Obama Repeals 5th Amendment
*please go to page 7 if this is not new to you.*
Government calls for inventory of all weopans at V.F.W. Posts including old muskets swords tanks and everything from WWII and Vietnam.
Link to source. www.infowars.com check front page to link to article
0
-
Court: Organic farmers can sue conventional, GMO farmers whose pesticides `trespass'
Ethan A. Huff
http://www.naturalnews.com/033216_GMO_contamination_lawsuits.html
Aug 3, 2011
Purveyors of conventional and genetically-modified (GM) crops - and the pesticides and herbicides that accompany them - are finally getting a taste of their own legal medicine. Minnesota's Star Tribune has reported that the Minnesota Court of Appeals recently ruled that a large organic farm surrounded by chemical-laden conventional farms can seek damages for lost crops, as well as lost profits, caused by the illegal trespassing of pesticides and herbicides on its property.
Oluf and Debra Johnson's 1,500-acre organic farm in Stearns County, Minn., has repeatedly been contaminated by nearby conventional and GMO farms since the couple started it in the 1990s. A local pesticide cooperative known as Paynesville Farmers Union (PFU), which is near the farm, has been cited at least four times for violating pesticide laws, and inadvertently causing damage to the Johnson's farm.
The first time it was realized that pesticides had drifted onto the Johnson's farm in 1998, PFU apologized, but did not agree to pay for damages. As anyone with an understanding of organic practices knows, even a small bit of contamination can result in having to plow under that season's crops, forget profits, and even lose the ability to grow organic crops in the same field for at least a couple years.
The Johnson's let the first incident slide. But after the second, third, and fourth times, they decided that enough was enough. Following the second pesticide drift in 2002, the Johnson's filed a complaint with the Minnesota Agriculture Department, which eventually ruled that PFU had illegally sprayed chemicals on windy days, which led to contamination of the Johnson's organic crops.
PFU settled with the Johnson's out of court, and the Johnson's agreed to sell their tainted products as non-organics for a lower price, and pull the fields from production for three years in order to bring them back up to organic standards. But PFU's inconsiderate spraying habits continued, with numerous additional incidents occurring in 2005, 2007, and 2008, according to the Star Tribune.
After enduring much hardship, the Johnson's finally ended up suing PFU in 2009 for negligence and trespass, only to receive denial from the district court that received the case. But after appealing, the Johnson's received favor from the Appeals Court, which ruled that particulate matter, including pesticides, herbicides, and even GM particulates, that contaminates nearby fields is, in fact, considered illegal trespass, and is subject to the same laws concerning other forms of trespass.
In a similar case, a California-based organic farm recently won a $1 million lawsuit filed against a conventional farm whose pesticides spread through fog from several miles away, and contaminated its fields. Jacobs Farm / Del Cobo's entire season's herb crop had to be discarded as a result, and the court that presided over the case acknowledged and agreed that the polluters must be held responsible (http://organicfood.einnews.com/arti.).
Precedent has now been set for organic farmers to sue biotechnology companies whose GMOs contaminate their crops.
The stunning victories of both the Johnson's and Jacob's Farm / Del Cobo against their chemical-polluting neighbors is huge, in that it represents a new set legal precedent for holding conventional, factory farming operations responsible for the damage their systems cause to other farms. And with this new precedent set, many more organic farmers, for instance, can now begin suing GMO farmers for both chemical and genetic pollution that drifts onto their farms.
Many NaturalNews readers will recall the numerous incidents involving lawsuits filed by Monsanto against non-GMO farms whose crops were inadvertently contaminated by GM material. In many of these cases, the defendants ended up becoming bankrupted by Monsanto, even though Monsanto's patented materials were the trespassers at fault.
Be sure to check out the extensive and very informative report compiled by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) entitled Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers for a complete history of Monsanto's war against traditional American agriculture: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/.
But it appears that the tables are now turning. Instead of Monsanto winning against organic farmers, organic farmers can now achieve victory against Monsanto. In other words, farmers being infringed upon by the drifting of GM material into their fields now have a legal leg to stand on in the pursuit of justice against Monsanto and the other biotechnology giants whose "frankencrops" are responsible for causing widespread contamination of the American food supply.
