by Jon Rappoport

March 16, 2015

“It doesn’t take a genius to realize you don’t necessarily win a court case on the merits. But it’s a stomping ground, a place where challenges can be issued and Constitutional principles can be dusted off and exposed. It’s a venue where new arguments can, from time to time, gain traction. The courts are places where truthful PR operations can be initiated. Of course the game is rigged. Of course the system is corrupt. But hammering at the foundations of the corruption—if enough legal players catch on and join in—can have an effect. A court can function as a tabloid scandal sheet: here, have a look at the criminals who pose as guardians of Justice…” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

What is now happening on Maui gives me the impetus to write this brief, which applies over a much wider area than the Monsanto-Maui lawsuit.

In that lawsuit, Monsanto/Dow are seeking to nullify Maui County voters, who passed a ballot-resolution temporarily blocking those corporations from carrying forward their GMO/pesticide experiments in the “open-air laboratory” of Maui County.

Monsanto and Dow are basically arguing that state and federal laws regulating agriculture supersede county laws.

Beyond that wrangle sits the more basic fact: what Dow and Monsanto have been doing on Maui is human experimentation; the GMOs and pesticides are new, they are not commercial varieties.

This is not “agriculture.” This is a researcher-human guinea pig relationship.

No independent environmental impact assessment has been done. The population of Maui has not been informed of the particulars of these experiments. Nor have they given their consent to be exposed to experimental pesticide spraying and gene drift.

Every conceivable law and regulation covering human experimentation has been violated.

The people of Maui have every right to argue the case on this basis. The Judge in the case should be compelled to hear those arguments and treat them as crucial.

Now let’s consider a wider territory that extends far beyond the Maui case. As Steven Druker establishes in his book, Altered Genes, Twisted Truth, the process by which GMOs were originally certified as safe and allowed into the food chain was no legitimate process at all.

The FDA’s own scientists were expressing grave doubts all the way along the line, and they were ignored. A nuanced form of pseudoscience and a tactic of falsely manufacturing consensus brought GMOs into the growing fields and the marketplace.

Therefore, if the truth matters, and it does, all GMO agriculture has the status of human experimentation, to this day.

Arguing that the FDA permitted GMOs to enter the food chain and…

Therefore, the Agency’s decision cancels any charge of human experimentation…

Is absurd.

Take the example of a criminal case. A defendant, charged with murder, convicted, and sent to prison, appeals for a new trial through his lawyer. The lawyer has undeniable documentary evidence that police officers lied on the witness stand, collaborated on their stories, destroyed exculpatory evidence, and intentionally pinned the murder on the wrong man.

Can the State argue that, since the jury found the defendant guilty, the conviction must be upheld, all new evidence notwithstanding? Of course not.

Well, in the same way, if the “evidence” leading to the FDA’s certification of GMOs as safe was cooked and distorted and turned upside down, the status of GMOs should revert back to the category of experimental.

And these matters (the details on how GMOs were actually approved in the first place) should be permitted as arguments in court.

It’s not enough to say, “Well, GMOs are approved and that’s that.” New evidence can be presented. At trial.