Ag issues breed discontent in heart of Bush country

[Mike]

Posted by SH on August 18, 2005 10:59 A.M.

How much more damn helpless can you get than to have a packer blaming feeder "WILLINGLY" enter into a forward contract then sue the company you contracted with because that company then needed less cattle in the cash market.

SH the more you spout, the more you dig yourself a hole. Or is it higher in the tree?

You made this statement just a FEW DAYS AGO!

Now we know the truth. You have both said AND insinuated that the plaintiffs in Pickett have sued Tyson/IBP and that they have had marketing agreements with them.

WE ALL KNOW NOW THAT IT'S A LIE!

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "WILLINGLY ENTERING INTO FORWARD CONTRACTS WITH IBP SO IBP NEEDED LESS CATTLE!!!!!!!!!!! WHY DID THE PICKETT PLAINTIFFS FORWARD CONTRACT CATTLE KNOWING THIS?????"

More of SH, "Of course! Because the plaintiffs themselves had sold ibp forward contract cattle, they had less cattle to buy???"

Judge Strom, "In this class action lawsuit he is the lead plaintiff representing a national class of cattle producers who sell their fed cattle - cows raised spefifically for slaughter - to meat-packing plants exclusively on the cash market"

You want to defend your comments here, SH? You and Judge Strom are clearly at odds.

 

[Anonymous]

Mike,

The fact that you refuse to take my bet speaks volumes about your confidence level in your position.


Sandman,

Assuming Judge Strom's information is correct regarding Pickett, Pickett was not the only plaintiff to testify.

Once again, you "CREATE AN ILLUSION" that Strom's position differs from the information I have presented by singling out one plaintiff.

DID YOU FORGET ABOUT THE OTHER PLAINTIFFS????? Of course you did!

I guess their actions don't count huh? LOL!

I know for a fact that other plaintiffs had entered into forward contracts with major packers which screams of hypocrisy.

You are so full of packer blame that you cannot even admit to this blatant hypocrisy. I guess that would be considered "unconditional packer blame" huh?

If I received inaccurate information on the plaintiffs entering into forward contracts specifically with Tyson/ibp like they did with the other major packers, which I do know for fact, I will gladly admit it even though it's irrelevant to the hypocrisy issue. I know how desperately you guys need something on me so I'd be willing to throw you that bone if it exists.

UNLIKE YOU PACKER BLAMERS, being accurate is more important to me than being right which is why I corrected myself on the EU trap ban issue. I don't have any problem admitting to the rare occasion that I am wrong and I usually prove it myself.

In contrast, you Sandman are wrong continually and never admit it. That's the difference between us. You are too arrogant to admit to being continually wrong even when the courts prove you wrong.

Mike has offered no proof to back his irrelevant point that none of the Pickett plaintiffs had ever entered into a forward contract with Tyson or ibp. I'm considering the possibility that I received inaccurate information on that specific point but Mike hasn't proven anything.

Like you, he has created "THE ILLUSION" of my being wrong on an irrelevant point.

Mike and your refusal to take my bet makes the point on the issue of hypocrisy.




~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Picket was not the only to testify? Read Strom's quote again. He addresses that; "lead plaintiff representing a national class of cattle producers."

SH, "I'm considering the possibility that I received inaccurate information on that specific point but Mike hasn't proven anything.

:lol: That's about as funny as "suggestions that have consequences"! :lol: Consider seriously. Mike offered Judge Strom's quote as proof. Do you have anything stronger to back your position?

SH, "Like you, he has created "THE ILLUSION" of my being wrong on an irrelevant point."

:lol: The comedy tour continues! Where is the "illusion"? You said Pickett had contracts with Tyson, Judge Strom said they didn't. Looks pretty clear to me. :? "IRRELEVANT POINT"? :lol: :lol: :lol: Hey, I think Mike, ocm, and I will agree with you on that one - your points generally are irrelevant! :lol: :lol:

Keep talking, SH. The more you talk the more you expose yourself and the more you recruit for R-CALF. I love you, man! :heart:

 

[Anonymous]

Mike,

I did some checking this morning to get to the heart of this issue.

One of the plaintiffs in Pickett vs. ibp had sold cattle on the Tyson/ibp formula or grid which the plaintiffs themselves have defined as "captive supplies".

In addition to that, an expert witness was also called to testify who had previously entered into a captive supply arrangement with ibp as well.

Now I could easily be as deceptive as you packer blamers and leave it at that but I am going to prove that being accurate is more important to me than being right.

When I had previously read or heard that one of the plaintiffs in Pickett and at least one witness had entered into a "captive supply" arrangement with ibp, AS "CAPTIVE SUPPLY" WAS DEFINED BY THE PLAINTIFFS, I wrongly assumed that "captive supply" in this situation meant a forward contract when in fact "captive supply" in this situation meant a formula/grid arrangement.

Formula and grid cattle are not captive supply cattle. "Captive supply cattle", by GIPSA's definition and as "captive supply" pertains to the market manipulation conspiracy theories, are those cattle owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter which does not include most formula and grid cattle. If the market manipulation conspiracy theory had validity, which it doesn't, it could only have validity with those cattle that were owned or controlled by Tyson long enough to have an impact on the market.

The packer blamer's deceptive inclusion of formula and grid cattle in their definition of "captive supplies" was the basis for my statement and misunderstanding. How ironic huh?

Remember how I have previously stated that the deceptive packer blamers have wrongly included formula and grid cattle in their "captive supply" numbers to inflate those numbers? Keep that in mind here.

I am going to admit to being wrong about the Pickett plaintiffs entering into forward contracts with IBP because I personally do not define formula and grid cattle as "captive supplies" and selling cattle on the formula or grid is not a forward contract as I define forward contract.

Now let's consider the position that this puts you in Mike. I am willing to admit that I was wrong about the plaintiffs entering into forward contracts SPECIFICALLY with ibp, due to my minsunderstanding of the plaintiffs definition of captive supplies, BUT for you to state that I am wrong is to admit that the Plaintiff's definition of "captive supply arrangements" is wrong.

So which way is it going to be for you Mike?

Am I wrong or is the plaintiff's definition of captive supply wrong?

You can't have it both ways.

You were correct in that the plaintiffs were SUPPOSED TO BE DISMISSED if they had entered into a captive supply arrangement with Tyson.

By the Plaintiff's own definition of captive supply including formula/grid cattle, that was not the case.

So what do you have to say now Mike?

Still want to make an issue of this?

Like I said before, regardless, one or more of the plaintiffs has entered into forward contracts with the other major packers which stills speaks to the hypocrisy of this case. Also, there is threats of lawsuits against the other major packers for the same thing. I guess they'll have to screen the hypocrites in that situation too huh? LOL! Perhaps they can find someone who only sells fat cattle in the sale barn to testify to market manipulation by Tyson. Hahaha!

If you believe I am wrong, then you also have to believe that the definition of "captive supply" according to the plaintiffs is wrong.

Sucks to be you huh?

How ironic that the plaintiff's deceptive definition of "captive supply" was the basis for my misunderstanding. That's funny I don't care who you are!

I WAS DECEIVED BY THE DECEIVERS!




~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman:"Read Strom's quote again. He addresses that; "lead plaintiff representing a national class of cattle producers."

So what?

Pickett's actions are not representative of the actions of other plaintiffs in the Pickett case are they?

Judge Strom's statement is specific to Pickett, not to the other plaintiffs.

YOU GOT NOTHING HERE!

Your point is a "red herring" meant to divert the issue.

Sandman: "You said Pickett had contracts with Tyson, Judge Strom said they didn't."

Bullsh*t you lying sunnybeach, I said the PLAINTIFFS IN PICKETT had forward contracts with ibp, not Pickett.

Typical of your slithery, slimy, deceptive, pathetic ways.

Show me where I said "PICKETT entered into forward contracts".

Do the sanddance sandman!

When I read or heard that the plaintiffs in Pickett had willingly entered into "captive supply" arrangements, I wrongly assumed it was the TRUE definition of captive supplies which only includes forward contract cattle and packer owned cattle that are owned or controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter.

I'll admit that I misunderstood "captive supplies" to mean what it's supposed to mean. I was deceived by the deceivers.



