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.

 

Monsanto announced plans to sue Maui, Hawaii after voteres passed a moratorium on GMO

page: 7
89
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Sabiduria

I don't understand how Monsanto has the right to sue Maui. If they do not want GMO there they should have a right to say no and not be challenged. Just because the feds allow it doesn't mean that every state or county has to allow it. The rights of the states are supposed to supersede the Feds on an issue like this. If a county wants to ban the import of any unnatural invasive species they should be allowed to do so. Since Monsanto's products disrupt the environment by cross pollination, they are an invasive species


Howdy - corporations do have the right - it is what these 'free trade' agreements are all about. Look into NAFTA.


Many parts of Europe aren't allowing Monsanto's seeds or products in their country and Monsanto can't do anything about it. Same with China. Now why do the taxpayers of the USA have to be worried about a corporation suing us? The ones making these laws need to be replaced along with the laws themselves. We do not need Monsanto's seeds unless we use Monsanto's roundup. The roundup has been proven not to be completely safe for consumers anyway. Also the roundup is loosing it's effectiveness.




posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I would consider half, that is 50% of the Agent Orange ingredients to be close. I did mention the other stuff(2,4,5-T) in my previous post, but you were so concerned about making me appear to be wrong that you must have accidentally missed the first line of that post. I think that is the third time is this thread you have done that, accused me of being wrong when the opposite is true.

Keep defending Monsanto buddy! Maybe they'll give you a bonus.
edit on 16-11-2014 by jrod because: a



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: tinner07

Or if this billionaire doesn't stand up then why don we stand up and stand together. There is no point moaning (not directed at you, but in general) when if we can get the message out and raise the funds through the masses. Because at the minute this is happening in Hawaii but will affect us all. We the people can stop this IF we really feel as strongly as we say. I do feel like this and have stood up, but the problem is no one else does. People are too afraid of losing what they have, but it wont be long before we all realize we haven't got the most important thing, freewill. You are under the illusion you have it, I can or cannot eat this apple. But in reality you have been confined to this tiny displays of freewill to give you the impression of importance.....in reality you are doing what your told and if you step out of line your a trouble maker.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to: Phage
How can you make the asinine claim that SCOTUS didn't hear the case when they are the ones who made the ruling?

Here is some information from the Supreme Court transcripts No.13-303 ((the one you claim does not exist)):


The Federal Circuit did not find, as Monsanto claims, “no justiciable case or controversy” between the parties. Opp. 14. Instead, the Federal Circuit mooted the existing justiciable case by binding Monsanto to a limited interpretation of its previously non-binding statements. App. 19a. Thus the issue being appealed is not whether the threat of
infringement accusations exists. Until the Federal Circuit ruled, that threat existed even for contamination of less than one percent. The question that remains is whether Petitioners may sue given the reality that they will suffer contamination of over one percent



Monsanto's rationale is that, because Petitioners seek to avoid use of transgenic seeds for additional reasons independent of the threat of being found infringers, the threat of infringement no longer applies as a cause of their
injuries in fact for Article III purposes



Like the declaratory judgment plaintiffs in the above cases, Petitioners here are indeed injured by
multiple independent causes. In order to reclaim the unburdened use of their property that they seek, they will have to not only invalidate Monsanto's patents to avoid the risk of being accused infringers; they will also have to address the source of contamination (also ultimately Monsanto) in a different way to stop the contamination. But until the patents are no longer a threat, calling attention to any contamination is equivalent to making oneself a target for patent infringement. Thus like Dey and Caraco, Petitioners face multiple barriers to redressing their injuries, and like those plaintiffs, Petitioners must be allowed to eliminate them in turn. The fact that Monsanto's infectious invention has
harmed Petitioners in multiple ways is no reason not to let them address the most economically crippling consequence of contamination in this suit.



