Posted on 10/21/2012 8:06:01 PM PDT by RushingWater
>> “TRIAL LAWYER CHASING AMBULANCES” <<
.
Confession?
After reading your posts its no surprise to find that you are an idiot, and willing deciever.
I’m an engineer.
>> “It is truly a “progressive” idea to return to a world without the means to control pestilence and disease.” <<
.
Return to it???
Look around babe, we’re way in it, thanks to the Med Mafia that makes so much money selling poison drugs that they’ll never attempt to cure anything.
The knowledge of how to be disease free is ancient, and the possession of that knowledge is becoming a crime, as the global governors seek to kill 2/3 of the world’s population.
Take your blinders off.
We are having a productive discussion and we are both conservatives.
That said, if that is your position, then you agree with me. Here is why.
- Farmer "A" uses Monsanto patented seeds.
- Monsanto determines that Farmer "B" is has crops that are partially from its patented seeds.
- Farmer "B" is taken to court to pay a royalty.
I'll try to find you the link. Mine is a very short synopsis. But that is what they issue is about.
The question to answer is this. Should a farmer that never bought Monsanto seeds for his field have to face the giant Monsanto in court over crops Monsanto says it is owed a royalty?
-----
"According to a 2007 report from the nonprofit Center for Food Safety, Monsanto each year investigates 500 farms whose fields purportedly contain Monsanto's patented crops, even going as far as trespassing illegally on one Indiana farmer's land."
-----
"Farmer CAN exclude genetic adulteration of seeds (GMO or otherwise) they intend to harvest for next year's crops and maintain the purity of the cultivar by placing a BARRIER on the blossoms, hand pollinating them, and saving the seeds from ONLY those blossoms. Even for those species that are strongly inbreeding (like lettuce and legumes), but especially for those species that are strongly outbreeding (like corn, beets and brassicas).
As you can imagine, this process is time and resource consuming, but it is the only way to guarantee separate cultivars do not cross-pollinate since wind, rain/run-off, animals, people and insects can all carry pollen for hundreds and thousands of miles."
-----
Monsanto's history of aggressive investigations and lawsuits brought against farmers in America has been a source of concern for organic and non-GMO agricultural producers since Monsanto's first lawsuit brought against a farmer in the mid-‘90s. Since then, 144 farmers have had lawsuits filed against them by Monsanto for alleged violations of their patented seed technology.
Monsanto has sued more than 700 additional farmers who have settled out-of-court rather than face Monsanto's belligerent, and well-financed, litigious actions.
Yes, there was such a case and it was totally bogus (I don't know what was the disposition). Monsanto's pollen was theirs to control. They chose not to control it. When they lost control of it and it crossed a property line, unless they were PAYING somebody to buffer their crop, they were either INFECTING Farmer "B" crops or augmenting them depending upon what Farmer "B" wants to do with HIS crops. In either case, Monsanto was interfering with the usual process belonging to Farmer "B," not the other way around. Farmer "B" did nothing to acquire Monsanto pollen. They bombed his place with it. As far as I am concerned, if they wanted to contain the deposition zone it they should pay Farmer "B" to do for the service, not penalize him for an infringement.
Further, "infringe" is an affirmative act; it requires both intent and an action by which to infringe. Farmer "B" did no such thing.
Small independent farmers faced wirh crushing legal defence costs dont have the luxury of the finer points of the law. Many have had to settle. I have some catching up to do on this issue but the courts have not sided with the independent farmers. And it had not been isolated cases. 300 farmers joined on a suit and lost on a technicality that their pleading was preemptive. In other words they have to wait to defend themselves individually
I’m not your “babe”... don’t post to me again you are a fool.
Oh, I’m sure that you’re nobody’s ‘babe!’
Not with such an ignorant and ugly attitude.
>> “I have some catching up to do on this issue but the courts have not sided with the independent farmers.” <<
.
That has to be the understatement of the century!
If we fail to pass prop 37 we may see the end of agriculture in the very near future. Its protections are the very minimum that is needed.
Reading your post 365, I see that you do understand what is being done to destroy natural agriculture in the courts, so why are you not an ardent supporter of prop 37?
All of the “farmer Bs” of North America are being systematically crushed with the assistance of the courts. They have insufficient wealth to play this billion dollar game, and thus have no recourse.
Because voluntary labeling efforts under private certification will be more effective and accountable. This kind of labeling will fail to deliver on its purpose because of corruption in the designation of GMO or not, the ubiquity of the labels, it will load farmers with the responsibility of documenting everything else risk being sued, fail to distinguish GMOs that are mere controlled hybridizations from serious and potentially dangerous modifications, and give the big producers abroad an advantage in the marketplace due to economies of scale in paperwork and their "come and get me" locations.
Prop 37 is the wrong answer to a legitimate problem. I think competing voluntary approaches to providing useful product information is the better way to go.
The problem with your solution is twofold:
1. No compelling force to bring it about (Inertia)
2. No relief for the farmers being deliberately abused by our corrupt courts.
To employ "compelling force" is, in my opinion, immoral. It is covetousness for control of other people's property without compensation.
2. No relief for the farmers being deliberately abused by our corrupt courts.
Prop 37 will inflict its own kind of legal abuse that IMO is far worse, akin to forcing farmers to do the kind of documentation that is making medical care so expensive. THAT is what will make the stuff produced abroad competitive by comparison.
