Date: 9 August 2011
Transcribed by Aajonus.net & Rawmeatgang
[music]
A: The right to choose healthy food got started when the government started shutting down raw milk by over-regulating it, as they do all the time. And this was in 1998, and they basically took the main dairy, which was Stuvi's Natural, previous to that had been Altadena, and they made the restrictions so difficult that the milk wouldn't pass inspection, but maybe 51% of the time, and therefore they were running the company bankrupt, couldn't make any money. So I formed the right to choose healthy food and did lobbying under that particular trust. And then from there, because we didn't have milk, the company went out of business. Then we had to find a club. We had to establish a club, a way to get the milk, the raw milk, to people who wanted it here in Los Angeles. So James Stewart and I created the Rawesome Club. He did all of the logistics, and I took care of the legal, and I was the power end of it as far as formation. And he did all of the hard labor work, you know, getting the food and getting it for everyone. So that's how it got started.
There will be a hearing. You know, I asked his attorney to make sure there was a hearing because they have no real evidence. He's a manager, not the owner. His name isn't on any deed at the lot that we use that was donated for our use. So there is no evidence against him for any of the charges. You know, if they wanted to come after anybody, let them come after me. I welcome it, you know. So when there's a hearing, he has a hearing tomorrow, which is Wednesday, and there's a hearing tomorrow to see a preliminary hearing to see if there's evidence to justify their charges against him. Now, I don't see any. They do have evidence and charges against Sharon Palmer and Victoria Block because they were peddling their goat's milk, you know, but outside of Rawesome. We have our closed environment. Nobody's subjected to any of our product, the members' product. So we take care of our situation. Sharon and Victoria didn't. So they may have some charges against them. I don't know. But James, they have nothing against him.
Q: Would you be able to participate in the hearing helping or you're not allowed?
A: Well, I've offered to testify, but I also signed a document giving that evidence.
[music]
Q: Basically, it's a private membership food club. What does it mean for the people and for the government?
A: Well, I organize it as a private membership because government has jurisdiction over commerce. And as long as what we're doing is not an illegal activity, we have the right of association. It's like the Jewish people. They get to do their kosher diet. And let's say the kosher diet isn't for everybody, but the government doesn't get involved and tell them, no, that's not healthy to do. And you've got cultures like the Italians that have their carpaccio, the French and Germans that have their steak tartare. And you don't go around, and the Japanese with their raw fish, you know, their sushi and sashimi. They don't go around telling them. They try sometimes. They've tried it. But the law's been reversed when they've done it, when they've executed that. But they don't tell them how to eat it, what their cuisine should be. So it is a private members of association right to do what they want to do as long as it's not hurting the public. And, of course, they've accused, they've made false statements, you know, how the government tries to create, incite, you know, panic and fear. And they've said that raw milk can cause illness to other people, but there's no such thing as that. Raw milk doesn't cause illness in the first place. Every case that's been attributed to raw milk has been from survey, not science. You know, so somebody gets sick, if it's a certain kind of illness, then the doctor or the hospital calls the health department and said, we have a case of this illness. So then that goes into the records and then eventually, usually six weeks, sometimes three months down the line, an employee, a clerk or, you know, secretary, whatever it is, may call or will call the people who got sick and say, what did you eat? I'd like you to remember, you know, six to three months later. And they say, well, what do you eat? And if you say raw milk, they automatically attribute it to that. There's no science behind that. There are a few cases where they've tried to manipulate the information and say, oh, we've got the same blueprint.= You know, a blueprint in bacteria isn't the same blueprint as a human. It isn't an identical thing for an individual. A blueprint just tells you what strain of bacteria. And we have that strain of bacteria exists in many, many, many things. It doesn't tell you specifically that this bacteria is not only the same strain, but it's the same one that was in that. So they really stretch it, but they get people to believe in. They get judges to believe them and everything. And there's not many people who know enough. Even doctors, they're not educated enough biochemically. So they get in there and they make misstatements. Watch out for me because I know biochemistry. Because when I get into that courtroom, they're going to be shaken up. And also I have a biological attorney that knows it too, Raymond Novell. So watch out for us, government, because we're coming after you.
