Gipsa Vs. Farmland Beef

[Mike]

GIPSA Charges Farmland National Beef Packing Company, L.P. Violated Packers And Stockyards Act


WASHINGTON, July 21, 1999 -- USDA's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration has filed a complaint against Farmland National Beef Packing Company, L.P., Liberal, Kansas, alleging that the company violated the Packers and Stockyards Act.


The complaint alleges that Farmland changed its bidding and buying practices at Callicrate Cattle Company Feedyard, St. Francis, Kansas. The complaint says Farmland failed to make bids on or purchase cattle from Callicrate Feedyard after an article critical of Farmland written by Callicrate Feedyard's sales manager was published in a livestock journal. The complaint further alleges that by failing to make bids on or purchase cattle from Callicrate Feedyard, Farmland engaged in an unfair and possibly unjustly discriminatory practice and subjected Callicrate Feedyard to an undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.


"The filing of this complaint is indicative of USDA's commitment to monitor livestock markets and insure competitive transactions for producers," said Michael V. Dunn, under secretary for marketing and regulatory programs.


According to the complaint, Farmland failed to make bids on or purchase cattle from Callicrate Feedyard, while routinely making bids on and purchasing cattle from other similarly situated feedyards located in the same geographic area as Callicrate Feedyard. The complaint states that Farmland failed to make bids on or purchase any cattle from Callicrate Feedyard for the sale weeks beginning December 21, 1998, through June 21, 1999, with the exception of the sale weeks of March 8, 1999, through March 22, 1999.


"Our job is to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act," said GIPSA's Administrator James Baker. "This case goes to the heart of the concerns that every small- and medium-sized producer has about possible retaliation, discrimination and denial of market access in the livestock industry."


The complaint was filed with the office of USDA's hearing clerk. Farmland will have an opportunity to respond to the complaint and request an oral hearing before an administrative law judge.


GIPSA continues to conduct investigations into possible discriminatory activities or other non-competitive practices. The agency's Packers and Stockyards program recently was restructured to enhance USDA's ability to monitor and investigate livestock transactions.


GIPSA has a toll-free hotline for complaints about unfair trade practices and possible violations of the Packers and Stockyards Act. The hotline number is 1-800-998-3447.


GIPSA News Release Farmland 7


CONTACT: Warren Preston (202) 690-3196

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

From what I understand, this case was settled by Gipsa with Farmland paying $95,000.00 to the U.S. Dept of Treasury for the infraction.

No restitution and Farmland admitting no wrongdoing.

Is this true?

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Why would you do business with some one that's bad mouthing you.And why would Callicrate expect them to after that.

 

[Econ101]

So you are supporting a move that tries to silence free speech, BMR? Be careful, you may find yourself in the same position, if you are not there already.

 

[Econ101]

The biggest fraud with how GIPSA handleled this deal was in the restitution.

GIPSA was pretty much forced to do something, and that is the reported fine. The problem was in GIPSA not finishing their investigation and finding what economic damage was done to the market and its participants.

Every GIPSA investigation should contain as part of the investigation the economic damage that has been done by the actions of those being investigated so that damage can be corrected. That was one part that was missing from JoAnn's handling of Mike Callicrate's claim. JoAnn simply sold the damages to the market participants for a relatively small fine. There was no justice administered and the damage was allowed to stand. JoAnn single handedly sold out the damage to the market participants with her manuvering. She made sure that crimes against producers still has dividends to those with market power exercising those crimes. It has been her MO and GIPSA's as well.

 

[agman]

The biggest fraud with how GIPSA handleled this deal was in the restitution.

GIPSA was pretty much forced to do something, and that is the reported fine. The problem was in GIPSA not finishing their investigation and finding what economic damage was done to the market and its participants.

Every GIPSA investigation should contain as part of the investigation the economic damage that has been done by the actions of those being investigated so that damage can be corrected. That was one part that was missing from JoAnn's handling of Mike Callicrate's claim. JoAnn simply sold the damages to the market participants for a relatively small fine. There was no justice administered and the damage was allowed to stand. JoAnn single handedly sold out the damage to the market participants with her manuvering. She made sure that crimes against producers still has dividends to those with market power exercising those crimes. It has been her MO and GIPSA's as well.

What facts do you have to support your accusations per this case? I expect none as ususal-just alot of false rhetoric again.

 

[Econ101]

The biggest fraud with how GIPSA handleled this deal was in the restitution.

GIPSA was pretty much forced to do something, and that is the reported fine. The problem was in GIPSA not finishing their investigation and finding what economic damage was done to the market and its participants.

