• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

NMA FILES PAPERS FOR AN INJUCTION

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Denny

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
5,624
Reaction score
0
Location
Mn usa
Just caught a little on the radio that the NMA has filed papers in federal court to try to over turn the ruling in the r-calf case.
 
I read that the NMA filed papers requesting the court to expediate the hearing in regards to the border. As far as I can tell nothing has been heard by a judge yet.
 
Cattle futures are sharply lower today in a continuation of yesterday's weaker price tone. Today's weakness is stemming from reports that a trade group of US meatpackers is seeking to lift a ban on the importation of Canadian beef imports. The National Meat Association is filing an appeal of a Montana judges ruling which prevented the USDA opening up US borders to Canadian beef imports earlier this month. Further weakness is also being link to disappointment over live sales, with cattle on the hoof in the southern plain states going for $93.00 per hundredweight, which was less than the market, had anticipated.
 
Beef industry officials in Canada do not expect the U.S. border to be reopened to live cattle until at least 2006, three years after a ban was put in place, according to a news story filed by CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corp.) News.

The border was expected to reopen on March 7 to live Canadian cattle under the age of 30 months but a Montana-based ranchers' group obtained a preliminary injunction blocking the move and is seeking a broad ban on Canadian beef, the story said.

The lobby group, R-CALF, argued the reopening would cause financial harm to U.S. producers. It said Canada doesn't properly test its animals for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), also known as mad cow disease.

"You could easily get into nine months to a year and a half...in terms of the likely time frames around these court proceedings," said Dennis Laycraft of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association in the CBC story.

Laycraft and other producers met with the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Minister Andy Mitchell in Calgary Thursday.

The U.S. closed its border to Canadian live cattle in May 2003 after a case of mad cow disease was discovered in Alberta.

Mitchell in the CBC story said his U.S. counterpart, Mike Johanns, was in the process of deciding how to challenge the Montana ruling.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is set to appear in court next week.

Laycraft said he hopes a timeline will be set for the re-entry of Canadian cattle. (CBC News)
 
"Unfair trade", is the cry from NMA. Contending that cheaper beef can be bought, processed in Canada and then sent to the US, they have filed countersuit to overturn ruling by a Mt. FEDERAL judge. I thought the border was closed?!?!?!?! Where is USDA in all this controversy? Ooops, I forgot, in the pockets of BIG business, not the ag producer. As permitted by our illustrious leader-The Buszcszcszchhh Whacker. What a frickin' joke this whole situation is. Label it all and let the consumer and US trade partners decide. Oops, again forgot, BIG business doesn't want this either. Neither does USDA, how surprising.
 
NMA Files Appeal against R-CALF Preliminary Injunction

HASTINGS, Neb. (DTN) - As reported by John Harrington, DTN livestock analyst, the National Meat Association, a trade organization serving the meat packing industry, has filed an appeal of the preliminary injunction won by R-CALF which halted the March 7 scheduled opening of the border to Canadian cattle. U.S. exporters sold less corn and wheat last week than the previous week but soybean export sales increased, USDA reported Thursday morning.

NMA filed papers in San Francisco Tuesday, asking the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to expedite hearing of NMA's appeal of the injunction granted to R-CALF and the denial of NMA's Motion to Intervene in R-CALF's suit against USDA. The filing said:

"NMA, certifies that to avoid irreparable harm, relief is needed in less than 21 days; in the absence of expedited treatment, irreparable harm will occur to NMA and consumers in the United States. The effect of the District Court's rulings will be to continue an unfair business environment under which NMA's members are unable to import live cattle from Canada while competitors with slaughterhouses in Canada are permitted to buy cheaper cattle in Canada, slaughter those cattle in Canada and import certain beef products into the United States. NMA seeks a level playing field, which the District Court's rulings prevent."
 
Can a state government pass a law that prevents Canadian beef from entering that state? My thought is that the states cannot, as the original purpose of the federal government is to regulate interstate trade. What do y'all think?
 
(FARM NEWS WIRE MARCH 11-12:09)

In another development the U.S. National Meat Association filed an emergency appeal to protect its members who slaughter cattle from imminent economic collapse. NMA's appeal asks that the Court require R-CALF to post bond sufficient to protect NMA members from the devastating impact of the preliminary injunction preventing the U.S. border from reopening to live Canadian cattle as long as it remains in effect
 
NMA filed papers in San Francisco Tuesday, asking the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to expedite hearing of NMA's appeal of the injunction granted to R-CALF and the denial of NMA's Motion to Intervene in R-CALF's suit against USDA.**************I would think that would be the worst place to file an appeal since every one in Ca. is food nuts an that wants everything ORGANIC and PESTICIDE FREE!
 
Denny Blowers said:
Just caught a little on the radio that a Fed. Judge in California has over turned the Ruleing by Judge Cebull.Futures are falling.


Got the rest of the story.

The NMA has filed papers in this case in federal court in Califonia to hopefully overturn the ruling by Cebull...

It involves 2 appeals the first needs to be won before the injuction appeal can even be considered.

sorry for jumping the gun....
 
so it's a possibility r-calf could have to post a bond to cover financial damages to nma members??? gotta love it if they have to back up their arguments with cash!!!! correct me if i'm wrong but i assume that nma wants r-calf to be financially responsible if its arguments are shown to be frivolous or invalid.
 
I'll bet you are right, Don. It appears that the NMA wants to show r-calf that the litigation knife can cut both ways. And it will be interesting to see what happens if/when they suceed.
 
wouldn't that be sweet if RCalf has to post a bond to protect the packers....lol

I wonder if Leo will put up Midlands Bull test as security? or if Bullard will use his little shack in the woods?

I bet they wont....they will go begging hat in hand to the producer again.
 
I wonder if Leo will put up Midlands Bull test as security? or if Bullard will use his little shack in the woods?

i'm sure the r-calfers will come out of the woodwork to volunteer security. right oldtimer and haymaker?
 
So if the border opens and we producers lose money we can sue the packers and have them bonded? I say since the judge ruled on it they are barking up the wrong tree on trying to bond R-calf.
 
rancher - So if the border opens and we producers lose money we can sue the packers and have them bonded?

i would guess if they got the border opened under false pretences or in an illegal manner they might have some liability. this effort by the nma probably won't succeed in my guesstimation but it does put the r-calf spokespeople on notice that they might be held responsible for what they say.
 
rancher said:
So if the border opens and we producers lose money we can sue the packers and have them bonded? I say since the judge ruled on it they are barking up the wrong tree on trying to bond R-calf.

Beef industry? Cattle industry? Seems like it is one industry after all.
 
Top