More proof of "alleged" market manipulation.......

[Econ101]

Perjury, by definition: The wilful and voluntary giving of false testimony or the withholding of material facts or eveidence in regard to a matter or thing material to the issue or point of inquiry in a legal document or while under oath in a judicial proceeding.

Perjured, a definition: 1. Guilty of perjury; having sworn falsely.

MRJ

So mrj, why are you so quick to condem someone without a trial and yet support Tyson who lost the jury verdict?

 

[Econ101]

Sandbag: "If he lied, that would be perjury. When did he get wrung up for perjury? Bring some proof, not your biased opinion."

1. How many times do we have to go over the same thing? Callicrate was not wrung up on perjury charges, Judge Strom simply instructed the jurors to disregard his testimony because he found it to be untrue.

Callicrate has also lied about ibp "stepping out of the cash market for 8 weeks". They guy can't tell the truth and you defend him because he sings your packer blaming song.

Conman: " 1. I don't have to read half of your posts to be able to respond. If they contained an intelligent series of thoughts this might not be the case. Just skimming them over suffices for me. You did not prove that I lied about this. You only proved how little intelligence your posts contain and how easy it is to refute them."

2. So now we are backpeddling from not reading my garbage to reading half my posts and skimming. Hahaha! A liar like you can't keep your stories straight.

3. When are you going to bring the proof of these "back door meetings"? That was another lie.

4. You've never refuted anything I have ever stated with facts to the contrary. All you can do is spin it like assuming that Callicrate didn't committ perjury simply because he was not brought up on charges. Typical of your slimey slithering ways.

Conman: "I have shown the holes in your little arguments time and again, and yet you keep repeating the same mistakes."

5. No, you've attempted to find holes in my arguments but you never can. All you can do is make some deceptive feeble attempt to discredit my statements. Not once have you ever refuted anything I have stated with opposing facts. You're simply too "factually void". A total loser!

Conman: "4. The jury disagreed with you."

6. The judge, the 11th circuit court, and the final verdict disagreed with you and that's what matters.


NEXT!


~SH~

1. Then why do you convict him before he has even been charged? The reason he was not charged is that it can not be proven. It is your opinion. Until it goes to court, and it is proven, it is just your little opinion you are pawning as a fact.

2. What does it matter if I read your entire post? As I said before, you have so much garbage in your posts that it doesn't take me long to skim it and reply. I don't even have to read all of it because it is just garbage. If this is what you constitute as a lie, you really have problems, SH. Keep walking down that yellow brick road, your brain is still in Oz.

3. They happen all the time. As I stated before, I know who brought up the Robinson Patman Act and its example. The link between the USDA GIPSA office and the appellate court is apparent. JoAnn needs to come back and answer some questions, as does Gary McBride.

4. You still haven't proven it. Pickett got a lot further than your little acusation. The jury agreed with him.

5. Another gopher opinion. When you have something more substantive than what you have just posted, bring it on. Be sure to put the quote in context, because we all know how your reading comprehension needs more attention.

 

[Anonymous]

Perjury, by definition: The wilful and voluntary giving of false testimony or the withholding of material facts or eveidence in regard to a matter or thing material to the issue or point of inquiry in a legal document or while under oath in a judicial proceeding.

Perjured, a definition: 1. Guilty of perjury; having sworn falsely.

MRJ

But Callicrate was never even charged- let alone convicted...

So just because I am a Judge and I think you lie or alter the truth- Then you must be a purjuror!!!

 

[Sandhusker]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Sandbag: "If he lied, that would be perjury. When did he get wrung up for perjury? Bring some proof, not your biased opinion."


How many times do we have to go over the same thing? Callicrate was not wrung up on perjury charges, Judge Strom simply instructed the jurors to disregard his testimony because he found it to be untrue.

If he was not wrung up on perjury charges, he is a purjorer in opinion only. Don't you like to say the burden of proof falls on the accuser? You've accused him of being a purjor, but have no proof. Saying something that is simply untrue is not a lie if you believe what you are saying. You say crap that is untrue on a daily basis but bristle when called a liar. Let's apply your twisted rationale to others;

George Bush said Saddam had WMD's - but that was found to be untrue. Is he a liar?

1944, Patton said US troops would be in Berlin by Christmas, but we didn't get there until May. What he said was untrue, was he lying?

You said that we would regain the Japanese market within 6 months of the election, but that was untrue - you were off a year. Why did you lie?

NCBA said we were losing $175/head due to losing Japan. Agman said the figure wasn't that high. They can't both be right, so one's statement has to be untrue. Which one is lying?

I'm sure this post is in futility. You won't be able to figure this out because you aren't interested in truth - only supporting a bias, facts and rationale be damned. You'll call Callicrate a purjuror again and I"ll bring up these examples again. Just an ongoing deal...