Every GIPSA investigation should contain as part of the investigation the economic damage that has been done by the actions of those being investigated so that damage can be corrected. That was one part that was missing from JoAnn's handling of Mike Callicrate's claim. JoAnn simply sold the damages to the market participants for a relatively small fine. There was no justice administered and the damage was allowed to stand. JoAnn single handedly sold out the damage to the market participants with her manuvering. She made sure that crimes against producers still has dividends to those with market power exercising those crimes. It has been her MO and GIPSA's as well.

What facts do you have to support your accusations per this case? I expect none as ususal-just alot of false rhetoric again.

Which accusations, Agman?

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

So you are supporting a move that tries to silence free speech, BMR? Be careful, you may find yourself in the same position, if you are not there already.

What do you mean silence Free Speech? If I was in the market for a Charolais bull and Mike had run me down about something on ranchers do you think I would look him up to buy a bull. If a feeder is free to buy his cattle where he wants why should a packer not have the same option. I can't phone up Calicrates feedlot and tell them they have to bid on my cattle.

 

[Econ101]

So you are supporting a move that tries to silence free speech, BMR? Be careful, you may find yourself in the same position, if you are not there already.

What do you mean silence Free Speech? If I was in the market for a Charolais bull and Mike had run me down about something on ranchers do you think I would look him up to buy a bull. If a feeder is free to buy his cattle where he wants why should a packer not have the same option. I can't phone up Calicrates feedlot and tell them they have to bid on my cattle.

Because they have market power and you don't.

If you only had one auction barn, or a bunch of auction barns that were tied together somehow, and they were cheating farmers left and right and only you knew it because it was a little complicated, what could you do? You could "bad mouth" them all you wanted but you couldn't sell anywhere else. They would have you over the proverbial barrel. So, in essence, your speaking out against them would cost you the livelihood you cherish. You would never be able to tell how anyone how they were cheating people or they would ruin you financially. They could cheat you down to where they made all the money in the business and you made none.

If Mike was out selling bulls, and he bad mouthed you, you could go out and buy a different kind of bull or a charolais from a different breeder. Mike would not be able to control you with his market power like the packer in the above situation could.

There is a big difference here. That is why the PSA gives these protections.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

So you are supporting a move that tries to silence free speech, BMR? Be careful, you may find yourself in the same position, if you are not there already.

What do you mean silence Free Speech? If I was in the market for a Charolais bull and Mike had run me down about something on ranchers do you think I would look him up to buy a bull. If a feeder is free to buy his cattle where he wants why should a packer not have the same option. I can't phone up Calicrates feedlot and tell them they have to bid on my cattle.

Because they have market power and you don't.

If you only had one auction barn, or a bunch of auction barns that were tied together somehow, and they were cheating farmers left and right and only you knew it because it was a little complicate, what could you do? You could "bad mouth" them all you wanted but you couldn't sell anywhere else. They would have you over the proverbial barrel. So, in essence, your speaking out against them would cost you the livelihood you cherish. You would never be able to tell how anyone how they were cheating people or they would ruin you financially. They could cheat you down to where they made all the money in the business and you made none.

If Mike was out selling bulls, and he bad mouthed you, you could go out and buy a different kind of bull or a charolais from a different breeder. Mike would not be able to control you with his market power like the packer in the above situation could.

There is a big difference here. That is why the PSA gives these protections.

Is Farmland the only packer or did he bad mouth them all?

 

[Econ101]

What do you mean silence Free Speech? If I was in the market for a Charolais bull and Mike had run me down about something on ranchers do you think I would look him up to buy a bull. If a feeder is free to buy his cattle where he wants why should a packer not have the same option. I can't phone up Calicrates feedlot and tell them they have to bid on my cattle.

Because they have market power and you don't.

If you only had one auction barn, or a bunch of auction barns that were tied together somehow, and they were cheating farmers left and right and only you knew it because it was a little complicate, what could you do? You could "bad mouth" them all you wanted but you couldn't sell anywhere else. They would have you over the proverbial barrel. So, in essence, your speaking out against them would cost you the livelihood you cherish. You would never be able to tell how anyone how they were cheating people or they would ruin you financially. They could cheat you down to where they made all the money in the business and you made none.

If Mike was out selling bulls, and he bad mouthed you, you could go out and buy a different kind of bull or a charolais from a different breeder. Mike would not be able to control you with his market power like the packer in the above situation could.

There is a big difference here. That is why the PSA gives these protections.

Is Farmland the only packer or did he bad mouth them all?