The correct place to fix that problem is with Federal Statute putting responsibility for the production of airborne pollen on the grower, where the producer of the pollen is responsible for containing and/or controlling genetically modified DNA as if it were an industrial pollutant. After all, once they put medical properties into corn, one wouldn't want to be dosed by driving adjacent to the field!!! Again, were responsibility correctly affixed upon the producer of the pollen, those immediately downwind could waive a claim in return for payment for buffer mitigation services (as I proposed in Natural Process).
As to the Monsanto lawsuits, as far as I know, patent law is a Federal jurisdiction that California law cannot remedy.
1. “To employ “compelling force” is, in my opinion, immoral. It is covetousness for control of other people’s property without compensation.”
Nonsequitur! (wondering what you’re smoking)
2. “Prop 37 will inflict its own kind of legal abuse that IMO is far worse, akin to forcing farmers to do the kind of documentation that is making medical care so expensive.”
More nonsense!
No record keeping needed; prop 37 places the mandate for control of downwind damage where it belongs.
Federal statutes are what have allowed this problen to prevail unchecked. WE need the feds to keep their noses out.
.
>> “As to the Monsanto lawsuits, as far as I know, patent law is a Federal jurisdiction that California law cannot remedy.” <<
.
This is really not a patent law problem; the adjacent land owners are taking no action that violates Monsanto’s patents; Monsanto’s garbage is invading and destroying adjacent land, and at some point all the arable land in the state will become useless under present conditions, much like what is happening in Canada with ‘Canola.’
Prop 37 has the perfect solution in correctly placing the responsibility with the person that induced the problem. This nips the false ‘patent’ issue in the bud.
I see. You find yourself aligned with scads of communist greenie anti-human front groups for globalist interests and fail to even question why. Then, when confronted by someone you supposedly have respected for a decade with both objections, alternatives, AND the warning that the VERY MONSANTO YOU DESPISE WILL BE THE BIGGEST BENEFICIARY OF THE LAW YOU ADVOCATE, you just toss it off as that person whose book you say you respected as a solution is insane or inconsistent but cannot cite as to why.
Then you expect me to respect your unsupported reasoning?
I think you don't like it when you're shown to be aligned with statist power freaks bent on population reduction by any means necessary, including mass starvation. Arbitrary powers in the hands of a bureaucracy are just dandy with you when you agree with them. Hence, you make no distinctions as to means as justified by your "noble" ends. Such has always been a completely bankrupt basis for choice: No one selects an end except as a means to something else. Even Aristotle knew that.
No record keeping needed; prop 37 places the mandate for control of downwind damage where it belongs.
The law itself doesn't require it, the grounds of suit will. Even the LAT article I cited above made that clear. Apparently you didn't read it.
The supplier must maintain PROOF there was absolutely NO GMO in the product, even if it was just a GMO method to used to produce a hybrid. Every farmer will have to keep detailed records that there was NO WAY their seed was ever bombed by Monsanto pollen...
Yes, Monsanto wins either way. Oh and I'll bet you thought of that one too.
This is really not a patent law problem; the adjacent land owners are taking no action that violates Monsanto’s patents;
Although I agree with you in terms of the facts, that is not how the suits are grounded, it is not how they are turning out, nor is it the basis upon which Monsanto is bullying these farmers. Hence, this is just an unsupported assertion on your part that is contradicted by the history of these cases. Monsanto forces these farmers to settle because of their deep pockets and the fact that the courts have refused to allow the farmers to act as a class.
WE need the feds to keep their noses out.
About which prop 37 accomplishes nothing.
Prop 37 has the perfect solution in correctly placing the responsibility with the person that induced the problem. This nips the false ‘patent’ issue in the bud.
It is a labeling requirement. To my knowledge, it doesn't indemnify anyone in a Federal case.
I have to tell you, in your conduct on this thread, with your misdirections, unsupported claims, false accusations, and character assassination (primarily against Aussibabe), you have blown virtually all respect I ever had for you. You are very lucky I didn't contact the moderators to have you put on suspension.
In my opinion, your position is more emotional than objective. Your principal thrust is against one bad actor in a very big market that includes some very good people doing good work toward bringing the earth to fullness (that ol' Genesis 1:28 thingy "umilu et haaretz"). You blame the technology for what Monsanto did with it. That's like blaming a gun for a murder. It is fundamentally nonsensical. The technology can do good and ill. You lump them together.
I'm not going to waste any more time on this with you because your flippant and lazy replies are unworthy of my time. By your behavior and refusal to read carefully what I've written for what it says, and instead merely deem it nonsensical (a basically dishonest thing to do), you have blown it with me unless you show indication of a repentance I don't expect to see any time soon.
Repentance?
Dear Lord forgive me!
CO, I do certainly have respect for your published work, but you seek to elevate yourself beyond reason on this issue.
There is a third problem.
If the genetic material sequence in the GMO is patented, the information cannot be divulged by a third party certification.
Dear air-head, salmonella does not affect me. I have several times eaten food that put others down hard.
Really, that is the rule, rather than the exception. In all large scale poisonings, it is the small minority that is affected, even though a large batch of food is “toxic.”
In the E-coli hamburger scares, the batches were huge, and the entirety tested positive, yet only a few had serious reactions. The toxin isn’t operative to all.
One has to have the genetic ‘print’ in order to even test for it, and those that posess that data are not likely to self-incriminate, so that may not ever be an issue.
The thrust of the labeling requirement is to disclose the systematic use of known GMO. Ballot propositions are constitutionally limited in scope, partly for such reasons.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.