Farmer sues over being forced to choose between farming or his constitutional rights

[JustAGuy1]

DONATE

• BATTLEGROUNDS
• CASES
• BLOG
• ABOUT
• NEWSROOM
• GET INVOLVED

MAY 05, 2021

Farmer sues over being forced to choose between farming or his constitutional rights​

Sioux Falls, South Dakota; May 5, 2021: A third-generation farmer filed a lawsuit today against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is unlawfully preventing him from farming one of his fields.
In 2011, a division of the Department of Agriculture ruled that a small seasonal mud puddle on Arlen Foster’s farm is protected by federal law as a wetland. Even though the federal government has no authority to regulate such puddles, the department is forcing Foster to choose between productively using his field or participating in federal programs for farmers, like crop insurance.
“The government lacks the authority to insist that he leave the mud puddle ‘muddy,’ so it’s threatening to take away Foster’s ability to participate in federal programs to achieve the outcome that it wants,” said Tony Francois, a senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation. “But Foster has a right to use his property, and coercing him in this way violates his right.”
Although Foster requested that the government revisit its designation of his mud puddle as a protected wetland, in light of new evidence to the contrary, it refused. Now Foster is suing over the unconstitutional conditions the agency is attaching to his participation in crop insurance and other federal programs.

Farmer sues over being forced to choose between farming or his constitutional rights

Sioux Falls, South Dakota; May 5, 2021: A third-generation farmer filed a lawsuit today against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is unlawfully preventing him from farming one of his fields. In 2011, a division of the Department of Agriculture ruled that a small seasonal mud puddle on...

pacificlegal.org

You moronic Progs want a fight you'll get one.

 

[Mac-7]

It makes the dept of ag look pretty silly

Or worse.

It reveals them for the baby hitlers that they are

 

[pknopp]

It's a lawsuit, hardly a fight.

 

[JustAGuy1]

It's a lawsuit, hardly a fight.

You and your Gov pals will lose this fight Karl.

 

[rightwinger]

The definition of wetlands is more than a puddle.

I suspect the OP is misleading the interpretation of wetlands

 

[JustAGuy1]

The definition of wetlands is more than a puddle.

I suspect the OP is misleading the interpretation of wetlands

Prove it.

 

[ClaireH]

DONATE

• BATTLEGROUNDS
• CASES
• BLOG
• ABOUT
• NEWSROOM
• GET INVOLVED

MAY 05, 2021

Farmer sues over being forced to choose between farming or his constitutional rights​

Sioux Falls, South Dakota; May 5, 2021: A third-generation farmer filed a lawsuit today against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is unlawfully preventing him from farming one of his fields.
In 2011, a division of the Department of Agriculture ruled that a small seasonal mud puddle on Arlen Foster’s farm is protected by federal law as a wetland. Even though the federal government has no authority to regulate such puddles, the department is forcing Foster to choose between productively using his field or participating in federal programs for farmers, like crop insurance.
“The government lacks the authority to insist that he leave the mud puddle ‘muddy,’ so it’s threatening to take away Foster’s ability to participate in federal programs to achieve the outcome that it wants,” said Tony Francois, a senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation. “But Foster has a right to use his property, and coercing him in this way violates his right.”
Although Foster requested that the government revisit its designation of his mud puddle as a protected wetland, in light of new evidence to the contrary, it refused. Now Foster is suing over the unconstitutional conditions the agency is attaching to his participation in crop insurance and other federal programs.

Farmer sues over being forced to choose between farming or his constitutional rights

Sioux Falls, South Dakota; May 5, 2021: A third-generation farmer filed a lawsuit today against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is unlawfully preventing him from farming one of his fields. In 2011, a division of the Department of Agriculture ruled that a small seasonal mud puddle on...

pacificlegal.org

You moronic Progs want a fight you'll get one.

