Christopher D. Carusone, Miller’s attorney, said in the Aug. 19 filings that the $250,000 fine “appears to be structured as a coercive sanction.” The Harrisburg, PA, attorney said the fine “is inconsistent with the extenuating circumstances that prompted Mr. Miller’s acts of noncompliance.”
Miller violated a previous court order by resuming his slaughter operations. He took that action after Belmont Meats told Miller it could no longer use Miller’s citric acid as an antimicrobial. In the documents, Miller said his actions were “provoked by a sudden change in circumstances, not by some evil desire to trick the government.”
In his motion to the court, Carusone asks the court to reduce the fine to “no more than $25,000.” Miller has raised at least $75,000 from supporters on the internet.
Carusone said the $250,000 fine “is excessive” and not the least coercive sanction reasonably calculated to win compliance with the court’s orders.
Along with the Contempt of Court finding, the government previously has entered the following findings of fact regarding Amos Miller and Miller’s Organic Farm.
(a) Amos Miller and his wife owned and operated Miller’s, an unincorporated business located at 648 Mill Creek School Road, Bird-in-Hand, PA;
(b) at its farm site, Miller’s had been slaughtering livestock or poultry, and then preparing, processing, storing, and/or distributing meat, meat food products, and poultry products;
(c) Miller’s sold its meat, meat food products, and poultry products that are subject to the Acts (known as “amenable products”) for commercial purposes and for human consumption to consumers in Pennsylvania and throughout the United States;
(d) federal inspection is required at such an establishment that slaughters livestock or poultry, and then prepares or processes amenable meat, meat food products, or poultry products that are capable of use as human food for interstate or foreign commerce, unless the establishment qualifies for an exemption from federal inspection;
(e) Miller’s had been operating its meat and poultry business without a USDA-FSIS Federal Grant of Inspection and (with rare exception) without taking its livestock and poultry for slaughter and processing to any federally inspected facility; and
(f) defendants had not yet changed Miller’s business model to attempt to qualify for an exemption from federal inspection under the Acts for any part of their operations.