Q: Now, during this last week's raid, the police, FDA, all the agents, they took not just the milk, but everything. And on Thursday on court, you told me, they were taking things that they were not supposed to take.
A: Well, they weren't supposed to take anything except little samples. That's all they had the right to take. That's all that it said in the warrant. So they violated a lot of rights. They stole. They didn't seize it. If you've got a bad warrant and the warrant is based on improper information, and it was because I sent them a letter in May of 2005 telling them our structure, telling them that they had no jurisdiction, telling them that we're a private club and we eat a certain way. I gave them everything they needed to know about the specifics. We like bacteria. We like all of that in our food, specifically. So they knew. So them using that warrant was a terrific violation.
[music]
A: So them using that warrant was a terrific violation. And they will be, you know, they are liable. It isn't a mistake.
Q: Exactly. Yes. It was calculated.
A: Well, probably. The reason that they took everything instead of just the milk, which was their contention in their charges, they did mention in there that they were selling foods without a license. And, of course, if they're charging for that, then, of course, they could abscond with anything they want, as long as it says so in the warrant, as long as they do that. But from my understanding of what I read, it wasn't available for them to do that. It was just simply harassment.
Q: But people, the employees of Rawesome couldn't stop them. They couldn't, right?
A: Because they were saying, you're obstructing the law. There's no way that anybody could have stopped the fascists from doing that because they were armed, they had guns, and they would have used them. They're not supposed to use guns unless somebody's got a gun against you. It's an equal exchange. If somebody comes after you with their body, you use your body against them. That's what the police are supposed to do. If somebody comes after the police with a knife, a policeman can use his billy club or something, but he cannot use a gun. That is the law. Why they were in there with the guns raised, once they saw the guns were gone, you know, there were no guns in there, of course, they holstered them. However, I've seen it before in rallies and stuff like that. If the police, you know, don't like what you're doing, they'll use a billy club, you know, any kind of thing on you, even though you're not fighting them. And what I would have done if I happened to be privy at that rally, I would have had everybody lie down on the ground. They wouldn't have moved that truck out with taking us all to jail.
Q: Well, you mentioned that, and I think it was very important. They were not prepared for a situation like that. They were not prepared for the rallying court. Nobody knew what to do. They were not taking advantage of the media. And so what would you have suggested that James or the employees or volunteers or Rawesome would have done at that moment?
A: Well, any time that you're, anyone is subjected to police invasions, definitely police invasion and trespass, kidnapping, you know, everybody that they kept, you know, under restriction was basically being kidnapped. They call it false arrest. I do it to you, even for one minute, it's kidnapping. They get off with, you know, false arrest, doesn't work that way. It's still kidnapping. It is not just a false arrest. Oh, that's okay. Sorry, we made a mistake. No, this was a deliberate, planned, what they call conspiracy. They conspired to commit this crime. So they're doing just what they claim us and James are doing when they're the ones that are doing it. They are violating the constitutional right. What those people could have done was just that, try to block, try to get arrested, try to make a bigger statement, try to get more people involved. The more people, the more drama for the media, for people in general. So, and we need to, you know, make people alerted on what the government doing. I mean, this is what the Nazi party started doing. When they started escalating, they started ripping people's foods out, destroying their food in the cities and on the farm. So when that happens, then you've got a government that's way out of line, that they're getting into your food.
[music]
A: So them using that warrant was a terrific violation. And they will be, you know, they are liable. It isn't a mistake.
Q: Exactly, yes.
