"en banc" hearing denied in Pickett case

[agman]

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied an "en banc" hearing in the Pickett Case. I noted with extreme interest that neither OCM, Econ101 or other Pickett supporters informed readers of that latest ruling.

It appears that my previous position that the Pickett case had zero chance of ever getting to the Supreme Court was on target.

Now Econ101 and perhaps even OCM can claim that ALL judges were wrong and that only they are right in their interpretation of the law.

This makes two appeals for "en banc" hearings, the Pickett case and Judge Cebull's ruling. Both appeals have been rejected soundly by the ENTIRE Circuit Court having jurisdiction.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, do you feel that the requirement that Tyson had to be proven to not have a legitimate business reason for using forward contracts was reasonable considering the plaintiff's case was that forward contracts were being used as a tool for illegal purposes?

 

[ocm]

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied an "en banc" hearing in the Pickett Case. I noted with extreme interest that neither OCM, Econ101 or other Pickett supporters informed readers of that latest ruling.

It appears that my previous position that the Pickett case had zero chance of ever getting to the Supreme Court was on target.

Now Econ101 and perhaps even OCM can claim that ALL judges were wrong and that only they are right in their interpretation of the law.

This makes two appeals for "en banc" hearings, the Pickett case and Judge Cebull's ruling. Both appeals have been rejected soundly by the ENTIRE Circuit Court having jurisdiction.

I have yet to see any documentation on this, not that I'm doubting you. I just don't see any documentation.

Were the Supreme Court justices who favored Kelo more knowledgable in the law than the rest of us? Remember--Kelo lost.

 

[Anonymous]

Surprise surprise!

The packer blamers and their lies receive another defeat.

Keep donating those calves boys! R-CULT's lawyers sure appreciate it.

Sandman: "Agman, do you feel that the requirement that Tyson had to be proven to not have a legitimate business reason for using forward contracts was reasonable considering the plaintiff's case was that forward contracts were being used as a tool for illegal purposes?"

The plaintiff's case was not that FORWARD CONTRACTS were being used as a tool for illegal purposes. The plaintiffs bogus case was that CAPTIVE SUPPLIES were being used as a tool for illegal purposes and wrongly included formula and grid cattle. The plaintiffs wanted to save the feeding industry from themselves.

When do you plan to back your allegation Sandman?



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied an "en banc" hearing in the Pickett Case. I noted with extreme interest that neither OCM, Econ101 or other Pickett supporters informed readers of that latest ruling.

It appears that my previous position that the Pickett case had zero chance of ever getting to the Supreme Court was on target.

Now Econ101 and perhaps even OCM can claim that ALL judges were wrong and that only they are right in their interpretation of the law.

This makes two appeals for "en banc" hearings, the Pickett case and Judge Cebull's ruling. Both appeals have been rejected soundly by the ENTIRE Circuit Court having jurisdiction.

Haven't heard anything about it, Agman. You are faster on this "news" than me. I am not really involved in the Pickett case, I am just correcting the inaccuracies and pointing out the economics behind the law and what I understand about the case.

 

[agman]

Agman, do you feel that the requirement that Tyson had to be proven to not have a legitimate business reason for using forward contracts was reasonable considering the plaintiff's case was that forward contracts were being used as a tool for illegal purposes?

Yes, there are two points. First, are these contracts legal? Second, was the manner in which these contracts were used illegal?

On the first point the jury decided on their own that Tyson had no business purpose for using marketing agreements. There was NO testimony provided by the plaintiffs to support the jury finding. The facts remain that all the plaintiff's witnesses testified to the legitimate business use of these contracts. On what basis then did the jury conclude on their own, with NO supporting testimony ever at trial, that Tyson lacked a legitimate reason to the use such contracts?

On the second point, as I have pointed out many times, Taylor's so called proof was bogus. Remember the Appellate Court's comments regarding serious "Daubert" issues with Taylor's testimony. Don't confuse pre-trial with trial testimony. I still have to chuckle that Taylor found no evidence of downward price pressure in those years, (take a guess) when beef demand was not in delcine.

