• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

USDA opposes NMA in R-CALF lawsuit

Help Support Ranchers.net:

A

Anonymous

Guest
Legal/Regulatory News
USDA opposes NMA entry into R-CALF lawsuit

by Pete Hisey on 3/30/05 for Meatingplace.com



In a move that stunned the National Meat Association, USDA lawyers filed a brief Monday evening strongly opposing the granting of intervenor status to NMA in its appeal of a restraining order that effectively keeps the Canadian border closed to cattle.

The brief argues that NMA should be excluded from the appeal "because its purely economic interests are only remotely related to the underlying litigation." NMA had filed for intervenor status on the grounds that its members, mainly meat processors, were being profoundly and perhaps permanently damaged by the continued closure of the Canadian border. Jobs at slaughter and processing plants are disappearing as Canada builds up its own slaughter and processing capacity, NMA contends.

The appeal, which is under consideration by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, has a fixed timetable. USDA has until April 14 to submit its brief, after which R-CALF USA will have until May 12 to respond. USDA may then take 14 days to respond, if it so wishes. The court will then make a decision as to whether or not it will accept the appeal, and set dates for oral arguments, if necessary.

R-CALF USA was scheduled to submit its brief, presumably opposing NMA's intervention, on Monday evening, but it received a one-day extension. NMA promises to respond vigorously to both briefs.
 

TimH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,421
Reaction score
0
Location
Southwest Manitoba
Quote- "The brief argues that NMA should be excluded from the appeal "because its purely economic interests are only remotely related to the underlying litigation." :shock:

Say whaaaat?????? :???: :???:

NMA's "purely economic interests".......as opposed to R-calf's purely food safety and animal health interests????????

Uh.......ya......OK!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
If "purely economic interests" are grounds to throw folks out of the courthouse, the USDA might want think about getting their coats and hats found.................... :wink:
 

Les

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
784
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta
sandhusker I see you have a pic of that guy from wayne`s world ( cant remember name) Was wondering if you knew he was canadian?
 

rkaiser

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Messages
1,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Calgary Alberta
:roll:What is it that Rcalf is trying to accomplish Sandhusker, saving American lives from the dreded Canadain Mad Cow or have they economic interests as well.

This move could very well be seen as an effort by the court to keep this thing about science. The SAFE science of both the USA and Canada. Might be the beigining of the end for the Rcalf injunction which hides behind a thin veil of science, and reeks of protectionist economic policy.
 

Rancherz

New member
Joined
Mar 30, 2005
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
USDA isn't saying that it rejects the intervention because NMA's interests are purely economic" -- if you read the whole sentence in the brief you see that USDA is arguing that the NMA has no DIRECT (legally) economic interest, only related...

LINK = USDA opposes NMA intervention
 

SASH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern Manitoba
that guy from wayne`s world

Ummm...Mike Meyers? Yeah, I find it kind of ironic that someone with such an anti-Canadian attitude has a Canadian on his avatar as well.
 

Murgen

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,108
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario
This move could very well be seen as an effort by the court to keep this thing about science. The SAFE science of both the USA and Canada. Might be the beigining of the end for the Rcalf injunction which hides behind a thin veil of science, and reeks of protectionist economic policy.

The rule was written by an organization who's job is to protect health and safety. Fought by a group who's mandate states they are for fair trade. And ruled on by a judge who is confusing the two issues.

I can see where the USDA opposes having a trade protectionist on side. it validates R-calf's protectionist stance!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
SASH said:
that guy from wayne`s world

Ummm...Mike Meyers? Yeah, I find it kind of ironic that someone with such an anti-Canadian attitude has a Canadian on his avatar as well.

I do NOT have an anti-Canadian attitude! That even offends me. Just because I'm an R-CALF member I'm anti-Canadian? :roll: You've been hanging around SH waaaaay too long. Your deductive reasoning is clouded by your disdain for what you think R-CALF is doing to you.

I've said countless times that I'm not supporting R-CALF because of Canada - it's a much larger deal than that. It's about someone standing up for the local guys when the big decisions regarding trade are being influenced by those who's interests counter ours.
 

SASH

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
567
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern Manitoba
I've said countless times that I'm not supporting R-CALF because of Canada

Oh, so is this something like Lloyd DeBruycker telling us that 'R-Calf is working hard to get the border open'? Yeah, right.
 

Latest posts

Top