Woman Sues City of Tulsa For Cutting Down Her Edible Garden

page: 1
86
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+58 more 
posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   
And yet again we are reminded that we do not really own our property, we do not have rights in the court system and we are not allowed to choose what we put into our own bodies.

www.newson6.com...

TULSA, Oklahoma - A Tulsa woman is suing the city's code enforcement officers after she said they cut down her garden with no cause. Denise Morrison said she has more than 100 plant varieties in her front and back yards and all of them are edible and have a purpose.



Last August, Morrison's front and back yards were filled with flowers in bloom, lemon, stevia, garlic chives, grapes, strawberries, apple mint, spearmint, peppermint, an apple tree, walnut tree, pecan trees and much more.

Yup, again we see that apples and lemons are the enemy. Good thing we have Govt. to look out for our safety from these dangerous, possibly life threatening items. Who knows what could happen if a child were to climb the fence and chomp down on a fresh strawberry? The freshness might be detrimental to their health.

She got a letter from the city saying there had been a complaint about her yard.

I'm guessing that as always the letter is from a reliable unnamed source like the MSM relies on to push their agendas.

When she heard they wanted to cut it all down, she called police. The officer issued her a citation so it could be worked out in court. She said she went to court on August 15, and the judge told them to come back in October. But the very next day, men were cutting down most of her plants. They even cut down some of her trees -– ones that bore fruit and nuts -– and went up next to her house and basically removed everything in her front flower bed.

Remember the times, wayyyyyy back when we were allowed a day in court to plead our case? I guess the day is still there but the decision doesn't matter because the law and Govt. do what they want regardless of the judge's rule.

This is just another case of saying "You are not allowed to grow your own food". You will eat what we allow you to eat and you will pay OUR prices...or starve.

This woman is low income and unlike many others she decided to supplement her income with her own food instead of paying sky rocketing prices. But someone doesn't want us to be anywhere near self sufficient as it might hurt the pocket books of those that would control all of our food.

Remember, “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.“ –Henry Kissinger.

Peace



edit on 16-6-2012 by jude11 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
It was illegal and she is suing. And I hope she hires mature trees and her garden with the money.


+3 more 
posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
It was illegal and she is suing. And I hope she hires mature trees and her garden with the money.


I don't know about you but I wouldn't want to live in a place where I was told by some suit or law enforcement that I can't have peppermint on MY property.

Peace



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Dam, Glad i live in South Australia, Both my front and back yard plants are able to be eaten. The good thing is there is enough to go around for the neighbor's as well and it does look great all year round.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Legion2024
Dam, Glad i live in South Australia, Both my front and back yard plants are able to be eaten. The good thing is there is enough to go around for the neighbor's as well and it does look great all year round.


Exactly.

My area has trees that hang over the sidewalks with black berries on them from almost every yard on the street. ANYONE can help themselves to them. Takes about 10 minutes to pick enough for a pie.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


Nice, The thing i love is watching my children pick their morning snacks from the front yard or back yard instead of junk. To the point we stopped buying the junk snacks because they were not being eaten.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
She got the injunction. It's likely that she overlooked the idea that the injunction should include a clause to stop all activity until after the court date.

The city probably realized this and took their chance.


+21 more 
posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:39 PM
link   
You have got to bee expletiving kidding me. No plants over a foot? On your own property? Getting cited for having an inoperable vehicle IN THE DRIVEWAY? I would have lost my expletive. I should be able to erect (heh) a 15 foot tall concrete penis ON MY OWN PROPERTY.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jude11


This is just another case of saying "You are not allowed to grow your own food". You will eat what we allow you to eat and you will pay OUR prices...or starve.



Do you REALLY think that's the case here, and not that someone filed a complaint, and the city workers are idiots?

Because I know TONS of people who grow food in the states. The 'government' ha never prevented them fro doing so.

Heck, a buddy of mine recently got a grant from the USDA to build new greenhouses on his land.
edit on 16-6-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Domo1
You have got to bee expletiving kidding me. No plants over a foot? On your own property? Getting cited for having an inoperable vehicle IN THE DRIVEWAY? I would have lost my expletive. I should be able to erect (heh) a 15 foot tall concrete penis ON MY OWN PROPERTY.


neighborhoods routinely have local ordinances saying what you can do on your property.

Not saying I approve. Just pointing out they exist. Just because it's 'your property' doesnt mean you can do whatever you want, especially in city limits.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
This is wrong on so many levels but clearly reflects the current plans of the government.
The government's don't want people who are self sustainable or who are not funding the major supermarkets or GE manufactures.

I would imagine the court would rule in the women's favor, removing the plants without her permission or at least without paperwork is crazy...I would imagine you need warrants, pictures, environmental impact statements and everything. Whats crazy is their is no sane reasoning to the removal of the plants, if it was a jungle in the front yard then ok their is a valid point however the backyard should be offlimits.

I know in Australia your allowed to grow all you want just short of marijuana in your yard given it doesn't affect your neighbours property..(ie high nitrogen levels, overhanging trees, shading issues). Their are some stuck up councils in the cities that will fine you if your house doesn't meet "heritage" levels however they would never attempt to break into someones yard at destroy property without a court order.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by stanguilles7
 


I hope everyone s&f, AND writes and complains to the city of Tulsa. What a huge violation. I have never understood these policitians. Cutting down her trees????? They take years to grow and produce fruit.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by phantom150
This is wrong on so many levels but clearly reflects the current plans of the government.
The government's don't want people who are self sustainable or who are not funding the major supermarkets or GE manufactures.

