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.

 

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

page: 5
112
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garfee

We just need to grow some balls.





I saw a comment the other day, it states something like this "why do people say grow some balls when balls are weak and sensitive, people ought to say grow a vagina as it's strong and can take a pounding without crying out in pain". Or something like that.



Anyways, I am against monsanto, and am an advocate for the rights of the people, and not the corporation. Thanks op for bringing this to our attention, I hadn't seen this one. I agree that this situation should be looked into, but sadly I suppose it won't.

Harm None
Peace




posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
This guy is pure scum. People like this need to be hanged, telling me what I can or can't eat??!! This is much more important that people realize... you control what people eat, you can make them much more easily controllable because if you take away the nutrition, you weaken the "enemy" at the source. Kinda hard to start a revolution if you have a society of cancer patients, diabetics, and a general population dumbed down and weakened by lack of quality nutrition. This guy deserves to die a slow painful death. It's right up there with them trying to outlaw vitamins and supplements. I want these people dead, I'm so sick of these Pieces of S trying to control every little aspect of our lives. I get that in any civilized society there is a hierarchy and some people are going to have more power than other, but this is just pure evil. Thing is, is most of these scum sucking leeches would be USELESS if the SHTF. They aren't superior to us in anyway, they just have this insane lust for power and control coupled with high intelligence. Most people, whether simple or highly intelligent don't scheme constantly for power and ways to control others. Most of us don't understand the minds of these sick individuals because we could never in a million years do to people what these people do or want to do to us. It's why they constantly push wheat and sugar on us... our bodies aren't meant to eat these in large amounts, coupled with the lack of physical activity in todays world. It's a big reason why so many of us are bloated sacks of flesh, along with the fact that a lot of these foods are totally stripped of whatever good qualities they might have had. I'm at my wits end with control freaks like this guy....



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Garfee
Seriously, get real. A law that says you have no right to choose what foods you eat or grow?

We just need to grow some balls. It doesn't matter what your government's laws are, just live as ethically and morally good as you can and don't murder anyone - that's all that matters.

I'd like to see this law enforced without bloodshed because that's what it's coming down to.



Honestly, I think the best thing to do would be have EVERYONE, as many people as possible, own their own cows etc. Seriously and honestly, no one could stop that many people. These laws exist because as pissed as we are, we're still taking them sitting down. What does it matter to US if we ourselves don't own cows? It's a law, an idea, and something that doesn't directly affect us. Do everything you can - go to farmer's markets. IGNORE the grocery store. Grow your own vegetables. Industry run food is never going to change - we have to get our own food. It's not nearly as much of a hassle as you think once you start doing it!



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Flagged. This is a great post. Thank you for making this thread. Getting this kind of thing into the public eye is just more fuel for the fire. Doesn't it seem like these types of people are being more flagrant than usual? It's a very "let them eat cake" type of statement. I wonder how long it will take for this guy to figure out he is headed for the guillotine.

edit - I found this story while looking for a picture of Fiedler

www.channel3000.com...

He called the perpetrator in a sexual assault case "evil," but his elaboration for why the guy is evil is interesting...


"I can't recall, even a handful of defendants I've used this term with, but you're evil. You did this because you wanted to, and be damned what happened to the victims," Fiedler said.



edit on 13-10-2011 by wagnificent because: New info



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   
OMG how can this man be able to pass this judgment then start working for the EVIL corporation with out being held accountable ?



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by DieBravely

Lynching isn't funny, it's disgusting.

Besides which, it's not the kind of thing we need in society. We can't claim to want real justice and then also do whatever we want with no regard for the law. What needs to happen is a vast overhaul of the legal system and checks and balances put into place to prevent this garbage from ever happening again. However, it's not too damn likely to ever happen.

I still disagree with lynching or any other sort of mob justice.


When you come up with a better way of conducting a revolution I'm sure the world will be happy to consider.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


His ruling seems both overly broad, and serving of specific special interests, to put it mildly. However, I have not read the statute, or the ruling. Based on the action he took as was reported, and yes I am one who gets upset when people don't check facts, it seems his decision was based on an agenda that has as it's POTENTIAL possible outcome the elimination of basic property rights. IF you take it to the extreme. But since future law is based on current case precedence, that worries me, a lot. It's also worry some that once a judge makes a ruling, logical, proper, or based on being corrupt. Not to mention what can only be called "seemingly devoid of common sense" (fair and unbiased in the application of the law is how I see that it has to both be applied, and appear to be applied. It's perhaps old fashioned, or it may be I don't think like a lawyer. I'm not one. I have a science (R&D) and business background, but the law is at it's core a set of rules for co-operative behavior in a society. In the end if it's intent or application is viewed as "unfair", it has a tendency to be counter productive.) And once a judge makes a ruling, good , bad or just idiotic, it's going to be very hard to correct.

