A
Anonymous
Guest
HAY MAKER said:
"Mothers" always come to the litters defense :wink: Good thing is they are becoming an "endangered species" as the knowledge is revealed........
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Economic Loss to Pickett Verdict
- Thread starter Econ101
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
"Mothers" always come to the litters defense :wink: Good thing is they are becoming an "endangered species" as the knowledge is revealed........
Sandhusker
Well-known member
MRJ, "With that ridiculous and vicious comment, the more accurate name for you would NOT be "Horseman"........you sound much more like a real horses ass!"
You know, MRJ, I agree with you that that type of post is not needed here, but little Scotty has been acting like that for years. I've never seen you condemn his childish rants, name calling, demeaning statements, etc...
You know, MRJ, I agree with you that that type of post is not needed here, but little Scotty has been acting like that for years. I've never seen you condemn his childish rants, name calling, demeaning statements, etc...
Tommy
Well-known member
Sandhusker...MRJ, I agree with you that that type of post is not needed here, but little Scotty has been acting like that for years. I've never seen you condemn his childish rants, name calling, demeaning statements, etc...
And you won't see her condemn him Sandhusker, she agrees with what he says and the way he puts people down or she would have said something about it before now.
And you won't see her condemn him Sandhusker, she agrees with what he says and the way he puts people down or she would have said something about it before now.
Horseman said:At this point, all you have is speculation, theory, and conjecture.
That's all you've ever had Scott. Everyone in this town knows what a snake you are. If I had a dollar for everytime I heard this in the same breath as Scott Hubers name I'd be a rich man. "If you bought Scott for what he's worth, and sold him for what He thinks he's worth, you'd make a lot of money". LOL what a pathetic human being you really are.
Sounds like Horseman knows ~SH~ pretty good maybe good enough to tell us why ~SH~ is so Damn anti cattle man ?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Horseman: "Everyone in this town knows what a snake you are. If I had a dollar for everytime I heard this in the same breath as Scott Hubers name I'd be a rich man. "If you bought Scott for what he's worth, and sold him for what He thinks he's worth, you'd make a lot of money". LOL what a pathetic human being you really are."
Thank you!
Glad to know the truth and facts are finally getting to so many of you R-CALFers.
Wow, such depth of intellect and savy debate tactics. I'm almost speechless. LOL!
First of all, why would you think that I would care what ANY of the R-CALFers you obviously associate with, FROM ANY AREA, had to say about me????
I don't associate with blamers who bathe themselves in self pity so their opinion of me is irrelevant!
I certainly didn't expect any R-CALFer to have anything nice to say about me considering how many times I have exposed the lies and deception of their chosen organization on this site. That can't be easy to take. I fully realize the facts on these issues are not popular with those who need someone or something to blame.
The cattle crowd that I associate with are those who are too busy marketing their cattle and determining their costs of production to be worrying about ibp making $26 per head, IN THEIR BEST YEARS, from processing their cattle into beef and beef by products.
I had to laugh at your post because it is so typical of the reaction I have come to expect from the blaming camp. You drop my full name, while you hide behind your "horseman" alias. LOL! Then you make your "steers attempt" to discredit me while pretending to be someone local. That was really funny. In the process you effectively divert any attempt to contradict anything I have stated with facts to the contrary. That is the most revealing aspect of your post. Same-O, same-O!
I also want to thank you for reconfirming exactly why I don't associate with the likes of you.
Most R-CALFers are long on emotion and short on facts and you've just proven it again. I don't enjoy listening to blamers talk about issues they don't understand. You know, the type that nod their heads in agreement at a blamer's conventions when their leaders tell them what they want to hear then they nod their heads in agreement at the next blamer's convention when their leaders contradict what they said at the last blamer's convention.
It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
Sorry, but I simply cannot relate to anyone who cannot think for themselves.
This feeble attempt to discredit me only serves to steel my resolve in presenting the facts and truth on these issues. Didn't take long for the pom pom waving R-CALF cheerleaders to show up either did it? Haha! I'm really glad you blamers have eachother for moral support. That has to be worth something I guess when you don't have anything but opinions to support your views.
