Cattle Producers Will Work Together to Remedy Supreme Court

[fedup2]

Despite the fact that I have been labeled several times, I still try to research with an open mind! A couple of important points here.
(I am only presenting these to share information.)


IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 04-12137
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 96-01103-CV-N
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
August 16, 2005
THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK


"Packers and Stockyards Act § 202(a), (e), 7 U.S.C. § 192(a), (e).
It is undisputed that Tyson is a meat packer and that the PSA applies to its
business. The dispute is over what is an "unfair" practice and what constitutes "any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices."
Pickett contends he has established unfairness and price control or manipulation under the PSA by proving that Tyson's marketing agreements caused the cash market price, and the overall market price, for cattle to be lower than it otherwise would be. If that were all Pickett were required to prove he might win, because 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." 7

"Tyson, of course, urges a contrary reading of the PSA. It takes the position that because the PSA was meant as a protection against anti-competitive practices by meat packers, Pickett must establish more than that the use of marketing agreements have decreased the price for cattle. He must establish that their use has adversely affected competition, which requires showing that marketing agreements have no pro-competitive justifications."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In sum, while Pickett presented evidence at trial that Tyson's marketing
agreements have decreased the price of cattle on the cash market and on the market as a whole, he did not present any evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Tyson lacked pro-competitive justifications for using the agreements. The evidence is undisputed that marketing agreements provide a more reliable and stable supply of cattle for meat packers, reduce their transaction costs for purchasing cattle, and allow them to better match price to actual quality and yield.
A jury could not reasonably find, as the one in this case did, that Tyson had no competitive justification for using marketing agreements."
--------------------------------------------------------

 

[Econ101]

Despite the fact that I have been labeled several times, I still try to research with an open mind! A couple of important points here.
(I am only presenting these to share information.)


IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 04-12137
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 96-01103-CV-N
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
August 16, 2005
THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK


"Packers and Stockyards Act § 202(a), (e), 7 U.S.C. § 192(a), (e).
It is undisputed that Tyson is a meat packer and that the PSA applies to its
business. The dispute is over what is an "unfair" practice and what constitutes "any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices."
Pickett contends he has established unfairness and price control or manipulation under the PSA by proving that Tyson's marketing agreements caused the cash market price, and the overall market price, for cattle to be lower than it otherwise would be. If that were all Pickett were required to prove he might win, because 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." 7

"Tyson, of course, urges a contrary reading of the PSA. It takes the position that because the PSA was meant as a protection against anti-competitive practices by meat packers, Pickett must establish more than that the use of marketing agreements have decreased the price for cattle. He must establish that their use has adversely affected competition, which requires showing that marketing agreements have no pro-competitive justifications."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In sum, while Pickett presented evidence at trial that Tyson's marketing
agreements have decreased the price of cattle on the cash market and on the market as a whole, he did not present any evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Tyson lacked pro-competitive justifications for using the agreements. The evidence is undisputed that marketing agreements provide a more reliable and stable supply of cattle for meat packers, reduce their transaction costs for purchasing cattle, and allow them to better match price to actual quality and yield.
A jury could not reasonably find, as the one in this case did, that Tyson had no competitive justification for using marketing agreements."
--------------------------------------------------------

A jury could not reasonably find, as the one in this case did, that Tyson had no competitive justification for using marketing agreements."

This reasoning came from the London case where the 11th circuit required the plaintiffs to prove that the harm done to him would affect the competitiion between the integrators or the violations of the prohibitions of Section 202 had no effect:

Sec. 202 (3) It shall be unlawful for any packer with respect to livestock, meats, meat food products, or livestock products in unmanufactured form, or for any live poultry dealer with respect to live poultry, to:

(a) Engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device; or

(b) Make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or locality in any respect whatsoever, or subject any particular person or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever; or

(c) Sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other packer or any live poultry dealer, or buy or otherwise receive from or for any other packer or any live poultry dealer, any article for the purpose or with the effect of apportioning the supply between any such persons, if such apportionment has the tendency or effect of restraining commerce or of creating a monopoly; or