Genetic traits are highly transmissible, whether it be through pollen transfer or seed spread, and organic and non-GMO farmers have every right to seek damages for illegal trespassing when such transmission takes place. It is expected that many more organic farms will step up and begin seeking justice and compensation for damage caused by crop chemicals, GM materials, and other harmful invaders.
For too long, Monsanto has been getting away with suing farmers whose crops have become contaminated by Monsanto's patented genetic traits and chemical materials, and winning. Thankfully, the justice system seems to now recognize the severe error in this, and is now beginning to rightfully hold polluters and trespassers responsible. Monsanto, your days are numbered.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.startribune.com/local/12.
Don't have my wings yet but I'm in rotation. Thanks Ya'll. steve0 -
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
Court: Organic farmers can sue conventional, GMO farmers whose pesticides `trespass'
Ethan A. Huff
http://www.naturalnews.com/033216_GMO_contamination_lawsuits.html
Aug 3, 2011
Purveyors of conventional and genetically-modified (GM) crops - and the pesticides and herbicides that accompany them - are finally getting a taste of their own legal medicine. Minnesota's Star Tribune has reported that the Minnesota Court of Appeals recently ruled that a large organic farm surrounded by chemical-laden conventional farms can seek damages for lost crops, as well as lost profits, caused by the illegal trespassing of pesticides and herbicides on its property.
Oluf and Debra Johnson's 1,500-acre organic farm in Stearns County, Minn., has repeatedly been contaminated by nearby conventional and GMO farms since the couple started it in the 1990s. A local pesticide cooperative known as Paynesville Farmers Union (PFU), which is near the farm, has been cited at least four times for violating pesticide laws, and inadvertently causing damage to the Johnson's farm.
The first time it was realized that pesticides had drifted onto the Johnson's farm in 1998, PFU apologized, but did not agree to pay for damages. As anyone with an understanding of organic practices knows, even a small bit of contamination can result in having to plow under that season's crops, forget profits, and even lose the ability to grow organic crops in the same field for at least a couple years.
The Johnson's let the first incident slide. But after the second, third, and fourth times, they decided that enough was enough. Following the second pesticide drift in 2002, the Johnson's filed a complaint with the Minnesota Agriculture Department, which eventually ruled that PFU had illegally sprayed chemicals on windy days, which led to contamination of the Johnson's organic crops.
PFU settled with the Johnson's out of court, and the Johnson's agreed to sell their tainted products as non-organics for a lower price, and pull the fields from production for three years in order to bring them back up to organic standards. But PFU's inconsiderate spraying habits continued, with numerous additional incidents occurring in 2005, 2007, and 2008, according to the Star Tribune.
After enduring much hardship, the Johnson's finally ended up suing PFU in 2009 for negligence and trespass, only to receive denial from the district court that received the case. But after appealing, the Johnson's received favor from the Appeals Court, which ruled that particulate matter, including pesticides, herbicides, and even GM particulates, that contaminates nearby fields is, in fact, considered illegal trespass, and is subject to the same laws concerning other forms of trespass.
In a similar case, a California-based organic farm recently won a $1 million lawsuit filed against a conventional farm whose pesticides spread through fog from several miles away, and contaminated its fields. Jacobs Farm / Del Cobo's entire season's herb crop had to be discarded as a result, and the court that presided over the case acknowledged and agreed that the polluters must be held responsible (http://organicfood.einnews.com/arti.).
Precedent has now been set for organic farmers to sue biotechnology companies whose GMOs contaminate their crops.
The stunning victories of both the Johnson's and Jacob's Farm / Del Cobo against their chemical-polluting neighbors is huge, in that it represents a new set legal precedent for holding conventional, factory farming operations responsible for the damage their systems cause to other farms. And with this new precedent set, many more organic farmers, for instance, can now begin suing GMO farmers for both chemical and genetic pollution that drifts onto their farms.
Many NaturalNews readers will recall the numerous incidents involving lawsuits filed by Monsanto against non-GMO farms whose crops were inadvertently contaminated by GM material. In many of these cases, the defendants ended up becoming bankrupted by Monsanto, even though Monsanto's patented materials were the trespassers at fault.
Be sure to check out the extensive and very informative report compiled by the Center for Food Safety (CFS) entitled Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers for a complete history of Monsanto's war against traditional American agriculture: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/.
