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

Pickett case goes down in flames

Help Support Ranchers.net:

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
It is late and I just arrived in KC and retrived the opinion from my e:mail regarding the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals which convincingly upheld Judge Stroms ruling to dismiss the jury verdict against Tyson in the Pickett case.

The 33 page ruling was an interesting read indeed. Truth wins out over facts again.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
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.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Another interesting piece from the

11th Circuit Court of Appeals

Page 28: "Tyson has a specific niche market for its products -in its case, steaks and hamburgers. It is a volume meat dealer; its largest customers are supermarket chains. To provide for its customers in the most inexpensive and efficient way, Tyson prefers large, high yielding cattle to leaner, high quality cattle. High yield cattle have middle grade meat, and that is fine with Tyson. By focusing its procurement on high yield instead of high quality cattle, Tyson is better able to meet the needs of its customers at lower costs."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
R-CULT loses yet another one in court.

Imagine that!

Now watch all the excuses..........

"But, but the 11th circuit and judge Strom were not privy to all the facts the jury was privy to"....waaaaaahhhhhhh!


How about this fact..........

Judge Strom's instructions to the jury were that they had to agree that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for entering into forward contracts.

THE PLAINTIFFS TESTIFED TO THE CONTRARY!!!!!!!!!!

THE PLAINTIFFS THEMSELVES HAD USED FORWARD CONTRACTS!!!!!!!!!!!

THE PLAINTIFFS TESTIFED THAT IBP HAD A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS REASON FOR USING FORWARD CONTRACTS.

It was a slam dunk.


"But, but, but the packers should have refused our forward contract offers because those contracts simply meant that they then needed less cattle in the cash market which drove down their cash bids because because because when you need less cattle you bid less agressively you see?"

What a bunch of whiners!

Keep donating those calves R-CALFers, I'm sure the lawyers appreciate it.

As long as facts keep winning over rhetoric, you'll keep losing.


~SH~
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
R-CULT loses yet another one in court.

Shows how accurate ~SH~ is with his facts. R-CALF had nothing to do with Pickett.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ocm: "Shows how accurate ~SH~ is with his facts. R-CALF had nothing to do with Pickett."

That is a lie!

R-CALF supported the Pickett lawsuit from the very beginning and you know it.


~SH~
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
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?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OCM, YOU SAID R-CALF HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH PICKETT

DID R-CALF SUPPORT PICKETT IN THE PICKETT vs IBP CASE?

1. YES THEY DID SUPPORT PICKETT IN THE PICKETT VS IBP CASE.

2. NO THEY DID NOT TAKE A POSITION ON THE PICKETT VS IBP CASE



I'm tired of your deception!



~SH~
 

Beefman

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
252
Reaction score
0
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
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
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

I think you packer lovers are reading things into the Kansas article,its a known fact packers manipulate markets,where does it say R CALF supported the Pickett trial financially.................good luck PS Of course if I was a packer employee,I would see your point :wink:I lost our bet agman,like I said the best whiskey,at the Roosevelt saloon on alamo plaza,next ncba convention.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
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~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
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.

I think you've got it figured out pretty good, Mike. Proving a theft is not enough.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~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~

Just what is your definition of "support", SH? Did R-CALF want Pickett to win? Of course, they did. Were they a plaintiff in the case? No. Did they provide any funds or other material support? No.
 

browndirtcowboy

New member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Location
DC
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.]
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
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.]

Interesting opinion ,browndirt,you have alot of cattle in "DC"?............good luck
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
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.
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
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
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Can any of you Pickett Supporters tell me if forward contracts are so bad why did the plaintiffs enter into them with Tyson? Why didn't they just take their cattle to the open market system and take what was bid? Could it be because like all business men they found some beneifit to their bottom line in doing so? I can't see how these guys could take Tyson to court and then sit on the witness stand and tell the court well yes we entered into the forward contacts with Tyson. If they felt Tyson was using the contracts to manipulate the price of cattle why did they sign them? Did someone have a gun to their heads or did they just see it as a beneifit to sell their cattle that way?
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
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.

I am laughing. Given the propensity of R-Calfers to only present half of the information as you did why don't you present the rest of the comments pertaining to Taylor's testamony. The part that "your expert witness, Taylor, is NUTS" per Judge Strom. That is in the footnotes which renders Taylor's opinion as meaningless since his methodology failed the "Daubert" test. Why is it that you fail to mention that from the opinion? I might also add that his analysis failed the "Hausman" test. Those are the parts that really count and it is no surprise you would take a portion that fits your bias and attemp to twist the results and meaning. You guys are masters at distortion!!!
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
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

What proof do you have, self proclaimed expert on captive supply, to back your statement? None as usual; just listening to your echo again.
 

Latest posts

Top