Dr. Taylor draws a picture for SH and Agman

[agman]

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?

Once again you show your ignorance per this subject. These are two different cases.

If you want to know what concern Judge Strom had regarding the validity of M.C. then read the testimony. Why do you want some else to do your work? You are taking a postion, back it up if you think you can.

 

[agman]

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 t 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.

Another misinformed statement from someone who has not even read the transcript of the trial. Give the world a break from your nonsense.

 

[agman]

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?

If Tysons need is for 'high yield" cattle as opposed to "high "grade" cattle, which was established at trail, why would they not pay more for what they need? Tenure does not teach you how to run a business.

 

[agman]

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.

What part of this statement by Judge Kormann don't you understand?
Why did Korman even make this statement if there was no problem with one part of Mike's testimony in the Pickett trail? Judge Strom was very clear that they should use their own discretion regarding "other" testimony by MC. Read the transcript.

 

[Econ101]

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?

If Tysons need is for 'high yield" cattle as opposed to "high "grade" cattle, which was established at trail, why would they not pay more for what they need? Tenure does not teach you how to run a business.

Agman, you flatter me.

Again, the question was not what type of cattle was most preferred, it was, "Is Tyson discriminating against the cash market for the same type of cattle." The fact that sometimes the market asks for high yield compared to high grade is a little irrelevant except in the very short run. Of course this is where the analysis needed to be done. You said you did the analysis. Did you? Is this what you looked for?

SH, I will have to apologize to you for something. In the following quote I did not type in the astericks. Although this was my grandmother's favorite, yet hardly ever used cussword, I typed in something that could be construed as my grandmother's favorite but I did not type the astericks. I hope whoever is editing my writing on this forum stops it, however appropriate it might seem. I have even gone in and try to edit it back to my original typing.

No one has to use your definition of price fixing, s*** 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.

 

[Econ101]

What part of this statement by Judge Kormann don't you understand?
Why did Korman even make this statement if there was no problem with one part of Mike's testimony in the Pickett trail? Judge Strom was very clear that they should use their own discretion regarding "other" testimony by MC. Read the transcript.

Agman, the judge went on. He said that he was not there and talked about foundational issues. He also said that the jury seemed to not have a problem with Mike C.'s credibility and this was even after cross exam. The judge also did not buy any of the arguments that were made to keep Mike C.'s testimony out of the court room. I think Mike won that legal manuvering hands down.

How was that perjury? Perjury charges were not brought up and they could have been. To claim that Mike C. committed perjury under those circumstances is close to slander. You had better watch out on your re-interpretation of trial events. They should be interpreted by the jury and they were.

 

[agman]

Agman, the judge went on. He said that he was not there and talked about foundational issues. He also said that the jury seemed to not have a problem with Mike C.'s credibility and this was even after cross exam. The judge also did not buy any of the arguments that were made to keep Mike C.'s testimony out of the court room. I think Mike won that legal manuvering hands down.

How was that perjury? Perjury charges were not brought up and they could have been. To claim that Mike C. committed perjury under those circumstances is close to slander. You had better watch out on your re-interpretation of trial events. They should be interpreted by the jury and they were.

Again these are two different cases. As a self-pressed legal beagle, I surmise a disgruntled and tenured Ag law teacher, have you not figured that out yet? Get your claims at least partially right for once. One is pre-trail per the SD case which has not gone to trail yet and the other reference Kromann makes is what was stated on one occasion during the Pickett trial. For all your rhetoric you have yet to produce one fact to back your many claims. Go talk to the Martians but be careful your phone is being tapped.

 

[Econ101]

Again these are two different cases. As a self-pressed legal beagle, I surmise a disgruntled and tenured Ag law teacher, have you not figured that out yet? Get your claims at least partially right for once. One is pre-trail per the SD case which has not gone to trail yet and the other reference Kromann makes is what was stated on one occasion during the Pickett trial. For all your rhetoric you have yet to produce one fact to back your many claims. Go talk to the Martians but be careful your phone is being tapped.

