It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A legal loophole that could help bring Monsanto to its knees..

page: 1
19
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+2 more 
posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 04:34 AM
link   
Apparently in an attempt to revoke this information. It has been removed from the Internet several times of recent. It may be of help to farmers that are suffering from cross contamination from Monsanto crops. I came across it on a social media post.

The film makers whilst researching the film Santo they came across this little know fact. Now in know way am I a legal person. I cannot sorry I cannot personally vouch for this..


While the film makers of Santo Movie were researching for the film, they came across a little known fact that should be sweeping the internet and informing farmers across America and other countries facing territorial Monsanto.

Even though the Monsanto protection act is in place and even though Monsanto is known for its brutal attack of patent infringement, typically leading to expensive court battles for the farmer, there is light at the end of the tunnel that will affect Monsanto in ways unknown.

All the farmer has to do is identify cross contaminated GM crops on their natural and organic farms and make a formal written demand to Monsanto to come and remove those plants before Monsanto makes a claim of patent infringement.

"If Monsanto refuses, and demands the farmer to not touch those plants, under jurisdiction of patent rights, the farmer can exorcise it's right to tell Monsanto their plants are on the farmers property and therefore trespasses"

If Monsanto refuses to collect its property, the farmer can have it removed and send Monsanto the bill for removal. If Monsanto refuses the bill, the farmer can take Monsanto to small claims court and will be granted the amount and avoid any gag clause Monsanto is famous for during negotiations with suits against people they fight.

While this may seem simple enough and it is, it is an example of how little farmers are in the know how to forearm themselves and beat Monsanto before they get dragged into a situation that typically causes great harm to the heritage the farmer has built.

This is a situation where knowledge truly is the power. We applaud Santo team for its continued efforts in exposing the truth through its research and ask you to help support the film we know will bring great awareness to this devilish GMO landscape.


I am sorry I am unable to link to this information. More information about Monsanto and the film can be found here..

www.indiegogo.com...

Kind regards

Purp..






edit on 28-6-2014 by purplemer because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 04:58 AM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

Doesn't sound particular convincing to me, especially when a recent court case here in Australia dismissed an organic farmer's case against his GM growing neighbour...


MARK COLVIN: The Supreme Court of Western Australia has upheld a farmer's right to grow genetically modified crops.

In what's regarded as a pivotal case, two farmers from Kojonup in the state's south went to court over allegations that one's GM canola contaminated his neighbour's crops. That caused the non-GM farmer to lose his organic certification.

This afternoon the court dismissed the action brought by the organic farmer, Steve Marsh.


www.abc.net.au...



edit on 28-6-2014 by AlphaHawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 05:45 AM
link   
a reply to: AlphaHawk

Well, did the organic farmer do exactly as suggested in the OP, in exactly that order? You cannot exploit a legal loophole without jumping through some hoops!



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Monsanto will just pay for the law to be changed lol.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 05:52 AM
link   
From the OP


"All the farmer has to do is identify cross contaminated GM crops on their natural and organic farms and make a formal written demand to Monsanto to come and remove those plants...

If Monsanto refuses, and demands the farmer to not touch those plants, under jurisdiction of patent rights, the farmer can exorcise it's right to tell Monsanto their plants are on the farmers property and therefore trespasses"


... or the farmer could glypho' those predatory plants.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 05:58 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

How would they remove dry raked canola plants?

My point is, if a case where someone's organic certification is lost due to GM contamination gets thrown out, how well do you think a small claims court case will go?



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Perhaps



... or the farmer could glypho' those predatory plants.


What? The glyphosate resistant plants?

Great plan



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 06:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: Perhaps



... or the farmer could glypho' those predatory plants.


What? The glyphosate resistant plants?

Great plan


Oh ok - now which glyphosate resistant plants are you referring to... ??



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 06:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Perhaps

Monsanto's GM plants.

