Packer May Sue Inspectors

[mrj]

It would get pretty boring around here if some of us didn't stir things up once in a while now wouldn't it Tam?

Why worry about what I think about the feed transmission theory Tam. Are you just using it as an excuse to back away from the fight.

"If" the feed transmission theory were true, could you go back and read my previous post and tell me what you think. In fact here Tam, let me help you out.

Randy I still say they sold a raw material that was and still is legal to use in other feeds so to say the Packer is responsible for what happen when the Feed manufacturer put their RAW MATERIAL into cattle feed instead of Pig or Chicken feed that later caused a problem is wrong.
Lets say a restaurant manager buys his food supplies from a wholesaler and after preparing the food a person comes down with food poisoning can the victim go back and sue the wholesaler for selling the restaurant the raw materials , if the restaurant was the one that maybe used the raw materials in a way that it shouldn't have been used?

insuring the safety of this product

Randy is the product that the packers sold safe to be used in feed other than ruminant feed if that feed is not misused by someone else ?

Tam, if a retailer did not handle a perishable product correctly and then sold it a food the retailer would be liable, not the farmer who sold the goods. If the packer processed a beef and found out that internally it was unfit for human consumption and then sold it for that use anyway, they would be responsible.

In every one of these cases the details are important to determine liability. I am not an expert on the details of BSE, as I have stated before, but it is funny how these issues in the beef industry have so much spin before they come out the door. I have stated many, many times that these issues are complicated, have a lot of nuances, require discovery that you nor I can accomplish on this forum, and are answers for a jury to decide. Intent is one of the elements that juries must decide. Most people do not excuse actions because they increase a processor's margins. Liability is not limited to the profits that a company has made. Liability is based on damages.

Tam, Let us stop arguing about this one because it really doesn't matter if either you or I win. I think I made my point. Sometimes efficiency is not really efficient if you don't include all of the costs- known or unknown. It is important that government does not take a hands off approach to some issues even if they cost someone some money. When packers influence the govt. so much that they get their way without the science behind it, there are economic inefficiencies that result. In the long run that hurts all of us. It goes to my argument that when companies cheat in the competition game, they should be caught and pay damages. Those assets will not disappear, contrary to what Jason might think, they may just change management. That might be a good thing for the concentration issues in this and other industries.

Classrooms where teachers (analogous to USDA) allow cheaters (analogous to packers) to cheat may make their test scores higher but they really degrade the quality of education (analogous to the beef industry). Pretty simple when you think about it. Companies that are run well have a disadvantage when compared to companies that cheat (Cheating in this instance is defined as political influence on members of Congress or the USDA).

Econ, this is aside from all other points/premises in your post, but you frequently tout the jury system. What about the practice of some attorneys choosing jurisdictions where juries are known to have a higher than average record of socking it to companies with perceived or actual deep pockets? Shouldn't that practice give us cause to shudder over the possibility of manipulation of the court system by sharp attorneys?

MRJ

 

[Econ101]

Econ, this is aside from all other points/premises in your post, but you frequently tout the jury system. What about the practice of some attorneys choosing jurisdictions where juries are known to have a higher than average record of socking it to companies with perceived or actual deep pockets? Shouldn't that practice give us cause to shudder over the possibility of manipulation of the court system by sharp attorneys?

MRJ

Good thinking, MRJ. There is a good FICTIONAL book on the ideas you bring up. It is called "King of Torts". Having seen a few of these legal charades you mention, I think our legal system has its own problems and smart lawyers take advantage of those problems. The fact that Pickett took so long to even get into court is an example of this. I have already stated that it is much more efficient to have adequate regulation before the legal tax comes into play.

Companies need to pay the damages they inflict on a society. No company should be immune to the liability they create. They may have had a bad business plan, a bad idea for a business, mismanagement, or some other kind of fraud to get the market share they have. I have no problem with investors losing money under those circumstances in a court of law. Companies should never be immortal. Too often we have given that mindset of immortality to corporations.

