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

Packer blamers hoisting their beers again.

agman

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
SH- I very strongly believe in our Jury System- it has stood up for over 200 years and is still the best system going....I also don't believe in activist Judges, be they Liberals or be they Conservatives, that override a jury panel....

Unless their was a MAJOR flaw in the trial procedure- which I've heard nothing to date about- then the case should stand as decided by the South Dakota jurors- and not be overturned just because Maxine has visions that all SD jurors that rule against her Packer bought ideology are "good ol boys" :???: ......

Are juries always right-yes or no. I am referencing this in general not necessarily this case.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
agman said:
Oldtimer said:
SH- I very strongly believe in our Jury System- it has stood up for over 200 years and is still the best system going....I also don't believe in activist Judges, be they Liberals or be they Conservatives, that override a jury panel....

Unless their was a MAJOR flaw in the trial procedure- which I've heard nothing to date about- then the case should stand as decided by the South Dakota jurors- and not be overturned just because Maxine has visions that all SD jurors that rule against her Packer bought ideology are "good ol boys" :???: ......

Are juries always right-yes or no. I am referencing this in general not necessarily this case.

Nothing or Nobody is always right....But in this case I would have a hard time believing that Tyson, Cargil etal didn't get a fair shake with the crib full of high priced attorneys they have at their beck and call.....

As far as transcripts go- they are not nearly as good as the jury being their to see the candor and demeanor of the witness's to determine the weight of the testimony...

That is what jurors are supposed to be and do-- to use their everyday knowledge and common sense to evaluate and weigh the evidence and make the best decision based on their common sense ....

If the corporate world feels juries are unduly prejudiced against them, they have only themselves to blame for the image they have created....
 

RoperAB

Well-known member
Im no expert on the American Justice system but a Jury awarded some woman 2.7 million dollars because she claimed her coffee she bought from Ronald MacDonalds was to hot.
Juries left off those cops that beat up Rodney King,
Juries left OJ Simpson off.
I wasnt in the court room to see any of this stuff so I really dont know what their reasons were. But the MacDonalds coffee lawsuit sounds CRAZY!
The Rodney King thing im not sure about because all im all going buy is what I saw on the news so im going to trust the police had their reasons.
 

agman

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
agman said:
Oldtimer said:
SH- I very strongly believe in our Jury System- it has stood up for over 200 years and is still the best system going....I also don't believe in activist Judges, be they Liberals or be they Conservatives, that override a jury panel....

Unless their was a MAJOR flaw in the trial procedure- which I've heard nothing to date about- then the case should stand as decided by the South Dakota jurors- and not be overturned just because Maxine has visions that all SD jurors that rule against her Packer bought ideology are "good ol boys" :???: ......

Are juries always right-yes or no. I am referencing this in general not necessarily this case.


Nothing or Nobody is always right....But in this case I would have a hard time believing that Tyson, Cargil etal didn't get a fair shake with the crib full of high priced attorneys they have at their beck and call.....

As far as transcripts go- they are not nearly as good as the jury being their to see the candor and demeanor of the witness's to determine the weight of the testimony...

That is what jurors are supposed to be and do-- to use their everyday knowledge and common sense to evaluate and weigh the evidence and make the best decision based on their common sense ....

If the corporate world feels juries are unduly prejudiced against them, they have only themselves to blame for the image they have created....


Thanks for your answer. The fact that juries can get it wrong and on occasion do get it wrong dispels the belief following the Pickett case that the jury verdict should be absolute. My question was not in regard to this case as I indicated at the outset. The problem with "common" sense is that it is very "uncommon". Point: Common sense to you is that cow prices advanced when the border closed although cow imports only equaled 330,000 head. What was common sense to me is that the reduction in domestic cow slaughter of 2.6 million head far outweighed the impact of the border closure to cow imports. The cyclical reduction in domestic cow slaughter of 2.6 million head was the primary reason for the advance in cow prices. Common sense would dictate that 2.6 million cows is much more relevant than 330,000 cows. I think I made my point that "common" sense is often "uncommon".

Per this case judge Khorman's comment that the "Appellate Court will have fun with this decision" should alert you to a problem with the juries decision. I have not seen the testimony yet but I am very suspect as to how the jury derived at a date of April 24 that packers knew of the error after earlier stating they should not and could not have known of the error.

If no definitive testimony was provided to fix the April 24th date their decision is in serious trouble. No flame intended.
 

Tommy

Well-known member
agman...The fact that juries can get it wrong and on occasion do get it wrong dispels the belief following the Pickett case that the jury verdict should be absolute.

I don't think anyone on this site believed that agman. What I see most saying is to let the appeals court handle it instead of the Judge overruling the jury. We all knew that it would get appealed no matter what the verdict was.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
Oldtimer said:
agman said:
Are juries always right-yes or no. I am referencing this in general not necessarily this case.


Nothing or Nobody is always right....But in this case I would have a hard time believing that Tyson, Cargil etal didn't get a fair shake with the crib full of high priced attorneys they have at their beck and call.....

