for this great series, Marilyn, it was badly needed here at c99p. I recently bought the Neil Young + Promise of the Real: Monsanto Years CD and I highly recommend it to everyone.

Rock on Neil, and rock on Marilyn!

This story is statewide in scope and while many people are well-informed regarding how biotech, Big Ag, and food processors outspent the grassroots supporters to beat California labeling initiative, Proposition 37, very few people are aware of what happened in the California Grange, where the initiative originated, both during and particularly in the aftermath of that campaign. This is a synopsis only and there are extensive corroborating emails, court docs and eye-witnesses available.

The California State Grange (CSG), a fraternal order with just 9000 members in about 180 small lodges, mainly rural, elderly, white folks of modest means, became the target of an ongoing legal onslaught in both state and federal courts by the National Grange, employing a number of law firms, such as Porter Scott; Smith, Gambrell & Russell; Arent Fox; and Schiff Hardin; at a cost currently estimated to be upwards of $3 million. This works out to almost $300 per member and an average of about $16,000 per hall spent by the plaintiffs. Per their own admission the National Grange was broke two years ago, so who is paying for this legal campaign to destroy the CSG, and why?

It’s important to keep in mind that this is a political story and really is not about the state of agriculture or fraternal lodges. This attack on the California Grange has a historic precedent in the evisceration of the Iowa Farmers Union by the more conservative National Farmers Union when IFU was attacked by HUAC during the Red Scare in 1954 for being too far left. The tactic used is identical: Bylaws were changed to make it easier to suspend a state chapter, then the charter of the troublesome state was revoked. After that the IFU tried to carry on, and they were then sued and lost the right to use the name of the Farmer’s Union, hence the credibility and political influence of this populist group was destroyed.

In 2009 the election of a populist, Bob McFarland, to the presidency of CSG ruffled feathers in the staid National Grange (NG), as well as conservative chapters in California. In 2010, one member in Southern California, Ed Komski, began to watch the new president very closely. Komski, a failed real estate speculator whose carwash and convenience store chain bankruptcies merited articles in the LA Times, had served on the Rules committees of the State Fair. He began to send emails critical of McFarland to National President Ed Luttrell. Luttrell ignored these messages until late 2011. It was also around this time that the first lawsuit was filed against Bob McFarland by several conservative Grange members in Central California.

Right around this time in 2011, a grandmother from Chico Grange, Pamm Larry, organized a grassroots initiative movement to place Proposition 37 to label genetically engineered foods on the ballot in the 2012 general election. The California State Grange offered whole-hearted support to Larry and the initiative drive, with many members gathering signatures and registering voters. It was opposed by the National Grange (NG), which now appears to be supported by the same agribusiness interests that financed the opposition to Prop 37. Larry succeeded in getting the initiative on the ballot, putting the CSG on the map as an organization with populist leanings for the first time in many decades.

Big Ag and the grocery industry spent nearly $50 million to defeat the initiative, with Monsanto alone spending over $8 million during the campaign.

Suddenly there was an escalation of the internal Grange conflict in California. A real estate transaction involving the sale of the vacant Vista Grange building, which had previously been approved as one on the most transparent in Grange history, was now found to have involved technical errors committed by McFarland and he was suspended from his position as President. When his suspension was over, instead of resigning, as was expected, he simply returned to his duties as State President.

Within weeks, an array of legal attacks was brought against the CSG and McFarland, starting with suspension of the state’s charter on Sept. 17, 2012, then in October 2012, a lawsuit to seize the CSG’s property and an unsuccessful demand for an injunction to allow the NG to take over the state offices. This was followed by the revocation of the Grange’s charter on April 5, 2013, five months after the 2012 election.

Members of granges in California have been shocked by the tactics used in the NG’s hostile corporate takeover. Eight individuals, including all members of the Executive Committee were personally sued by the NG, but currently that suit is stayed until an appeal of the property case is completed.

In early 2013, Ed Komski, with NG approval, began a campaign to make the charter revocation painful to ordinary members. He started by contacting his friends at the County Fairs and demanding that CSG-affiliated youth be excluded from showing animals. By 2014 this began to result in problems with access to the fair exhibitions for the mainly low-income Latino rural children in the Imperial Valley and recently also impacted children in Rubidoux near Riverside.

