~SH~ said:Sandbag: "If there was no proof, why the 90 days to get things cleaned up?"
Hahaha! Creating another illusion?
If GIPSA needed "cleaned up", then there must be evidence to prove it.
WHERE IS IT???? HMMMMM??????
What's wrong guys?
Can't come up with an example of how GIPSA failed to conduct an investigation on "ALLEGED" market manipulation or price fixing?
Can't come up with a reason why GIPSA couldn't find what Pickett failed to find?
MORE ILLUSIONS OF WRONG DOING???
BRING ME THE PROOF THAT GIPSA FAILED TO DO THEIR JOB!!!!
You packer blamers just can't accept the fact that you can't find a smoking gun so you sink your teeth into political statements that support your anti corporate packer blaming bias.
Conman, why are you always on the conspiracy side of every argument?
The "presumption of innocense" is not just a legal "concept", it's a basic rule for human conduct.
THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOR.
RING ANY BELLS?????
I didn't think so!
~SH~
Under your definition of "conspiracy" maybe. It is your overused term, not mine. Businesses "conspire" to make a profit. When they break the laws of the land, they should be held accountable, not have judges make up new hurdles after the court case is finished, as in the London Case, to prevent producers from collecting on their jury win.