This is pretty frightening. While the blogger in question might very well be untruthful, rude, defaming people’s character, and certainly vindictive and inflaming, imprisoning him is an even more dangerous precedent. It should scare the pants off of anyone that is an advocate of free speech. While we might detest things that some people say, their right to show themselves as being fools is something that we should all cherish. Thoughts on this article would be deeply appreciated.

Blogger’s Incarceration Raises First Amendment Questions

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — For over six years, Roger Shuler has hounded figures of the state legal and political establishment on his blog, Legal Schnauzer, a hothouse of furious but often fuzzily sourced allegations of deep corruption and wide-ranging conspiracy. Some of these allegations he has tested in court, having sued his neighbor, his neighbor’s lawyer, his former employer, the Police Department, the Sheriff’s Department, the Alabama State Bar and two county circuit judges, among others. Mostly, he has lost.

But even those who longed for his muzzling, and there are many, did not see it coming like this: with Mr. Shuler sitting in jail indefinitely, and now on the list of imprisoned journalists worldwide kept by the Committee to Protect Journalists. There, in the company of jailed reporters in China, Iran and Egypt, is Mr. Shuler, the only person on the list in the Western Hemisphere.

A former sports reporter and a former employee in a university’s publications department, Mr. Shuler, 57, was arrested in late October on a contempt charge in connection with a defamation lawsuit filed by the son of a former governor. The circumstances surrounding that arrest, including a judge’s order that many legal experts described as unconstitutional and behavior by Mr. Shuler that some of the same experts described as self-defeating posturing, have made for an exceptionally messy test of constitutional law.

Launch media viewer

“You’ve got a situation where sometimes there’s no good guys,” said Ken White, a former federal prosecutor in Los Angeles who writes about and practices First Amendment law.

Mr. Shuler is no stranger to defamation suits, as one might surmise from reading his blog. He started it in 2007 to document a property dispute with his neighbor that blew up into a legal war and ended with the neighbor’s lawyer becoming a part-owner of Mr. Shuler’s house, which is in Birmingham. Later, the blog branched out to expose what he alleged were the corrupt machinations of powerful figures, mostly Republicans, and with a particular animus toward former Gov. Bob Riley.

His allegations are frequently salacious, including a recent assertion that a federal judge had appeared in a gay pornographic magazine and a theory that several suicides were actually a string of politically motivated murders. Starting in January 2013, Mr. Shuler, citing unidentified sources, began writing that Robert Riley Jr., the son of the former governor, had impregnated a lobbyist named Liberty Duke and secretly paid for an abortion. Both denied it, and Ms. Duke swore in an affidavit that they had never even been alone in the same room.

In July, Mr. Riley and Ms. Duke sought an injunction in state court against such posts, citing Mr. Shuler and his wife, Carol, in defamation suits. A judge issued a temporary restraining order in September barring the Shulers from publishing “any defamatory statement” about Mr. Riley and Ms. Duke and demanding that the offending posts be immediately removed.

Such a sweeping order struck some lawyers as far too broad, and Mr. Shuler says he did not even know about it.

The Shulers refused to answer the door when officials came to serve court papers, stating their suspicions in blog posts that the visits were part of an “intimidation and harassment campaign” stemming from the reporting on another topic.

One afternoon as the Shulers drove to the local library, where Mr. Shuler had been writing his blog since they could no longer pay for their Internet connection, a member of the Sheriff’s Department pulled them over, saying they had run a stop sign. The officer then served them the papers, which the Shulers refused to accept, contending that service under such a pretext was improper.

“We were both throwing the papers out of the windows as we were driving off,” Ms. Shuler said in an interview.

The Shulers missed a hearing the next day, and the restraining order was superseded by a similarly worded preliminary injunction, which some free-speech advocates saw as a clear violation of Mr. Shuler’s First Amendment rights.

“It seems to me that the judge’s order was really way out of bounds,” said David Gespass, a civil rights lawyer in Birmingham, who was further troubled by the judge’s initial decision to keep the case under seal.

Launch media viewer

Mr. Shuler continued blogging. On Oct. 23, the police followed Mr. Shuler as he pulled into his driveway, arrested him in his garage and took him to jail on charges of contempt and resisting arrest.

In the hyperpartisan corners of the blogosphere where Mr. Shuler was already known, there was shock. Even some of his dedicated foes were alarmed.