I have no idea what his market was. The fact remains that the actions they took against him were illegal and a fine resulted from it. The problem was that the fine was not paid to the one harmed and there was no economic analysis of how it may have harmed the market.

Why don't you research and post what he said about farmland that caused the ruckus in the first place.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Tue, Dec. 17, 2002

Feedlot owner files lawsuit against KC-based meat packer
By ERIC PALMER
The Kansas City Star

Kansas City-based Farmland National Beef used its market power to punish a small Kansas cattle feeder that publicly criticized the giant meat packing operation, according to a lawsuit filed in Kansas City.

The lawsuit in U.S. District Court alleges Farmland National Beef quit buying cattle from Callicrate Feedyards in St. Francis, Kan., because Mike Callicrate publicly criticized Farmland and other large meat packers for having too much market power.

The lawsuit seeks actual damages of $5,345,000, as well as punitive damages and attorney's fees.
Callicrate's lawsuit is similar to a complaint filed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture against National Beef in 1999. The USDA alleged National Beef used its market muscle to retaliate against Callicrate. The USDA dropped that complaint last year after National Beef agreed to repay the government the cost of the investigation.

That administrative action did not keep Farmland from continuing to refuse to buy cattle from him at competitive prices, Callicrate said. The result, he said, is that he must now close his feed yard.
"None of the meat packers will buy from me," Callicrate said. "I have already let 12 people go that worked in the feed yard."

John Miller, chief executive of Farmland National Beef, said Callicrate's lawsuit was without merit.
"National Beef's conduct with respect to Mr. Callicrate has always been fair and lawful," Miller said in a prepared statement.

Miller said that when Farmland National Beef settled the complaint with the USDA, the agency's order found that National Beef was not required to buy from any particular producer.
"National Beef owes an obligation to its customers and owners to buy the highest-quality cattle at the lowest possible price," Miller said.

Farmland National Beef is a partnership of Kansas City-based Farmland Industries Inc. and U.S. Premium Beef Ltd. It operates beef processing plants in Dodge City and Liberal, Kan.
Farmland Industries, the country's largest farmer-owned cooperative, has been operating under bankruptcy court protection since May 31. But the National Beef partnership is not part of the bankruptcy proceedings.

Callicrate has been an active critic of the consolidation in the meat processing industry, which has concentrated about 80 percent of that business in the hands of four major companies. Farmland National Beef is the country's fourth-largest beef processing company.

The lawsuit points out Callicrate was a plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit against meat packer IBP for allegedly uncompetitive practices at the time Farmland began its boycott.

Callicrate said Farmland National Beef has the closest meat processing plant to his feed yard and does most of the cattle buying in the area. The company was his main customer for 12 years before it essentially stopped buying from him in 1998 after he and an employee spoke out against the prices National Beef was offering to cattle ranchers who sold direct to the company.

The new lawsuit alleges National Beef violated the Packers & Stockyards Act of 1921 and the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. The suit says both acts forbid retaliating against a critic, boycotting a cattle feeder and engaging in any act or practice to promote a monopoly "including a local or regional monopoly."

The fact the federal government settled the USDA complaint without a finding of fault does not preclude Callicrate from filing his own action, said David Domina, the Omaha, Neb., attorney who filed the suit.

Callicrate believes there has been no political will for years to enforce federal laws against anti-competitive practices in the meat industry.

"This is why other people won't speak out," Callicrate said. "As result we are going to lose our markets and our domestic cattle industry. So much for free speech."

The home of the Brave and the Land of the Free. Unless you are meat packer then you have to buy from you detractors.

 

[Econ101]

Sounds like there is some collusion in there if the other packers would not buy from him also. Here is the operative part of the PSA, which I have posted many times that addresses these issues:

Sec. 202 (3) It shall be unlawful for any packer with respect to livestock, meats, meat food products, or livestock products in unmanufactured form, or for any live poultry dealer with respect to live poultry, to:

(a) Engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive practice or device; or

(b) Make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person or locality in any respect whatsoever, or subject any particular person or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever; or

(c) Sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other packer or any live poultry dealer, or buy or otherwise receive from or for any other packer or any live poultry dealer, any article for the purpose or with the effect of apportioning the supply between any such persons, if such apportionment has the tendency or effect of restraining commerce or of creating a monopoly; or

(d) Sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other person, or buy or otherwise receive from or for any other person, any article for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, or of restraining commerce; or

(e) Engage in any course of business or do any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, or of restraining commerce; or

(f) Conspire, combine, agree, or arrange, with any other person (1) to apportion territory for carrying on business, or (2) to apportion purchases or sales of any article, or (3) to manipulate or control prices; or

(g) Conspire, combine, agree or arrange with any other person to do, or aid or abet the doing of, any act made unlawful by subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e). (7 U.S.C. 192)

It looks like GIPSA did not go the full mile with respect to Mike's claim. If I am not mistaken, JoAnn Waterfield was the attorney in the USDA that handled this case. Seems funny the USDA would promote someone who would not go the full route to justice in legal cases to head the department.

