R-CULT loses yet another one in court.
ocm: "Shows how accurate ~SH~ is with his facts. R-CALF had nothing to do with Pickett."
ocm said:R-CALF was neither a plaintiff nor did they ever have fundraisers to support it. They talked about it but it was NEVER their case.
Have proof otherwise?
Beefman said:ocm said:R-CALF was neither a plaintiff nor did they ever have fundraisers to support it. They talked about it but it was NEVER their case.
Have proof otherwise?
OCM: FYI
From the KCA (R Calf affiliate) website: "R-CALF supported the lawsuit."
http://www.kansascattlemen.com/archives/00000196.htm
Can't get much more obvious than this.
Beefman
Bullard said the case was a matter of economic survival.
One of the most significant issues affecting the cattle industry, Bullard said, is whether or not the markets are functioning competitively. He said that issue was addressed in Pickett v. IBP, which he termed a landmark case.
"A cattle organization has an absolute obligation to take a position," Bullard said. "Our position is that we value, above all else, open and competitive markets, fairness in trade. This case addresses the very ! heart of that."
Pickett v. IBP, he continued, addresses whether or not independent producers can determine the value of their livestock through a competitive marketplace.
"There could be nothing more important than that," Bullard insisted.
If the cattle industry continues to support cases like Pickett v. IBP, cattlemen will never have to rely on government subsidies, he opined.
"Pickett v. IBP represents the first time that the Packers and Stockyards Act, which is 80 years old, was used as a basis for litigation like this in a class-action lawsuit," Bullard said.
There are two parts to the case, he pointed out.
"There were the damages, which was headline news," Bullard said, "but the other part was injunctive relief. The plaintiffs had enough foresight when they went in this case to recognize that they weren't in it for the money. What was going on was a cancer that was starting within the industry that was minimizing, reducing the profitability of producers. So they are in the process now of devising the legal remedies, the structural remedies, to prohibit Tyson-IBP from continuing those price manipulative practices that have been depressing prices."
He said the options include limiting Tyson's ability to engage in captive supply arrangements and requiring them to go into the cash spot market to obtain their livestock.
"That's one possibility," Bullard said.
There is also the possibility of repeating what happened in 1921, when the concentrated packing industry was broken up.
"It was far less concentrated in 1921 than it is today," Bullard pointed out. "Tyson and three other packers control over 80 percent of all steer and heifer slaughter."
Mike said:Yes agman I agree it is interesting!
11th Circuit Court of Appeals
Pickett vs. Tyson
Page 12:"Pickett contends he has established unfairness and price control or manipulation under the PSA by proving that Tyson's marketing agreements caused the cash-market, and the overall price, for cattle to be lower than it otherwise would be. If that were all Pickett were required to prove he might win, because there was evidence at trial to the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole."
(Taylor was obviously correct)
Page 13: "Pickett must establish more than the use of marketing agreements have decreased the price of cattle. He must establish that their use has adversely affected competition, which requires showing that marketing agreements have no pro-competitive justifications."
Bottom line to me. PSA should not have been used in this case. A plain old swindling charge would have held up.
~SH~ said:ocm: "R-CALF had nothing to do with Pickett."
Bullard said the case was a matter of economic survival.
One of the most significant issues affecting the cattle industry, Bullard said, is whether or not the markets are functioning competitively. He said that issue was addressed in Pickett v. IBP, which he termed a landmark case.
"A cattle organization has an absolute obligation to take a position," Bullard said. "Our position is that we value, above all else, open and competitive markets, fairness in trade. This case addresses the very ! heart of that."
Pickett v. IBP, he continued, addresses whether or not independent producers can determine the value of their livestock through a competitive marketplace.
"There could be nothing more important than that," Bullard insisted.
If the cattle industry continues to support cases like Pickett v. IBP, cattlemen will never have to rely on government subsidies, he opined.
"Pickett v. IBP represents the first time that the Packers and Stockyards Act, which is 80 years old, was used as a basis for litigation like this in a class-action lawsuit," Bullard said.
There are two parts to the case, he pointed out.
"There were the damages, which was headline news," Bullard said, "but the other part was injunctive relief. The plaintiffs had enough foresight when they went in this case to recognize that they weren't in it for the money. What was going on was a cancer that was starting within the industry that was minimizing, reducing the profitability of producers. So they are in the process now of devising the legal remedies, the structural remedies, to prohibit Tyson-IBP from continuing those price manipulative practices that have been depressing prices."
He said the options include limiting Tyson's ability to engage in captive supply arrangements and requiring them to go into the cash spot market to obtain their livestock.
"That's one possibility," Bullard said.
There is also the possibility of repeating what happened in 1921, when the concentrated packing industry was broken up.
"It was far less concentrated in 1921 than it is today," Bullard pointed out. "Tyson and three other packers control over 80 percent of all steer and heifer slaughter."
NAH OCM, R-CALF DIDN'T TAKE A POSITION ON PICKETT VS. IBP?
You can pull your pants up now!
You can't get by with that crap here. Why do you even try?
~SH~
browndirtcowboy said:The Pickett decision means that if you want to sell cattle using marketing agreements, you can. If you want to sell cattle on the cash market, you can. If you want to sell cattle using forward contracts, you can. Isn't that the way it is supposed to be??!!
[Pickett and his fellow class members could have entered into marketing agreements with Tyson. Many of the producers who testified on Pickett's behalf had themselves sold cattle through them. With marketing agreements, producers do lose some of their independence because meat packers get to dictate the date of delivery and adjust the price to the actual yield of the cattle. Some producers find the advantages of marketing agreements worth any loss of independence; it was, after all, producers who came up with the idea of marketing agreements. Other producers, like Pickett, place a higher premium on independence and prefer the cash market. They are entitled to their preferences, but they are not entitled to force those preferences on other producers and on the packers.]
ocm said:OCM statement:
OCM: Activist Judges Rule Against Cattlemen in Pickett Case
Lincoln~
"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall
exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be
preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise
re-examined in any Court of the United States, than
according to the rules of the common law."
U.S. Constitution, Seventh Amendment.
The Organization for Competitive Markets expressed its disappointment today in an Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision disagreeing with the jury in the Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats litigation. The jury found, in February 2004, Tyson liable for $1.28 billion in damages for eight years of cattle price manipulation.
"These judges did not sit on the jury, but overturned their decision," said Keith Mudd, OCM president. "The Appellate Judges did not hear the testimony of the witnesses or sit through several weeks of trial. Instead, they listened to one hour of argument and decided the jury was wrong."
The Pickett case is about Tyson using cattle contract buying strategies to lower the live cattle price wrongly. The practice is known as captive supplies. The Court did not disagree with the jury that Tyson had used captive supplies to manipulate prices downward. Instead, the Court found the Plaintiffs did not prove the complete absence of a justification.
"The test used by the Court makes no sense," continued Mudd. "Tyson's captive supply practices caused $1.28 billion harm to cattle producers. Tyson said they needed captive supply to gain a consistent supply of cattle, but did not show evidence of the dollar value to the company. The Court essentially said they did not need to know the value. If Tyson gained any value whatsoever from captive supplies, we have to ignore the tremendous producer harm even if it overwhelmingly exceeds the benefit to Tyson."
The Packers & Stockyards Act prohibits price manipulation by its language. The Pickett case was brought under this Act.
No language in the statute says packers can justify price manipulation, or other unfair practices, if they have a business justification.
"The Court is writing words into the Packers & Stockyards Act that Congress did not choose to include when passing the Act in 1921," said Mudd. "If this decision stands, the Act is virtually dead."
The Organization for Competitive Markets is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit public policy organization working for American food producers, consumers and rural communities.
Mike said:Yes agman I agree it is interesting!
11th Circuit Court of Appeals
Pickett vs. Tyson
Page 12:"Pickett contends he has established unfairness and price control or manipulation under the PSA by proving that Tyson's marketing agreements caused the cash-market, and the overall price, for cattle to be lower than it otherwise would be. If that were all Pickett were required to prove he might win, because there was evidence at trial to the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole."
(Taylor was obviously correct)
Page 13: "Pickett must establish more than the use of marketing agreements have decreased the price of cattle. He must establish that their use has adversely affected competition, which requires showing that marketing agreements have no pro-competitive justifications."
Bottom line to me. PSA should not have been used in this case. A plain old swindling charge would have held up.
HAY MAKER said:ocm said:OCM statement:
OCM: Activist Judges Rule Against Cattlemen in Pickett Case
Lincoln~
"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall
exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be
preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise
re-examined in any Court of the United States, than
according to the rules of the common law."
U.S. Constitution, Seventh Amendment.
The Organization for Competitive Markets expressed its disappointment today in an Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision disagreeing with the jury in the Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats litigation. The jury found, in February 2004, Tyson liable for $1.28 billion in damages for eight years of cattle price manipulation.
"These judges did not sit on the jury, but overturned their decision," said Keith Mudd, OCM president. "The Appellate Judges did not hear the testimony of the witnesses or sit through several weeks of trial. Instead, they listened to one hour of argument and decided the jury was wrong."
The Pickett case is about Tyson using cattle contract buying strategies to lower the live cattle price wrongly. The practice is known as captive supplies. The Court did not disagree with the jury that Tyson had used captive supplies to manipulate prices downward. Instead, the Court found the Plaintiffs did not prove the complete absence of a justification.
"The test used by the Court makes no sense," continued Mudd. "Tyson's captive supply practices caused $1.28 billion harm to cattle producers. Tyson said they needed captive supply to gain a consistent supply of cattle, but did not show evidence of the dollar value to the company. The Court essentially said they did not need to know the value. If Tyson gained any value whatsoever from captive supplies, we have to ignore the tremendous producer harm even if it overwhelmingly exceeds the benefit to Tyson."
The Packers & Stockyards Act prohibits price manipulation by its language. The Pickett case was brought under this Act.
No language in the statute says packers can justify price manipulation, or other unfair practices, if they have a business justification.
"The Court is writing words into the Packers & Stockyards Act that Congress did not choose to include when passing the Act in 1921," said Mudd. "If this decision stands, the Act is virtually dead."
The Organization for Competitive Markets is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit public policy organization working for American food producers, consumers and rural communities.
It is a sad day in America,when it is proven,without doubt that the "laws of the land" can be bought and sold if you have the money,this is as bad as the OJ simpson trial...............good luck