The National Bloggers Club, a group led by the Republican activist Ali Akbar, who has also threatened to sue Mr. Shuler for defamation, released a statement condemning Mr. Shuler’s “rumormonger cyberbullying” but also criticizing the injunction as creating a potential chilling effect on blogging.

The state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed a “friend of the court” brief, and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press sent a letter to the judge.

On Nov. 14, the judge held a hearing, and Mr. Shuler, who was representing himself, took the stand, insisting that the court had no jurisdiction over him and calling the court a joke. The judge decided that the hearing had “served as a trial on the merits” and made his final ruling: Mr. Shuler was forbidden to publish anything about Mr. Riley or Ms. Duke involving an affair, an abortion or payoffs; was to pay them nearly $34,000 for legal fees; and was to remove the offending posts or remain in jail.

Mr. Riley said Mr. Shuler’s refusal to engage with the legal process had given the judge the leeway to make a final ruling.

“If someone can continually ignore the judge just by saying, ‘You don’t have jurisdiction over me,’ then the whole system breaks down,” Mr. Riley said, adding that Mr. Shuler could not plead ignorance of the legal process. “This is not the first time Roger Shuler has been in court.”

But Mr. White and others say that before a judge can take the step of banning speech, libel must be proved at trial, or at least over a litigation process more involved than a quick succession of hearings, with the only evidence presented by the plaintiffs.

“Idiocy is not a zero-sum game,” Mr. White said. “I think you can say that what the court is doing is unconstitutional and troublesome and also that Shuler is his own worst enemy.”

So while the furor has all but dissipated, Mr. Shuler remains in jail, unwilling to take down his posts but also unwilling to hire a lawyer and contest his incarceration in the state courts.

“This is flat-out court corruption, and it’s criminal,” he said in an interview from prison.

His wife spoke of collecting damages when this is over, but Mr. Shuler is thinking beyond civil remedies this time: He is planning to bring federal criminal charges against the judge.

We knew this would be coming. As far as I know, they have yet to get a sponsor for this bill, but this exactly what they want. To preempt all labeling efforts that will allow people to know whether or not a food product may contain GMO’s.

I received this information from the Organic Consumers Association. I have no reason to doubt that this is truthful as it fits the MO of the corporate control paradigm we are in. I think that it is highly likely to receive great support from the Monsanto funded representatives we have. Roy Blunt of Missouri being among my chief suspects to push this bill.

It’s terribly difficult for me to encourage anyone to call the federal government for any reason as it almost always is an exercise in futility. Perhaps if enough calls were made to the offices of likely sponsors this could gain traction to make it socially unacceptable to sponsor this bill. Reluctantly, I think that may be the thing to do right now.

Natural would allow GMO’s, additives that are GMO would not be required to be labeled….and more. It’s terribly typical.

Here is the copy of the bill:

Section by Section Summary of Discussion Draft

Overview

This legislation would create a uniform, national program governing the premarket review and labeling of genetically engineered foods. First, it would require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to conduct a safety review of all new plant varieties used for genetically engineered food before those foods are introduced into commerce. Second, the legislation would create a new legal framework, subject to FDA oversight, governing the use of label claims regarding either the absence of, or use of, genetically engineered food or food ingredients. The legislation would also require FDA to develop Federal definition for “natural” claims on product labels. Given this new legal framework, states would be precluded from imposing any requirements that are not identical to these Federal requirements.

TITLE 1-Bioengineered Food

Section 101. Definitions.
The term “bioengineered food” is defined to mean a food developed through recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) technology. A food is not a bioengineered processing aid or enzyme. The terms “bioengineering” or “bioengineered” are defined to mean the process described above as applied to food.

Section 102. Notification Program for Preclearance of Bioengineered Food that is a Plant or Derived from a Plant.

This provision would add a new section to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) creating a mandatory premarket notification program for bioengineered foods, It would require that a developer of a plant-based bioengineered food submit a premarket notification to the FDA before marketing the food, explaining the developer’s basis for determining the bioengineered food was as safe as a comparable traditional food. Premarket notification must be submitted 120 days before bioengineered food is delivered into the marketplace. Those bioengineered foods that were approved through the voluntary consultation process prior to this legislation being enacted would be grandfathered in. The bill would also provide for informal consultations with the Secretary prior to submitting a premarket notification. The mandatory consultation process would be as follows: within 30 days, FDA would be required to issue a preliminary response in writing to notify the developer that 1) the notification is complete and has been filed or 2) the notification is incomplete and specify the additional information required prior to filing. The FDA would have 90 days to review the notification and state whether the agency objects to the developer’s determination. The FDA also would have the option to extend the review period by 90 days, not more than once. The developer would have the option to withdraw the notification at any time prior to a determination by FDA. If FDA responds it has no objections, the developer may market the food.

