Dr. Taylor draws a picture for SH and Agman

[Sandhusker]

You made the allegation of perjury, not I. Where is your proof?

Perhaps if you would read the testimaony instead of trying to convince youself of your brilliance you would answer your own question. By your own admission you have not read the testimony so what makes you think you know anything other than heresay per this case?

Or better yet, the person who made the statement could actually back their allegation with a fact. Wouldn't that be easier?

 

[agman]

You made the allegation of perjury, not I. Where is your proof?

Perhaps if you would read the testimaony instead of trying to convince youself of your brilliance you would answer your own question. By your own admission you have not read the testimony so what makes you think you know anything other than heresay per this case?

Or better yet, the person who made the statement could actually back their allegation with a fact. Wouldn't that be easier?

Perhaps you should read the testimony also.

 

[Sandhusker]

Perhaps individuals should not make up "facts".

 

[Econ101]

Econ, Here is what another U.S. District Court Judge thought about Mike C.'s credibility: Judge Charles B. Kornmann..................

"¶38] Defendant National Beef challenges Mr. Callicrate's status as a class representative, citing questions as to credibility. I am very concerned about what happened in the trial before Judge Lyle Strom in Alabama. Judge Strom is a very mild mannered and fair judge. I have a great deal of respect for him. He would be very hesitant and careful before concluding that a witness had testified untruthfully. He did so conclude with regard to Mr. Callicrate. He also instructed the jury accordingly, a very unusual step for a judge to take without charges of perjury. Again, Judge Strom would not have done that had he not felt strongly that such instruction was appropriate. I am thus very concerned about Mr. Callicrate and I would examine very carefully any testimony he might offer. I also realize that Mr. Callicrate steadfastly maintains that some of his testimony before Judge Strom was simply a mistake and not perjury. I was not there to hear the testimony. Apparently, judging by the size of the verdict, the jury members were not troubled by the testimony. Having said all this, I will not deny Mr. Callicrate status as a class representative on this basis. I have never had a problem controlling lawyers and parties appearing in my court and I will manage this lawsuit as I do other actions. I also have confidence in the abilities of counsel for plaintiffs to control their clients. I believe they will not permit any witness, whether a client or not, to advance claims without checking carefully to be sure that there is a proper foundation for such testimony and claims.

[¶39] National Beef also attacks Mr. Callicrate's status as class representative based upon his crusade against the defendant packers. Mr. Callicrate is certainly hostile to packers. He has made some rather outlandish statements about packers. That said, there is no question that Callicrate will vigorously litigate the class' claims. The fact that National Beef dedicates ten pages in its brief attacking Mr. Callicrate's representative status may suggest either that there is no other legitimate reason to deny class certification or that National Beef does not wish to litigate against an experienced and vigorous litigator. I will not disqualify Mr. Callicrate on the basis urged.

[¶40] Excel challenges Mr. Callicrate's status as class representative, calling him "a one-man litigation machine" and claiming that he "has an uneasy relationship with the truth." I will not deny Mr. Callicrate the status of a class representative.

[¶41] National Beef has filed a supplemental memorandum (Doc. 129) seeking to disqualify Mr. Callicrate. National Beef's claim is that Mr. Callicrate was an investor in Ranch Foods Direct LLC which entity purchased fed cattle and thus "took advantage" of the USDA errors. This claim is without legal merit. First, Ranch Foods Direct LLC does not seek to represent any class. It is not a plaintiff. It is a separate entity from Mr. Callicrate. Second, even if Mr. Callicrate was the sole investor in the limited liability company, it would be totally immaterial whether such entity profited from USDA errors. As I have already observed, if producers who sold fed cattle "too cheap" to Ranch Foods wish to pursue litigation, they can do so. None of this has anything to do with plaintiffs vis a vis defendants.

Is it not covenient that you present two different cases. On differs vastly from the other. My reference is to Pickett and the current ongoing litigation in South Dakota from which the aformentiond is copied.


That total joke of a lawsuit is going down in flames big time. One more group of losers going down.

Agman, you did not offer up any information on the accusation of perjury so someone else did. Why jump on someone else for something you should have done?

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "Canadians have two other buyers for their cattle other than the U.S. so by your reasoning, you are getting a fair price for your cattle now. It just shows how ridiculous your and SH's arguments are and I don't agree with them. Neither did the jury."

If they weren't, they could ship them to the U.S. because nothing is standing in their way.

