Parents Lose Custody of Daughter After Refusing to Support Her “Transition” to Male

Home » Crimes, Immorality, Injustice, North America, Social » Parents Lose Custody of Daughter After Refusing to Support Her “Transition” to Male


Hamilton County reportedly took legal custody of teenage girl diagnosed with depression, anxiety.

Ohio government authorities forced parents to give up legal custody of their daughter after the mother and father said they opposed the girl’s decision to identify as a ‘boy’ and transition to being ‘male.’

The Hamilton County Job and Family Services took legal custody of the teenage girl, 17, who, according to court records, suffers from gender dysphoria. The teen is currently living with her maternal grandparents. The girl’s name and the names of her parents are under court seal.

The minor was diagnosed with depression, anxiety, and gender dysphoria after being hospitalized in 2016. Doctors decided that because she wants to identify as a male, she should be given testosterone and sex “change” drugs.



Did you like this information? Then please consider making a donation or subscribing to our Newsletter.

Source Article from

Taxpayers Shell Out $175K for Brave Cop Fired by Dept. for Refusing to Kill a Man


Weirton, WV — As TFTP reported last year, former Weirton police officer Stephen Mader sued the city after he was fired for not killing a suicidal man who needed help.

It was reported this week that Mader will be receiving $175,000 in a settlement as a result of his unnecessary firing.

“At the end of the day, I’m happy to put this chapter of my life to bed,” Mader said. “The events leading to my termination were unjustified and I’m pleased a joint resolution has been met.

“My hope is that no other person on either end of a police call has to go through this again,” said Mader, who still lives in Weirton with his family but now drives trucks for a living, according to WPXI.

As we reported at the time, on May 6, 2016, Mader responded to a domestic call about a suicidal person. When he arrived on the scene, Mader confronted 23-year-old Ronald D. Williams who was armed and mentally distraught.

Madar said that he began talking to the young man in his “calm voice.”

“I told him, ‘Put down the gun,’ and he’s like, ‘Just shoot me.’ And I told him, ‘I’m not going to shoot you brother.’ Then he starts flicking his wrist to get me to react to it.

“I thought I was going to be able to talk to him and de-escalate it. I knew it was a suicide-by-cop” situation,” Mader said, adding that, “He wasn’t screaming, yelling, he wasn’t angry. He just seemed distraught. Whenever he told me to shoot him it was as if he was pleading with me. At first, I’m thinking, ‘Do I really need to shoot this guy?’ But after hearing ‘just shoot me’ and his demeanor, it was, ‘I definitely can’t.’”

Mader showed incredible restraint in the situation, even though Williams was attempting to provoke a suicide by cop.

Sadly, as Mader began to reason with Williams and de-escalate the situation, backup arrived, and another officer immediately shot and killed Williams without a second of consideration.

To add insult to injury, Mader was fired for his restraint, and the officer who murdered Williams was cleared of all wrongdoing, showing that the police department is explicitly encouraging indiscriminate killings.

Now, Mader is understandably reconsidering his career choices and has filed a lawsuit against the city that employed him.

“I loved being a police officer. And for them to say because of this incident you’re not going to continue here was heartbreaking. It had me questioning myself, should I be an officer,” Mader told NBC.

West Virginia attorney and ACLU representative Timothy P. O’Brien is helping to bring the lawsuit against the city.

“The City of Weirton’s decision to fire officer Mader because he chose not to shoot and kill a fellow citizen, when he believed that he should not use such force, not only violates the Constitution, common sense and public policy but incredibly punishes restraint.

When given the tragic and far too frequent unnecessary use of deadly force, such restraint should be praised not penalized. To tell a police officer, when in doubt either shoot to kill or get fired, is a choice that no police officer should ever have to make and is a message that is wrong and should never be sent,” O’Brien said.

“There’s the thin blue line, and one of the ironies of this case is that as we’ve seen across the county how many instances police have used deadly force in circumstances where that force is questioned, but nothing is ever done. In most cases, you don’t see training or suspension. When you contrast with what Officer Mader did and how he’s been treated, and officers who’ve used deadly force and how they’ve been treated, it speaks volumes to why we have a problem with deadly force in this country,” O’Brien added.

Mader has no regrets and still believes he did the right thing.

