Clarence said:I won't make any friends by responding. Mikes's posts seem well balanced and fair. Sandhusker still has a chip on his shoulder. SH is still like the optimistc kid just out of school, who remembers what his teacher taught.
"PLEASE JUDGE STROM, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT I WAS DOING WHEN I ENTERED THOSE FORWARD CONTRACTS".
*************************************************************My case is based on actual court testimony
I readily admitted I was wrong about that aspect of this case but that is all I am wrong about.
Mike: "If you have studied the court transcripts as you said you have, you would know that the plaintiffs were not allowed to have made marketing agreements with Tyson. Period."
Mike: "YOU put the quotation marks on the above sentence, was this from the actual court testimony too?"
~SH~ said:The definition of captive supply never changed Hayseed. The plaintiffs redefined captive supply for their own selfish purposes. I wouldn't expect you to understand it when you were the one who had to call his sale barn buddies to get a definition and they didn't know either.
The definition of captive supply has never changed.
Captive supply is defined as those cattle owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter. That is the true definition of captive supply.
For example, 90% of Monfort's captive supplies according to the plaintiffs definition would not meet the definition of captive supply according to GIPSA so to save face, the plaintiffs had to deceptively change the definition to include formula and grid cattle which is not accurate.
Why are you even involved in this discussion when you don't have a clue what I just told you?
Because slowly but surely you will come to understand the real definition of "captive supplies" is theft by deception,I been trying to teach you this for a while ,Damn packers got you brain washed................good luck PS I found a picture of you on your knees waiting to kiss mr tyson's behine with your permission I will post it so every one can see what a LiL packer lover looks like?
Hayseed: "Because slowly but surely you will come to understand the real definition of "captive supplies" is theft by deception,..."
~SH~ said:Hayseed: "Because slowly but surely you will come to understand the real definition of "captive supplies" is theft by deception,..."
Explain your "theft by deception" definition Hayseed. Explain how that happens.
I don't care whether you post a picture of me or not. If you think it's relevant to the issues we discuss here.
I could honestly care less what you look like.
Sandman: "Wrong again. Judge Strom redefined it. He didn't like the term - liked "marketing agreements" better. I'd provide the quote, but none of the other quotes I have provided did you much good."
Hayseed: "what do you mean explain it ? I thought you were so up to speed on the pickett case?There was never a better explaination of theft by deception than the pickett trial you claim to understand."