This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Iowa DNR Case Petitioned to IA District Court

Joined Sep 2012
362 Posts | 0+
Clear Lake, Iowa
The Iowa Natural Resource Commission appealed the Administrative Legal Judges ruling, for the 5 year quarantine on our 330 acres.  The Administrative Legal Judge ruled that the Iowa DNR lacks jurisdiction to quarantine private property.  Today, our legal counsel petitioned the DNR case to the District Court of Iowa.


 


The Iowa Department of Agriculture has requested an extension to close of business day on Wednesday to change their position of refusing to sign our herd plan and denying us our USDA indemnity unless we drop both lawsuits with the Ag Department and the DNR and agree to a 5 year quarantine on our 330 acre preserve property.  Please see the attached letter from our legal counsel.


 


The Iowa Department of Agriculture has taken the position that the findings of CWD do not present a threat to the general welfare of Iowa and yet they think it appropriate to quarantine our bare land for 5 years with no compensation.  We killed 225 of our own animals, paid for the testing, disposal and clean-up.  Not to mention leaving our 400 whitetails quarantined for two years left only to be fed and die on our farm.


 


All in an effort to STOP the spread of CWD in the state of Iowa.  So . . . . what are they intended to do about the CWD positive case found in the wild in our state this past winter? 


 


This litigation is not about money, it is about right and wrong.  If we are going to stop the spread of CWD everyone needs to partake in the activities not just deer farmers.  Wildlife needs to step up to the plate, test 100% and quarantine those lands affected by CWD positives in the wild.


 


 


 


 
 

Attachments

  • Brakke JJL 2nd Settlement Agreement Letter 061714.pdf
    173.6 KB
Response from our legal counsel is attached.
 

Attachments

  • ltr 2014 6 24 to Jacob Larson (00700610x9F897).pdf
    111.5 KB
I am not to up on my law degree :)  but it would seem that the legal council for the state is knowingly acting outside of its legal boundaries and flirting with criminal wrong doing in its actions. Non relating to this case specifically, it truly seems that at every turn the American people are being squashed by an overbearing and unapologetic government. It just totally eats me up we pay for all this non-sense with our tax dollars. Best of luck to Rhonda and Tom.
 
So would this mean that any state DNR or DEC or Dept of Ag could not shut down any farm in any state as has been done in the past and is being done to many today?
 
As I understand it,  the case is being heard in the judicial system of Iowa.


Unless I misread it, District court of Iowa covers Iowa.  Rhonda did you intend to convey that? 


... or has this elevated to the US District Court governing Iowa?  If so, this is the Federal judicial arena... 


 


Either way, a court precedent concerning this issue that is dear to all of us, is cite-able in any case anywhere, in future issues.


 


Let's assume that the court in Iowa favors the deer farmer with a just decision.


If then, a case occurs in the state of New York for example:
l[*]that is similar enough to bring reference to the Iowa ruling
[*]that the parties indeed cite the Iowa decision in their case at the New York court
[*]that the New York judge acknowledges (reads/understands/allows) the citation from the Iowa court
[/list]
  1. The New York Court has the option of 'agreeing' with the Iowa decision and will base it's own case decision on ALL factors in the NY case with a 'trump card' called 'precedence' from the Iowa case.  This could mean the difference between 'status quo' and the feather that shifts the scales.  Judges typically don't defy 'status quo' without something solid to lean on.  Precedent cases are a good leaning stick.  :)  Remember ALL factors in the case being equal, precedent will shift to that side.  IF the factors are not equal, precedent declines in value, but can affect the outcome.
  2. The NY court could say, Iowa is Iowa and NY is NY and will base it's decision on it's own case factors. 

Let's assume that the case was decided in US District Court and the same situation is in force in the mythical NY case:
l[*]NY/IA cases have similar circumstances
[*]IA case cited to the NY court
[*]NY judge acknowledges citation of the Federal court decision related to IA case
[/list]
  1. same option as above, but is a heartier stick to lean on for the judge's comfort
  2. must consider if the Federal court decision has already determined the answer if the case before the NY court is indeed similar enough to the IA case.

 


I may be wrong in the nit-picking details of the descriptions.  Please feel free to correct me.  :unsure: But the general options are summed up that way in my mind.


By all means please, if this is mis-information, PLEASE let me know, and I will retract my post in it's entirety.  I am not legal counsel.  I carry no law degree.


 


 


I don't envy Rhonda's situation, I do admire her.  Courage she has, and the moral side of the situation.  Grant that it prevail.
 
Maybe not lawyers... just well informed, stand up for what's right, and fight for what matters American citizens.


Refuse to be dumbed down.  Refuse to be backed down. 
 
Good news!  The State of Iowa has agreed to sign the herd plan.  It is really such a shame that we have had to fight this hard to put our own animals down for a disease that is such a threat that the state governments feel the need to put you out of business, quarantine your animals for two years and take your land for five years! 


 


We did not agree to a five year quarantine on our hunting preserve property as we have received no compensation for that property and we paid for the CWD testing for 225 animals, disposal and clean-up for that property.  Please see the attached letter from the State of Iowa. 


 


Thank you all for your support and have a great Fourth of July weekend!!  :)


 


 
 

Attachments

  • Brakke JJL 3rd Settlement Agreement Letter 070314.pdf
    94.4 KB
The key was you always fought back. We are negotiating from a position of strength in every state because this is America. You set a great example for all of us.

Thanks for it!
 
Rhonda,


Good news.  I would say great news but as always the over regulation is appalling . And there is no reason you should have gone through what you have. 


Before they are put down is there any live testing being done???
 
Yes, Jerilee, Nicholas Haley from Kansas State has been approved by USDA as well as Tracy Nichols, CO State will be taking live samples for the USDA.


Hopefully get some good research for the industry.
 
If there is anything good that has come of this that would be about the only thing, besides winning you case against the dnr.
 
I was actually quite surprised that the USDA approved my request for research. So far they have been much more reasonable than the state of Iowa. Still waiting on USDA approval of the herd plan. Will let you know soon as we hear the final word. Fingers crossed!
 
Perhaps the United States Department of Agriculture has a vested interest in FARMED deer.  ;)


go figure!


Just wonder when everyone else will come to that thought process...farms synonymous with agriculture...hmmm...a novel idea.