Pickett case goes down in flames

[Tam]

Tam, "Why should Bob beable to do it if it is illegal for Stan to do it? And who will Bob be entering into contracts with if Stan can't do it? "

Maybe Bob is acting in good faith and Stan abuses the power he has due to his enormous holdings to screw Bob, Frank, Toby, Bill, Fred, etc...

Sandhusker you seem to have forgotten the second question. Who will Bob be entering into forward contracts with if not Stan. Bob is in it to get the best price for his cattle and once the deal is signed, he will go to the coffee shop and let Frank, Toby, Bill and Fred all know what a great deal he got. He is not going to think twice about what it will do to the prices Frank gets at the sale barn, as long as his deal was the best he could get. And if it wasn't the best deal he could get I doubt anyone was holding a gun to his head to sign. He had a choice of signing or going to the sale barn just like Frank did. And so did the plaintiffs of this court case. But they entered the contract and then sat on the witness stand and admitted they had entered into contracts for business reasons. Have you ever heard the old saying What is good for the goose is good for the gander. well what was good for Bob just happen to be good for IBP. :roll:

 

[Sandhusker]

So what do you do, Tam, when one side is abusing he deal? I'm sure nobody entered a contract knowing it would be used against them or others. There's a whole bunch of crabbers here, but not many solution providers.

 

[RobertMac]

I wouldn't sign a contract with an open end price and don't the legislators want to make them "fixed price" contracts? One would think a company that control 30% of all business would have an impact on future price discovery?

 

[agman]

So what do you do, Tam, when one side is abusing he deal? I'm sure nobody entered a contract knowing it would be used against them or others. There's a whole bunch of crabbers here, but not many solution providers.

The solution, these contracts will grow in use as leading producers in this great beef industry understand the benefits to them as producers. The whiners and complainers hardly respresent this industry. They are but a very small faction who tend to make a lot of noise. That is as usual. Those who cannot compete, complain.

 

[agman]

So what do you do, Tam, when one side is abusing he deal? I'm sure nobody entered a contract knowing it would be used against them or others. There's a whole bunch of crabbers here, but not many solution providers.

The solution, these contracts will grow in use as leading producers in this great beef industry understand the benefits to them as producers. The whiners and complainers hardly represent this industry. They are but a very small faction who tend to make a lot of noise. That is as usual. Those who cannot compete, complain.

 

[agman]

So what do you do, Tam, when one side is abusing he deal? I'm sure nobody entered a contract knowing it would be used against them or others. There's a whole bunch of crabbers here, but not many solution providers.

Who abused the deal? Taylor got smashed, can't you understand that? He could not support his own conclusion. Judge Strom even interjected and had him repeat his comment. You might take some time to read the testimony before you wiggle yourself to death trying to continually defend the indefensible.

 

[Sandhusker]

So what do you do, Tam, when one side is abusing he deal? I'm sure nobody entered a contract knowing it would be used against them or others. There's a whole bunch of crabbers here, but not many solution providers.

Who abused the deal? Taylor got smashed, can't you understand that? He could not support his own conclusion. Judge Strom even interjected and had him repeat his comment. You might take some time to read the testimony before you wiggle yourself to death trying to continually defend the indefensible.

"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."

Was that Taylor?

 

[agman]

So what do you do, Tam, when one side is abusing he deal? I'm sure nobody entered a contract knowing it would be used against them or others. There's a whole bunch of crabbers here, but not many solution providers.

Who abused the deal? Taylor got smashed, can't you understand that? He could not support his own conclusion. Judge Strom even interjected and had him repeat his comment. You might take some time to read the testimony before you wiggle yourself to death trying to continually defend the indefensible.

"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."

Was that Taylor?

When you are only armed with half the facts you just wiggle. Why do you not read the notation #7 on page 13 of the opinion first before you quote someone else? "There were serious Daubert issues regarding Taylor". In short it is questionable as to whether he is qualified or credible as an expert witness. The very comments you wrote he could not support and failed to test by his own admission under oath. How do you want to twist that? So, you have got nothing once again but one-half the information-typical.

 

[Sandhusker]

You mean this part, "We can assume for present purposes that Tyson's use of marketing agreements did lead to lower prices in the cattle markets"?

 

[Mike]

You mean this part, "We can assume for present purposes that Tyson's use of marketing agreements did lead to lower prices in the cattle markets"?

If you keep wiggling and twisting you might just turn this case around Sandy!

Do you really think that even when the Appeals court agreed that prices were lowered due to marketing agreements, that agman and SH are gonna admit it? :???: :???: :???:

Remember, the big picture here is "COMPETITION". Tyson has to be competitive at any cost to the producer. :roll: :roll: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[RobertMac]

You mean this part, "We can assume for present purposes that Tyson's use of marketing agreements did lead to lower prices in the cattle markets"?

If you keep wiggling and twisting you might just turn this case around Sandy!