A: I mean, people should be able to act. Most of those people aren't children. You know, most of them are over 30 years old that are members. I should not have assumed that they would know what to do. But in the future, for my memberships, I'm going to have a direction of what to do in case there's that kind of event again. I've trained the farmers, probably... Right to Choose Healthy Food Trust has probably 35 farmers under contract. We contract their animals or the whole farm. So the clubs, the members own those animals. Or even if they own the land too from the lease, then they own the crops that are grown. They own everything. And we have a contract with the farmer to produce our foods for us. This is our food. It's not the farmer's food. It's our food. We give them the money to produce it and give it to us. And it's as simple as that. It is our food. Now I've trained and I've let all of the farmers know. They come onto your land. They want to inspect everything. They can't come on unless they have a warrant. If they come on with a warrant, it's a false warrant. So they have to tell the officers, everybody who's involved, this is an illegal warrant. This is a private property. We're not under commerce. We don't sell anything to the public. We don't furnish anything. We don't give anything to the public. So there's no government scrutiny needed here or necessary here. And we're telling you you can't trespass. If you come on the property, each one of you is liable as a person as well as a government representative. When the judge gave Mr. Stewart the option of getting out of jail on $30,000 bail, or if he didn't get him out on $30,000 bail and he didn't agree to it, the judge would have probably put it at $120,000. And if James had not agreed to close Rawesome. Now, James really cannot close Rawesome because he doesn't own Rawesome. The members do. So had that been me, I would have done it differently. I would have said, Judge, I'm sorry I can't accept your offer. We've got infants, children, mothers, fathers, entire families that rely upon this food that they can't get anywhere else. And if they get the food like the pasteurized milk that you want and the government, the health departments want us to have, they'll have allergies, they'll have diseases, they'll have diabetes. There are all kinds of things that come about because of the regular foods that we don't supply. We supply foods for them, and it's their food because they own it. They own the animals, they own the farms, so it's their food. So we just supply it for them. We help them prevent disease. We make them happy and healthy and wise. And they have the right to do that, the right of happiness. It's a constitutional right. If you want them to not be that way, you make that choice, but I won't make that. If you want to keep me in jail because I refuse to disrupt the club because it suits your fancy or the DA's fancy, I won't do it. I'll go to jail. And because you serve foods that I won't eat that will make me sick, then I will fast until either the government leaves the club alone so people can have their healthy food, or you let me out of jail, or I'm dead, one or the other. It's up to you.
Q: It's a very powerful statement, and I really like it.
[music]
A: I don't want to sue the government on my own. If I do that, the government is much more likely to manipulate. I've been in courtrooms before, and I've seen the judges and the prosecuting attorneys or the DA manipulate, fabricate evidence, damage evidence, make evidence that's exculpatory disappear. They suit the way they want to. The more eyes that are on them, they can't get away with that. They can't go through the trial and say, Oh, gosh, we've got to get rid of this when everybody's seen it and everybody knows it's there. So they can't do that. So the more people, the more support we have from members, the better we will do. And, of course, the more people there are, the more strength there is, and the government will be a little afraid. There will be a hearing. I asked his attorney to make sure there was a hearing because they have no real evidence. He's a manager, not the owner. His name isn't on any deed at the lot that we use that was donated for our use. So there is no evidence against him for any of the charges. If they wanted to come after anybody, let them come after me. I welcome it. He has a hearing tomorrow, which is Wednesday, and there's a hearing tomorrow to see, a preliminary hearing to see if there's evidence to justify their charges against him. Now, I don't see any. They do have evidence and charges against Sharon Palmer and Victoria Block because they were peddling their goat's milk, you know, but outside of Rawesome. We have a closed environment where nobody's subjected to any of our product, the members' product. So we take care of our situation. Sharon and Victoria didn't, so they may have some charges against them. I don't know. But James, they have nothing against him.
Q: Would you be able to participate in the hearing helping or you're not allowed?
A: Well, I've offered to testify, but I also signed a document giving that evidence.
Q: Did you have the opportunity to talk to James after he was released?
A: No. I'm a very busy man. He's not very busy now, I'm sure, but I haven't had a chance.
Q: Is there any chance that Rawesome will be reopened?
A: Oh, there's a very good chance.
Q: But now what? Do we have to look for a new manager?
A: Well, if he's exonerated, if all the charges are dropped, he'll be managing again. It'll be open next week.
Q: It depends what happens tomorrow?
A: What happens tomorrow. It depends on what happens tomorrow. If the judge makes him go to trial, you know, if they think they can manipulate some evidence and contort it, you know, and stretch it into what they want to make him out a criminal, they can do it, they can try it. But unless they can rig the jury, and I've also seen them rig a jury in a trial, the governor rig a jury. So unless they can really go through and exercise all of that without everybody else watching and the scrutiny, then I think they'll let him go.
