NSW Politics: prized bull to mincemeat

A Week Is A Long Time In Politics says Clarence Valley Today on Sunday 18 September 2011

Here is Steve Cansdell (4th from the right with hat) winning best celebrity hamburger at the Gate to Plate Market one week ago. On Friday he resigned from the New South Wales Parliament as Member for Clarence after making a false statement on a Statutory Declaration over a speeding fine. What do they say about roosters to feather dusters or is that prized bulls to mincemeat in this situation?
Click here for a trip down memory lane.

*Thanks to Mark for allowing this cross-posting

NSW Police media release re NSW Nats Steve Cansdell

 

Just for the record.....

NSW Police Force media release

Man facing charges after allegedly making false statutory declaration - Grafton

Friday, 16 September 2011 04:53:07 PM

Police are conducting investigations into an alleged false statutory declaration for a traffic offence six years ago.

About 12pm on 28 September 2005, a then 54-year-old man was driving a Ford Falcon along the Pacific Highway at Woodburn when his vehicle was allegedly detected travelling in excess of the speed limit.

A speed camera infringement notice was subsequently issued and mailed to the man’s home address.

It will be alleged on 25 October 2005, the man signed a statutory declaration and nominated another person as driving the vehicle.

Police will allege the false declaration was made to avoid the loss of demerit points and subsequent loss of his drivers licence.

About 11:50am today (Friday 16 September 2011) the man attended Grafton Police Station with his legal representative and was spoken to by police.

Investigations into the matter are continuing.

U.S. organic seed growers find friends in their fight against self-replicating GM technology

In the matter of ORGANIC SEED GROWERS AND TRADE ASSOCIATION, et al v MONSANTO COMPANY AND MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC; the summary from the amicus brief lodged by Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association, Carolina Farm Stewardship Association, Ecological Famers of Ontario, Fair Food Matters, International Organic Inspectors Association, Michigan Land Trustees, Natural Environment Ecological Management, Nebraska Sustainable Agriculture Association, Organic Council of Ontario, Slow Food USA, and Virginia Independent Consumers and Farmers Association.

Case 1:11-cv-02163-NRB Document 39 Filed 08/10/11 Page 9 of 23

SUMMARY

Monsanto has a track record of aggressive enforcement of its patent rights. Monsanto has sued or settled with hundreds of farmers, and investigated unknown numbers more. Because of the nature of Monsanto’s patented seeds, the individual Plaintiffs and the farmer members of Plaintiff organizations (hereinafter collectively “Plaintiff farmers”) cannot avoid infringing on Monsanto’s patents unless they entirely abandon growing corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, sugar beets, and, as of this year, alfalfa. While Monsanto tries to downplay the threat of enforcement by pointing to its “commitment” not to sue farmers for “trace” infringement, this provides no enforceable protections for Plaintiffs. Because of the nature of the patented seeds and the realities of farming, it is certain that at least some of the Plaintiff farmers already have more than trace contamination, and the number of such affected farmers will only grow over time. While many of the Plaintiff farmers are certified organic, not all are, so the simple fact that Monsanto has yet to sue a certified organic farmer has no impact on their standing.

Not only does Monsanto’s patented technology inevitably lead to infringement through no fault of the Plaintiffs, but, by their design, the majority of Monsanto’s patented crops only

provide the alleged benefits if a farmer applies herbicides, specifically Roundup®, directly to the crop. Monsanto could easily protect its patent rights by agreeing not to sue for unintentional contamination absent an affirmative action by the farmer to make use of the patented traits. By failing to do so, and instead offering an ambiguous and ultimately meaningless commitment, Monsanto has made it clear that it intends to maintain the threat of patent infringement lawsuits against Plaintiff farmers and those similarly situated.

Plaintiff farmers have, by the simple act of farming corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, sugar beets, or alfalfa crops, undertaken meaningful steps towards infringement. Due to Monsanto’s

decision to release patented seeds and market them for widespread planting, it is now impossible for farmers to remain 100% free of genetically modified crops because of the multitude of ways that contamination can occur.

Given the difficulties in minimizing GM contamination, farmers must make numerous decisions about which steps are worthwhile for them and which steps are not. They are not able

to make these decisions based on their own and their customers’ interests, but must instead make these decisions with the threat of litigation against a giant corporation looming over their heads. The constant threat of a patent infringement suit by Monsanto creates significant, unquantifiable costs for the Plaintiff farmers and similarly situated farmers. Unless this Court allows this case to proceed, the Plaintiff farmers will face the choice of abandoning growing such crops or risking prosecution whenever Monsanto chooses.

More on OSGATA here.

Clarence lawmaker makes the news on the international scene

The Shanghai Daily has picked up and run with a piece on the Cansdell circus.

Read more here.