As far as transcripts go- they are not nearly as good as the jury being their to see the candor and demeanor of the witness's to determine the weight of the testimony...

That is what jurors are supposed to be and do-- to use their everyday knowledge and common sense to evaluate and weigh the evidence and make the best decision based on their common sense ....

If the corporate world feels juries are unduly prejudiced against them, they have only themselves to blame for the image they have created....


Thanks for your answer. The fact that juries can get it wrong and on occasion do get it wrong dispels the belief following the Pickett case that the jury verdict should be absolute. My question was not in regard to this case as I indicated at the outset. The problem with "common" sense is that it is very "uncommon". Point: Common sense to you is that cow prices advanced when the border closed although cow imports only equaled 330,000 head. What was common sense to me is that the reduction in domestic cow slaughter of 2.6 million head far outweighed the impact of the border closure to cow imports. The cyclical reduction in domestic cow slaughter of 2.6 million head was the primary reason for the advance in cow prices. Common sense would dictate that 2.6 million cows is much more relevant than 330,000 cows. I think I made my point that "common" sense is often "uncommon".

Per this case judge Khorman's comment that the "Appellate Court will have fun with this decision" should alert you to a problem with the juries decision. I have not seen the testimony yet but I am very suspect as to how the jury derived at a date of April 24 that packers knew of the error after earlier stating they should not and could not have known of the error.

If no definitive testimony was provided to fix the April 24th date their decision is in serious trouble. No flame intended.

Agman, ALL of the defendants could have had an accurate defense in the recent case that they did not know of the fraud and did not benefit from it had they posted the figures that they gave to AMS on their own website for sellers to see.

That would be the voluntary price reporting that SH talks about.

Sometimes when you don't take steps to prevent a fraud, and instead help yourself to the "goodies" at the expense of others, juries hold you accountable for at least handing back the "goodies" you took.

If the appellate courts overturn this one, it will show the complete bias against the jury system by our federal courts and bias towards corporations barring any real problems with the testimony.

It will also show there is no relief to government incompetence and that a packer run USDA is just going to continue to steal from producers.
 

agman

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
agman said:
Oldtimer said:
Nothing or Nobody is always right....But in this case I would have a hard time believing that Tyson, Cargil etal didn't get a fair shake with the crib full of high priced attorneys they have at their beck and call.....

As far as transcripts go- they are not nearly as good as the jury being their to see the candor and demeanor of the witness's to determine the weight of the testimony...

That is what jurors are supposed to be and do-- to use their everyday knowledge and common sense to evaluate and weigh the evidence and make the best decision based on their common sense ....

If the corporate world feels juries are unduly prejudiced against them, they have only themselves to blame for the image they have created....


Thanks for your answer. The fact that juries can get it wrong and on occasion do get it wrong dispels the belief following the Pickett case that the jury verdict should be absolute. My question was not in regard to this case as I indicated at the outset. The problem with "common" sense is that it is very "uncommon". Point: Common sense to you is that cow prices advanced when the border closed although cow imports only equaled 330,000 head. What was common sense to me is that the reduction in domestic cow slaughter of 2.6 million head far outweighed the impact of the border closure to cow imports. The cyclical reduction in domestic cow slaughter of 2.6 million head was the primary reason for the advance in cow prices. Common sense would dictate that 2.6 million cows is much more relevant than 330,000 cows. I think I made my point that "common" sense is often "uncommon".

Per this case judge Khorman's comment that the "Appellate Court will have fun with this decision" should alert you to a problem with the juries decision. I have not seen the testimony yet but I am very suspect as to how the jury derived at a date of April 24 that packers knew of the error after earlier stating they should not and could not have known of the error.

If no definitive testimony was provided to fix the April 24th date their decision is in serious trouble. No flame intended.

Agman, ALL of the defendants could have had an accurate defense in the recent case that they did not know of the fraud and did not benefit from it had they posted the figures that they gave to AMS on their own website for sellers to see.

That would be the voluntary price reporting that SH talks about.

Sometimes when you don't take steps to prevent a fraud, and instead help yourself to the "goodies" at the expense of others, juries hold you accountable for at least handing back the "goodies" you took.

If the appellate courts overturn this one, it will show the complete bias against the jury system by our federal courts and bias towards corporations barring any real problems with the testimony.

It will also show there is no relief to government incompetence and that a packer run USDA is just going to continue to steal from producers.

Once again your total ignorance of business and law is exposed.

For someone such as yourself to suggest bias of an individual or our court system is a total fraud. Are you really trying to suggest you are not biased when you will lie at any turn to support your phony claims predetermined by your TOTAL bias and ignorance of facts?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
agman said:
Econ101 said:
agman said:
Thanks for your answer. The fact that juries can get it wrong and on occasion do get it wrong dispels the belief following the Pickett case that the jury verdict should be absolute. My question was not in regard to this case as I indicated at the outset. The problem with "common" sense is that it is very "uncommon". Point: Common sense to you is that cow prices advanced when the border closed although cow imports only equaled 330,000 head. What was common sense to me is that the reduction in domestic cow slaughter of 2.6 million head far outweighed the impact of the border closure to cow imports. The cyclical reduction in domestic cow slaughter of 2.6 million head was the primary reason for the advance in cow prices. Common sense would dictate that 2.6 million cows is much more relevant than 330,000 cows. I think I made my point that "common" sense is often "uncommon".