I absolutely know this is a different legal proceeding. Neither SH or you would not present the information on the allegation so someone attempted to show what you were talking about. SH used a lot of examples that were not even in sworn testimony. At least these had the ability to be perjury.

Are you now saying my phone is being tapped by Martians?

My rhetoric has not even been close to being impugned by your posts. All we know from your recent posts is that you believe the Martians know morse code.

 

[agman]

I absolutely know this is a different legal proceeding. Neither SH or you would not present the information on the allegation so someone attempted to show what you were talking about. SH used a lot of examples that were not even in sworn testimony. At least these had the ability to be perjury.

Are you now saying my phone is being tapped by Martians?

My rhetoric has not even been close to being impugned by your posts. All we know from your recent posts is that you believe the Martians know morse code.

Well you can keep dazzling yourself with you unsupported claims. Read the trail transcripts and you have your answer. Why did judge Kormann make the follqwing statement?

"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."

If there was no concern regarding a particular claim MC made during the Pickett trail why did Kormann even bother to make the aforementioned statement?

Anyone who is so paranoid as to believe their phone is being tapped is likely to talk to Martians as well. That is how credible I view your claim of your phone being tapped.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten,

What is your proof of market manipulation to support your position?

Nothing short of proof will support your position.

What is your proof?

BTW, the asterisks are automatic. The computer will read "SH" followed by "it" as a cuss word. I have seen that happen many times. The computer reads that as sh*t.

Comprende'?


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten,

What is your proof of market manipulation to support your position?

Nothing short of proof will support your position.

What is your proof?

BTW, the asterisks are automatic. The computer will read "SH" followed by "it" as a cuss word. I have seen that happen many times. The computer reads that as sh*t.

Comprende'?


~SH~

Glad to know you know yourself.

The proof was in the discovery data provided by IBP. The 12 jurors believed it and that is what should matter.

You probably think there was never a man on the moon.

I would not be able to explain the mathematics to you because you can not even answer a SIMPLE math problem. Did you graduate HS?

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

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "The proof was in the discovery data provided by IBP."

So, what are you waiting for?

What was that proof?

Provide it!

How can you expect to back your case without it?


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten: "The proof was in the discovery data provided by IBP."

So, what are you waiting for?

What was that proof?

Provide it!

How can you expect to back your case without it?


~SH~

Did you get Agman to get Tyson to release all of that internal data that Tayor analyzed yet?

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "Did you get Agman to get Tyson to release all of that internal data that Tayor analyzed yet?"

DIVERSION!

Nobody has to prove Tyson's innocense, you packer blamers have to prove their guilt.

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF OF MARKET MANIPULATION?


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten: "Did you get Agman to get Tyson to release all of that internal data that Tayor analyzed yet?"

DIVERSION!

Nobody has to prove Tyson's innocense, you packer blamers have to prove their guilt.

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF OF MARKET MANIPULATION?


~SH~

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

 

[Anonymous]

DIVERSION!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

DIVERSION!


~SH~

SH, if you can not do the simple math then you are not qualified to make comments on the evidence used by Taylor. You can make up a lot of things about the cattle market with some of those things being true, but you can not discredit Taylor. Both Judge Strom and the appellate court have the same problem.

I did not even need to bring up this evidence to knock down your comical arguments.

Care to try again? What is the circumference of a circle with radius=2?

 

[agman]

DIVERSION!


~SH~

SH, if you can not do the simple math then you are not qualified to make comments on the evidence used by Taylor. You can make up a lot of things about the cattle market with some of those things being true, but you can not discredit Taylor. Both Judge Strom and the appellate court have the same problem.

I did not even need to bring up this evidence to knock down your comical arguments.

Care to try again? What is the circumference of a circle with radius=2?

How can you make such a foolish statement? By your own admission you have not read the testimony. You don't know what evidence he provided nor what he failed to provide. The latter is more relevant to the court's decision than what you claim he provided. As such, you have based your opinion not upon fact or mathematical accuracy for which you imply to be all-knowing. Rather, you have predetermined your opinion based upon your own bias formulated from a extremely narrow and limited knowledge of the beef industry. As I sign off on this subject I am curious, has your phone been tapped lately?!!

