Key Witness in the Michael Schmidt Trial Shares his Thoughts

[Guest guest]

Key Witness in the Michael Schmidt Trial Shares his Thoughts

_http://hartkeisonline.com/2009/09/15/key-witness-in-the-michael-schmidt-trial-s\

hares-his-

thoughts/_

(http://hartkeisonline.com/2009/09/15/key-witness-in-the-michael-schmidt-trial-s\

hares-his-thoughts/)

By Kimberly Hartke | Published: September 15, 2009

 

 

Witnesses for Prosecution, Defense Testified to Two Very Different Milks

by Ted Beals, M.D.

 

 

In the United States we are busily pursuing various legal, legislative,

and administrative actions to make access to raw milk more available and

minimize the interference from state authorities. In Canada there is a flat

prohibition across all Provinces.

 

 

Michael Schmidt has been patiently and persistently pushing his government

to acknowledge the fundamental right of families to select the type and

source of their food. He is not the only crusader, but he certainly is the

most visible. Among his various battles is an action to force the

constitutional issue of the legislative prohibition on the sale and distribution

of

milk in its fresh and unprocessed form. Michael asked me to assist in this

action by serving as one of the two expert witnesses he was allowed to

bring to the court in Newmarket, Ontario.

 

 

There was an agreement to have a total of four experts appear before the

court, two in defense of the Crown, and two supporting Michael’s challenge

to their Charter. Dr. Ron Hull, from Australia was the other expert

assisting Michael.

 

 

Working with Dr. Hull and Michael was exciting, challenging and extremely

rewarding. Michael comes to this legal challenge with a lifetime of

experiences that enable him to frame the questions he wanted before the court.

We had already proven to the court that he was more than just an independent

maverick who was insisting on acting without representation by a formally

recognized attorney. He was keenly aware of the issues, unrelenting in his

demand for detail, and was becoming remarkably versed in the court

proceedings and etiquette. The opposing attorneys (there was a row of them in

the

court) learned to respect Michael’s preparation and presence before the

judge.

 

 

Much has been written about Michael, his causes and this particular court

case. His cause is as well publicized as any recent action against the

Canadian government. During the trial his large cadre of loyal and effective

supporters insured that there were constant press releases, newspaper

articles and television coverage (both local and national). I am taking this

opportunity to add my own perspective. I was able first handed to see the

powerful effect of Michael’s physical presence conducting the questioning,

rebutting the attempts by the Ontario Attorney General’s representative to

refute Dr. Hull and my sworn testimony and keeping the judge focused on the

real issues.

 

 

Justice Kowarsky was not a passive judge. He actively participated in the

proceedings, often with direct dialogue with the expert witnesses. He

correctly surmised that he was facing a difficult role trying to determine

which panel of scientific experts was convincing. Both panels were citing

published scientific facts (often even the same publications) but reaching

diametrically opposite conclusions. The answer was that the two sets of

experts were talking about different products. As I framed it, they were

citing

results from raw milk that was more correctly called pre-pasteurized milk.

We were testifying about farm fresh milk intended for immediate

consumption in its natural, unprocessed form. He appeared to accept this and

was

dumfounded when questioning the government’s experts to find out that they

had

never performed testing for pathogens on milk from dairies that intended

their milk to be consumed fresh. Even more surprised to find that they had

not tested Michael Schmidt’s milk. The judge was convinced that there were

large numbers of families that wanted the milk that Michael was providing.

So he sees this as an issue that needs resolution. I suspect that he is

feeling uncomfortable about having the responsibility for that resolution.

But it appears that he was selected for this case on the basis of past

experience with difficult, high-profile cases.

 

 

From my perspective the question before the court is rather simple:

should the general public be prevented by law from having access to fresh clean

unprocessed whole milk? Milk in the form that has been consumed by

civilizations for longer than recorded history. Michael’s presentation, and

I

believe the written and oral testimony of his two witnesses, made a solid and

thorough argument before the judge. The Crown’s defense boils down to the

legal argument that for the court to overturn the vote of the legislature

you must prove that they acted irrationally. And when the facts are complex

involving different positions held by reasonable legislators, the courts

should not second guess their vote.

 

 

However this judge rules, it is possible to appeal his decision. In the

process there has been a lot of public education resulting from the media

attention. The public heard arguments from all sides. I can not think of a

more appropriate citizen to have brought this case before the Canadian

government. This is not the first nor will it be the last time that Michael

Schmidt stands tall and speaks with a clear, reasoned voice.

 

 

 

 

Ted Beals, M.D.

 

Ted Beals, M.D., is a Pathologist, Health educator and administrator. He

is the Retired National Director of Pathology & Laboratory Services, Dept.

of Veterans Affairs. He is also a researcher and faculty member of the

University of Michigan. A lifelong advocate for organic principles and

nutrient dense foods, Ted has recently written on bovine TB and milk. Ted is

active in promoting the rights of farmers to provide and consumers to obtain

milk and other local farm products. He lives with his wife Peggy on 40 acres

in rural Michigan.