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

Another question for SH

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
You brought this up; Fact is, the jurors were instructed that they had to agree that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies to reach a guilty verdict when the plaintiffs themselves testified to the contrary. The jurors disagreed with the plaintiffs. LOL!"

Why would a legitimate reason for the weapon have any bearing on the crime?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "Why would a legitimate reason for the weapon have any bearing on the crime?"

Simple, if captive supplies were not a legitimate business practice, their use could play more into whether or not they could be considered a market manipulation tool in Pickett vs. ibp IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF MARKET MANIPULATION, which there wasn't.

As usual, your point is moot.

There can be no market manipulation if buying cattle in the formula market is a legitimate business practice regardless how it affects the cash price because everyone has the same pricing options available to them.

The differences in price between the various marketing alternatives will be affected by two factors:

1. Supply and demand affects on the market from day to day and week to week.

2. Quality differences in the cattle.

The formula price can be higher or it can be lower than the cash market.


This dog won't hunt any better than any other mutt you let out of your box.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "Why would a legitimate reason for the weapon have any bearing on the crime?"

Simple, if captive supplies were not a legitimate business practice, their use could play more into whether or not they could be considered a market manipulation tool in Pickett vs. ibp IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF MARKET MANIPULATION, which there wasn't.


~SH~


So then, if I have a legitmate use for a shotgun (hunting), it can not be considered an intimidating weapon when I used it to hold up the gas station?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
A gun is a legitimate weapon.

Captive supplies are not!

Another of your stupid apples to watermelons comparisons.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
A gun is a legitimate weapon.

Captive supplies are not!

Another of your stupid apples to watermelons comparisons.



~SH~

Anything can be a weapon. Why would any possible legitimate use of a weapon have any bearing in a crime?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
If "captive supplies" were not proven to be a market manipulation tool (weapon), then there is no crime nor is there a weapon.

This dog won't hunt any better than the last mutt you turned out.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
If "captive supplies" were not proven to be a market manipulation tool (weapon), then there is no crime nor is there a weapon.

This dog won't hunt any better than the last mutt you turned out.


~SH~

The jury said they were. They said that the packers could get all their cattle on the cash market. They put an estimate of damages at 1.28 billion. The judges and appellate court took the law into their own hands and mucked up the decision without good reasons. They "inkled" that Taylor was a nut and then got their Robinson Packman example they used in the decision completely backwards. They showed their economic ignorance and it is plain for anyone to see. Such incompetence should not be rewarded.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The jury believed that dropping your price in the cash market to reflect your needs that have been met in the formula market is market manipulation.

The judge disagreed and the 11th circuit upheld his decision. You lost!

Don't try to blame the Judge for seeing through Pickett's bullsh*t. Thank God for judges that have enough common sense to see the difference between market manipulation and legitimate business practices reflecting supply and demand.

Pickett proved nothing other than how to waste time and money.



~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
If "captive supplies" were not proven to be a market manipulation tool (weapon), then there is no crime nor is there a weapon.

This dog won't hunt any better than the last mutt you turned out.


~SH~

They were proven to be a weapon.

I can tell that you never did any of those "connect-the-dots" games when you were a kid. You need to get a book and get caught up. 12 jurors connected the dots.

DOT - Dr. Taylor's writings listed many respected economists who said there was incentive for the packers to manipulate markets via these marketing agreements.

DOT - 12 jurors voted unamiously that Tyson did indeed manipulate markets.

DOT - Your very own Judge Strom said, " there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole".

DOT - Marketing agreements LOWER prices - they don't make them fluctuate or go up, they just LOWER them.

DOT - If a agreement only moves the market in one way to the general benefit of one side, it is a tool - a weapon.

Connect the dots, SH. They draw a picture.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
The jury believed that dropping your price in the cash market to reflect your needs that have been met in the formula market is market manipulation.

The judge disagreed and the 11th circuit upheld his decision. You lost!

Don't try to blame the Judge for seeing through Pickett's bullsh*t. Thank God for judges that have enough common sense to see the difference between market manipulation and legitimate business practices reflecting supply and demand.

Pickett proved nothing other than how to waste time and money.



~SH~

In the long run the market manipulation and the unethical behavior of Tyson will bring them down. It is not legitimate to manipulate markets.

