Corrupted courts, judges and the ignoring of Title 28 of US Code & Title


Marti Oakley (c)Copyright 2010, All Rights Reserved

“It would appear that US Code & Title is only invoked against the people as even these corporate government players disregard it at their convenience.”

While Attorney General Eric Holder ponders what might be done about Judge Feldman’s ruling on overturning the moratorium on oil drilling in the Gulf, I am pondering what has to be intentional stalling or, a complete lack of law knowledge, corporate or otherwise, by Mr. Holder.  It would appear to me that a challenge in the court to Feldman’s ruling would be easily accomplished using US Code & Title 28, part 1, Chapter 21 section:455

Possibly Mr. Holder is not aware that he actually has to present a challenge in court in order to void this ruling.  Of course, this would require he become engaged in that process. 

U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman in the Eastern District of Louisiana seems not to be aware of his obligations and duties as per US Code & Title, and apparently neither is anyone else in the District of Criminals.  More

Another pro-Monsanto Supreme Court justice?



Barry Estabrook highlights the fact that Kagan filed suit on behalf of MONSANTO in an attempt to overturn the ban on GE alfalfa.  So now we not only would have Clarence Thomas, former Monsanto attorney with a penchant for pornography, we would also have another Monsanto flunkie sitting on the Supreme Court. Not to mention Michael Taylor, the new food “czar” in the White House,   Marti
Barry Estabrook |  The Atlantic Monthly |  05.12.2010

It’s a good thing for Elena Kagan that there’s no non-GMO litmus test for Supreme Court nominees. She’d flunk. More

GM Alfalfa vs World Health – Update and Judicial Pep Talk!

1 Comment

By Barbara H. Peterson

Farm Wars

As we approach what will be a landmark decision for those of us in an agricultural belt whose main crop is alfalfa, I offer this one plea on behalf of reason, before the final verdict is in:

An Appeal for Common Sense to prevail in the case of Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms, No. 09-475, in which Judge Clarence Thomas is presiding.

Come on Clarence, we know you can do it! You can make the right decision and uphold the ban on genetically modified (GM) alfalfa. The question is, do you want to? After years of bowing to your GM masters, can you make the leap and strike a blow for food freedom?

Any thinking person knows that genetic modification allowed to spread uncontrolled is harmful to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And just how long do you think it will take for the unbridled scourge of anti-biotic resistance given to us by the genetic engineering process itself, to affect someone in your family? The growth of bacteria is exponential! Or, if you are not planning on being around for that, or feel you are sufficiently protected from having to eat what we the people eat, then by all means support Monsanto, just like the Federal Government does:

In its brief on the merits in support of Monsanto, the federal government similarly argues that the Ninth Circuit erred in establishing a presumption of irreparable harm in NEPA cases.” (Scotus)

And don’t fall for that genetic modification as the new “cure for world hunger” baloney. Any thinking person knows that this is merely a good propaganda buzz phrase used for advertising. Genetic modification has nothing to do with curing hunger, but rather everything to do with increasing the bottom line.

The question is, Clarence, WHAT WILL YOU DO?

©2010 Barbara H. Peterson

Farmers fight to save seed and the DoJ provides cover for Monsanto


By: S.D. Fields (c)copyright 2010 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

” Thomas should have removed himself from the process because of his past employment by Monsanto. Their need to have certain arguments presented was critical. When I looked at the courts opinion I had to ask myself, “Was Monsanto’s corporate staff present during the language design of the opinion?”


Imagine the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments about traffic signs. I can read the opinion now, the stop and yield signs are equal in authority. Perhaps they are, but completely different functions occur with each. One stops traffic completely, the other allows traffic to merge smoothly.

Something similar happened when JEM Ag V. Pioneer Hi-Bred Intl. was handed down. Clarence Thomas stated the “PVPA & Patent law were equal in authority”, but he failed to relay his confidence of understanding either while writing the opinion. The dissent gave clear statements of confusion by asking ” Why would Congress pass two laws with nearly identical authority?”

We have all watched cop shows with segments in the courtroom. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?  In today’s corporate climate, the easiest way to gain any legal authority is to orchestrate a legal argument and exploit the ignorance of the Judicial system. Well, in this case the whole truth was conveniently omitted.

I’ve only known one Federal Judge that has ever had his hands in the dirt checking his planters seed placement depth.  Oral arguments lasting only a few days don’t even begin to educate the Judicial system about the complexities of the seed industry today. The only best way to arrive at an opinion is to live the issue. More

%d bloggers like this: