nefermaathotep:

It’s now getting to the point that debtors prisons are growing.  People are being put in jail for not being able to make payments on time or owing too much money.  Two Atlanta women have a story that is a cautionary tale and nightmare for anyone who has ever borrowed anything on credit. It might also make you think twice about going to Aarons for anything.

A woman who doesn’t want to be identified, says that when she couldn’t make payments on a washer and dryer that she’d bought from Aarons, they had her arrested.

“They should think of the consequences it’s going to have on your life on your family,” the Loganville woman said, asking not to be identified.

The woman says that she knows she fell behind and accepts the responsibility.  But one thing she says she didn’t deserve was to be taken to jail over something like a late payment.  When she offered to give the appliances back, the company refused to take them.  That’s when she was hauled off the jail.

Shantel Jackson has filed a civil suit against Aarons for false imprisonment.

“It was traumatizing. I cried a lot. I spent most of my time crying,” Jackson said.

Jackson says that she was attacked by Aaron’s after she stopped making her payments on a television that was broken.  She says that the company refused to replace the TV, but demanded high payments anyway.  Aaron’s makes its money by charging high rates of interest on consumers who can’t afford credit.  Many of these consumers are African American.  The woman also called the company to tell them that the TV was stolen during a burglary.

“They told me I was lying. They know the TV was in my home,” Jackson said. Jackson’s attorney Cary Wiggins, said it’s a civil matter not criminal.

“You do not have them arrested. There is no debtor’s prison in this country. Hasn’t been that way since the 19th century,” Wiggins told Artz.

Aaron’s released a statement on the matter, “Aaron’s, Inc. cares about our customers and for 58 years has been building solid relationships with our customers and communities. Our culture is to work with each and every one of our customers to ensure that every effort is made to bring them to full lease-ownership of our products. We cannot comment on specific customer situations, but we do work diligently with all of our customers and undergo exceptional efforts, fostering communication with them to understand individual situations.”

the-lone-pamphleteer:

by Jacob Chamberlain for commondreams.org

                      

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of biotech giant Monsanto, ordering Indiana farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman, 75, to pay Monsanto more than $84,000 for patent infringement for using second generation Monsanto seeds purchased second hand—a ruling which will have broad implications for the ownership of ‘life’ and farmers’ rights in the future.

In the case, Bowman had purchased soybean seeds from a grain elevator—where seeds are cheaper than freshly engineered Monsanto GE (genetically engineered) seeds and typically used for animal feed rather than for crops. The sources of the seeds Bowman purchased were mixed and were not labeled. However, some were “Roundup Ready” patented Monsanto seeds.

The Supreme Court Justices, who gave Monsanto a warm reception from the start, ruled that Bowman had broken the law because he planted seeds which naturally yielded from the original patented seed products—Monsanto’s policies prohibit farmers from saving or reusing seeds from Monsanto born crops.

Farmers who use Monsanto’s seeds are forced to buy the high priced new seeds every year.

Ahead of the expected ruling, Debbie Barker, Program Director for Save Our Seeds (SOS), and George Kimbrell, staff attorney for Center for Food Safety (CFS), asked in an op-ed earlier this year, “Should anyone, or any corporation, control a product of life?”:

Bowman vs. Monsanto Co. will be decided based on the court’s interpretation of a complex web of seed and plant patent law, but the case also reflects something much more basic: Should anyone, or any corporation, control a product of life?

[Monsanto’s] logic is troubling to many who point out that it is the nature of seeds and all living things, whether patented or not, to replicate. Monsanto’s claim that it has rights over a self-replicating natural product should raise concern. Seeds, unlike computer chips, for example, are essential to life. If people are denied a computer chip, they don’t go hungry. If people are denied seeds, the potential consequences are much more threatening.

Bowman had argued that he was respecting his contract with Monsanto, purchasing directly from them each year, but couldn’t afford Monsanto’s high prices for his riskier late season crops. Bowman’s defense argued that Monsanto’s patent was “exhausted” through the process of natural seed reproduction and no longer applied to Bowman’s second generation seeds.

“If they don’t want me to go to the elevator and buy that grain,” Bowman had stated, “then Congress should pass a law saying you can’t do it.”

The Center for Food Safety released a report in February which shows three corporations control more than half of the global commercial seed market.

As a result, from 1995-2011 the average cost to plant 1 acre of soybeans rose 325%.

As AP reports, more than 90 percent of American soybean farms use Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” seeds, which first came on the market in 1996.

Vandana Shiva, an expert on seed patents and their effects on farmers around the world, wrote recently:

Monsanto’s concentrated control over the seed sector in India as well as across the world is very worrying. This is what connects farmers’ suicides in India to Monsanto vs Percy Schmeiser in Canada, to Monsanto vs Bowman in the US, and to farmers in Brazil suing Monsanto for $2.2 billion for unfair collection of royalty.

Through patents on seed, Monsanto has become the “Life Lord” of our planet, collecting rents for life’s renewal from farmers, the original breeders.

[See other Lone Pamphleteer posts about Monsanto and watch a trailer for the documentary David vs. Monsanto.]

They are 1 percenters who are 100 percent despicable.Some wealthy Manhattan moms have figured out a way to cut the long lines at Disney World