Lawyers shopping around? Tyson does that everytime they open a new complex. Why constrain regular people to a jurisdictional issue when the corporations are not so constrained? If a Tyson does not want to be in a court where (your) percieved bias is, then they should not do the crime in that jurisdiction. As it so happens, the law that was applicable in Pickett, the PSA, was a federal law and had to be tried in a federal court. It was the Republicans that put all the class action lawsuits in federal courts here recently. The republicans also filled many of the open positions with federal appointments. Many of those appointments were recomended by the republicans that are taking a lot of these campaign contributions from big business.

Let us see, where could these big corporations go to get a fair trial? New York goes through financial scams all the time and the New Yorkers know a lot of them so New York is probably out. Houston is definitely out because of Wendy Gramm's involvement in IBP and Enron where she was a director on both. That would also rule out a huge area around Houston as it was a big story. Nashville TN would be ruled out because of Adelphia. and the Rigas corporate fiasco. Columbia, Missouri would have been a bad place to have a trial also because of Wal-Mart's heir University of Missouri scandal. Another big corporate scandal. California would really have been off the list because of their recent energy crisis after corporate greed messed up the electrical market after deregulation. Bernie Ebbers and the World Com scam in Mississippi. In addition the governor got the state into a 65 some odd million dollar amount of loss on a cattle slaughtering operation.

The places left for "fair" trials is rapidly diminishing. Could this be the law of diminishing returns? (little economic joke).

Don't believe all the spin you hear, MRJ. It could have been a lot worse.

 

[Anonymous]

Probably can't go anywhere in Texas-- Tom Delay is playing musical Judges down there :wink: :lol:

 

[Tam]

Randy I still say they sold a raw material that was and still is legal to use in other feeds so to say the Packer is responsible for what happen when the Feed manufacturer put their RAW MATERIAL into cattle feed instead of Pig or Chicken feed that later caused a problem is wrong.
Lets say a restaurant manager buys his food supplies from a wholesaler and after preparing the food a person comes down with food poisoning can the victim go back and sue the wholesaler for selling the restaurant the raw materials , if the restaurant was the one that maybe used the raw materials in a way that it shouldn't have been used?

Randy is the product that the packers sold safe to be used in feed other than ruminant feed if that feed is not misused by someone else ?

Tam, if a retailer did not handle a perishable product correctly and then sold it a food the retailer would be liable, not the farmer who sold the goods. If the packer processed a beef and found out that internally it was unfit for human consumption and then sold it for that use anyway, they would be responsible.

In every one of these cases the details are important to determine liability. I am not an expert on the details of BSE, as I have stated before, but it is funny how these issues in the beef industry have so much spin before they come out the door. I have stated many, many times that these issues are complicated, have a lot of nuances, require discovery that you nor I can accomplish on this forum, and are answers for a jury to decide. Intent is one of the elements that juries must decide. Most people do not excuse actions because they increase a processor's margins. Liability is not limited to the profits that a company has made. Liability is based on damages.

Tam, Let us stop arguing about this one because it really doesn't matter if either you or I win. I think I made my point. Sometimes efficiency is not really efficient if you don't include all of the costs- known or unknown. It is important that government does not take a hands off approach to some issues even if they cost someone some money. When packers influence the govt. so much that they get their way without the science behind it, there are economic inefficiencies that result. In the long run that hurts all of us. It goes to my argument that when companies cheat in the competition game, they should be caught and pay damages. Those assets will not disappear, contrary to what Jason might think, they may just change management. That might be a good thing for the concentration issues in this and other industries.

Classrooms where teachers (analogous to USDA) allow cheaters (analogous to packers) to cheat may make their test scores higher but they really degrade the quality of education (analogous to the beef industry). Pretty simple when you think about it. Companies that are run well have a disadvantage when compared to companies that cheat (Cheating in this instance is defined as political influence on members of Congress or the USDA).

Econ, this is aside from all other points/premises in your post, but you frequently tout the jury system. What about the practice of some attorneys choosing jurisdictions where juries are known to have a higher than average record of socking it to companies with perceived or actual deep pockets? Shouldn't that practice give us cause to shudder over the possibility of manipulation of the court system by sharp attorneys?

