OSGATA et al. v. Monsanto — Public Interest Lawsuit
End Transgenic Trespass
Saying NO to Monsanto
A layman's presentation about the issues raised in the public interest by the 83 co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit: OSGATA et al. v. Monsanto
Definitions
"Termination of existence; destruction, abolition" (Definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary)
"Transfer of genes from an unrelated organism and their subsequent expression" (from Transgenosis)
"Transgression, breach of law or duty; an offense, sin, wrong; a fault"
The Trespass Against Us All
The trespass in this case is not just against farms, farmers, and farm workers; it is more significantly against consumers, citizens, all creatures, and the environment in the United States and around the world. If U.S. Courts had wanted to be moral, prudent, and obedient to the Constitution, they would address this trespass and the enormous costs resulting from it, but they have not permitted that to happen. Instead, they have enabled an obliviously negligent, irresponsible, anti-democratic, and dishonorable denial of justice. The result is corporate subservience and unconscionable future costs.
Protecting Food and Agricultural Truth, Wisdom, and Justice for the Benefit of Everyone in the United States and in All Other Nations.
Repairing the Public Health Damage and Environmental Destruction caused by Monsanto's "Expediently-Myopic, Abusively-Exploitive Transgenic and Chemical Technologies."
The Lawsuit
OSGATA et al. v. Monsanto
And Still Needed Future Lawsuits Against Monsanto's Agricultural and Food Tyranny
When a new lawsuit is filed, it will need to address the same issues as the initial lawsuit. The first lawsuit did not accomplish enough, because the judges did not do the job required of them in service to the public need. The issues are so important to the future of life on the planet, the health of the people and other creatures, and the protection of the environment, the effort must not stop until the work is completed.
Property Rights Issue
Apart from the patent-related issues laid out in the filed court complaint on invalidity, unenforceability, non-infringement, and "no damages," the lawsuit should be seen as a straight-forward trespass case the same as if a randy, mongrel bull jumped the fence to mate with purebred cattle in a neighboring field. The right to free, unfettered use of one's property without that right being compromised by transgenic contamination and trespass was the underlying issue being raised and still needing to be raised.
5th Amendment Issue
This is a 5th Amendment issue of taking private property for a flagrantly abusive but government-supported use without restriction, just compensation, or public debate about the enormous health and environmental costs.
Key Facts About the Case
Originally filed March 2011 with 60 plaintiffs; amended and refiled June 1, 2011 with 83 co-plaintiffs
Daniel Ravicher of the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT)
Federal District Court of the Southern District of New York — Judge Naomi R. Buchwald dismissed the case on February 24, 2012
Appeals Court of the Federal Circuit — Judges Dyk, Bryson, and Moore issued decision June 10, 2013, establishing a binding covenant for contamination below 1%
Petition for review filed September 5, 2013; Response to Monsanto's Opposition Brief filed December 19, 2013
Monsanto refused to provide an enforceable covenant not to sue farmers whose non-transgenic crops become contaminated by Monsanto's transgenic crops
Court Filings
Legal Documents Filed in the Lawsuit
The Amended Complaint
Filed on June 1, 2011 following an exchange of letters between the attorneys after the filing of the original complaint at the end of March, 2011.
Response Brief to the Monsanto Motion to Dismiss
Our legal response to Monsanto's motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
Amicus Brief Supporting Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss
Supporting amicus brief filed in opposition to the motion to dismiss.
Official Transcript of the Oral Arguments on January 31, 2012
Before Judge Naomi R. Buchwald of the Federal District Court of Southern New York.
Corrected Transcript of the Oral Arguments on January 31, 2012
Before Judge Naomi Buchwald (with the correction of several transcription errors shown in parentheses).
Ruling by Judge Buchwald on the Motion to Dismiss
Issued on February 24, 2012.
Appeal Brief filed with the Appeals Court of the Federal Circuit
Filed on July 5, 2012.
Amicus Brief filed by Non-Profit Organizations with the Appeals Court
Filed on July 11, 2012.
Amicus Brief filed by Law Professors with the Appeals Court
Filed on July 12, 2012.
Response to the Monsanto Response filed with the Appeals Court
Filed on September 27, 2012.
Transcript of the Oral Arguments before the Appeals Court
In Washington, D.C. on January 10, 2013 before Judges Dyk, Bryson, and Moore.
Recording of the Oral Arguments before the Appeals Court
In Washington, D.C. on January 10, 2013 before Judges Dyk, Bryson, and Moore.
Decision by the Appeals Court of the Federal Circuit
Decision by Judges Dyk, Bryson, and Moore on the appeal of the dismissal decision by Judge Buchwald, issued on June 10, 2013.
The Petition to the Supreme Court for Review
Filed on September 5, 2013.
The Response to Monsanto's Opposition Brief
Filed with the Supreme Court on December 19, 2013.
Centrally Significant Quotations
"Even fewer Americans are aware that in 1999 attorney Steven Druker reported that in 40,000 pages of FDA files secured via a lawsuit, he found 'memorandum after memorandum containing warnings about the unique hazards of genetically engineered food,' including the possibility that they could contain 'unexpected toxins, carcinogens or allergens.'"
— Frances Moore Lappé, The Nation magazine, October 3, 2011
"The greatest glyphosate use is in the Mississippi River basin, where most applications are for weed control on genetically-modified corn, soybeans and cotton. Overall, agricultural use of glyphosate has increased from less than 11,000 tons in 1992 to more than 88,000 tons in 2007."
— U.S.G.S. study reported by Lois Rain, Health Freedom Alliance, August 31, 2011
"This process of tearing apart the genome of every organism will prove as 'Genetic Holocaust,' certainly more lethal than 'Nuclear Holocaust.'"
— Dr. Aijaz Hassan Ganie, Department of Botany, University of Kashmir
"If the Bill of Rights contains no guarantee...against lethal poisons distributed either by private individuals or by public officials, it is surely only because our forefathers...could conceive of no such problem."
— Rachel Carson, Silent Spring
"The technology of genetic engineering poses a greater threat to the world than the advent of nuclear technology. An irreversible attack on the biosphere is something unheard of, so unthinkable to previous generations, that I only wish that mine had not been guilty of it."
— Professor Edwin Chargaff, biochemist, Columbia University Medical School
The Plaintiffs
83 Co-Plaintiffs
The lawsuit was brought by 83 co-plaintiffs including organic farmers, seed companies, and food advocacy organizations from across the United States and internationally.
Press & Media
BuzzFeed News · November 21, 2015
Sanders Claims CBS Canceled Agriculture Interview Because Monsanto Was "Threatening To Sue"Blog: Local Promotion of Transgenic Food Labeling · June 23, 2013
One Small Step to Help Save the Community, the Nation, and the World from Genetic Corruption, Public Health Disaster, and Environmental AbuseDon Patterson, 83rd Co-Plaintiff · January 2014
To: Susan Decker, Bloomberg News (scroll down to it at the bottom of the page)Facebook Posting — Donald Wright Patterson, Jr., 83rd Co-Plaintiff · August 3, 2026
More Legal Action Required Against MonsantoThe Issues Demand Attention
The U.S. people and the people of the world must address the issues the U.S. federal courts, the Congress, and the White House have negligently, exploitatively, and abusively refused to address.