A
Anonymous
Guest
Maxine- you still didn't answer the questions I asked.....
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" :???: ......
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.
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....
~SH~ said:Who's talking to you Conman?
I don't care about your lies.
~SH~
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.
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.
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?
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?"
~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~
~SH~ said:There was the infamous diversion dance. Yet another lie exposed!
~SH~
~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~
~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~
Sandbag: "I showed I was not lying."