[music]
A: The reason I would do that was go to the legislative body of Los Angeles County that pays the checks of the Los Angeles County Health Department. You go to the legislators and you pick at them, and you ask them to write a bill that says the government isn't going to do that anymore to us. It's a private club, and you order them not to do it, whether by legislation or by letter. But they need to put the health department on watch, you know, like for our milk issue. We were told in 2000 when we did our big campaign in December and then another in March for the vote before the Board of Supervisors, they told us, or one of the deputies of the Board of Supervisors, told us that they consider for every person that shows up for any kind of a government hearing or a rally, they count one citizen, 1,000 citizens are represented by one person. We had 99 people at that legislative meeting, the Board of Supervisors meeting in 2000, March of 2000, and they considered that was 99,000 people. If James does go to trial, you can better believe there's going to be a lot of eyes in that courtroom. There's going to be a lot of note-taking, so they're not going to get away with anything.
Q: There's something very interesting, that you would like to sue the government for last year's raid. Do you think if you or whoever had the opportunity to sue the government a year ago, it would have prevented the raid last week?
A: Yes, I think it would have, but there were some dissidents, there were some disagreements because of certain food. That was given to the members, that was raised incorrectly. We asked the farmer to raise the food in a certain way, and that was Sharon Palmer, and she lied. We've got witnesses, we've got evidence, which is up on www.unhealthyfamilyfarm.com. We've got all the evidence, photographs and everything. We have an investigative firm do it, so it wasn't just my opinion or anybody's opinion. We have the evidence, even photographic evidence, mathematical evidence, we have it all. James sided with Sharon, so that put me out of the focus. That took me out of the ability to protect Rawesome, so James shot everybody with his particular attitude and his choices, which for everybody wasn't good.
[music]
A: Well, I won't do that again. When I set up a club, everybody will be under signature and under rights. I won't let it get out of hand again.
Q: Anything that you would like to say so people will know what to do or how to help to solve the situation or prevent the situation?
A: Well, you have to have a legal background to do that. What people need to do is just be there to support the people who are leading them, like me. Whenever I give a call for Right to Choose Healthy Foods or for Rawesome or another club in another state, we've got lots of clubs and lots of farmers. So whenever there's a hearing on the matter, and I filed a lawsuit against the FDA because they filed a lawsuit against one of my farmers in Philadelphia, so I filed a lawsuit across complaint and intervention. Now, when we go to court, I need people there to support, to watch, to make sure that judge and that court and everybody in it behaves constitutionally. And that takes eyes, and it takes people taking notes, recording it with a camera, whatever it is, recording it with a voice, making sure that we have everything down. So if there's errors made, purposely or not, we know what they are, and we can prove that they were errors. So we need support, and of course, if we're looking for a legislature to get the legislative body to change the law, we need to show up for a rally to do that. So if I put out an email that said this particular event is happening, and we need people to show, we need people to be responsible to show. If they don't show, they're going to lose. I'm fighting for everybody. I don't have to worry about it. I have my own farm. I have my own food. I'm not doing this for me. So if you don't support me, and you die on your own with your own food, your own sources, it's not my responsibility. It's not my fault. I've done as much as I can do to help you, but you've got to show if you want to help yourself and your other fellow members, and even the people you don't know, and even the people in your own family, your mother or father. You want to give them the choice sometime in their life if they don't have the choice to think healthfully now, at least dietarily. So we need to make it available. We need to make the rights and the ability to have healthy food available now.
All of these corporations, they're after the money. The longer the shelf life, the less loss they have, the more profit. So they don't want people having fresh food. They want people eating their junk food, which gives no nutrition or very tiny bit of nutrition, just enough to keep metabolism going and something functioning. But it certainly doesn't create health. It creates just the opposite. It doesn't satisfy the hunger either. So people eat and eat and overeat, and they love that. So we just need support.
Q: You send an email or we put it on the internet. We need people to show up in this court or this rally. People have to go.
A: Yeah.
Q: Thank you so much.