Organic farmers' case against Monsanto thrown out by judge

Mars and Beyond (1957)
Judge Buchwald threw out a case brought by consortium of U.S. organic farmers and seed dealers concerned about Monsanto's Genetically Modified Organism seeds claiming the suit was a "transparent effort to create a controversy where none exists."
Organic Farmers are terrorizing Bill  "vaccinate 'em" Gates Jew pal, "feed 'em franken food" Monsanto.
U.S. Federal Dist. Judge Naomi Buchwald ruled Friday to dismiss the case brought by organic farmers to stop patent infringement lawsuits brought by seed giant Monsanto. The suit, called OSGATA et al. vs. Monsanto, was brought by the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Assn. (OSGATA), as well as 82 other plaintiffs representing as many as 300,000 farmers.
“We’re Americans. We believe in the system. But we’re disappointed in the judge,” said Jim Gerritsen, an organic seed farmer in Maine and OSGATA president.
The farmers had sought a declaratory judgment against Monsanto to stop the agribusiness giant from suing farmers who ended up with patented genes in their seed crops through cross-contamination via wind or other accidental methods. Monsanto has said for years that it would not sue farmers who inadvertently acquired their patented genes, yet there have been over a hundred such lawsuits, including several against farmers who proved they had no intention of using Monsanto genes, and an unknown number of settlements that have not been disclosed. The farmers contend that this amounts to harassment, and that many of them have stopped growing profitable crops such as corn because of fear of contamination by Monsanto crops.
The farmers had hoped that one result of the law would be a reexamination of the patents held by Monsanto, which they claim are fraudulent. The judge’s ruling did not address those matters.
The plaintiff’s lead attorney, Dan Ravicher, executive director of the Public Patent Foundation at Cardozo Law School, said in a statement that he believes the judge made an error.
"Her failure to address the purpose of the Declaratory Judgment Act and her characterization of binding Supreme Court precedent that supports the farmers’ standing as 'wholly inapposite' constitute legal error. In sum, her opinion is flawed on both the facts and the law."
Gerritsen says the farmers he represents will fight on.
“The situation that brought us to court is still there. Farmers need the protection of the court. We filed a completely legitimate lawsuit under the Declaratory Judgment Act. We do understand that we have the right to appeal.” He points out it’s a big group, and 83 different entities have to agree to go forward with the appeal. “This is already underway,” he says. “The discussions have already begun.”

No comments:

Post a Comment

If you sit by a river long enough, you'll see the body of your enemy float by.
Old Japanese proverb