November 30, 2014 By Joseph P. Farrell

For those of you who've been following the lawsuit against Hawaii's county of Maui being brought by "big agribusiness", there's some recent news that was uncovered by our colleague Jon Rappaport over at No More Fake News, that judge Barry Kurren, who may hear the case, has significant conflicts of interest and should, by all standards of moral and ethical propriety, recuse himself from the case:

Is Judge in Maui GMO case connected to Monsanto?

Exposed: the Judge in the Monsanto-Maui lawsuit is tainted

F.William Engdahl (Seeds of Destruction) has commented at length about the shenanigans and corruption in the halls of business and government regarding GMOs, basically describing a process of buying out, or hollowing out, the very regulatory agencies that should have been concerned with the conduct of adequate long term Intergenerational studies of the human and environmental impact of GMOs. Of course, this was never done. Engdahl spent some time in his book showing how the principle of "substantial equivalence" was used to finesse the issue, arguing in the typical corporate double-standard way that has become the daily modus operandi in modern Amerika that GMOs were substantially equivalent as ordinary regular crops, while at the same time insisting it was not for the purposes of patent law and the agribusiness' industry's rather draconian enforcement policies, as exemplified in the Hawaii-Maui lawsuit: the popular will can be overturned by vested corrupt economic interests, the more so if one has a "judge in place" able to hear and try the case.
As Mr. Rappaport notes in the second article linked above:
"Until at least the fall of 2011, Judge Kurren’s wife, Faye, was a trustee of The Nature Conservancy (TNC) (twitter), a 6-billion-dollar environmental group.

"TNC specializes in working with mega-corporations, who donate major money, in return for receiving TNC’s “good housekeeping seal of approval” as friends of the environment.

"It’s all very cozy.

"In 2011, TNC leveraged a blockbuster deal. Dow pledged a $10 million donation. In exchange, Dow could forthwith use the TNC logo on its site and all its products.

"That’s like painting a cobra’s hood with Mr. Rogers’ face.

"This would be the same Dow whose GMO/pesticide experiments on Maui the voters decided to stop.

"The voter stoppage provoked the lawsuit from Dow and Monsanto.

"Faye’s husband Barry is the Judge in the case.

"Faye was a trustee at TNC, who took $10 million from Dow.

"So…what are the chances Faye’s husband will step on Dow’s face in the lawsuit?"

And that, of course, is a good example of a conflict of interest, never mind whatever legal niceties and casuistry that might be advanced to argue that it is not a conflict of interest.

But I'm just waiting for the next shoe to drop from the agribusiness mafia: it's not a conflict of interest if one is not personally involved with it, or perhaps they might even argue a special pleading, a new kind of "substantial equivalence" in the realm of jurisprudence: it's real justice so long as it looks like justice, with the robes and attorneys and bailiffs and so on. If it looks like corn, or looks like a judge, it is corn, or a judge, even if, underneath it all, the genetic composition is  something different, something that in the long run is a kind of poison, designed only to enhance profits and control.

See you on the flip side...