Considering the impetus in certain very right wing politicians, who don't seem to concerned about doing much in the way of offering effective legislation to solve any problem, I wont hold my breath for any state or federal legislation to do anything at all. I really like to be wrong in moments like this. But I don't expect any flashes of insight. Frankly I would love to settle for just decent behavior.


edit on 14/10/11 by arbiture because: Correct grammer fart.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
How do these people sleep at night?

How does money corrupt someone's humanity like this?

It just makes me sick.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by wayouttheredude
 


I agree with you there. Clear and cut case of conflict of interest there. He will get away with it hough and so will Monsanto and anyone else involved in the GM scams.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by arbiture
 

Dear arbiture,

Thank you for being willing to examine this issue a little beyond where the majority of posters seem to be willing to go.

Its entirely possible that the fault is all mine for failing to communicate properly. Perhaps if I try a couple of the comments made by others to the article referenced in the OP?


After reading the judge’s ruling (which you thoughtfully provide a link to), it is firstly important to recognize that this was not a trial but a “summary judgment” – that is, a decision based upon legal briefs to avoid an actual (expensive) trial. The ruling indicates that the judge felt the arguments presented by those interested in consuming raw milk were not adequate to rule in their favor – e.g. that the people of Wisconsin do not have a “fundamental right” (i.e. one enshrined in the Constitution) to own a dairy herd. While I am not a constitutional lawyer (or any kind of lawyer, for that matter), I suspect that not having a “fundamental right” is NOT the same as saying one does not have “the right”, which is what your headline of this article states.

In any case, what I can surmise from the ruling most readily is not that the judge was biased (though he may have been), but rather that the raw milk interests did not engaged someone skilled in legal arguments to represent their interests. For a judge to assert that the arguments are “wholly without merit” and “extremely underdeveloped” is quite a strong rebuke of their attempts to assert their position from a legal standpoint, and not one that a judge would risk without having fairly clear grounds on which to state them.

The fact that the ruling is an expansion and clarification of an earlier ruling, at the request of the raw milk interests for clarification, likewise suggests that the motion for summary judgment was considered such poor advocacy that the judge didn’t even take it seriously and ruled without providing significant reasoning for the ruling.
(I added the paragraph breaks)

A second commenter offered this:

The judge did not rule that people do not have those rights. The judge ruled that those arguments didn’t apply because the plaintiffs were operating a dairy farm. A dairy farm, which produces a product for consumers, has to meet standards higher than those which apply to people who simply want to own cows and drink their milk. He (astutely) concluded that the arguments were simply a smokescreen being used to protect a dairy farm which was violating Wisconsin quality control standards.


I learned more about this case from this very brief article: Pat Rice - Herdshare?
He points out that the original action was that the farmers claimed they didn't have to follow the laws for a dairy because they weren't a dairy, they were a herdshare. It appears that the judge said, in effect, don't be silly, then told them again a month later (which is the order cited in the OP).

I'm saddened that so many questioning ATSers swallowed the OP without a question or understanding of the issues. It may be that, not knowing anything about law, they accept whatever fits into the prejudices they brought to the question. I'm not blaming anyone, just sad.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
It's really simple.
They are going to keep adding & changing laws here & there until it will be illegal to grow & eat your own food, it will all be imported, packaged & sold to you whether you like it or not.
This is insane and will bring many people to starvation if (and when) the supply fails.
I now have tomatoes from the supermarket, all exactly the same colour & shape, grown in fibreglass wool, fed with liquid nutrients via a computer. They have no taste at all.
Viva Monsanto



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


Great post! Right on many levels. Out of curiosity, where did you go? Mexico? Sounds like you have an interesting story to tell. May you could impart parts of it at some time.

Regards -



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by wayouttheredude
 


OUTSTANDING!! May this rise to the top of the toilet bowl,
and never be flushed until the whole world gets enough of
a snoot full to wake UP! Bumped as far as one contributor can.
This does in no way anger me, this is a stellar example of
exactly why we're here. Get this out there I BEG YOU... and
make sure these demons are held accountable for their behavior.

Behavior....good grief, that's like calling a buffalo chip sandwich TASTY.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nyteskye
How do these people sleep at night?

How does money corrupt someone's humanity like this?


On very large beds in very large rooms with very nice furniture and bedding, and maybe even breakfast in bed.

With very large houses in very nice neighborhoods....