(d) Sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other person, or buy or otherwise receive from or for any other person, any article for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, or of restraining commerce; or

(e) Engage in any course of business or do any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, or of restraining commerce; or

(f) Conspire, combine, agree, or arrange, with any other person (1) to apportion territory for carrying on business, or (2) to apportion purchases or sales of any article, or (3) to manipulate or control prices; or

(g) Conspire, combine, agree or arrange with any other person to do, or aid or abet the doing of, any act made unlawful by subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e). (7 U.S.C. 192)

This ruling was done AFTER the case was already over. While the PSA was meant to protect producers from market power, the court turned it around and said the law was made to protect the livestock dealers from competition between themselves, and not their actions regarding farmers (persons).

It was a total fraud from the bench of the 11th circuit and they used that ruling to make up the Pickett ruling and save Tyson billions of dollars in damages. Meanwhile Tyson used their propaganda to get statements like this from Chuck Schumer to open the borders to bse cattle so Tyson could rape the Canadian producers after receiving a taxpayer payout from Canada:

NEW SCHUMER SURVEY: SKYROCKETING NY BEEF PRICES HIGHEST IN A DECADE – MEAT INDUSTRY BLOCKING REFORMS TO BRING PRICES DOWN

Prices up 58% since last year, New York retailers face an extra $820M in price hikes --NYC residents could pay $346M more and LIers could pay $120M more

Canadian Beef scare is over – but poor labeling prevents even healthy imports

Schumer Meat Traceability Act would pull dangerous beef off shelves without having to slash meat imports and drive up costs – but Meat Lobby in Washington blocks all changes

US Senator Charles E. Schumer today released a new survey showing that the Canadian Beef ban has sent wholesale beef prices in New York skyrocketing 58% since last year, forcing New York State retailers and restaurant owners to absorb an additional $820 million in costs that they will have no choice but to pass on to consumers. Beef prices have gone up so much because supplies have shrunk drastically – 110 million pounds of Canadian beef were taken off the market in New York after a single case of Mad Cow Disease was found in Alberta, Canada.

Schumer said that rather than slashing beef supplies and sending prices through the roof, implementing a meat traceability system in his proposed Meat and Poultry Products Traceability and Safety Act would let retailers pull dangerous meat off shelves in the event of disease outbreak – maintaining public safety without having to drastically reduce meat supplies.

"Families, grocers, and restaurant owners across New York have hit a perfect storm when it comes to meat prices," Schumer said. "It's a simple case of supply and demand, and New Yorkers are getting the short end of the stick. American beef supplies were already down and demand was already up because so many of us are eating high-protein, low-carb diets. When we suddenly cut off the supply of meat from Canada, prices shot up faster than a bottle-rocket on the 4th of July. The only way to bring prices back down to earth is to increase our supplies of beef, and the best way to do that is by letting Canadian beef back in – as soon as we have a safe and reliable tracking system to protect us from tainted meat."

In May, after a single case of Mad Cow Disease was found in a cow in Alberta, the US Department of Agriculture closed the border to the more than $285 million worth of cattle and beef that was imported from Canada every month. Since the ban, more than 500 million pounds of meat have been kept off the American market, approximately 110 million pounds of which would have been sold in New York. Because New York is geographically closer to much of Canada than it is to beef-producing regions of the United States, retailers relied disproportionately on Canadian beef imports to stock New York grocery stores and restaurants.

At the same time as Canadian beef disappeared from the United States, domestic beef supplies have shrunk – American herds are down 7.4 million head since 1996. And the rising meat prices give American cattle producers a strong incentive to bring animals to slaughter sooner than usual to take advantage of the high prices. USDA economists found that the average cow coming to market in late October was 28 pounds lighter than a year ago – so the herds that are being slaughtered are providing us with less beef to eat.

