TPP in America: Judge blocks County from implementing law that would harm corporate profit

[Natural Citizen]

http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/stltoday.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/4/66/4663998f-5454-56c0-a612-6c8866347759/545a20fbbf090.image.jpg?resize=300%2C154


HONOLULU • A federal judge said Friday that Maui County may not implement a new law banning the cultivation of genetically modified organisms until he considers arguments in a lawsuit against the measure.

Creve Coeur-based Monsanto Co. and a unit of Dow Chemical Co. sued the county last week to stop the law.

They argue that the law would harm the economy and their businesses.

Maui voters created the law with a ballot initiative they passed Nov. 4. The measure was to take effect after officials certified the election results, which was expected later this month.

Kenneth Robbins, an attorney for the companies, said Kurren was saying in his ruling the plaintiffs have shown they could potentially suffer irreparable harm if the law goes into effect.



Continued - Judge blocks Maui County from implementing GMO law (http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/judge-blocks-maui-county-from-implementing-gmo-law/article_229cdd9b-84f0-5a72-a444-b2c36d821b98.html)

So, essentially, a judge is disregarding/blocking a law that came as a result of a successful citizens initiative. In America. Because he is considering the profit of a multi-national corporation over the will of the people.

I had mentioned my thought on it elsewhere but would ask again. What of the old endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness gag? What happened to that? Have we repatriated this? Or is that what we are seeing at this very moment? One may consider that beyond the experimental turf that these multi-national corporations enjoyed there in Maui for their genetically modified products, that they may well enjoy experimental turf for the TPP itself. This case serves as the very stalking horse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking_horse)for the TPP.

If one reflects on this lawsuit and others that will certainly follow as the people introduce more of these citizens initiatives, it begs the question of the rule of law. Is justice something that is to be purchased? And what of the courts and so called unbiased judges who dispense it? We know much of the revolving door that exists within these Mercantilist companies, the courts and government bodies.

[FindLiberty]

Money talks and that's what "plants" crave.

[Natural Citizen]

Money talks and that's what "plants" crave.

Perhaps. If this is what we like to call liberty in this so called movement then I think it's likely time that I abandon and oppose it vigorously. Which is a shame. There are some extraordinary folks here. Some good people who have accomplished wonderful things. Stalking horses, however, are best corralled, tamed and displayed. And I think that particular task may be better carried out elsewhere.

[CaptUSA]

The GMO controversy is a funny thing. It tends to turn libertarians into authoritarians.

What if the industry in question were a brewery or something? Generally, libertarians are against government regulating businesses, even if it has been approved by the majority. Generally, libertarians are against mandating labeling, too, but not when it comes to GMO's.

I would tend to think that the proper way to handle these things would be through the courts - prove that damage has been done and then seek reparations. That becomes pretty difficult with GMO's, though, because we may not know what damage has been done until decades later. By then, the genetics of natural crops could have been infected and there's no turning back.

To be honest, I'm not really sure where I come down on this issue. I do know for sure, however, that I don't like the demagoguery.

[thoughtomator]

The GMO controversy is a funny thing. It tends to libertarians into authoritarians.

Only if you misinterpret "active defense of essential life, liberty, and property" to be authoritarian in nature.

GMOs represent an attack on the very biosphere that keeps us alive. The right to life gives us the right to demand that GMO crops not be planted or developed. No one is at liberty to put others at risk of extreme and catastrophic outcomes.

[CaptUSA]

Only if you misinterpret "active defense of essential life, liberty, and property" to be authoritarian in nature.

GMOs represent an attack on the very biosphere that keeps us alive. The right to life gives us the right to demand that GMO crops not be planted or developed. No one is at liberty to put others at risk of extreme and catastrophic outcomes.

Lol, see what I mean?

I do know for sure, however, that I don't like the demagoguery.