You are right about how the whole thing was a waste of time and money. When everyone cheats in class and gets higher grades, the intelligence of the class did not go up, the measuring device of intelligence just became a worse bench mark.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
DOT - Dr. Taylor's writings listed many respected economists who said there was incentive for the packers to manipulate markets via these marketing agreements.

Taylor was a joke. All he presented were untested "THEORIES", not proof!

Judge Strom said Taylor was "nuts". Probably a lot like Conman or maybe Taylor is Conman.


DOT - 12 jurors voted unamiously that Tyson did indeed manipulate markets.

Judge Strom and the 11th Circuit voted unanymously that Tyson did not manipulate markets.


DOT - Your very own Judge Strom said, " there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole".

So we only quote Judge Strom when it supports our bias?

Lower prices in the cash market due to the cattle that were procured in the formula market is not market manipulation NOR IS TYSON THE ONLY MARKET.


DOT - Marketing agreements LOWER prices - they don't make them fluctuate or go up, they just LOWER them.

Then how do you explain those weeks when the cash market is higher than the formula market? You can't which shatters your theory.


DOT - If a agreement only moves the market in one way to the general benefit of one side, it is a tool - a weapon.

We just proved that to be false since there is times when the cash market is higher than the formula market.


NEXT!


~SH~
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
~SH~ said:
DOT - Dr. Taylor's writings listed many respected economists who said there was incentive for the packers to manipulate markets via these marketing agreements.

Taylor was a joke. All he presented were untested "THEORIES", not proof!

Judge Strom said Taylor was "nuts". Probably a lot like Conman or maybe Taylor is Conman.




~SH~

Does it bother you at all that Judge Strom violated an oath and an ethical standard incumbent on all judges when he called Taylor "nuts." It was not only untrue, it was unethical according to the rules of behavior judges are supposed to abide by. Great judge!


Not to mention your LIE "All he presented were untested "THEORIES", not proof!"

This statement with regard to Taylor's testimony is not even close. His six causation mechanisms (not theories) were only a small part of Taylor's testimony.

I see the quality of your posts has not changed since I was gone.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
DOT - Dr. Taylor's writings listed many respected economists who said there was incentive for the packers to manipulate markets via these marketing agreements.

Taylor was a joke. All he presented were untested "THEORIES", not proof!

Judge Strom said Taylor was "nuts". Probably a lot like Conman or maybe Taylor is Conman.


DOT - 12 jurors voted unamiously that Tyson did indeed manipulate markets.

Judge Strom and the 11th Circuit voted unanymously that Tyson did not manipulate markets.


DOT - Your very own Judge Strom said, " there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole".

So we only quote Judge Strom when it supports our bias?

Lower prices in the cash market due to the cattle that were procured in the formula market is not market manipulation NOR IS TYSON THE ONLY MARKET.


DOT - Marketing agreements LOWER prices - they don't make them fluctuate or go up, they just LOWER them.

Then how do you explain those weeks when the cash market is higher than the formula market? You can't which shatters your theory.


DOT - If a agreement only moves the market in one way to the general benefit of one side, it is a tool - a weapon.

We just proved that to be false since there is times when the cash market is higher than the formula market.


NEXT!


~SH~

SH"Lower prices in the cash market due to the cattle that were procured in the formula market is not market manipulation NOR IS TYSON THE ONLY MARKET."

It does too. Whether or not Tyson is the only market makes no difference under the PSA. It is not even a factor to consider. It is not an element of the case.


SH:"Then how do you explain those weeks when the cash market is higher than the formula market? You can't which shatters your theory.


DOT - If a agreement only moves the market in one way to the general benefit of one side, it is a tool - a weapon.

We just proved that to be false since there is times when the cash market is higher than the formula market."

Normal market fluctuations within a manipulation like the Pickett trial exposed does not shatter any theory. It is to be expected. Your contention that it does shows how little you know of how markets work and the fraud in the Pickett case.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Sandhusker said:
~SH~ said:
If "captive supplies" were not proven to be a market manipulation tool (weapon), then there is no crime nor is there a weapon.

This dog won't hunt any better than the last mutt you turned out.


~SH~

They were proven to be a weapon.