LOL the lunacy of it all...a mud puddle has rights too ya know! Geezzz...similar thing going on beyond my house. A waterway designated as federally protected yet, where are the seasonal crews coming out to even look at it, much less maintain it? I have never seen one person come to check it out over 25 years now. Calls to city officials led to passing the buck and dead-end with "it's federally protected" so they don't have to do anything to it. I was ready to clean up the mess (prior to snake season anyway) but nope...can't do it...you just have to look at it the way it is. Nice. What a crock that is for that honest farmer considering he owns the land!

 

[bodecea]

DONATE

• BATTLEGROUNDS
• CASES
• BLOG
• ABOUT
• NEWSROOM
• GET INVOLVED

MAY 05, 2021

Farmer sues over being forced to choose between farming or his constitutional rights​

Sioux Falls, South Dakota; May 5, 2021: A third-generation farmer filed a lawsuit today against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is unlawfully preventing him from farming one of his fields.
In 2011, a division of the Department of Agriculture ruled that a small seasonal mud puddle on Arlen Foster’s farm is protected by federal law as a wetland. Even though the federal government has no authority to regulate such puddles, the department is forcing Foster to choose between productively using his field or participating in federal programs for farmers, like crop insurance.
“The government lacks the authority to insist that he leave the mud puddle ‘muddy,’ so it’s threatening to take away Foster’s ability to participate in federal programs to achieve the outcome that it wants,” said Tony Francois, a senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation. “But Foster has a right to use his property, and coercing him in this way violates his right.”
Although Foster requested that the government revisit its designation of his mud puddle as a protected wetland, in light of new evidence to the contrary, it refused. Now Foster is suing over the unconstitutional conditions the agency is attaching to his participation in crop insurance and other federal programs.

Farmer sues over being forced to choose between farming or his constitutional rights

Sioux Falls, South Dakota; May 5, 2021: A third-generation farmer filed a lawsuit today against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is unlawfully preventing him from farming one of his fields. In 2011, a division of the Department of Agriculture ruled that a small seasonal mud puddle on...

pacificlegal.org

You moronic Progs want a fight you'll get one.

"small seasonal puddle"? Plow around it like other farmers do....like where I grew up.

 

[JustAGuy1]

DONATE

• BATTLEGROUNDS
• CASES
• BLOG
• ABOUT
• NEWSROOM
• GET INVOLVED

MAY 05, 2021

Farmer sues over being forced to choose between farming or his constitutional rights​

Sioux Falls, South Dakota; May 5, 2021: A third-generation farmer filed a lawsuit today against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is unlawfully preventing him from farming one of his fields.
In 2011, a division of the Department of Agriculture ruled that a small seasonal mud puddle on Arlen Foster’s farm is protected by federal law as a wetland. Even though the federal government has no authority to regulate such puddles, the department is forcing Foster to choose between productively using his field or participating in federal programs for farmers, like crop insurance.
“The government lacks the authority to insist that he leave the mud puddle ‘muddy,’ so it’s threatening to take away Foster’s ability to participate in federal programs to achieve the outcome that it wants,” said Tony Francois, a senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation. “But Foster has a right to use his property, and coercing him in this way violates his right.”
Although Foster requested that the government revisit its designation of his mud puddle as a protected wetland, in light of new evidence to the contrary, it refused. Now Foster is suing over the unconstitutional conditions the agency is attaching to his participation in crop insurance and other federal programs.

Farmer sues over being forced to choose between farming or his constitutional rights

Sioux Falls, South Dakota; May 5, 2021: A third-generation farmer filed a lawsuit today against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is unlawfully preventing him from farming one of his fields. In 2011, a division of the Department of Agriculture ruled that a small seasonal mud puddle on...

pacificlegal.org

You moronic Progs want a fight you'll get one.

"small seasonal puddle"? Plow around it like other farmers do....like where I grew up.

As usual you progs cant process what you read.

 

[rightwinger]

The definition of wetlands is more than a puddle.

I suspect the OP is misleading the interpretation of wetlands

Prove it.

