Filing the complaint was Dr. Eugene Schroder of Campo, Colorado, a veterinarian, rancher, and one of the founders of the American Agriculture Movement; Edwin Petrowsky of Pratt, Kansas, farmer, aerial photographer and former nuclear engineer; Russell Grider of New Mexico, farmer and rancher; and Wesley Myers, farmer and former sheriff of Curry County, New Mexico. Named as defendants are U.S. President William Clinton, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, U.S. Secretary of Treasury Lawrence Summers, and the United States of America. The plaintiffs charge the defendants with failure to provide and maintain a proper economic balance of income (parity) as required by emergency statute. The Plaintiffs further contend that the defendants have intentionally, willfully and deliberately failed and refused to perform their statutory obligations, directly causing damage to the plaintiffs and others within their class. Finally, the complaint says that a declared state of National Emergency, with all incidental powers of control, was imposed over Agriculture on May 12, 1933 (Agriculture Adjustment Act). 

The complaint maintains that agriculture was impressed into service with a national public interest by Roosevelt's New Deal Congress. While the Act was to be temporary in nature, it has yet to be terminated 67 years later. This Act, when combined with all the other emergency acts passed under Roosevelt's administration, effectively created a structural fault line in the economy. On one side were large combinations of capital, industry and labor which were allowed to essentially form monopolies by suspending the Sherman Antitrust Act and replacing it in part with the National Industrial Recovery Act, with the Executive having oversight through the Department of Justice. On the other side of this economic fault line was agriculture and the individual family farmer, who was forbidden to manipulate or restrain trade to unduly enhance prices (Capper Volstead Act). 

The complaint states that the Executive Branch failed to observe the Congressionally delegated authority, policy, mandates and statutory obligation to provide farmers and consumers with certain benefits and protections. The primary obligation was to maintain market conditions and stabilize foreign currencies to provide equal access to export markets. Additionally, the Executive was to prevent concentrations in the marketplace (provide protection from monopolies, both for the inputs needed for production and for the markets needed for sales of production). By observing and implementing these Congressionally delegated policies and mandates, agriculture would have equal purchasing power with industry, labor and capital. This failure to follow the law by the Executive Branch has resulted in disparity in the economic balance of power, and the width and depth of the economic structural fault line (which was to be controlled by these emergency statutes) will continue to widen, the complaint states. 

The complaint is accompanied by several statistical charts. One chart shows that prices paid to farmers bear no relation to retail food prices paid by consumers. This condition is a clear violation of statutory protection for consumers provided by the Agriculture Adjustment Act. Information in the charts used as exhibits in the complaint was provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, and other government agencies. The plaintiffs have petitioned the court to:

1. Grant a Temporary Restraining Order to stop all foreclosures and forced sales in agriculture due to lack of purchasing power parity until this matter can be resolved; and, in addition, suspend the accumulation of interest in such actions until this matter is resolved.
2. Upon final hearings, issue a Permanent Injunction stopping all agricultural foreclosures and forced sales due to lack of purchasing power parity until such time as all national emergencies are terminated. 
3. Provide, through Injunctive Relief, the return and release of all federal monies appropriated by the U.S. Congress to be distributed to farmers under the Freedom To Farm Act. In cases of foreclosure and forced sales, these monies (loan deficiency payments, emergency declaration payments, market loss payments, and market transition payments, etc.) are being sequestered.
4. Issue a Declaratory Judgment that sub-par prices shall be allowed as an affirmative defense.
5. Issue a Declaratory Judgment that the event of the Dollar Index raising above 95 shall be allowed as an affirmative defense.
6. Issue a Declaratory Judgment that the state of National Emergency declared by Congressional Statute in 1933 continues to exist over Agriculture, without Congressional or Executive termination.
7. Issue a Declaratory Judgment that the Executive Branch is in violation of the emergency law.
8. Provide such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

The government’s motion to dismiss in essence claims that the President can do anything he wants to; that Congress has acquiesced so long that they have given up their authority; that it is a political question, and that it has to do with national security; and that the Court has no jurisdiction and no authority to provide relief. Gene Schroder and others are formulating a response. "This case gets right to the heart of war and emergency powers," says Dr. Schroder. "Furthermore, the cases the government attorneys reference do not prove the point they presume to make. I see gaping holes in their argument." Readers are encouraged to study both the complaint and the motion to dismiss for themselves. 

The farm crisis is a long-standing and well-documented phenomenon. With prices for agricultural products such as corn, wheat, cotton and soybeans being reduced to Depression-era levels and with no increase being forecast for the near future, the outlook is bleak. Implementation of NAFTA, GATT and an arbitrarily strong dollar policy (implemented contrary to statutory authority) leaves U.S. agriculture producers fearing a return to financial chaos in the agricultural community and signals Executive and Congressional abandonment of economic concern for rural America. According to Dr. Carl Anderson, economist with the Texas Agricultural Extension Service, and several new University studies, ever-increasing numbers of farmers are seeking second jobs in an attempt to survive. Dr. Anderson states, "We expect prices for our major commodities, which include corn, sorghum, soybeans, rice and cotton, all to be below the cost of production for the coming year." The manipulation of agricultural markets through the Russian Grain deal, price freezes on cattle, three different grain embargos during the '70s and early '80s, plus the currency manipulation resulting from the Latin American and Pacific Rim debt crisis, left countless farmers and ranchers bankrupt or financially devastated.

Micki Nellis, August 2000

[ E-mail Us | Table of Contents | Tide Turning Home | MLW Site Map | Mind Like Water Home ]
Copyright © 2000, Mind Like Water, Inc., all rights reserved.
http://www.mindlikewater.com or http://www.tideturning.com