~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman (to SH) : "I love you, man!"

Excuse me, I think I just heard the cat puke.



~SH~

 

[Mike]

"On remand, the class [Class Action] definition was restricted to cattle producers who sold cattle to Tyson exclusively on the cash market. We denied Tyson permission to appeal this certification. It is this narrower class that Pickett represents."

Iowa Beef Processors, Inc. vs Pickett , No. 02-90002 (11th Cir. Mar 5, 2002)

 

[Mike]

Tam wrote:

Can any of you Pickett Supporters tell me if forward contracts are so bad why did the plaintiffs enter into them with Tyson? Why didn't they just take their cattle to the open market system and take what was bid? Could it be because like all business men they found some beneifit to their bottom line in doing so? I can't see how these guys could take Tyson to court and then sit on the witness stand and tell the court well yes we entered into the forward contacts with Tyson. If they felt Tyson was using the contracts to manipulate the price of cattle why did they sign them? Did someone have a gun to their heads or did they just see it as a beneifit to sell their cattle that way?

Tam, I am sorry you were mislead into thinking that Pickett and/or Plaintiffs sat on the stand and testified that they were suing Tyson for some of the arrangements they were involved in.
It's just not true. You should consider your sources from here out.

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Pickett's actions are not representative of the actions of other plaintiffs in the Pickett case are they? Judge Strom's statement is specific to Pickett, not to the other plaintiffs. YOU GOT NOTHING HERE! Your point is a "red herring" meant to divert the issue."

Sorry, SH, Strom's statement was not specific to Pickett - it can't be. This is a class action suit. Perhaps you were deceived by the deceivers again? :lol:

SH, "Bullsh*t you lying sunnybeach, I said the PLAINTIFFS IN PICKETT had forward contracts with ibp, not Pickett. Typical of your slithery, slimy, deceptive, pathetic ways. Show me where I said "PICKETT entered into forward contracts". Do the sanddance sandman! "

Pickett IS a plaintiff, you moron! :roll:

Have I told you lately that I love you? :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Mike: "Tam, I am sorry you were mislead into thinking that Pickett and/or Plaintiffs sat on the stand and testified that they were suing Tyson for some of the arrangements they were involved in."

Tam, trust me that is exactly what the plaintiffs did.

One or more plaintiffs in Pickett vs. IBP sued Tyson for the exact same marketing arrangements they entered into with other major packers.

One of the witnesses for the plaintiffs also testified to entering into "captive supply" arrangements with the major packers.

Mike simply cannot handle the truth in this issue. Did you notice how Mike diverted my point on the Plaintiff's definition of "captive supply" and made a statement instead?

Divertion is what packer blamers do best.

Mike: "It's just not true."

It's very true Tam and if Mike wasn't such a spineless coward he would take my bet. He won't because he'd owe me $100 when I provided the proof.

This way, he can go on thinking he's right because truth doesn't matter to a packer blamer.

Mike: "On remand, the class [Class Action] definition was restricted to cattle producers who sold cattle to Tyson exclusively on the cash market. We denied Tyson permission to appeal this certification. It is this narrower class that Pickett represents."

One of the plaintiffs in Pickett vs. ibp sold cattle to Tyson on the grid which the plaintiffs themselves considered a "captive supply marketing arrangement". That is a fact! Whether or not they admitted to it is another issue totally.

Sandman: "Pickett IS a plaintiff, you moron!"

Pickett is not the only plaintiff you idiot and that is the point.

Sandman: "Have I told you lately that I love you?"

Leave it to you to quote a heterosexual male rock star.



~SH~

 

[Mike]

I knew it was just a matter of time before you started the name calling. Never fails when you get pushed up a tree, does it? Do you feel like a big man now?
SH:

How much more damn helpless can you get than to have a packer blaming feeder "WILLINGLY" enter into a forward contract then sue the company you contracted with because that company then needed less cattle in the cash market.

This statement speaks volumes for ya Bubba! As for the "spineless" statement, you wouldn't say that to my face, only here on this board, which sure questions YOUR integrity, doesn't it!

I'd kind of like to think of myself as a gentleman and not stoop as low as you to make a point here. I'm a better man than that.

