Guebert on Pickett

[ocm]

OCM: "You have been taking the ABSURD position that NO evidence was presented in court with the purpose of proving Tyson's price manipulation. Evidence WAS presented. The Jury believed it. The fact that YOU believe the evidence to be false does not make it stop being evidence. No wonder you're so hard to communicate with."

For the 21st time, what was the EVIDENCE presented in court, by the plaintiffs, that proved that Tyson was guilty of market manipulation?

Quit dancing and answer the question!



~SH~

Talk about DANCING

You keep changing the question.

So I'll pin you down by answering "For the 16th time, what was the evidence presented in Pickett vs. ibp that supported the plaintiff's "market manipulation" allegation that was believed by the jury?"

Taylor's testimony. Like Sandhusker said. It was presented in court and the jury believed it. It was evidence. It was given in support of their allegation.

Are you now going to tell us that Taylor's testimony was not evidence?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "Dr. Taylor's testimony is the evidence that backs Pickett. Why do you ask such obvious questions?"

What was the specifics of that testimony that proved ibp was guilty of market manipulation?

You're dancing again!

Sandman: "SH, If you were robbed at gunpoint and the judge at the trial told the jurors that they would have to agree that the robber lacked a legitimate use for the gun, would you feel you were getting a fair shake?"

Since you are so persistant and to prove that I am a better man than you, I will answer your stupid question even thought it has nothing to do with cattle market manipulation and you have continually danced around my question.

If the judge's decision was based SOLELY on whether the the robber lacked a legitimate use for the gun, then no I would not feel I was getting a fair shake "BUT" "legitimate business reason" was not the only thing that Judge Strom based his ruling on. In Judge Strom's ruling, he addressed the PSA and found no evidence to support any violation of the PSA. The "legimate business reason" became an issue in this case because producers testified to the need for these "captive supply arrangements". That in itself sunk the plaintiff's battle ship. Nobody would willingly enter a captive supply arrangement if they believed it was used to manipulate markets. That would be like buying Canadian cattle after your chosen organization claimed they were "high risk".

Whether or not "legitimate business reason" should have been a term for a guilty verdict is worthy of debate but that does not circumvent the fact that no evidence was presented to warrant a guilty verdict according to Strom. Without supporting evidence, Taylor's theories are just that, "THEORIES".

NOW ANSWER MY QUESTION LEGITIMATELY the way I answered your stupid "ILLUSION CREATING" question.

I like throwing a bone to an ankle biter periodically to really make them think they have something.

Now run with your bone Sandman but don't forget to provide the evidence that proved market manipulation.



~SH~

 

[ocm]

If the judge's decision was based SOLELY on whether the the robber lacked a legitimate use for the gun, then no I would not feel I was getting a fair shake "BUT" "legitimate business reason" was not the only thing that Judge Strom based his ruling on. In Judge Strom's ruling, he addressed the PSA and found no evidence to support any violation of the PSA.

These statements are about as devoid of facts as anything can be.



The 11th Circuit itself said

Pickett contends he has established unfairness and price control or manipulation under the PSA by proving that Tyson's marketing agreements caused the cash market price, and the overall market price, for cattle to be lower than it otherwise would be. If that were all Pickett were required to prove he might win, because there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole.


Pickett must establish more than that the use of marketing agreements have decreased the price for cattle. He must establish that their use has adversely affected competition, which requires showing that marketing agreements have no pro-competitive justifications.

It is clear. The Circuit Court said that proving price manipulation was not enough.


Try a variation on Sandhusker's illustration. I'm enroute on a hunting trip. I stop at a convenience store. I carry my shotgun into the store with me. I tell the clerk to give me the money in the cash register. The idiot does it.

The cops catch me.
They charge me with robbery!
I go before a judge.
I tell him the clerk gave me the money voluntarily.
I tell him I had the gun because I was on a hunting trip.
He tells the DA that proving I took the money was not enough. He tells him that he also had to prove that I did not have a legitimate reason to be carrying the gun.
The DA is surprised, shocked and speechless.
The judge says the robbery charge is no good.

If I took the money, what does the gun have to do with the robbery charge?