Once again, the obvious is too obvious for a packer blamer who has nothing to defend his position.

Sandman: "Or better yet, the person who made the statement could actually back their allegation with a fact. Wouldn't that be easier?"

Hahaha!

Listen to the little ankle biter who never supports his position with facts but expects everyone else to.

You are such a hypocrite Sandman!



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten: "Canadians have two other buyers for their cattle other than the U.S. so by your reasoning, you are getting a fair price for your cattle now. It just shows how ridiculous your and SH's arguments are and I don't agree with them. Neither did the jury."

If they weren't, they could ship them to the U.S. because nothing is standing in their way.

Once again, the obvious is too obvious for a packer blamer who has nothing to defend his position.

Sandman: "Or better yet, the person who made the statement could actually back their allegation with a fact. Wouldn't that be easier?"

Hahaha!

Listen to the little ankle biter who never supports his position with facts but expects everyone else to.

You are such a hypocrite Sandman!



~SH~

It is obvious that the actions of major buyers has an effect on the market. This example shows this to be true. Having "other options" is not an affirmative defense against the discrimination Pickett claimed.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "It is obvious that the actions of major buyers has an effect on the market."

What is even more obvious is that 5 major packers are all competing for the same cattle to fill their slaughtering schedules and if they do not pay up, they don't get the cattle bought.

Kindergarten: "Having "other options" is not an affirmative defense against the discrimination Pickett claimed."

Having other options does not allow for discrimination to occur.

What "could have happened" is not support for a discrimination claim, only what did happen.

Dropping your price to reflect the fulfillment of one's needs is not market manipulation.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten: "It is obvious that the actions of major buyers has an effect on the market."

What is even more obvious is that 5 major packers are all competing for the same cattle to fill their slaughtering schedules and if they do not pay up, they don't get the cattle bought.

Kindergarten: "Having "other options" is not an affirmative defense against the discrimination Pickett claimed."

Having other options does not allow for discrimination to occur.

What "could have happened" is not support for a discrimination claim, only what did happen.

Dropping your price to reflect the fulfillment of one's needs is not market manipulation.


~SH~

The evidence of that reasoning is that there would be no difference between the cash market and the captive supplies market in terms of price for the same value of goods. We already know there is a negative correlation between captive supplies and price.

Your last sentence points out that there is an effect on the cash market when the cash market is thinned. That was the allegation Pickett made. I am glad to hear you argue it time and time again. Would you like to do an amicus brief?

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "The evidence of that reasoning is that there would be no difference between the cash market and the captive supplies market in terms of price for the same value of goods."

You are still an idiot. Nothing has changed there.

This weeks cash price by numerous packers is based on the same supply and demand factors of the market THIS WEEK. This week's cash price is not last week's cash price which derived the formula base price for this week's formula cattle.

Last weeks supply and demand factors affected last weeks price, not this week's price.

Give it up, you have nothing to support your position! The need to blame packers cannot be that compelling can it?

Kindergarten: "We already know there is a negative correlation between captive supplies and price."

If that was true there would not be times when the captive supply price is lower than the cash price.

You lose again!

Kindergarten: "Your last sentence points out that there is an effect on the cash market when the cash market is thinned. That was the allegation Pickett made. I am glad to hear you argue it time and time again. Would you like to do an amicus brief?"

Lowering your price as your needs are met is not market manipulation and it never will be.



~SH~

 

[Mike]

Econ wrote:

Your last sentence points out that there is an effect on the cash market when the cash market is thinned. That was the allegation Pickett made. I am glad to hear you argue it time and time again. Would you like to do an amicus brief?

That puts us back to square one. When the cash market subsides, the marketing agreements, which are pegged to the cash market goes down also. A cycle that the packers control, thus giving creedence to the PSA allegations.

Like Tyson said, this case was very simple and not very complicated.

 

[Anonymous]

Mike,

Nobody has a gun to any feeder's head forcing them to sell to a packer who has most of his immediate slaughtering needs tied up in formula cattle. THERE IS OTHER MARKETING OPTIONS which would not allow anyone to take a price they were unwilling to accept.

Your argument is totally void until you can prove "COLLUSION" or a "VALID PRICE FIX".

You got nothing!

Dropping your price as your needs are met is not market manipulation.

Think of the consequences if it was!

