Tommy
Well-known member
With all this back and forth about Pickett vs. IBP between SH, Mike, and Sandhusker. Which side has presented the best case?
Poll...SH vs. Mike and Sandhusker
- Thread starter Tommy
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
Clarence
Well-known member
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.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Clarence said:
I've got no problem with your analysis of me, Clarence. I DO have a chip on my shoulder! 8) :lol:
A
Anonymous
Guest
This case has already been tried in a court of law and appealed.
Mike and Sandman's side lost both times and on all counts.
What more proof is needed than that?
Mike and Sandman have not even made a case here to defend the hypocrisy of the plaintiffs entering into "captive supply" arrangements with major packers.
Their case in defending the hypocritical plaintiffs is based on a quote from Strom that was probably taken out of context or based on what the plaintiffs told the court. How accurate could that be when one of the plaintiffs was caught lying under oath?
Mike and Sandman's case in defending the hypocrisy of the plaintiffs is also based on my misunderstanding of the definition of "captive supply arrangements" as it pertained to this case. I thought it meant "forward contracts" when it meant "formula and grid cattle". I readily admitted I was wrong about that aspect of this case but that is all I am wrong about.
The hypocrisy in this case is blatant and the proof is in the court proceedings. My case is based on actual court testimony that I will provide upon these two packer blamers taking my bet.
They won't take my bet! They're both much more comfortable dancing with eachother and creating an "ILLUSION" of being right.
Typical packer blamers.
~SH~
Mike and Sandman's side lost both times and on all counts.
What more proof is needed than that?
Mike and Sandman have not even made a case here to defend the hypocrisy of the plaintiffs entering into "captive supply" arrangements with major packers.
Their case in defending the hypocritical plaintiffs is based on a quote from Strom that was probably taken out of context or based on what the plaintiffs told the court. How accurate could that be when one of the plaintiffs was caught lying under oath?
Mike and Sandman's case in defending the hypocrisy of the plaintiffs is also based on my misunderstanding of the definition of "captive supply arrangements" as it pertained to this case. I thought it meant "forward contracts" when it meant "formula and grid cattle". I readily admitted I was wrong about that aspect of this case but that is all I am wrong about.
The hypocrisy in this case is blatant and the proof is in the court proceedings. My case is based on actual court testimony that I will provide upon these two packer blamers taking my bet.
They won't take my bet! They're both much more comfortable dancing with eachother and creating an "ILLUSION" of being right.
Typical packer blamers.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Now Stroms comments were "probably taken out of context"? :lol: :roll: It never ends....
Folks, if you were unsure how to vote before, you shouldn't be now. :lol:
Folks, if you were unsure how to vote before, you shouldn't be now. :lol:
LEGAL/REGULATORY NEWS
Cattlemen to appeal Tyson verdict
by Pete Hisey on 8/25/2005 for Meatingplace.com
David Domina, lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the Pickett v. Tyson case that was thrown out by an Alabama judge after a jury awarded $1.28 billion in damages, said that the cattlemen will appeal an appeals court's decision to the Supreme Court if necessary.
A panel from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals backed the trial judge in a decision announced last week. "We expect to ask for review by the entire 11th Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court," Domina said. "Certainly, the three-judge panel's decision is a major disappointment, and I am especially disappointed with this ruling in view of the attentive efforts of the jury for five weeks and its five full days of deliberations."
Randy Stevenson, co-chair of Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund's marketing committee, called the appeals court's decision "outrageous. The court indicated that if Tyson gained any economic benefit from captive supplies used to pressure markets, we must overlook the producer harm inflicted, even if the market harm overwhelmingly exceeds the benefit to Tyson."
Plaintiffs charge that by tying up large amounts of the cattle market with forward contracts, Tyson and other large packers effectively depress prices on the spot market and threaten the livelihood of ranchers who do not participate in forward contracts, which guarantee delivery of cattle at a fixed price on an agreed-upon date.
see more headlines comment on story email story
Copyright © 2005 Marketing & Technology Group
Cattlemen to appeal Tyson verdict
by Pete Hisey on 8/25/2005 for Meatingplace.com
David Domina, lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the Pickett v. Tyson case that was thrown out by an Alabama judge after a jury awarded $1.28 billion in damages, said that the cattlemen will appeal an appeals court's decision to the Supreme Court if necessary.
A panel from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals backed the trial judge in a decision announced last week. "We expect to ask for review by the entire 11th Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court," Domina said. "Certainly, the three-judge panel's decision is a major disappointment, and I am especially disappointed with this ruling in view of the attentive efforts of the jury for five weeks and its five full days of deliberations."
Randy Stevenson, co-chair of Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund's marketing committee, called the appeals court's decision "outrageous. The court indicated that if Tyson gained any economic benefit from captive supplies used to pressure markets, we must overlook the producer harm inflicted, even if the market harm overwhelmingly exceeds the benefit to Tyson."
