|
Sandi K
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: March 14, 2009, 08:44:30 AM » |
|
Offy, can you post a link to the dockets so that we can send it to various places to let people know about this outrage?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
lesliek
|
|
« Reply #16 on: March 14, 2009, 08:44:57 AM » |
|
Sandi- The petition couldn't hurt. At least that way others will see it,letters to the courts & DA's have a way of ending up in the trash when they don't like the contents.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"the world's most inept extortionist"
|
|
|
|
3catkidneyfailure
|
|
« Reply #17 on: March 14, 2009, 10:33:20 AM » |
|
I think the time for pointed letters to the U.S. Attorneys is at hand. You know, telling them you're aware a deal is in the works or the trial has been postponed and why you feel this is a serious crime. The judge can't do anything about it at this point as he has agreed to let the U.S. Attorney pursue a deal. So it's Marquez and Porter you need to address about the gravity of what the Millers' did. Deals are common for first time white collar criminals; h -e-double l, they're common for criminal drug dealers and worse these days. That's just the way it is with costs in the legal system. So your letter needs to be a reasonable focused statement on the hardships people endured basically economically, medical expenses, time lost from work, human family hardships in providing care. The personal history of your pet's illness and/or death except in highlight will probably not carry a lot of weight since your pet currently is defined only as legal property lost. And the goal here is to get the letter read and perhaps used. http://itchmoforums.com/law-and-politics-about-pets/chemnutra-stephen-miller-sally-miller-jury-trial-scheduled-for-march-23rd-t7478.0.html;msg108591;topicseen#msg108591From the Court Docket: Joseph M. Marquez U.S. Attorney's Office 400 E. 9th Street Ste. 5510 Kansas City, MO 64106 (816) 426-4286 (816)426-4328 (fax) joseph.marquez@usdoj.gov Assigned: 02/06/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing USA (Plaintiff) Phillip Eugene Porter U.S. Attorney's Office 400 E. 9th Street Ste. 5510 Kansas City, MO 64106 (816) 426-3122 (816) 426-4322 (fax) gene.porter@usdoj.govSubject to correction by someone with better knowledge, I do not believe electronically signed e-petitions are acceptable to the court system at this time in any form. But if someone knows different, point me at the e-petition, please! |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 14, 2009, 10:37:10 AM by 3catkidneyfailure »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
3catkidneyfailure
|
|
« Reply #18 on: March 14, 2009, 10:43:53 AM » |
|
Be sure and include the court docket in your letter to US Attorneys:
Case No. 08-00023-02-CR-W-DW
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
V.
STEPHEN S. MILLER, et. al.,
Defendant.
Please try to keep in mind economic damages as a direct result of the Millers' fraudulent wires. Copies attached of vet
bills and medication costs would perhaps be the single best evidence. Maybe not what we'd like to say, but the most
useful to the US Attorneys.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 14, 2009, 10:58:40 AM by 3catkidneyfailure »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sandi K
|
|
« Reply #19 on: March 14, 2009, 01:50:36 PM » |
|
3cat, thanks for that info. I most definately will be sending my "pointed" letter next week. Ya know, when you think about it, we've had 3 large groups of people that all could have done something, the D.A's office, the attorneys in the pet food settlement and FDA and all of them have failed at getting even one thing done to make our pets safer and here we are two years later with no early warning system, no new rules involving pet food companies and the stuff they manufacture, no deterrents in place...and on and on. Look at all the time, money, number of people involved and then look at whats resulted.....its really shameful.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Steve
|
|
« Reply #20 on: March 14, 2009, 02:27:39 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
lesliek
|
|
« Reply #21 on: March 14, 2009, 03:51:47 PM » |
|
3cat is right,legally the petition does no good. It might catch peoples attention to the problem though.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"the world's most inept extortionist"
|
|
|
|
Carol
|
|
« Reply #22 on: March 14, 2009, 04:07:51 PM » |
|
Sadly, I am not surprised...Although two years ago I really thought somebody cared they poisoned our innocent companions...I really understand the whole big business thing now....What was done was criminal... if everyone had done their job right---this would not have happened...It wasn't an act of God or Mother Nature that caused this--It wasn't someone's elbow accidently bumping the bottle of poison into the wheat flour...not even wheat gluten..disgusting....This is not good news to hear...and not a good time to hear it!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” — Margaret Mead
United we stand Divided we fall....
|
|
|
|
Sandi K
|
|
« Reply #23 on: March 14, 2009, 05:14:07 PM » |
|
I have forwarded the docket info to Pet Connection. Any of you involved in other groups or blogs or sites like Consumer Affairs, etc, lets get this sent out so people know what is happening.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Carol
|
|
« Reply #24 on: March 14, 2009, 05:21:53 PM » |
|
and by the looks of this...melamine was advertised 10 years ago as a protein booster... http://www.danwei.org/front_page_of_the_day/chinese_academy_of_sciences_de.phpIn the wake of a string of melamine-related food safety scares, netizens are pointing their fingers at the Chinese Academy of Sciences for inventing and promoting fodder supplements containing melamine.
The evidence is an advertisement that appeared on the Internet about nine years ago.