But it appears that the tables are now turning. Instead of Monsanto winning against organic farmers, organic farmers can now achieve victory against Monsanto. In other words, farmers being infringed upon by the drifting of GM material into their fields now have a legal leg to stand on in the pursuit of justice against Monsanto and the other biotechnology giants whose "frankencrops" are responsible for causing widespread contamination of the American food supply.
Genetic traits are highly transmissible, whether it be through pollen transfer or seed spread, and organic and non-GMO farmers have every right to seek damages for illegal trespassing when such transmission takes place. It is expected that many more organic farms will step up and begin seeking justice and compensation for damage caused by crop chemicals, GM materials, and other harmful invaders.
For too long, Monsanto has been getting away with suing farmers whose crops have become contaminated by Monsanto's patented genetic traits and chemical materials, and winning. Thankfully, the justice system seems to now recognize the severe error in this, and is now beginning to rightfully hold polluters and trespassers responsible. Monsanto, your days are numbered.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.startribune.com/local/12.
Don't have my wings yet but I'm in rotation. Thanks Ya'll. steve
Thanks for the post and links, this ruling makes for real hope. I grow a home garden that small but is organic. The times they are a changin......[:D]0 -
No Cause, No Gun, Judge Tells Gun Lovers
By ADAM KLASFELD
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/06/39572.htm
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (CN) - Five Westchester residents and the Second Amendment Foundation cannot relax a law forcing citizens to demonstrate proper cause before they pack heat on public streets, a federal judge ruled.
New York courts have interpreted "proper cause" as having a "special need for self-protection" as compared to the general population.
"I hold that the state has an important government interest in promoting public safety and preventing crime," U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel wrote in an order dismissing a class action challenging the regulation.
Alan Kachalsky, Christina Nikolov, Eric Detmer, Johnnie Nance and Anna Marcucci-Nance say their applications for full-carry permits were rejected, even though they had all been trained in firearms and had spotless criminal records.
Kachalsky claimed he had proper cause because "we live in a world where sporadic random violence might at any moment place one in a position where one needs to defend oneself or possibly others," court documents say.
Judge Susan Cacace, his licensing officer, found that this explanation did not distinguish him from anybody else seeking a permit.
Nikolov said she deserved a license because she passed three firearms safety courses with the National Rifle Association, showed a "calm demeanor" as a pilot and flight instructor, and had a higher likelihood of being the victim of violence as a transgender woman.
Rejecting her request, Judge Jeffrey A. Cohen explained that a specific threat of violence against her was "conspicuously absent" from her application.
Nance and Marcucci-Nance cited no special needs for full-carry permits, Judge Robert K. Holdman found.
Detmer thought he satisfied the proper cause requirement as a federal law enforcement officer with the U.S. Coast Guard, but Judge Albert Lorenzo said his application contained "no justification" for a full-carry permit.
Gaining the support of the Second Amendment Foundation, the five applicants filed a federal class action lawsuit against Westchester County and the four judges serving as licensing officers in late 2010.
On Friday, Judge Seibel agreed that the plaintiffs had standing to pursue the case, but she granted summary judgment to the defendants sua sponte on the grounds that the state had the duty to protect public safety.
In a footnote, she noted that the state attorneys argued in affidavits that gun crimes are linked to general availability, and citizens with concealed handguns can endanger cops stopping them.
An affidavit also said that the "majority of criminal homicides and other serious crimes are committed by individuals who have not been convicted of a felony and would receive permits to carry concealed weapons without the 'proper cause' requirement."
Data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives showed that 227 firearms were recovered during the first half of 2009 in Westchester, more than double those recovered in nearby Orange County and several times more than those recovered in Dutchess, Rockland, Sullivan and Putnam.
The report also cited 132 weapon offenses in the Westchester region.
Judge Seibel entered the 60-page opinion on Friday, preceding a particularly bloody Labor Day weekend in which 48 people were shot in New York City. Mayor Mike Bloomberg called for stricter gun-control laws Tuesday.0 -
Obama Repeals the 5th Amendment
by Bob Bauman
The Sovereign Investor
Recently by Bob Bauman: Ten Years Later. We're Still Paying the Price
Rarely in my long life's experience have two news items been published on the same day that demonstrated such palpable irony.
The two stories that appeared in The New York Times last Friday (Sept. 30) and when read together, they present a sharp incongruity and discordance that far exceeds the simple and evident intention of the words and actions recounted.