Since too much of humanity seems only capable of being manipulated, and not capable of independent thought, perhaps a marketing plan is needed.

When someone (like even the hilarious Stephen Colbert) brings up the "harms" of Raw Milk a proper rebuttal would be the dangers of contaminated raw beef, chicken, fish, and vegetables. That is, after all, what they're referring to - not healthy raw milk, but bad raw milk, and that should be compared to other bad raw foods.

Then follow with how that goes to show us how we need to make all raw foods illegal for the safety of us all! (sarcasm obviously)

Also, I think we should rename "raw milk", as the word raw has been molested by today's overwhelming Orwellian newspeak trend to sound bad. Perhaps something like "unadulterated", or "pure" would be better suited. Though pure tends to be grossly misleading on food labels (see: Mr. Pure juices, or pure...from concentrate, etc), and "unadulterated" is too many syllables for most people.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by derfreebie
 





OUTSTANDING!! May this rise to the top of the toilet bowl, and never be flushed until the whole world gets enough of a snoot full to wake UP! Bumped as far as one contributor can. This does in no way anger me, this is a stellar example of exactly why we're here


OK that is a new one for me. Compare my story to a turd that will not flush. Thanks for that. Not!. Well what do you say to a post like that? I am baffled.



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Thank you for your reply. Yes I should have reviewed the ruling before commenting. Problem is I sometimes do things like that from time-to-time when acting in the capacity as an science analyst who translates certain esoteric concepts into English, or whatever. I don't read legal briefs for kicks. (I'm boring, but not THAT boring I hope) Interesting the issue is about "raw milk", which is a potential hazard depending on a whole range of how and under what conditions it's produced. People with weakened immune systems, the young, old and generally "not well" can get very sick from that stuff. That said, my view is if people WANT to drink what is in effect bacteria laden milk, or anything else it's really up to the individual. (I guess despite being into organic foods in a MAJOR way, including helping a friend start an organic market years ago, with funding and designing the business protocols, some aspects of o' natural' when it comes to certain food products are pushing ones luck.) As long as people are informed about what they are getting (face it not many bother to read the label, let alone want to know where by whom and under what conditions certain food was produced. That more people do care makes the organic foods market very hot right now...) its in my view up to the individual.

As some one who has checked out organic growers on occasion, the vast majority are very concerned about providing high quality, "safe" products. But in truth, some are slobs. Being able to say "no, you can't sell that food, not only was it packaged in not the cleanest of conditions, do you think people would want to know your pig just relieved himself into it and then you put it in a package?" As a firm believer in truth in advertising, if you put on the label, or when you sell the batch (vegetables for example) just what kind of facility it was made in, fine. Good luck. It never ceases to amaze me how many people think "if it's natural, it must be OK". Lead, mercury, and fecal bacteria are all "natural". I also think people should avoid ingesting them. We had an incident a few years ago in Minnesota where some guy was selling non-pasteurized milk, (often unrefrigerated!)
claiming it was "natural". He didn't bother to mention, actually he didn't care, that it contained more bacteria then what used to be tested at the Aberdeen Proving Ground...

In the days where most people owned their own cows, goats, etc, they actually developed a tolerance to that specific animals bacterial hangers-on. Usually, though not all the time. It's not the same, or as simple now. And while I am a major fan of keeping the chemical junk, hormones, and antibiotics out of milk (and everything else), pasteurization caught on for a very good reason... But at the end of the day, as long as people are informed about something as to it's risk, someone wants non-pasteurized milk? (ick...) they should have the right. Just be sure to be far away from them when they run for the can, if they can run and are not doubled over in pain on the ground...



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by arbiture
 

Dear arbiture,

Great post and I'm with you all the way. Perhaps the solution is to have two standards, one for "dairies" and one for "natural dairies." There should be some way to improve food safety in this fairly new field without applying unreasonable restrictions on those natural places.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by arbiture
 


Obviously you have never been to an actual raw milk producers farm. The ones we get our raw whole milk from use aseptic technique in milking and the milk goes straight from the animal and into the freezer. There is no opportunity for contamination as the milk spends just minutes outside of the animal before it is packaged in a jug and put in the deep freezer.

Homogenization and pasteurization destroy the life giving character of the milk. In its natural state it stimulates immune function. We give raw goats milk to immune function compromised cancer patients that can hardly eat anything and it brings them back to the living. Many continue on the raw goats milk long after their cancer has been cleared. I have met the animals at their farm and found their conditions to be very good and their operation to be first rate and very clean.


edit on 16-10-2011 by wayouttheredude because: dyslexic



new topics

top topics



 
112
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join