Per this case judge Khorman's comment that the "Appellate Court will have fun with this decision" should alert you to a problem with the juries decision. I have not seen the testimony yet but I am very suspect as to how the jury derived at a date of April 24 that packers knew of the error after earlier stating they should not and could not have known of the error.

If no definitive testimony was provided to fix the April 24th date their decision is in serious trouble. No flame intended.

Agman, ALL of the defendants could have had an accurate defense in the recent case that they did not know of the fraud and did not benefit from it had they posted the figures that they gave to AMS on their own website for sellers to see.

That would be the voluntary price reporting that SH talks about.

Sometimes when you don't take steps to prevent a fraud, and instead help yourself to the "goodies" at the expense of others, juries hold you accountable for at least handing back the "goodies" you took.

If the appellate courts overturn this one, it will show the complete bias against the jury system by our federal courts and bias towards corporations barring any real problems with the testimony.

It will also show there is no relief to government incompetence and that a packer run USDA is just going to continue to steal from producers.

Once again your total ignorance of business and law is exposed.

For someone such as yourself to suggest bias of an individual or our court system is a total fraud. Are you really trying to suggest you are not biased when you will lie at any turn to support your phony claims predetermined by your TOTAL bias and ignorance of facts?

What "lie" Agman? Do you believe as SH that everything not proven yet in a court of law is a "lie" even before it gets a chance to go to court or even before a competent investigation?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "Do you believe as SH that everything not proven yet in a court of law is a "lie" even before it gets a chance to go to court or even before a competent investigation?"

YET ANOTHER LIE!!!!

Show everyone where I said that "everything not proven yet in a court of law is a lie".

BRING IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Watch the circus chicken dance again folks............



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Conman: "Do you believe as SH that everything not proven yet in a court of law is a "lie" even before it gets a chance to go to court or even before a competent investigation?"

YET ANOTHER LIE!!!!

Show everyone where I said that "everything not proven yet in a court of law is a lie".

BRING IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Watch the circus chicken dance again folks............



~SH~

Sticks and stones.......
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
There was the infamous diversion dance. Yet another lie exposed!


~SH~

Like this lie, SH?
Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 12:52 pm Post subject:

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

Ccomment to SH, "I understand GIPSA did all they could to NOT to investigate. So does Tom Harkin, Joan Waterford, Saxby Chambliss, etc... You commented that nothing was wrong there."

SH's accusation, "You liar! I commented that nothing had been PROVEN wrong there. A political allegation that makes packer blamers happy is not proof. I want to hear GIPSA's side of the argument rather than being a packer blaming lemming."

My followup, "Here's a reminder of what you said, SH, on 2/9/06, "There is nothing wrong with how GIPSA is being run."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Yes Sandhusker, like that lie.

You said "GIPSA was doing all they could not to investigate".

That is a lie and I haven't seen you present anything to back that lie nor will you. You'll keep diverting!


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Yes Sandhusker, like that lie.

You said "GIPSA was doing all they could not to investigate".

That is a lie and I haven't seen you present anything to back that lie nor will you. You'll keep diverting!


~SH~

Any you accuse me of diverting? :roll:

SH, "There is nothing wrong with how GIPSA is being run."

SH, ""You liar! I commented that nothing had been PROVEN wrong there"

Where is any reference to anything being proven in your original statement, SH?

You sure toss that title "liar" around liberally. Now that everything is presented together, who is the liar?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag,

Why do you keep diverting?

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT GIPSA DID ALL THEY COULD NOT TO INVESTIGATE????

Why do you keep dancing around answering that question?

If you didn't lie with that statement you should be able to back it up.

Why don't you just admit that you heard a politically motivated report that said what you wanted to believe but if packers were truly manipulating the markets, you packer blamers should have provided that proof in Pickett but you didn't have any proof.

Why would GIPSA find market manipulation when you packer blamers couldn't find it?


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Sandbag,

Why do you keep diverting?

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT GIPSA DID ALL THEY COULD NOT TO INVESTIGATE????

Why do you keep dancing around answering that question?

If you didn't lie with that statement you should be able to back it up.

Why don't you just admit that you heard a politically motivated report that said what you wanted to believe but if packers were truly manipulating the markets, you packer blamers should have provided that proof in Pickett but you didn't have any proof.

Why would GIPSA find market manipulation when you packer blamers couldn't find it?


~SH~

Who really lied, SH? You called me a liar. I showed I was not lying. Instead of trying to change the subject, why don't you man up and apologize?

I proved you wrong, why don't you try do to the same to me? Try it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "I showed I was not lying."

Bullsh*t, you never proved that GIPSA was doing all it could not to investigate. You just made it up. You didn't back it. I know it's a lie. The burden of proof falls on you to prove your allegation but you keep dancing around it like you always do because you know you can't back it up.



~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top