Schumer today released a new analysis of data from the USDA's Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Outlook that shows that the wholesale prices for USDA choice cuts increased approximately 58%, from $1.11 per pound wholesale in October 2002 to $1.75 per pound wholesale in October 2003 – an increase of 64 cents a pound before any retail mark-up.

Schumer said that the average New Yorker ate 67.4 pounds of beef last year – meaning New York State residents ate 1.3 billion pounds of beef, New York City residents ate about 540 million pounds of beef, and Long Islanders ate 187 million pounds of beef. If New York retailers pass the wholesale price increases directly along to consumers without any markup whatsoever, then:

• Everyone who lives in New York State will pay an additional $820.1 million for beef this year.

• People who live in New York City will pay an additional $345.9 million for beef this year, with
• Bronx residents paying an additional $57.7 million for beef this year,
• Brooklyn residents paying an additional $106.3 million for beef this year,
• Manhattan residents paying an additional 66.5 million for beef this year,
• Queens residents paying an additional $96.0 million for beef this year, and
• Staten Islanders paying an additional $19.4 million for beef this year.

• Long Islanders will pay an additional $119.6 million for beef this year, with,
• Nassau County residents paying an additional $57.6 million for beef this year, and
• Suffolk County residents paying an additional $62.1 million for beef this year.

In addition, Schumer released new data from the Livestock Marketing Information Center showing that the average cost of beef in the All Fresh Beef retail category (the price per pound of for the "average" piece of beef sold according to the USDA) hit a 10 year high this quarter. The Livestock Marketing Information Center estimates that the All Fresh Beef cost for the fourth quarter of 2003 will be $3.40, which is the highest price in a decade, even when adjusted for inflation.

Schumer also said that the latest data from the Livestock Market Information Center shows that different cuts of meat have increased at different rates, with Round cuts up approximately 41% over the last year and Rib Cuts up over 60%. The cheapest cut of beef – 50% lean trimmings – has gone up the most, 320%. The beef from 50% lean trimmings is used to make the lowest price hamburger and processed meat like hot dogs and baloney, so poorer families who typically buy the lower-priced forms of beef will disproportionately be affected by increased meat prices.


Schumer said that while many New Yorkers are already switching either to cheaper cuts of beef or to beef alternatives whose prices have not increased as much like chicken, pork, lamb or fish, his analysis is conservative because it reflects wholesale costs of beef, not the much higher retail costs. It takes government economists much longer to gather retail price data than it does for the beef industry to gather wholesale price data, and the latest data available from both the Economic Research Service or the Bureau of Labor Statistics is from August – before prices began their rapid increase. Schumer also said he has seen little evidence of price-gouging from beef-retailers in New York, who if anything, are absorbing part of the cost increases in an effort to keep beef at prices that New Yorkers can afford.

Schumer said that with high-protein diets increasing demand for beef, the only way to bring beef prices back down is to significantly increase supplies of beef. After months of compensating for the Canadian beef ban by rushing American cattle to market and importing more meat from Europe, beef producers have now run out of options. Schumer said the best choice available is to reopen the New York and American markets to beef imports from Canada, a move that can occur only if tainted beef from Canada (or anywhere else) can quickly be tracked and pulled from the market.

To accomplish this, Schumer has introduced S. 1202, the Meat and Poultry Products Traceability and Safety Act of 2003. Schumer's legislation will require the USDA to assign a code to meat from the time of slaughter and at each new destination it reaches, enabling purchasers to track its history and whereabouts in the event of an outbreak of disease. Any meat discovered to be infected with a disease could be traced back to its source, enabling all of the contaminated meat to be quickly pulled from stores if necessary. Such a system is called "traceability" and can help producers reduce the time required to identify and remove contaminated foods from production lines and from the market. Currently, the USDA has no traceability procedures in place. Schumer's plan has met with nearly-uniform opposition from the powerful meat lobby in Washington.

"Beef isn't a luxury item, it's a central part of most New Yorkers' diets, and this is a case of special interests literally keeping food out of the mouths of our children. The last thing we should be doing is increasing the chances that someone will die from a food-borne illness, but there is a way to bring supplies up, drive prices down, and still keep us safe – if only we can overcome industry opposition."

