BarbBarb’s Note: This is a criminal extortion racket. What is the difference between a mobster coming to your property and demanding a portion of your profits for “protection” and the government coming to your property and demanding a portion of your crops for “protection?” NOTHING!!!

USDA Raisins

Source

Print Friendly
Email this to someoneShare on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestShare on RedditShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Digg thisShare on LinkedInPrint this page

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

7 Responses to “USDA Protection Racket Demands 47% of Raisin Crops – Destroys Small Farmers”

  1. Tina says:

    Barb,

    how do we contact the USDA and tell them to stop in a meaningful manner?
    Do we contact our senators? (lol). Who do we contact?
    This makes me so mad.
    Great vid.

  2. Goldbug36 says:

    Isn’t it time for the people to get rid of all the unconstitutional alphabet agencies?

  3. Vee DeMarche says:

    What a dirty, little corrupt anthill we have become…

    Bankers (i.e., the rich) get bailed out, while the rest of us are forced-fed GMO’s and bail-ins.

    It would be funny, if it wasn’t all so tragically stupid.

    V

  4. Abe says:

    I would say this would apply to the government and the Federal Reserve.

    RICO (law) – Definition

    RICO or the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act is a United States law which provides for extended penalties for criminal acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. It was enacted as Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970.

    It has been speculated that the name and acronym were selected in a sly reference to the movie Little Caesar, which featured a notorious gangster named “Rico.” The original drafter of the bill, G. Robert Blakey, has refused to confirm or deny this. [1] (http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/rico.asp)

    Summary
    Under RICO, a person or group who commits any two of 35 crimes–27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes–within a 10-year period and (in the opinion of the U. S. Attorney bringing the case) has committed those crimes with similar purpose or results can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of “racketeering activity.” The act also contains a civil component that allows plaintiffs to sue for triple damages.

    When the U. S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. Some have said this provision is intended to force a defendant to plead guilty before indictment.

    Where RICO laws might be applied
    Some of the RICO predicate acts are extortion and blackmail however one of the most successful applications of the RICO laws has been the ability to indict or sanction individuals for their behavior and actions committed against witnesses and victims in alleged retaliation or retribution for cooperating with law enforcement or intelligence agencies.

    The RICO laws can possibly be alleged in cases where civil lawsuits or criminal charges are brought against individuals or corporations in retaliation for said individuals or corporations working with law enforcement, or against individuals or corporations who have sued or filed criminal charges against a defendant.

    Anti-SLAPP laws can possibly be applied in an attempt to curb alleged abuses of the legal system by individuals who utilize the courts as a weapon to retaliate against whistle blowers, victims, or to silence another’s speech however RICO could conceivably be alleged if it can be shown that lawyers and/or their clients conspired and collaborated to concoct fictitious legal complaints solely in retribution and retaliation for themselves having been brought before the courts.

  5. dan says:

    This is just another example of how much the USDA gets away with. The big is once again swallowing the little. The food system in this country is in a very bad way.We need to support the little by watching where our food dollars go.

  6. Barbara T. says:

    I had no idea that this was going on so thank you for the info. It is just another example of control of our food. I think they have a right to it in return for providing safety of the food supply. They have no right to it as our tax dollars are supposed to pay for that. This stuff is extortion plain and simple. Makes you wonder what else is going on and where?

  7. Brenda says:

    This is how they do it. They do this so the farmers aren’t self sufficient. They did tis when they produced the hybrid corn and soybeans. When they created the hybrid soybeans it means it costs a farmer $60 more dollars and acre to plant. Plus the farmer can’t keep the seeds from the crop. In Ukraine the Communists starved 7 million farmers to death trying to control them. This doesn’t make sense, but I’m certain were going to be able this peacefully. So Barb I don’t want anyone talking about violence.