Do you really think that even when the Appeals court agreed that prices were lowered due to marketing agreements, that agman and SH are gonna admit it? :???: :???: :???:

Remember, the big picture here is "COMPETITION". Tyson has to be competitive at any cost to the producer. :roll: :roll: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Exactly, that's the difference between the beef industry and the cattle industry. If one group of producers can't get them competitive enough, they will find some that will! :shock:

A friend told me some years ago the IBP had some 900+ lawyers on retainer...they don't expect to lose court cases or legislative battles. :cry2:

 

[agman]

You mean this part, "We can assume for present purposes that Tyson's use of marketing agreements did lead to lower prices in the cattle markets"?

If you keep wiggling and twisting you might just turn this case around Sandy!

Do you really think that even when the Appeals court agreed that prices were lowered due to marketing agreements, that agman and SH are gonna admit it? :???: :???: :???:

Remember, the big picture here is "COMPETITION". Tyson has to be competitive at any cost to the producer. :roll: :roll: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Exactly, that's the difference between the beef industry and the cattle industry. If one group of producers can't get them competitive enough, they will find some that will! :shock:

A friend told me some years ago the IBP had some 900+ lawyers on retainer...they don't expect to lose court cases or legislative battles. :cry2:

First of all that friend told you a bold face lie which I heard Mike Callacrate spew at a meeting of the NCBA several years ago here in Denver. The law firm representing Tyson is a large firm that has lawyers who specialize in many different areas of litigation. That statement was as phony as saying Kroger has 500,000 employees so they must all be beef cutters. Get the picture and the lie. Would you really expect the truth from Mike?

Concerning your other comment you just don't get it do you? Taylor's testimony was shredded in court. His testimony was so poor that the judge questioned his sanity regarding his testimony when he admitted under oath that he did not test any of his six theories as to how marketing agreements led to lower prices. That is why the Appellate Court said there were serious Daubert issues concerning his testimony. How long will you guys dance around this issue? How fraudulent are you willing to be in trying to defend the indefensible? Read the entire opinion including footnotes before you belittle yourself again per this matter RM.

 

[Anonymous]

Mike: "Do you really think that even when the Appeals court agreed that prices were lowered due to marketing agreements, that agman and SH are gonna admit it?"

Of course if cattle are sold via forward contracts there is less cattle needed in the cash market. DUH?

I sell you 500 contract calves via Superior Livestock. You buy 500 more in the cash market later. If all other marketing factors remain the same, you pay less money because you already have 500 bought.

MARKET MANIPULATION!

That's how stupid this argument is just like most arguments from whiny packer victims.


~SH~

 

[agman]

You mean this part, "We can assume for present purposes that Tyson's use of marketing agreements did lead to lower prices in the cattle markets"?

If you keep wiggling and twisting you might just turn this case around Sandy!

Do you really think that even when the Appeals court agreed that prices were lowered due to marketing agreements, that agman and SH are gonna admit it? :???: :???: :???:

Remember, the big picture here is "COMPETITION". Tyson has to be competitive at any cost to the producer. :roll: :roll: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The only problem with your comment is they, the 11th Circuit Court, made the notation #7 on page 13. What do you have to say now?

 

[agman]

Mike: "Do you really think that even when the Appeals court agreed that prices were lowered due to marketing agreements, that agman and SH are gonna admit it?"

Of course if cattle are sold via forward contracts there is less cattle needed in the cash market. DUH?

I sell you 500 contract calves via Superior Livestock. You buy 500 more in the cash market later. If all other marketing factors remain the same, you pay less money because you already have 500 bought.

MARKET MANIPULATION!

That's how stupid this argument is just like most arguments from whiny packer victims.


~SH~

There is a problem with their and your point. When they contract these 500 head there are also that many fewer head to choose from in the cash market. In sum, the remaining available supply has also been reduced by an amount equal to the contract. Reduced demand has been offset bay an equal reduction in supply. That point shoots a whole right through their phony argument.

 

[Sandhusker]

You mean this part, "We can assume for present purposes that Tyson's use of marketing agreements did lead to lower prices in the cattle markets"?

If you keep wiggling and twisting you might just turn this case around Sandy!

Do you really think that even when the Appeals court agreed that prices were lowered due to marketing agreements, that agman and SH are gonna admit it? :???: :???: :???:

Remember, the big picture here is "COMPETITION". Tyson has to be competitive at any cost to the producer. :roll: :roll: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The only problem with your comment is they, the 11th Circuit Court, made the notation #7 on page 13. What do you have to say now?

Ummmm, yeah, Agman, I think we all had that figured out already. :shock:

 

[agman]

If you keep wiggling and twisting you might just turn this case around Sandy!