###

Talk about using BSE to manipulate prices. The USDA, not rcalf, was front and center on it all. Rcalf really made no impact on what the packers were able to get the USDA to do.

As I said before, the Canadian and U.S. producers got taken on recent events by the actions of the USDA. Meanwhile, when beef prices went up, Tyson raked in huge profits in the poultry business because of the high cost of beef, the main susbstitute. Tyson did not pay their poultry farmers anymore money, they squeezed them with market power abuses that JoAnn Waterfield refused to investigate and continually tried to cover up.

Why do you think she is not at her job anymore, Agman? Is it for health reasons?

 

[agman]

Despite the fact that I have been labeled several times, I still try to research with an open mind! A couple of important points here.
(I am only presenting these to share information.)


IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 04-12137
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 96-01103-CV-N
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
August 16, 2005
THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK


"Packers and Stockyards Act § 202(a), (e), 7 U.S.C. § 192(a), (e).
It is undisputed that Tyson is a meat packer and that the PSA applies to its
business. The dispute is over what is an "unfair" practice and what constitutes "any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices."
Pickett contends he has established unfairness and price control or manipulation under the PSA by proving that Tyson's marketing agreements caused the cash market price, and the overall market price, for cattle to be lower than it otherwise would be. If that were all Pickett were required to prove he might win, because 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." 7

"Tyson, of course, urges a contrary reading of the PSA. It takes the position that because the PSA was meant as a protection against anti-competitive practices by meat packers, Pickett must establish more than that the use of marketing agreements have decreased the price for cattle. He must establish that their use has adversely affected competition, which requires showing that marketing agreements have no pro-competitive justifications."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In sum, while Pickett presented evidence at trial that Tyson's marketing
agreements have decreased the price of cattle on the cash market and on the market as a whole, he did not present any evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Tyson lacked pro-competitive justifications for using the agreements. The evidence is undisputed that marketing agreements provide a more reliable and stable supply of cattle for meat packers, reduce their transaction costs for purchasing cattle, and allow them to better match price to actual quality and yield.
A jury could not reasonably find, as the one in this case did, that Tyson had no competitive justification for using marketing agreements."
--------------------------------------------------------

The Appellate Court cleary pointed out that there were serious Daubert issues with the evidence presented that Tyson's use of marketing agreements lowered prices. When you do your research don't overlook that clear statement by the Court.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "The Appellate Court cleary pointed out that there were serious Daubert issues with the evidence presented that Tyson's use of marketing agreements lowered prices. When you do your research don't overlook that clear statement by the Court."

Did Taylor pass the Daubert test?

 

[Econ101]

Agman: "The Appellate Court cleary pointed out that there were serious Daubert issues with the evidence presented that Tyson's use of marketing agreements lowered prices. When you do your research don't overlook that clear statement by the Court."

The appellate court made an allegation about a witness that the jury was supposed to judge. Daubert issues were hashed out before trial, the appellate court just wanted to rewrite the record the way they wanted it to come out. Again, another case of the judges judging the case, not the jury.

The funny thing is that the Daubert issues were about economics and the appellate judges showed their economic ignorance in thier decision with their discussion about the economic reasoning of the Robinson Patman Act example. I guess they were trying to develop a new economic theory that would allow Tyson to get away with their obviious fraud.

What a justice system we have in place here in the U.S.!!

 

[fedup2]

Agman

You will notice on the text that I copied, a footnote 7. I should have added it but there are so many different points, I copied the one that addressed the issue being talked about. I will include it now. Thanks for pointing it out.

