Organic growers lose decision in suit versus Monsanto over seeds

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Monsanto has been on the favorable side of almost every court case. They have had laws passed that protects their product. I find it very suspicious when a multi-billion dollar company is essentially given immunity via legislation and court rulings.

It seems obvious there is collusion happening between the US lawmakers and Monsanto.

That's all.




posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   
"Charles, don't you get involved in this. You don't have a dog in this fight."

"I know but ...."

"Don't you give me no buts, mister. You know what's going to happen. People will hate you, and call you names, and what do you get out of it? NOTHING. So just shut up."

"But, what about . . ."

"Holy ^&&^%^#$! You're going to but int this aren't you? Well, don't you come crying to me, hear?"

Sorry, guys, alfa1 and the court are both right. His arguments are solid. A court is going to ask, "Ok, you're the party filing suit, so tell me, what has the defendant done to harm you?" When the response is "Well, nothing yet, but he might, someday." The reasonable response from the judge is "Well, when he does, let me know and I'll give you some relief.

But the court goes further and says "You're worried about getting sued because some day they might find a teeny tiny bit of their seed in your crop? Well, I'll give you a free legal seminar on the topic of estoppel."

"When Monsanto makes a statement to you, even more so when they make it to the whole world on their website, and you act in reliance upon that statement, Monsanto is estopped from taking it back or pretending it doesn't apply. It's an equity principle in law, but I don't feel like giving you my lecture on that issue.

"Now, go away, have your press conference, do whatever you want, and if you ever have a legitimate case let me know. I hate Monsanto, too, but legally, you got nuttin'.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 

Dear alfa1,

Just after I manage to get everybody else on the thread mad at me for supporting you, now I have to anger you by disagreeing with the take you share with the other posters about the "Monsanto Immunity Act." As there is an outside chance you haven't been able to read the law for yourself, here it is:


SEC. 733. In the event that a determination of nonregulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary’s evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary’s authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.


What this says, is AFTER the Agriculture Dept. has given it's Ok to a certain seed or plant, and IF some judge says the approval doesn't jump through all of the hoops, THEN it goes back to Agriculture, which is supposed to complete the forms, the way the judge likes, as quick as they can.

In the meantime, if the farmer wants to use the seed (which he probably bought based on Agriculture's approval), he can go ahead on a limited basis with whatever extra precautions have to be taken while Agriculture is filling out the forms. Further, the permission only last for the reasonable length of time that Agriculture needs for it's work. Also, Agriculture, the Farmer, Monsanto, and the cat that jumped over the moon, still have to abide by the Plant Protection Act.

There is absolutely nothing here about immunity for Monsanto or any similar company, sorry.

With respect,
Charles1952
edit on 10-6-2013 by charles1952 because: Spacing



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
Dear alfa1,

Just after I manage to get everybody else on the thread mad at me for supporting you, now I have to anger you by disagreeing with the take you share with the other posters about the "Monsanto Immunity Act." As there is an outside chance you haven't been able to read the law for yourself, here it is:

There is absolutely nothing here about immunity for Monsanto or any similar company, sorry.



So... we cant get angry with Monsanto about that?
Fair enough, I'll only ever go with what the facts are. Maybe I was mistaking this Bill (that Realtruth slipped in as a side dicussion, not related at all to the thread topic) with something else.



posted on Jun, 10 2013 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 

Dear alfa1,

I'm sorry, really I am. I don't like Monsanto either, but for the life of me I can't say why. I'm hoping that a thread will give me something definite I can inscribe on my banner and wave through the streets yelling "Bloody Revolution," but I just haven't seen it yet.

(I do hope NSA doesn't have a pointer dog that alerts on "Bloody Revolution.")

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Seems there are always two sides to every story:

"Monsanto Protection Act"

Of course, there's always the notion that if all was well and good there really was no need to slip it in via an anonymous rider.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by KyrieEleison
 

Dear KyrieEleison,

You're absolutely right, there are two sides to every story. That's why we discuss these things. I've presented my thoughts and your link to snopes doesn't resolve the issue, it simply mentions, as you did, that there are two sides to it.

They also pointed out that this was in the bill last year as well. That makes it hard for me to believe it was slipped in anonymously, it was already there.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Not much I have to say that hasn't already been said by Alfa1, stars for your posts, I agree. Gonna sub and watch this thread, see how the argument plays out without arguing myself this time.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 04:06 AM
link   
Well the only bit of good information I can find in this article is the following:


"Monsanto's binding representations remove any risk of suit against the appellants as users or sellers of trace amounts (less than one percent) of modified seed," the court stated in its ruling.


So my question is -- under what circumstances could an organic crop gain over 1% of trace amounts of modified seeds? One cross pollination? Two crosses?



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 04:51 AM
link   
catch 22

If the organic grower crop gets contaminated and they try to sell it as organic they get in trouble.
If the try to sell it as GMO they get sued.
And if they plow it under they go broke. and suing Monsanto would not help as it would take 5+ years just to get to court.

Monsanto wins every time.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Realtruth
 


It seems like everyone has been paid off to protect Monsanto . In the USA at least



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by PtolemyII
 


Where do I go to collect my check?



