Ag issues breed discontent in heart of Bush country

[Tam]

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!

I ask because I could understand how they could be sueing if they themselves used them to further their own bottom line. Like I said it really doesn't matter who they entered them into with, only that they entered into them AT ALL. What gives them the right to sign them and then sue someone else for doing the exact same thing, but just not with them personally? :roll:

 

[Sandhusker]

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

This is simple and straight forward.

You ask, "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?

The statement says "exclusively on the cash market". They DIDN"T enter contracts with Tyson. As a matter of fact, this statement says they didn't enter any contracts with anybody as it says "to meat-packing plants."

You ask, "Why didn't they just take their cattle to the open market system and take what was bid?

Again, the statement answers your question via the words, "exclusively on the cash market". They did.

I don't know why they sold to Tyson. Maybe they were the highest bidder. They probaby also had not yet pieced together what Tyson was doing to them.

 

[Tam]

According to SH some of these guys have entered into agreements with other packers so what gives the plaintiffs the right to enter into them with another packer then accuse Tyson of using these same types of agreement to manipulate the cash prices? Could the packers they enter into agreements with not be using them for the same reason Tyson was?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "They DIDN"T enter contracts with Tyson."

Wrong!

One of the plaintiffs did enter into a "captive supply" arrangement with Tyson.

If Sandman would take my bet, I'll provide the proof and collect the money.

Another of the plaintiffs entered into a "captive supply" arrangement with a major packer. Virtually all of the plaintiff's key witnesses have entered into "captive supply arrangements" with major packers.

Sandman quoting 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 specifically for slaughter - to meat-packing plants exclusively on the cash market"

Tam, it doesn't matter what Strom says, I can absolutely, positively guarantee you that at least one of the plaintiffs entered into a "captive supply" (formula/grid) arrangement with ibp.

Sandman can keep quoting Strom all he wants but when they take my bet, I will produce the evidence.

Most of the plaintiffs and virtually all of the plaintiff's witnesses have entered into all sorts of "captive supply arrangements" with the major packers.

They are hypocrites extrordinaire.

I talked to three different sources and their stories matched. The proof is in the court proceedings.


These guys got nothing. Don't let them bullsh*t you Tam.

Sandman only creates an "ILLUSION" that there is no hypocrisy by taking a quote from strom which is based on what the plaintiffs told Strom rather than the actual truth.

If they take my bet I'll provide the proof.


They won't take my bet, they'd rather keep dancing and create the "ILLUSION" of no hypocrisy. The truth kills these guys.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

According to SH some of these guys have entered into agreements with other packers so what gives the plaintiffs the right to enter into them with another packer then accuse Tyson of using these same types of agreement to manipulate the cash prices? Could the packers they enter into agreements with not be using them for the same reason Tyson was?

According to Judge Strom, these guys have never entered into agreements with ANYBODY. You can take the word of a Federal Judge, or the word of somebody who calls others childish names, rants and rages, comes up with phrases like "suggestions with consequences", etc....

Who has the most credibility? Who are you going to believe, Tam?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "According to Judge Strom, these guys have never entered into agreements with ANYBODY."

Judge Strom is wrong about that and I have the proof.

Take my bet Sandman.

Sandman: "Who has the most credibility?"

So now Judge Strom has credibility huh? Hahaha!

Well that credibility disagreed with your plaintiffs on 6 counts and the circuit court judges agreed with Strom.

I'm glad you finally admit that Judge Strom's decision to slam dunk the Pickett plaintiffs had credibility.


Keep dancing around the truth.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

I believe my credibility menu only had two choices......

 

[Anonymous]

I believe my credibility menu only had two choices......

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't think the honorable Judge has much- but I agree with your ranking :wink: ....

 

[Mike]

SH wrote:

Judge Strom is wrong about that and I have the proof.

Now isn't this the most amazing thing we've ever heard? The kid here says he knows more about the Pickett case than the PRESIDING JUDGE!

I just THOUGHT that I had heard it all. :???: :???: :roll: :roll:

INCREDIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, or is it UNCREDIBLE????????????