You're a dandy.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "1. Then why do you convict him before he has even been charged? The reason he was not charged is that it can not be proven. It is your opinion. Until it goes to court, and it is proven, it is just your little opinion you are pawning as a fact."

Perjury is lying under oath by definition. He doesn't have to be charged with lying under oath to have lied under oath. The Judge dismissed his testimony because he found it to be untrue. Just as Mike lied when he stated that ibp stepped out of the cash market for 8 weeks which is another lie. Mike just made that up. Just like he said the packers and retailers were making $400 per head. He made that up. Just like he claimed Tyson dismissed jurors because they were black. He made that up. He's a liar. You guys go ahead and defend him, I would expect nothing less because you can relate.

Conman: "2. What does it matter if I read your entire post? As I said before, you have so much garbage in your posts that it doesn't take me long to skim it and reply. I don't even have to read all of it because it is just garbage."

How can you respond to a post if you haven't read it? Does that make sense in your pea sized brain? You are a compuslive liar. You have responded to every statement I have made in this post and you respond to every other post I make. Have you convinced yourself that is the only lie you have told? You lie continually and your lies are addressed continually. I address them as they occur and I address them as lies. I'm not going to keep a running list but if you keep asking for proof, I may have to. I'm sure I'll address another of your many lies by the end of the day.

Conman: "3. They happen all the time. As I stated before, I know who brought up the Robinson Patman Act and its example. The link between the USDA GIPSA office and the appellate court is apparent. JoAnn needs to come back and answer some questions, as does Gary McBride."

You claimed the Pickett verdict was a result of "back door meetings". That was a lie. You had no proof of that. You know you can't back that lie.

Conman: "When you have something more substantive than what you have just posted, bring it on."

Your "theories" and "unsupported statements" have been corrected in virtually every post you make. Like Saddam, you claim victory in obvious defeat. Too ignorant to understand the issues and too arrogant to admit it. You're nothing!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Yep, my post was in futulity. Didn't take SH even one day to ignore facts and make his claim again.

And his only bias is the truth? :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Good Grief.

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "1. Then why do you convict him before he has even been charged? The reason he was not charged is that it can not be proven. It is your opinion. Until it goes to court, and it is proven, it is just your little opinion you are pawning as a fact."

(A.) Perjury is lying under oath by definition. He doesn't have to be charged with lying under oath to have lied under oath. The Judge dismissed his testimony because he found it to be untrue. Just as Mike lied when he stated that ibp stepped out of the cash market for 8 weeks which is another lie. Mike just made that up. Just like he said the packers and retailers were making $400 per head. He made that up. Just like he claimed Tyson dismissed jurors because they were black. He made that up. He's a liar. You guys go ahead and defend him, I would expect nothing less because you can relate.

Conman: "2. What does it matter if I read your entire post? As I said before, you have so much garbage in your posts that it doesn't take me long to skim it and reply. I don't even have to read all of it because it is just garbage."

(B) How can you respond to a post if you haven't read it? Does that make sense in your pea sized brain? You are a compuslive liar. You have responded to every statement I have made in this post and you respond to every other post I make. Have you convinced yourself that is the only lie you have told? You lie continually and your lies are addressed continually. I address them as they occur and I address them as lies. I'm not going to keep a running list but if you keep asking for proof, I may have to. I'm sure I'll address another of your many lies by the end of the day.

Conman: "3. They happen all the time. As I stated before, I know who brought up the Robinson Patman Act and its example. The link between the USDA GIPSA office and the appellate court is apparent. JoAnn needs to come back and answer some questions, as does Gary McBride."

(C) You claimed the Pickett verdict was a result of "back door meetings". That was a lie. You had no proof of that. You know you can't back that lie.

Conman: "When you have something more substantive than what you have just posted, bring it on."

(D) Your "theories" and "unsupported statements" have been corrected in virtually every post you make. Like Saddam, you claim victory in obvious defeat. Too ignorant to understand the issues and too arrogant to admit it. You're nothing!


~SH~

(A) So only the packers are innocent until proven guilty?

(B) It is not very hard to respond to your bird brained posts even without reading them thoroughly. Is this a lie? I liked the movie "Liar, Liar". I am reminded of it when you start calling people liar when you don't have anything substantive to post.

(C) Yes, I believe a lot of us would like to question JoAnn Waterfield. She isn't the only one that needs to be questioned. She didn't run the show alone. You might want to wait on calling me a liar on this one. You have no proof that I lied. Attempting to garnish information from me until I believe the time is right is futile. A liar name calling episode isn't going to work. Let us just say that there is a well known concept in economics called the prisoner's delima. I think it would be used by a competent investigation. Oh, that is right, GIPSA doesn't know how that works.