The latter point is amusing for this reaosn. I believe what Taylor was really measuring in those other years where he claimed he had evidence of downward price pressure resulting from the misuse of marketing agreements was the demand erosion in beef. I would also submit that his analysis applied to years prior to marketing agreements when demand was in decline, 1980-1987 would yield the same results he claims were caused by the misuse of marketing agreements. In short, demand erosion was the real reason behind any price decline he claims to have detected, marketing agreements become the excuse.

On this issue we may just have to agree to disagree. I can assure you though that I have done many times more research per this subject than anyone on this forum. Enough said on this subject.

 

[Econ101]

Agman, do you feel that the requirement that Tyson had to be proven to not have a legitimate business reason for using forward contracts was reasonable considering the plaintiff's case was that forward contracts were being used as a tool for illegal purposes?

Yes, there are two points. First, are these contracts legal? Second, was the manner in which these contracts were used illegal?

On the first point the jury decided on their own that Tyson had no business purpose for using marketing agreements. There was NO testimony provided by the plaintiffs to support the jury finding. The facts remain that all the plaintiff's witnesses testified to the legitimate business use of these contracts. On what basis then did the jury conclude on their own, with NO supporting testimony ever at trial, that Tyson lacked a legitimate reason to the use such contracts?

On the second point, as I have pointed out many times, Taylor's so called proof was bogus. Remember the Appellate Court's comments regarding serious "Daubert" issues with Taylor's testimony. Don't confuse pre-trial with trial testimony. I still have to chuckle that Taylor found no evidence of downward price pressure in those years, (take a guess) when beef demand was not in delcine.

The latter point is amusing for this reaosn. I believe what Taylor was really measuring in those other years where he claimed he had evidence of downward price pressure resulting from the misuse of marketing agreements was the demand erosion in beef. I would also submit that his analysis applied to years prior to marketing agreements when demand was in decline, 1980-1987 would yield the same results he claims were caused by the misuse of marketing agreements. In short, demand erosion was the real reason behind any price decline he claims to have detected, marketing agreements become the excuse.

On this issue we may just have to agree to disagree. I can assure you though that I have done many times more research per this subject than anyone on this forum. Enough said on this subject.

On the first point, you mischaracterized the finding. The jury, after hearing that ALL supplies could be obtained through the cash market, made thier finding.

On the second point, Tyson failed to answer the question about their captive supply pay scale for the time periods so that they could be compared to the current purchases in the cash market. They failed to show that they were not discriminating against the cash market. The plaintiffs did show that they were discriminating against the cash market to the jury's (where it counts) satisfaction with evidence presented. This discrimination did, in fact, lower the price ALL cattlemen received for their cattle.

You ask the wrong questions, Agman. Go answer mine on the other topic rkaiser posted on government payouts to Cargill and Tyson.

Since people like you ask the wrong questions, Agman, maybe we should get some COMPETENT people analyzing data and asking the right questions. Your industry knowledge is great, but your ability to get economic answers is limited.

 

[agman]

Agman, do you feel that the requirement that Tyson had to be proven to not have a legitimate business reason for using forward contracts was reasonable considering the plaintiff's case was that forward contracts were being used as a tool for illegal purposes?

Yes, there are two points. First, are these contracts legal? Second, was the manner in which these contracts were used illegal?

On the first point the jury decided on their own that Tyson had no business purpose for using marketing agreements. There was NO testimony provided by the plaintiffs to support the jury finding. The facts remain that all the plaintiff's witnesses testified to the legitimate business use of these contracts. On what basis then did the jury conclude on their own, with NO supporting testimony ever at trial, that Tyson lacked a legitimate reason to the use such contracts?

On the second point, as I have pointed out many times, Taylor's so called proof was bogus. Remember the Appellate Court's comments regarding serious "Daubert" issues with Taylor's testimony. Don't confuse pre-trial with trial testimony. I still have to chuckle that Taylor found no evidence of downward price pressure in those years, (take a guess) when beef demand was not in delcine.

The latter point is amusing for this reaosn. I believe what Taylor was really measuring in those other years where he claimed he had evidence of downward price pressure resulting from the misuse of marketing agreements was the demand erosion in beef. I would also submit that his analysis applied to years prior to marketing agreements when demand was in decline, 1980-1987 would yield the same results he claims were caused by the misuse of marketing agreements. In short, demand erosion was the real reason behind any price decline he claims to have detected, marketing agreements become the excuse.

On this issue we may just have to agree to disagree. I can assure you though that I have done many times more research per this subject than anyone on this forum. Enough said on this subject.

On the first point, you mischaracterized the finding. The jury, after hearing that ALL supplies could be obtained through the cash market, made thier finding.

On the second point, Tyson failed to answer the question about their captive supply pay scale for the time periods so that they could be compared to the current purchases in the cash market. They failed to show that they were not discriminating against the cash market. The plaintiffs did show that they were discriminating against the cash market to the jury's (where it counts) satisfaction with evidence presented. This discrimination did, in fact, lower the price ALL cattlemen received for their cattle.

You ask the wrong questions, Agman. Go answer mine on the other topic rkaiser posted on government payouts to Cargill and Tyson.

Since people like you ask the wrong questions, Agman, maybe we should get some COMPETENT people analyzing data and asking the right questions. Your industry knowledge is great, but your ability to get economic answers is limited.

As if you would know.. that is a hoot.

 

[Econ101]

Packer backer--If you can't answer, act like an owl.

 

[agman]

Packer backer--If you can't answer, act like an owl.

I can answer and I already have. You are neither smart enough nor knowledgeable enough to understand as you look through your rose colored glasses of conspiracy at an industry you repeatedly demonstrate you now very little if anything about. Are rose colored glasses a perk of tenure or are they a prerequisite of believing your phone is tapped?!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Econ101]

Packer backer--If you can't answer, act like an owl.

I can answer and I already have. You are neither smart enough nor knowledgeable enough to understand as you look through your rose colored glasses of conspiracy at an industry you repeatedly demonstrate you now very little if anything about. Are rose colored glasses a perk of tenure or are they a prerequisite of believing your phone is tapped?!!!!!!!!!!!

So what is it with you, Agman, are you:

1) Not intelligent enough to ask the right questions,

2) A packer masquerading as a non-invested party

3) A USDA or Land Grant University Professor who does not have any balls?

There are some more possiblities and you might share the right one.

 

[Anonymous]

More diversionary tactics from the poor little factually defenseless washed up professor.

If you had any balls, you would take a statement made by either Agman or myself and provide facts to the contrary. Since you cannot do that, you make your meaningless little statements instead and delve off into nothingness.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Agman and SH, Here is a question for you:

Do you even believe that discrimination (not whether or not it occurred) against the cash market supresses prices and can be mathematically shown?

 

[Anonymous]

You want a deal?

Start answering my questions and I'll start answering yours. Let's get something straight right now, I won't be Sandhuskered by anyone anymore.

Do you believe dropping your price as your needs are met is discrimination?

Yes or no!

I don't!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

You want a deal?

Start answering my questions and I'll start answering yours. Let's get something straight right now, I won't be Sandhuskered by anyone anymore.

Do you believe dropping your price as your needs are met is discrimination?

Yes or no!

I don't!


~SH~

It depends. Do you want to go into this discussion? Start another thread and we will do it right. No name calling or ranting. Just working it through reasoning. You can agree to disagree on any point.

Do you agree?

 

[Anonymous]

"That depends" is not an answer without an explanation.

You want to start a single thread and debate these issues that's fine. You start into your divertionary discrediting empty statements and we'll end up in the gutter again. At some point you are going to have to back your position with more than opinion and theory. You want to start a new thread on your THEORIES on "price discrimination" in Pickett and the issue of whether Pickett was justified in charging damages higher than ibp's total profits, lets do it. If it comes from the standpoint of supporting your position with facts, the debate should end rather quickly.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

"That depends" is not an answer without an explanation.

You want to start a single thread and debate these issues that's fine. You start into your divertionary discrediting empty statements and we'll end up in the gutter again. At some point you are going to have to back your position with more than opinion and theory. You want to start a new thread on your THEORIES on "price discrimination" in Pickett and the issue of whether Pickett was justified in charging damages higher than ibp's total profits, lets do it. If it comes from the standpoint of supporting your position with facts, the debate should end rather quickly.


~SH~

Do you agree to the rules I have so far posted and do you want to add any or chose a moderator?

 

[agman]

Agman and SH, Here is a question for you:

Do you even believe that discrimination (not whether or not it occurred) against the cash market supresses prices and can be mathematically shown?

Discrimination in the cash market can exist and is protected under the Robinson-Patman Act. Recent Case law: Gilckman vs IBP

There are people who are smart enough to see that laws also protect a businesses right to secure supplies. Thus, that protection is written into the Robinson-Patman Act which I believe is an extension of the Clayton Anti-Trust Act.

In a static plane your position would have merit and no argument from me. However, business does not operate in that ideal element or classroom environment. Per the packing industry plant requirements differ, end user needs differ, grade and yields differ, red meat yields differ, and regional supplies are not static and vary by season. These are but a few reasons for price discrimination to exist. Text book theory just does not cut in the real world; so much for intelligence versus knowledge.

 

[Econ101]

Agman and SH, Here is a question for you:

Do you even believe that discrimination (not whether or not it occurred) against the cash market supresses prices and can be mathematically shown?

Discrimination in the cash market can exist and is protected under the Robinson-Patman Act. Recent Case law: Gilckman vs IBP

There are people who are smart enough to see that laws also protect a businesses right to secure supplies. Thus, that protection is written into the Robinson-Patman Act which I believe is an extension of the Clayton Anti-Trust Act.

In a static plane your position would have merit and no argument from me. However, business does not operate in that ideal element or classroom environment. Per the packing industry plant requirements differ, end user needs differ, grade and yields differ, red meat yields differ, and regional supplies are not static and vary by season. These are but a few reasons for price discrimination to exist. Text book theory just does not cut in the real world; so much for intelligence versus knowledge.

Agman, I have always contended that discrimination for what reason is the question. Discrimination based on strategic price manipulation and not meat characteristics is abuse of market power. Evidence of that being the case is what was needed. Pickett attorneys asked the right questions, Tyson answered (reportedly) with silence and then claimed that lack of evidence was enough to get out of the jury's decision.

It was and is a real problem that the economists at the USDA did not adequately require the type of reporting that would have made the determination of this possible fraud easy. What in the world are they getting paid for up there in D.C. if they can not ask the right questions? This is the real failure of the whole case and it points to the incompetence or corruption of the regulatory agencies.

So much for intelligence vs. knowledge. I can guess who you work for. From your viewpoint was it incompetence or corruption on the part of the USDA? I am sure JoAnn Waterfield knew the right questions to ask. Why did GIPSA not use its regulatory authority to get the right answers on a timely basis instead of making Grassley's efforts to get at the truth mute?

You know these are some of the issues regarding the manditory price reporting review now being done on the hill. If the USDA can't ask the right questions, maybe they should admit failure and resign. Maybe you could join SH on his propaganda machine as you seem to be part of its backbone. Don't let the revolving door hit you in the butt as it has for so many at the department.

 

[S.S.A.P.]

Econ101: simple question for you. With over 400 posts to your credit saying you know there was manipulation and that you can ask the right questions (and have access to "moles") .... why haven't you (possibly joined by others who believe the same) filed your own case against "X" packers?