I can't count how many times I have read posts like yours and here it is years later and I'm still presenting the facts. Yet you still think I care what you guys think of me? LOL! I know, some of you are just really slow in figuring out that I could care less what you think.
I guess your level of hypocrisy by dropping my name while you hide behind your "horseman" alias really shouldn't come as a surprise from someone who thinks Canadian beef is unsafe because Canada had BSE while you think the US has the safest beef in the world when we have BSE. You probably would been buying those "supposedly" unsafe Canadian cattle too if you thought you could make a buck on them huh?
There is a good reason why you guys continue to get your heads handed to you in a court of law. You simply do not have the facts to back your positions so you feel no option but to discredit those who base their opinions on factual information as opposed to blaming salebarn rhetoric. I understand, really, I do! More and more progressive producers are waking up to the lies and deception of R-CALF every day. Enjoy your moment in the sun because most producers are not government mandate loving blamers.
Yours truly,
Scott Huber
Kadoka, SD
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Who said anything about R-CALF? :roll:
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sorry Econ 101, had to visit with the local drunk.
Now where were we? Oh........
The laws are being enforced.
The problem is that the conspiring minds of R-CALF simply cannot accept the fact that there is no proof of illegal activity. It doesn't matter how many government investigations or court cases come up with a different verdict than the R-CALFers want to hear, they will continue their packer "witch hunt".
GIPSA conducts many investigations of "alleged" market manipulation and price fixing every year yet there is only a small handful that ever amount to illegal activity and most only require a letter to gain compliance. Don't believe me, check it out. The last year I checked the legitimacy rating, the conspiracy theorists had a 98% "unsupported allegation" rating. LOL!
The R-CALF types used to blame the feeders until some of them started feeding the cheap cattle they scalped then they realized how tight the feeding margins were so they started blaming packers.
At some point you would think they would come up with something legitimate as long and hard as they have been on a witch hunt yet amazingly they continue to come up empty handed.
There is no doubt that anyone, who is anti coporate or other, can site examples where corporate greed has corrupted certain corporations. Standard oil is an example of a true monopoly. AT&T came close before they took the heat. There is even biblical references to the corruption of the wealthy.
That doesn't change the fact that there still has to be proof positive to gain a guilty verdict.
That is where R-CALF continues to fall short.
This country was based on laws that protect the innocent from false accusations. In a court of law you are "presumed innocent". In R-CALF's mind, if you are a large successful corporation, you are "presumed guilty" until you are proven innocent. As soon as a large corporation is proven innocent of one "allegation", they are "presumed guilty" of another.
There is no end to the conspiracy theories of the conspiring mind. I suspect it will always be that way.
At some point you have to provide proof positive to back your position or go broke paying lawyers with "LEGAL FUNDS". R-CALF has failed miserably in the court system with their opinions and theories. Just as their supporters fail here in debate.
No, it was "THEORY" that was presented in court by the plaintiffs, not evidence.
Evidence would have been supported by Judge Strom and the 11th circuit. Instead, R-CALF lost in both cases and on all accounts at the 11th circuit level. "THEORY" will not stand up in court.
How can anyone argue that "captive supply" arragements such as forward contracts lead to market manipulation WHEN THE PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR WITNESSES WILLINGLY ENTER INTO THEM???
As badly as you'd like to, you cannot take a producer's willingness to sell out of this equation.
Nobody can have any credibiliy in filing a lawsuit against a company that they willingly entered into an agreement with if the agreements of the contract were fulfilled. If you willingly enter into an agreement and that agreement is not fulfilled, then you have grounds for a lawsuit.
You are still wrong in your assessment of "captive supply" arrangements. 75% of all captive supply cattle are priced on the futures market, not the cash market.
The desire to blame is not a defense against market manipulation.
The evidence was presented and Judge Strom disagreed with the jury and explained why and the 11th circuit court agreed with Judge Strom on every count.
"Possible vehicle for manipulation" doesn't cut it, only proof of manipulation will.