[Natural Citizen]

My original posting doesn't indicate demagoguery in any way and has nothing to do with science. Technically, one can never prove or disprove anything with regard to the effects of GMOs on humanity, the environment or wildlife. The very nature of science is that we never stop asking questions. There are no sacred truths in science.

The issue here is that we have a judge in America disregarding a law that was established through a citizens inititive, again, in America, and by way of legitimate political processes because a multi-national corporation says that the sovereignty of these U.S. citizens impedes it's profits. The relevant issue is rather clear cut.

[maybemaybenot]

My original posting doesn't indicate demagoguery in any way and has nothing to do with science. Technically, one can never prove or disprove anything with regard to the effects of GMOs on humanity, the environment or wildlife. The very nature of science is that we never stop asking questions. There are no sacred truths in science.

The issue here is that we have a judge in America disregarding a law that was established through a citizens inititive, again, in America, and by way of legitimate political processes because a multi-national corporation says that the sovereignty of these U.S. citizens impedes it's profits. The relevant issue is rather clear cut.

It doesn't matter if a law is popular or not, we have a constitutional right to property and to use it however we want, and that's in state constitutions also, which are way, way above county ordinances on the legal food chain.

[Natural Citizen]

It doesn't matter if a law is popular or not, we have a constitutional right to property and to use it however we want, and that's in state constitutions also, which are way, way above county ordinances on the legal food chain.

You're making a patent law argument to justify suppression of sovereignty then? These particular companies are, at the root, opposed to one of the fundamental founding documents of this country which would be The Declaration of Independence. As I had mentioned, it would be that old "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" gag. These companies want total control of the food supply. That is what growth means to them. "life" is irrelevant to these factions. That's a human phenonomenon. Is a completely different phenomenon than growth and certainly exist in contradiction given that this is yet another example of the people versus the entity. And only in America may patent law be used to do just that thing, first here, and then in countries abroad via TPP. They don't want people to have the freedom to grow and eat what they want. They want to control the world’s food supply, and, yes... using the mechanism of patent law to do so is a part of that. What about the other 60 or so other countries who actually respect their own laws and that won't allow these Mercantilist companies to avoid the free market and suppress the sovereignty of their people and laws? Do you think these patent laws will get it done abroad? It won't. And much has been discussed here with regard to that very subject at the international level. Is why we see the TPP shrouded in so much secrecy.

Redundant of that, patent laws don't apply to this thread anyhow.

These companies are saying that the legitimate laws of these people are infringing upon their profits and a judge is placing a roadblock in front of the will of the people on the basis of just that. Ultimately, these mercantilist companies as well as the judge are against life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as our framers explained it and the actions of these fascist oligarchs are demonstrative that we are, in fact, not a republic at all save for on paper.

[Working Poor]

The issue here is that we have a judge in America disregarding a law that was established through a citizens inititive, again, in America, and by way of legitimate political processes because a multi-national corporation says that the sovereignty of these U.S. citizens impedes it's profits. The relevant issue is rather clear cut.

Yea and that is a pretty big deal if you ask me.

[Natural Citizen]

Yea and that is a pretty big deal if you ask me.

Yep. There is no more avoiding the issue. It's rtight here and in your face. Is time to start pointing fingers and calling out names specifically. The people need to know who supports this kind of tyranny as well as the TPP in whole. What we see here is the very model of the TPP and is being experimented right here in the states. By the silence in our representatives in not recognizing and addressing the infringment of the rights of these citizens, they contribute equally to the assault against life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that our framers guaranteed.

[donnay]

The GMO controversy is a funny thing. It tends to turn libertarians into authoritarians.

What if the industry in question were a brewery or something? Generally, libertarians are against government regulating businesses, even if it has been approved by the majority. Generally, libertarians are against mandating labeling, too, but not when it comes to GMO's.

I would tend to think that the proper way to handle these things would be through the courts - prove that damage has been done and then seek reparations. That becomes pretty difficult with GMO's, though, because we may not know what damage has been done until decades later. By then, the genetics of natural crops could have been infected and there's no turning back.

