Pickett case goes down in flames

[agman]

R-CULT loses yet another one in court.

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

How many OCM member lawyers were present daily at the trail? Did they at any time provide input to the lawyers who represented the plaintiffs? Try and squirm you way out of this one!!!

 

[agman]

OCM statement:

OCM: Activist Judges Rule Against Cattlemen in Pickett Case

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."


Response...The OCM lawyers cannot even get basic facts correct. The Appellate court was privy to ALL the testimony provided in the Pickett case contrary to their aforementioned statement. Oral presentations are very limited in scope to clarify any ambiguity concerning possible clarification of testimony presented at full trial. The Appellate court spent much more than just the one hour hearing oral arguments as claimed by the OCM. Essentially, most of the hardcore research was already completed before the oral hearing. That is a normal process.

This is just one more attempt to distort the truth; no wonder they get beat in court as badly as they do.

 

[Mike]

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!!!

Yea Boy! I quote two paragraphs from the decision and I am distorting? You're funny agman! :roll:

 

[agman]

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!!!

Yea Boy! I quote two paragraphs from the decision and I am distorting? You're funny agman! :roll:

It is funny, not a surprise though, that you failed to print the additional comments. Why did you not post the comments associated with the statement you deem as proof that Taylor was correct?

It is footnote #7 on page 13 by the Circuit Court that you so conveniently overlooked. "There are Daubert issues concerning his (Taylor's) testimony." BTW, it was Taylor's testimony that supposedly showed marketing agreements were used to lower prices. When asked how that occurred he had six theories, none which he tested per the original testimony!!!!! Yes sir, you want to bet your life on that one as proof!!! The only proof evident by that statement was that Taylor did not know what he was talking about.

I would have expected a partial post from OT but not from you Mike. Indeed it is funny, truly funny.

 

[agman]

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.

Did you read the entire opinion or just what Mike conveniently posted? Mike failed to post footnote #7 on page 13 which raises concerns regarding how "expert" Taylor really was. From the footnote: The existance and seriousness of those issues (Daubert issues are the reference) are partly reflected in the district court judge's comment that if he were the factfinder, "I'd say, Mr Taylor, you're nuts." In short Sandhusker, Taylor proved nothing. The Eleventh Circuit court made its statement independent of the Daubert issue involving the credibility of Taylor's testamony.

 

[Chuckie]

i say--get over it! don't you people have anything better to do than hash and re-hash something that has OBVIOUSLY NOT impressed a couple of courts. IT'S OVER.

i'm sure you all can cuss and dis-cuss the NEXT lawsuit, ie herman schumaker's, about price-fixing the boxes. keee-rist. let's LIVE a little. let's go on, eh???

love ya.....

 

[agman]

i say--get over it! don't you people have anything better to do than hash and re-hash something that has OBVIOUSLY NOT impressed a couple of courts. IT'S OVER.

i'm sure you all can cuss and dis-cuss the NEXT lawsuit, ie herman schumaker's, about price-fixing the boxes. keee-rist. let's LIVE a little. let's go on, eh???

love ya.....

That suit is going down in flames too. That suit is even more ridiculous than the other two.

 

[ocm]

It's going to be interesting if Congress would subpoena the IBP data that Taylor has and presents it to GAO economists for a study of GIPSA.

The 11th Circuit opinion is full of factual errors, indicative of the quality of the decision.

For example,"By contrast, the cash market provides Tyson with
no leeway about the delivery date, because cattle purchased on it are always delivered seven days after purchase. On the cash market there is a greater risk thatTyson's buyers will purchase too little cattle for its needs, or too much for itsplants to process within the constrictions of the delivery dates."
(false)


Or this one,

On the cash market, the best Tyson can do is have its buyers attempt to purchase pens that appear to have the highest number of high-yield cattle. But that is an inexact science.

(ignores the existence of cash grid)


or this one,

the cash market does not provide incentives for quality and yield.


or this one,

Marketing agreements make the inventory crunch much less crunchy for Tyson. They are negotiated two weeks in advance of delivery of the cattle, and Tyson picks the exact date of delivery within that two-week period.