As part of the review process, FDA may specify any special labeling the agency believes is necessary to protect the health and safety or to prevent the label of the bioengineered food from being false or misleading, based on any material difference between the bioengineered food and the comparable traditional food. The use of bioengineering does not, by itself, constitute a material difference.

The premarket notification and the agency’s response would be made publicly available. The Secretary may issue any regulations or guidance that may be necessary to implement this program. The provisions of this section would apply 30 days after enactment, regardless of whether regulations and guidance have been issues. These procedures would largely codify a preexisting voluntary consultation process currently used by FDA

Section 103. Labeling of Whether Food is Bioengineered
This section would create a new Federal legal framework for labeling related to bioengineered foods. It would allow manufacturers to voluntarily make claims about the absence of bioengineered ingredients if the manufacturer has in place a traceability program to ensure bioengineered food is not commingled with the non-bioengineered food at any stage of production from farm to retail, while making allowances for unavoidable, inadvertent cross contact with bioengineered foods. The claim could be made on dairy products derived from cows and other milk-producing animals that consumed feed or a feed ingredient or received a drug or biological product that was developed through biotechnology and has been authorized for such use by the Secretary. The claim may also be made on a food produced with a bioengineered processing aid or enzyme. To avoid misleading consumers, claims regarding bioengineering would not be permitted to state or imply that a food is more or less safe solely because of the use or absence of bioengineered food. The provision would also authorize FDA to develop regulations for the voluntary labeling of the presence of bioengineered ingredients in food products. As under the mandatory notification program, FDA would have the authority to mandate special labeling to address any material difference that could affect health and safety or cause consumer deception. The regulations under this section shall not prevent a person from a) disclosing voluntarily on the labeling of bioengineered food the manner in which the food has been modified to express traits or characteristics that differ from its comparable marketed food or 2) from disclosing advertisements, on the internet, in response to consumer inquiries, or on other communications that food is or contains an ingredient derived through the use of biotechnology.

Section 104. Preemption.
Consistent with other labeling sections in this FFDCA, this section would preempt any state laws that are not identical to the Federal program.

Title II-Natural Foods
Section 201. Labeling of Natural Foods
This section would direct FDA to develop a federal definition of the term “natural” for use on food packaging. This definition would apply to those foods labeled “100% natural,” “naturally grown,” “all natural,” “contains ‘no artificial ingredients,’ “nothing artificial,” and other terms identified/defined by the Secretary.

Section 202. Regulations
Within 12 months of the date of enactment of the legislation, the Secretary would issues proposed regulations to implement this section and a final rule would be issues within 36 months.

Section 203. Preemption Consistent with other labeling sections in this FFDCA, this would prevent any state definitions of the term “natural” that are not identical to the Federal definition.

Ensuring Safe and Affordable Food for American Families

The American food industry has led the world in healthy and Plentiful food production for generations. Over the last two decades, the food industry has used genetically modified (GM) technology to produce more nutritious food at lower cost for consumers across the country. GM technology improves crops and reduces the use of chemicals, while lowering costs for the American people by as much as 30%. Today, up to 80% of the nation’s food products include GM ingredients.

The American food industry is committed to providing consumers with choices to fit their tastes, dietary preferences and requirements and budgets, as well as with important information to help make those choices. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) currently sets national standards for food labeling based on sound science and extensive review. Some groups are attempting to create a system of conflicting state-based labeling requirements for GM foods, which would create confusion, reduce choices and increase costs for consumers.

When it comes to genetically modified food ingredients, the food and beverage industry is;

1) Committed to provide consumers with an abundant supply of safe, nutritious and affordable food.

2) Committed to the use of safe agricultural biotechnology that helps feed billions of people in the u.S. and around the globe, while preserving our natural resources.

3) Committed to an open dialogue with consumers about GM technology that will advance their knowledge, understanding and support of technology.

4) Committed to responsible nationwide public policies that will protect consumers and facilitate informed consumer choices by providing them a single, federal framework for regulating the use and labeling of genetically modified food ingredients.