7
We say that Pickett "might win" because the critical evidence that the use of marketing agreements caused lower prices in the markets was the testimony of Professor Taylor, an expert witness for Pickett, and there are Daubert issues involving his testimony. See Daubert v. Merrell
Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993). The existence and seriousness of those issues are partly reflected in the district court judge's comment that if he were the factfinder, "I'd say, Dr. Taylor, you're nuts."
Given the basis of our decision to affirm the district court's judgment on grounds independent of any Daubert issues, we can assume for present purposes that Tyson's use of marketing agreements did lead to lower prices in the cattle markets.

 

[agman]

Agman

You will notice on the text that I copied, a footnote 7. I should have added it but there are so many different points, I copied the one that addressed the issue being talked about. I will include it now. Thanks for pointing it out.

7
We say that Pickett "might win" because the critical evidence that the use of marketing agreements caused lower prices in the markets was the testimony of Professor Taylor, an expert witness for Pickett, and there are Daubert issues involving his testimony. See Daubert v. Merrell
Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993). The existence and seriousness of those issues are partly reflected in the district court judge's comment that if he were the factfinder, "I'd say, Dr. Taylor, you're nuts."
Given the basis of our decision to affirm the district court's judgment on grounds independent of any Daubert issues, we can assume for present purposes that Tyson's use of marketing agreements did lead to lower prices in the cattle markets.

Thanks for making the post available to all readers.

 

[agman]

Agman: "The Appellate Court cleary pointed out that there were serious Daubert issues with the evidence presented that Tyson's use of marketing agreements lowered prices. When you do your research don't overlook that clear statement by the Court."

The appellate court made an allegation about a witness that the jury was supposed to judge. Daubert issues were hashed out before trial, the appellate court just wanted to rewrite the record the way they wanted it to come out. Again, another case of the judges judging the case, not the jury.

The funny thing is that the Daubert issues were about economics and the appellate judges showed their economic ignorance in thier decision with their discussion about the economic reasoning of the Robinson Patman Act example. I guess they were trying to develop a new economic theory that would allow Tyson to get away with their obviious fraud.

What a justice system we have in place here in the U.S.!!

Where did you go to law school and on what court have you ever served?
Who cares about how you interpret the law. Barracks (military term) lawyers like you are a dime a dozen with just as many opinions.

That justice system allows people such as yourself to make endless allegations without ever having to support a claim-except when you get into court. Then proof is required, something you never provide and know nothing about.

Daubert issues are not ALL ironed out before trial as you claim. To the contrary the claims or submissions are subject to cross-exam during trial. Any real lawyer would know that.

 

[agman]

Agman, "The Appellate Court cleary pointed out that there were serious Daubert issues with the evidence presented that Tyson's use of marketing agreements lowered prices. When you do your research don't overlook that clear statement by the Court."

Did Taylor pass the Daubert test?

Yes, but that does not mean all his findings were acceptable or accurate. Daubert hearings are to determine whether the witness meets the requirements as an expert witness. That is a separate issue versus his submissions to the court being subjected to cross-exam during trail. You should know the difference. Well, then again you evidently do not know the difference or you would not have posed such a question.

 

[agman]

Agman, "What I have clearly stated is that years when demand improved his work, just coincidently and conveniently, failed to show any so called price manipulation."

Judge Strom, "Evidence was presented that supported the jury's decision"

As usual you only represent one side of the comment. That is a real display of integrity. Fedup2, to his credit, finally posted the footnote I continuously alluded too. That is the rest of the story, the part you ignore to support your failed position.

 

[Econ101]

Agman, "The Appellate Court cleary pointed out that there were serious Daubert issues with the evidence presented that Tyson's use of marketing agreements lowered prices. When you do your research don't overlook that clear statement by the Court."

Did Taylor pass the Daubert test?

Yes, but that does not mean all his findings were acceptable or accurate. Daubert hearings are to determine whether the witness meets the requirements as an expert witness. That is a separate issue verus his submissions to the court being subjected to cross-exam during trail. You should know the difference. Well, then again you evidently do not know the difference or you would not have posed such a question.

And instead of letting the jury decide who was right, the court overstepped it constitutional mandate, judged a witness, prejudiced a jury and the plaintiffs still got a verdict from the jury---only to be overturned by the judge.

