"en banc" hearing denied in Pickett case

[Econ101]

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?

In time, maybe.

In my opinion, our legal system is one of the most inefficient ways of getting justice. Sometimes it is more beneficial for all to come to agreements outside of that system. The best scenario is for market participants not to indulge in these market plays. The next best scenario is that the regulatory agencies themselves catch them and make them stop and pay restitition. The next is legal (which may be compromised at too far of an extent) and that could ruin the current packers. I think you have to go down from the best to the worst scenario and that takes time. Pickett is at the last scenario and r-calf is playing with that one as well as working on the underlying political structure of the frauds being committed to producers. Over time the issues will be resolved. They always are. We are seeing some of the political spillover of some of these frauds now. It will only get worse until it is corrected. The question is, at what cost.

Obviously the U.S. has lost a lot of credibility in the world. I supported the war but think it was mismanaged at best and at worse it was used as a piggy bank and money generating apparatus for the current power structure. Things will correct themselves or we all lose. The longer they go on, the worse it gets. I am for the quick scenario 2 before too much damage occurs but it is not happening. Too many revolving door people with a bias. It is just going to mean more harm to them when it does happen.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten,

If there was anything of substance in your last post, could you point it out? It looked as empty to me as all of the rest of your posts. Oh wait, here's something:

Kindergarten: "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."

You are right for once. Evidence was needed but it was not provided.

Dropping your price as your needs are met is not price discrimination or abuse of market power. It's a normal function of supply and demand.

If you had any evidence to prove market manipulation, you would provide it. You have none so you provide none.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten,

If there was anything of substance in your last post, could you point it out? It looked as empty to me as all of the rest of your posts. Oh wait, here's something:

Kindergarten: "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."

You are right for once. Evidence was needed but it was not provided.

Dropping your price as your needs are met is not price discrimination or abuse of market power. It's a normal function of supply and demand.

If you had any evidence to prove market manipulation, you would provide it. You have none so you provide none.


~SH~

Just because you disagreed with the evidence does not mean it was not there. It was not your determination. 12 people were to determine those answers. Do you want to start another string?

 

[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.

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 to determine. 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.

What happened to your absolute facts regarding discrimination? Per your comment "possible fraud easy to determine." Getting cold feet already as intelligence runs head-on into knowledge. "Possible" is quite a departure from your previous position of absolutism!!!!

The less knowledgeable one is the more likely one is entangled in conspiracy theories. Does "conspiracy theories" sound familiar to you? With all your posts you have yet to post anything factual.

 

[agman]

Kindergarten,

If there was anything of substance in your last post, could you point it out? It looked as empty to me as all of the rest of your posts. Oh wait, here's something:

Kindergarten: "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."

You are right for once. Evidence was needed but it was not provided.

Dropping your price as your needs are met is not price discrimination or abuse of market power. It's a normal function of supply and demand.

If you had any evidence to prove market manipulation, you would provide it. You have none so you provide none.


~SH~

Just because you disagreed with the evidence does not mean it was not there. It was not your determination. 12 people were to determine those answers. Do you want to start another string?

If those 12 people did not understand the testimony are we still to believe their decision. Court precedent does allow for this event and allows the judge to void such a misguided verdict. The justice system was efficient in sifting fact from fiction. That was the conclusion of many judges, not just the presiding judge.

You are arguing like the kid who lost the football game and still contends he won. The verdict is in and it is unanimous-the Pickett case lost on all counts. The game is over-get over it.

 

[Tommy]

agman...The game is over-get over it.



Hey agman, tell that to Scott too.

 

[Sandhusker]

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 is not a case of dropping prices as needs are met. It is a case of prices being manipulated lower via agreements between a small person who has no power to manipulate and a large power who can manipulate.

These agreements are between two entities -a buyer and a seller. That seems equal, but upon further examination, is not. The price paid depends on what the buyer buys other cattler for - not what the seller sells other cattle for. If you can't see the one-sided advantage here, you've got to be wearing lead blinders.

 

[agman]

agman...The game is over-get over it.



Hey agman, tell that to Scott too.

Why don't you tell him yourself?

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten Economics: "Just because you disagreed with the evidence does not mean it was not there."

Just because you want to believe the evidence was there does not mean it was there.

If it was there, you would provide it. You provided nothing opting to "CREATE THE ILLUSION" instead.

Sandparasite: "It is not a case of dropping prices as needs are met. It is a case of prices being manipulated lower via agreements between a small person who has no power to manipulate and a large power who can manipulate.

These agreements are between two entities -a buyer and a seller. That seems equal, but upon further examination, is not. The price paid depends on what the buyer buys other cattler for - not what the seller sells other cattle for. If you can't see the one-sided advantage here, you've got to be wearing lead blinders."

It is a case of dropping your price as your needs are met and you will fail miserably to prove otherwise.

Yours is nothing more than an EMPTY theory.

The defense said it and the plaintiff's misinterpreted it, "as the captive supply numbers go up, the price goes down". Translation: As ibp fulfills their needs with captive supply cattle, the price they are willing to pay in the cash market will go down. COMMON SENSE!

You have no proof of market manipulation, that's just something your little packer blaming mind wants to believe.


Now where's the proof you had that Lakeside made more money while the border was closed than Pasco and Boise lost? Come up with anything yet or are you waiting to critique again? LOL! You are such a joke!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten Economics: "Just because you disagreed with the evidence does not mean it was not there."

Just because you want to believe the evidence was there does not mean it was there.

If it was there, you would provide it. You provided nothing opting to "CREATE THE ILLUSION" instead.

Sandparasite: "It is not a case of dropping prices as needs are met. It is a case of prices being manipulated lower via agreements between a small person who has no power to manipulate and a large power who can manipulate.

These agreements are between two entities -a buyer and a seller. That seems equal, but upon further examination, is not. The price paid depends on what the buyer buys other cattler for - not what the seller sells other cattle for. If you can't see the one-sided advantage here, you've got to be wearing lead blinders."

It is a case of dropping your price as your needs are met and you will fail miserably to prove otherwise.

Yours is nothing more than an EMPTY theory.

The defense said it and the plaintiff's misinterpreted it, "as the captive supply numbers go up, the price goes down". Translation: As ibp fulfills their needs with captive supply cattle, the price they are willing to pay in the cash market will go down. COMMON SENSE!

You have no proof of market manipulation, that's just something your little packer blaming mind wants to believe.


Now where's the proof you had that Lakeside made more money while the border was closed than Pasco and Boise lost? Come up with anything yet or are you waiting to critique again? LOL! You are such a joke!


~SH~

SH,

You don't know what evidence they used to base their decision, do you? You just made it up.

All of your arguments have been used before by different industries trying to do the same thing. They are just excuses to use market power, which is outlawed. Economically the exertion of market power creates deadweight losses for an economy. You only have to look south of Texas to understand what this does to an economy.

The EVIDENCE does not need to be presented to you; you would not accept it anyway. You get all of the logic wrong in framing the case which I continuously point out. Evidence could not be presented on this Ranchers.net forum if I wanted to anyway.

You need to stop all this "evidence" crap as it is just a diversion from the logical discussions that can be had in this type of forum.

You would sell away our free market capitalistic system for personal gain of an industry. Sell away, I am not buying it. Neither should anyone else. We are coming to the end of our string here in the "free" world when we allow companies to interpret law that are written to reign in their power. You have been a hypocrite with your "socialism" arguments, and your "cash market always follows boxed beef argument", and you just plain don't understand economics or the rule of law. You applaud rulings over 12 citizens with these empty arguments in favor of an elite set of judges who bow to political pressure applied by those taking bribes in the form of campaign contributions.

All of this has been documented on this forum and mostly through your own hand. I am sure this is just a glimpse of what the jury was able to see in coming to their conclusions when considering these issues.

I call you a fascist puppet, not to just call you a name, but because of your own actions in supporting such self serving interests that you would sell out our economy to corporation's power and control.

Jason, read history. This has all happened before and history is repeating itself. It was the Republican Party back then as it is now. I have posted where the Democrats have the same issues too.

Do you want to take ONE issue at a time and stay on that ONE topic without name calling or ARE YOU SCARED?

 

[Econ101]

Agman:What happened to your absolute facts regarding discrimination? Per your comment "possible fraud easy to determine." Getting cold feet already as intelligence runs head-on into knowledge. "Possible" is quite a departure from your previous position of absolutism!!!!