MRJ

Yes and how R-CALF used the Montana Federal court to get their injunction but when it was taken out of Montana the home of R-CALF not one judge agreed with Cebulls ruling and it was thrown out. Could this be another case of manipulation of the court system by sharp attorneys? :?

 

[Econ101]

Tam, if a retailer did not handle a perishable product correctly and then sold it a food the retailer would be liable, not the farmer who sold the goods. If the packer processed a beef and found out that internally it was unfit for human consumption and then sold it for that use anyway, they would be responsible.

In every one of these cases the details are important to determine liability. I am not an expert on the details of BSE, as I have stated before, but it is funny how these issues in the beef industry have so much spin before they come out the door. I have stated many, many times that these issues are complicated, have a lot of nuances, require discovery that you nor I can accomplish on this forum, and are answers for a jury to decide. Intent is one of the elements that juries must decide. Most people do not excuse actions because they increase a processor's margins. Liability is not limited to the profits that a company has made. Liability is based on damages.

Tam, Let us stop arguing about this one because it really doesn't matter if either you or I win. I think I made my point. Sometimes efficiency is not really efficient if you don't include all of the costs- known or unknown. It is important that government does not take a hands off approach to some issues even if they cost someone some money. When packers influence the govt. so much that they get their way without the science behind it, there are economic inefficiencies that result. In the long run that hurts all of us. It goes to my argument that when companies cheat in the competition game, they should be caught and pay damages. Those assets will not disappear, contrary to what Jason might think, they may just change management. That might be a good thing for the concentration issues in this and other industries.

Classrooms where teachers (analogous to USDA) allow cheaters (analogous to packers) to cheat may make their test scores higher but they really degrade the quality of education (analogous to the beef industry). Pretty simple when you think about it. Companies that are run well have a disadvantage when compared to companies that cheat (Cheating in this instance is defined as political influence on members of Congress or the USDA).

Econ, this is aside from all other points/premises in your post, but you frequently tout the jury system. What about the practice of some attorneys choosing jurisdictions where juries are known to have a higher than average record of socking it to companies with perceived or actual deep pockets? Shouldn't that practice give us cause to shudder over the possibility of manipulation of the court system by sharp attorneys?

MRJ

Yes and how R-CALF used the Montana Federal court to get their injunction but when it was taken out of Montana the home of R-CALF not one judge agreed with Cebulls ruling and it was thrown out. Could this be another case of manipulation of the court system by sharp attorneys? :?

Those were federal judges who look to the Senate judiciary members for promotion. Follow the money. It isn't a little crumb trail like in Hansel and Grettel. It is a huge, well worn path. I am not saying it is anything different in Canada. I wish it weren't so but facts are hard to refute.

As a middle child in a large family, I knew how to get my two oldest brothers to fight over something so I could slip in and get what I wanted. The packers have it so easy.

 

[Tam]

Those were federal judges who look to the Senate judiciary members for promotion. Follow the money. It isn't a little crumb trail like in Hansel and Grettel. It is a huge, well worn path. I am not saying it is anything different in Canada. I wish it weren't so but facts are hard to refute.

And Cebull was recommended to the Federal Court in Montana by two US Senators from opposite sides of the floor that just so happen both support R-CALFs isolations Agenda. So what do you think influenced Cebulls ready for the press in a few hours ruling that was written with the same misspelled words as R-CALFs briefings to him. A ruling that was thrown out once it left Montana.

As a middle child in a large family, I knew how to get my two oldest brothers to fight over something so I could slip in and get what I wanted. The packers have it so easy

Gee I'm not surprized as you still think you can slip in and getting away with what you want. Like where you thought you could slip in accuse the packers and get out with out proving your accusations. To bad I was also a product of a large family where we were taught that truth is the best policy as lies and false accusations had consequences that weren't pretty. Not only did you lose your credibility with people that counted on you to be trustworthy, but you couldn't sit for awhile either. I really don't think I would have saved my backside if I had told my parents Oh just forget it I think I made my point. :roll: