This is the type of antisocial, fraudulent, unconstitutional, disgusting, behind-the-scenes behaviour to which the American citizen is being subjected, without enlightenment from the press, without awareness of the alternative press’ efforts to educate them, and in a lot of cases, without either believing or caring.
In a decision denying basic property rights and even exceeding the FDA’s contempt for the rights of private contract and food freedom of choice, Dane County Circuit Court Judge Patrick J. Fiedler has issued an order holding that owners of cows do not have a fundamental right to consume milk from their own cow.
The judge issued the order in response to a motion to clarify an earlier ruling that livestock boarding agreements between a farmer and cow owners were in violation of Wisconsin law.
The boarding contracts in question were between Walworth County dairy farmers Mark and Petra Zinniker and the members of Nourished by Nature LLC for a herd of dairy cows as well as between the Zinnikers and Galyle Loiselle and Robert Karp for an individual cow owned by the two. The Zinnikers did not have any ownership in any of the cows and were simply executing a services contract to board, care for and milk the owners’ cows, and provide the milk to the owners.
On August 12, Judge Fiedler issued a ruling denying a motion by the Zinnikers, Nourished by Nature, Karp and Loiselle for a judgment that the boarding agreement the Zinnikers had with the cow owners was in compliance with Wisconsin law.
In his opinion the Judge rejected out of hand the Zinniker plaintiffs’ argument that they had a fundamental right to possess, use and enjoy their property (including “a fundamental right to own a cow, and to use their cows in a manner that does not cause harm a third party”); he stated this claim was “wholly without merit.”
By Rady Ananda
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.
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.
GTL had sued several biotechnology firms, a medical lab and a crime lab that had used their patented methods for analyzing DNA sequences. Though a federal case, the district court which heard the matter, sits in Dane County, Wisconsin, where Fiedler served as a state judge.
In that case, the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) “upheld Genetic Technologies Ltd.’s patent for noncoding DNA technologies, giving more firepower to the Australian company’s patent infringement suit against Monsanto Inc., Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. and a slew of rival laboratories,” reports Law360.
In another link, Myriad Genetics, which holds the exclusive U.S. patent on human genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, granted the license to GTL in 2002. These human genes are associated with breast and ovarian cancer.
In 2009, the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation (PubPat) filed a lawsuit against the PTO, Myriad Genetics, and principals at the University of Utah Research Foundation, charging that patents on genes are unconstitutional and invalid. The suit also charges that such patents stifle diagnostic testing and research that could lead to cures and that they limit women’s options regarding their medical care.
In an absurd ruling this year, the Second Circuit Appellate Court allowed the patent on these human genes, even though the DNA sequence occurs in nature. The court decided that simply because the firm had been able to extract it, it owns it. Of course, under this thinking, all of nature can be patented if human technology allows extraction.
“The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has granted thousands of patents on human genes – in fact, about 20 percent of our genes are patented. A gene patent holder has the right to prevent anyone from studying, testing or even looking at a gene. As a result, scientific research and genetic testing has been delayed, limited or even shut down due to concerns about gene patents,” commented ACLU.
The Myriad patent is also being challenged in Australia and at the European Patent Office, reports the Genomics Law Report.
The US ruling gives Myriad monopolistic control over human genes, and over diagnostic testing for that DNA sequence. The case is now headed to the US Supreme Court.
Of note, in a dissenting opinion, Judge William C. Bryson noted that the Dept. of Justice filed an amicus brief asserting that Myriad’s gene claims are not patent-eligible, thus undermining the PTO’s position. Bryson wrote:
“… the Department of Justice speaks for the Executive Branch, and the PTO is part of the Executive Branch, so it is fair to assume that the Executive Branch has modified its position from the one taken by the PTO in its 2001 guidelines and, informally, before that.”
Given the DOJ’s protection of Monsanto interests, however, it is likely that its opposition to Myriad’s patents may have more to do with stifling competition than protecting nature from theft by biotech firms. After DOJ attorney Elena Kagen moved to the Supreme Court, the high court ruled in Monsanto’s favor allowing the planting of genetically modified alfalfa.
Earlier this year, Obama pressured the USDA to remove the buffer zone requirement for GM alfalfa, further ensuring genetic contamination of natural alfalfa. That decision ensures the destruction of the organic meat and dairy industries in the U.S. which rely on natural alfalfa feed.
In a related matter, PubPat also filed suit this year against Monsanto over the patenting of genetically modified seeds which contaminate natural crops. “As Justice Story wrote in 1817, to be patentable, an invention must not be ‘injurious to the well being, good policy, or sound morals of society,’” notes the complaint in its opening paragraphs.
That suit cites studies showing harm caused by Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, including human placental damage, lymphoma, myeloma, animal miscarriages, and other impacts on human health.
That any official would approve gene patents is bad enough, and a violation of nature and our right to our own genes. But in the Wisconsin case, 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.
No doubt that makes Monsanto a major fan of Patrick Fiedler. His decision was rendered on Sept. 9 and he stepped down from the bench on Sept. 30.
This case begs for competent legal counsel who can get the outrageous decision overturned.
- No Rights To Drink Milk (liberationwellnessblog.com)
- Wisconsin Judge: You Have No Right To Drink The Milk From Your Own Cow (treeofmamre.wordpress.com)
- No Milk, No Cow & No Food !!! (2012patriot.wordpress.com)
- Kevin L: Monsanto Wins Patent Dispute Against Farmer Who Bought Legal Seeds (techdirt.com)
- Appeals Court Rules in Myriad Genetics Case; Excellent Example of Mixed Bag (pascophronesis.wordpress.com)
- Over 270,000 Organic Farmers Sue Monsanto (friendseat.com)
- Federal court upholds patenting on human genes (seattlepi.com)
- Breast cancer gene patent reinstated (newscientist.com)
- WI: No Right to Produce or Eat Food (bulletsbombsbanks.wordpress.com)
- Judge: Americans have no right to choose food (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- The Essential Rules of Tyranny (tipggita32.wordpress.com)
- The Day America Died (twentiesfreedom.wordpress.com)