Indeed, one of the principal reasons Petitioners have brought this suit is to enable themselves to bring actions for trespass or nuisance when they are contaminated by Monsanto's GM seed, something no one disputes will happen. Petitioners today would hesitate to bring such actions because doing so would require that they admit possession of Monsanto's GM seed, an admission that would immediately subject them to being counter sued for patent infringement

U.S Supreme court: Case No: 13-303 Organic Seed Growers

Granted this is not the whole court transcripts, I can't find them on the Supreme Courts Site even though it does acknowledge the existence of case number for it No: 13-303. I did find a file containing the brief in opposition.


Monsanto relies on the patent system. Monsanto has obtained several patents covering both traits and seeds, as well as methods for their creation and use. See Pet. App. 5a n.1 (listing 23 patents challenged by petitioners). Monsanto authorizes growers to use its patented biotechnology under a limited-use license, which permits a grower to plant seeds containing that technology in one season. The grower can then consume the resulting crop or sell it as a commodity, usually to a grain elevator or agricultural processor, but he may not save any of the harvested crop for re-planting nor supply it to anyone else for that purpose. See Bowman, 133 S. Ct. at 1764-1765.

Although Monsanto has enforced its patents against growers who intentionally infringe—for example, by planting seed containing Monsanto’s patented traits without obtaining a license, or by replanting harvested seed from crops containing those traits, see, e.g.,Bowman, 133 S. Ct. at 1764-1765—Monsanto has explicitly stated its commitment not to take legal action against growers whose fields might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto’s patented traits. Monsanto’s
website includes “Monsanto’s Commitment: Farmers and Patents,” which states: “It has never been, nor will it be Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in [a] farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means.” Pet. App. 8a. This statement is meant to assure growers that Monsanto will not assert a patent infringement claim where Monsanto’s patented traits might appear inadvertently (for example, through gene flow from nearby fields where biotech crops are grown, or residue from equipment that was not sufficiently cleaned) and thus are present only in minimal quantities. Pet. App. 17a.


The loop whole being that as long as you only have trace amounts, you won't be sued but if it's more, you will be sued.


Petitioners likewise do not allege that Monsanto has ever contacted any of them, much less indicated an intent to bring suit, in connection with Monsanto’s patents. Rather, petitioners’ alleged fear of suit stems solely from Monsanto’s alleged “investigation, accusation and litigation of patent infringement claims against other farmers,” including those who allegedly “did not want to be contaminated by transgenic seed[.]” C.A.App. A155 (emphasis added).

U.S Supreme Court case No: 13-303 opposition brief


1) Non of the complainants had been injured. They were attempting to sue for something that did not happen. There was nothing there.
2) The suit sought to deny Monsanto its intellectual property rights. A wonderful precedent to try to set.
3) The suit sought to preemptively prevent Monsanto from bringing lawsuits against farmers who's crops may be accidentally pollinated. Monsanto has never brought such a lawsuit.


1) The complainants were suing due to fear of investigation, accusation & litigation of a patent infringement claim ((And you claim you read the court case))

2)

Indeed, one of the principal reasons Petitioners have brought this suit is to enable themselves to bring actions for trespass or nuisance when they are contaminated by Monsanto's GM seed, something no one disputes will happen. Petitioners today would hesitate to bring such actions because doing so would require that they admit possession
of Monsanto's GM seed, an admission that would immediately subject them to being counter sued for patent infringement.


3) The Complainants admitted in the case that yes Monsanto hasn't brought any legal action yet, but they are still afraid of it. After all the loop hole I stated above (in green) is a pretty easy one. The other way they get away with suing, and have done so already ((Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser)), is by claiming that the farmers intentionally knew about the cross-pollination. Monsanto is just biding their time until this has been forgotten about and will proceed again with legal action.

Just because Monsanto is technically getting away with the claim that they haven't sued anyone for unintentional cross-pollination, they are getting away with suing people because of loop holes. Right, cause that makes it ok.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Phage ignores evidence all the time. When we see Phage post we should just ignore the user and not let them derail the thread like they always do.