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Hi,

it is ridiculous but each time 'M' loses credibility with something like this they more closely aim at the mark of their own demise...the rest of the world recognizes...as usual, we will be next~

LOVE



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


No, it was in a version of a draft from last year, the chain of events is better explained thusly:


Both the packer and Monsanto provisions are virtually identical to what was publicly aired last summer by the Republican-controlled House Appropriations Committee in its initial fiscal 2013 bill to fund USDA. What’s really new is that measure never made to the House floor — nor did the Senate act on its own 2013 appropriations bill for the department.

Instead, a House-Senate compromise of the draft bills was brokered in December to include the House language. It was this package that was then folded into the continuing resolution or CR sent onto President Barack Obama last week for his signature.

All this happened with little or no floor debate and in a period of turmoil for the Senate Appropriations Committee.


Source

It's not exactly anonymous anymore, either - from the same article:


In the case of the Monsanto rider, (Sen. Roy) Blunt (R-Mo.) said he worked with the company and had a valuable partner in the late chairman, (Sen. Daniel) Inouye (D-Hi.), who was sympathetic given Monsanto’s large seed operations in Hawaii.


Another source on the Senator.

Of course, he received his due from his "donor", a bargain price if you ask me.
edit on 11-6-2013 by KyrieEleison because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Realtruth
 


In the case that Monsanto was to sue the organic farmers due to wind, or other reasonable circumstances which were not induced by the organic farmers, resulting in Monsanto seeds landing in their field, I wounder what unbiased, reasonable and competent judge would award Monsanto any kind of settlement or damages.

Have any precedents in relation to this situation been established? It would be utterly ridiculous, inequitable and fraudulent if the organic farmers were forced to take responsibility for something which occurs due to a sheer accident of nature.

I understand the courts in the United States are pretty easily bought out these days, but there is no way such a claim could succeed, at least on appeal to the higher courts.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
In the case that Monsanto was to sue the organic farmers due to wind, or other reasonable circumstances which were not induced by the organic farmers, resulting in Monsanto seeds landing in their field, I wounder what unbiased, reasonable and competent judge would award Monsanto any kind of settlement or damages.



This issue has already come up in this court case.
And you're right, no reasonable Judge would award Monsanto anything.

And it was even more specifically pointed out by the Judge in the Percy Schmeiser case, that Monsanto has no rights to any awards from contamination.


For the defendants it is urged Monsanto has no property interest in its gene...
Thus a farmer whose field contains seed or plants originating from seed spilled into them, or blown as seed, in swaths from a neighbour's land or even growing from germination by pollen carried into his field from elsewhere by insects, birds, or by the wind, may own the seed or plants on his land even if he did not set about to plant them.

link
edit on 11-6-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
In the case that Monsanto was to sue the organic farmers due to wind, or other reasonable circumstances which were not induced by the organic farmers, resulting in Monsanto seeds landing in their field, I wounder what unbiased, reasonable and competent judge would award Monsanto any kind of settlement or damages.



This issue has already come up in this court case.
And you're right, no reasonable Judge would award Monsanto anything.

And it was even more specifically pointed out by the Judge in the Percy Schmeiser case, that Monsanto has no rights to any awards from contamination.


For the defendants it is urged Monsanto has no property interest in its gene...
Thus a farmer whose field contains seed or plants originating from seed spilled into them, or blown as seed, in swaths from a neighbour's land or even growing from germination by pollen carried into his field from elsewhere by insects, birds, or by the wind, may own the seed or plants on his land even if he did not set about to plant them.

link
edit on 11-6-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



All of the facts and case history make sense, but the problem with Monsanto is the fact that even though they know they cannot win, in most cases, is the fact they can intimidate by financial and legal means.

Deep pockets can hurt a small time farmer, into bankruptcy even if there is no case, just filing a federal lawsuit costs the minimum of $20,000.00 just to retain a lawyer that understands federal procedure, and filing legal briefs properly.

Basically it can cost tens of thousand, even before discovery, so large corporation including Monsanto banks on the fact that they have deep pockets and a great legal team, whereas most dirt-kicking farmers don't even know that they could file Pro se, in a federal court, but the chances of winning due to federal procedure are very slim.

Alfa I have to say I misjudged you, and thanks for the contribution to the thread. And don't make me toss another Red Herring in.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
reply to post by Realtruth
 



Have any precedents in relation to this situation been established? It would be utterly ridiculous, inequitable and fraudulent if the organic farmers were forced to take responsibility for something which occurs due to a sheer accident of nature.

I understand the courts in the United States are pretty easily bought out these days, but there is no way such a claim could succeed, at least on appeal to the higher courts.


No I don't believe there is any case history that I am aware of, but it only takes one PDF from a case to prove us wrong.

The answer to your question is Monsanto can file as many frivolous suits as they want and use a scare tactic, it been done by many large corporations as a bully tactic. Large corps understand the delicate nature of most peoples financial situation, and even more so when it comes to legal efficacy.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Realtruth
 


SLAPP suits immediately come to mind - some states afford varying degrees of protection but it appears there is no such Federal provision and consideration of state law seems to be up in the air on this one.



posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by KyrieEleison
reply to post by Realtruth
 


SLAPP suits immediately come to mind - some states afford varying degrees of protection but it appears there is no such Federal provision and consideration of state law seems to be up in the air on this one.


Exactly!

It is used so much today, and effectively too.

And with the advent of today's technologies the legal teams and analysts can weigh their options via a computer simulation to see how far they can push the defendants, even before filing the first case.





top topics
 
22
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join