You know they got Al Capone on tax evasion or something like that, if I am correct.

 

[Anonymous]

A. The Judge told the jury to disregard Mike's testimony. What more proof does anyone need? Keep defending him. Keep handing him the microphone every chance you get. Nobody is more easily refuted.

Conman: "I am reminded of it when you start calling people liar when you don't have anything substantive to post."

B. You are caught lying continually.


C. Where is your proof of these "back door meetings" regarding Pickett. You made the claim now back it up. It's either another of your many lies or you have proof.

Sandbag: "Didn't take SH even one day to ignore facts and make his claim again."

What facts have you ever brought to the table Sandbag?

You're entire MO is based on spinning towards what you want to believe.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

A. The Judge told the jury to disregard Mike's testimony. What more proof does anyone need? Keep defending him. Keep handing him the microphone every chance you get. Nobody is more easily refuted.

Conman: "I am reminded of it when you start calling people liar when you don't have anything substantive to post."

B. You are caught lying continually.


C. Where is your proof of these "back door meetings" regarding Pickett. You made the claim now back it up. It's either another of your many lies or you have proof.

Sandbag: "Didn't take SH even one day to ignore facts and make his claim again."

What facts have you ever brought to the table Sandbag?

You're entire MO is based on spinning towards what you want to believe.



~SH~

Reread my post made at 1:39 and try to figure it out.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Reread my post made at 1:39 and try to figure it out."

You believe that a person can not "lie under oath" (perjury) unless he is convicted of it.

Using one of your own stupid analogys, a person can continue to rob banks and as long as he's not brought up on charges, he's not a thief.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

A. The Judge told the jury to disregard Mike's testimony. What more proof does anyone need? Keep defending him. Keep handing him the microphone every chance you get. Nobody is more easily refuted.

Conman: "I am reminded of it when you start calling people liar when you don't have anything substantive to post."

B. You are caught lying continually.


C. Where is your proof of these "back door meetings" regarding Pickett. You made the claim now back it up. It's either another of your many lies or you have proof.

Sandbag: "Didn't take SH even one day to ignore facts and make his claim again."

What facts have you ever brought to the table Sandbag?

You're entire MO is based on spinning towards what you want to believe.



~SH~

You're a dandy, SH.

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandbag: "Reread my post made at 1:39 and try to figure it out."

You believe that a person can not "lie under oath" (perjury) unless he is convicted of it.

Using one of your own stupid analogys, a person can continue to rob banks and as long as he's not brought up on charges, he's not a thief.


~SH~

No, I believe, as anybody with common sense and no bias does, that "incorrect" is not a synonym of "lie". Why don't you check it out in a thesaurus. Do you know what a thesaurus is ?

Strom used the word "incorrect", not "lie". You are the one who jumped to self-serving conclusions and used the word "lie'. It seems to me somebody who's "only bias was the truth", would actually seek it.

 

[mrj]

Perjury, by definition: The wilful and voluntary giving of false testimony or the withholding of material facts or eveidence in regard to a matter or thing material to the issue or point of inquiry in a legal document or while under oath in a judicial proceeding.

Perjured, a definition: 1. Guilty of perjury; having sworn falsely.

MRJ

So mrj, why are you so quick to condem someone without a trial and yet support Tyson who lost the jury verdict?

Re. Callicrate and his statements, I've heard the man speak more than once. I do not find him credible based on what he said and what I knew about various issues. His record, in my experienc, does not favor his "accuracy".

Separate issue: I do not "support Tyson". I support our justice system when it appears to me to act in accordance with the facts. In this case, I believe, they got it right. Not every court, not every jury, not every judge is right every time, IMO.

My opinions, based upon my experiences.

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

Perjury, by definition: The wilful and voluntary giving of false testimony or the withholding of material facts or eveidence in regard to a matter or thing material to the issue or point of inquiry in a legal document or while under oath in a judicial proceeding.

Perjured, a definition: 1. Guilty of perjury; having sworn falsely.

MRJ

So mrj, why are you so quick to condem someone without a trial and yet support Tyson who lost the jury verdict?

Re. Callicrate and his statements, I've heard the man speak more than once. I do not find him credible based on what he said and what I knew about various issues. His record, in my experienc, does not favor his "accuracy".

Separate issue: I do not "support Tyson". I support our justice system when it appears to me to act in accordance with the facts. In this case, I believe, they got it right. Not every court, not every jury, not every judge is right every time, IMO.

My opinions, based upon my experiences.

MRJ

Okay, MRJ, what was the evidence that the plaintiffs brought and why was it incorrect? You seem to know the facts of the case and base an opinion on them.