Due Process: 1945
Item #1: In a column entitled "The Nuremberg Scripts" Joe Nocera told how, in November 1945, six months after Nazi Germany's surrender to the victorious Allies, a 24-year-old Army combat engineer named Harold Burson was handed a new assignment: daily reports on the Nuremberg trial of the top Nazis leaders for the American Armed Forces Radio Network. For the next five months, Burson was one of two soldiers who reported on the trial and produced a daily "script," read over the air by the AFRN announcers.
Mr. Burson, who is 90 now, is the co-founder of Burson-Marsteller, one of the world's largest public relations firms, says that every five years or so, he goes back and re-reads those old scripts, marveling at the remarkable experience he'd been afforded at such a young age.
Nocera says there was an aspect to Burson's scripts he ".found quite endearing. They have an earnest, idealistic quality that reminds you just how full of hope America was after World War II.
"Though we had fought a brutal war, we were determined to act generously to the vanquished. That even applied to the Nazi brass who had committed reprehensible crimes against humanity. "G.I.'s have one stock question," reads Burson's very first 1945 script. "Why can't we just take them out and shoot 'em? We know they're guilty."
Due Process: 2011
Item #2: In a "news analysis" in the same Times edition, Scott Shane reported: "The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen struck on Friday by a missile fired from a drone aircraft operated by his own government, instantly reignited a difficult debate over terrorism, civil liberties and the law."
In a statement my former U.S. House of Representatives colleague, Rep. Ron Paul, said President Obama was "appointing himself judge, jury and executioner by presidential decree" and was acting outside "the Constitution or the rule of law" He added: "Awlaki was a U.S. citizen. Under our Constitution, American citizens, even those living abroad, must be charged with a crime before being sentenced." He suggested the president could be impeached for the killing.
"In any way destroyed."
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, one of the most important protections in our Bill of Rights says in part: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
The United States Supreme Court has held: "It is now the settled doctrine of this Court that the Due Process Clause embodies a system of rights based on moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society as conceived by our whole history. Due Process is that which comports with the deepest notions of what is fair and right and just." Solesbee v. Balkcom, 339 U.S. 9, 16 (1950);' Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934).
The concept of due process goes all the way back to Magna Carta, (1215) in which King John promised that "[n]o free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseized or exiled or in any way destroyed.except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."
Evidence
Pressed to justify the constitutional law professor/president's open defiance of the Fifth Amendment in ordering the murder of a U.S. citizen without trial, the White House press secretary refused to respond. As the Washington Post put it, "The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process."
Glen Greenwald said it: "That is the mindset of the U.S. Government and its followers expressed as vividly as can be: we can spy on, imprison, or even kill anyone we want - including citizens - without any due process or any evidence shown, simply because we will tell you they are Bad People, and you will trust us and believe us."
Deeply Embedded Hypocrisy
A writer from Bangor, Maine commented: ".we target and kill an American citizen without trial. I'm not saying this man's actions didn't deserve punishment. But why even bother to pretend anymore? Why bother? Maybe with Obama's latest drone kill we can let the hypocrisy go. But remember, Americans. Remotely-controlled drones can fly and kill over American cities just as easily as they can fly and kill over Yemen."
Ask yourself this question: In the 66 years from the Nuremberg Trial 1945 to the White House 2011, what has happened to America's belief in what the Supreme Court described as those "moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society."
The next time you hear what sounds like a small plane flying overhead, look up. If the president decides you are one of those Bad People, it might be the last thing you ever see.
Reprinted with permission from The Sovereign Investor.
October 5, 2011
Robert E. Bauman is a former Member of the United States House of Representatives from Maryland, (1973-1981). He is also a former federal official and state legislator; Member, Washington, DC Bar; Graduate of the Georgetown University Law Center (1964) and the School of Foreign Service (1959), Washington, DC. Robert currently serves as legal counsel for the Sovereign Society.
Copyright c 2011 Robert E. Bauman0 -
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
Obama Repeals the 5th Amendment
by Bob Bauman
The Sovereign Investor
Recently by Bob Bauman: Ten Years Later. We're Still Paying the Price
Rarely in my long life's experience have two news items been published on the same day that demonstrated such palpable irony.
The two stories that appeared in The New York Times last Friday (Sept. 30) and when read together, they present a sharp incongruity and discordance that far exceeds the simple and evident intention of the words and actions recounted.