USE YOUR HEAD MIKE!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Mike,

Nobody has a gun to any feeder's head forcing them to sell to a packer who has most of his immediate slaughtering needs tied up in formula cattle. THERE IS OTHER MARKETING OPTIONS which would not allow anyone to take a price they were unwilling to accept.

Your argument is totally void until you can prove "COLLUSION" or a "VALID PRICE FIX".

You got nothing!

Dropping your price as your needs are met is not market manipulation.

Think of the consequences if it was!

USE YOUR HEAD MIKE!


~SH~

What options were available to the cash market that would have raised the price of the cash market?

You continually argue that the major buyers spend less on the cash market because they have their needs filled. Then we find out that many times they more in their pipeline than they needed but continue to put in formula cattle. What is it SH?

When the prices were pegged to the cash market and buying strategies were used that lowered the cash market even at the expense of paying the forumula cattle more than the cash market, it is market manipulation!

No one has to use your definition of price fixing, SH. It is just your own definition. The jurors did not buy it. None of the 12 bought it. In the U.S., unless there is a real reason not to trust what a jury comes up with, there should not be an overturning of the verdict. The judge, in this case Judge Strom, must have real stated reasons that are not judgements, but real reasons that can be looked at.

Judge Strom did not do this and the appellate court really boofed up.

 

[Mike]

SH wrote:

USE YOUR HEAD MIKE!

I sincerely and honestly am looking at this with an open mind.

You just haven't convinced me yet. Try again with more reasonable and persuasive arguments.

Please, I have heard the same old arguments for years now and still don't understand. Does this show my incomprehendability (?) or your lack of persuasion?

I know I have left myself wide open for a caustic response but I really want to see the other side.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "What options were available to the cash market that would have raised the price of the cash market?"

ibp is not the only market out there OR DIDN'T YOU REALIZE THAT EITHER?

SWIFT buys fat cattle with numerous marketing options.
Excel buys fat cattle with numerous marketing options
USPB buys fat cattle
Smitfield buys fat catttle
Greater Omaha buys fat cattle
MANY, MANY OTHER PACKERS BUY FAT CATTLE.

Kindergarten: "You continually argue that the major buyers spend less on the cash market because they have their needs filled. Then we find out that many times they more in their pipeline than they needed but continue to put in formula cattle. What is it SH?"

I didn't say THEY ALL spend less on the cash market BECAUSE THEY ALL HAVE THEIR NEEDS FILLED AT THE EXACT SAME TIME.

Are you really this ignorant?

Kindergarten: "When the prices were pegged to the cash market and buying strategies were used that lowered the cash market even at the expense of paying the forumula cattle more than the cash market, it is market manipulation!"

In your conspiring mind only!

Paying less in the cash market when most of your needs are filled by formula cattle is not market manipulation. It never will be! The consequences of such a stupid position would be far reaching.


What is your proof that ibp manipulated markets with captive supplies Kindergarten?



~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Mike: "I know I have left myself wide open for a caustic response but I really want to see the other side."

Look at the obvious Mike!

There is obvious supply and demand factors that lead to higher and lower cattle prices on a weekly basis. Excessive supplies, decreased consumer demand, lost export markets, expanded export markets, competitive meat prices, reduced discretionary consumer spending, Ecoli recalls, BSE scares, and the list goes on.

Those factors play on the market continually. These factors affect boxed beef prices and boxed beef prices affect live cattle prices.

How can anyone make a claim for a single factor affecting cattle prices without sorting out all these other variables?

How have captive supplies and packer concentration changed? If captive supplies and packer concentration are the reason for lower cattle prices, WHICH ONE OF THESE FACTORS CHANGES TO ALLOW MARKETS TO GO HIGHER????

What was the level of packer concentration and captive supplies when cattle prices rallied 60% in a year???

How do you explain that?

You can't and nobody else can either.

These market manipulation conspiracy theorists are full of sh*t!

Dropping your cash price when your needs are met is not market manipulation PARTICULARLY WHEN TYSON IS NOT THE ONLY MARKET OR MARKETING OPTION OUT THERE.

This argument is so empty and so stupid it borders on insanity.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Mike: "I know I have left myself wide open for a caustic response but I really want to see the other side."

Look at the obvious Mike!

There is obvious supply and demand factors that lead to higher and lower cattle prices on a weekly basis. Excessive supplies, decreased consumer demand, lost export markets, expanded export markets, competitive meat prices, reduced discretionary consumer spending, Ecoli recalls, BSE scares, and the list goes on.