“I wouldn’t change anything. Even after them saying that I failed to eliminate a threat and that it should have been handled differently, I still believe I did the right thing. And a lot of people think I did the right thing, too. I know it’s not just me,” he said. And he’s right, TFTP knows Mader did the right thing, which is why we’ve been reporting on it for two years.

Shooting and killing suicidal or mentally distraught people sadly seems to be the standard operating procedure for police across the country. We have covered countless cases over the years where officers have indiscriminately killed suicidal people instead of helping them out.

Obviously, if a family member makes a phone call to police because a loved one is suicidal, the last thing they want is for someone to get hurt, but when police arrive the situation tends to escalate quickly and result in violence.

Source Article from

Feds want to criminally charge sanctuary cities for refusing to follow federal laws

california hwy sign


California passed a state law defining itself as a “sanctuary state.” This law went into effect on January 1 of this year. However, this is defiant act against U.S. Federal law governing the treatment of illegal immigrants into the United States of America, of which California is still part.

The Trump Administration is not taking this lying down.

On January 16th, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen confirmed that her department asked Federal prosecutors to see if they can criminally charge sanctuary cities for their refusal to follow federal immigration laws.

The California law acts to severely restrict the cooperation that state and local law enforcement is allowed to offer the federal government in executing immigration and deportation laws.

Kierstjen Nielsen


While the US Constitution is arranged to severely restrict the powers of the Federal government, giving the bulk of authority of law to the States or the people of the United States of America (Amendment X), the matter of immigration is a matter that even recently has been held to be in the purview of the Federal government of the United States of America.

As Justice Kennedy wrote in the 2012 decision in Arizona v. United States:

The Government of the Unit­ed States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immi­gration and the status of aliens. … This authority rests, in part, on the National Government’s con­stitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and its inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations….

The really amusing piece of this decision is that it came down from the Supreme Court in response to the Arizona law that increased that state’s authority to prosecute illegal aliens in the state. So here, for many people that supported increased adherence to immigration and deportation statutes, this decision amounted to a disappointment for Arizonans who wanted very strict border control. The Federal government’s authority supersedes the state’s own authority, the decision says, and so the state cannot do what it wants on a matter that the Federal Government is tasked to manage.

The fact that for decades, the Feds have conveniently weakened their execution of the law is not the point. But now, that enforcement is strengthening, and a new state, California, is trying to buck the Feds the other way.

Yet this Supreme Court decision stands and it clearly gives the Federal government the upper hand in this matter.

The presence of Deep State, Obama-appointed operatives in various offices in government may be a monkeywrench thrown in these works. However, it appears that the Secretary of DHS is absolutely on the right track.

Source Article from

Nurses Continue to be Justified in Refusing Mandatory Flu Shots

Next Story

This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfoLLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here.  It was written by Jeffery Jackson, a researcher, independent investigative journalist, writer and voice for health freedom on the front lines of society’s shift towards higher consciousness.  Visit his website here to learn more.

Similar to the general public, nurses are increasingly refusing dangerous and often ineffective flu shots 

Responding to nurses who exert their science-based vaccination choice, hospitals have used both heavy-handed public shaming and coercion tactics of making them wear masks. Every year, scores of images populate social media feeds showing nurses wearing masks forced upon them during their hospital shifts because they refused their flu shots. A popular mainstream message is that we must all get our flu shots to protect the elderly who may die from the flu or its complications. Yet, however ‘caring’ this PR strategy may appear, we should occasionally look at the results.

What does it say about the infallibility of the ‘safe and effective’ vaccine narrative when those working within the very system that delivers the shots are refusing to take them themselves? Is it because nurses see vaccine injuries firsthand? Are the nurses, or anyone else, justified in refusing the flu shot?

Every quarter, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) issues a report to the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines on vaccine injuries and deaths based on adjudicated settlements in the Vaccine Court. The settlements for the flu shot, which is now part of the recommended childhood schedule, are topping several consecutive DOJ reports. Furthermore, according to the US Special Claims Court website, flu shot settlements increased from $4.9 million in 2014 to $61 million in 2015 – an increase of more than a 1000 percent, and the year of 2016 saw an over 50 percent further increasefrom the year before.

Even pro-vaccine mainstream media outlets are being forced to do their job reporting flu shot dangers. The Washington Post ran an article with a rare admission of what they deemed a “hint of a link” between the influenza vaccine during pregnancy an miscarriages. However, as J.B. Handley, Jr. Co-founder of Generation Rescue pointed out,

Women who had received the two flu shots in successive seasons were almost 8x more likely to have a spontaneous abortion than those who had not — a nearly 700% increase.