Healthier Foods at Lower Cost

For nearly twenty years, farmers and food manufacturers have used GM technology to add desirable traits from one plant to another, without introducing anything unnatural or using chemicals. As a result crops are more plentiful and potentially more nutritious.

Today nearly 80% of the food we eat is produced with GM ingredients, lowering costs for consumers up to 30%. These technological advances allow farmers and food and beverage companies to continue to provide consumers with safe, cost-effective and high quality food choices.

According to the U.S. food and Drug Administration (FDA), and a number of US regulatory agencies that study and monitor food safety, GM foods and ingredients are safe and pose no health risks, Numerous scientific bodies and health groups, such as the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association and the National Academy of Science, have concluded that food and beverages containing GM ingredients are materially no different than food without them.

Protecting Consumers’ Health and Safety: Building on the Strong Foundation

Consumers should be armed with the information they need to make their own food choices. That’s why the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) currently provides comprehensive federal framework for food labeling that uses sound science to give consumers the best information about the safety, composition and nutritional aspects of food products. This labeling policy has served consumers well by providing them with straitforward and meaningful information to make safe and healthful food choices.

Currently, FDA does not require foods to be labeled as having been produced with GM technology because it has found that there is no health risk associated with GM foods or any material difference between GM and non-GM foods at all. However, over the past several years, some groups have put forward ballot initiatives and legislation to require special labels for products containing these ingredients. Last year, California voters rejected a ballot measure (Proposition 37) that would have imposed a mandatory label. Voters in Washington will consider a similar measure this year, and efforts are underway to put a labeling measure on the ballot in Oregon in 2014. Connecticut recently passed Labeling Legislation, and efforts are being considered in neighboring state.

These state-based labeling initiatives – which only mislead consumers into thinking foods produced using GM technology pose a health risk or are different than what;s been on their shelves for the past 20 years – would create an unnecessary state patchwork of conflicting labeling requirements which would snarl inter-state commerce and create confusion, reduce choices and increase costs for consumers.

Bolstering Consumer Confidence in the Food Supply by Establishing a New, Single Federal Framework for Regulating the Use and Labeling of GM Technology

To establish a responsible federal policy framework that will protect consumers and facilitate informed consumer choices, as well as guard against costly, unnecessary and inefficient state-by-state system, federal legislation is needed that will provide for a series of regulatory measures that will allow farmers, processors, food and beverage manufacturers and everyone in between to use GM technology to produce safe, abundant and affordable food.

Specifically, legislation is needed that would address the following principles:

The CDC says people should keep taking this vaccine. It’s actually killed quite a few and made many, many ill, but please, continue to allow yourself to be injected with their crap. The CDC is the same group that applied major governmental mathematics to take 21 illnesses from raw milk and turn it into 20,000 illnesses. More on that later…Here’s an article regarding the recall. Please note they are admitting to it having glass particles in the vaccine, amongst the other goodies.

Merck issues voluntary recall of 743,360 vials of Gardasil HPV vaccine

Merck is issuing a voluntary recall of one lot of Gardasil vaccines due to the risk that some vials of the vaccine may contain glass particles, according to a statement released today by the pharmaceutical company.

The company estimates that only 10 of the 743,360 vials in the lot may have been affected by the incident, which was the result of a breakdown in production.  A medical assessment conducted by Merck concluded that if a patient were to receive one of the contaminated vaccines, they had a “remote risk” of experiencing a reaction at the injection site.

This lot of vaccines was distributed between August 20, 2013 and October 9, 2013. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said that it purchased 350,000 doses of Gardasil from this lot for their own vaccination programs.

“Vaccines from the affected lot were distributed between August 20, 2013, and October 9, 2013. No other lots are affected,” the agency said in a statement released Friday. “People who have recently received an HPV vaccine or their parents do not need to take any action as a result of this recall.  If a vaccine containing glass particles (tiny enough to get through a needle) is given to a patient, mild reactions routinely seen after vaccination may occur (for instance, redness or swelling at the injection site).”

So far, no injuries have been reported related to the contaminated vaccines, according to the CDC. People who received a vaccine from the contaminated lot do not need to be revaccinated, and the sterility of the vaccine was not affected, according to Merck.

Merck said it is in the process of contacting customers who purchased vaccines from this lot, # J007354, which was distributed in the United States and Puerto Rico.

Gardasil protects against certain strains of human papillomavirus (HPV), which can cause cervical cancer in women. The CDC added that it continues to recommend that all preteen girls and boys receive three doses of the vaccine at age 11 or 12 years old.