I can tell that you never did any of those "connect-the-dots" games when you were a kid. You need to get a book and get caught up. 12 jurors connected the dots.

DOT - Dr. Taylor's writings listed many respected economists who said there was incentive for the packers to manipulate markets via these marketing agreements.

DOT - 12 jurors voted unamiously that Tyson did indeed manipulate markets.

DOT - Your very own Judge Strom said, " there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole".

DOT - Marketing agreements LOWER prices - they don't make them fluctuate or go up, they just LOWER them.


DOT - If a agreement only moves the market in one way to the general benefit of one side, it is a tool - a weapon.

Connect the dots, SH. They draw a picture.

I know most of the economists Taylor cited. Saying there was an incentive to manipulate prices is vastly different from actual manipulation. I do not recall any of them ever saying prices were manipulated. To the contrary their conclusions have contrasted with Dr Taylor. The economists cited, with the exception of Dr Ted Schroeder did not testify, Taylor did. Dr Schroeder testified for the defense or Tyson.

Also the economists that I know that were listed have not completed any analysis examining the net impact of marketing agreements. Point: If I only look for and analyze days of cloudy weather would that suggest there is never any sunshine? Furthermore does it exclude the fact that there are more days of sunshine than not? The very reason Dr Azzam refused to testify for the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs took his research out of context. He clearly stated in his works he only looked for any negative impact with total disregard for any net positive impact.

Your comment regarding Judge Strom's comment "there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole". First of all that statement was made by the Appellate Court then qualified with footnote #7 page 13. Why do all of you Pickett and Taylor supporters constantly ignore and refuse to post that footnote? What Judge Strom said is that if he was the fact-finder in this case he would say Dr Taylor was nuts. The Appellate Court said there were serious Daubert issues with Taylor's testimony. In short, he could not and did support his own statements and findings regarding marketing agreements lowering prices. Your team lost because they were factually void.

The jury was fooled by Dr Taylor's testimony but not old Judge Strom and the Appellate Judges. Also their ruling was upheld by all federal judges in the 11th district when not even one would call a vote for an en banc hearing which was requested by the plaintiff's attorneys. That is nothing less than a clear and total victory for the defense and Tyson. Thus, the Appellate Court stated in their opinion that the plaintiffs lost on ALL counts. That is something else your side refuses to post in your faint attempt to support a case that had zero merit.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Agman, " First of all that statement was made by the Appellate Court then qualified with footnote #7 page 13. Why do all of you Pickett and Taylor supporters constantly ignore and refuse to post that footnote?"

Post it, for cripes sake! I said to post it, Econ said to post it. Post the dang thing!
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
I think with regard to Pickett, Joann Waterfield is going to be our best friend.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
agman said:
Sandhusker said:
~SH~ said:
If "captive supplies" were not proven to be a market manipulation tool (weapon), then there is no crime nor is there a weapon.

This dog won't hunt any better than the last mutt you turned out.


~SH~

They were proven to be a weapon.

I can tell that you never did any of those "connect-the-dots" games when you were a kid. You need to get a book and get caught up. 12 jurors connected the dots.

DOT - Dr. Taylor's writings listed many respected economists who said there was incentive for the packers to manipulate markets via these marketing agreements.

DOT - 12 jurors voted unamiously that Tyson did indeed manipulate markets.

DOT - Your very own Judge Strom said, " there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole".

DOT - Marketing agreements LOWER prices - they don't make them fluctuate or go up, they just LOWER them.


DOT - If a agreement only moves the market in one way to the general benefit of one side, it is a tool - a weapon.

Connect the dots, SH. They draw a picture.

I know most of the economists Taylor cited. Saying there was an incentive to manipulate prices is vastly different from actual manipulation. I do not recall any of them ever saying prices were manipulated. To the contrary their conclusions have contrasted with Dr Taylor. The economists cited, with the exception of Dr Ted Schroeder did not testify, Taylor did. Dr Schroeder testified for the defense or Tyson.

Also the economists that I know that were listed have not completed any analysis examining the net impact of marketing agreements. Point: If I only look for and analyze days of cloudy weather would that suggest there is never any sunshine? Furthermore does it exclude the fact that there are more days of sunshine than not? The very reason Dr Azzam refused to testify for the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs took his research out of context. He clearly stated in his works he only looked for any negative impact with total disregard for any net positive impact.