The less knowledgeable one is the more likely one is entangled in conspiracy theories. Does "conspiracy theories" sound familiar to you? With all your posts you have yet to post anything factual.

I said possible, because the facts of each case are different. The jury believed the evidence that Pickett brought up was credible and met the test enough to award a 1.29 billion dollar verdict. The overseeing judges did not dispute ANY of this evidence specifically in their briefs. They just made up a new standard.

You asked me if I thought the judges knew more about the law than the jury. It is obvious that they can not tell the difference between an "and" and an "or". I think that shows their judicial intelligence and their willingness to not be impartial and not apply the law literally. They obviously are so full of themselves that they think they can change it on their own without a legislative process. Then they did it in their brief!!! It is amazing that the 11th circuit allows this to stand. It shows their jurisprudence or lack thereof.

As you know, I do not believe in absolutism as I do not believe words can adequately contain all truth. Words can describe truth, but they can not totally encompass it. It is the limitation of the connotations of words that creates this problem. Different words mean different things to people as SH continuously ILLUSTRATES in his arguments. I think it is kind of funny that you and SH continue to be the self proclaimed "authorities" on truth while I maintain that in America it is 12 independent jurors hold that distinction. Again, I will agree with you here, absolutism does not apply. If the judicial process does show that there is doubt to the 12 jurors decision, they must show that with more than a "mere scintilla" of evidence. That was not done in the appellate briefs.

The problem with saying someone has "conspiracy theories" is that sometimes there is a conspiracy. Whether these judicial decisions are conspiracies or just plain incompetence, I agree, should be looked into.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "The EVIDENCE does not need to be presented to you; you would not accept it anyway. You get all of the logic wrong in framing the case which I continuously point out. Evidence could not be presented on this Ranchers.net forum if I wanted to anyway.

You need to stop all this "evidence" crap as it is just a diversion from the logical discussions that can be had in this type of forum."

Hahaha! HOW CONVENIENT! Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. That says everything about you.

Of course you don't want to deal in hard facts and evidence. Doing so would expose your bullsh*t theories and opinions for what they really are.

It's conspiracy theorists like you that want to destroy the free enterprise system because you don't think anyone can be successful and profitable without screwing someone else. A typical blamer. If you can't be successful it must be the fault of someone that is.

If packers are making so much money, that opens the door for a more efficient packing company. You think industry concentration is unique to the packing industry? Look around you. Most industries are concentrated.

All you do on this forum is present a bunch of mindless drivel opinions that have no basis in fact and discredit anyone who does deal in facts. You can't answer a question and you are continually corrected on misinformation. You're simply too arrogant to realize how foolish you really are.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten: "The EVIDENCE does not need to be presented to you; you would not accept it anyway. You get all of the logic wrong in framing the case which I continuously point out. Evidence could not be presented on this Ranchers.net forum if I wanted to anyway.

You need to stop all this "evidence" crap as it is just a diversion from the logical discussions that can be had in this type of forum."

Hahaha! HOW CONVENIENT! Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. That says everything about you.

Of course you don't want to deal in hard facts and evidence. Doing so would expose your bullsh*t theories and opinions for what they really are.

It's conspiracy theorists like you that want to destroy the free enterprise system because you don't think anyone can be successful and profitable without screwing someone else. A typical blamer. If you can't be successful it must be the fault of someone that is.

If packers are making so much money, that opens the door for a more efficient packing company. You think industry concentration is unique to the packing industry? Look around you. Most industries are concentrated.

All you do on this forum is present a bunch of mindless drivel opinions that have no basis in fact and discredit anyone who does deal in facts. You can't answer a question and you are continually corrected on misinformation. You're simply too arrogant to realize how foolish you really are.


~SH~

You rant and rave and do the exact thing you accuse me of in this ranting and raving in this post. Can we stop this and start discussing the issues? Facts, evidence, and judgements are to be left up to juries here in the U.S.

If you have arguments and information to support your arguments then present them. If you want everyone to prove to you things you should have learned already or want to divert with your rantings and name calling go ahead. You already have a "proof" thing that you lost with Sandhusker.