The Washington Post was forced to immediately change its headline, shortly after Handley, Jr’s message went public.

Miscarriages and chart-topping settlements for injury and death vs. authoritarian hospital policies — would you take the flu shot if your employer forced you to? With a dismal track record of safety, are we to believe that settled vaccine science has at the least worked out the kinks with respect to the flu shot efficacy? Not so. According to epidemiologist Michael Osterholm of University of Minnesota, the science behind the flu shot “…is much more complicated than we thought…” He further stated: “I know less about influenza today than I did 10 years ago” and that the flu shot is “…a terribly inadequate vaccine.”  Osterholm in effect has turned conventional medical wisdom on its head by admitting that the flu shot’s performance “may falter even when the right strains were used to make it.”

A recent study published in PLOS One has undermined the highly unethical practice of forcing healthcare professionals to take flu shots. The study found that, after further analysis, the outcomes of the four cluster-randomized controlled trials conducted in long-term care facilities, which were previously used to justify forcing flu shots on healthcare workers, are “exaggerated” and that “implausibly large reductions in patient risk” showed by the four studies in question cast “serious doubts on their validity.” The PLOS One study concluded that the research used to justify mandatory flu shots for health sector workers is flawed and that the policies cannot plausibly produce the benefits that had been widely assumed.

The lead author of the PLOS One study, Dr. Gaston de Serres told STAT:

I think the bottom line of our paper is to say there is no valid scientific evidence, even now, underpinning enforced health care worker immunizations.” De Serres further said: “… it’s one thing to say: ‘OK, on a voluntary basis, you get the vaccine despite all its weaknesses,’ and it’s another thing to say, ‘If you don’t get it, you get fired.’

Stepping back and looking at the large swath of evidence that continues to be discovered, it appears that healthcare professionals who refuse their flu shots are indeed justified to do so.  But due to the continued workplace discrimination against them, the courts have been asked to weigh in. In 2015, a case was brought against the Sault Area Hospital in Sault Ste. Marie, ON after the hospital implemented a “vaccine or mask” policy, forcing nurses and other healthcare workers to wear uncomfortable surgical masks for their entire shifts for the duration of the flu season if they refused to get their annual flu shot. The arbitrator in the case called the “vaccine or mask” policy a “coercive tool” rather than a protective health policy.

If there was a genuine concern about preventing the transmission of the flu virus in the hospitals and if surgical masks were truly effective at doing that, any hospital worker would be required to wear them regardless of his or her flu shot compliance, given that the flu shot effectiveness can at best reach only 40 to 60 percent. Instead, healthcare workers appear to be, jointly with the general public, bearing the weight of an unscientific policy, aimed only at forcing vaccine rates up at all cost in a long-failed one-size-fits-all vaccine paradigm gone astray. Will we continue to see growing medical disobedience from multiple sectors of society and the workforce if their respective leadership continues to implement mandatory vaccination policies?

For additional research potential harms caused by the Influenza Vaccine, visit our database on the subject. 

You can sign up for the here:

Get Your FREE In Depth Numerology Reading

Your life path number can tell you A LOT about you.

With the ancient science of Numerology you can find out accurate and revealing information just from your name and birth date.

Get your free numerology reading and learn more about how you can use numerology in your life to find out more about your path and journey. Get Your free reading.


Source Article from

Court Holds NYPD In Contempt For Refusing To Hand Over Documents Related To Black Live Matter Surveillance

The NYPD continues to extend a middle finger to every entity that isn’t the NYPD. The department’s long history of doing everything it can to thwart public records requesters has been discussed here several times. It’s not on much better terms with its oversight, which it routinely ignores when directed to do something about its officers’ routine rights violations and deployment of excessive force.

If it’s not going to be accountable to the public — either via FOIL (Freedom of Information Law) compliance or respecting the decisions of its oversight — it’s certainly not going to let the judicial branch push it around.
The NYPD has 30 days to turn over surveillance videos of Black Lives Matter protesters after a Manhattan judge ruled Wednesday that the department flouted his previous order to disclose the records.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Manuel Mendez, who issued the contempt of court ruling, stopped short of immediately imposing sanctions on the police. Instead, he said the NYPD could “purge” the contempt ruling by turning over more material related to the monitoring of protesters at Grand Central Terminal in November 2014 and January 2015 within a month.