The advertisement, which was originally put online in 1999, is about a technology used to manufacture an animal feed supplement called "DH Composite High-protein Fodder Supplement". The ad claimed that the technology can be used to manufacture "high protein fodder using organic nitrogen and special catalysts".
This has raised suspicion that the supplement it advertises is what we now know as the "kidney stone chemical" — melamine. The technology was sold for 10,000 yuan plus an extra 5,000 yuan for training.
Yesterday, in a news conference, Jiang Xiezhu ( ), spokesman of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) said that the an investigation launched by the academy itself shows that though the academy did sell the advertised technology in 1999, the supplement has nothing to do with melamine.
According to Gao Yinxiang (), formal director of Appliance Technology Institute of CAS, whose name appears on the advertisement, the technology has never been sold, and the ad was withdrawn in 2000 as soon as he knew about it. Gao refused to give information about who released the advertisement, and was repeated that "it was more than 10 years ago." Gao was suspended from his job during the investigation, but has now resumed working.
Though there is no information about the chemical constitution of the advertised supplement, an article in today's The Beijing News quoted Chen Junshi (), a research fellow of a food safety research institution, saying that the main ingredient of a fodder supplement called "Protein Essence" is melamine, which can be used to artificially raise protein measurements. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” — Margaret Mead
United we stand Divided we fall....
|
|
|
|
Steve
|
|
« Reply #25 on: March 14, 2009, 05:23:05 PM » |
|
I have forwarded the docket info to Pet Connection. Any of you involved in other groups or blogs or sites like Consumer Affairs, etc, lets get this sent out so people know what is happening.
Kansas City Television may be interested in covering this. There are 4 major new stations there always hungry for a scoop for the evening news perhaps they could be contacted before June 8th. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pita_Purr_Parler
Guest
|
|
« Reply #26 on: March 14, 2009, 08:28:34 PM » |
|
I think the time for pointed letters to the U.S. Attorneys is at hand. You know, telling them you're aware a deal is in the works or the trial has been postponed and why you feel this is a serious crime. The judge can't do anything about it at this point as he has agreed to let the U.S. Attorney pursue a deal. So it's Marquez and Porter you need to address about the gravity of what the Millers' did. Deals are common for first time white collar criminals; h -e-double l, they're common for criminal drug dealers and worse these days. That's just the way it is with costs in the legal system. So your letter needs to be a reasonable focused statement on the hardships people endured basically economically, medical expenses, time lost from work, human family hardships in providing care. The personal history of your pet's illness and/or death except in highlight will probably not carry a lot of weight since your pet currently is defined only as legal property lost. And the goal here is to get the letter read and perhaps used. http://itchmoforums.com/law-and-politics-about-pets/chemnutra-stephen-miller-sally-miller-jury-trial-scheduled-for-march-23rd-t7478.0.html;msg108591;topicseen#msg108591From the Court Docket: Joseph M. Marquez U.S. Attorney's Office 400 E. 9th Street Ste. 5510 Kansas City, MO 64106 (816) 426-4286 (816)426-4328 (fax) joseph.marquez@usdoj.gov Assigned: 02/06/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED representing USA (Plaintiff) Phillip Eugene Porter U.S. Attorney's Office 400 E. 9th Street Ste. 5510 Kansas City, MO 64106 (816) 426-3122 (816) 426-4322 (fax) gene.porter@usdoj.govSubject to correction by someone with better knowledge, I do not believe electronically signed e-petitions are acceptable to the court system at this time in any form. But if someone knows different, point me at the e-petition, please! I'd be including some Missouri politicians in the letters.. their state, their laws, their courts... they want to be aiding & abetting those who have that little regard for the safety of the food system? I think not. The people in the state should be outraged. How many pets were lost in Missouri? I don't think they'd be very happy to hear their state is condoning a deal... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve
|
|
« Reply #28 on: March 15, 2009, 05:19:56 AM » |
|
Las Vegas N.Y. Nice to know these guys pay such fine attention to detail. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pita_Purr_Parler
Guest
|
|
« Reply #29 on: March 15, 2009, 08:23:15 AM » |
|
From the complaint, it appears as early as October 24, 2006 where they are describing it as "wheat protein (lotus gourmet powder)". We know from many media reports that it had various names it was marketed/sold under. Even in the end, we found out that it was alledged that the wheat gluten and rice protein concentrate were not true, it was wheat flour the pet food companies had purchased according to the complaints. We can also see from their website that they advertised it earlier than they testified. Excerpt from complaint: 18. On or about October 24, 2006, defendant Sally Qing Miller sent an e-mail to a
customs broker in Kansas City, Missouri, that included several attachments, one of which was a
certificate of origin for wheat gluten that had been prepared by SSC for wheat gluten manufactured
by XAC and that used HS code 35040090. Also included as an attachment was a “test report of
-20-
qualiyy (sic)” that did not identify the product as wheat gluten but instead described the product as
“wheat protein (lotus gourmet powder).”
19. On or about November 3, 2006, defendant Sally Qing Miller sent an e-mail to a
customs broker in Kansas City, Missouri, that included as an attachment a certificate of origin for
wheat gluten that used HS code 1109. This certificate of origin was prepared by a Chinese company
other than SSC and was for wheat gluten manufactured by a Chinese company other than XAC. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: March 15, 2009, 08:28:05 AM by Offy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
