Corporatist Courts Gone Wild

[Tex]

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/06/26/ap6592603.html?partner=alerts



Big money is just out of control. Win a case, corrupt judges throw it out, then you have to pay the people who lost the case in court their legal fees.

These judges need to be removed from the bench. They are an embarrassment to our nation. They are tools of the oligarchs.

We have the best government money can buy.


Tex

 

[Sandhusker]

These are NCBA's "partners in industry".

 

[mwj]

Were the rules in place before the lawsuit was filed? You should be aware of what could happen before you start the wheels turning. If tyson would have lost the case I am sure they would have been ok with them having to pay the cost :lol:

 

[Tex]

Were the rules in place before the lawsuit was filed? You should be aware of what could happen before you start the wheels turning. If tyson would have lost the case I am sure they would have been ok with them having to pay the cost :lol:

The judges themselves made the decision that the case was frivolous and it was after the case. Obviously the judges put themselves in the position of judging the case so that Tyson et al could put the screws to the actual winner in the trial.

These judges are taking the law into their own hands and making a mockery out of our judicial system at the behest of these packers.

The counsel for Tyson has former law clerks for Alito in their stall of counsel.

This is obviously something judge Alito will have to deal with if his reputation is to remain intact and the integrity of our court/judicial system is to be upheld.

While there can be an argument made that the USDA (under Secretary Johanns) was the one reporting the erroneous market information, it is no doubt that it was the Packers who benefited from the inaccurate information when it came out of the other end of the sausage maker at the USDA.

This is nothing more than the judicial system showing its corporatist or fascist side.

"Corporatism should be more accurately defined as Fascism as it is the merging of corporate and state interests"---Benito Mussolini, Italy

My personal belief is that the USDA should have to pay ALL the legal costs of this case and those responsible should be held personally liable.

You can't have an incompetent government get off scott free. It just encourages more of the same and boy do we have enough of it already!!!!

Tex

 

[Tex]

After looking at Senator Johann's campaign contributions, and Senator Johanns was really the one responsible for the erroneous reporting, I think all damages should come from his campaign war chest that was heavily paid for by traceable and non traceable campaign donations from the packers and the cattleman's association.

Shame on the national cattleman's association for supporting a Sec. of Agriculture that couldn't report prices right causing cattlemen to lose money in the prices they received from packers.

Shame, shame, shame.

Politics isn't about competence, it is about having enough money buy a popularity contest. That is why our country is in the trouble it is in.

Shame, shame, shame.

Tex

 

[Anonymous]

Politics isn't about competence, it is about having enough money buy a popularity contest. That is why our country is in the trouble it is in.

Shame, shame, shame.

Tex

Supreme Court just had a case on that involving Judges..Base of the case was that one WV coal company set out to bankrupt another competing coal company thru all kinds of Deceptive Practices...The company did go bankrupt- and sued the crooked company- and won a large judgement...The crooked company then appealed to the State Supreme Court- and in between that time the Crooked companies CEO sat out to buy himself a Justice- pouring millions $ of money into one Justice candidates campaign fund...His candidate won- and was sitting on the court when the appeal came up..The Bankrupt company filed to have the bought judge recluse himself from hearing the case- he refused- the WV Supreme Court ruled against the Bankrupt company 3-2...

The Bankrupt company eventually appealed to the SCOTUS on the basis of this "bought" judge-- and the Supreme Court (5-4) agreed with him- reversed the ruling- and said the Judge should have reclused himself from the case....

They ruled that all BAR associations have rules "requiring all Judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety"-- and the decision on reclusion should involve whether "the conduct in reasonable minds would create a perception that the judges ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality, and competence are impaired"...

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-22.pdf

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-02-16-grisham-court_N.htm

 

[Tex]

Politics isn't about competence, it is about having enough money buy a popularity contest. That is why our country is in the trouble it is in.

Shame, shame, shame.

