Sherman County Oregon Threatens to Seize 2,000 Acre Organic Farm and Spray it with Roundup

This article comes from MishTalk.com

by Mish Shedlock

Sherman County Oregon believes the 2,000 acre Azure Farms is not doing enough to control Canada Thistle, a noxious weed. In this case, not doing enough means not spraying weeds with herbicides.

To remedy the alleged problem, the county proposes seizing the farm and spraying everything with Roundup and other herbicides. Azure Farms is certified organic. Of course, organic farms cannot by definition use herbicides, so the farm would be forced out of business by the county government.

Adding insult to injury, the county would place a lien on the property forcing it to pay for the herbicides.

Details of the proposed takeover can be found at Keep Azure Farm Organic.

An Organic Farm Under Threat

Azure Farms is a working, Certified Organic farm located in Moro, Central Oregon, in Sherman County. It has been Certified Organic for about 18 years. The farm produces almost all the organic wheat, field peas, barley, Einkorn, and beef for Azure Standard.

Sherman County is changing the interpretation of its statutory code from controlling noxious weeds to eradicating noxious weeds. These weeds include Morning Glory, Canada Thistle, and Whitetop, all of which have been on the farm for many years, but that only toxic chemicals will eradicate.

Organic farming methods – at least as far as we know today – can only control noxious weeds—it is very difficult to eradicate them.

Read more here.

Comments

  1. Cal 17 May, 2017, 09:40

    Two HEALTHY ways to clear out Canada Thistle Controlling Canada thistle organically is done with a sharp eye and an even sharper pair of scissors. Find the base of the Canada thistle plant and simply snip it off at the base. Do not pull Canada thistle out, as this can split the root, which causes two Canada thistles to grow back (Controlling Canada Thistle – Canada Thistle Identification And Control https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/plant-problems/weeds/canada-thistle-control.htm)

    After cutting, pour white vinegar on what is left of the plant, it will kill most, of not all, of the root system (depending on how big an area that root system is in). This works on almost any wed or plant, except if it rains immediately or closely after, if so then re-apply the white vinegar.

    The other way is to pull it, though white vinegar will still be needed to deal with the root system. White vinegar has worked fine for me so far, along with pulling the unwanted weeds – tough ones included. The nice thing is that it does not destroy the soil and poison everything and everyone around it.

    It does take a bit longer, and it may take multiple applications, but anything is better then Monsanto’s poison.

    Then the next thing I would do if that place was mine was go after the county official that is on Monsanto’s payroll to have them removed. I believe bribery here would be the charge if evidence could be discovered. Remember that WE can call for a Grand Jury Investigation, WITHOUT informing anyone in government to gather evidence of wrong doing. If done, choose the people wisely who might have an idea of how to investigate.

    Grand Jury – “The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people”.

    “Thus, CITIZENS HAVE THE UNBRIDLED RIGHT TO EMPANEL THEIR OWN GRAND JURIES and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.” (Misbehavior, “Good Behaviour” requirement)

    “The grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists. The “common law” of the Fifth Amendment demands a traditional functioning grand jury.”

    “Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised.”
    “The grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating. The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses and deliberates in total secrecy.”

    “Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said the 5th Amendment’s constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge.”

    “Given the grand jury’s operational separateness from its constituting court, it should come as no surprise that we have been reluctant to invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury’s evidence-taking process, but we have refused them all. “it would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution” to permit an indictment to be challenged “on the ground that there was incompetent or inadequate evidence before the grand jury.” (Nor would it be lawful of them to do so.) Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992)

    Reply this comment
  2. Reallly 18 May, 2017, 06:10

    Plants need Brawndo, it has electrolytes.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.
Required fields are marked*