If the jury had voted NOT GUILTY and that verdict had been overturned by the judge and the 11th circuit, you would be praising the appeals process. I heard many R-CALFers siting the brilliance of Judge Strom prior to the time he overturned the jury's ruling, then their song changed.
The legal system has checks and balances and R-CALF clearly lost this one on all counts.
When a jury cannot even understand the basic instructions of the Judge that "they had to agree that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies" before reaching a guilty verdict, WHEN THE PLAINTIFFS TESTIFIED TO THE CONTRARY, that doesn't speak very highly of the ability of the jury to decipher facts from rhetoric.
The jury simply did not understand the evidence and the instructions presented to them and that is why their verdict was overruled by judge Strom and the 11th circuit.
I thought you wanted to stay specific to the Pickett case? What does any Pork or Poultry case have to do with the Pickett verdict? The Pickett verdict was based on the Pickett evidence, or should I say "theories", not what might have happened in another industry.
A guilty verdict in this case would have "robbed Peter to pay Paul". If you get some jury to believe these theories, the packer parasites collect their money and other feeders will pay for it in lower cattle prices. What kind of victory is that? If Tyson closes their doors then the industry is futher concentrated, what kind of victory is that? You have just created further concentration in the industry.
The jury's assessment of $1.28 "BILLION" dollars in damages was absolutely insane considering it was more than ibp's total profits for that period of time. That damage assessment would have shut them down leaving Cargill, USPB, and Swift to pick up the slack with less competition.
How could anything be more self defeating?
The alternative to "alleged" market manipulation is to do what USPB did and own their own packing company. Then they have nobody to blame but themselves but then, these progressive producers never were blamers.
BTW, I don't care whether you like the term "blamer" or not. Anyone who blames is a blamer and the dictionary supports that definition. That's hardly namecalling.
I agree! Fair competition is precisely what we have. If we didn't we would not have just seen the highest cattle prices ever recorded with no change in packer concentration and virtually no change in captive supply numbers.
Econ, you can talk about theories and opinions until the end of time but at some point you are going to have to provide the proof that market manipulation exists.
So far, you have provided absolutely nothing but theory and opinion. That's it. Just exactly like the Pickett plaintiffs did and why they lost their case.
I don't have a problem with that as long as you have something legitimate. At some point, "keeping them honest" with empty allegations will reach a point of diminishing returns.
The latest laughing stock lawsuit is the lawsuit againt the packers for USDA's price reporting screwup. I can't even begin to relate to how someone could be so conspiracy minded that they would think that the packer's are guilty of USDA's price reporting screwup.
I also have to chuckle about the irony of this. Here the packer blamers want to socialize the cattle industry by forcing everyone to report the prices they receive for their fat cattle WITHOUT REPORTING THE VALUE OF THOSE CATTLE THAT JUSTIFIED THAT PRICE. Then when USDA gets their numbers screwed up, the packer blamers want to sue the packers for the problems with the price reporting system that they insisted on. Then if that isn't hypocritical enough, they want to stuff USDA with another enforceable law to label beef as to it's country of origin without a traceback system. I know I drifted off topic here but perhaps you can understand why I don't run and grab my gun when an R-CALFer yells wolf when the sheep are still bedded.
Exactly, so where is your proof Econ? I'm still waiting.
What is the SPECIFIC proof that you believed tipped the jury?
At some point, you have to back your allegation. Wanting to believe something does not make it happen.
You are right, the USDA is losing credibility with some producers but ironically, those same producers want them to enforce an unenforceable labeling law and site the USDA statistics that support their bias.
When R-CALF is filing their suit against USDA for allowing Canadian UTM live cattle imports, AMI is filing suit against USDA for not allowing OTM beef and live cattle imports. Meanwhile, USDA is still held accountable to the remaining 98% of the voting public, the consumer.
If one is to look for political bias from USDA it would have to be with the voting consumer since they constitute 98% of the equation.
After all your conjecture and theories, you still have failed to produce the gun or the body. You have absolutely nothing here but empty statements which will never lead to a guilty verdict in a fair court process.