Tex

Supreme Court just had a case on that involving Judges..Base of the case was that one WV coal company set out to bankrupt another competing coal company thru all kinds of Deceptive Practices...The company did go bankrupt- and sued the crooked company- and won a large judgement...The crooked company then appealed to the State Supreme Court- and in between that time the Crooked companies CEO sat out to buy himself a Justice- pouring millions $ of money into one Justice candidates campaign fund...His candidate won- and was sitting on the court when the appeal came up..The Bankrupt company filed to have the bought judge recluse himself from hearing the case- he refused- the WV Supreme Court ruled against the Bankrupt company 3-2...

The Bankrupt company eventually appealed to the SCOTUS on the basis of this "bought" judge-- and the Supreme Court (5-4) agreed with him- reversed the ruling- and said the Judge should have reclused himself from the case....

They ruled that all BAR associations have rules "requiring all Judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety"-- and the decision on reclusion should involve whether "the conduct in reasonable minds would create a perception that the judges ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality, and competence are impaired"...

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-22.pdf

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-02-16-grisham-court_N.htm

From the second article:

"Benjamin said the big money that helped get him elected did not go to him directly. It was sent to an independent campaign group that spent millions of dollars to unseat McGraw."

I don't believe there was enough action here. Benjamin should have been disbarred for not recusing himself. There has to be some kind of penalty for super bad judgment. People like this don't belong on a court and it hurts the integrity of the courts as an administrator of justice. It turns "justice" into "just us".

Child molesters are not allowed to live within a certain distance from schools, churches and other places where children are likely to be. Judges who don't have the sense to recuse themselves should likewise be barred from the judicial system based on their apparent inability to be "judicial" in the best sense of the word.

Plenty of kids will cheat on a test in school if allowed. Giving them a zero on the test lets them know that there are standards and that they have to adhere to standards even when others are not looking. It seems our politicians and judicial systems have let their standards go so low that we have to put up with people of such low moral character when carrying out such vital functions to our democracy as judging.

There was a reason why the founders put ultimate trust in juries and not judges. This is a prime example.

John G. did good on this one.

Tex

 

[Reader]

So juries are always right? Was the OJ simpson jury right? Give me a break

 

[Sandhusker]

So juries are always right? Was the OJ simpson jury right? Give me a break

Your point is that juries are generally wrong?

 

[Tex]

So juries are always right? Was the OJ simpson jury right? Give me a break

No, juries are not always right but they are the determinate of facts, which has been disregarded by these judges.

The founding fathers didn't trust an elitist court system because of what they saw in England and knew what might happen in the the future in this country. Juries are as close to the public as you can get and the public grasp on these issues than do judges.

I am sure the founding fathers also looked into the lessons of the Bible where the judges were so bad in their day that Israel cried for a king to stop the injustices of a group of ruling elite judges. Hey, it is the same thing the Iranians are doing today.

One differences is that in the OJ trial, the judges didn't overturn the jury's verdict and put OJ in jail.

We basically have a political system that can be inept, as the USDA was, and there is no remedy for those that are harmed. That allows the government to be as corrupt as it can be with nothing to worry about but public opinion. This is not a land ruled with laws, it is a land ruled by men and corrupt and incompetent men at that.

I would like to know, Reader, what justification do you think is warranted for the courts to do this. I don't see that judges need to protect the oligarchs this way.

I say stop going to the courts for justice, tax packers ten cents per lb., and just give the money back to cattle producers. There is more than one way to stop this nonsense. While we are at it, we should reduce judge salaries from the 178 K they get to make them less elite. Perhaps we could use 30 percent of their salaries to pay a set of grandmothers to watch over their shenanigans. Arm them with sticks so they can beat some sense into them. We might get a better justice system.

Tex

 

[loomixguy]

So juries are always right? Was the OJ simpson jury right? Give me a break[/quote

]

No witnesses
No weapon
Bungled evidence






And that pesky "reasonable doubt" thing
The jury returned the verdict that was based on the evidence presented.