I would imagine the court would rule in the women's favor, removing the plants without her permission or at least without paperwork is crazy...I would imagine you need warrants, pictures, environmental impact statements and everything. Whats crazy is their is no sane reasoning to the removal of the plants, if it was a jungle in the front yard then ok their is a valid point however the backyard should be offlimits.

I know in Australia your allowed to grow all you want just short of marijuana in your yard given it doesn't affect your neighbours property..(ie high nitrogen levels, overhanging trees, shading issues). Their are some stuck up councils in the cities that will fine you if your house doesn't meet "heritage" levels however they would never attempt to break into someones yard at destroy property without a court order.






Her yard was beautiful BEFORE the city destroyed it. Now it looks like a wasteland. Is this better?

And the real issue of not being able to grow the food is disturbing to say the least. They said that the law was that nothing over 12 inches unless it was edible. She made sure that everything was over that height and still had them destroy her yard so what is the real issue here?

Peace



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   
This was a city code enforcer gone on a rampage. The ironic part is, most "noxious" weeds in vacant lots are edible. The lady should put Roundup all over ever inch of her yard then grow Monsanto GM crops, the city would probably giver her an award. I'm not kidding.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   
ou guys are freakin idiots....missing the real point of this exercise b the city fathers......
Not only would they cut this ladys pants, but they will bill her an outrageous amount of money for doing so......
This is a common tactic the city fathers pull to put seniors into tax debt...they then seize the and either after the person dies, or before if they can get enough money billed against the and....
The corruption has wormed itss way into every facet of American goverment....
The scumbags in power everywhere are simpy the most rabid opportunists......no honour, no creed, no faith just greed..



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


I understand the point raised however I don't see the regulations standing upto legal scrutiny, being Australian I don't fully know your legal system however the bill of rights and trespass laws should protect her.

I don't see how the 12 inches unless edible rule holds power, what makes it edible and how is it affecting the community...there needs to be a genuine reason to enter someones home illegally and destroy their property.
At the moment its baseless and an overreaction.
In regards to your point raised about it looking worse now I agree, I was creating a generalization that if a property was overgrown and posed an immediate safety risk then yes it would be understandable to trim it back to eliminate the risk.

Without trying to cause offence from an outsider view of the US I am surprised you have allowed your governments so much power to get away with this nonsense.
You have homes getting foreclosed, a country in debit which is virtually unpayable, lack of jobs, poor education and all your government cares for is the size of your plants...its crazy
Just trying to be honest here, you've let this monster grow to big...



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by MichiganSwampBuck
This was a city code enforcer gone on a rampage. The ironic part is, most "noxious" weeds in vacant lots are edible. The lady should put Roundup all over ever inch of her yard then grow Monsanto GM crops, the city would probably giver her an award. I'm not kidding.


Yup, home gardeners and self reliant people are the true enemy of Monsanto. Gotta destroy an old lady's yard in order to make sure she spends her dollars on Monsanto poison food.

Peace



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by phantom150
reply to post by jude11
 


I understand the point raised however I don't see the regulations standing upto legal scrutiny, being Australian I don't fully know your legal system however the bill of rights and trespass laws should protect her.

I don't see how the 12 inches unless edible rule holds power, what makes it edible and how is it affecting the community...there needs to be a genuine reason to enter someones home illegally and destroy their property.
At the moment its baseless and an overreaction.
In regards to your point raised about it looking worse now I agree, I was creating a generalization that if a property was overgrown and posed an immediate safety risk then yes it would be understandable to trim it back to eliminate the risk.

Without trying to cause offence from an outsider view of the US I am surprised you have allowed your governments so much power to get away with this nonsense.
You have homes getting foreclosed, a country in debit which is virtually unpayable, lack of jobs, poor education and all your government cares for is the size of your plants...its crazy
Just trying to be honest here, you've let this monster grow to big...


I'm with you on this because...I'm actually Canadian.


I just don't understand how a town can stand by and let this happen to one of their own. When it happens to their own yards they'll wonder how it got this way.

Peace



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by jude11

Originally posted by MichiganSwampBuck
This was a city code enforcer gone on a rampage. The ironic part is, most "noxious" weeds in vacant lots are edible. The lady should put Roundup all over ever inch of her yard then grow Monsanto GM crops, the city would probably giver her an award. I'm not kidding.


Yup, home gardeners and self reliant people are the true enemy of Monsanto. Gotta destroy an old lady's yard in order to make sure she spends her dollars on Monsanto poison food.

Peace


Again, are you being serious?

You think Monsanto bought off a local city regulatory board to go after one lady growing mint and rosemary?

This is an isolated example of local zoning ordinances gone awry. Monsanto buys the Federal government. Not a city council.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   
You think Monsanto bought off a local city regulatory board to go after one lady growing mint and rosemary? This is an isolated example of local zoning ordinances gone awry.

---
I respectfully disagree, its the small attacks like this that are used to set precedent in court and to prompt citizens to give up their rights. This is reflected internationally from internet restrictions to the TSA who operate above the law and in full view of federal politics but nothing is done to punish or restrict these actions.

20 years ago we would have laughed at workers measuring the length of plants to see if their compliant or edible, now we have people scared that they are going to have their families attacked, homes uprooted over a tall plant.

This in my opinion is one of many well calculated and thought out actions to induce fear and compliance in the community.

edit on 17-6-2012 by phantom150 because: Still learning to quote!





new topics
top topics
 
86
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join