I really hope Monsanto doesn't win against the law set in place by the voters of Maui. People deserve a say in what is being done to their environment and what toxic crap, peddled as food, is grown on their land.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Sabiduria

How can you make the asinine claim that SCOTUS didn't hear the case when they are the ones who made the ruling?
Because, apparently, I know more about how the legal system works than you do.

That is a docket number. Many petitions asking to have cases brought before the court are made, hundreds of them. They are given docket numbers. Most are not heard. This case was one of many not heard.

Jan 13 2014 Petition DENIED.

www.supremecourt.gov.../docketfiles/13-303.htm


The vast majority of cases filed in the Supreme Court are disposed of summarily by unsigned orders. Such an order will, for example, deny a petition for certiorari without comment. Regularly scheduled lists of orders are issued on each Monday that the Court sits, but "miscellaneous" orders may be issued in individual cases at any time. Scheduled order lists are posted on this Website on the day of their issuance, while miscellaneous orders are posted on the day of issuance or the next day.

www.supremecourt.gov...


You have not quoted transcripts, you have quoted a submissions to the court.
There are no transcripts because the SCOTUS rejected the petition. The case did not go to court.

edit on 11/16/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Sabiduria

Thanks for all that, that is good information.

That guy is in denial that Monsanto is still actively suing small time farmers and taking their farms over cross-contamination. There has been a lot of speculation that Monsanto has intentionally contaminated farms so they can bring in their legal team to steal the farm.

The SCOTUS and our legislators are clearly against the citizens and small time farmer in all of this. Most of us can see what Monsanto is doing, none of us are powerful to stop them alone. Maybe in large numbers we can do something.

The biggest problem with the anti-GMO movement is it full of inconsistencies and very few anti-GMO activists are educated what they are protesting against. I myself am not completely against GMOs, I am against companies like Monsanto that use their money and power to make their own laws and buy the outcome of Court cases.

edit on 16-11-2014 by jrod because: add



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod



That guy is in denial that Monsanto is still actively suing small time farmers and taking their farms over cross-contamination.

I asked you to provide a single case of that happening. Did I miss it?

edit on 11/16/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Sabiduria

If the judge isn't bought out, it should be summarily dismissed.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

This is the third time I told you to watch Food Inc.

It would not matter if I linked a couple of actual cases, you would just try to find or make up an inconstancy and then claim I am wrong.

I know how you try to debate. I know better, no more feeding of the troll from me.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod



It would not matter if I linked a couple of actual cases

It would demonstrate that you are right. Just one case of Monsanto suing over cross pollination. Just one case of Monsanto taking a farm.
Come on. Should be easy if it's an ongoing thing.


I know how you try to debate.
Yes. I like to have claims backed up with facts. Silly me.

edit on 11/16/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I provided you a link but you ignored it. Typical.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

No you don't.

You like to manipulate facts and play with words to create your own 'truth'. The majority on ATS know better.

www.nationofchange.org...

www.theguardian.com...

www.sourcewatch.org...:_Monsanto%27s_Legal_Battles_against_Farmers

Farmers can not keep their crops from being contaminated, and the SCOTUS has ruled that seeds from contaminated cross-politicization are Monsanto property.

You are truly ignorant if you want to deny this is happening.
edit on 16-11-2014 by jrod because: a



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Sabiduria



I provided you a link but you ignored it. Typical.

A case in which Monsanto sued a farmer because of cross pollination? No, you didn't.
Don't you think that if that had occurred the complainants in 13-303 would have mentioned it?



edit on 11/16/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod




Farmers can not keep their crops from being contaminated, and the SCOTUS has ruled that seeds from contaminated cross-politicization are Monsanto property.

The SCOTUS has made no ruling on the subject. They allowed a lower court decision to stand without considering it. A decision which says that a preemptive lawsuit is pointless.

No farmer has been sued over cross pollination. Come on, should be easy to prove yourself right.