 

[Reader]

So juries are always right? Was the OJ simpson jury right? Give me a break

No, juries are not always right but they are the determinate of facts, which has been disregarded by these judges.

The founding fathers didn't trust an elitist court system because of what they saw in England and knew what might happen in the the future in this country. Juries are as close to the public as you can get and the public grasp on these issues than do judges.

I am sure the founding fathers also looked into the lessons of the Bible where the judges were so bad in their day that Israel cried for a king to stop the injustices of a group of ruling elite judges. Hey, it is the same thing the Iranians are doing today.

One differences is that in the OJ trial, the judges didn't overturn the jury's verdict and put OJ in jail.

We basically have a political system that can be inept, as the USDA was, and there is no remedy for those that are harmed. That allows the government to be as corrupt as it can be with nothing to worry about but public opinion. This is not a land ruled with laws, it is a land ruled by men and corrupt and incompetent men at that.

I would like to know, Reader, what justification do you think is warranted for the courts to do this. I don't see that judges need to protect the oligarchs this way.

I say stop going to the courts for justice, tax packers ten cents per lb., and just give the money back to cattle producers. There is more than one way to stop this nonsense. While we are at it, we should reduce judge salaries from the 178 K they get to make them less elite. Perhaps we could use 30 percent of their salaries to pay a set of grandmothers to watch over their shenanigans. Arm them with sticks so they can beat some sense into them. We might get a better justice system.

Tex

And you consider yourself a conservative? With you attitude you should be really happy with Obama and share the wealth scheme.
And remember who filed the suit. Herman did and appeals are part of the process. Ask youself why they filed the suit where they did? certain areas are KNOWN to be more suseptable to giving verdicts towards the plaintiff.

 

[Tex]

So juries are always right? Was the OJ simpson jury right? Give me a break

No, juries are not always right but they are the determinate of facts, which has been disregarded by these judges.

The founding fathers didn't trust an elitist court system because of what they saw in England and knew what might happen in the the future in this country. Juries are as close to the public as you can get and the public grasp on these issues than do judges.

I am sure the founding fathers also looked into the lessons of the Bible where the judges were so bad in their day that Israel cried for a king to stop the injustices of a group of ruling elite judges. Hey, it is the same thing the Iranians are doing today.

One differences is that in the OJ trial, the judges didn't overturn the jury's verdict and put OJ in jail.

We basically have a political system that can be inept, as the USDA was, and there is no remedy for those that are harmed. That allows the government to be as corrupt as it can be with nothing to worry about but public opinion. This is not a land ruled with laws, it is a land ruled by men and corrupt and incompetent men at that.

I would like to know, Reader, what justification do you think is warranted for the courts to do this. I don't see that judges need to protect the oligarchs this way.

I say stop going to the courts for justice, tax packers ten cents per lb., and just give the money back to cattle producers. There is more than one way to stop this nonsense. While we are at it, we should reduce judge salaries from the 178 K they get to make them less elite. Perhaps we could use 30 percent of their salaries to pay a set of grandmothers to watch over their shenanigans. Arm them with sticks so they can beat some sense into them. We might get a better justice system.

Tex

And you consider yourself a conservative? With you attitude you should be really happy with Obama and share the wealth scheme.
And remember who filed the suit. Herman did and appeals are part of the process. Ask youself why they filed the suit where they did? certain areas are KNOWN to be more suseptable to giving verdicts towards the plaintiff.

Conservative? Since when does "conservative" mean you have to be corrupt? That is THE problem with the republicans right now.

I don't care where the case was prosecuted. The facts of the case remain the same:

1) Packers reported to the USDA

2) The USDA under Secretary Johanns didn't report that market information accurately

3) That market information that was not correctly reported gave competitive advantage and economic advantage to packers compared to competitors.

4) The injured parties sued for damages.

