People are going to get violent if they keep this nonsense up. Maybe that's what they're working toward. I'll grow and eat (within reason) whatever I please. I'd like to see someone tell me different. S+F for you!!

Originally posted by wayouttheredude

But in the Wisconsin case, Judge Fiedler ruled that humans:

“Do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;”
“Do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;”
“Do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;”
“Do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice;” and
Cannot enter into private contracts without State police power intervention.

No doubt that makes Monsanto a major fan of Patrick Fiedler. His decision was rendered on Sept. 9 and he stepped down from the bench on Sept. 30.

This is crony capitalism at its best and corporatism at its worst. I am so pissed about this I can hardly type. Who do these creeps think they are to do this with official positions?

edit on 12-10-2011 by wayouttheredude because: dyslexic

Never heard of this guy...what d-bag....
Good find

a war is brewing. tptb will hear we the people soon. can you feel it in your bones?

I didnt break any rule of the mighty "T&C" so why was my post removed?

I don't understand what's happening with this thread. Where is the discussion that ATS strives for? Please reconsider your impression of this case. I'm not sure you understand what the judge did.

Originally posted by charles1952
First, the judge ruled that the plaintiffs owned a farm and that the farm had to follow the Wisconsin laws regulating farms. That should be non-controversial. This was the second time the judge had to explain it to the plaintiffs..He did not say that plaintiffs didn't have a right to do any of the things you're listing, he said there was no "fundamental" right. That word is important because it has a specific constitutional meaning. It determines whether "strict scrutiny" needs to be applied to the law. Of course the judge did not rule that we have no right to own a cow. I'm surprised you feel for that.

Second, Axley Brynelson is one of Wisconsin's largest and most famous law firms. It's over 125 years old and has probably defended everybody at one time or another. With 18 years as a judge, its not surprising or suspicious that Fiedler would work there.

Sure, its a conspiracy website, but you should have some facts to build the theory on.

Originally posted by charles1952
I'm baffled by the idea the judge was bribed to throw this case. There's no evidence for it. Monsanto had nothing to do with this case. Genetically modified food had nothing to do with this case.

There is nothing unreasonable about a judge, after 18 years on the bench, going to work for one of the oldest, largest, and best known firms in the state.

I really don't understand why there is such furor over this. Will someone explain it to me using facts instead of allegations without evidence?

It's funny how when something like this is so painfully obvious there is always going to be that person that says show me the proof. Common sense goes a long way charles 1952, do you really think that a judge who is smart enough to have gotten where he has is going to have a smoking gun? You probably would also stick up for former homeland security director Michael Chertoff who sold the whole country on having the full body scanners in the airports, then 6 months later goes to work as a consultant for the company who sells the scanners! Wake up dude! Let me guess what your going to say next, the cows have nothing to do with monsanto. Contrair, making that decision sets precedents to take power and liberty away from the farmer and gives it to big business. People arent falling for the rhetoric anymore, the jig is up!!!

I wonder what the judge was smoking when he delivered his decision...

Dear jaws1975,
Thank you for replying. Without meaning to be harsh in any way, may I explain how I interpreted your post?

Originally posted by jaws1975
It's funny how when something like this is so painfully obvious there is always going to be that person that says show me the proof.

I took this to mean: There are some statements that need proof and some that don't. I am declaring that this one doesn't need proof.

Common sense goes a long way charles 1952, do you really think that a judge who is smart enough to have gotten where he has is going to have a smoking gun?

I interpreted this as: And its a good thing this statement doesn't need proof, because there isn't any.

You probably would also stick up for former homeland security director Michael Chertoff who sold the whole country on having the full body scanners in the airports, then 6 months later goes to work as a consultant for the company who sells the scanners!

I don't know anything about the Chertoff case, but if it is as you say, can't you see the difference? Fiedler isn't going to work for Monsanto or any Monsanto affiliate. Neither Monsanto nor anyone related to food is giving him money.

Wake up dude! Let me guess what your going to say next, the cows have nothing to do with monsanto. Contrair, making that decision sets precedents to take power and liberty away from the farmer and gives it to big business.

That decision doesn't set any strange new precedents, its only enforcing existing law which requires farms to meet certain operating standards. Perhaps your objection is to the law? I assume you don't like the law, but what did Fiedler do wrong? Where I might be able to find common ground with you is that the law might be written to make it burdensome for small farms to operate, I haven't studied it. Certainly the government is not known for making things easy for the little guy. Is that your objection?

People arent falling for the rhetoric anymore, the jig is up!!!

I have no idea what this refers to.

With respect,
Charles1952

Great information OP and I am glad to add this to my files.

It would be great to have an ATS Archive of corrupt decisions, conflicts of interest, documented unethical people in high places and anything else that we can tie together, or cross reference.

Talk about no morals and unethical.

Karma is a real bitch.

Another example of the revolving door, you are not disgusted, and you are not upset. You will continue to whine and complain but do nothing to change it. You might occupy a city, but you will ultimately be co-opted. Why bother pointing it out anymore?

Originally posted by Realtruth

Talk about no morals and unethical.

OK, let's talk about no morals and unethical. Make a solid, as you say "documented," case for me that he did something immoral and unethical.

I guess everyone has their price. I wonder what his was.

His decisions on any food-related litigation should be nullified based solely on this fact. Obviously there is (and probably was at the time) a conflict of interest.

This is just plain wrong. People have a natural born right to feed themselves whatever whenever they want.

Scary to know that there is no one out there protecting people's natural right to food.

I will do what I want when I plead no law will tell me different. Especially when it somes to my god given right to feed myself!!!