondent Alice Jongerden carrying on business as Home on the Range until the hearing and determination of the applciation;
b)   the October 14, 2010 hearing date is an agreed fixed date and there will be no further adjournment, and
c)  that the Respondent Alice Jongerden will deliver any material that she intends to rely upon at the October 14, 2010 hearing to counsel for the Respondent at least on week prior to the hearing.
2.   The approval of this order by the Respondent Alice Jongerden is hereby dispensed with.
= unintelligble scribble =
Guy McDannold
Lawyer for the Petitioner
Fraser Health Authority
digitally signed by Gilmour, Chris








Recent Photos

Recent Videos

854 views - 0 comments