This has been the problem at GIPSA. They are a fake agency, only doing what they have to do to make it look like they are not fake. I think things finally caught up with JoAnn. I am sure her advancement was part of the reason the republican party recieved so much money from agribusiness and why some of the people in the senate and house were rewarded with the contributions that Public Citizen unveiled.

Seems like we have the best regulatory agencies money can buy. Maybe producers should sniff out this fraud a little deeper. I don't see how packers can discriminate against you when you catch them red handed or critisize them for what is happening. This case would never have had a fine if that was not the case. MRJ, are you on board or do you want to do a little packer cheerleading here?

Thanks, BMR for posting this.

I will remind you that the words "whatsoever" were taken out for a 5 year span in 1999, I think, by the Clinton adminstration. It was one of the "rewards" given to Tyson and others in agribusiness for their patronage.

 

[PORKER]

d) Sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other person, or buy or otherwise receive from or for any other person, any article for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, or of restraining commerce; or

(e) Engage in any course of business or do any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, or of restraining commerce; or

(f) Conspire, combine, agree, or arrange, with any other person (1) to apportion territory for carrying on business, or (2) to apportion purchases or sales of any article, or (3) to manipulate or control prices; or

(g) Conspire, combine, agree or arrange with any other person to do, or aid or abet the doing of, any act made unlawful by subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e). (7 U.S.C. 192)

YUP,,,,This has been the problem at GIPSA. They are a fake agency, only doing what they have to do to make it look like they are not fake. I think things finally caught up with JoAnn and cohorts.

 

[Econ101]

Letting JoAnn off the hook is just to protect others that could be implicated in her fraudulent handling of the agency. The people who let her off scott free are the first to look at. If you don't look into the structural problems at the agency that allowed this to happen and deal with them, you are not really interested in correcting the problem.

MRJ, what is the NCBA stance on letting JoAnn off the hook?

 

[pointrider]

Well, I guess the math was too tough for Econ. Ha! Just kidding. Econ just does not want to go there. So, let me do it for you, Econ, so I can get on with this subject.

Let's use a ballpark figure of 30 million exposed cows in the U.S. during the 9 years of "manipulated markets." And, just to make the number a little higher, let's say that the average size cow herd during those years was 150 exposed cows. (I believe the actual number was 100 or less.)

$233 million in "damages" per year divided by 30 million cows calculates out to $7.78 per head per year. $7.78 x 150 cows = $1,167 per herd per year.

Here's my question. Considering today's cost of living in the U.S. and things like that, how many operations that went out of business during those 9 years (there were a lot) would not have gone out of business if they had had another $1,167 each year?

The answer, in my opinion, is "maybe a small percentage." A little extra money perhaps would have caused a slightly different look to the cattle cycle during those years.

BUT!

And here is the point. Consolidation, mergers, acquisitions, land being taken out of agriculture and things like that still would have occured, and operating profits or the lack of still would have played its usual role in the inevitable changes that are part of capitalism and free enterprise.

Also, I say that it really doesn't matter in one sense of the word who won the IBP/Pickett case. Some of you would rather spend your time fighting over that instead of using your intelligence and contacts helping ranchers learn about things like benchmarking which is the real world route to survival and better profitability.

If more ranchers had had a little more money during those 9 years perhaps a few of them could have stayed in business a little longer instead of selling herds, and that would have perhaps caused the herd reduction to be slightly less than it was or at least delayed a little. But the cycle still would have been completed accompanied by all the usual reasons for such.

And if Pickett had gone in favor of the ranchers all the way, perhaps the same sort of thing would be happening today. A small adjustment in the appearance of the cycle curves. But, once again, the cycles will continue regardless, and, in my opinion, so will the changes in the demographics of the cow-calf industry.

Also, one more thing. Again, in my opinion, it really doesn't matter if the industry stays "independent" or goes 100% contract. There will be ranchers who do well and those who don't make it. At this point in time, the majority of producers are in the "independent" camp, and their independence is so deeply engrained that they cannot even allow themselves to think about taking a different look at themselves and the industry in a way that other segments of agriculture have done for decades.