(inaccurate, seller chooses week, buyer chooses what day of the week[usually])


or this one,

Jerry Hausman, an economics professor from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, testified that "what marketing agreements do is it helps [Tyson] to better schedule its plants. And by cutting down the variability, they're going to get greater capacity utilization and higher profits."

(captive supplies are actually 2.8 times more variable than cash cattle)(oh yes, don't forget this Hausman is the guy who said fat cattle have to be shipped in padded trucks)(This is the guy the jury thought was nuts as indicated by their facial expressions when he testified.)


or this one,

Tyson's final competitive justification for using marketing agreements is
that they allow the company to pay for each head of cattle in a pen individually based on the quality of the meat, rather than paying for the entire pen "on the average."

(can be done on the cash market, too)


So I'll say again, the 11th Circuit opinion is full of factual errors, indicative of the quality of the decision.

 

[ocm]

How many OCM member lawyers were present daily at the trail? Did they at any time provide input to the lawyers who represented the plaintiffs? Try and squirm you way out of this one!!!

One, and he was on Domina's payroll, not OCM's. Of course he provided input, he was working for Domina (and still does part time).

No squirming necessary.

 

[RobertMac]

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?

Tam, I have to agree with you...all blame comes back to the cattleman. Same as your situation in Canada. Canadian producers followed the dollar carrot that Tyson and Cargill stuck in front of your noses and turned your backs on your Canadian processors. Now you don't have a Canadian beef industry to help you develop markets other than the USA market under the thumb of USA processors. The USA isn't much better. USA cattlemen followed the same dollar (under the safeguarding eyes of NCBA and their blessings) as the small and medium size processors were bought up and/or shut down...because it helped the bottom line...for the moment. These plants were producers most direct connection to their market...the consumer. And the last hope of producers being able to control their own destiny. If producers want to have any control over their children's and grandchildren's position in this industry, WE have to get behind and support processor like Creekstone and USPB...to the extent that you would take less for your cattle to support them. USPB is being setup by the market (or lack there of) for a buy out by Smithfield...then there will be the big four and our position as "chicken" ranchers will be solidified. Before I got into the cattle business, I thought cattlemen were the impeccable, rugged individualist and the great independent American businessman...I now know most are willing sheep in the packers flock that have resigned themselves to the idea that the present system is the only future. And when a group of cattlemen try to regain their dignity and their ability to have some control over their children's future, the sheep criticize from their perceived safety of the flock. I'll give my cattle and meat away before I join the flock!

 

[HAY MAKER]

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?

Tam, I have to agree with you...all blame comes back to the cattleman. Same as your situation in Canada. Canadian producers followed the dollar carrot that Tyson and Cargill stuck in front of your noses and turned your backs on your Canadian processors. Now you don't have a Canadian beef industry to help you develop markets other than the USA market under the thumb of USA processors. The USA isn't much better. USA cattlemen followed the same dollar (under the safeguarding eyes of NCBA and their blessings) as the small and medium size processors were bought up and/or shut down...because it helped the bottom line...for the moment. These plants were producers most direct connection to their market...the consumer. And the last hope of producers being able to control their own destiny. If producers want to have any control over their children's and grandchildren's position in this industry, WE have to get behind and support processor like Creekstone and USPB...to the extent that you would take less for your cattle to support them. USPB is being setup by the market (or lack there of) for a buy out by Smithfield...then there will be the big four and our position as "chicken" ranchers will be solidified. Before I got into the cattle business, I thought cattlemen were the impeccable, rugged individualist and the great independent American businessman...I now know most are willing sheep in the packers flock that have resigned themselves to the idea that the present system is the only future. And when a group of cattlemen try to regain their dignity and their ability to have some control over their children's future, the sheep criticize from their perceived safety of the flock. I'll give my cattle and meat away before I join the flock!

And so will I,we need to support the people that support us,R CALF is my choice...................good luck

 

[Bill]

Canadian producers followed the dollar carrot that Tyson and Cargill stuck in front of your noses and turned your backs on your Canadian processors. Now you don't have a Canadian beef industry to help you develop markets other than the USA market under the thumb of USA processors.

