Corporatist Courts Gone Wild

[mrj]

Is Tyson the only packer reporting their prices? Or is the report formed on the basis of compiling the prices ALL packers, of all sizes for all their separate products across the nation report? It may not be quite so simple as you paint it. If they were using some computer formula that had a glitch, it is unlikely to have been absolutely simple.

My guess is that if it is typical of government bureacratic business, there are as many complicating factors put together, mixed and averaged out as can be possible......not due to any "money under the table" as some of you insist in similar circumstances, but because of needing to use up all the money in the budget, keep as many people as possible on the job....just all those little tricks we hear bureaucrats use to perpetuate their jobs.

mrj

 

[Tex]

Is Tyson the only packer reporting their prices? Or is the report formed on the basis of compiling the prices ALL packers, of all sizes for all their separate products across the nation report? It may not be quite so simple as you paint it. If they were using some computer formula that had a glitch, it is unlikely to have been absolutely simple.

My guess is that if it is typical of government bureacratic business, there are as many complicating factors put together, mixed and averaged out as can be possible......not due to any "money under the table" as some of you insist in similar circumstances, but because of needing to use up all the money in the budget, keep as many people as possible on the job....just all those little tricks we hear bureaucrats use to perpetuate their jobs.

mrj

mrj, we have gone over this before. Did Tyson report their prices independently of reporting to the USDA?

Stop the "money under the table" garbage. Tyson and the other packers received a competitive advantage because the market information was incorrect. The lawsuit just sought to even out the playing field and the jury went with the plaintiffs and decided for them based on the law that was sued under and awarded their verdict. Our whole justice system doesn't need to be undone because you think rcalf is bad and that bureaucrats are stupid and because you happen to be a packer mama. We know you look on them like a spoiled son but enough is enough. Stop your radical views against producers who just want a fair price for their product under the law.

Is there a revolving door with packers and the USDA? Of course there is and that is part of the problem. Did the USDA under Johanns drop the ball and he still got elected as senator for Nebraska? Yes. Is that holding anyone accountable? No. Face it, you don't hold politicians or packers accountable do you?

Tex

Tex

 

[Reader]

Tex, how do you get away with stating as fact "....packers, who btw, are paying off politicians who appoint judges big money in various ways...." with no corroborating justification of your 'facts'?

Re. #2, Why/how was the error in reporting the marketing information caused? What is your proof it was not an honest mistake? Why should packers be held liable for not knowing there was a mistake?

$Re # 4. How do you know the plaintiffs in the case did not deliberately search out a most favorable 'climate' for jury awards and antipathy toward "corporates" when choosing where to file their case?

Re. #6. What were the "....made up new legal hurdles...." you claim those judges made? Isn't it, in fact, a law or rule that in at least some cases where THE PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO PROVE THEIR CASE that they are liable for court costs of the defendants IN ORDER TO limit the numbers of frivolous lawsuits?

This can best be illustrated by imagining someone at the store. The clerk (packer) gives back the wrong change to the customer (feeder). The feeder is shortchanged.

Re #2 Does it make any difference whether it was an honest mistake or not, the customer (feeder) was shortchanged.

Re #4 What difference does it make?

Re #6 The judges said that since the customer (feeder) did not prove "intent" on the part of the clerk (packer), the customer does not get his money back. He loses.

My question. If it was an honest mistake, shouldn't the customer get his money back anyway?

The jury found that the customers were shortchanged and awarded them their money back. The appeals court said, "you have to prove it was not an honest mistake in order to get your money back."

That's the way I see it.

The difference is that the USDA made this mistake. The packers made thier reports as the law states. If the USDA makes a mistake then THEY are responsible.
I hate this attitude in our country of hating companies and corporations. Many who have that attitude think they are conservative when indeed it is in the same ilk as Obama and his anti capitolist agenda.

 

[Tex]

Tex, how do you get away with stating as fact "....packers, who btw, are paying off politicians who appoint judges big money in various ways...." with no corroborating justification of your 'facts'?

Re. #2, Why/how was the error in reporting the marketing information caused? What is your proof it was not an honest mistake? Why should packers be held liable for not knowing there was a mistake?

$Re # 4. How do you know the plaintiffs in the case did not deliberately search out a most favorable 'climate' for jury awards and antipathy toward "corporates" when choosing where to file their case?

Re. #6. What were the "....made up new legal hurdles...." you claim those judges made? Isn't it, in fact, a law or rule that in at least some cases where THE PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO PROVE THEIR CASE that they are liable for court costs of the defendants IN ORDER TO limit the numbers of frivolous lawsuits?

This can best be illustrated by imagining someone at the store. The clerk (packer) gives back the wrong change to the customer (feeder). The feeder is shortchanged.

Re #2 Does it make any difference whether it was an honest mistake or not, the customer (feeder) was shortchanged.

Re #4 What difference does it make?

Re #6 The judges said that since the customer (feeder) did not prove "intent" on the part of the clerk (packer), the customer does not get his money back. He loses.

My question. If it was an honest mistake, shouldn't the customer get his money back anyway?

The jury found that the customers were shortchanged and awarded them their money back. The appeals court said, "you have to prove it was not an honest mistake in order to get your money back."

That's the way I see it.

The difference is that the USDA made this mistake. The packers made thier reports as the law states. If the USDA makes a mistake then THEY are responsible.
I hate this attitude in our country of hating companies and corporations. Many who have that attitude think they are conservative when indeed it is in the same ilk as Obama and his anti capitolist agenda.

I guess your emotions are showing again.

The case was not about whether or not there was a mistake at the USDA. That is irrefutable.

Can you get off your emotional "pro capitalist" (which has nothing to do with capitalism) bent and state the actual case facts?

Tex

 

[Tex]

This can best be illustrated by imagining someone at the store. The clerk (packer) gives back the wrong change to the customer (feeder). The feeder is shortchanged.

Re #2 Does it make any difference whether it was an honest mistake or not, the customer (feeder) was shortchanged.

Re #4 What difference does it make?

Re #6 The judges said that since the customer (feeder) did not prove "intent" on the part of the clerk (packer), the customer does not get his money back. He loses.

My question. If it was an honest mistake, shouldn't the customer get his money back anyway?

The jury found that the customers were shortchanged and awarded them their money back. The appeals court said, "you have to prove it was not an honest mistake in order to get your money back."

That's the way I see it.

The difference is that the USDA made this mistake. The packers made thier reports as the law states. If the USDA makes a mistake then THEY are responsible.
I hate this attitude in our country of hating companies and corporations. Many who have that attitude think they are conservative when indeed it is in the same ilk as Obama and his anti capitolist agenda.

I guess your emotions are showing again.

The case was not about whether or not there was a mistake at the USDA. That is irrefutable.

Can you get off your emotional "pro capitalist" (which has nothing to do with capitalism) bent and state the actual case facts?

Tex

Reader, you hare awful silent in this discussion. Is it because you learned something about the actual case and changed your views or just given up?

Tex