Lee Pickett's Point of View

[Sandhusker]

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~

Why can't you provide them, SH? Could it be that you are "factually void"? What's the problem?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Why can't you provide them, SH?"

I refuse to play your stupid little sandbox game of justifying every statement I make. If you are stupid enough to think that the Supreme Court disagreed with the 11th circuit and still refused to hear the case, be stupid. I would expect nothing less from you.


~SH~

 

[agman]

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.

If you have proof they delivered any other message why don't you produce it. They refused to hear the case; that message is quite clear. The appeal was without merit. Do they have to give you a written document that you would not understand anyway as it would not agree with your personal interpretation of the law.

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "Why can't you provide them, SH?"

I refuse to play your stupid little sandbox game of justifying every statement I make. If you are stupid enough to think that the Supreme Court disagreed with the 11th circuit and still refused to hear the case, be stupid. I would expect nothing less from you.


~SH~

You can't back your statement with any facts - we both know that. The Supreme Court did not say they agreed with the 11th as you presented. You're attempting to mislead, which is the definition you use on this board to define lying to others.

If you want to state your opinions as facts and not back them, fine, that's your perogative. Just don't demand of others what you refuse to do yourself - that is being a hypocrite - another thing you accuse others of.

 

[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.

If you have proof they delivered any other message why don't you produce it. They refused to hear the case; that message is quite clear. The appeal was without merit. Do they have to give you a written document that you would not understand anyway as it would not agree with your personal interpretation of the law.

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

Is this statement correct, Agman?

 

[Econ101]

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.

If you have proof they delivered any other message why don't you produce it. They refused to hear the case; that message is quite clear. The appeal was without merit. Do they have to give you a written document that you would not understand anyway as it would not agree with your personal interpretation of the law.

No, Agman, you are wrong on this one. The court did not issue a written statement as to the merits of this case one way or another. They only take up roughly 5% of the cases. Their silence was deafening, however.

The judge did not allow the jury to judge the facts, and the premise of the defendants was a ruling from the bench in the largest poultry producing district in the United States that created new law; no interpretation at all.

Bush railed against it in his run up to his political appointments to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court is looking the other way so far when it comes to the 11th circuit on the Pickett case and the London case.

Is it over? Not on your life. There are two more election cycles that can bring some real republicans into the white house instead of the current group masqueradind as such or at least some democrats that are not afraid to stand up for the constitution and the laws of the land.

It is not over yet, it is just beginning.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "The Supreme Court did not say they agreed with the 11th as you presented."

If the supreme court's refusal to hear the case is not agreeing with the 11th circuit court's position, WHAT THE HELL IS IT????

The only person being deceptive here is you.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "The Supreme Court did not say they agreed with the 11th as you presented."

If the supreme court's refusal to hear the case is not agreeing with the 11th circuit court's position, WHAT THE HELL IS IT????

The only person being deceptive here is you.


~SH~

It's a refusal to hear the case. They didn't agree with anything. Try sticking to the facts you claim you champion.

 

[Econ101]

Sandbag: "The Supreme Court did not say they agreed with the 11th as you presented."

If the supreme court's refusal to hear the case is not agreeing with the 11th circuit court's position, WHAT THE HELL IS IT????

The only person being deceptive here is you.


~SH~

It's a refusal to hear the case. They didn't agree with anything. Try sticking to the facts you claim you champion.

SH has already been admonished for his clairvoyance when it comes to what others think. He has done it with me a lot, the Japanese, and now the Supreme Court.

Heck, we could all take a holiday and let him think for us----if we wanted a SH world.

 

[Anonymous]

Ok, you guys win. The Supreme Court refused to hear the Pickett case because they DISAGREED with the 11th circuit court of appeals. How could I be so foolish??? ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz!


~SH~

 

[mrj]

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.

{Econ, what is your basis for this statement? Please provide a breakdown of the "take" from "corporate defendants" by Democrats, and by Republicans. That is the least you owe us after making such a statement.}

MRJ
*******************************************


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.

 

[Econ101]

{Econ, what is your basis for this statement? Please provide a breakdown of the "take" from "corporate defendants" by Democrats, and by Republicans. That is the least you owe us after making such a statement.}


MRJ,
As Agman alluded to earlier, both the dem. and rep. are on the take from Tyson, whenever it is needed and whenever Congressmen put their self interests/loyalty over their integrity. I am not going to post that information again, I suggest you start taking memory pills.

 

[mrj]

{Econ, what is your basis for this statement? Please provide a breakdown of the "take" from "corporate defendants" by Democrats, and by Republicans. That is the least you owe us after making such a statement.}


MRJ,
As Agman alluded to earlier, both the dem. and rep. are on the take from Tyson, whenever it is needed and whenever Congressmen put their self interests/loyalty over their integrity. I am not going to post that information again, I suggest you start taking memory pills.

My memory isn't the problem here. You making outrageous claims with no backing is.

So long as campaigns cost ridiculous amounts of money to conduct.....you know......travel to talk to voters......radio, TV, newspaper ads.......countering outright lies told about candidates by the opposition or people not even involved in the campaign......it all adds up.

The least you can do would be to draw the direct line between the donation, the donor, and the action by the lawmaker which would prove they are "on the take" and doing the bidding of the donor. It isn't enough to post your usual innuendo and say "follow the money". Unless you have proof of cause and effect, you have nothing.

BTW, I don't have your appraent limitless time to peruse this site and haven't time to read every post.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

{Econ, what is your basis for this statement? Please provide a breakdown of the "take" from "corporate defendants" by Democrats, and by Republicans. That is the least you owe us after making such a statement.}


MRJ,
As Agman alluded to earlier, both the dem. and rep. are on the take from Tyson, whenever it is needed and whenever Congressmen put their self interests/loyalty over their integrity. I am not going to post that information again, I suggest you start taking memory pills.

My memory isn't the problem here. You making outrageous claims with no backing is.

So long as campaigns cost ridiculous amounts of money to conduct.....you know......travel to talk to voters......radio, TV, newspaper ads.......countering outright lies told about candidates by the opposition or people not even involved in the campaign......it all adds up.

The least you can do would be to draw the direct line between the donation, the donor, and the action by the lawmaker which would prove they are "on the take" and doing the bidding of the donor. It isn't enough to post your usual innuendo and say "follow the money". Unless you have proof of cause and effect, you have nothing.

BTW, I don't have your appraent limitless time to peruse this site and haven't time to read every post.

MRJ

The lack of oversight by this Congress should tell you something.

Have you asked the NCBA why they haven't asked for Congressional hearings on GIPSA or the USDA's oversight of GIPSA yet?

The silence is deafening.