• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BSE Class Action Lawsuit "Opt Out"

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    BSE Class Action Lawsuit "Opt Out"

    I am asking my fellow ranchers to read the following two letters to the editor which my husband and I have just fired off. Please take them to your ABP meetings and discuss the contents - if you'd be so kind.

    You will be surprised to learn that all cattle producers in Canada are "automatically" included in the Class Action Lawsuit(s) against Ridley Inc. and the Government of Canada. If you want to maintain your right to sue these entities on your own accord in the future, especially once the real causative agent or agents of BSE are revealed... you need to Opt Out of the class action by December 12 2008 (re: the first Ridley Inc. Settlement.

    Please print these two letters out and give them your time and consideration. Thank you. "Kathy"

    The BSE Class Action – Whether You Want It or Not!

    Many are aware of the "BSE Class Action" lawsuit by Crawford Class Action Services, on behalf of Canadian cattle producers [plaintiffs], against Ridley Inc. and the Government of Canada [defendants]. The lawyers for the producers will attempt to prove that Ridley Inc. and the Government of Canada were aware that contaminated feed was spreading BSE throughout the Canadian cattle herd, and the Government failed to act in a timely manner to control the spread of the disease.

    However, most producers are not aware that all of us are automatically listed as plaintiffs in this class action battles. If you do not wish to be listed as a plaintiff in these legal cases, it is your responsibility to "opt out" by December 12, 2008. This is highly unusual as most class actions require the plaintiffs to opt in. The duty to become informed about the situation and make a conscious decision to participate should be your responsibility. For some bizarre reason, these particular challenges have reigned in all cattle producers without our knowledge or consent.

    Ridley Inc has subsequently made a settlement agreement with Crawford Class Action Services where-in Ridley "denies liability and wrongdoing on its part" but pays out 6 million dollars into a 'settlement trust fund". This cash will then be used to continue the case against the Government of Canada only. At the conclusion of all this legal wrangling, should there be any surplus after legal costs, none will go to producers rather it will be divided equally among five Canadian Veterinarian Colleges.

    If producers do not "opt out" by December 12, 2008 with written and signed election to the Administrator at Crawford - they will, "remain in the BSE class actions and will not be able to bring or maintain any other claim or legal proceeding in connection with any aspect of the BSE crisis against the settling defendant and any individual action that this class member commences against the settling defendant will be dismissed." Any producer who unknowingly fails to "opt out" of the class action lawsuit will be permanently denied any legal action against Ridley Inc.

    Under any future settlement with the Government of Canada, a similar "Release of claims and effect on other proceedings" most likely will be issued. Again, if producers do not opt out, they will, forever, be unable to bring suit against the Government on any matters relating to BSE.

    What we must be concerned about here, is that producers and the public have been sold a bill of goods regarding the true "agent" causing BSE, other-wise theorized to be an "infectious prion protein" and its method of transmission. Should another "agent" or "agents" responsible for the disease be revealed, and our Government is complicit with its distribution in the environment, producer/plaintiffs will be denied the ability to seek further restitution via the courts - forever. It is interesting to note that the packers are not included in this class action process, and their right to sue these defendants will not be restricted.

    Since the publication of the “Notification of Certification and of National Partial Settlement of the BSE Class Actions” in the fall 2008 Cattlemen’s magazine, we are the first producers in Canada to have contacted Crawford Class Action Services to inform them we wish to “opt out”.

    What all Canadian cattle producers must realize is, that through no action of their own, their right to sue the Canadian Government or Ridley Inc. over “any aspect” to do with BSE, in the future, will be obstructed by their involuntary participation within “the BSE Class Action” lawsuit.

    No matter your beliefs about what causes BSE, failure to act [opt out] will seriously limit your rights.

    YVT,

    Les and Kathy Czar
    Hanna, AB
    (403)854-2433
    October 27, 2008

    The “Alberta Livestock & Meat Strategy” – Marketing or Control?