Again, the OP is a partisan misrepresentation of the facts

There is more to defining wetlands than just “a puddle”
Beyond just water, they take soil borings to determine the type of organic material in the soil.
That will tell you whether it is a seasonal puddle or actual wetlands

 

[pknopp]

It's a lawsuit, hardly a fight.

You and your Gov pals will lose this fight Karl.

I never made a comment on that.

 

[Winston]

The definition of wetlands is more than a puddle.

I suspect the OP is misleading the interpretation of wetlands

The farmer can farm that land all he wants. But, he can't farm that land and get federal subsidies for crop insurance. He needs the crop insurance because, in some years, the puddle makes about two acres of the forty-four acre field unusable. The farmer wants the government to subsidize the premiums for the insurance in case that happens. Look, sorry your father created a tree belt that may have caused this "wetland", but the federal government is not going to subsidize crop insurance against flood damage in a damn wetland.

I mean this shit is stupid. The area in question amounts to less than five percent of the total field, why the hell does he need federal subsidized crop insurance for that small percentage. This ain't about constitutional rights, this is about leeching off the government in order to insure a high risk situation.

 

[bodecea]

The definition of wetlands is more than a puddle.

I suspect the OP is misleading the interpretation of wetlands

The farmer can farm that land all he wants. But, he can't farm that land and get federal subsidies for crop insurance. He needs the crop insurance because, in some years, the puddle makes about two acres of the forty-four acre field unusable. The farmer wants the government to subsidize the premiums for the insurance in case that happens. Look, sorry your father created a tree belt that may have caused this "wetland", but the federal government is not going to subsidize crop insurance against flood damage in a damn wetland.

I mean this shit is stupid. The area in question amounts to less than five percent of the total field, why the hell does he need federal subsidized crop insurance for that small percentage. This ain't about constitutional rights, this is about leeching off the government in order to insure a high risk situation.

So this is just another guy like Bundy who wants to suck off the government teat and gets all hostile and maybe even violent if he gets cut off?

 

[Winston]

The definition of wetlands is more than a puddle.

I suspect the OP is misleading the interpretation of wetlands

The farmer can farm that land all he wants. But, he can't farm that land and get federal subsidies for crop insurance. He needs the crop insurance because, in some years, the puddle makes about two acres of the forty-four acre field unusable. The farmer wants the government to subsidize the premiums for the insurance in case that happens. Look, sorry your father created a tree belt that may have caused this "wetland", but the federal government is not going to subsidize crop insurance against flood damage in a damn wetland.

I mean this shit is stupid. The area in question amounts to less than five percent of the total field, why the hell does he need federal subsidized crop insurance for that small percentage. This ain't about constitutional rights, this is about leeching off the government in order to insure a high risk situation.

So this is just another guy like Bundy who wants to suck off the government teat and gets all hostile and maybe even violent if he gets cut off?

Yep, pretty much. I wrote a white paper on the whole Bundy episode. Still don't understand why all those supporters, especially the paramilitary groups, could not figure that out. It is as if these people think the Constitution was written just for them, and doesn't apply to the rest of us.

 

[sparky]

I mean this shit is stupid.

it is.....and worse is allowing gub'mit control of a capitalist venture .......makes it all the more socialist than capitalist ....jmho ~S~

 

[Grumblenuts]

I mean this shit is stupid.

it is.....and worse is allowing gub'mit control of a capitalist venture .......makes it all the more socialist than capitalist ....jmho ~S~

Why "a capitalist venture"? How about having families own and run family farms again? I say outlaw all subsidies to giant commercial farms and developers. Let the people who actually want to live and work the land do so free from giant corporate pressures and subsidized BS. Break 'em up.. Break 'em all up.. Worldwide. Too big is failure.

That said, allow me to reiterate that the OP is obvious, pathetic BS as bodecea and Winston have made plain.

 

[sparky]

Why "a capitalist venture"? How about having families own and run family farms again? I say outlaw all subsidies to giant commercial farms and developers.

sssaxctly Grumbly one ,

this is why small mom & pop farms went the way of the dinosaur

~S~