Due Process: 1945
Item #1: In a column entitled "The Nuremberg Scripts" Joe Nocera told how, in November 1945, six months after Nazi Germany's surrender to the victorious Allies, a 24-year-old Army combat engineer named Harold Burson was handed a new assignment: daily reports on the Nuremberg trial of the top Nazis leaders for the American Armed Forces Radio Network. For the next five months, Burson was one of two soldiers who reported on the trial and produced a daily "script," read over the air by the AFRN announcers.
Mr. Burson, who is 90 now, is the co-founder of Burson-Marsteller, one of the world's largest public relations firms, says that every five years or so, he goes back and re-reads those old scripts, marveling at the remarkable experience he'd been afforded at such a young age.
Nocera says there was an aspect to Burson's scripts he ".found quite endearing. They have an earnest, idealistic quality that reminds you just how full of hope America was after World War II.
"Though we had fought a brutal war, we were determined to act generously to the vanquished. That even applied to the Nazi brass who had committed reprehensible crimes against humanity. "G.I.'s have one stock question," reads Burson's very first 1945 script. "Why can't we just take them out and shoot 'em? We know they're guilty."
Due Process: 2011
Item #2: In a "news analysis" in the same Times edition, Scott Shane reported: "The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen struck on Friday by a missile fired from a drone aircraft operated by his own government, instantly reignited a difficult debate over terrorism, civil liberties and the law."
In a statement my former U.S. House of Representatives colleague, Rep. Ron Paul, said President Obama was "appointing himself judge, jury and executioner by presidential decree" and was acting outside "the Constitution or the rule of law" He added: "Awlaki was a U.S. citizen. Under our Constitution, American citizens, even those living abroad, must be charged with a crime before being sentenced." He suggested the president could be impeached for the killing.
"In any way destroyed."
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, one of the most important protections in our Bill of Rights says in part: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
The United States Supreme Court has held: "It is now the settled doctrine of this Court that the Due Process Clause embodies a system of rights based on moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society as conceived by our whole history. Due Process is that which comports with the deepest notions of what is fair and right and just." Solesbee v. Balkcom, 339 U.S. 9, 16 (1950);' Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934).
The concept of due process goes all the way back to Magna Carta, (1215) in which King John promised that "[n]o free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseized or exiled or in any way destroyed.except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."
Evidence
Pressed to justify the constitutional law professor/president's open defiance of the Fifth Amendment in ordering the murder of a U.S. citizen without trial, the White House press secretary refused to respond. As the Washington Post put it, "The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process."
Glen Greenwald said it: "That is the mindset of the U.S. Government and its followers expressed as vividly as can be: we can spy on, imprison, or even kill anyone we want - including citizens - without any due process or any evidence shown, simply because we will tell you they are Bad People, and you will trust us and believe us."
Deeply Embedded Hypocrisy
A writer from Bangor, Maine commented: ".we target and kill an American citizen without trial. I'm not saying this man's actions didn't deserve punishment. But why even bother to pretend anymore? Why bother? Maybe with Obama's latest drone kill we can let the hypocrisy go. But remember, Americans. Remotely-controlled drones can fly and kill over American cities just as easily as they can fly and kill over Yemen."
Ask yourself this question: In the 66 years from the Nuremberg Trial 1945 to the White House 2011, what has happened to America's belief in what the Supreme Court described as those "moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society."
The next time you hear what sounds like a small plane flying overhead, look up. If the president decides you are one of those Bad People, it might be the last thing you ever see.
Reprinted with permission from The Sovereign Investor.
October 5, 2011
Robert E. Bauman is a former Member of the United States House of Representatives from Maryland, (1973-1981). He is also a former federal official and state legislator; Member, Washington, DC Bar; Graduate of the Georgetown University Law Center (1964) and the School of Foreign Service (1959), Washington, DC. Robert currently serves as legal counsel for the Sovereign Society.
Copyright c 2011 Robert E. Bauman
I've seen some (for example: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=352617) argue that his Alwaki's dual citizenship muddles this issue. I wasn't able to follow the point to understand how it could remove the due process requirement. In fact, I don't think it matters at all.0 -
Granted, not the best thing I've C&P in a while but I found it to be an interesting read. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
336 comments