    Since the 1998 Bill 31/Thurber Report fiasco over Grazing Leases, ranchers have been aware that the Alberta Government wants more control over our land, as our property rights are an impediment to more lucrative uses. Now we are faced with a further hostile take-over attempt of lands involved in the production of livestock and meat, in the guise of a “Marketing Strategy”.

    On June 5, 2008, Ag Minister Groenveld ordered us to cooperate or “find an exit strategy”. We haven’t slept well since that announcement.

    Their “Marketing Strategy” is really a covert land/animal control coup-d’etat to be implemented with regulations under the new Alberta Animal Health Act (AHA) passed in 2007, yet still awaits Royal Assent.

    The darker side of this plan could see ranchers put out of business and their land taken out of production, merely because their property was exposed to an “agent” that MIGHT cause disease (“micro-organisms, macro-organisms, chemicals, toxins or other agents”). Any “abnormal symptom”, without clinical evidence of disease, is sufficient to trigger control measures. Our animals need not be sick for bureaucrats to restrict their movement, or have them destroyed!

    The Act allows the Minister to order ranchers to obtain a “unique identification number” for their “Premise”. American ranchers have been fighting “Premise I.D.” for years. It is not, as claimed by the Minister, an Alberta hatched idea. It is actually a global license system, controlling all animal rearing operations. It is not transferable. Buyers of land may have to submit an application to raise animals on property that has been doing just that for generations, with no guarantee this activity will be allowed to continue.

    “Premise” or “Premise I.D.” is mentioned roughly 89 times in the AHA, and the word “quarantined” prefixes it in most cases! Is it really a “marketing strategy” when you’re operation is listed under one of the 3 “animal health zones” described as; “Surveillance”, “Control” or “Quarantine”?

    The exemption from obtaining an I.L.O. license for small intensive livestock operations and ranches will be null and void, as ranching is now considered a high risk activity requiring government control and licensing.

    When our MLAs passed the AHA last year (which they loosely describe as the “Vet Bill”) did they understand that they were passing a bill that would require the licensing of all primary livestock producers in this province?

    Why has this “Marketing Strategy” been accompanied by fat cheques for those that voluntarily sign up before the Act is even proclaimed?? Perhaps they figured a bribe was the best bait to lure cash strapped producers into their net.

    While the ever-optimistic rancher might not want to look at the dark side of the ALM Strategy, ignoring it won’t make it go away. Through no fault of our own, our property can be exposed to “agents” of a disease from industrial emissions, nuclear fallout or even military activities, which when brought by wind, rain or snow, could result in our ranches being shut down by the AHA. What if activities presently deemed safe, become unsafe, like previously acceptable sewage sludge spreading.

    The AHA states the Minister “may” compensate you, when your animals or property are destroyed, when it should say MUST compensate you, and also puts limitations on compensation payouts! Future licensing for “any purpose” through regulation is another of the excessive powers granted by the Act [Part 9, Sec. 43 (1) (4)].

    The governments claim that they are “sick of propping us up” is merely a ruse to take control. Stop the hand-outs! Let the chips fall where they may. Ranchers are capable of finding balance, sustainability and our own markets without government control and intervention.

    Les & Kathy Czar
    Hanna, AB

    (403)854-2433
    lkczar@hotmail.com

    #2
    I certainly can find some common ground with you on the first letter Kathy. Not that I am interested in suing anybody over BSE if the proper cause is ever identified. The blackmailing of Ridley so that they felt forced to pay $6 million to stay in business is something I want no part of. I think this was a disgraceful deed that was done "on behalf of producers". Given that the contaminated feed theory has never been proven anywhere there is no way this case should ever have been brought. Good money for the lawyers though.