The jurors were supposed to judge the credibility of the witnesses, including the defendant's expert witness. Instead the judge set aside their verdict and inserted his own (based on his fear of the appellate court, you contend).

This verdict was rigged so Tyson could get away with market fraud. Bill Clinton already pardoned Tyson's chief fraudster Archie Schaefer (sp?) for his involvement in bribing the Sec. of Agriculture. The Republicans have done the same with their judges.

 

[Econ101]

Agman: "The Appellate Court cleary pointed out that there were serious Daubert issues with the evidence presented that Tyson's use of marketing agreements lowered prices. When you do your research don't overlook that clear statement by the Court."

The appellate court made an allegation about a witness that the jury was supposed to judge. Daubert issues were hashed out before trial, the appellate court just wanted to rewrite the record the way they wanted it to come out. Again, another case of the judges judging the case, not the jury.

The funny thing is that the Daubert issues were about economics and the appellate judges showed their economic ignorance in thier decision with their discussion about the economic reasoning of the Robinson Patman Act example. I guess they were trying to develop a new economic theory that would allow Tyson to get away with their obviious fraud.

What a justice system we have in place here in the U.S.!!

Where did you go to law school and on what court have you ever served?
Who cares about how you interpret the law. Barracks (military term) lawyers like you are a dime a dozen with just as many opinions.

That justice system allows people such as yourself to make endless allegations without ever having to support a claim-except when you get into court. Then proof is required, something you never provide and know nothing about.

Daubert issues are not ALL ironed out before trial as you claim. To the contrary the claims or submissions are subject to cross-exam during trial. Any real lawyer would know that.

I'm not accepting foam from you anymore, Agman.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "The Appellate Court cleary pointed out that there were serious Daubert issues with the evidence presented that Tyson's use of marketing agreements lowered prices. When you do your research don't overlook that clear statement by the Court."

Did Taylor pass the Daubert test?

Yes, but that does not mean all his findings were acceptable or accurate. Daubert hearings are to determine whether the witness meets the requirements as an expert witness. That is a separate issue versus his submissions to the court being subjected to cross-exam during trail. You should know the difference. Well, then again you evidently do not know the difference or you would not have posed such a question.

I very well know the difference but was interested in your "Yes, but..."

Dr. Taylor passed the Daubert test. You say that is a seperate issue verses his submissions (which I will agree on), but yet Strom said there were "Daubert issues". The Daubert issue was decided prior to his testimony. If there was any issue, Dr. Taylor should not of been allowed to testify. What are those issues?

If there was a problem with Dr. Taylor's testimony, why didn't Strom instruct the jury to disregard? Why was the jury allowed to consider his testimony? His testimony is good enough to make it to the deliberation room, but not good enough after the verdict is read? That doesn't hold water.

 

[Anonymous]

Where Judge Strom errored was in even letting this dog and pony show got to trial. The plaintiffs never had a case. Dropping your price in the cash market to reflect your purchases in the formula market is a normal supply and demand market reaction, not market manipulation. Tyson is "a market" not "the market". The case was a joke.


~SH~

 

[fedup2]

It appears Pickett did make a point. From the summary:

"Pickett contends he has established unfairness and price control or manipulation under the PSA by proving that Tyson's marketing agreements caused the cash market price, and the overall market price, for cattle to be lower than it otherwise would be. If that were all Pickett were required to prove he might win, because 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. "7

"Given the basis of our decision to affirm the district court's judgment on grounds independent of any Daubert issues, we can assume for present purposes that Tyson's use of marketing agreements did lead to lower prices in the cattle markets."

 

[agman]

Agman, "The Appellate Court cleary pointed out that there were serious Daubert issues with the evidence presented that Tyson's use of marketing agreements lowered prices. When you do your research don't overlook that clear statement by the Court."

Did Taylor pass the Daubert test?