Not sure about cross-politicization though. What's that? Voting across party lines? Did the SCOTUS say something about that?


edit on 11/16/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Farmer's fight with Monsanto reaches Supreme Court

Here is the website of a farmer sued in 2001 by Monsanto for saving seeds. He bought patented seeds from Monsanto and didn't purchase them the following years, instead using the seeds from his crop.

Link

Here is a source saying Monsanto eventually dropped the case with a confidentiality agreement, Crop Choice

Here is another farmer. There are an abundance of cases, be it "crop contamination" or the idea that seeds coming from all Monsanto crops belong to Monsanto and not the people who tended the crop.
edit on 16-11-2014 by JG1993 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Your welcome.

Due to a simple loop hole & that Monsanto can easily claim "they were knowingly using our product despite cross-pollination, Monsanto can technically claim that they haven't sued a farmer for cross-pollination. Look at the power they hold, if they can sway judges all the way up to the Supreme Court, of course they can get away with technicalities like the ones I mentioned.


The SCOTUS and our legislators are clearly against the citizens and small time farmer in all of this. Most of us can see what Monsanto is doing, none of us are powerful to stop them alone. Maybe in large numbers we can do something.

We keep educating people to the truth and demand that Aquaponic Food farms be used instead of GMO is step in the right direction. We can take the power back.

I am completely against GMO's, there is absolutely no logical reason for them to exist. This is a product that messes with your RNA (something I've talked about in this thread, and even gave a direct link to a journal that published a study proving that GMO does mess with the RNA of plants, animals and humans) There is also a spike in gastro problems Leaky Gut, Crohn's, IBS, etc.

When you educate yourself on Aquaponic food farms and How existing cropland could feed billions more and factor in the fact that GMO was only created because crops were being killed by Round Up so they needed Round Up resistant crops, you can come to the conclusion that GMO is bad.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: JG1993

Here is another farmer. There are an abundance of cases, be it "crop contamination" or the idea that seeds coming from all Monsanto crops belong to Monsanto and not the people who tended the crop.
Cross contamination is the issue. You have not presented a case of Monsanto suing over cross contamination.

When farmers buy Monsanto's (and other seed sellers') seeds, GMO or hybrid. They agree to not replant. That is part of the deal. It is a licensing violation. If I put a copy of Windows on a DVD and sell it, I am engaging in a licensing violation.

Plant licensing has been going on since long before there were GM crops.
www.centerforfoodsafety.org...

edit on 11/16/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yes I did, just because you ignore things I have posted, doesn't mean I didn't post it.

I quote myself:

The other way they get away with suing, and have done so already ((Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser)), is by claiming that the farmers intentionally knew about the cross-pollination. Monsanto is just biding their time until this has been forgotten about and will proceed again with legal action.


Monsanto Canada Inc v. Schmeiser is the case I'm referring to where Monsanto sued a farmer for cross-pollination. You will argue that "It doesn't count because the court ruled that the farmer knew his crop had been infected due to cross-pollination" but due to the FACT that Monsanto holds power over judges, of course they are going to make that ruling.

Again you have failed terribly to spread your disinformation, all though you have completely lived up to your username. You spread through this thread like a parasite that has devoured the main point to this topic, trying to destroy this thread. I'm going to ignore you now & hope others follow suit.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Sabiduria

Monsanto Canada Inc v. Schmeiser is the case I'm referring to where Monsanto sued a farmer for cross-pollination.
No. The suit was because Schmeiser was knowingly replanting Monsanto seeds. He even did an experiment to make sure they were RoundUp ready seeds before he planted them in his fields. Hundreds of acres of them. He liked the way they performed but he didn't want pay for them.



The court record shows, however, that it was not just a few seeds from a passing truck, but that Mr Schmeiser was growing a crop of 95–98% pure Roundup Ready plants, a commercial level of purity far higher than one would expect from inadvertent or accidental presence. The judge could not account for how a few wayward seeds or pollen grains could come to dominate hundreds of acres without Mr Schmeiser’s active participation, saying ‘. . .none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser’s crop’. [7].

www.researchgate.net... 0

edit on 11/16/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
89
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join