PDA

View Full Version : WI judge who ruled you have no "right to food" goes to work for Monsanto




Anti Federalist
02-07-2012, 07:17 AM
Shocked, shocked I am...




By Rady Ananda
Food Freedom

The Wisconsin judge who recently ruled that we have no right to own a cow or drink its milk resigned to join one of Monsanto’s law firms.

Judge Fiedler ruled that humans:

“Do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;”
“Do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;”
“Do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;”
“Do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice;” and
Cannot enter into private contracts without State police power intervention.
His decision was rendered on Sept. 9 and he stepped down from the bench on Sept. 30.

Former judge Patrick J. Fiedler now works for Axley Brynelson, LLP, which defended Monsanto against a patent infringement case filed by Australian firm, Genetic Technologies, Ltd. (GTL) in early 2010.

Read the Full Article: http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/%e2%80%98no-food-rights%e2%80%99-judge-quits-to-work-for-monsanto-law-firm/

GunnyFreedom
02-07-2012, 07:19 AM
I just field-stripped my pitchfork and checked the fuel state on my torch. :mad:

Warrior_of_Freedom
02-07-2012, 08:36 AM
I wonder why Monsanto is always defended by the government, then I read shit like this. Their employees WORK for the government.

NidStyles
02-07-2012, 08:45 AM
LOL! Just another depraved individual whom doesn't care if his Grandchildren grow up in bondage.

Danke
02-07-2012, 09:31 AM
Can't beat them, join them.

Dr.3D
02-07-2012, 09:42 AM
I just field-stripped my pitchfork and checked the fuel state on my torch. :mad:

I'm surprised you didn't grab an old feather pillow and a bucket of tar while you were at it.




Edit: Disclaimer... I'm just kidding, and not advocating violence.

jkr
02-07-2012, 10:25 AM
i will.

people need to stand up and throw of these parasites-for good

jmdrake
02-07-2012, 11:11 AM
We lost the right to grow our own food back in 1942.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

CaptainAmerica
02-07-2012, 11:24 AM
Lets remember his name

bolil
02-07-2012, 11:54 AM
FDR! FDR! FDR! In an interesting twist, some of us have probably eaten FDR.

Can I post his contact info here? We can deluge him with emails saying "Mooooo". NO ONE THREATEN!

http://axley.com/patrick-j-fiedler

Danke
02-07-2012, 12:06 PM
We lost the right to grow our own food back in 1942.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

If you accept benefits as Filburn did (subsidy prices for his wheat), then one is liable for the agency’s civil penalties imposed by the program regulations.


It is of the essence of regulation that it lays a restraining hand
on the self-interest of the regulated and that advantages from the
regulation commonly fall to others. … the Government gave the
farmer a choice…. It is hardly lack of due process for the
Government to regulate that which it subsidizes.- Wickard (317 US
111,129-131

flightlesskiwi
02-07-2012, 12:20 PM
there are so many revolving doors in government it's a wonder how wind energy really isn't more effective than it is.


I wonder why Monsanto is always defended by the government, then I read shit like this. Their employees WORK for the government.

Krugerrand
02-07-2012, 12:22 PM
Just to clarify ... he went to work for a lawfirm that Monsanto hired to defend them in his courtroom.

Equally shady ... but just clarifying the details.

jmdrake
02-07-2012, 12:37 PM
If you accept benefits as Filburn did (subsidy prices for his wheat), then one is liable for the agency’s civil penalties imposed by the program regulations.

Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out.

donnay
02-07-2012, 01:05 PM
This whole government is like a huge spider web of deceit.

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1624147102385&id=9833c05c6b1f4a823a7ea4cbdf7c825e&url=http%3a%2f%2fsustainableseedco.com%2fimages%2f cache%2f59d977c74195e2f2108d9e4575a952e4.jpg


http://sustainableseedco.com/seeds-of-deception.html

JK/SEA
02-07-2012, 01:15 PM
Lets remember his name

i think he may be related to the Donner family.

Lishy
02-07-2012, 01:15 PM
... Still hate Monsanto <_<

Diurdi
02-07-2012, 01:19 PM
"Right to food" sounds like you have a right to be provided with food by others.

"Right to consume your own food" or "Right to produce your own food" seems like a better title for the thread.

GunnyFreedom
02-07-2012, 06:24 PM
If you accept benefits as Filburn did (subsidy prices for his wheat), then one is liable for the agency’s civil penalties imposed by the program regulations.

Are you aware that Wickard v Filburn has been used to justify every abuse of interstate commerce quite regardless of subsidies or not, has been used to derogate the 10th Amendment, and now this...recognize the line of justification?

http://www.anh-usa.org/fda-new-claim-body-is-a-drug/

How Wickard has been used as a precedent historically has nothing to do with subsidies.

AdamT
02-07-2012, 06:26 PM
The Wisconsin judge who recently ruled that we have no right to own a cow or drink its milk resigned to join one of Monsanto’s law firms.

Judge Fiedler ruled that humans:

“Do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;”
“Do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;”
“Do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;”
“Do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice;” and
Cannot enter into private contracts without State police power intervention.
His decision was rendered on Sept. 9 and he stepped down from the bench on Sept. 30.

Serious LOLz right there.

Dr.3D
02-07-2012, 06:49 PM
I'm surprised he didn't include...

"Do not have a fundamental right to pursue happiness."

Perhaps he believes we may pursue happiness, but without government intervention we should never achieve it.

RickyJ
02-07-2012, 06:52 PM
Who protects such a man?

//
Screw it!

Danke
02-07-2012, 10:23 PM
Are you aware that Wickard v Filburn has been used to justify every abuse of interstate commerce quite regardless of subsidies or not, has been used to derogate the 10th Amendment, and now this...recognize the line of justification?

http://www.anh-usa.org/fda-new-claim-body-is-a-drug/

How Wickard has been used as a precedent historically has nothing to do with subsidies.

Am I aware our courts are f#cked up. Why yes, yes I am.