Hahaha!
Yet another conspiracy theory with no smoking gun or a body.
I rest my case!
BTW, I do appreciate the overall civil tone in your inability to produce a smoking gun.
~SH~
Now where were we? Oh........
Econ. 101:I don't believe that R-calf wants the laws changed. They just want them enforced as written. No more writing by the courts, just literal interpretation. Nothing more, nothing less.
The laws are being enforced.
The problem is that the conspiring minds of R-CALF simply cannot accept the fact that there is no proof of illegal activity. It doesn't matter how many government investigations or court cases come up with a different verdict than the R-CALFers want to hear, they will continue their packer "witch hunt".
GIPSA conducts many investigations of "alleged" market manipulation and price fixing every year yet there is only a small handful that ever amount to illegal activity and most only require a letter to gain compliance. Don't believe me, check it out. The last year I checked the legitimacy rating, the conspiracy theorists had a 98% "unsupported allegation" rating. LOL!
The R-CALF types used to blame the feeders until some of them started feeding the cheap cattle they scalped then they realized how tight the feeding margins were so they started blaming packers.
At some point you would think they would come up with something legitimate as long and hard as they have been on a witch hunt yet amazingly they continue to come up empty handed.
Econ 101: "All of the laws I referenced have to do with the same issues that were raised, with disastrous results for our economy, over 100 years ago. People who can not get along always need laws to keep the crooked in check from their own greed. If you doubt me look at Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, etc."
There is no doubt that anyone, who is anti coporate or other, can site examples where corporate greed has corrupted certain corporations. Standard oil is an example of a true monopoly. AT&T came close before they took the heat. There is even biblical references to the corruption of the wealthy.
That doesn't change the fact that there still has to be proof positive to gain a guilty verdict.
That is where R-CALF continues to fall short.
This country was based on laws that protect the innocent from false accusations. In a court of law you are "presumed innocent". In R-CALF's mind, if you are a large successful corporation, you are "presumed guilty" until you are proven innocent. As soon as a large corporation is proven innocent of one "allegation", they are "presumed guilty" of another.
There is no end to the conspiracy theories of the conspiring mind. I suspect it will always be that way.
At some point you have to provide proof positive to back your position or go broke paying lawyers with "LEGAL FUNDS". R-CALF has failed miserably in the court system with their opinions and theories. Just as their supporters fail here in debate.
Econ. 101: "The evidence that was presented to the jury was that the packers used their purchasing power and a deceptive device to reduce the prices on the cattle market and that hurt prices for the cattleman. It hurt the prices for all the cattlemen, not just those in the cash market. Since the "captive supplies" were priced on the cash market the possibility for manipulation existed. This deception could not have happened if the purchase price were not based on the cash price."
No, it was "THEORY" that was presented in court by the plaintiffs, not evidence.
Evidence would have been supported by Judge Strom and the 11th circuit. Instead, R-CALF lost in both cases and on all accounts at the 11th circuit level. "THEORY" will not stand up in court.
How can anyone argue that "captive supply" arragements such as forward contracts lead to market manipulation WHEN THE PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR WITNESSES WILLINGLY ENTER INTO THEM???
As badly as you'd like to, you cannot take a producer's willingness to sell out of this equation.
Nobody can have any credibiliy in filing a lawsuit against a company that they willingly entered into an agreement with if the agreements of the contract were fulfilled. If you willingly enter into an agreement and that agreement is not fulfilled, then you have grounds for a lawsuit.
You are still wrong in your assessment of "captive supply" arrangements. 75% of all captive supply cattle are priced on the futures market, not the cash market.
Econ 101: "Freedom to contract is not a defense to market manipulation."
The desire to blame is not a defense against market manipulation.
Econ 101: "The central question was whether the marketing arrangements that were prevalent in the industry led to market manipulation and an artificial lowering of prices. The evidence was presented and the jury of 12 thought so. The marketing arrangements in themselves did not create the manipulation; they just provided a possible vehicle for that manipulation."
The evidence was presented and Judge Strom disagreed with the jury and explained why and the 11th circuit court agreed with Judge Strom on every count.