To be honest, I'm not really sure where I come down on this issue. I do know for sure, however, that I don't like the demagoguery.

Excuse me, but isn't a judge an agent of government? The judge struck down what the people wanted. The will of the people is being stopped at every attempt to know what is in their food. The people have a right to know what is in their food, government is working for the Corporations here.

[CaptUSA]

Excuse me, but isn't a judge an agent of government? The judge struck down what the people wanted. The will of the people is being stopped at every attempt to know what is in their food. The people have a right to know what is in their food, government is working for the Corporations here.

I'm not disagreeing with you that the government is working for the corporations - it's just that in some cases, the corporations are right. For example, Coca-Cola and Pepsi spent tons of money this past election cycle trying to defeat referendums to impose a "special" tax on their products. In Berkeley, CA, the referendum passed. Which means the majority of the people decided that they can tax a certain industry over another.

Normally, libertarians are against such measures because it is the majority using the power of government to punish a minority. If the soda companies pursued a lawsuit claiming that the referendum was invalid because it violated their equal status under the law, most libertarians would support the lawsuit. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy when it comes to GMO's.

As to the right of the people to know what's in their food? Again, I agree. But the question I ask is if the government has the power to force a business to tell you what's in the food they sell. It's like health care in that you have the right to care for your health and no one should be allowed to prevent you from doing so, but you do not have the right to force someone else to provide it to you.

The difference I see with GMO's is that they are infectious. That is to say, that once they get into the environment, they are there forever. And it becomes harder and harder to prevent those genes from being cross-contaminated into the rest of the food supply. Bees and wind aren't limited by the boundaries of the farmers. But I think THIS is the way to go after these companies. On the basis that they are causing damages to others. Remember, government regulations - regardless of their original intention or the method by which they were enacted - will almost invariably work against the individual.

[thoughtomator]

Lol, see what I mean?

You mean that you want people to mistake your utter ignorance on the subject for even-handedness?

Prepare for disappointment.

[maybemaybenot]

You're making a patent law argument to justify suppression of sovereignty then? These particular companies are, at the root, opposed to one of the fundamental founding documents of this country which would be The Declaration of Independence. As I had mentioned, it would be that old "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" gag. These companies want total control of the food supply. That is what growth means to them. "life" is irrelevant to these factions. That's a human phenonomenon. Is a completely different phenomenon than growth and certainly exist in contradiction given that this is yet another example of the people versus the entity. And only in America may patent law be used to do just that thing, first here, and then in countries abroad via TPP. They don't want people to have the freedom to grow and eat what they want. They want to control the world’s food supply, and, yes... using the mechanism of patent law to do so is a part of that. What about the other 60 or so other countries who actually respect their own laws and that won't allow these Mercantilist companies to avoid the free market and suppress the sovereignty of their people and laws? Do you think these patent laws will get it done abroad? It won't. And much has been discussed here with regard to that very subject at the international level. Is why we see the TPP shrouded in so much secrecy.

Redundant of that, patent laws don't apply to this thread anyhow.

These companies are saying that the legitimate laws of these people are infringing upon their profits and a judge is placing a roadblock in front of the will of the people on the basis of just that. Ultimately, these mercantilist companies as well as the judge are against life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as our framers explained it and the actions of these fascist oligarchs are demonstrative that we are, in fact, not a republic at all save for on paper.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say I talk about "patent law arguments" or "patent laws," but you're talking about suppression of sovereignty because a county ordinance was overturned? This is is about state constitutional rights, which are above county ordinances. State constitutions limit and define state governmental power, and they guarantee property rights. Meanwhile, state legislatures which are governed by state constitutions CREATE counties. State legislatures create the very counties that pass this county ordinance. The state legislature can't take away property rights, neither can a county. The reason they talk about "profits" here is because that's used to determine if the property rights violation is egregious enough to make it a violation of the state constitutional right to property, to justify blocking a county ordinance. Again, you're just ignoring property rights, AND separation of powers. The state is the sovereign, not the county, and the state constitution guarantees property rights. Sovereignty in the sense of state sovereignty AND libertarianism favor the corporations here, the county isn't the sovereign either way.