 

[Mike]

SH wrote:

One of the plaintiffs did enter into a "captive supply" arrangement with Tyson.

Oh just one NOW huh? Last week it was all of them. :roll:

How about next week? Or the week after? :shock:

I've been laughing so hard my side is splitting!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Help!!!!!!!!

You lying piece of crap! You don't know when to quit, do you?

 

[Tam]

According to SH some of these guys have entered into agreements with other packers so what gives the plaintiffs the right to enter into them with another packer then accuse Tyson of using these same types of agreement to manipulate the cash prices? Could the packers they enter into agreements with not be using them for the same reason Tyson was?

According to Judge Strom, these guys have never entered into agreements with ANYBODY. You can take the word of a Federal Judge, or the word of somebody who calls others childish names, rants and rages, comes up with phrases like "suggestions with consequences", etc....

Who has the most credibility? Who are you going to believe, Tam?

:lol2: :lol2: Right now I wouldn't ask a Canadian if he /she trusted a US Federal Judge (hint to why CEBULL) :wink: SH says he has the proof why not bet him and make him provide it. Put your money where your mouth is Sandhusker bet him. Or are you scared you will loose just like the R-CALF lawyers lost

 

[Tam]

SH wrote:

Judge Strom is wrong about that and I have the proof.

Now isn't this the most amazing thing we've ever heard? The kid here says he knows more about the Pickett case than the PRESIDING JUDGE!

I just THOUGHT that I had heard it all. :???: :???: :roll: :roll:

INCREDIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, or is it UNCREDIBLE????????????

Mike why is so hard to believe that an average citizen might know more than the Presiding Judge. The judge is to look only at the evidents presented at the trial or in the briefings . But on the other hand a average citizen may know something about what the plaintiffs didn't say in court.

Most of the R-CALF supporters figure they know more than the Ninth Curcuit Court of Appeals how does that differ from this. :roll:

 

[Mike]

SH wrote:

Judge Strom is wrong about that and I have the proof.

Now isn't this the most amazing thing we've ever heard? The kid here says he knows more about the Pickett case than the PRESIDING JUDGE!

I just THOUGHT that I had heard it all. :???: :???: :roll: :roll:

INCREDIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, or is it UNCREDIBLE????????????

Mike why is so hard to believe that an average citizen might know more than the Presiding Judge. The judge is to look only at the evidents presented at the trial or in the briefings . But on the other hand a average citizen may know something about what the plaintiffs didn't say in court.

Most of the R-CALF supporters figure they know more than the Ninth Curcuit Court of Appeals how does that differ from this. :roll:

Tam, No offense intended but I'm gonna pretend you didn't say this. :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Mike: "You lying piece of crap! You don't know when to quit, do you?"

You can't handle the truth. The truth would remove any credibility you thought these packer blaming conspiracy theorist plaintiffs had. You don't want that and that's why you won't take the bet.

All talk and no action.

"the kid"?

I probably wiped your snot nose on the playground.


Fact - At least one of the plaintiffs in the Pickett vs. ibp case has entered into "captive supply" arrangements WITH TYSON.

Fact - Most of the plaintiffs in the Pickett vs. ibp case have entered into "captive supply" arrangements WITH A MAJOR PACKER.

Fact - Virtually all of the Plaintiff's witnesses in the Pickett vs. ibp case has entered into "captive supply" arrangements WITH A MAJOR PACKER.

If you are so convinced that Judge Strom is right why not take the bet you coward.

Talk is so cheap for a packer blamer like you Mike.

You packer blamers don't care about facts, you care about blame. The truth would ruin that for you.

Now go join your packer blaming support group where you can all suck your thumbs together and tell eachother how bad the packers are making it on you.


If you want something to analyze the complete stupidity of this case, look no further than the fact that the $1.28 BILLION dollar damage assessment was more than IBP's entire profits for the "alleged" period of market manipulation. What more proof do you need how completely assinine this case was.