"Possible vehicle for manipulation" doesn't cut it, only proof of manipulation will.
Econ 101: "The manipulation was to be proven to the jury. Not you, not I, not the judge alone. The jury. Should we all give up our right to the safety net of 12 consciences? I am not willing to give that up to some system that claims to be more efficient."
If the jury had voted NOT GUILTY and that verdict had been overturned by the judge and the 11th circuit, you would be praising the appeals process. I heard many R-CALFers siting the brilliance of Judge Strom prior to the time he overturned the jury's ruling, then their song changed.
The legal system has checks and balances and R-CALF clearly lost this one on all counts.
When a jury cannot even understand the basic instructions of the Judge that "they had to agree that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies" before reaching a guilty verdict, WHEN THE PLAINTIFFS TESTIFIED TO THE CONTRARY, that doesn't speak very highly of the ability of the jury to decipher facts from rhetoric.
The jury simply did not understand the evidence and the instructions presented to them and that is why their verdict was overruled by judge Strom and the 11th circuit.
Econ. 101: "Go talk to the poultry people and the hog people on that one. Tyson just settled a $142 million judgment with the hog people for their wrong deeds. Now that is real money. The arbitration agreements in those systems have enslaved those farmers in continual market abuse with no economical recourse. Your arguments of right to contract do not supersede the interests of a free capitalistic economy from making the rules we all have to play by fair and just."
I thought you wanted to stay specific to the Pickett case? What does any Pork or Poultry case have to do with the Pickett verdict? The Pickett verdict was based on the Pickett evidence, or should I say "theories", not what might have happened in another industry.
A guilty verdict in this case would have "robbed Peter to pay Paul". If you get some jury to believe these theories, the packer parasites collect their money and other feeders will pay for it in lower cattle prices. What kind of victory is that? If Tyson closes their doors then the industry is futher concentrated, what kind of victory is that? You have just created further concentration in the industry.
The jury's assessment of $1.28 "BILLION" dollars in damages was absolutely insane considering it was more than ibp's total profits for that period of time. That damage assessment would have shut them down leaving Cargill, USPB, and Swift to pick up the slack with less competition.
How could anything be more self defeating?
The alternative to "alleged" market manipulation is to do what USPB did and own their own packing company. Then they have nobody to blame but themselves but then, these progressive producers never were blamers.
BTW, I don't care whether you like the term "blamer" or not. Anyone who blames is a blamer and the dictionary supports that definition. That's hardly namecalling.
Econ 101: "Fair competition should determine the supply/demand equilibrium, not market manipulation no matter what the excuse."
I agree! Fair competition is precisely what we have. If we didn't we would not have just seen the highest cattle prices ever recorded with no change in packer concentration and virtually no change in captive supply numbers.
Econ. 101: " Market manipulation for packers can come in the form of either the supply of cattle or the selling of boxed beef. They are two separate issues that should not be confused. If for instance, the boxed beef guys had the whole market controlled in boxed beef through either monopolization or collusion and exerted that market power on that side of the equation to constrict supplies and drive up prices, it may not be necessary to use market power to drive the price of beef down on their purchasing side through market manipulation. The only problem with that strategy is that it would create incentives for new entrants and more competition which would eventually break up their collusive activity. Also, the outcry from the consumers would bring in the political and regulatory side like flies on SH---(no pun intended)"
Econ, you can talk about theories and opinions until the end of time but at some point you are going to have to provide the proof that market manipulation exists.
So far, you have provided absolutely nothing but theory and opinion. That's it. Just exactly like the Pickett plaintiffs did and why they lost their case.
Econ. 101: "I just want to make sure that the marketing systems that are out there are not being used to manipulate the markets into a lower point than would otherwise be with no real justification or with mixed justifications that can not be distilled."[/i]
I don't have a problem with that as long as you have something legitimate. At some point, "keeping them honest" with empty allegations will reach a point of diminishing returns.