 

[Sandhusker]

You know, SH, we would make our point and move on if you didn't ask for so much abuse with your caustic style and juvinile behavior. You reap what you sow.

What little credibility you had with the few you had it with is in tatters, and you make it worse with each additional post. Your best bet is to retire ~SH~, change your handle, and adopt a mature, calm, and truthful persona.

 

[Anonymous]

Mike: "I knew it was just a matter of time before you started the name calling."

Listen to you.

You call me a liar to suggest that the Pickett plaintiffs were suing Tyson for marketing arrangements that they had entered into yet you don't have enough confidence in your position to take my bet to the contrary. Then you have the nerve to lecture me on "name calling". What a self righteous hypocrite.

Makes a nice diversion doesn't it Mike?

If you don't like the definition of being a blamer then you need to talk to someone about changing the definition.

If you had any integrity you would either take my bet or admit to the hypocrisy of filing a lawsuit against a packer for a marketing agreement that the plaintiffs willingly participated in rather than denying that it happened.

You call me a liar yet you don't have the self confidence in your position to take my bet and prove it. That says more about you than I ever could.

Mike: "As for the "spineless" statement, you wouldn't say that to my face, only here on this board, which sure questions YOUR integrity, doesn't it!"

Mike you obviously don't know anything about me or you would realize that I would not hesitate to say anything to your face that I have said here.

You are a coward to suggest that I lied about the plaintiffs not entering into the arrangements they sued for while being unwilling to take my bet. Remind me if we ever meet to say that to your face.

Mike: "I'd kind of like to think of myself as a gentleman and not stoop as low as you to make a point here. I'm a better man than that."

A better man than what?

If you were a better man, you would admit to the hypocrisy of filing a lawsuit against a packer for a marketing arrangement that you willingly participated in. That is exactly what some of the plaintiffs in Pickett and most of the plaintiff's witnesses did.

I just made another phone call this afternoon. Most of the plaintiffs and virtually all of the witnesses at one time or other entered into a "captive supply arrangement" with a major packer.

If you don't believe it, show some integrity and take the bet.

You have nothing but my admission to misunderstanding how the term "captive supply" was used in a discussion on the plaintiffs entering into "captive supply arrangements" with Tyson.

The issue of hyocrisy is still there but you don't have the integrity to admit it or find out the truth.


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "You know, SH, we would make our point and move on if you didn't ask for so much abuse with your caustic style and juvinile behavior. You reap what you sow.

What little credibility you had with the few you had it with is in tatters, and you make it worse with each additional post. Your best bet is to retire ~SH~, change your handle, and adopt a mature, calm, and truthful persona."

Keep diverting the hypocrisy issue Sandman. If I was as deceptive as you, I would probably divert the issue too.

What little credibility I had with the few I had it with is in tatters???????

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

You're funny!

I never had any credibility with the blamers that you correspond with because they don't want to know the truth. To those who base their decisions on factual information, my credibility is rock solid. The only people that listen to you is fellow blamers that have been down the blaming road for so long that they can't turn back. You guys don't have the facts so you create your own little blamer's support groups for the "factually defenseless" and take turns creating the "ILLUSION" that you can back your positions.

The facts are firmly in my camp as has been proven in court many times.

As Agman said, the plaintiffs lost on every count on this issue.

Keep talking Sandman cause "cheap talk" is all you'll ever have on me.

You will never discourage me from exposing the R-CULT crowd for the lying, deceptive bunch they are. I'm not here to make friends and hold hands. I'm here to correct the lies because that is what I do best.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Given: Pickett vs Tyson is a class action suit
Picket is one of the plaintiffs

SH, "WILLINGLY ENTERING INTO FORWARD CONTRACTS WITH IBP SO IBP NEEDED LESS CATTLE!!!!!!!!!!! WHY DID THE PICKETT PLAINTIFFS FORWARD CONTRACT CATTLE KNOWING THIS?????"

SH, "Of course! Because the plaintiffs themselves had sold ibp forward contract cattle, they had less cattle to buy???"