With all due respect RMac let me correct you.

At the time of Tyson and Cargill expanding into Canada, the majority of the existing plants were small, outdated and inefficient and riddled with UNION labor problems. Instead of continuing to fight with the unions or expand, these smaller plants closed their doors. The government of the day in Alberta also decided to buy the processing industry so cut some pretty sweet deals with the big 2.

Canadian producers didn't have much choice in any of this.

 

[agman]

It's going to be interesting if Congress would subpoena the IBP data that Taylor has and presents it to GAO economists for a study of GIPSA.

The 11th Circuit opinion is full of factual errors, indicative of the quality of the decision.

For example,"By contrast, the cash market provides Tyson with
no leeway about the delivery date, because cattle purchased on it are always delivered seven days after purchase. On the cash market there is a greater risk thatTyson's buyers will purchase too little cattle for its needs, or too much for itsplants to process within the constrictions of the delivery dates."
(false)


Or this one,

On the cash market, the best Tyson can do is have its buyers attempt to purchase pens that appear to have the highest number of high-yield cattle. But that is an inexact science.

(ignores the existence of cash grid)


or this one,

the cash market does not provide incentives for quality and yield.


or this one,

Marketing agreements make the inventory crunch much less crunchy for Tyson. They are negotiated two weeks in advance of delivery of the cattle, and Tyson picks the exact date of delivery within that two-week period.

(inaccurate, seller chooses week, buyer chooses what day of the week[usually])


or this one,

Jerry Hausman, an economics professor from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, testified that "what marketing agreements do is it helps [Tyson] to better schedule its plants. And by cutting down the variability, they're going to get greater capacity utilization and higher profits."

(captive supplies are actually 2.8 times more variable than cash cattle)(oh yes, don't forget this Hausman is the guy who said fat cattle have to be shipped in padded trucks)(This is the guy the jury thought was nuts as indicated by their facial expressions when he testified.)


or this one,

Tyson's final competitive justification for using marketing agreements is
that they allow the company to pay for each head of cattle in a pen individually based on the quality of the meat, rather than paying for the entire pen "on the average."

(can be done on the cash market, too)


So I'll say again, the 11th Circuit opinion is full of factual errors, indicative of the quality of the decision.

They can always appeal to the Supreme Court where the results will be the same.

Hausman was never presented to the court as an expert in cattle, unlike Taylor. Hausman is a world renowned econometrician. The defense destroyed Taylor and his claimed results which by his own admission on the stand did not test for accuracy or reliability.

In reality I would like you to count the works by Taylor specific to cattle. You can count those on one hand or maybe only one finger the last I knew. He was the expert of choice for the Plaintiffs. Now you want to blame the court because as Judge Strom stated "I think your expert witness is nuts".

Do you really believe this was the first expert witness Judge Strom has seen in his years on the bench dealing with these types of cases. He recognized along with the defense that Taylor could not support his own opinion. It does not get any more clear then when the witness himself under oath has to admit he NEVER tested any of his theories. The plaintiffs attorneys hood winked the jury but not the judge, thankfully the truth and facts prevailed. The Appellate Court upheld judge Strom's decision-end of discussion.

 

[Anonymous]

Browndirtcowboy says:

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.]

You nailed it Browndirtcowboy!

That is absolutely the "nail on the head" philisophical difference between NCBA and R-CULT/OCM.

NCBA wants "freedom of marketing" free from government mandates.

R-CULT wants "socialized cattle marketing" where the government determines who will buy cattle and how they will be sold. Of course the LMA wants to carve their commission dollars out of the pie.

This fight will get bloody because I'll be damned if I am going to stand idly by and let some conspiracy oriented packer blaming organization or "self serving" sale barn representative dictate to me who I can sell feeder cattle to and dictate to me the manner in which I will market fat cattle.


~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "Were they a plaintiff in the case? No."

Herman Schumacher is an R-CALF director and Herman was a plaintiff in the case was he not?

R-CALF took a solid position on this issue and they lost and now you want to brush it off on OCM. IMAGINE THAT!

