Jury rules in favor of Plaintiffs

[agman]

The jury ruled in favor of plaintiffs and determined an award less than $10 million.

 

[redcattle56]

So now what?
Are you going to have to show receipets for payment for cattle during that time?
How many cattle were purchased during that time?
What will the average payout be?
Wil they be paid on a flat per head or on the grid they sold on?

It could take years to determine how much if any they will ever be paid. :???:

 

[Tommy]

agman...The jury ruled in favor of plaintiffs and determined an award less than $10 million.

Well did the jury get it wrong again agman?

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

The jury ruled in favor of plaintiffs and determined an award less than $10 million.

Wouldn't ruling in favor of the plaintiffs result in an award of 0?

As long as their was some reward, that means the jury felt there was some wrong doing, just not to the extent that was accused.

Rod

 

[ranch hand]

The jury ruled in favor of plaintiffs and determined an award less than $10 million.

Wouldn't ruling in favor of the plaintiffs result in an award of 0?

As long as their was some reward, that means the jury felt there was some wrong doing, just not to the extent that was accused.

Rod

Plaintiffs are the ones doing the sueing, not the packers.

 

[Tommy]

ranch hand...Plaintiffs are the ones doing the sueing, not the packers.


You have to overlook what those Canadians say, most are not up to speed with our legal system.

No offence Rod.

 

[ranch hand]

ranch hand...Plaintiffs are the ones doing the sueing, not the packers.


You have to overlook what those Canadians say, most are not up to speed with our legal system.

No offence Rod.

He just got mixed up because Agman posted the news article for the good guys. Will have to give him a pass on that one. :lol:

 

[agman]

agman...The jury ruled in favor of plaintiffs and determined an award less than $10 million.

Well did the jury get it wrong again agman?

Why don't you tell me Tommy? Did I say they got it wrong? I have not read any of the transcripts of trial, have you? If you have not read any testimony from the trial how do you know they got it right?

 

[agman]

ranch hand...Plaintiffs are the ones doing the sueing, not the packers.


You have to overlook what those Canadians say, most are not up to speed with our legal system.

No offence Rod.

He just got mixed up because Agman posted the news article for the good guys. Will have to give him a pass on that one. :lol:

I posted the news. I did not try to make the news. There is a difference as you should know. Unlike many others on this forum I will not rush to judgment regarding the findings until I have access too and read the trail testimony. Do you not think that is proper?

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

<sigh> Perhaps maybe I should have gotten more sleep last night. Coulda SWORE I saw defendants instead of plaintiffs in the original message.

Rod

 

[Mike]

ranch hand...Plaintiffs are the ones doing the sueing, not the packers.


You have to overlook what those Canadians say, most are not up to speed with our legal system.

No offence Rod.

He just got mixed up because Agman posted the news article for the good guys. Will have to give him a pass on that one. :lol:

I posted the news. I did not try to make the news. There is a difference as you should know. Unlike many others on this forum I will not rush to judgment regarding the findings until I have access too and read the trail testimony. Do you not think that is proper?

Agman, There is no "rush to judgement" if the jury found three of the packers guilty and let the other one slide. They must have seen something out of the "Big 3" that National didn't participate in.

 

[agman]

He just got mixed up because Agman posted the news article for the good guys. Will have to give him a pass on that one. :lol:

I posted the news. I did not try to make the news. There is a difference as you should know. Unlike many others on this forum I will not rush to judgment regarding the findings until I have access too and read the trail testimony. Do you not think that is proper?

Agman, There is no "rush to judgement" if the jury found three of the
packers guilty and let the other one slide. They must have seen something out of the "Big 3" that National didn't participate in.

Well Mike, tell the world what it was. That in itself may be grounds for dismissal since National also buys cattle. I will await the final outcome, I will leave all the speculation to you and others like you.

 

[Sandhusker]

ranch hand...Plaintiffs are the ones doing the sueing, not the packers.


You have to overlook what those Canadians say, most are not up to speed with our legal system.

No offence Rod.

He just got mixed up because Agman posted the news article for the good guys. Will have to give him a pass on that one. :lol:

I posted the news. I did not try to make the news. There is a difference as you should know. Unlike many others on this forum I will not rush to judgment regarding the findings until I have access too and read the trail testimony. Do you not think that is proper?

Seems to me you were making judgements before the trial even began.

 

[agman]

He just got mixed up because Agman posted the news article for the good guys. Will have to give him a pass on that one. :lol:

I posted the news. I did not try to make the news. There is a difference as you should know. Unlike many others on this forum I will not rush to judgment regarding the findings until I have access too and read the trail testimony. Do you not think that is proper?

Seems to me you were making judgements before the trial even began.

Explain yourself Sandhusker. You made the statement via your conversation with Herman that packers knowingly entered false data. I said that was BS which it was. That charge was never levied nor was it part of legal filings by the plaintiffs. You never did provide any proof of such an allegation in the filings or proceedings did you? Were you expressing your judgment? Do you have any facts to back up your statement or were you party to perpetuating an untruthful allegation? Which is it Sandhusker?

 

[Sandhusker]

I posted the news. I did not try to make the news. There is a difference as you should know. Unlike many others on this forum I will not rush to judgment regarding the findings until I have access too and read the trail testimony. Do you not think that is proper?

Seems to me you were making judgements before the trial even began.

Explain yourself Sandhusker. You made the statement via your conversation with Herman that packers knowingly entered false data. I said that was BS which it was. That charge was never levied nor was it part of legal filings by the plaintiffs. You never did provide any proof of such an allegation in the filings or proceedings did you? Were you expressing your judgment? Do you have any facts to back up your statement or were you party to perpetuating an untruthful allegation? Which is it Sandhusker?

Go read my statement again.

 

[Econ101]

I posted the news. I did not try to make the news. There is a difference as you should know. Unlike many others on this forum I will not rush to judgment regarding the findings until I have access too and read the trail testimony. Do you not think that is proper?

Agman, There is no "rush to judgement" if the jury found three of the
packers guilty and let the other one slide. They must have seen something out of the "Big 3" that National didn't participate in.

Well Mike, tell the world what it was. That in itself may be grounds for dismissal since National also buys cattle. I will await the final outcome, I will leave all the speculation to you and others like you.

You have already speculated on this case, Agman.

I am sure that will be the argument, Agman. It is the Walmart argument against the Robinson Patman Act enforcement. "If our competitors are doing it why can't we?"

Heck, Sudan has slavery, we compete in a global market, why can't we have slavery also? We do, when we allow the exercise of market power. Ask any poultry farmer.

 

[agman]

Agman, There is no "rush to judgement" if the jury found three of the
packers guilty and let the other one slide. They must have seen something out of the "Big 3" that National didn't participate in.

Well Mike, tell the world what it was. That in itself may be grounds for dismissal since National also buys cattle. I will await the final outcome, I will leave all the speculation to you and others like you.

You have already speculated on this case, Agman.

I am sure that will be the argument, Agman. It is the Walmart argument against the Robinson Patman Act enforcement. "If our competitors are doing it why can't we?"

Heck, Sudan has slavery, we compete in a global market, why can't we have slavery also? We do, when we allow the exercise of market power. Ask any poultry farmer.

Surely I have an opinion on the case but do you see me make claims as you do constantly that something was fixed-NO. You have a monopoly on that process which you can keep. It makes you an easy target to dispel.

You must sponsor a losers club since you want to talk to producer who cannot compete. If the poultry business is as bad as you describe in your fairy tale world then where does the growth come from? The losers quit. Spend some time talking to folks who are successful. Success breeds success while faliure is riddled with excuses.

 

[Econ101]

Well Mike, tell the world what it was. That in itself may be grounds for dismissal since National also buys cattle. I will await the final outcome, I will leave all the speculation to you and others like you.

You have already speculated on this case, Agman.

I am sure that will be the argument, Agman. It is the Walmart argument against the Robinson Patman Act enforcement. "If our competitors are doing it why can't we?"

Heck, Sudan has slavery, we compete in a global market, why can't we have slavery also? We do, when we allow the exercise of market power. Ask any poultry farmer.

Surely I have an opinion on the case but do you see me make claims as you do constantly that something was fixed-NO. You have a monopoly on that process which you can keep. It makes you an easy target to dispel.

You must sponsor a losers club since you want to talk to producer who cannot compete. If the poultry business is as bad as you describe in your fairy tale world then where does the growth come from? The losers quit. Spend some time talking to folks who are successful. Success breeds success while faliure is riddled with excuses.

From the abuse of market power that GIPSA and JoAnn Waterfield overlooked for so long.

Why should anyone listen to you? You believe that "guns" are legitimate weapon to own and therefore you can not be convicted of a crime when using a "gun" substitute marketing agreements in there).

You believe that because judges have the right to overturn jury verdicts, that they should excercise that right to protect companies that payoff politicians.

You believe that the lack of evidence caused by not investigating properly exhonerates defendants.

You believe that because some people have lied and cheated to get their money somehow we should all revere them.

You believe might makes right.

You believe in not allowing juries to decide matters of facts.

You believe in picking judges.

You believe in trusting judges over juries.

You believe that you can make things so complicated that only you can make a decision on the facts.

You believe in imaginary chess games and fairies.


Agman:" Success breeds success while faliure is riddled with excuses."

Tell that to Johanns and GIPSA. We are tired of seeing it.