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "Facts, evidence, and judgements are to be left up to juries here in the U.S."

Facts, evidence, and judgement are key to any debate. A debate on opinions without the facts to support those opinions is worthless. Of course simply presenting an opinion without supporting facts is far more comfortable for someone like you who has no facts to support his opinion.

I understand completely!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten: "Facts, evidence, and judgements are to be left up to juries here in the U.S."

Facts, evidence, and judgement are key to any debate. A debate on opinions without the facts to support those opinions is worthless. Of course simply presenting an opinion without supporting facts is far more comfortable for someone like you who has no facts to support his opinion.

I understand completely!


~SH~

AND YOU HAVE PROVEN WITH THE SANDHUSKER BET AND A $100.00 CONTRIBUTION TO R-CALF THAT YOU CAN NOT DELIVER THEM!!!

 

[Anonymous]

Kindergarten: "AND YOU HAVE PROVEN WITH THE SANDHUSKER BET AND A $100.00 CONTRIBUTION TO R-CALF THAT YOU CAN NOT DELIVER THEM!!!"

DID SANDMAN PROVE ME WRONG ON CALENDAR YEAR 2004??? Hell no, I proved myself wrong and willingly admitted it because you clowns never bring anything to the table to support your positions. I can even admit being wrong WHEN I PROVE MYSELF WRONG. In contrast, when you are wrong, which is always, you continue to pretend that you were right.

YOU CLOWNS HAD TO RELY ON MY INTEGRITY TO WIN A BET YOU CONTRIBUTED NOTHING TO. LOL! Sandman thanks Agman for his honesty to win the bet and says nothing about Agman's comment regarding my orignal statement but you'll take what you can get right? Talk about pathetic!

Considering your desperation to discredit me, I know how much that bet meant to you folks. How funny that I had to prove myself wrong because you guys couldn't bring anything to the table. You don't have the same level of integrity that you expect from others.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Kindergarten: "AND YOU HAVE PROVEN WITH THE SANDHUSKER BET AND A $100.00 CONTRIBUTION TO R-CALF THAT YOU CAN NOT DELIVER THEM!!!"

DID SANDMAN PROVE ME WRONG ON CALENDAR YEAR 2004??? Hell no, I proved myself wrong and willingly admitted it because you clowns never bring anything to the table to support your positions. I can even admit being wrong WHEN I PROVE MYSELF WRONG. In contrast, when you are wrong, which is always, you continue to pretend that you were right.

YOU CLOWNS HAD TO RELY ON MY INTEGRITY TO WIN A BET YOU CONTRIBUTED NOTHING TO. LOL! Sandman thanks Agman for his honesty to win the bet and says nothing about Agman's comment regarding my orignal statement but you'll take what you can get right? Talk about pathetic!

Considering your desperation to discredit me, I know how much that bet meant to you folks. How funny that I had to prove myself wrong because you guys couldn't bring anything to the table. You don't have the same level of integrity that you expect from others.


~SH~

Integrity????? I am not desperate to discredit you. You have shown everyone that you are quite capable of trapping yourself in that regard.

 

[Anonymous]

There is a big difference between you and I Kindergarten. I admit when I am wrong EVEN WHEN I PROVE MYSELF WRONG because my MO is factual information. You, on the other hand, are wrong continually yet arrogantly pretend to be right or change your story. That is the difference between you and I.

DENY, DISCREDIT, DIVERT, AND DECIEVE! That's your MO. The MO of a typical blamer.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

There is a big difference between you and I Kindergarten. I admit when I am wrong EVEN WHEN I PROVE MYSELF WRONG because my MO is factual information. You, on the other hand, are wrong continually yet arrogantly pretend to be right or change your story. That is the difference between you and I.

DENY, DISCREDIT, DIVERT, AND DECIEVE! That's your MO. The MO of a typical blamer.



~SH~

Resorting to name calling? My 4 year old puts on a tantrum from time to time too, SH. Her modus operendi is to cry a little. I see you just blow hot air. Can we stick to logic instead of this name calling and opinionated garbage?

I look forward to seeing your next post.

 

[Anonymous]

How could you identify "opinionated garbage" when that's what your entire posts are? You've never backed anything with supporting facts.


~SH~