5) The jury agreed and gave them the value of the economic damages

6) Judges after the case made up new legal hurdles to keep those packers, who by the way are paying off politicians who appoint judges big money in various ways, from paying the economic damages that was caused and that they benefited from


Now tell me, Reader, what part do I have wrong? (I will admit that I have not read all of the case completely and there may be something that MIGHT be of value in this analysis).

The rich are getting richer because there are enough politicians who believe like the C Street Church gang and that they are "chosen" ones who don't have to follow the moral code that got them elected and into office. Instead, they justify evil to continue doing it behind closed doors. As long as you have enough money to keep it from getting out, the people will not hold you accountable because they just don't know about it. That is where the contributions to politicians by those breaking the law is helpful. It is the formula for continued corruption.

I think you have "conservative" and "corruption" mixed up. Watch the spelling closely.

Tex

 

[Reader]

No, juries are not always right but they are the determinate of facts, which has been disregarded by these judges.

The founding fathers didn't trust an elitist court system because of what they saw in England and knew what might happen in the the future in this country. Juries are as close to the public as you can get and the public grasp on these issues than do judges.

I am sure the founding fathers also looked into the lessons of the Bible where the judges were so bad in their day that Israel cried for a king to stop the injustices of a group of ruling elite judges. Hey, it is the same thing the Iranians are doing today.

One differences is that in the OJ trial, the judges didn't overturn the jury's verdict and put OJ in jail.

We basically have a political system that can be inept, as the USDA was, and there is no remedy for those that are harmed. That allows the government to be as corrupt as it can be with nothing to worry about but public opinion. This is not a land ruled with laws, it is a land ruled by men and corrupt and incompetent men at that.

I would like to know, Reader, what justification do you think is warranted for the courts to do this. I don't see that judges need to protect the oligarchs this way.

I say stop going to the courts for justice, tax packers ten cents per lb., and just give the money back to cattle producers. There is more than one way to stop this nonsense. While we are at it, we should reduce judge salaries from the 178 K they get to make them less elite. Perhaps we could use 30 percent of their salaries to pay a set of grandmothers to watch over their shenanigans. Arm them with sticks so they can beat some sense into them. We might get a better justice system.

Tex

And you consider yourself a conservative? With you attitude you should be really happy with Obama and share the wealth scheme.
And remember who filed the suit. Herman did and appeals are part of the process. Ask youself why they filed the suit where they did? certain areas are KNOWN to be more suseptable to giving verdicts towards the plaintiff.

Conservative? Since when does "conservative" mean you have to be corrupt? That is THE problem with the republicans right now.

I don't care where the case was prosecuted. The facts of the case remain the same:

1) Packers reported to the USDA

2) The USDA under Secretary Johanns didn't report that market information accurately

3) That market information that was not correctly reported gave competitive advantage and economic advantage to packers compared to competitors.

4) The injured parties sued for damages.

5) The jury agreed and gave them the value of the economic damages

6) Judges after the case made up new legal hurdles to keep those packers, who by the way are paying off politicians who appoint judges big money in various ways, from paying the economic damages that was caused and that they benefited from


Now tell me, Reader, what part do I have wrong? (I will admit that I have not read all of the case completely and there may be something that MIGHT be of value in this analysis).

The rich are getting richer because there are enough politicians who believe like the C Street Church gang and that they are "chosen" ones who don't have to follow the moral code that got them elected and into office. Instead, they justify evil to continue doing it behind closed doors. As long as you have enough money to keep it from getting out, the people will not hold you accountable because they just don't know about it. That is where the contributions to politicians by those breaking the law is helpful. It is the formula for continued corruption.

I think you have "conservative" and "corruption" mixed up. Watch the spelling closely.

Tex

The mistake by your on statement was made by the USDA! Why go after the private sector?

 

[ranch hand]

The mistake by your on statement was made by the USDA! Why go after the private sector?

Reader...If I buy a car that I know is stolen, will the police go after me or the guy that stole it? I say they would go after both, but they would start with me first. Am I right or wrong?

