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

Pig Wrestling, part 6

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I guess you "trapped yourself" again on the WTO fur deal? :lol: :lol:
What court proved Calicrate was lying?
You called me a liar on what I said you said. Stop lying.
Don't play stupid on BSE testing


I missed your comment on the "Japan has never asked for testing" lip flap.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "I guess you "trapped yourself" again on the WTO fur deal?"

How did I trap myself? You quetioned me, I double checked my statement, immediately corrected it and went on.

In contrast, you claimed packers don't age their beef in the package. That wasn't true. Did you have the integrity to admit you were wrong???? Of course not, you just diverted in your typical, slithering, deceptive way.


Sandbag: "What court proved Calicrate was lying?"

Pickett vs. ibp!

Judge Strom instructed the jurors to disregard his testimony after he changed his story.


Sandbag: "You called me a liar on what I said you said. Stop lying."

Where's your proof that GIPSA did all they could not to investigate? That's what you said, liar.


Sandbag: "Don't play stupid on BSE testing"

You have no proof to contradict what USDA stated. You have "ILLUSIONS" and that's all you ever have.


Sandbag: "I missed your comment on the "Japan has never asked for testing" lip flap."

You missed the fact that Japan imported beef from the United States without testing? Where have you been?

~SH~
 

Tommy

Well-known member
SH...His testimony was thrown out.
SH...Judge Strom instructed the jurors to disregard his testimony after he changed his story.


Now Scott you are not telling the truth here. That is not what the judge said to the jurors. Is it a lie when you misrepresent the facts?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tommy: "Now Scott you are not telling the truth here. That is not what the judge said to the jurors. Is it a lie when you misrepresent the facts?"

Tommy,

I know exactly what Judge Strom's instructions to the jurors was regarding Mike's testimony. I WAS THE ONE WHO POSTED IT, REMEMBER?

Judge Strom instructed the jurors to disregard his testimony because he found it to be untrue. Mike Callicrate changed his story!

If you want to defend a proven liar, be my guest. Obviously your need to blame packers is more important to you than the truth.


Does it bother you that Mike lied when he said "ibp stepped out of the cash market for 8 weeks"?

Does it bother you that Mike lied to you when he said "cattle prices have nothing to do with supply and demand"?

Does it bother you that Mike lied to you about those "HUGE $400 per head profits in the packing and retail industry" as his own company had yet to realize a profit at the time of R-CALF's interview with him in their publication.

Does it bother you that Mike lied to you when he said that "ibp had contractual arrangements with the other packers"?

Does it bother you when Mike lied to you that Tyson dismissed jurors "BECAUSE THEY WERE BLACK"?

Does it bother you that Mike said he would answer my questions on this site if I revealed my identity which I did and he did not?

DOES THAT BOTHER YOU TOMMY???

I didn't think so! He told you what you wanted to believe so cut him some slack right?

Keep defending him Tommy! Your bias screams!



~SH~
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Scott the judge told the jurors to disregard a portion of MC's testimony. He said that they may disregard his testimony in whole or in part. He did not tell them to disrgard all of his testimony.

That was all I was commenting on Scott, all of your rants about MC have nothing to do with what I posted to you about. When you state Judge Strom instructed the jurors to disregard his testimony because he found it to be untrue, that is not quite true and you know it.
He said "I instructed you to disregard a portion of his testimony because I found it was not true".

What you state is a spin on what the judge actually said.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tommy: "He said "I instructed you to disregard a portion of his testimony because I found it was not true"."

No Tommy, Judge Strom told the jurors to disregard a portion of his testimony and gave them the option on whether or not to disregard ALL of his testimony. He told them to absolutely disregard part of his testimony and gave them the option of whether to disregard all of his testimony. Bottom line is that Mike Callicrate changed his story, UNDER OATH, and Judge Strom caught it and instructed the jurors accordingly.

I was the one who posted what he said Tommy, I should know what he said.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
So Judge Strom is allowing the jury to consider part of the testimony of a liar - makes sense to me. No, wait a minute, that doesn't make sense!
 

Tommy

Well-known member
SH...No Tommy, Judge Strom told the jurors to disregard a portion of his testimony and gave them the option on whether or not to disregard ALL of his testimony.

Wasn't that just what I just posted??

Quite a bit different than what you stated before. That Judge Strom instructed the jurors to disregard MC's testimony.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tommy,

You're changing your story.

In the post above you wrote:

He said "I instructed you to disregard a portion of his testimony because I found it was not true".

That wasn't all he said. Who's being deceptive here?

You try to make it sound like he told the jurors to ONLY disregard a portion of his testimony when he also told them they could disregard all of his testimony. Understandably. If he can't tell the truth ALL OF THE TIME how can anyone believe anything else he says?


~SH~
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Scott you must have not read all of my post.

Tommy from above... He said that they may disregard his testimony in whole or in part.

I am not nor was I being deceptive.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bottom line Tommy,

I know what Judge Strom said BECAUSE I WAS THE ONE WHO POSTED IT.

You got nothing here Tommy!



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Tommy said:
Scott you must have not read all of my post.

Tommy from above... He said that they may disregard his testimony in whole or in part.

I am not nor was I being deceptive.

Those could have been the instructions about almost anyone testifying.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "Those could have been the instructions about almost anyone testifying."

I disagree, I don't think all of the plaintiffs would lie under oath but maybe you are right.



~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Conman: "Those could have been the instructions about almost anyone testifying."

I disagree, I don't think all of the plaintiffs would lie under oath but maybe you are right.



~SH~

This is proof that you are against producers and for packers. The same could be said about any of the defendants. Why do you single out the fat cattle producers? It is your bias?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman,

You were the one who said those could have been the instructions of about almost anyone testifying which would include the remaining plaintiffs.

I DISAGREED!

You apparently think all the plaintiffs would lie under oath. I don't believe they would.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
Conman,

You were the one who said those could have been the instructions of about almost anyone testifying which would include the remaining plaintiffs.

I DISAGREED!

You apparently think all the plaintiffs would lie under oath. I don't believe they would.


~SH~

And I also think that is what the jury was to decide. You obviously don't believe in the jury system.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
So you think a Judge cannot instruct a jury on testimony or on which factors to consider AS A MATTER OF LAW that are relevant to the case?

You live in such a fantasy world.


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
So you think a Judge cannot instruct a jury on testimony or on which factors to consider AS A MATTER OF LAW that are relevant to the case?

You live in such a fantasy world.


~SH~

Lets see. The judge got the PSA mixed up with the rules under the Sherman Anti Trust laws. The judge just made up things not in evidence. The judge called an accredited and acclaimed economist "nuts", prejudicing the appellate court, the judge substituted his opinion for that of the jury.

I would say we have a problem with a judge over the age 80.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "The judge got the PSA mixed up with the rules under the Sherman Anti Trust laws."

ANOTHER LIE!


Conman: "The judge just made up things not in evidence."

ANOTHER LIE!


Conman: "The judge called an accredited and acclaimed economist "nuts", prejudicing the appellate court, the judge substituted his opinion for that of the jury."

Taylor admitted under oath that he had not tested any of his theories.


Conman: "I would say we have a problem with a judge over the age 80."

You have a problem with anyone who doesn't support your need to blame packers.


~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top