Those factors play on the market continually. These factors affect boxed beef prices and boxed beef prices affect live cattle prices.

How can anyone make a claim for a single factor affecting cattle prices without sorting out all these other variables?

How have captive supplies and packer concentration changed? If captive supplies and packer concentration are the reason for lower cattle prices, WHICH ONE OF THESE FACTORS CHANGES TO ALLOW MARKETS TO GO HIGHER????

What was the level of packer concentration and captive supplies when cattle prices rallied 60% in a year???

How do you explain that?

You can't and nobody else can either.

These market manipulation conspiracy theorists are full of sh*t!

Dropping your cash price when your needs are met is not market manipulation PARTICULARLY WHEN TYSON IS NOT THE ONLY MARKET OR MARKETING OPTION OUT THERE.

This argument is so empty and so stupid it borders on insanity.



~SH~

SH--,

The U.S. is not the only market for Canadian cattle. By your reasoning, the price of cattle in Canada should not have been lower than the U.S.

If it could be shown, and Pickett did it, that Tyson was paying more for cattle in the captive supplies than the cash market, then it is proof of market manipulation.

They also had reasons (motives) to do it. If there were not captive supply then they would not have had a motive to supress the cattle market as a whole. If they and Swift did not have large shares in the substitutes of beef their motives would have been less. They might have had motives to discriminate against individual cattle markets however. Pickett proved that Tyson discriminated against the cattle market and that lowered the whole cattle market. That is all he had to prove. That is why the jury came back with a large verdict. What do you not understand about that?

What is the circumference of a circle with radius=2?

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "The U.S. is not the only market for Canadian cattle."

Nobody said it was.

Kindergarten: "By your reasoning, the price of cattle in Canada should not have been lower than the U.S."

You are unaware of the exchange rate too?

Why do you insist on proving your ignorance over and over?

Kindergarten: "If it could be shown, and Pickett did it, that Tyson was paying more for cattle in the captive supplies than the cash market, then it is proof of market manipulation."

I've already explained this HOW MANY DAMN TIMES????

LAST WEEK'S CASH MARKET IS NOT THIS WEEK'S CASH MARKET YOU FLAMING IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kindergarten: "They also had reasons (motives) to do it. If there were not captive supply then they would not have had a motive to supress the cattle market as a whole."

LOWERING YOUR PRICE AS YOUR NEEDS ARE FULFILLED IS NOT MARKET MANIPULATION!


YOU GOT NOTHING!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten: "The U.S. is not the only market for Canadian cattle."

Nobody said it was.

Kindergarten: "By your reasoning, the price of cattle in Canada should not have been lower than the U.S."

You are unaware of the exchange rate too?

Why do you insist on proving your ignorance over and over?

Kindergarten: "If it could be shown, and Pickett did it, that Tyson was paying more for cattle in the captive supplies than the cash market, then it is proof of market manipulation."

I've already explained this HOW MANY DAMN TIMES????

LAST WEEK'S CASH MARKET IS NOT THIS WEEK'S CASH MARKET YOU FLAMING IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kindergarten: "They also had reasons (motives) to do it. If there were not captive supply then they would not have had a motive to supress the cattle market as a whole."

LOWERING YOUR PRICE AS YOUR NEEDS ARE FULFILLED IS NOT MARKET MANIPULATION!


YOU GOT NOTHING!


~SH~

SH--, Pleeeeaaaaase, are you going into the doggie brain again? I would respect a difference of opinion, and you can say that you have a different opinion, but you do not have to continually call everyone names while characterizing yourself as the vesicle of truth.

YOU GOT NOTHING!

The jury thought so.

What is the circumference of a circle with radius=2?

 

[Anonymous]

What is your proof of market manipulation?

Nothing else matters!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

What is your proof of market manipulation?

Nothing else matters!


~SH~

As articulated by almost ALL of the credible economists who were asked to look at this situation with USDA gathered evidence, there needs to be more information provided. Taylor had more information. Have you convinced Agman's packer friends at Tyson to give that data up?

The USDA has done a disservice to the cattle industry in collecting evidence which is of little value. Why do we put up with such government inefficiency and yet let Tyson claim as a defense "a legitimate business justification" based on so called "efficiencies"?

Go hide some more behind your lack of data or lack of questions answered, SH. Just don't come out where the light is shining. You might let everyone see you are wearing no clothes. Some of us might turn stone cold to your arguments.

I suppose that is where the jury found themselves.