 

[Tex]

And you consider yourself a conservative? With you attitude you should be really happy with Obama and share the wealth scheme.
And remember who filed the suit. Herman did and appeals are part of the process. Ask youself why they filed the suit where they did? certain areas are KNOWN to be more suseptable to giving verdicts towards the plaintiff.

Conservative? Since when does "conservative" mean you have to be corrupt? That is THE problem with the republicans right now.

I don't care where the case was prosecuted. The facts of the case remain the same:

1) Packers reported to the USDA

2) The USDA under Secretary Johanns didn't report that market information accurately

3) That market information that was not correctly reported gave competitive advantage and economic advantage to packers compared to competitors.

4) The injured parties sued for damages.

5) The jury agreed and gave them the value of the economic damages

6) Judges after the case made up new legal hurdles to keep those packers, who by the way are paying off politicians who appoint judges big money in various ways, from paying the economic damages that was caused and that they benefited from


Now tell me, Reader, what part do I have wrong? (I will admit that I have not read all of the case completely and there may be something that MIGHT be of value in this analysis).

The rich are getting richer because there are enough politicians who believe like the C Street Church gang and that they are "chosen" ones who don't have to follow the moral code that got them elected and into office. Instead, they justify evil to continue doing it behind closed doors. As long as you have enough money to keep it from getting out, the people will not hold you accountable because they just don't know about it. That is where the contributions to politicians by those breaking the law is helpful. It is the formula for continued corruption.

I think you have "conservative" and "corruption" mixed up. Watch the spelling closely.

Tex

The mistake by your on statement was made by the USDA! Why go after the private sector?

While I agree with you that there was no accountability placed on Sec. Johanns for doing his job correctly and there should have been, the fact remains that the economic benefits of comparative advantage went to those who were sued.

With all the donations and revolving door these guys have had with politicians and this regulatory agency, I dare say you can't call them solely the private sector. You can call them businessmen who scam market participants with the help of their cronies in government who are not held accountable for the damage they are doing. Tyson's claim should have been placed on Sec. Johann's door, not on Schumaker's. He was the crony in D.C. they paid off and who they helped fund in his Senate race in Nebraska.

We have the best government money can buy. I am always astounded by those who are duped into thinking there is no connection with government incompetence and the payoffs being given in Washington D.C.

There is a sucker born every minute as P.T. Barnum once stated. Have you been to the circus lately? The political circus is no different. The problem is that all of this is done with public money and a publicly funded judiciary. I say stop paying the fools.

Tex

 

[mrj]

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?

 

[Cinch]

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.

 

[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'?

Tex: mrj, I learned a long time ago you can't prove anything to people like you. Before you don't believe this why don't you tell us how much the packers spend in D.C.?

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?

Tex: Most car accidents are "honest" mistakes. The insurance company still has to pay the claim. Do you just think packers are better than everyone else and always deserve the benefit of the doubt? The jurors did not.

$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?

Tex: mrj, do you even know how juries are selected? I see you made a claim that they "searched out a most favorable climate" for jury awards. Where is your evidence of this? Do you always make up excuses? Perhaps you made excuses for drunk drivers for years while they inflicted unintentional damage on others coming up with more and more excuses while their damage was continued and law enforcement didn't take them seriously.

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?

Tex: They proved their case to the jury. The judges just made up an excuse that it had to be "intentional" in order to win. How many times do we have to read a drunk driver's mind to say their drunk driving was "intentional"? These judges just don't want to enforce the law as written and want to form a new industry of mind reading as a hurdle for damages. They don't need to be sitting on the bench, they need to be at the circus.

Tex

 

[Sandhusker]

MRJ, "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? "

How in the heck can Tyson NOT know that prices were being underreported when they report those numbers to the USDA? Exactly where do you think the USDA gets the information that goes in that report? This would be like you reporting in rainfall to the radio station and when they misreported the information you gave them, would you know a mistake had been made?