Keep dancing you coward.



~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "According to Judge Strom, these guys have never entered into agreements with ANYBODY. You can take the word of a Federal Judge, or the word of somebody who calls others childish names, rants and rages, comes up with phrases like "suggestions with consequences", etc....

Who has the most credibility? Who are you going to believe, Tam?"

If you are so convinced Sandman, why not put your money where your "big talkin' little boy" mouth is?

You afraid of losing $100?

Either the proof is in the court proceedings or it's not.

You won't take the bet because losing the bet means you can't create your "ILLUSION" of my being wrong.

You'd rather believe the packer blaming plaintiffs actually had a case.



~SH~

 

[Mike]

SH wrote:

You continue to change what I said to what you wanted me to say.

Unlike you, I have not falsified what you have said.

The other meat packers are not an issue here. TYSON/IBP was on trial. Or did you conveniently forget that too?

It's like this. I know Lee Pickett. I went to school with him. I know where he lives and know his brothers Freddy and Ronald. I see him at the sales here regularly and have discussed the case many times. I even went to the trial a couple of days out of curiosity.

Not that I know more than anyone else about the case, but I have on a couple of occasions in discussion questioned the validity of the trial due to statements made by you. I had sincerely thought you were being truthful and knew what you were talking about.

I owe him a HUGE apology for being duped into thinking that the plaintiffs themselves had entered into marketing agreements with Tyson and were suing them in spite of it.

There is no doubt that you have stated here that the plaintiffs have willingly entered into marketing agreements with Tyson and were suing them for it.

That is NOT the truth and we all know it.

I have learned one big lesson at ranchers.net.

Always consider the source.

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandman: "According to Judge Strom, these guys have never entered into agreements with ANYBODY. You can take the word of a Federal Judge, or the word of somebody who calls others childish names, rants and rages, comes up with phrases like "suggestions with consequences", etc....

Who has the most credibility? Who are you going to believe, Tam?"

If you are so convinced Sandman, why not put your money where your "big talkin' little boy" mouth is?

You afraid of losing $100?

Either the proof is in the court proceedings or it's not.

You won't take the bet because losing the bet means you can't create your "ILLUSION" of my being wrong.

You'd rather believe the packer blaming plaintiffs actually had a case.



~SH~

Nobody is going to take your bet because nobody trusts you. You're a hyper emotional bag of wind, and that is no "ILLUSION". You have three choices;
1) Present your "facts" for scrutiny
2) Recant your statements
3) Fittingly wear the title of hypocrite and liar.

 

[mrj]

SH wrote:

You continue to change what I said to what you wanted me to say.

Unlike you, I have not falsified what you have said.

The other meat packers are not an issue here. TYSON/IBP was on trial. Or did you conveniently forget that too?

It's like this. I know Lee Pickett. I went to school with him. I know where he lives and know his brothers Freddy and Ronald. I see him at the sales here regularly and have discussed the case many times. I even went to the trial a couple of days out of curiosity.

Not that I know more than anyone else about the case, but I have on a couple of occasions in discussion questioned the validity of the trial due to statements made by you. I had sincerely thought you were being truthful and knew what you were talking about.

I owe him a HUGE apology for being duped into thinking that the plaintiffs themselves had entered into marketing agreements with Tyson and were suing them in spite of it.

There is no doubt that you have stated here that the plaintiffs have willingly entered into marketing agreements with Tyson and were suing them for it.

That is NOT the truth and we all know it.

I have learned one big lesson at ranchers.net.

Always consider the source.

Your "you said....no I didn't......he said" game playing aside, are we to understand that you are of the opinion that it is ok for the plaintiffs to use marketing agreements with some packers, yet sue Tyson for using marketing agreements?

MRJ

 

[Anonymous]

Mike,

Since you have talked candidly and set aside the name calling, I will do likewise.

You called me a liar Mike.

A liar is defined as someone who states something that is untrue WITH THE INTENT TO MISLEAD. A lie is not just simply stating something untrue.

