agman said:
1. Is it not a requirement that theories advanced at trial be tested for validity? "Yes" or "no" will do.
2. Did Taylor not say under oath that he did NOT test any of his six theories for validity? "Yes" or "no" will do.
3. Did Judge Strom ask Taylor to repeat his answer to the previous question? "Yes" or "no" will do.
4. Did Taylor's conclusion pass the "Hausman Test" for causality? "Yes" or "no" will do.
5. Judge Strom's comments referring to Taylor as being "nuts" were made in closed chambers to the plaintiff's attorney. As you know but did not disclose to readers the jury never heard that statement. So your comment per that statement, "It was not only untrue, it was unethical according to the rules of behavior judges are supposed to abide by. Great judge!", is not the correct and complete interpretation of the law.
6. Do you think this was the first time Judge Strom ever saw an expert witness in such a case or was he very well experienced with such witness and such cases? I believe he was selected to handle this case because of his prior experience with similar cases. The jurors were new to such a case, Judge Strom was not. Contrary to you opinion Taylor got dismantled by the defense attorney. It is because of that situation that the defense rested their case after only four days of testimony.
7. Do you think you know more than ALL of the federal judges in the 11th district? "Yes" or "no" will do. Not one of them voted to call for a vote on the "en banc" hearing requested by the plaintiff's attorney. In short, not one judge was willing to waste his time on a case that they viewed as having no merit. This is a reminder to readers; the Pickett case lost on ALL counts per the Appellate Court ruling-a complete and total loss.
1. Yes, and they were. How were they not tested, Agman? Are you saying that the formula price, which was based on the previous week's cash price, was a price above or below the weighted average price for cattle secured in a particular week? Tell us how they were not tested, Agman. You only have a ficticious test to provide. The trial was the test. Taylor went over his numbers many different ways and the calculations numerous ways. The test was for the jury to see all the evidence and decide who was telling the truth. Pickett clearly won on all accounts with the jury and the judge did not refute ANY of the evidence, he just said it did not exist. The testimony and the calculations were the evidence. Strom never posted ANY of this in his brief and neither did the appellate court.
2. The last time you did any calculations, did you test your "theory" for your calculations? The last time we got in this argument you said "it was standard practice to hold other things constant......". Did you test that theory? The calculations are based on mathematical "theories". Did you test any of them? Your arguments are just circular. Bring up the "theory" that you think needed to be tested, Agman. Maybe you don't remember what you are talking about. Hit the memory button.
3. What did the question pertain to, Agman? What "theory" are you talking about that needed to be tested? Was it the mathematical "theories"? Was it Hausman's "theories"? If you can not tell the exact "theory" that Strom was talking about, then the question was ambiguous and not answerable. Bring on the exact question, Agman. We are all waiting.
4. What was the Hausman test of causuality referring to, Agman? Which calculations? You have already shown that you don't know the difference between the demand curve and a change in quantity demanded. If you can not be more specific (I have not seen the trial transcripts, so I really don't know), then your question is valueless. Are you referring to the difference between the cash price and the formula price for delivery of animals in the same week? Be a little more specific, if you can, Agman.
5. See last post on this one.
6. Maybe the defense attorney asked nonsensical questions. If you can not answer the questions I posed in the above points, I will take it that was the case. Anyone would get disgrunteled if the defendant's attorney was asking nonsensical questions. Taylor's biggest problem was probably that he was not used to such irrational tactics from attorneys who don't have a case and have to make one out of thin air. The judge seemed to be in on this. It is quite interesting. Maybe that is why he was picked to be the judge on this case. Of course the jurors were there and had a chance to see if this was the case. They saw everything.
7. Yes, this is very concerning. But not for the reasons you cite, Agman. These judges got the reasoning of the Robinson Patman case completely wrong. They showed their economic illiteracy. Then they did the "legitimate" weapon scam(which was planted by the defendant's in trial) and then reinterpreted the law based on their reinterpretation in the London Case of the simple words, "or" into "and"s. Boy, those people who wrote the law made a big mistake with those words, didn't they, Agman?(sarcasm). And the Senators who passed the PSA, boy, they all got the "or"s wrong in a law that listed enumerated prohibitions. What a scam this 11th Circuit is. They are almost as bad as Cornyn. Money and power, ruin the U. S. and the laws on the books. The only interpretation is one that changes the law and gives a billion dollar verdict to big campaign contributors. What a scam!!!