Yes, but that does not mean all his findings were acceptable or accurate. Daubert hearings are to determine whether the witness meets the requirements as an expert witness. That is a separate issue versus his submissions to the court being subjected to cross-exam during trail. You should know the difference. Well, then again you evidently do not know the difference or you would not have posed such a question.

I very well know the difference but was interested in your "Yes, but..."

Dr. Taylor passed the Daubert test. You say that is a seperate issue verses his submissions (which I will agree on), but yet Strom said there were "Daubert issues". The Daubert issue was decided prior to his testimony. If there was any issue, Dr. Taylor should not of been allowed to testify. What are those issues?

If there was a problem with Dr. Taylor's testimony, why didn't Strom instruct the jury to disregard? Why was the jury allowed to consider his testimony? His testimony is good enough to make it to the deliberation room, but not good enough after the verdict is read? That doesn't hold water.

Wrong, you need to change your legal adviser and at least get a few facts correct. The Daubert hearing itself is not the same as cross exam during trial. There is no "but" about that issue. They are separate and distinct issues. If there is no distinction then there would be no reason to cross exam at all. The submission could just be read to the jury and entered as a matter of record-no cross exam necessary. In case you do not know that is not the way the process works.

Judge Strom has no way of knowing what the jury did or did not understand regarding testimony until they provided the verdict which was in conflict with the testimony provided in the courtroom.

Case in point: Not one witness testified that their was NOT a legitimate business reason for Tyson to enter marketing agreements with customers. In fact, one of the plaintiff's principal witnesses stated if Tyson did not offer a marketing agreement he would sell to someone who did.

How did the jury, ALL on its own, with NO corroborating testimony conclude differently. Did they hallucinate like Econ? Were they asleep during that testimony or did they fail to listen? Did they just make that up and is that ok with you?

You need to go on to some other subject. Your side got crushed for all the right reasons. As the court said, your side was wrong on all counts - GET OVER IT.

 

[Anonymous]

"Pickett contends he has established unfairness and price control or manipulation under the PSA by proving that Tyson's marketing agreements caused the cash market price, and the overall market price, for cattle to be lower than it otherwise would be. If that were all Pickett were required to prove he might win, because 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. "7

Conman, if the case was to determine whether market agreements lowered cash markets, then the defense would have provided the facts to prove the adverse. There is times when the cash market is higher than the formula market in a climbing market which would have buried that argument. This case was about whether or not Tyson manipulated the markets, not whether or not there is times when the cash market is lower than the formula market.

You lost, get over it! You didn't meet your burden of proof. Theories are not proof. A need to blame is not proof. Baseless allegations is not proof. ONLY TRUTH IS TRUTH!


~SH~

 

[agman]

Agman: "The Appellate Court cleary pointed out that there were serious Daubert issues with the evidence presented that Tyson's use of marketing agreements lowered prices. When you do your research don't overlook that clear statement by the Court."

The appellate court made an allegation about a witness that the jury was supposed to judge. Daubert issues were hashed out before trial, the appellate court just wanted to rewrite the record the way they wanted it to come out. Again, another case of the judges judging the case, not the jury.

The funny thing is that the Daubert issues were about economics and the appellate judges showed their economic ignorance in thier decision with their discussion about the economic reasoning of the Robinson Patman Act example. I guess they were trying to develop a new economic theory that would allow Tyson to get away with their obviious fraud.

What a justice system we have in place here in the U.S.!!

Where did you go to law school and on what court have you ever served?
Who cares about how you interpret the law. Barracks (military term) lawyers like you are a dime a dozen with just as many opinions.

That justice system allows people such as yourself to make endless allegations without ever having to support a claim-except when you get into court. Then proof is required, something you never provide and know nothing about.

Daubert issues are not ALL ironed out before trial as you claim. To the contrary the claims or submissions are subject to cross-exam during trial. Any real lawyer would know that.

I'm not accepting foam from you anymore, Agman.

I am sorry, I will send you a crying towel. But please, keep accepting the foam. You are really the only person I know who hallucinates on foam. Shucks, what would the liquid do to you?