[donnay]

I'm not disagreeing with you that the government is working for the corporations - it's just that in some cases, the corporations are right. For example, Coca-Cola and Pepsi spent tons of money this past election cycle trying to defeat referendums to impose a "special" tax on their products. In Berkeley, CA, the referendum passed. Which means the majority of the people decided that they can tax a certain industry over another.

Normally, libertarians are against such measures because it is the majority using the power of government to punish a minority. If the soda companies pursued a lawsuit claiming that the referendum was invalid because it violated their equal status under the law, most libertarians would support the lawsuit. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy when it comes to GMO's.

As to the right of the people to know what's in their food? Again, I agree. But the question I ask is if the government has the power to force a business to tell you what's in the food they sell. It's like health care in that you have the right to care for your health and no one should be allowed to prevent you from doing so, but you do not have the right to force someone else to provide it to you.

The difference I see with GMO's is that they are infectious. That is to say, that once they get into the environment, they are there forever. And it becomes harder and harder to prevent those genes from being cross-contaminated into the rest of the food supply. Bees and wind aren't limited by the boundaries of the farmers. But I think THIS is the way to go after these companies. On the basis that they are causing damages to others. Remember, government regulations - regardless of their original intention or the method by which they were enacted - will almost invariably work against the individual.

Government is already imposing on the citizens with regards to health and healthcare. I am all for getting government out of the food business, small business and our everyday lives. The problem is, government works with the corporations, on all levels, since the corporations have the money to lobby and use government as a force to enforce their rules on the citizens.

[libertyjam]

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/nassim-taleb-the-precautionary-principle-and-gmos/

[Deborah K]

The GMO controversy is a funny thing. It tends to turn libertarians into authoritarians.


It turns some of them into hypocrites too. On the one hand, God forbid the law is egalitarian when it comes to labeling, but hey - feel free to regulate and tax our "legal" weed!

[Natural Citizen]

Maui Residents And Citizen Group Seek Intervention In Federal Court Asserting That The Legal Issues Resulting From The Voter Approved GMO Moratorium Properly Belong In The State Court




Maui, Hawai`i (November 21, 2014) – The Five residents of Maui County, Dr. Lorrin Pang, Mark Sheehan, Lei’ohu Ryder, Bonnie Marsh, Alika Atay, and the SHAKA Movement, the original proponents of the GMO Ordinance on Maui, filed a Motion to Intervene and a Motion to Dismiss the Federal Court lawsuit filed by Monsanto Company and others seeking to invalidate the ordinance that was approved by the voters on election day.

In Court papers filed today, the interested citizens and the citizen group requested that the Federal Court “abstain from resolving the important State issues that directly impact the County’s ability to protect its natural environment and avoid irreparable harm to Public Trust resources.”

In a historic election on November 4, 2014, Maui voters enacted into law a County Ordinance requiring GMO businesses to demonstrate that the testing and development of genetically modified organisms are not harmful to the Maui community and its ecosystem. The Ordinance requires that the GMO industry fund a study that is independently administered by the County to show that the operations are not harmful.

In a clear attempt to reverse the result of the election, certain groups opposed to the measure (who collectively spent millions of dollars campaigning against it) filed an action in Federal Court asking for the law to be invalidated, or never enforced. Joining them, in asking the judge for an order delaying the implementation of the new law were the legal representatives of Maui County.