    Comment


      #3
      A representative from Crawford phoned me this morning (28th) and informed me of a few more details. She said it is now "standard" policy that in class action suits everyone under the definition of member is included... so the fact is, you may be obstructed in your legal rights, already, as it pertains to some other class action lawsuit(s) that took place in the past. Isn't that disgraceful? Actually its Bull Sh*$ - if you want to be involved with such a legal battle, I feel it should be your duty and responsibility to opt in.

      On another note: as far as the Packers being excluded from this class action - it is a blurred area as far as the Ridley notification goes. The definition does state "including but not limited to cow-calf, backgrounder, purebred, veal, feedlot and dairy producers." The "but not limited to" may indeed include the Packers in this.

      As for progressing ahead with the Governent of Canada class action suit: the representative stated the Government of Canada is challenging this action (the determination whether a class action can go ahead). In this Gov. Canada class action - the present draft definition for class members DOES include the Packers. The situation is clear as mud right now, until the final decision on the validity of the action is written (final draft and accepted).. nothing is written in stone. As it stands, now though, (draft) any settlement with the Gov. of Canada will include Packers.

      The payout regime is UNKNOWN, even though they want to know how many animals you had as of May 20, 2003. It is likely that in order to obtain a payout, you will have to file a "claim" - no guarantee that payouts will come "automatically" like the cheques from the Gov. of Alberta to bribe you to sign up for premise identification/global operation licenses.

      Under the circumstances, as of today, I don't think that the Government would loose a class action suit; however, they will more than likely be happy as clams to "settle". After any settlement, nobody in Canada in the Cattle business would ever be able to sue them again for anything related to the "BSE crisis". They'd be scot-free (I have scottish heritage..., must have some genetic effect on my behavior?)....Live free or Die - that's a bumper sticker I've seen around. I think I get it now!

      Opt out by December 12, 2008 - or opt out later on if you want - but if this Government does NOT settle and the Crawford class action LOSES its case... there will be no further opting out. The Government will have faced a trial on MBM/feed contamination/BSE and won...Double indemnity prevents them being sued by the same parties again. Anybody involved with this class action, will have blown their chances with the class action. No second chance to challenge the government as a result of "new information" regarding BSE.

      Government of Canada - includes the military. If DU weapons are found responsible... only those that opt out will have the legal right to sue.

      Comment


        #4
        There's an interesting article in this month's Cattlemen regarding how the government was notified that the exact scenario that finally did happen was 99% likely to happen. It was not released to the public, and was only found after an access to information request was made.

        I won't get into the details, but it sure is interesting.

        I've never thought Ridley should be involved in this from the beginning. The government on the other hand has some questions to answer.

        As for giving up the right to sue the government later, is it realistic to think that other than as a huge group, there is anyone who could actually afford to do it?

        And the packers have no business being involved in this. I don't see how they could prove damage was done to them anyway, since they made out like bandits at the time.

        Comment


          #5
          You raise a good point Kato - come to think of it what is the case for suing for financial compensation over BSE? Calf prices were what? - 20% higher post BSE than they were in fall 07 or 08 so it would be kind of hard to prove loss of income.

          Comment


            #6
            Isn't loss of income based on previous income? It can also be argued that the lower prices today are partially a result of the decimation of our industry and the liquidation that has resulted. Around here guys can't get cattle to the auction fast enough. They've reached the end of their ropes and just can't keep this up any longer.

            It's a sad situation when the guy who retires without losing his farm is considered a winner. That's a pretty low bar to measure by. It should be the guy who retires with something to show for a lifetime of work that's the winner.

            To have to think that success is defined as being able to just hang on until we're too old to work is just a shame.

            Comment


              #7
              I don't know how Ridley Inc. got drug into this but if any corporation should be liable, what about the companies that processed the dead animals into crude protein that was sold to companies like Ridley Inc. for incorporation into their feed mix.

              Were these dead critters sorted and isolated before processing...very doubtful as the trucks that picked up on the farms threw everything together, hogs, cattle, goats, whatever.