 

[Anonymous]

OCM: "It is clear. The Circuit Court said that proving price manipulation was not enough."

Bullsh*t!

They said "LOWER PRICES" was not enough.

You are the one who interprets "LOWER PRICES" in the cash market as "MARKET MANIPULATION" which is to ignorantly believe that the market never moves lower due to supply/demand factors.

To believe as you do is to believe that the only factor pulling cattle markets lower is market manipulation.

You are as ignorant as Kindergarten if you believe that.

Lower prices doesn't prove a damn thing regarding "market manipulation" unless you can prove that there was no other supply/demand factor, between the time of the "captive supply price" and the time of the "cash" price that pulled markets lower.

That is a fact that you absolutely will not refute.


What the 11th circuit said was:

Pickett must establish more than that the use of marketing agreements have decreased the price for cattle. He must establish that their use has adversely affected competition, which requires showing that marketing agreements have no pro-competitive justifications.

There was no proof of market manipulation, only proof of lower prices between the time of the captive supply arrangement and the cash price.

That's why the jury didn't get it. They also did not understand that "LOWER PRICES", due to normal supply and demand factors, between the "captive supply" price and the cash price does not prove anything unless you can break out those supply/demand factors and prove that they did not change.

A normal fat cattle price and boxed beef price relation would absolutely bury your "THEORY" that lower prices proves market manipulation.


~SH~

 

[ocm]

OCM: "It is clear. The Circuit Court said that proving price manipulation was not enough."

Bullsh*t!

They said "LOWER PRICES" was not enough.

You are the one who interprets "LOWER PRICES" in the cash market as "MARKET MANIPULATION" which is to ignorantly believe that the market never moves lower due to supply/demand factors.

To believe as you do is to believe that the only factor pulling cattle markets lower is market manipulation.

You are as ignorant as Kindergarten if you believe that.

Lower prices doesn't prove a damn thing regarding "market manipulation" unless you can prove that there was no other supply/demand factor, between the time of the "captive supply price" and the time of the "cash" price that pulled markets lower.

That is a fact that you absolutely will not refute.


What the 11th circuit said was:

Pickett must establish more than that the use of marketing agreements have decreased the price for cattle. He must establish that their use has adversely affected competition, which requires showing that marketing agreements have no pro-competitive justifications.

There was no proof of market manipulation, only proof of lower prices between the time of the captive supply arrangement and the cash price.

That's why the jury didn't get it. They also did not understand that "LOWER PRICES", due to normal supply and demand factors, between the "captive supply" price and the cash price does not prove anything unless you can break out those supply/demand factors and prove that they did not change.

A normal fat cattle price and boxed beef price relation would absolutely bury your "THEORY" that lower prices proves market manipulation.


~SH~

Read your own quote from the 11th Circuit.

Pickett must establish more than that the use of marketing agreements have decreased the price for cattle. He must establish that their use has adversely affected competition[/b], which requires showing that marketing agreements have no pro-competitive justifications.

The Court did not say that showing lower prices was not enough.
The Court said that showing that use of marketing agreements lowered prices was not enough.

READ IT Your quote proves my point.

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "If the judge's decision was based SOLELY on whether the the robber lacked a legitimate use for the gun, then no I would not feel I was getting a fair shake "BUT" "legitimate business reason" was not the only thing that Judge Strom based his ruling on."

It doesn't matter if it was the only thing the ruling was based upon or one of 55 requirements. THAT REQUIREMENT HAD TO BE MET. It wasn't a 2 of 3 or 4 of 7 deal.

Now why do you feel it would be unfair to you but yet you gloat that Pickett could not meet it? Why do you revel in the fact that, in a very liveral move, a judge added standards that were not placed by Congress? Why to you cheer legislating from the bench? You call yourself a Republican?

 

[Anonymous]

OCM: "The Court said that showing that use of marketing agreements lowered prices was not enough."

If the court proved that marketing agreements lowered cash prices, what was that proof OCM?

How did the court isolate all the supply and demand factors to isolate "marketing agreements" as being the cause of lower markets.

You won't even get over that hurdle.

The second hurdle is that the Court would have to prove these marketing agreements were "anti competitive" to prove the plaintiff's case of a PSA violation.

Lower prices between the captive supply market and the cash market does not prove market manipulation or anti competitiveness.

That would be the same thing as saying if I have a portion of my feeder calf needs fulfilled through Superior Livestock forward contracts and lower the price on the balance of my needs in the cash market, with all other market factors remaining the same, that would be considered market manipulation under your definition. That's bullsh*t!

The Pickett plaintiffs couldn't prove market manipulation and neither can you. The jury may have bought Taylor's "UNTESTED" theories but the Judge and the 11th circuit saw right through it.

THEORIES do not gain convictions in most fair minded court rooms.

Sandman: "Now why do you feel it would be unfair to you but yet you gloat that Pickett could not meet it?"

I didn't say it would be unfair UNLESS that was the only criteria the judge used in making his decision.

I added the "BUT" within the sentence to make sure you didn't take that sentence out of context "BUT" you did anyway. Par for your deceptive, pathetic course.

Sandman: "Why do you revel in the fact that, in a very liveral move, a judge added standards that were not placed by Congress?"

The direction of this trial was determined by the evidence presented. The burden of proof was on the accuser to prove market manipulation or anti competitive practices.

The Plaintiff's could not prove that and neither could you, OCM, Kindergarten, or the rest of the packer blamers.


Nobody has brought the evidence that proves the market manipulation conspiracy theory and I have asked over 20 times.

You are "FACTUALLY VOID" to support your theories.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "I didn't say it would be unfair UNLESS that was the only criteria the judge used in making his decision. I added the "BUT" within the sentence to make sure you didn't take that sentence out of context "BUT" you did anyway. Par for your deceptive, pathetic course.

Par for your habit of ignoring facts you choose to, you are ignoring the fact that ALL of the judge's criteria had to be met. What does ALL mean to you, SH? Let me point out again that this was not a "best of three" deal. If it is unfair for it to be a single requirement (as you agree), it is just as unfair for it to be one of multiple requirements.


Quote:
Sandman: "Why do you revel in the fact that, in a very liberal move, a judge added standards that were not placed by Congress?"


SH, "The direction of this trial was determined by the evidence presented. The burden of proof was on the accuser to prove market manipulation or anti competitive practices. The Plaintiff's could not prove that and neither could you, OCM, Kindergarten, or the rest of the packer blamers."

You are wrong. The direction of this trial was determined by Judge Strom adding requirements NOT found in PSA. As a Republican, you should be infurioriated with legislating from the bench. I guess you're just a fair-weather Republican.


SH, "Nobody has brought the evidence that proves the market manipulation conspiracy theory and I have asked over 20 times. You are "FACTUALLY VOID" to support your theories."

Read Dr. Taylor's testimony.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "Par for your habit of ignoring facts you choose to, you are ignoring the fact that ALL of the judge's criteria had to be met."

Your point is irrelevant Sandman because the jury ignored Judge Strom's legitimate "business reason" requirement for a guilty verdict and found a guilty verdict anyway WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.

Judge Strom's ruling addressed the plaintiff's claims specifically and found no evidence to support the bullsh*t market manipulation conispiracy theory.

IN HIS RULING, JUDGE STROM FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF MARKET MANIPULATION OR PRICE FIXING, PERIOD.

NONE OF YOU PACKER BLAMERS HAVE PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE MARKET MANIPULATION CONSPIRACY THEORY, PERIOD.

YOU GOT NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sandman: "You are wrong. The direction of this trial was determined by Judge Strom adding requirements NOT found in PSA."

This is just your cheesy excuse to justify your loss.

Until you present evidence to stupport your market manipulation conspiracy theory, YOU GOT NOTHING!


Dr. Taylor's testimony is the same "THEORIES" and "OPINION"S presented by Kindergarten Economics.

WHERE IS THE PROOF OF MARKET MANIPULATION????

It doesn't exist!



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "IN HIS RULING, JUDGE STROM FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF MARKET MANIPULATION OR PRICE FIXING, PERIOD."

As usual, you are wrong. Read page 13. I'll also point out that 12 jurors were unanimous in finding that there was evidence.

I'd challenge you to point out in the PSA where anything is said about legitimate uses or competition. However, we both know that is not there. I've got a copy of PSA here before me and it is clear Judge Strom added requirements that were not there. I guess you liberal Democrats like legislating from the bench.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "As usual, you are wrong. Read page 13."

As usual, create the "ILLUSION" you are right.

Until you bring it, YOU GOT NOTHING, PERIOD!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandman: "As usual, you are wrong. Read page 13."

As usual, create the "ILLUSION" you are right.

Until you bring it, YOU GOT NOTHING, PERIOD!


~SH~

I am right.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "I am right."

Keep telling yourself that because it's certainly easier than proving it isn't it?

Judge Strom and the 11th Circuit got it right. You, Econ, and OCM have it wrong.

There was no proof of market manipulation and if there was, you'd be shouting it from the mountaintops.

None of you have provided anything of substance to back the market manipulation conspiracy theory that wasn't buried with the facts.



~SH~

 

[ocm]

Hey, ~SH~

Humor me for just a moment.

If I could produce irrefutable evidence that Tyson's use of marketing agreements actually caused the lowering of the price of cattle.

Just hypothetically now.

If I could do that would you be satisfied that Tyson violated the PSA, and that they should pay a penalty for it?

 

[Anonymous]

OCM: "If I could produce irrefutable evidence that Tyson's use of marketing agreements actually caused the lowering of the price of cattle.

If I could do that would you be satisfied that Tyson violated the PSA, and that they should pay a penalty for it?"

If you have something, bring it and find out if it holds water.




~SH~

 

[ocm]

OCM: "If I could produce irrefutable evidence that Tyson's use of marketing agreements actually caused the lowering of the price of cattle.

If I could do that would you be satisfied that Tyson violated the PSA, and that they should pay a penalty for it?"

If you have something, bring it and find out if it holds water.




~SH~

It's hypothetical, just a yes or no.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't answer hypotheticals with a yes or no because I already know our definitions of "irrefutable evidence" will differ.

Bring it and find out or create the "ILLUSION" you have it when you don't.

I'll tell you this much OCM, if you could prove that ibp and Cargill got their heads together and fixed the price, you bet, I would support a PSA violation because that was the original intent of the law.

Benjamin Roberts book may have led to a lot of "FALSE CONCLUSIONS" and "SPECULATION OF MOTIVE" on his part but there was some good history in the book regarding "allegations".

Recently I was made aware of price fixing at the North American Fur Auctions. I don't have all the details but there was hell to pay for both the buyers and the sellers that had their furs marketed after the situation was exposed.

In that situation, power corrupted and laws are in place to prevent price fixing but our laws are still based on the presumption of innocense. The allegation has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

You have a good day OCM.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

I don't answer hypotheticals with a yes or no because I already know our definitions of "irrefutable evidence" will differ.

Bring it and find out or create the "ILLUSION" you have it when you don't.

I'll tell you this much OCM, if you could prove that ibp and Cargill got their heads together and fixed the price, you bet, I would support a PSA violation because that was the original intent of the law.

Benjamin Roberts book may have led to a lot of "FALSE CONCLUSIONS" and "SPECULATION OF MOTIVE" on his part but there was some good history in the book regarding "allegations".

Recently I was made aware of price fixing at the North American Fur Auctions. I don't have all the details but there was hell to pay for both the buyers and the sellers that had their furs marketed after the situation was exposed.

In that situation, power corrupted and laws are in place to prevent price fixing but our laws are still based on the presumption of innocense. The allegation has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

You have a good day OCM.



~SH~

SH--, PSA Section 202 a) and b) have to to with producer surplus. If a company can break producers into groups and discriminate based on things that do not have to do with the actual product being produced, you get less competition and the middlemen either gaining market power or gaining more profits. Breaking a) and b) are the same thing as price fixing on an individual basis. You would know that if you were economically literate. So would the court.

I never read Benjam Robert's book.

 

[Anonymous]

Producers are not locked into one pricing situation with one packer. There is numerous marketing options which shatters your baseless PSA "allegation".


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Producers are not locked into one pricing situation with one packer. There is numerous marketing options which shatters your baseless PSA "allegation".


~SH~

How does it shatter it?