Like for example the roundup resistant canola that blew onto the organic farmer's property in the article I linked to above.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 06:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: purplemer

Doesn't sound particular convincing to me, especially when a recent court case here in Australia dismissed an organic farmer's case against his GM growing neighbour...


MARK COLVIN: The Supreme Court of Western Australia has upheld a farmer's right to grow genetically modified crops.

In what's regarded as a pivotal case, two farmers from Kojonup in the state's south went to court over allegations that one's GM canola contaminated his neighbour's crops. That caused the non-GM farmer to lose his organic certification.

This afternoon the court dismissed the action brought by the organic farmer, Steve Marsh.


www.abc.net.au...




That was the first thing that came to my mind when i read this post but it could be different here in Australia maybe? I was really hoping that farmer would win that case was very disgusted when he didn't! I hate that theres so many GMO products in Australia now.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 06:30 AM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

Found something that dates back to 2013.


Stand up: Family Farmers vs. Monsanto

On January 10, family farmers will enter a courtroom in Washington DC to take part in the appeal of OSGATA vs Monsanto et al, a court case filed to protect farmers from genetic trespass by Monsanto’s GMO seed, which contaminates organic and non-GMO farmer’s crops and opens them up to abusive lawsuits. In the past two decades, Monsanto’s seed monopoly has grown so powerful that they control the genetics of nearly 90% of five major commodity crops including corn, soybeans, cotton, canola and sugar beets.

In many cases farmers are forced to stop growing certain crops to avoid genetic contamination and potential lawsuits. Between 1997 and 2010, Monsanto admits to filing 144 lawsuits against America’s family farmers, while settling another 700 out of court for undisclosed amounts. Due to these aggressive lawsuits, Monsanto has created an atmosphere of fear in rural America and driven dozens of farmers into bankruptcy. ....







edit on 28/6/14 by soficrow because: (no reason given)

edit on 28/6/14 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 06:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: Perhaps

Monsanto's GM plants.

Like for example the roundup resistant canola that blew onto the organic farmer's property in the article I linked to above.


Point taken dude

My attempt at sarcasm was misplaced.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Perhaps

My apologies if you were aiming for sarcasm, thought you were being serious.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Even though the Monsanto protection act is in place
There is no Monsanto protection act. What loophole?



All the farmer has to do is identify cross contaminated GM crops on their natural and organic farms and make a formal written demand to Monsanto to come and remove those plants before Monsanto makes a claim of patent infringement.

I don't see how this would help bring Monsanto "to its knees" but you do know that Monsanto has never sued anyone who has had their crops contaminated, right? In fact, they have publicly stated that they won't. In fact, they could never win such a case. In fact, this was brought up in a lawsuit brought by organic farmers. A lawsuit aimed at trying to prevent Monsanto from doing something they have never done and have stated they will not do. The lawsuit was dismissed for good reason. You can't show damages for something that has never happened.
www.osgata.org...


edit on 6/28/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

The farmer sued his neighbor, not the producer of the seeds.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Organic farmers should turn the table. Sue Monsanto for contaminating their crops. I've been saying this for a decade and I don't know that anyone has done it.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow
The case was dismissed. You can't sue for something that never happened.



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


The Farmer Assurance Provision refers to Section 735 (formerly Section 733) of US H.R. 933, a bill that was passed by the Senate on March 20, 2013 and then signed into law as part of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 by President Barack Obama on March 26, 2013.[1] The provisions of this law remained in effect for six months, until the end of the fiscal year on September 30, 2013.[2] The bill is commonly referred to as the “Monsanto Protection Act” by its critics.[3][4][5]


Wikipedia: Monsanto Protection Act



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake


The provisions of this law remained in effect for six months, until the end of the fiscal year on September 30, 2013.


Even when the act was in effect it did not prevent lawsuits against Monsanto.

edit on 6/28/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2014 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

In a world where the criminal legal and court system wasn't bowing down to the criminal corporations and politicians, this might actually work, because it makes sense. Unfortunately governments and corporations don't.

Cheers - Dave



new topics

top topics



 
19
<<   2 >>

log in

join