              I would be safe to say that they were not separated when they went into the roasters either. So the result was a crude protein derived from cattle being mixed with feed that was fed to cattle.

              I doubt that Ridley Inc. even knew the exact source of what they were buying other than it was crude protein, and certainly not aware that it had potential for contaminating their feed with the agent(s) causing BSE.

              From what I have read, the salvage companies used a flawed process as well in which temperatures were never high enough to destroy the causative agents of BSE as well.

              I say, let the class action proceed...most cattle producers do not have the resources to institute any action on their own and in the event of an action where a negative court decision came about, would be bankrupt as well.

              Comment


                #8
                My husband has pointed out to me that this is a civil action and that double indemnity does not apply. However, any future settlement (if any) will have similar wording and this includes dismissal of any future legal action against the fed gov.

                This is a private civil suit being launched by a private lawfirm(s) on behalf of ALL Canadian cattle producers. Without your written consent, this lawfirm is going to bind you to their aggreements, which include the inability to sue for future damages should new information (or surpressed information) become widely availabe... which changes the situation.

                The article kato mentions is about a 1994 Fed. Gov. report on the possibility that BSE was "incubating" in the canadian cattle herd. There is another report from later on (can't remember the date right now, but I think it was early 2000's?).

                The feds paid Joan Orr and another lady $250,000 to put together a "BSE Risk Assessment" for Canada. Their report stated that you could NOT determine risk, when there was/is nothing actually found in the feed that transmits disease. The idea of an infectious agent is not proven, it is only theory.

                This large report was uncovered by the Fairburn's of Vancouver Island, who had their water buffalo destroyed by the CFIA. Joan Orr has been instructed not to talk about her report, or she will never receive government funds again....(so goes the rumor...) We have not talked to her directly.

                I don't believe the MBM theory, and I know that prion proteins are not "infectious".... I believe the agent causing these disorders is inhaled in order to get to the brain. It travels via the lung-blood-brain, or olfactory system-blood to the regions of the brain where-in it becomes lodged and corrupts proteins in their manufacturing processes. The nucleating agent is the agent of disease, not the thousands of various proteins it is capable of corrupting. In the case of "exposure to the agent" as stated in the new Animal Health Act - the metals need only corrupt proteins in the lymph glands, for example, for a positive disease signal and the CFIA will swoop down on your farm.

                There is a huge stack of questions about this class action suit and any potential payouts, which you have started discussing here. Type and method of payout, proof of damages, etc.

                Damages for one individual ranch could have been enough to put them out of business, while another survived a few years.... etc. Damages cannot be pegged to a "number of head" payout. That's not how damages work. They need to include the pain and suffering we have all endured, and continue to.

                I can't imagine that a private lawfirm can start a class action suit representing everyone involved "automatically" without the affected parties written consent or even their knowledge. Legal firms are using vulnerable parties, aka Ridley, to fund their schemes... and in the end, they will severely restrict every producers future legal rights.

                With the mountain of crap coming down with ALMS and the AB Animal Health Act, I don't want my legal hands tied.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Kato, it's certainly a desperate situation but not one that was caused by BSE cases in cattle in my opinion.
                  BSE in Europe, particularly the UK was a crisis - when beef prices in the store fall to 60% of previous levels and still most goes unsold that is a BSE caused disaster. Here the prices stayed the same or went higher - there was no crisis caused by consumer lack of confidence in beef in Canada.
                  I would suggest that most of the trouble here was packer/retailer profiteering and some of our international trading partners unscrupulous practises.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Damage is damage.

                    The fact is that the government knew BSE was more than likely here. It was in the report.

                    They knew what the results would be if it showed up again. It was in the report.

                    They knew they had a responsibility to avert such a disaster.

                    They chose not to take measures, even with full knowledge of what the results of a BSE incident would be.