The latest laughing stock lawsuit is the lawsuit againt the packers for USDA's price reporting screwup. I can't even begin to relate to how someone could be so conspiracy minded that they would think that the packer's are guilty of USDA's price reporting screwup.
I also have to chuckle about the irony of this. Here the packer blamers want to socialize the cattle industry by forcing everyone to report the prices they receive for their fat cattle WITHOUT REPORTING THE VALUE OF THOSE CATTLE THAT JUSTIFIED THAT PRICE. Then when USDA gets their numbers screwed up, the packer blamers want to sue the packers for the problems with the price reporting system that they insisted on. Then if that isn't hypocritical enough, they want to stuff USDA with another enforceable law to label beef as to it's country of origin without a traceback system. I know I drifted off topic here but perhaps you can understand why I don't run and grab my gun when an R-CALFer yells wolf when the sheep are still bedded.
Econ. 101: "Conspiracies are always a possibility but they have to still be proven."
Exactly, so where is your proof Econ? I'm still waiting.
What is the SPECIFIC proof that you believed tipped the jury?
Econ. 101: "I have personal knowledge that the USDA discriminated against a local smaller packing plant. I believe I read the same from another person posting that "Tyson was exerting influence on the USDA" to not inspect a smaller meat packing plant. Are these plants going out of business due to corruption at the USDA and Tyson's influence on it? I am not going to call that one but it needs investigating by an independent agency, not the USDA. The USDA is losing its credibility on the grassroots level and for good reason."
At some point, you have to back your allegation. Wanting to believe something does not make it happen.
You are right, the USDA is losing credibility with some producers but ironically, those same producers want them to enforce an unenforceable labeling law and site the USDA statistics that support their bias.
When R-CALF is filing their suit against USDA for allowing Canadian UTM live cattle imports, AMI is filing suit against USDA for not allowing OTM beef and live cattle imports. Meanwhile, USDA is still held accountable to the remaining 98% of the voting public, the consumer.
If one is to look for political bias from USDA it would have to be with the voting consumer since they constitute 98% of the equation.
Econ. 101: "The legitimate business reasons for entering the captive supply arrangements do not trump the illegality of abuse of market power and the breaking of the economic protections of Section 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act. I applaud legitimate business reasons for doing anything but they can not be an excuse to prices being pushed down concurrently by market power. "
After all your conjecture and theories, you still have failed to produce the gun or the body. You have absolutely nothing here but empty statements which will never lead to a guilty verdict in a fair court process.
Econ. 101: "Too bad some of these appointed judges who owe their advancement in their careers to the political forces that are being bought off in Washington by Tyson and the packers couldn't see the real issues and do something right for our economy."
Hahaha!
Yet another conspiracy theory with no smoking gun or a body.
I rest my case!
BTW, I do appreciate the overall civil tone in your inability to produce a smoking gun.
~SH~
A
Anonymous
Guest
Econ. 101,
What is it that you want to discuss regarding #4?
Ask away!
If I stated something that was incorrect, by all means, please correct me. The truth is the only bias I have.
Fire away!
~SH~
What is it that you want to discuss regarding #4?
Ask away!
If I stated something that was incorrect, by all means, please correct me. The truth is the only bias I have.
Fire away!
~SH~
here now sh your gonna get me in trouble with the mrs. Ive ben called a wolf in sheeps clothing and then you go and say
- run and grab my gun when an R-CALFer yells wolf when the sheep are still bedded. -
well you shouldn't be saying that when I'm on the road, she might just be waiten at the door with a frying pan :shock: gettin the hang og this my first yellow face.
and did you folks know theres lots of things that don't show up on the scren unless you are a member here?
say RP give me a call if I left my jacket there or look along the roadside. I recall layin it over the pickup box!
- run and grab my gun when an R-CALFer yells wolf when the sheep are still bedded. -
well you shouldn't be saying that when I'm on the road, she might just be waiten at the door with a frying pan :shock: gettin the hang og this my first yellow face.
and did you folks know theres lots of things that don't show up on the scren unless you are a member here?
say RP give me a call if I left my jacket there or look along the roadside. I recall layin it over the pickup box!