The IRM-SPA program is 13 or 14 years old, and still has no more than 1% of the producers participating. I am not associated with that program, but I have had a lot of experience in similar programs and stand ready to help anyone who wants to talk.

What about you? Are you going to continue to beat all those dead horses, or are you ready to move on to bigger and better things? I challenge you to use your brainpower in an area that can reap real benefits. Send me an email, and I will tell you more. "Just do it!" If you can't, then you are no different that all those who you characterize as being inept and running a fake agency. You are preaching fake economics in the real world. It really doesn't matter what Tyson does. If Tyson is influencing the entire market, then it effects everyone. It really doesn't matter what USDA does. It really doesn't matter what anybody else does in the long term except each individual rancher. Each rancher is responsible for his or her own survival, and, as long as the cow-calf industry operates as a capitalist/free enterprise industry, that is exactly what it will come down to. Who will survive, and who won't?

Ask yourself this. Will there be fewer ranchers in the U.S. 10 years from now? Go from there. If you have friends who are ranchers, and you would like to think they will still be in business 10 years from now, what can you do to help? Email me!

 

[Econ101]

Sorry, pointrider, I had lost your post there for a while.

I love your cattle tracking/statistical program you have but when players like Tyson are able to do what they did to Pickett and others, there is little relevance to the quality of the cattle---you may not get paid for that quality if there is market manipulation going on.

I am all for price signals being sent back down to producrs and tracking the variables of carcass quality, feed efficiency, and other data, but at the end of the day, programs like the one you are touting will not mean a thing if market manipulation is allowed a free pass. It will all be who you know, and if you are part of the scam of the day.

 

[Anonymous]

In what other industry is a major player FORCED to conduct business with someone who does nothing but lie about them???

Does this "SOCIALISIM" exist in any other industry???

Funny Callicrate hasn't sued someone that decided not to feed with him. Wouldn't that be just as discriminatory?

Let me go on record stating that I adamantly oppose anyone being forced to do business with someone. That absolutely stinks of socialism.

I support the part of the PSA that addresses "price fixing" which is legitimate market manipulation.


Conman,

You can keep reiterating the market manipulation conspiracy theory over and over and over again but until you come to the table with the facts to support it, you got nothing. Pickett lost and your boys will lose in Aberdeen because court decisions are not based on "THEORIES" and a need to blame. You play for a losing team and that's exactly why you resort to lies to defend your beliefs. You are still the biggest phony that ever graced this forum and also the biggest liar. You not only lie in virtually every post you make but then you lie about lying. If that wasn't bad enough, you talk about religion as if you had any moral values to you. You are a pathetic example of humanity.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

In what other industry is a major player FORCED to conduct business with someone who does nothing but lie about them???

Does this "SOCIALISIM" exist in any other industry???

Funny Callicrate hasn't sued someone that decided not to feed with him. Wouldn't that be just as discriminatory?

Let me go on record stating that I adamantly oppose anyone being forced to do business with someone. That absolutely stinks of socialism.

I support the part of the PSA that addresses "price fixing" which is legitimate market manipulation.


Conman,

You can keep reiterating the market manipulation conspiracy theory over and over and over again but until you come to the table with the facts to support it, you got nothing. Pickett lost and your boys will lose in Aberdeen because court decisions are not based on "THEORIES" and a need to blame. You play for a losing team and that's exactly why you resort to lies to defend your beliefs. You are still the biggest phony that ever graced this forum and also the biggest liar. You not only lie in virtually every post you make but then you lie about lying. If that wasn't bad enough, you talk about religion as if you had any moral values to you. You are a pathetic example of humanity.



~SH~

Anyone who disagrees with you is defined as a "liar" in your dictionary, SH.

I just love your bloopers:

SH--"I support the part of the PSA that addresses "price fixing" which is legitimate market manipulation."

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "I support the part of the PSA that addresses "price fixing" which is legitimate market manipulation."

LEGITIMATE market manipulation? In your world, what seperates legitmate from illigitmate manipulation. How can one manipulate markets legitmately?

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Anyone who disagrees with you is defined as a "liar" in your dictionary, SH."

Yet another lie. That's your second lie for the day. Right on track!

Can't wait for your next lie.

Sandbag: "LEGITIMATE market manipulation? In your world, what seperates legitmate from illigitmate manipulation. How can one manipulate markets legitmately?"

The seperation is between "LEGITIMATE" market manipulation and "PERCEIVED" market manipulation you idiot.

Another spin into the twighlight zone by the master illusionist.


NEXT!


~SH~