The motion filed in federal court today asserts that interests of the majority of Maui County voters who approved the ordinance are not properly represented in the agreement reached between the Maui county officials, and the industry opponents. A second filing asserts “Ingrained throughout the Hawaii Constitution are vital environmental considerations that recognize the importance of preserving Hawaii’s delicate natural environment. These provisions are unique given Hawaii’s delicate ecosystem, history, and cultural heritage.” Under the Hawaii Constitution, the State is expressly obligated to provide for the “protection and promotion of the public health”. The motion argued that these vital constitutional interests are to be properly considered under Hawaii State Law.

“We are pleased to finally have our voices heard in the Federal Lawsuit,” said Mark Sheehan, spokesperson for the citizen group. “Given the County’s strong prior opposition and agreement to allow a temporary injunction to delay the implementation of the ordinance, we look forward to the opportunity to express our own position”. The position approved by a majority of the voters in the November election, calling for a moratorium on the production of genetically engineered seeds, and further open air experimentation until independent safety studies have realized, and concluded that there will be no environmental harm.



Court Documents...

39_Motion_to_Dismiss (http://voteyesmaui.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/39_Motion_to_Dismiss.pdf)
37_Motion_to_Intervene (http://voteyesmaui.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/37_Motion_to_Intervene.pdf)
39-1_Memorandum_in_Support_of_Motion (http://voteyesmaui.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/39-1_Memorandum_in_Support_of_Motion.pdf)
37-1_Memorandum_in_Support_of_Motion
(http://voteyesmaui.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/37-1_Memorandum_in_Support_of_Motion.pdf)

[Natural Citizen]

Can't make this stuff up....:cool: “Substantial Equivalence” to the rule of law? I mean, much like these products, we can have real justice as long as it looks like justice. Right? They're wearing robes n stuff. There is a bailiff. Some lawyers. A gavel. Sigh...

Exposed: The Judge in the Monsanto-Maui lawsuit is tainted (http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/exposed-the-judge-in-the-monsanto-maui-lawsuit-is-tainted/)



by Jon Rappoport

November 26, 2014


In a previous article (http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/is-judge-in-maui-gmo-case-connected-to-monsanto/), I ran down Judge Barry Kurren’s wife’s connections to big biotech in Hawaii.
Now I have more. Much more.

Judge Kurren is overseeing the Monsanto/Dow lawsuit against Maui (http://www.blacklistednews.com/Monsanto,_Dow_Chemical_File_Lawsuit_to_Destroy_Mau i_County%27s_GMO_Ban/39180/0/38/38/Y/M.html), where the people recently voted to halt Monsanto/Dow GMO research (http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/election-bang-maui-bans-gmo-crops/).

Does the Judge have a conflict of interest?

Is the Pope Catholic?

Until at least the fall of 2011, Judge Kurren’s wife, Faye, was a trustee of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) (http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/hawaii/) (twitter (https://twitter.com/TNCHawaii)), a 6-billion-dollar environmental group.

TNC specializes in working with mega-corporations, who donate major money, in return for receiving TNC’s “good housekeeping seal of approval” as friends of the environment.

It’s all very cozy.

In 2011, TNC leveraged a blockbuster deal. Dow pledged a $10 million donation (http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/dow-chemical-nature-conservancy-announce-10m-partnership-good-deal-for-the-environment.html). In exchange, Dow could forthwith use the TNC logo on its site and all its products.

That’s like painting a cobra’s hood with Mr. Rogers’ face.

This would be the same Dow whose GMO/pesticide experiments on Maui the voters decided to stop.

The voter stoppage provoked the lawsuit from Dow and Monsanto.

Faye’s husband Barry is the Judge in the case.

Faye was a trustee at TNC, who took $10 million from Dow.

So…what are the chances Faye’s husband will step on Dow’s face in the lawsuit?

Getting the picture?

There’s more.

TNC’s business council includes luminaries like Monsanto, Coca Cola, and of course, Dow.

Among TNC’s corporate funders: again, Dow; Coke, DuPont, Pepsi.

Could the ban-GMO movement ask for more vicious enemies?