 

[Econ101]

DIVERSION!


~SH~

SH, if you can not do the simple math then you are not qualified to make comments on the evidence used by Taylor. You can make up a lot of things about the cattle market with some of those things being true, but you can not discredit Taylor. Both Judge Strom and the appellate court have the same problem.

I did not even need to bring up this evidence to knock down your comical arguments.

Care to try again? What is the circumference of a circle with radius=2?

How can you make such a foolish statement? By your own admission you have not read the testimony. You don't know what evidence he provided nor what he failed to provide. The latter is more relevant to the court's decision than what you claim he provided. As such, you have based your opinion not upon fact or mathematical accuracy for which you imply to be all-knowing. Rather, you have predetermined your opinion based upon your own bias formulated from a extremely narrow and limited knowledge of the beef industry. As I sign off on this subject I am curious, has your phone been tapped lately?!!

Agman, on not looking at the testimony, you are exactyly correct. Testimony in that trial was meant for the jury and so was the decision. I have talked to Taylor on the math he used and have more of an insight into that area than you know. Math is not a god, but just a tool to get to the truth. It takes all of the nonsense you and SH bring to the discussion out. It crystalizes the arguments and isolates the variables. In my posts on this forum it has been easy to show that the excuses and defenses that are brought by you and SH might sound reasonable but they are either characterizing the questions and issues wrong or they are just fish. I guess if you can not win with the evidence you have to make something up or change the question to be decided. That is exactly what you and SH do.

Right after I posted that my phone was being tapped I drove down and stared the man who was doing it in the eye. He quickly left. Since that time my home internet and phone lines have been working great. If these people who were doing this did not make my phone mess up so much I really wouldn't mind. I guess they were just not that good at it. After hasseling the phone company for some time on the issue of phone quality I am very glad to have the issue resolved. You little jokes about it are okay with me. They fall in the same category as SH's antics. If I could improve my ISDN quality to that extent again and with the same effect they might have to start to charge me for a T-1 connection.

As for your question, no at this time my phone is not being messed with. I have nothing to hide and don't care what they overhear on my phone lines. They could make it a lot easier on everyone and just ask me. I guess that would be too ineffecient though. I hope you never have to go through it though.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "Math is not a god, but just a tool to get to the truth. It takes all of the nonsense you and SH bring to the discussion out. It crystalizes the arguments and isolates the variables. In my posts on this forum it has been easy to show that the excuses and defenses that are brought by you and SH might sound reasonable but they are either characterizing the questions and issues wrong or they are just fish. I guess if you can not win with the evidence you have to make something up or change the question to be decided. That is exactly what you and SH do."

This is so typical of you Kindergarten.

You bring absolutely nothing of substance to the table yet try to discredit what I have brought to the table, AFTER THE FACT!

If you could have contradicted what I have stated with facts to the contrary at the time I presented my arguments, you would have. You can't so you make your feeble attempt to discredit them after the fact!


Did you prove that live cattle prices IN THE U.S. do not track with boxed beef prices on a weekly basis?

Of course you didn't!


Did you prove that this week's cash price should be the same as last week's cash price?

Of course you didn't!


Did you bring proof of market manipulation?

Of course not!


Did you isolate the supply and demand variables I have mentioned?

Of course not!


Did you contradict anything Judge Strom stated in his ruling?

Of course not!


All you can do is create an illusion of being right and discredit what we have brought.

PAR FOR THE FACTUALLY VOID!


If Taylor's math sorts out normal supply and demand factors that play on the market, bring the math and watch it crumble under scrutiny.


You couldn't be more empty handed in your worthless arguments.

You are so ignorant of this industry that you didn't even realize that USDA graders grade the cattle and not the packers.

You are so ignorant of this industry that you actually thought last weeks cash price and this weeks cash price should be the same.

You have left absolutely no doubts to the degree of ignorance you possess in this industry.



~SH~