Sandman: "Did they provide any funds or other material support? No."

You don't know that.

You shot from the hip again like you always do.

I suppose you are going to tell me that Bill Bullard would state the importance of this case without offering any assistance in the case????

HAHAHA!

ahh......ok?



~SH~

 

[Anonymous]

OCM,

Why don't you address the simple fact that Judge Strom's instructions to the jury was that they, the jury, had to agree that ibp "LACKED" a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies (i.e. "FORWARD CONTRACTS) before reaching a guilty verdict WHEN THE PLAINTIFFS THEMSELVES TESTIFIED TO THE CONTRARY AND ADMITTED ENTERING INTO FORWARD CONTRACTS THEMSELVES.

Just because the jury didn't understand basic instructions doesn't mean the judge is equally as ignorant on these issues. You guys never had a case.

How much more damn helpless can you get than to have a packer blaming feeder "WILLINGLY" enter into a forward contract then sue the company you contracted with because that company then needed less cattle in the cash market.

DUHHHHH??????

This case is the laughing stock of our industry.

If Judge Strom had allowed this case to stand as the jury had misunderstood it, a producer could file a market manipulation lawsuit against a feeder who bought forward contract feeder calves on Superior Livestock because that feeder now needs less catttle in the cash market.

That's the same damn stupid argument!

That's why you guys got your packer blaming heads handed to you to say nothing about one of the lead plaintiffs lying under oath and having his testimony thrown out.

You guys are a joke!


Other than that, have a nice day. LOL!



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "Why don't you address the simple fact that Judge Strom's instructions to the jury was that they, the jury, had to agree that ibp "LACKED" a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies (i.e. "FORWARD CONTRACTS) before reaching a guilty verdict WHEN THE PLAINTIFFS THEMSELVES TESTIFIED TO THE CONTRARY AND ADMITTED ENTERING INTO FORWARD CONTRACTS THEMSELVES."

This one is easy. The plaintiffs and IBP are two different entities. Just because the plaintiffs may have a reason to use contracts, doesn't mean IBP does as well.

 

[agman]

SH, "Why don't you address the simple fact that Judge Strom's instructions to the jury was that they, the jury, had to agree that ibp "LACKED" a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies (i.e. "FORWARD CONTRACTS) before reaching a guilty verdict WHEN THE PLAINTIFFS THEMSELVES TESTIFIED TO THE CONTRARY AND ADMITTED ENTERING INTO FORWARD CONTRACTS THEMSELVES."

This one is easy. The plaintiffs and IBP are two different entities. Just because the plaintiffs may have a reason to use contracts, doesn't mean IBP does as well.

Sorry Bud, there was no testimony to the contrary. So the jury pulled that one out of the thin air. That is just one reason why Judge Strom threw out their verdict. As a matter of law if he determined that the jury did not fully understand the testimony he was obligated to negate their verdict. Had they understood the testimony which was presented by BOTH sides they would not have drawn that conclusion. No one provided any testimony that would have led them to that conclusion.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "Just because the plaintiffs may have a reason to use contracts, doesn't mean IBP does as well."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Good thing I didn't take a drink when I read that.

That is the funniest thing I have read at this site to date!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Just because the plaintiffs wanted to forward contract their cattle does not give Tyson the right to accept that contract.

TALK ABOUT BEING HELPLESS!

"PLEASE GOVERNMENT, HELP ME, I CAN'T EVEN MAKE A CATTLE MARKETING DECISION WITHOUT LAWS TO PREVENT ME FROM ENTERING INTO A FORWARD CONTRACT"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You'll say anything if you think it will make sense to another R-CULTer won't you Sandman?

You really need to make that your signature.

Translation: "Just because the plaintiffs may have a reason to use forwad contracts, doesn't mean IBP has the right to accept those forward contracts."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!


Ahhh thanks, I really needed a good belly laugh.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Now that your fit is over, the facts remain. The plaintiff's use of forward contracts has no bearing what-so-ever regarding the question of IBP having a legitimate use for them. They're two different entities.