                    That spells negligence to me.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      The Federal Government can easily get out of any guilt in court regarding the spread of BSE in feed. This is theory, not fact. The "infectious" agent has not been found. Stanley Prusiner's Factor X is still hidden from public view. And they have their $250,000 BSE Risk Assessment that states no such infectious agent was ever found in Canadian feedstuff.

                      I suggest that you look at the www.bseclassaction.ca website and read some of the arguements by the Crown. They have stated that they have already paid more than their fair share via compensation packages and CAIS funding. They also claim that each individual suffered differently from the situation, and that lumping all producers together under one class action suit denegrates our individual damages and suffering.

                      If they fight, they'll win. If they don't fight, but settle instead, they win. The settlement will most likely take into consideration the payments already received by producers. How much will this leave to distribute to the thousands of producers that make a claim?

                      And should the Government decide to fight, and wins their arguement, will we be faced (as producers) with a bill for their court costs? I don't know the answer to this question (I don't really need to - we're opting out). For those sticking to the class action suit.... you might want to know this.

                      A resolution passed at one of our ABP zone meetings, was to have ABP determine what legislation grants the class action lawsuit to include ALL producers without our knowledge or consent; and once ABP learns the answer - to publish the information in one of their publications to producers.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Emergency NAIS resolution passed by the Nevada Cattlemen's Association.

                        November 21, 2008

                        www.nevadacattlemen.org

                        775 738-9214

                        Nevada Cattlemen’s Association

                        A Resolution calling for a law by the State Legislature to Prohibit NAIS in Nevada


                        WHEREAS the United States Department of Agriculture has violated its promise to maintain a voluntary status for the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) at both the federal and state levels, and

                        WHEREAS NAIS has not been debated or adopted by the members Congress, and presented to the President for signature, but rather is being implemented solely through USDA rules, regulations, and funding under statutes adopted and previously implemented without NAIS, and

                        WHEREAS the implementation of NAIS has not been subject to the requirements of NEPA to prevent the cost prohibitive impact on the small producer and the negative impact on the custom, culture, and economic stability of communities in Nevada, and

                        WHEREAS NAIS has no demonstrated value for disease control, which is already well served by existing state brand laws and veterinarian services, and its benefits are solely to the USDA for control of private property, to mega-agribusiness, and to the manufacturers of equipment for the implementation of NAIS, and

                        WHEREAS combining mandatory state programs with NAIS premises registration is in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”, and

                        WHEREAS the USDA has implemented policies that compel accredited veterinarians, at the risk of losing their state licenses, to register premises that are not voluntarily registered, and

                        WHEREAS combining mandatory state programs with NAIS violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments which guarantee that neither the federal government or any State “shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”, and

                        WHEREAS NAIS has usurped states’ rights by violating the Tenth Amendment which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the U.S. Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”, and

                        WHEREAS the USDA has established rules and regulations for the levying of excessive fines, from $50,000 to $500,000, a violation of the Fifth and Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and enforcement of said rules and regulations through its Enforcement and Investigative Services (EIS), and

                        WHEREAS a cost benefit analysis at any level of government has not been provided for the funding of NAIS, however the USDA continues its pattern of violating Constitutional rights by pursuing critical mass to justify its objectives, and

                        Whereas the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association currently supports a voluntary premise registration system and voluntary NAIS, and

                        Whereas many Nevada producers currently voluntarily use their Nevada Premise number as part of an age and source verification program, and

                        Whereas several states are requiring mandatory premise registration along with NAIS for some livestock events,

                        Therefore Be It Resolved Nevada Cattlemen’s Association and Nevada Woolgrowers Association is opposed to an explicit or a de facto mandatory NAIS.

                        Therefore Be it Further Resolved Nevada Cattlemen’s Association and Nevada Woolgrowers Association is opposed to any implementation of NAIS which violates the U.S. Constitution or diminishes the rights reserved to the States there in.[end]

                        Well done Nevada ranchers!! God Bless.

                        Comment

                        • Reply to this Thread
                        • Return to Topic List
                        Working...