• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

11th District Denies "Harm to Competition" Require

Econ101

Well-known member
In Judge Kornmann's opinion in the 11th District Court of Herman Schumacher, Michael P. Callicrate, and Roger D. Koch vs. Tyson Fresh Meats, Incl, et al, the reasoning used in the London Case that was summarily dismissed.

Under the ruling, there is no requirement to provide "proof of harm" to competition. This directly contradicts the ruling in Pickett case as well as the London case.

It seems Kornmann didn't follow the same logic as the 11th circuit, Agman. The judgement was not summarily dismissed by the court as Judge Strom did in the Pickett case.

At least one federal judge knows the difference between "or" and "and" in the law. Maybe the judges in the 11th circuit need a little more education in the English language.

Pickett got shafted because of a corrupt judicial system in the 11th circuit. If you have no integrity in the executive branch, the judicial branch, and not enough in the legislative branch, the system is broke. It needs to be fixed.

When is NCBA going to call for Congressional Hearings on these matters?

Of course we know they never will, because they want to protect the packers over producers.
 

agman

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
In Judge Kornmann's opinion in the 11th District Court of Herman Schumacher, Michael P. Callicrate, and Roger D. Koch vs. Tyson Fresh Meats, Incl, et al, the reasoning used in the London Case that was summarily dismissed.

Under the ruling, there is no requirement to provide "proof of harm" to competition. This directly contradicts the ruling in Pickett case as well as the London case.

It seems Kornmann didn't follow the same logic as the 11th circuit, Agman. The judgement was not summarily dismissed by the court as Judge Strom did in the Pickett case.

At least one federal judge knows the difference between "or" and "and" in the law. Maybe the judges in the 11th circuit need a little more education in the English language.

Pickett got shafted because of a corrupt judicial system in the 11th circuit. If you have no integrity in the executive branch, the judicial branch, and not enough in the legislative branch, the system is broke. It needs to be fixed.

When is NCBA going to call for Congressional Hearings on these matters?


Of course we know they never will, because they want to protect the packers over producers.

That is why if he does not throw out the jury verdict the 8th Circuit Appellate Court will. The case law is very clear and specific.

The ruling in the Pickett case was proper and if you really knew the case law governing the PSA you would figure that out instead of clinging to your amateurish interpretation.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
Econ101 said:
In Judge Kornmann's opinion in the 11th District Court of Herman Schumacher, Michael P. Callicrate, and Roger D. Koch vs. Tyson Fresh Meats, Incl, et al, the reasoning used in the London Case that was summarily dismissed.

Under the ruling, there is no requirement to provide "proof of harm" to competition. This directly contradicts the ruling in Pickett case as well as the London case.

It seems Kornmann didn't follow the same logic as the 11th circuit, Agman. The judgement was not summarily dismissed by the court as Judge Strom did in the Pickett case.

At least one federal judge knows the difference between "or" and "and" in the law. Maybe the judges in the 11th circuit need a little more education in the English language.

Pickett got shafted because of a corrupt judicial system in the 11th circuit. If you have no integrity in the executive branch, the judicial branch, and not enough in the legislative branch, the system is broke. It needs to be fixed.

When is NCBA going to call for Congressional Hearings on these matters?


Of course we know they never will, because they want to protect the packers over producers.

That is why if he does not throw out the jury verdict the 8th Circuit Appellate Court will. The case law is very clear and specific.

The ruling in the Pickett case was proper and if you really knew the case law governing the PSA you would figure that out instead of clinging to your amateurish interpretation.

Robert Mac was right about why Strom overturned the Pickett jury verdict. The fix was in at that level. Judge Kornmann obviously didn't want to give the appellate court a free ride here as Strom did. Kornmann's nunc pro tunc opinion was pretty clear. It will show if the appellate court and or the Supreme Court is trying disregard the law and rewrite it for Bush's corporate buddies.

Much of the case law was cited in the opinion, Agman. From the London case to Pickett.

Kornmann: "I decline to follow the Eleventh Circuit's opinions in London and Pickett. Section 202 of the PSA is broader than its antecedent antitrust legislation and in some cases proscribes practices which the antitrust Acts would permit...", "The (p)ackers ans Stockyards Act is remedial legislation and should be liberally construed to further its life and fully effectuate its public purpose."

The credibilty of the U.S. court system is at stake. Whether Bush is a fascist masquerading as republican, only history will tell. The facts are piling up.

We will see what happens.







I keep thinking of Mussolini's definition of fascism: "Fascism should more properly be called ‘corporatism,' since it is the marriage of government and corporate power." When was the last time we saw this administration do something that involved standing up to some corporate special interest in favor of the great majority of the people?
 

Latest posts

Top