This ruling arrives eight months after the NYPD made a mockery of an earlier court order on records disclosure, turning over nothing more than a few pieces of paper and short, blurry cell phone recording of Black Lives Matter protesters. According to Judge Mendez, the NYPD’s efforts to comply with the FOIL request at the heart of the lawsuit have been “disingenuous” at best.

Undoubtedly, the NYPD has a large number of records related to its surveillance of protesters. It just doesn’t want to release them. The NYPD has repeatedly engaged in surveillance of First Amendment activity. That’s the sort of thing one should expect from a law enforcement agency that views protests and terrorism as two sides of the same coin. When that’s your viewpoint, you get you a special operations unit that can do both: the Strategic Response Group, which, according to the Mayor, is capable of handling both protests or “attacks like those in Mumbai.”

Mendez may have issued a ruling of contempt, but city lawyers aren’t exactly springing into action to comply with the judge’s February order. According to the city, it’s still “weighing its options” and angsting away uselessly.
The city’s Law Department immediately cried foul, saying it is reviewing its legal options and is “deeply concerned with this ruling and the dilemma in which it places the city.”

“On the one hand, we are constrained by genuine security concerns from explaining publicly how disclosure could endanger the lives and safety of undercover officers,” a Law Department spokesman said. “On the other hand, we were not afforded an opportunity to explain those concerns to the court in a non-public setting.”

Well, I call bullshit. There’s not a court in the land that won’t allow in camera hearings or ex parte submissions where the government can attempt to explain its refusal to hand over evidence or documents. I’m sure Judge Mendez would have allowed it if he thought this sort of hearing was appropriate. Chances are he would have been much more amenable to the city’s request for a private explanation if it had engaged in a little more good faith effort during its search for relevant documents.

If the city returns to court with nothing more than its unearned dismay, the judge will probably start issuing sanctions. As it stands now, the NYPD has the choice of producing more responsive documents or submit sworn affidavits explaining why it can’t — or won’t — turn over more documents related to its surveillance of Black Lives Matter protesters.

It’s hard to imagine what sanctions will have a lasting deterrent effect on the NYPD. Everything else that’s been tried hasn’t produced a more accountable entity. Short of jailing some top brass, any punishment the court hands out will likely be suffered by the public, especially if it’s nothing more than fines the NYPD can pay with other people’s money.


If you haven’t already, be sure to like our Filming Cops Page on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Please visit our sister site Smokers ONLY


(function(d) {
var params =
id: “3c7936d6-71e2-4cba-afb4-95ed4171941f”,
d: “ZmlsbWluZ2NvcHMuY29t”,
wid: “365543”,
cb: (new Date()).getTime()

var qs=[];
for(var key in params) qs.push(key+’=’+encodeURIComponent(params[key]));
var s = d.createElement(‘script’);s.type=’text/javascript’;s.async=true;
var p = ‘https:’ == document.location.protocol ? ‘https’ : ‘http’;
s.src = p + “://” + qs.join(‘&’);

Filming Cops

Source Article from

WATCH: Cop Tries To Taser Man for Refusing to Give ID, Tasers Fellow Cop Instead


Riverside, OH — In the state of Ohio, it is unlawful for police to demand your identification unless the officer reasonably suspects you are committing, have committed, or are about to commit a criminal offense or if you witnessed a party committing a felony. It is not a violation of the law to refuse to identify yourself if you do not meet the above criteria. The scenario below shows the chaos and violence that can happen when a person feels this reasonable suspicion has not been articulated.

Over the Thanksgiving holiday, Riverside police officers responded to a report of domestic violence. When the officers arrived on the scene, they approached a man they believed to be involved in the incident. However, as he was not charged with domestic violence, it appears from the court records that they had the wrong man.

Claiming not to have committed a crime, the man police approached, Christopher McClinton refused to hand over his identification. The woman in the vehicle with him also claimed McClinton had done nothing wrong, however, police continued to escalate the situation.

The video released by the department from one of the officer’s body cameras does not show them presenting reasonable articulable suspicion. Instead, it starts with the officer threatening to arrest McClinton for “failing to identify yourself to a police officer.” The actual law, however, is called Failure to disclose personal information and requires the criteria mentioned above.

