The monster that is Monsanto
POSTED BY: Fremdfirma
UPDATED: Friday, May 9, 2008 15:49
VIEWED: 6598
PAGE 5 of 10
And exactly what laws signed by Bush that has made our economy " tank " ? Oh yeah, none. Now I remember. So how's about you stop w/ the childish "how's the economy " game unless you want to start your own damn thread on the issue ? I'm done with that topic until then.
As for VF, they're off painting Monsanto as being this evil corporation, when very little I've seen is anything one wouldn't expect a corporation to do in order to protect its own property, and thus the interest of its investors.
Both GOP and DNC have 49 LISTED members, but Bernie Sanders ( Jr Senator from Vermont ) and Joe Lieberman caucus with the DNC, making their numbers effectively 51 to the GOP's 49, giving the DNC control.
Harry Reid is the Senate MAJORITY Leader. A title the US press, as free as it claims to be, still lacks the power to grant. Nice try.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I repeat there are no common law rights. In the US the right to privacy is constitutional and granted by the Fourth amendment protection against "unreasonable search and seizure"
I wonder if the common misconception about "common law" is a result of so many laws in the US having a "grandfather clause". For example, in some States if a piece of land is improperly surveyed and a certain amount of time passes, that parcel of land becomes the legal property of the "squater" even if they originally occupied the land in error. There may appear to be "common law" rights but they are actually just regular statutory law.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There is a second issue which has to be mentioned also. The law of Torts (contract law) has various provisions to ensure equitability of a contract, things like full disclosure of relevant facts in the making of a contract, the inability of one party to reword the contract without the others approval (may be UK only.) If the Monsanto contract violates US commercial law in some way, you could work to overturn it but as I said, for any of this to work people HAVE to take them to court.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"And exactly what laws signed by Bush that has made our economy " tank " ?"
Oh, just a little running tab Bush uses to keep the Iraq war off the books, though not out of our pockets, called the emergency supplemental appropriations bill.
"Both GOP and DNC have 49 LISTED members, but Bernie Sanders ( Jr Senator from Vermont ) and Joe Lieberman caucus with the DNC, making their numbers effectively 51 to the GOP's 49, giving the DNC control."
Really. You know, since you are the one making this claim, I leave it to you to back it up. Otherwise, I'll just presume that, as usual, you're wrong yet again.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I repeat there are no common law rights. In the US the right to privacy is constitutional and granted by the Fourth amendment protection against "unreasonable search and seizure"
I wonder if the common misconception about "common law" is a result of so many laws in the US having a "grandfather clause". For example, in some States if a piece of land is improperly surveyed and a certain amount of time passes, that parcel of land becomes the legal property of the "squater" even if they originally occupied the land in error. There may appear to be "common law" rights but they are actually just regular statutory law.
There are torts for invasion of privacy. Ie if you invade someone's privacy then they can sue you. In order for that to be applicable there is an implication that you have an expectation of privacy --- otherwise how could you sue someone for an act if what they are doing is not in itself illegal?
Apparently in the US at various times it's been argued that this implies a common law right. The problem is that those are opinions that don't seem to form the basis of any rulings except in the state of Minnesota and that is not US wide and theoretically reversible (while in theory common law principles should be upheld going forward not all courts feel bound by even their own president, and reversals are common.)
In any case this is one of Rue's red herrings. What we need is the common law right to hold and plant last years seed crop, or a statute to that effect.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kirkules - just google: "reasonable expectation of privacy" workplace "supreme court".
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
Because employers compensate employees to perform their jobs, courts traditionally have granted employers a wide latitude to monitor their employees' work performance and productivity provided that such monitoring does not violate an employee's reasonable expectation of privacy.
Office Searches
While employees may have an increased expectation of privacy to their office, cabinets and personal belongings, an employer may search through those areas and items provided that they possess a work-related reason.
These cases are limited to employer searches, as opposed to law enforcement searches. They show, in essence, that while your expectation of privacy in the workplace is not nonexistent, it is extremely limited.
But - it does exist, despite not being in the consitution.
Also:
In addition while 'employers are frequently advised to have employees sign written policies for computer usage. (and) Having such a policy may diminish privacy expectations ...'
The Supreme Court’s holding in Flanagan reaffirms (that) ... Employees who surreptitiously record or eavesdrop on workplace conversations will now find themselves more vulnerable to Privacy Act claims ...
In other words, the concept of 'reasonable expectation of privacy' is well established in the law and in part applies to private parties despite the fact that there is no such constitutional protection. BTW it derives from common law.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Come on folks, lets call a spade a spade here, it's an extortion-protection racket under a thin legal fiction, and I suspect that soon the Grangers are gonna file counter claims under RICO.
Given that some of us with far more legal expertise than this cabbie have begun researching and encouraging exactly that.
Most of my agri-buddies around here are too small to be worth the trouble, not to mention the very real risk of the enforcers winding up planted somewhere in the back forty - they're an awful paraniod, suspicious lot, which started after one of them tried to save on fuel costs by making his own Bio-D, and got slammed with fuel taxes on his whole damn crop at the express behest and encouragement of a certain oil company...
These guys are a substantial portion of my food supply, and like any mammal, I tend to get annoyed when anything threatens it.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It doesn't and for the reasons stated.
Now show me the seed law or deal with the core issue.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Now show me the seed law or deal with the core issue."
And there you are, like Rap, wrong yet again. Common law does have an effect on statutory law, as I've proved twice already. This despite that fact that it's not written into the statutes. This will have to play out in the courts to arrive at the written decision you so frantically demand. But I'm right and you're wrong, so deal with it.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And just to cap it off before I sign off for (probably) a week or more -
To provide information anyone can access I suggest to those with an interest to Google: "common law" agriculture (or some variation of that theme such as "common law" farm -"statefarm"). There were many interesting sites that referred to the common law basis of agriculture. Here are some quotes from two.
For most of the nations history, agriculture has been governed by principles of common law.
-----------------------------------------------
Agricultural law is a unique blend of traditional fields of law- this includes the law of contracts, bailments, torts, criminal, environmental (both state and federal), property, nuisance, wills and estates, and the mind-numbing tax law.
As such, agricultural law is not entirely "new" law; rather it is a gathering and harvesting of provisions of statutory and common law.
***************************************************************
In other words, since Fletch won't tell you this - common law actually governs areas of agricultural practice, rights, and restrictions. As such, the common practice of saving seed for planting next year falls under common law rights.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME