agman
Well-known member
Econ....Agman, the cattlemen were railroaded in this case and you know it. The "world renowned" econometrician must have had assurance that the data obtained via discovery would never see the light of day outside the trial and that his analysis would not be checked over.
I have asked you to make sure this information would be released so that others could look at the evidence. So far, you have not produced.
The judge had a bias against Taylor as you accurately point out. He should not have tried to influence the trial, but even in spite of this, the jury found for the plaintiffs.
As you know, the Supreme Court uses, as its criteria for review as stated by Justice Breyer, the fact that the districts disagree on the interpretation of the law. Being that the 11th circuit decision was a new interpretation of the law, there was no disagreement between the circuits and according to the criteria the Supreme Court has set out, would not qualify for review by that body. Calling this an affirmation of your point is stretching it.
You have to stretch so many things that we may have to call you stretchy.
As far as the appellate court, they were largely appointed by Bill Clinton (7 of them) who, as you know, pardoned Archie Schafer of Tyson Foods after being convicted of trying to bribe the Sec. of Agriculture.
When you have these type of "coincidences", the court loses the gloss of impartiality, and they should.
Calling this a victory for Tyson, a multiple convicted felon (as a company), shows that your twist for corporate America and against producers as an obvious fact.
Perhaps you would like to get back to work allowing the evidence from discovery to get out so there can be real peer review and clear up the clouds surrounding the "truth" you see but the jurors did not.
Then again, there might be some promises broken to a "world renowned econometrician" who has sold his soul.
Where's the BEEF and why are you hiding it?[/quote]
It was the results from the defense witness that needed review. It was Taylor who could not support his own position. That reminds me of you. Need I remind you of the verbatim testimony I posted with Taylor under oath where Taylor admitted to the defense attorney and again to the judge that he never tested his own theories?
This is the same jury who concluded without any evidence from plaintiff's witnesses or defense witness that Tyson had no business justification for marketing agreements. That was in total conflict with all the testimony which was easy to understand and they screwed that up. So we are to believe that they understood all the details of complex econometric analysis? Tell that story to some else who is a s gullible as you. Is someone still tapping your phone or was that just an delusional observation of yours?
The judge had no bias against Taylor as you allege once again without any proof - kinda like Taylor's research. A statement of fact does not equate to bias as you falsely profess. Get the facts straight, you don't need to lie here. The comment was made by the judge in chambers to the plaintiff's attorney after Taylor's testimony was dismantled under cross examination and correctly so by the defense attorney. Fact not fiction is what is relevant.
I see you do agee that the Supreme Court acted properly concerning the application of law.
If you want access the testimony to review the cross exam and the defense expert witness who dismantled Taylor's research get it yourself. What you have admitted is that your opinion is based on hearsay and not actual examination the trial testimony. You are just too easy Econ. You continue to only fool yourself.
Your comments regarding past charges and or convictions against Tyson are par for you. You equate the past to the present with no proof. Once again you show your bias and limited knowledge of all the facts concerning his case.
You state the the world renowned econometrician from MIT sold his soul. Are you overlooking the fact that Taylor was also a paid witness for the plaintiffs or do you just dismiss that fact hoping readers of this forum will overlook that situation?
Don't disgrace your profession by disclosing who you are. Your unsupported accusations are both endless and tiring. They only serve to show your limited of knowledge of economics and the legal system. When you don't know any of the facts your resort to accusations which you never support.
One question for you; what are market expectations? No lengthy dissertation is necessary.
I have asked you to make sure this information would be released so that others could look at the evidence. So far, you have not produced.
The judge had a bias against Taylor as you accurately point out. He should not have tried to influence the trial, but even in spite of this, the jury found for the plaintiffs.
As you know, the Supreme Court uses, as its criteria for review as stated by Justice Breyer, the fact that the districts disagree on the interpretation of the law. Being that the 11th circuit decision was a new interpretation of the law, there was no disagreement between the circuits and according to the criteria the Supreme Court has set out, would not qualify for review by that body. Calling this an affirmation of your point is stretching it.
You have to stretch so many things that we may have to call you stretchy.
As far as the appellate court, they were largely appointed by Bill Clinton (7 of them) who, as you know, pardoned Archie Schafer of Tyson Foods after being convicted of trying to bribe the Sec. of Agriculture.
When you have these type of "coincidences", the court loses the gloss of impartiality, and they should.
Calling this a victory for Tyson, a multiple convicted felon (as a company), shows that your twist for corporate America and against producers as an obvious fact.
Perhaps you would like to get back to work allowing the evidence from discovery to get out so there can be real peer review and clear up the clouds surrounding the "truth" you see but the jurors did not.
Then again, there might be some promises broken to a "world renowned econometrician" who has sold his soul.
Where's the BEEF and why are you hiding it?[/quote]
It was the results from the defense witness that needed review. It was Taylor who could not support his own position. That reminds me of you. Need I remind you of the verbatim testimony I posted with Taylor under oath where Taylor admitted to the defense attorney and again to the judge that he never tested his own theories?
This is the same jury who concluded without any evidence from plaintiff's witnesses or defense witness that Tyson had no business justification for marketing agreements. That was in total conflict with all the testimony which was easy to understand and they screwed that up. So we are to believe that they understood all the details of complex econometric analysis? Tell that story to some else who is a s gullible as you. Is someone still tapping your phone or was that just an delusional observation of yours?
The judge had no bias against Taylor as you allege once again without any proof - kinda like Taylor's research. A statement of fact does not equate to bias as you falsely profess. Get the facts straight, you don't need to lie here. The comment was made by the judge in chambers to the plaintiff's attorney after Taylor's testimony was dismantled under cross examination and correctly so by the defense attorney. Fact not fiction is what is relevant.
I see you do agee that the Supreme Court acted properly concerning the application of law.
If you want access the testimony to review the cross exam and the defense expert witness who dismantled Taylor's research get it yourself. What you have admitted is that your opinion is based on hearsay and not actual examination the trial testimony. You are just too easy Econ. You continue to only fool yourself.
Your comments regarding past charges and or convictions against Tyson are par for you. You equate the past to the present with no proof. Once again you show your bias and limited knowledge of all the facts concerning his case.
You state the the world renowned econometrician from MIT sold his soul. Are you overlooking the fact that Taylor was also a paid witness for the plaintiffs or do you just dismiss that fact hoping readers of this forum will overlook that situation?
Don't disgrace your profession by disclosing who you are. Your unsupported accusations are both endless and tiring. They only serve to show your limited of knowledge of economics and the legal system. When you don't know any of the facts your resort to accusations which you never support.
One question for you; what are market expectations? No lengthy dissertation is necessary.