The officers gave McClinton several more warnings that if he did not hand over his identification that he would be tasered and arrested. After he refused one more time, the officers moved in to taser and arrest McClinton.

This is where the story takes a dramatic turn. When the officer deploys his taser, the prongs split. One of the prongs goes into McClinton while the other goes into the officer’s partner. As the officer is hit with the taser, he seizes up and falls to the ground in agony, hitting his head in the process.

Before the body camera footage was released, local news ran stories of “an officer injured while responding to a domestic dispute.” They noted that the officer was “wrestling with a suspect when he fell backward and struck his head.” There was no mention of the taser at all.

For what he thought was a lawful refusal to identify, McClinton was subsequently tasered and arrested. He has now been charged with obstructing official business, failure to disclose personal information and resisting arrest — nothing in regards to the alleged domestic incident. He pleaded not guilty to the charges on Monday, according to records.

Below is a video highlighting the extreme escalation of force and the danger it presents to all involved when someone attempts to assert their rights and police respond.

As TFTP has reported in the past, cops needlessly escalating violence often ends with innocent people getting hurt. The family of an innocent 10-year-old boy filed a $4 million lawsuit on behalf of their son last year after he was shot by a trigger-happy Georgia cop. The boy, Dakota Corbitt was shot in the back of his leg while officer Michael Vickers was attempting to kill his dog.

Like McClinton claims, Dakota Corbitt and the rest of his family had done nothing wrong when they were swarmed by cops who held them at gunpoint before shooting the child.

The incident happened in July of 2014 when officers were looking for the suspect of an armed robbery and police shooting. The suspect, 19-year-old Christopher Barnett had fled to the woods near Corbitt’s home.

During Barnett’s apprehension, all hell broke loose as this innocent family had their rights violated at the hands of public servants.

According to the lawsuit, the defendants, Coffee County, Sheriff Doyle Wooten and deputy Michael Vickers, “jointly and severely deprived the plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ minor children of their rights secured by the 4th and 14th Amendments of the United States and as a direct and proximate result of said deprivation defendants’ negligence, gross negligence, and the wanton and willful indifference to the rights of the plaintiffs individually and the rights of the plaintiffs’ minor children, caused the physical pain, suffering, mental anguish and ultimately the permanent restriction of one minor’s right leg.”

Luckily, in the Riverside instance, no innocent children were present to be struck by the officer’s taser.


Source Article from

Detroit mother thrown in jail for refusing to vaccinate son while court orders father to get the boy "caught up" on shots

Image: Detroit mother thrown in jail for refusing to vaccinate son while court orders father to get the boy “caught up” on shots

(Natural News)
A Detroit area mother was thrown in jail for refusing to vaccinate her nine-year-old son.

Rebecca Bredow and her ex-husband Jason Horne, the boy’s father, had originally agreed to space out the child’s immunizations in a divorce agreement instead of sticking to the traditional schedule, but after researching the issue further, she decided it was unsafe for him to receive the shots. Although she is the boy’s primary caregiver, Horne decided that he wanted the boy to be vaccinated and asked the court to intervene.

Bredow followed all of Michigan’s laws about vaccine waivers, but in an October 4 hearing, she was sentenced to seven days in jail for contempt of court after refusing to comply with a series of court orders dating back to last November stating that she would get her son vaccinated. She was released on Monday after serving five days of the sentence.

Her ex-husband was awarded temporary custody to bring the child in for his vaccines while his mother went to prison.

Bredow told the judge that she took full responsibility for her actions and that it was never her intention to disrespect the judge or disobey court orders. She said that she’s a passionate mother who cares about her children’s health and well-being deeply and that vaccinating her son goes against her beliefs.

“I am an educated vaccine-choice mother and I have signed vaccine waivers and have been fully compliant with all state laws for both of my children for every school year,” she said. However, the judge appeared very unsympathetic, prompting Bredow’s family members to suspect she handed down the sentence to make a point.

In a recording of the hearing, Judge Karen McDonald comes across as somewhat of a medical tyrannist, saying: “I want to make it perfectly clear: We’re leaving here today. Dad’s picking the child up and he’s going to be vaccinated regardless of what Mom did or didn’t do.”