I would never state anything that was untrue WITH THE INTENT TO MISLEAD. Mike Callicrate lied under oath WITH THE INTENT TO MISLEAD and you compared me to him. That hurts!

I don't really care what you call me in regards to the manner in which I post nor do I care what you call me in regards to my lack of tolerance for lies and deception but when you call me a liar you are walking on my fighting side which is why I reacted in kind.

The truth is exactly why I am here practically on a daily basis. The truth is exactly why I loathe R-CULT/OCM. The truth is my only bias and that is reflected in my personality and my posts.

I am going to explain this to you one last time so listen up.

The information that I was privy to stated that one or more of the plaintiffs had entered into "captive supply arrangements" with the Tyson/ibp. That is exactly what I was told by a very credible source who was involved with the case and actually provided testimony. Where I was wrong was to assume that "captive supply arrangement" meant "forward contract". I admit to that mistake only. I am sorry that my misinterpretation of "captive supply arrangement" put you in a position of repeating something that was not totally accurate.

My assumption was based on the true definition of "captive supply" which is GIPSA's definition. I had not considered the fact that "captive supply arrangment" in this case included formula and grid cattle which is wrong for all practical purposes because formula and grid cattle do not meet the definition of "captive supply" as it pertains to the market manipulation conspiracy theory.

Now you should certainly be able to understand where my misunderstanding came from. I apologize for that but that is the only thing I am wrong about here.

The issue of hypocrisy still exists because one of the plaintiffs did enter into a "captive supply arrangement" with tyson (ie formula/grid arrangement) which is exactly what the case was against.

Now read that again and read it very carefully. The hypocrisy issue is still there with TYSON on the plaintiff that sold cattle TO TYSON on the "formula or grid". My misunderstanding about forward contracts changes nothing regarding the hypocrisy of this case.

Another plaintiff did enter into a "captive supply arrangement" with a different major packer which is just as hypocritical.

Numerous witnesses of the plaintiffs entered into "captive supply arrangments" with the major packers WHICH INCLUDED FORWARD CONTRACTS. Even if the plaintiffs themselves had not entered into an actual FORWARD CONTRACT WITH TYSON, they called witnesses that had.

Actually, based on my reasearch of this case, the issue of hypocrisy is even worse than I had originally thought based on the plaintiff's witnesses that were called.

Now I don't know how I can explain it any better than that. If you want to prove me wrong you need to prove what I have stated here that is wrong, not what I misunderstood previously.

Once again, I readily admit to being wrong about the interpretation of "captive supply arrangement" as it pertained to this case but that is the only thing I am wrong about.

Now if you still don't believe me, I suggest you get a copy of the court proceedings and be man enough to admit that they hypocrisy issue is very much alive and well with this case.


As far as the ankle biter, he's proven repeatedly what kind of deceptive pathetic individual he is and I certainly could care less what he thinks of me. I would be offened if he liked me.

"But, but whether or not the plaintiffs entered into forward contracts doesn't give the Tyson the right to accept them."

That says more about ankle biter than anything I could say.


I believe you are a better man than this Mike. I believe you should be able to understand perfectly where my misunderstanding in this issue came from. Either way, the issue of the hypocrisy of the plaintiffs and their witnesses in this case screams and you can hang your hat on that with Pickett.

Once again, I apologize for misundertanding "captive supply arrangement" as it pertained to this case and any problems that created for you. The fact remains the hypocrisy in this case literally screams and that is one of the many reasons this case went down in flames.

Now show us what kind of a man you really are Mike.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, "Your "you said....no I didn't......he said" game playing aside, are we to understand that you are of the opinion that it is ok for the plaintiffs to use marketing agreements with some packers, yet sue Tyson for using marketing agreements?"

MRJ, did you read what I said in addressing Tams exact same question? Judge Strom says "... to meat packing plants exclusively on the cash market". He doesn't say "Tyson", he says "meat packing plants". That is EVERYBODY! He also says "exclusively on the cash market". That means NO marketing agreements. You question is answered and confirmed in 9 simple words.