According to statements in court by National Grange attorneys, the California State Grange no longer existed. In response to that revocation by the NG, in October 2013 the CSG sent a letter to the NG acknowledging that their historic relationship had been severed by the NG. This communication was then portrayed by the NG as rebellion against fraternal law by an errant state organization.

In March of 2014 the NG filed a Federal lawsuit to ban the CSG from using the trademarked name of the Grange.

Komski was then appointed by NG executives to start a new state group, starting with 24 conservative granges, mainly in Southern and Central California, who found this organization more to their liking. He promptly began to threaten to lock up halls, seize bank accounts and exclude any members who failed to join the newly chartered organization, claiming that his group was now the California State Grange. This campaign of fear resulted in about 20 more lodges joining his new group, ironically including some granges whose members were strong supporters of the Prop. 37 campaign. But, owing to his dubious past, and incidents where he reportedly threatened and tormented elderly and infirm local grange officials, over two thirds of the lodges refused to join the new group and have been told that they will now lose their grange halls, many of which have historic ties to small agricultural communities.

In 2015 the NG prevailed in a summary judgement in the lower court in California, which is now under appeal, and the NG also prevailed in their trademark case stripping the CSG of the right to use the word “grange” but currently still permitting the use of the acronym CSG. Currently several new lawsuits are now being filed against the CSG, along with numerous requests for contempt rulings, freezing of assets, seizure of rental income, and most recently, a requirement for a $750,000 bond on property.

Emboldened by the NG’s success in court, Komski and his allies recently made several unsuccessful and illegal attempts to change the locks on post office boxes of non-compliant granges, and hacked the main CSG email account, acquiring hundreds of email addresses. In one case he has succeeded in closing down a grange hall and causing their assets to be frozen. He also had a freeze temporarily placed on a Morgan Stanley account containing funds belonging to 15 community granges.

This has all occurred with the knowledge and approval of newly-elected NG President Betsy Huber. To describe this as overkill for an administrative error on the sale of an empty Grange hall would be an understatement. However, most members of the organization do not think that this legal and financial attack has anything to do with that sale, or the letter that was written by the CSG acknowledging the revocation of the state charter, and that it has everything to do with the CSG’s support of the Prop. 37 campaign.

A defendant from Chico Grange who is being sued by Komski's "sponsor", the NG, is apparently being offered a deal, which Komski refers to as a "pardon" if he will divert mortgage payments from the rightful creditor, which happens to be the embattled state group, into an account to be controlled by Komski. Komski also threatened to foreclose the hall despite the fact that neither he nor his organization have any legal claim upon it.

Since 2007, we have heard of third parties showing up with “signed” documents claiming an interest in property. It’s unclear how effective the courts have been at determining the validity of these claims. It should be noted that Komski is a regional sales manager for DocMagic, a mortgage industry software application for producing real estate transaction documents, so many in the CSG believe that this threat should be taken seriously by the members at Chico Grange.

At a different grange, one defendant has been publicly threatened by Komski who hectored him at a meeting at Marshall Grange, telling him "I don't want to have to take your farm."

Judge Brown's lack of concern for the majority, nearly 70% of California Granges, who refused to cave in either to the NG's stated demand to consolidate their control of their property or to Ed Komski's threats, might lead one to wonder about his impartiality regardless of any relationship he may or may not have with a fraternal lodge himself, which has been a topic of some speculation. This judge recently implied in a ruling that none of the chapters still affiliated with the defendant have protested the takeover attempt. A judge is supposed to remain aloof, but is it possible that he doesn't realize that over two thirds of the communities are refusing to sign the one-sided and un-fraternal agreement putting halls under control of the new chartered group and its avaricious executive?

The Grange movement did many great things in the early 20th Century, supporting women’s suffrage, rural electrification, popular election of Senators and fighting the monopolies. They were also on the wrong side of history a few times, in supporting Prohibition, but more seriously, in tolerating racism against African Americans and even fomenting persecution of Asian immigrants. In 2014 the CSG officially repudiated their support for the internment of Japanese Americans following Pearl Harbor.

Supporters of the CSG are hoping that the organization can survive until the appeal, which they have a good chance of winning, and return to being fully focused on supporting culture and the arts, fighting for farmers, consumer education, more economic opportunities for people in rural areas, and better food for everyone. It's doubtful whether the two sides will be able to reunite, given the level of hostility that has prevailed for the past several years. However, this particular story of corporate revenge and subversion of the judicial system has not seen the light of day, and needs to be told, if only as a cautionary tale.