'No Food Rights' Judge quits to work for Monsanto law firm

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!!

reply to post by UnrelentingLurker


Sorry? Who doesn't have what right? I'm confused.

reply to post by wayouttheredude

This is crony capitalism at its best and corporatism at its worst.

Yes - 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?

Don't get mad. Get cold, as in cold logic.


S&F&

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

reply to post by PunchingBag80


The judge's ruling doesn't prevent that. Go ahead, grow and eat what you want.

Most of the posts here seem to be misunderstanding what the judge said.

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?

reply to post by PunchingBag80


No you wont!
just playin watch mods will delete to save room in this most riveting of threads

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.

reply to post by charles1952


While I appreciate your reasonable and polite response, I also believe that a lot of laws and judgements at face value seem innocuous enough. however just like the supreme courts ruling last year to allow corporations the right to contribute money to elections, the judgement doesn't seem highly offensive until you look at the impact that judgment could have on the people of this country. You seem to have a good grasp on the technical verbage of that judges decision, but for the average person who is looking for equal protection under the law that judgement was lacking big time. The natural reaction is for people to ask why would he have made such an obvious decision, if he wasn't swayed by some outside force. It didn't become conspiratorial until he resigned his position out of the blue and joined a law firm that has represented Monsanto.

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!!!

Dear Jaws1975,

I think the major point of your argument is absolutely correct (and a little frightening).

Originally posted by jaws1975
reply to post by charles1952

 

but for the average person who is looking for equal protection under the law that judgement was lacking big time. The natural reaction is for people to ask why would he have made such an obvious decision, if he wasn't swayed by some outside force.

I agree completely and that's why I'm worried. Its fine that the average person doesn't understand the law completely, but there is something missing in us. There should be something that says "Hey! This doesn't look right, I'd better check it out." Too many people in our society don't have the ability or the interest in checking things out. Whether its law, politics, religion, or economics, it seems we just accept and don't question. That's why I'm frightened. I don't think the OP did it intentionally, but the source news article was not exactly complete or unbiased. Just look at the firestorm it raised here.

It didn't become conspiratorial until he resigned his position out of the blue and joined a law firm that has represented Monsanto.

I don't understand why his decision to join the firm is proof of a conspiracy, perhaps its just more of people accepting sensation-mongering articles. If that's the case, I wonder, can anything be done to prevent that blind acceptance? I hope someone has some answers to that.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


What I meant was that most people did not put 2 and 2 together, and start the conspiracy theory that he had ulterior motives until he left so quickly after the controversial judgement. By the way, how often do you hear of judges with 18 years of experience resigning to go work for a law firm?