Judge Strom, "In this class action lawsuit he is the lead plaintiff representing a national class of cattle producers who sell their fed cattle - cows raised spefifically for slaughter - to meat-packing plants exclusively on the cash market"

It all comes back to this, SH. It's you against Judge Strom. I'm fairly sure all here would consider him more credible and knowledgeable than you. If you have information he doesn't, let's see it. Either prove him wrong or show the sense to shut up.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman,

Being the decptive individual you are, you interpret Judge Strom's statement to be applicable to all plaintiffs in Pickett. I know for a fact that one of the Pickett plaintiffs entered into a "captive supply" arrangement with a major packer. If Judge Strom stated differently, then he was not privy to that information. Heck, Mike Callicrate lied under oath why would you expect the plaintiffs to tell the truth about entering into "captive supply arrangements" with Tyson?

Take my bet Sandman!



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandman,

Being the decptive individual you are, you interpret Judge Strom's statement to be applicable to all plaintiffs in Pickett. I know for a fact that one of the Pickett plaintiffs entered into a "captive supply" arrangement with a major packer. If Judge Strom stated differently, then he was not privy to that information. Heck, Mike Callicrate lied under oath why would you expect the plaintiffs to tell the truth about entering into "captive supply arrangements" with Tyson?

Take my bet Sandman!



~SH~

Call me names if it allows you to puff your chest out any.

Why would I think Judge Strom's statement to be applicable to all plaintiffs? BECAUSE THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE SAYS, SH! HE TREATS THEM AND GROUPS THEM ALL THE SAME! This is a CLASS ACTION SUIT

I quote, "On remand, the class definition was restricted to cattle producers who sold cattle to Tyson exclusively on the cash market."

What does that mean to you, SH?

One of your problems is that you don't know what "class action" means.

It still comes down to you said, Strom said. You still haven't proven Judge Strom wrong yet.

 

[Tam]

Tam wrote:

Can any of you Pickett Supporters tell me if forward contracts are so bad why did the plaintiffs enter into them with Tyson? Why didn't they just take their cattle to the open market system and take what was bid? Could it be because like all business men they found some beneifit to their bottom line in doing so? I can't see how these guys could take Tyson to court and then sit on the witness stand and tell the court well yes we entered into the forward contacts with Tyson. If they felt Tyson was using the contracts to manipulate the price of cattle why did they sign them? Did someone have a gun to their heads or did they just see it as a beneifit to sell their cattle that way?

Tam, I am sorry you were mislead into thinking that Pickett and/or Plaintiffs sat on the stand and testified that they were suing Tyson for some of the arrangements they were involved in.
It's just not true. You should consider your sources from here out.

Mike it really doesn't matter to me who they entered into contracts with, be it Tyson or any other major packer. Once they entered into those contracts they sold their right to sue any one else that was using the same means to further their business. What is the different if Tyson used forward contracts or the major packer they signed with. They both used them for the same reason. So let me restate the post in question.

Can any of you Pickett Supporters tell me if forward contracts or any other captive supply agreement are so bad why did any of the plaintiffs enter into them with anyone? Why didn't they just take their cattle to the open market system and take what was bid? Could it be because like all business men they found some beneifit to their bottom line in doing so? I can't see how these guys could take Tyson to court and then sit on the witness stand and tell the court well yes we entered into the forward contacts and or captive supply agreements . If they felt Tyson was using the them to manipulate the price of cattle why did they sign them with any major packer? Couldn't those other packers be using them for the same reason? Did someone have a gun to their heads or did they just see it as a beneifit to sell their cattle that way?

Is that better Mike.

Sandhusker.

I quote, "On remand, the class definition was restricted to cattle producers who sold cattle to Tyson exclusively on the cash market."

I might add if they disliked Tyson so much why did they sell their cattle to him why didn't they take their cattle else where to sell? Could it be because Tyson was the highest bidder for their cattle?

 

[Mike]

Tam wrote:

Mike it really doesn't matter to me who they entered into contracts with

Well if it didn't matter why did you ask? AND ask specifically why they had entered contracts with Tyson?

You asked because you didn't understand how they could be suing Tyson when they had entered contracts with them. I thought the same thing.................... because SH had been preaching this for years!