 

[Sandhusker]

The Daubert test is a pre-trial effort. If you pass, you can testify as an expert. If you don't pass, you don't testify. By your own admission, Dr. Taylor passed. When he passed Daubert, it's a done deal. Daubert is over. For Strom to say there were Daubert issues AFTER testimony is an admission of a problem himself right there. If there were issues, they should of been settled before and Dr. Taylor should never of been allowed to testify. Judge Strom has made an erroneous judgement either way - either Dr. Taylor did not have any issues, or he allowed somebody to testify in his court that should not of.

This trial was a PSA trial. Could you please show us where in the PSA wording there is anything about any legitimate business use? Pickett contended that crime had occured and that forward contracts were the weapon in the crime. What would you think if I robbed you at gunpoint and the judge threw out the case because he acknowledged the legitimate use of my antelope rifle that I used to part you from your wallet? It's the same dang thing.

You support this ruling simply because it gives your big packers more opportunity for profit. You showed what you were made of with your lumber analogy, you reaffirm just about every time you post. Multi-national packer profits are trump in your world - producers be damned. I'm not real impressed.

 

[Econ101]

Yes, but that does not mean all his findings were acceptable or accurate. Daubert hearings are to determine whether the witness meets the requirements as an expert witness. That is a separate issue versus his submissions to the court being subjected to cross-exam during trail. You should know the difference. Well, then again you evidently do not know the difference or you would not have posed such a question.

I very well know the difference but was interested in your "Yes, but..."

Dr. Taylor passed the Daubert test. You say that is a seperate issue verses his submissions (which I will agree on), but yet Strom said there were "Daubert issues". The Daubert issue was decided prior to his testimony. If there was any issue, Dr. Taylor should not of been allowed to testify. What are those issues?

If there was a problem with Dr. Taylor's testimony, why didn't Strom instruct the jury to disregard? Why was the jury allowed to consider his testimony? His testimony is good enough to make it to the deliberation room, but not good enough after the verdict is read? That doesn't hold water.

Wrong, you need to change your legal adviser and at least get a few facts correct. The Daubert hearing itself is not the same as cross exam during trial. There is no "but" about that issue. They are separate and distinct issues. If there is no distinction then there would be no reason to cross exam at all. The submission could just be read to the jury and entered as a matter of record-no cross exam necessary. In case you do not know that is not the way the process works.

Judge Strom has no way of knowing what the jury did or did not understand regarding testimony until they provided the verdict which was in conflict with the testimony provided in the courtroom.

Case in point: Not one witness testified that their was NOT a legitimate business reason for Tyson to enter marketing agreements with customers. In fact, one of the plaintiff's principal witnesses stated if Tyson did not offer a marketing agreement he would sell to someone who did.

How did the jury, ALL on its own, with NO corroborating testimony conclude differently. Did they hallucinate like Econ? Were they asleep during that testimony or did they fail to listen? Did they just make that up and is that ok with you?

You need to go on to some other subject. Your side got crushed for all the right reasons. As the court said, your side was wrong on all counts - GET OVER IT.

First off, it would really be nice to see the actual testimony.

Secondly, there WAS NEVER AN ARGUMENT THAT MARKETING AGREEMENTS COULD BE A LEGITIMATE MARKETING TOOL. THE ARGUMENT WAS IN THE WAY THEY WERE USED WHERE THE CASH MARKET WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. This line of reasoning you bring shows that you don't even know the arguments in the case, Agman.

The jury heard the cross examination of Taylor and the plaintiff's witness. They made their judgement with those cross examinations in their mind. Judge Strom just thought he was smarter than the jury and substituted his judgement for the jury's. Why have the jury if the decision is rigged? Strom had NOTHING in his decision that would lead anyone to overturn the jury decision. The appellate court just plain made up stuff that was clearly not in the law at all.

I was watching an Alabama channel today and there were two lawyers arguing over some judges who were legislating from the bench in Alabama. Seems to be a real problem in the 11th circuit area (I think it might have been state court).