Sandhusker said:
Both of you gents said the PSA was about competition between packers. I asked both of you to point out where it alludes as such. While I've been waiting for your replies, I've had time to read it again - still can't see it. You guys want to get your heads together and explain it? I'm sure I'm not the only one who thought the act was regarding the relationship between packers and producers.
Even if your interpretation was correct, the courts who have a better understanding of law than either you or I disagree with your interpretation. The PSA was designed to prevent collusion amongst packers. Such collusion was never demonstrated in the Pickett trail nor have I ever heard any claims of packer collision regarding marketing agreements.
How convinced am I that the courts interpretation of the PSA was correct? I will stand for that $100 bet that the Supreme Court will not even review this case. The Pickett case was defeated so overwhelmingly and convincingly at the Appellate level. It was a unanimous decision. Later when the plaintiff's attorneys requested an "en banc" hearing not even one judge in the entire 11th Circuit Court district even asked for a vote on the hearing itself. Have the plaintiff's attorneys not informed you yet of that defeat or would that knowledge impair the fund raising via calf sales?
The aforementioned was a basic problem with the Pickett case when any downward price was incorrectly attributed to Tyson's use of marketing agreements. The plaintiff's own witnesses testified repeatedly that Tyson was not always the price leader. How then could they be accused of being responsible for lower prices?