Lee Pickett's Point of View

[Mike]

I had coffee this morning with Lee Pickett at the salebarn. He is very disillusioned as to why the chain of events in Pickett vs IBP/TYSON have evolved to where they are.

His view, and I am paraphrasing,

1-Judge Strom knew every shred of evidence in the trial beforehand. He knew what each witnesses' testimony was before trial and what they were going to say.

2-The trial was for the jury to hear the testimony and make a decision based on it. After all, the jury, according to Judge Strom, was the sole determiners of the facts and told them so before diliberations began.

3-If Judge Strom already knew what his position was in the trial, based on the position of the witnesses, why would he allow the case to go to trial? After all, the Judge is supposed to be only a referree in trial.

 

[Econ101]

This case was rigged. It was apparent when the London decision came down that the political appointees in our court system are no better than the political appointees in the USDA (JoAnn Waterfield et al).

The rule of law has left our land.

 

[RobertMac]

I had coffee this morning with Lee Pickett at the salebarn. He is very disillusioned as to why the chain of events in Pickett vs IBP/TYSON have evolved to where they are.

His view, and I am paraphrasing,

1-Judge Strom knew every shred of evidence in the trial beforehand. He knew what each witnesses' testimony was before trial and what they were going to say.

2-The trial was for the jury to hear the testimony and make a decision based on it. After all, the jury, according to Judge Strom, was the sole determiners of the facts and told them so before diliberations began.

3-If Judge Strom already knew what his position was in the trial, based on the position of the witnesses, why would he allow the case to go to trial? After all, the Judge is supposed to be only a referree in trial.

Agman, I guess the only reason Judge Strom let the trial go through the process was to see if the jury would rule the way he knew the final verdict would be. :? :???:

 

[agman]

I had coffee this morning with Lee Pickett at the salebarn. He is very disillusioned as to why the chain of events in Pickett vs IBP/TYSON have evolved to where they are.

His view, and I am paraphrasing,

1-Judge Strom knew every shred of evidence in the trial beforehand. He knew what each witnesses' testimony was before trial and what they were going to say.

2-The trial was for the jury to hear the testimony and make a decision based on it. After all, the jury, according to Judge Strom, was the sole determiners of the facts and told them so before diliberations began.

3-If Judge Strom already knew what his position was in the trial, based on the position of the witnesses, why would he allow the case to go to trial? After all, the Judge is supposed to be only a referree in trial.

Agman, I guess the only reason Judge Strom let the trial go through the
process was to see if the jury would rule the way he knew the final verdict would be. :? :???:

You may be right, the case was without merit and should never have gone to trial. When he realized and determined the jury provided a verdict that was not supported by testimony he had no choice but to void the verdict. He has both a legal obligation and legal right under that condition to void the jury verdict. He acted within the law and within his legal responsibility as the JUDGE. That is why his decision was upheld unanimously on appeal and the case was totally rejected for review by the Supreme Court. He was right and the plaintiffs and jury were wrong.

 

[agman]

This case was rigged. It was apparent when the London decision came down that the political appointees in our court system are no better than the political appointees in the USDA (JoAnn Waterfield et al).

The rule of law has left our land.

Another baseless claim from the master of accusations who NEVER provides any evidence of his endless stream of accusations. Dream on....

 

[Econ101]

I had coffee this morning with Lee Pickett at the salebarn. He is very disillusioned as to why the chain of events in Pickett vs IBP/TYSON have evolved to where they are.

His view, and I am paraphrasing,

1-Judge Strom knew every shred of evidence in the trial beforehand. He knew what each witnesses' testimony was before trial and what they were going to say.

2-The trial was for the jury to hear the testimony and make a decision based on it. After all, the jury, according to Judge Strom, was the sole determiners of the facts and told them so before diliberations began.

3-If Judge Strom already knew what his position was in the trial, based on the position of the witnesses, why would he allow the case to go to trial? After all, the Judge is supposed to be only a referree in trial.

Agman, I guess the only reason Judge Strom let the trial go through the
process was to see if the jury would rule the way he knew the final verdict would be. :? :???:

You may be right, the case was without merit and should never have gone to trial. When he realized and determined the jury provided a verdict that was not supported by testimony he had no choice but to void the verdict. He has both a legal obligation and legal right under that condition to void the jury verdict. He acted within the law and within his legal responsibility as the JUDGE. That is why his decision was upheld unanimously on appeal and the case was totally rejected for review by the Supreme Court. He was right and the plaintiffs and jury were wrong.

Agman, you are going with the theory of 12 conspirators again. This judge set himself up to be the only decision maker in the trial. There was evidence presented and the jury believed it. The judge just reversed it, not because there was no evidence presented, but because the fix was in.

The appellate court has caused quite a stir in capital hill. How long do you think that the packers can hold their sway over their pocket politicians?

By the way, Delay is not even running for his seat now. Just how much incompetence and corruption will be allowed?

 

[Tommy]

agman...You may be right, the case was without merit and should never have gone to trial.

Then Judge Strom was incompetent for letting it go to trial. Then letting it go to trial and overturning a jury decision.

Some judge!!

 

[agman]

Agman, I guess the only reason Judge Strom let the trial go through the
process was to see if the jury would rule the way he knew the final verdict would be. :? :???:

You may be right, the case was without merit and should never have gone to trial. When he realized and determined the jury provided a verdict that was not supported by testimony he had no choice but to void the verdict. He has both a legal obligation and legal right under that condition to void the jury verdict. He acted within the law and within his legal responsibility as the JUDGE. That is why his decision was upheld unanimously on appeal and the case was totally rejected for review by the Supreme Court. He was right and the plaintiffs and jury were wrong.

Agman, you are going with the theory of 12 conspirators again. This judge set himself up to be the only decision maker in the trial. There was evidence presented and the jury believed it. The judge just reversed it, not because there was no evidence presented, but because the fix was in.

The appellate court has caused quite a stir in capital hill. How long do you think that the packers can hold their sway over their pocket politicians?

By the way, Delay is not even running for his seat now. Just how much
incompetence and corruption will be allowed?

The group that follows your twisted thinking line of thinking is very limited in Washington. Most in Washington give you folks time only out of courtesy, not respect. You and your few supporters in Washington are a very small minority despite all the noise you try to make.

 

[agman]

Agman, I guess the only reason Judge Strom let the trial go through the
process was to see if the jury would rule the way he knew the final verdict would be. :? :???:

You may be right, the case was without merit and should never have gone to trial. When he realized and determined the jury provided a verdict that was not supported by testimony he had no choice but to void the verdict. He has both a legal obligation and legal right under that condition to void the jury verdict. He acted within the law and within his legal responsibility as the JUDGE. That is why his decision was upheld unanimously on appeal and the case was totally rejected for review by the Supreme Court. He was right and the plaintiffs and jury were wrong.

Agman, you are going with the theory of 12 conspirators again. This judge set himself up to be the only decision maker in the trial. There was evidence presented and the jury believed it. The judge just reversed it, not because there was no evidence presented, but because the fix was in.

The appellate court has caused quite a stir in capital hill. How long do you think that the packers can hold their sway over their pocket politicians?

By the way, Delay is not even running for his seat now. Just how much incompetence and corruption will be allowed?

"The fix was in." What a laugh Econ. And I suppose you will provide us all with evidence of the fix?!!!!! You even believe your own lies. It does not get any worse than that.

 

[agman]

I had coffee this morning with Lee Pickett at the salebarn. He is very disillusioned as to why the chain of events in Pickett vs IBP/TYSON have evolved to where they are.

His view, and I am paraphrasing,

1-Judge Strom knew every shred of evidence in the trial beforehand. He knew what each witnesses' testimony was before trial and what they were going to say.

2-The trial was for the jury to hear the testimony and make a decision based on it. After all, the jury, according to Judge Strom, was the sole determiners of the facts and told them so before diliberations began.

3-If Judge Strom already knew what his position was in the trial, based on the position of the witnesses, why would he allow the case to go to trial? After all, the Judge is supposed to be only a referree in trial.

Why would or should he be disillusioned? Was it a shock to him that facts would prevail over fiction in the courtroom? Given some of the articles he has authored over the years I can easily see why he would be disillusioned. He is your type of leader, a true demagogue.

 

[Sandhusker]

Facts? What facts are you talking about, Agman? You act like the facts proved Pickett wrong. The facts upheld Pickett, as evidenced by the jury's decision. The reason the case was overturned, and you know dang well this is true, is ONLY because of the extra requirement Strom put on that Pickett had to prove Tyson had no legitimate reason to use the contracts, and what a steaming crock of crap that was.

The FACTS you spout showed that there was armed robbery. Strom disallowed any crime because a hunting rifle was used - there was a ligitimate use for the weapon. :roll:

You talk about how you support producers, but yet you support this sham judgement. You showed me who you support with that lumber analogy you gave a while back. It's all about packers profits to you - the producer can starve.

 

[agman]

Facts? What facts are you talking about, Agman? You act like the facts proved Pickett wrong. The facts upheld Pickett, as evidenced by the jury's decision. The reason the case was overturned, and you know dang well this is true, is ONLY because of the extra requirement Strom put on that Pickett had to prove Tyson had no legitimate reason to use the contracts, and what a steaming crock of crap that was.

The FACTS you spout showed that there was armed robbery. Strom disallowed any crime because a hunting rifle was used - there was a ligitimate use for the weapon. :roll:

You talk about how you support producers, but yet you support this sham judgement. You showed me who you support with that lumber analogy you gave a while back. It's all about packers profits to you - the producer can starve.

Get over it, your side lost on all counts. What facts are you still claiming to support? Is it the demagoguery in your weekly R-calf update that you confuse as fact?

The produces who supported this case are in the a very small minority in case you have not figured that out yet. Additionally, they are even a much smaller representation of those who have cattle on feed in the U.S.

What I demonstrated was how trade is beneficial. If the lumber analogy and trade are over your head, which they are, you can go back to your sand box and play with the kids.

BTW, where is your evidence for your claim the packers entered incorrect data to the USDA. Were you misled by Herman or are you just factually wrong again?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "The reason the case was overturned, and you know dang well this is true, is ONLY because of the extra requirement Strom put on that Pickett had to prove Tyson had no legitimate reason to use the contracts, and what a steaming crock of crap that was."

That is a damn lie. Judge Strom stated that there was no violation of the PSA in his ruling. You packer blamers just need some lame excuse to justify the fact that you didn't have the facts to prove your case in Pickett and you won't in Aberdeen either. Empty rhetoric and unsupported allegations will not win court cases. Another Sandbag spin job to suggest that "legitimate business reason" was the only reason the plaintiffs lost. What a damn lie.


~SH~

 

[T3023]

I had coffee this morning with Lee Pickett at the salebarn. He is very disillusioned as to why the chain of events in Pickett vs IBP/TYSON have evolved to where they are.

His view, and I am paraphrasing,

1-Judge Strom knew every shred of evidence in the trial beforehand. He knew what each witnesses' testimony was before trial and what they were going to say.

2-The trial was for the jury to hear the testimony and make a decision based on it. After all, the jury, according to Judge Strom, was the sole determiners of the facts and told them so before diliberations began.

3-If Judge Strom already knew what his position was in the trial, based on the position of the witnesses, why would he allow the case to go to trial? After all, the Judge is supposed to be only a referree in trial.

Agman, I guess the only reason Judge Strom let the trial go through the
process was to see if the jury would rule the way he knew the final verdict would be. :? :???:

You may be right, the case was without merit and should never have gone to trial. When he realized and determined the jury provided a verdict that was not supported by testimony he had no choice but to void the verdict. He has both a legal obligation and legal right under that condition to void the jury verdict. He acted within the law and within his legal responsibility as the JUDGE. That is why his decision was upheld unanimously on appeal and the case was totally rejected for review by the Supreme Court. He was right and the plaintiffs and jury were wrong.

The judge was incorrect and the jury let it slide. So the jury was at falt for letting it slide!

Stand up and be counted, show them you are American's.

 

[Anonymous]

The Supreme Court said the 11th Circuit Court was right. The 11th Circuit Court said Judge Strom was right. Judge Strom correctly pointed out that the jury was wrong. The Plaintiffs did not satisfy their burden of proof of market manipulation.

The Aberdeen, SD case will see the same fate because baseless allegations do not win court cases. FACTS DO! The plaintiffs are not fact providers. They are blamers.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "The Supreme Court said the 11th Circuit Court was right."

Really? Could you post their comments so we all can see what they said? I'd hate to have somebody accuse of you of intending to mislead.

 

[Econ101]

The Supreme Court said the 11th Circuit Court was right. The 11th Circuit Court said Judge Strom was right. Judge Strom correctly pointed out that the jury was wrong. The Plaintiffs did not satisfy their burden of proof of market manipulation.

The Aberdeen, SD case will see the same fate because baseless allegations do not win court cases. FACTS DO! The plaintiffs are not fact providers. They are blamers.



~SH~

The 11th Circuit has shown that it is not facts that rule in their circuit, and it is not the collective decision of 12 people. It is a few appellate judges who have put their own faulty legal and economic reasoning above the literal interpretation of the law instead of allowing members of the jury to decide.

The London case was the same. The jury was not allowed to decide the facts in that case either---the judge put additional burdens made up by the 11th circuit after the trial was over and all the witnesses, lawyers, and jury were home.

It is becoming increasingly concerning that the current political leaders are taking campaign contributions from corporate defendants (funneled as they are) who have cases the federal courts where the politically appointed judges are overturning jury verdicts and the law is being made from the bench in favor of these corporate defendants.


SH, Sandhusker has a question for you and your limited knowledge of what exactly happened and your mischaracterization of the facts:

SH, "The Supreme Court said the 11th Circuit Court was right."

Really? Could you post their comments so we all can see what they said? I'd hate to have somebody accuse of you of intending to mislead.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "The 11th Circuit has shown that it is not facts that rule in their circuit, and it is not the collective decision of 12 people. It is a few appellate judges who have put their own faulty legal and economic reasoning above the literal interpretation of the law instead of allowing members of the jury to decide."

Blah blah blah! That would explain why the Supreme Court refused to hear the case wouldn't it?

Pickett lost because the packer blamers couldn't back their position with supporting facts, get over it!

Sandbag: "Really? Could you post their comments so we all can see what they said? I'd hate to have somebody accuse of you of intending to mislead."

Another deceptive spin job.

What more proof do you need that the Supreme court agreed with the 11th circuit than the fact that the Supreme Court refused to hear the case? Obviously they agreed with the 11th circuit.


NEXT!



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Quote:
Sandbag: "Really? Could you post their comments so we all can see what they said? I'd hate to have somebody accuse of you of intending to mislead."


SH, "Another deceptive spin job. ....."

Who's spinning? All I asked for was their comments where they agreed with the lower courts. I'd like to see them.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Who's spinning? All I asked for was their comments where they agreed with the lower courts. I'd like to see them."

Then go get them!


~SH~