Apparently, the mother’s wishes don’t count in the judge’s view, but then again, she’s not the one who will have to deal with the repercussions of these vaccines if something goes wrong. As Joel Dorfman of the group Michigan for Vaccine Choice points out: “If this child is injured because of being given eight immunizations, who do you think is going to take care of the child? The judge?”

Dangers of multiple vaccines

The boy’s father must follow a court order to bring him up-to-date on up to eight vaccines “as rapidly as medically necessary.” This is precisely what Bredow had been hoping to avoid in the first place, and it’s understandable to many that she was willing to take such a hard line on the issue.

Getting multiple vaccines at once is particularly risky. The government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) shows that as many as 145,000 children have died in the past two decades after getting multiple vaccine doses. Researchers found that the more vaccines a child is given during a single visit to the doctor’s, the more likely they are to experience a severe reaction or die. Gaia Health reports that each additional vaccine raises a child’s chance of death by 50 percent.

Bredow said, “I would rather sit behind bars standing up for what I believe in than giving in to something I strongly don’t believe in.” She now has a criminal record, even though she followed Michigan’s rules, which do allow parents to opt out of getting certain vaccines for non-medical reasons by signing waivers and attending educational classes.

In the meantime, her son now has to deal with the knowledge that his mother was sent to prison for him while his body deals with the sudden influx of chemicals from the vaccines, on top of all the stress that the legal maneuvering likely put him through. As is often the case in these situations, it’s the child who loses most of all.

Sources include:



Source Article from

Organic Trade Association sues the USDA for refusing to enforce its own organic livestock standards

Image: Organic Trade Association sues the USDA for refusing to enforce its own organic livestock standards

(Natural News)
On January 18, 2017, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published its final rule on organic livestock and poultry production practices, known as the Organic Animal Welfare Rule. This legislation represented the culmination of 14 years of hard work by Congress and organic stakeholders, and contained rules that had to be implemented in a structured way over the next five years. When a White House Memorandum was published just days later requesting a freeze on all recently published or pending rules, the implementation date was extended to 19 May 2017. The USDA then pushed that date back even further, and now the Organic Trade Association (OTA) is suing the regulator for failing to implement its own standards.

The rule was established to provide for the humane treatment and slaughter of certified organic poultry and meat, and includes regulations regarding:

  • Indoor and outdoor space for poultry;
  • How to ensure the health and well-being of livestock during their lifetimes, and how to safely and humanely transport and slaughter them;
  • Specific timelines for when various aspects of the rule have to be implemented; and
  • Clarification of existing organic standards.

While the implementation of organic standards is purely voluntary and only accepted by farmers who wish to carry the USDA certified organic label, they are important because the organic market is booming and consumers have specific expectations of foods labeled in this way.

A press release from the OTA explains:

American consumers are eating more organic food than ever before, show the findings of the Organic Trade Association’s 2017 Organic Industry Survey. Organic food sales in the U.S. totaled $43.1  billion in 2016, marking the first time organic food sales in this country have broken through the $40 billion mark. Organic food now accounts for more than five percent of total food sales in this country, another significant first for organic.

Organic meat and poultry sales posted new records in 2016, increasing by more than 17 percent to $991 million, for the category’s biggest-ever yearly gain. Sales are expected to surpass the $1 billion mark for the first time in 2017. Growing awareness of organic’s more encompassing benefits over natural, grass-fed or hormone-free meats and poultry is spurring consumer interest in organic meat and poultry aisles.

These consumers expect the USDA label to be a guarantee that the highest standards are being maintained, and that animal welfare practices are being carefully upheld.

The OTA, farmers and businesses are pushing for the implementation of the rule because they believe it is “the right thing to do and it is what our customers expect.” (Related: Read about other important issues affecting animals and the environment at

The USDA, however, has dragged its heels in the implementation of the rule, even though those most directly involved – the organic farmers – have welcomed it with open arms.  (Related: USDA running massive glyphosate cover-up, refuses to test foods for traces of cancer-causing herbicide chemical used on GM crops.)

The OTA’s lawsuit alleges the following:

  • The USDA’s repeated delays in this matter are a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act;
  • The USDA has proposed action which could indefinitely delay or kill the rule, which is also a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act;
  • The USDA is in violation of the Organic Foods Production Act; and
  • The Executive order freezing regulations should not be applied to the rule because these standards are voluntary and industry-driven, rather than an example of government overreach.

Sources include:



Source Article from