Elementary: "The jury did show that to a jury of 12. You should have learned something form the poll on your getting Sandhuskered. It is hard for 12 people to agree on anything."
The
jury showed that to a
jury? Was the jury responsible for producing evidence to itself? LOL! You're a dandy!
The Plaintiffs convinced the jury that dropping your price as your needs are met is market manipulation. The judge and the 11th circuit knew better and acted accordingly. Why was this trial in Alabama rather than the feeding states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Colorado, or Texas? I'll tell you why because they wanted a jury that didn't understand cattle pricing mechanisms. Callicrate couldn't win his case in a feeding state so they had to find a jury they could snowball. They were lucky to even find a judge willing to hear this case let alone earn a conviction.
Until you can provide the evidence that justified the verdict, YOU GOT NOTHING!
Hillary's trading has nothing to do with Pickett.
Elemantary: "The similar data on the formula pricing for cattle so it could be compared to the cash market's price for essentially the same delivery date would have been helpful. GIPSA did not require that information (Why not, so called economists and legal beagles at the USDA?) Just because that information was not provided through reporting to GIPSA, did not mean that the fraud did not happen. It just means that the USDA's abiltity to collect pertinent data and justify their paycheck from taxpayers was a rathole. When evidence that this was presented in the trial and then Tyson was asked to provide that data, they refused. Pretty obvious to me, and was probably pretty obvious to the jury."
You're still holding on to this absolutely worthless argument when it has been explained to you a hundred times. You are so brainwashed with your packer blame that you cannot even comprehend what I'm telling you.
The only way that two prices would be the same within a week is:
1. Quality was similar WHICH CAN ONLY BE DETERMINED ONCE THE HIDE COMES OFF.
2. The comparison was cash to cash rather than cash to formula.
3. IBP'S NEEDS HADN'T CHANGED!
Quality differences, supply and demand factors playing on the market for two seperate weeks, and ibp's needs ARE ALL RELEVANT FACTORS IN COMPARING PRICES.
You will absolutely not be able to refute any one of these facts yet you hang on to the same stupid ridiculous argument that the price should be the same. YOU GOT NOTHING!
Elementary: "The evidence was presented at the trial and accepted by 12 people who did not have a dog in that fight. They all agreed with the plaintiffs on the interpretation of that evidence."
The 12 jurors obviously did not understand what constitutes market manipulation. Their lack of understanding was as obvious as the damages they awarded and their position that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies when the plaintiffs and their witnesses testified to the contrary.
Elementary: "Please stop crying "no evidence" defense, as it does not hold water, SH."
If the evidence existed, you would provide it. It doesn't exist therefore you prefer to create the "ILLUSION" that it does exist. Until you provide that evidence, YOU GOT NOTHING!
Elementary: "SH, you may not understand that the demand and supply curve elasticities are a function of the time period in question, but most economists that know anything are aware of these facts. I am sorry you just don't have enough schooling to understand the particulars of these economic frauds."
Spare me your arrogance!
I am well aware of the supply and demand factors that affect cattle prices which is exactly why your analysis is so flawed.
You might be able to bullsh*t your fellow packer blamers with your econ physchobabble but you won't bullsh*t someone who understands fat cattle marketing and all the options that are available WHICH YOU CANNOT REFUTE!
You are as factually void to defend your "THEORIES" and "OPINIONS" today as you've always been!
~SH~