Search the extensive TNC website (http://www.nature.org/) and try to find one negative mention of GMOs or toxic pesticides in their “championing of the environment.”

And what about the boss at TNC?

The CEO is Mark Tercek (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-tercek/), former managing partner at what Matt Taibbi calls the “great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money” (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405): Goldman Sachs.

Tercek is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the vampire squid’s brother.

Tercek writes: “We would also be smart to put more focus on making GMO technology available to lower-income farmers, given the potential benefits that climate-resilient GMO crops could bring to the developing world.”

“Climate-resilient.” Sure. What’s wrong with those damn crops that keep demanding decent weather? Fix them with new genes from Dow. Can’t wait for food that doesn’t need water or topsoil.

To repeat: Faye Kurren, Judge Kurren’s wife, was a TNC trustee.

Case closed.

Find a new Judge.





Is Judge in Maui GMO case connected to Monsanto? (http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/is-judge-in-maui-gmo-case-connected-to-monsanto/)




After the citizens of Maui just voted to stop Monsanto and Dow from further GMO development (http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/election-bang-maui-bans-gmo-crops/), Monsanto filed suit (http://www.blacklistednews.com/Monsanto,_Dow_Chemical_File_Lawsuit_to_Destroy_Mau i_County%27s_GMO_Ban/39180/0/38/38/Y/M.html).

Barry Kurren is the US federal magistrate overseeing the court battle between Maui and Monsanto.

Judge Kurren’s wife, Faye, is the past president of the University of Hawaii Foundation (http://www.uhfoundation.org/past-board-presidentschairs), which is the fund-raising arm of the University.

On September 6, 2011, Monsanto donated $500,000 to the University to establish a Monsanto Research Fellows Fund for “plant science.”
(http://www.hawaii.edu/news/article.php?aId=4645)
On July 8, 2010, Monsanto gave $100,000 to University for its scholarship fund (http://www.uhfoundation.org/news/monsanto-establishes-scholarship-uh-m%C4%81noa-college-tropical-agriculture-and-human-resources).

Judge Kurren’s wife, Faye, has also served as a trustee of the Nature Conservancy, which has a long-established relationship with Monsanto. From the Conservancy’s website: “Monsanto has supported the Nature Conservancy for years.”

Presently, Kurren’s wife is a board member of the First Hawaiian Bank. On its website, there is this quote of “GMO praise” (https://www.fhb.com/en/assets/File/Marketing/KauaiEconForecast20112012.pdf)

(page 4 of 6):
“Kauai is an ideal research laboratory for the seed corn industry…there are currently five parent seed corn operations on the island: [biotech GM giants] Pioneer Hi-Bred…Syngenta, Dow Monsanto, and BASF. Dow Agrosciences recently leased 3,400 acres of former sugar land…”

These academic, corporate, non-profit, bank connections are part of Hawaii’s overall social and political networks, which form a “community of interest.”

What would happen if Judge Kurren suddenly ruled against Monsanto? How many shocks would ripple out into protected interests? How many social friendships would suddenly collapse? How embarrassing would it be for Faye Kurren?

How much easier would it be to “honor” those connections and friendships and moneyed interests by siding with Monsanto

judge Barry Kurren, who may hear the case, has significant conflicts of interest and should, by all standards of moral and ethical propriety, recuse himself from the case

[donnay]

Can't make this stuff up....:cool: “Substantial Equivalence” to the rule of law? I mean, much like these products, we can have real justice as long as it looks like justice. Right? They're wearing robes n stuff. There is a bailiff. Some lawyers. A gavel. Sigh...

Exposed: The Judge in the Monsanto-Maui lawsuit is tainted (http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/exposed-the-judge-in-the-monsanto-maui-lawsuit-is-tainted/)





Is Judge in Maui GMO case connected to Monsanto? (http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/is-judge-in-maui-gmo-case-connected-to-monsanto/)

Imagine my shock upon hearing this news. SMDH.