Do you really think that even when the Appeals court agreed that prices were lowered due to marketing agreements, that agman and SH are gonna admit it? :???: :???: :???:

Remember, the big picture here is "COMPETITION". Tyson has to be competitive at any cost to the producer. :roll: :roll: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The only problem with your comment is they, the 11th Circuit Court, made the notation #7 on page 13. What do you have to say now?

Ummmm, yeah, Agman, I think we all had that figured out already. :shock:

Everyone but you!!!!! You have not figured out yet that you are on the losing side of these issues have you? Stuffed by the courts. You just keep making excuses trying to rationalize your failed positions. BTW have you read any of the testimony yet or the court's opinion to get all the facts?

 

[RobertMac]

Remember, the big picture here is "COMPETITION". Tyson has to be competitive at any cost to the producer. :roll: :roll: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Exactly, that's the difference between the beef industry and the cattle industry. If one group of producers can't get them competitive enough, they will find some that will! :shock:

A friend told me some years ago the IBP had some 900+ lawyers on retainer...they don't expect to lose court cases or legislative battles. :cry2:

First of all that friend told you a bold face lie which I heard Mike Callacrate spew at a meeting of the NCBA several years ago here in Denver. The law firm representing Tyson is a large firm that has lawyers who specialize in many different areas of litigation. That statement was as phony as saying Kroger has 500,000 employees so they must all be beef cutters. Get the picture and the lie. Would you really expect the truth from Mike?

Concerning your other comment you just don't get it do you? Taylor's testimony was shredded in court. His testimony was so poor that the judge questioned his sanity regarding his testimony when he admitted under oath that he did not test any of his six theories as to how marketing agreements led to lower prices. That is why the Appellate Court said there were serious Daubert issues concerning his testimony. How long will you guys dance around this issue? How fraudulent are you willing to be in trying to defend the indefensible? Read the entire opinion including footnotes before you belittle yourself again per this matter RM.

My friend wasn't Mike Callacrate, but someone you probably have an equal distain for. And his comment wasn't concerning this case, but was made about IBP retainer lawyers long before Picket...my point being that they go into a court case or legislative lobbying with all the fire power needed to win.

My other point(and I think Mike's) is that in a commodity industry, the commodity buyers will pit producer against producer to be able to procure product at the lowest possible price....large against small...fulltime time against part time...USA against Canada..North America against South America. Isn't that the nature of a commodity industry? :???:

 

[RobertMac]

Of course if cattle are sold via forward contracts there is less cattle needed in the cash market. DUH?

~SH~

When cattle are forward contracted, it doesn't change the overall number of cattle coming to market in the future, but reduces the number left to be priced in the cash market. If future slaughter needs are covered with contract cattle and owned cattle, processors have no need to bid up cash cattle. If the final price of contract cattle is tied to cash prices, then processors have the ability to manipulate contract prices with lower bids on cash cattle.
Enough 'ifs' there that I already feel my butt bouncing! :?

 

[agman]

Exactly, that's the difference between the beef industry and the cattle industry. If one group of producers can't get them competitive enough, they will find some that will! :shock:

A friend told me some years ago the IBP had some 900+ lawyers on retainer...they don't expect to lose court cases or legislative battles. :cry2:

First of all that friend told you a bold face lie which I heard Mike Callacrate spew at a meeting of the NCBA several years ago here in Denver. The law firm representing Tyson is a large firm that has lawyers who specialize in many different areas of litigation. That statement was as phony as saying Kroger has 500,000 employees so they must all be beef cutters. Get the picture and the lie. Would you really expect the truth from Mike?

Concerning your other comment you just don't get it do you? Taylor's testimony was shredded in court. His testimony was so poor that the judge questioned his sanity regarding his testimony when he admitted under oath that he did not test any of his six theories as to how marketing agreements led to lower prices. That is why the Appellate Court said there were serious Daubert issues concerning his testimony. How long will you guys dance around this issue? How fraudulent are you willing to be in trying to defend the indefensible? Read the entire opinion including footnotes before you belittle yourself again per this matter RM.

My friend wasn't Mike Callacrate, but someone you probably have an equal distain for. And his comment wasn't concerning this case, but was made about IBP retainer lawyers long before Picket...my point being that they go into a court case or legislative lobbying with all the fire power needed to win.

My other point(and I think Mike's) is that in a commodity industry, the commodity buyers will pit producer against producer to be able to procure product at the lowest possible price....large against small...fulltime time against part time...USA against Canada..North America against South America. Isn't that the nature of a commodity industry? :???:

It is immaterial where your friend got his information, it is wrong. It is just another unsubstantiated rumor with no factual support. On your second point, why would you not go to court with the best legal council available when every two-bit law firm wants to line their pockets at the expense of corporate America? I will remind you they have also lost some cases when they were wrong.

Do you pay a higher price then you have to, yes or no? If you do you only have yourself to blame. Why should they be forced to do otherwise? I sincerely wish you the best of luck in your venture. Have a cool one.