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

Ranchers.net

I said this to you, SH "My reply; 12 jurors voted unamiously. Judge Strom even made the comment that "proof was provided"."

Your reply, "DIVERSION! No proof is provided to prove market manipulation. Judge Strom's reference to "proof was provided" was proof that ibp lowered their prices, not proof of a PSA violation or market manipulation or he would not have ruled in favor of the defense. Quit being deceptive again.


Following is Judge Strom's quote. Let's examine it to see if Strom was alluding that the proof was only that IBP lowered their prices;

Judge Strom, "There was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices paid for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole."

So IBP simply lowered their prices as their needs were met? The marketing agreements had nothing to do with it? Judge Strom's direct quote doesn't support your claim, SH.

You're telling ME to quit being deceptive? :roll: :lol:
Top