Your comment regarding Judge Strom's comment "there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole". First of all that statement was made by the Appellate Court then qualified with footnote #7 page 13. Why do all of you Pickett and Taylor supporters constantly ignore and refuse to post that footnote? What Judge Strom said is that if he was the fact-finder in this case he would say Dr Taylor was nuts. The Appellate Court said there were serious Daubert issues with Taylor's testimony. In short, he could not and did support his own statements and findings regarding marketing agreements lowering prices. Your team lost because they were factually void.

The jury was fooled by Dr Taylor's testimony but not old Judge Strom and the Appellate Judges. Also their ruling was upheld by all federal judges in the 11th district when not even one would call a vote for an en banc hearing which was requested by the plaintiff's attorneys. That is nothing less than a clear and total victory for the defense and Tyson. Thus, the Appellate Court stated in their opinion that the plaintiffs lost on ALL counts. That is something else your side refuses to post in your faint attempt to support a case that had zero merit.

Agman, stop asking everyone else to post what you want posted. If you have an argument and want something posted, bring it up. Ask your secretary to type it up if you have one. The court does not have the right to make the decision on the trial, the jurors do.

As far as your economists go, post their testimony if you think it will help. We will see if they are real economists or just masquerading as such in the trial. You obviously have major problems in that regard.

The 11th circuit will have to defend themselves on this one. They legislated from the bench. If they can't tell the diffference between "and" and "or" in the law, they probably are not fit to sit. I guarentee the people who wrote the law know the difference.

Post your little things you want to argue over and stop whining about it. There is nothing worse than a whining packer backer.
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
1,802
Reaction score
0
Location
NE Saskatchewan
agman said:
I know most of the economists Taylor cited. Saying there was an incentive to manipulate prices is vastly different from actual manipulation.

As a cattle producer, I'd prefer there be no "incentive to manipulate the market". Even if there wasn't any actual manipulation going on, some day the temptation would be too much for someone, and it would occur.

And please don't tell me that I'm a conspiracy theorist on that one. After 18 years of working with small and large corporations, I'm well aware of how often corporations push the envelope on legality. Even the smallest company that I worked for did it on a regular basis. Heck, my cattle ranch is about as small as a corporation can get, and my accountant pushes the envelope everytime he works the numbers.

Rod
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OCM: "Does it bother you at all that Judge Strom violated an oath and an ethical standard incumbent on all judges when he called Taylor "nuts." It was not only untrue, it was unethical according to the rules of behavior judges are supposed to abide by. Great judge!"

Yes, that statement was out of line even if it was true.

The judge could have simply pointed out the fact that Taylor couldn't back his "THEORIES" with factual data WITHIN THE CATTLE MARKETS and that would have shown Taylor to be "nuts" without saying it.

Taylor said what you packer blamers wanted to hear so you gave him a microphone. What kind of results did you expect?

Had this case been tried in a state that actually understands cattle feeding, you "socialized cattle marketing advoctates" would have been laughed out of the room.


OCM: "Not to mention your LIE "All he presented were untested "THEORIES", not proof!"

When Taylor was asked if he had tested his theories, he responded "NO". You are the liar for claiming that I lied but then again, your entire organization is based on lies. You can't even get the definition of captive supply correct let alone the captive supply numbers.


Did John Lockie work for OCM? YES OR NO???

Why do you keep diverting that question?


OCM: "I see the quality of your posts has not changed since I was gone."

You were gone? I guess I didn't notice!


Conman: "It does too. Whether or not Tyson is the only market makes no difference under the PSA. It is not even a factor to consider. It is not an element of the case."

Wrong! Dropping your price to reflect your needs is not market manipulation. You packer blamers lost and you will lose again as long as you keep making up lies to defend your position.

Whether or not Tyson is the only market is relevant to producer options of selling cattle.


Conman: "Normal market fluctuations within a manipulation like the Pickett trial exposed does not shatter any theory. It is to be expected. Your contention that it does shows how little you know of how markets work and the fraud in the Pickett case."

You packer blamers lost in Pickett and you lost on appeal because YOU HAD NOTHING to support your position.

Dropping your price in the cash market to reflect your purchases in the formula market is not and never will be market manipulation.



~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top