Plaintiffs charge that by tying up large amounts of the cattle market with forward contracts, Tyson and other large packers effectively depress prices on the spot market and threaten the livelihood of ranchers who do not participate in forward contracts, which guarantee delivery of cattle at a fixed price on an agreed-upon date.
see more headlines comment on story email story
Copyright © 2005 Marketing & Technology Group
Mike
Well-known member
SH wrote:
YOU put the quotation marks on the above sentence, was this from the actual court testimony too?
SH wrote:
SH wrote:
This is not about just being wrong. It's about KNOWINGLY SPREADING MISINFORMATION also. 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.
YOU put the quotation marks on the above sentence, was this from the actual court testimony too?
SH wrote:
*************************************************************
SH wrote:
This is not about just being wrong. It's about KNOWINGLY SPREADING MISINFORMATION also. 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.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Mike, I notice 5 people voted for SH. (I'd like to hear their reasoning) I think you're dragging me down. Next time, I want a better running mate. :wink: :lol:
Tommy
Well-known member
SH...This case has already been tried in a court of law and appealed.
Mike and Sandman's side lost both times and on all counts.
What more proof is needed than that?
But that was not the question Scott. The question was who has more credibility and who presented the best case on here Scott. So far you are losing.
Mike and Sandman's side lost both times and on all counts.
What more proof is needed than that?
But that was not the question Scott. The question was who has more credibility and who presented the best case on here Scott. So far you are losing.
A
Anonymous
Guest
They were not allowed to have entered into "marketing agreements" with Tyson but one had Mike and another had entered into a "marketing agreement" with another major packer which is the same basis for the same type of lawsuit that was threatened against the other packers.
My misunderstanding of the words "captive supply arrangement" meaning "forward contract" changes nothing about the hypocrisy of this case.
It's in the court proceedings Mike. Either read it or bet me the $100 to make it worth my time to retrieve the evidence.
You claim to be a "better man", well now is your chance to prove it.
Of course not and that is obvious to anyone with any common sense. "PLEASE JUDGE"???? Get real.
I never said it was actual court testimony did I? I know you are not that stupid but are you this desperate?
That was my sarcastic response to the blatant hypocrisy of this case which is alive and well.
What's your real motive here Mike? Do you really want to know the truth or would you rather believe that the packers are screwing you with no proof to back it? Are you upset that I misunderstood the definition of "captive supply arrangement" as it pertained to this case, or are you concerned that your desire to blame the large packers was beaten in a court of law and under appeal.
You are so concerned about my misunderstanding of "captive supply arragements", WHY ARE YOU NOT EQUALLY CONCERNED ABOUT MIKE CALLICRATE LYING UNDER OATH AND TELLING YOU ABOUT THOSE "HUGE" $400 PER HEAD PACKER AND RETAIL PROFITS?
A better man huh?
PROVE IT!
~SH~
A
Anonymous
Guest
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?
~SH~
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?
~SH~
A
Anonymous
Guest
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.
~SH~
~SH~ said:
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.I wont post your picture ~SH**~you are right its not revelant,just proves to me you are ready to go
......................good luckSandhusker
Well-known member
SH, "The plaintiffs redefined captive supply for their own selfish purposes."
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.
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.
On Aug. 16, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision to overturn a decision by a Montgomery, Ala., jury that found Tyson Fresh Meats (formerly Iowa Beef Processors, or IBP) illegally used captive supplies to manipulate cattle markets and drive down prices. In February 2004, the Alabama jury found Tyson liable for $1.28 billion in damages for eight years of cattle price manipulation in the historic cattle price-fixing suit known as the Pickett Case. The suit was brought under the Packers and Stockyards Act.
"The court has given the big four meat packers eminent economic domain over the cattle industry," said Randy Stevenson, co-chair of R-CALF USA's Marketing Committee. "The statutory language in the Packers and Stockyards Act prohibits price manipulation. This law does not state packers can justify price manipulation, or other unfair marketing practices, with a business justification. The 11th Circuit inserted its own language into the law, language Congress did not include when passing the Act in 1921. This decision is a blow to U.S. cattlemen, and if allowed to stand, the decision guts the Packers and Stockyards Act."
The trial lasted over one month in January and February 2004. The cattlemen plaintiffs showed Tyson forced cattle prices lower with captive supply contracts by lessening their need to bid fair market value for cattle in the open market. Tyson argued it needed captive supply cattle to gain a consistent supply, but showed neither the dollar value of this benefit, nor that it could not buy enough cattle from the open market.
"This decision has absolutely no logic," noted Stevenson. "The court indicated that if Tyson gained any economic benefit from the captive supplies used to pressure markets, we must overlook the producer harm inflicted, even if the market harm overwhelmingly exceeds the benefit to Tyson. This ruling is outrageous."
Leo McDonnell, R-CALF USA President and Co-Founder, praised the Pickett plantiffs' courage.
"This case has been ongoing for nearly a decade," he said. "The plaintiffs in this case have never wavered from their conviction that the federal government is failing to enforce the laws of this nation that were passed by Congress to protect individual cattle producers from harmful meat packer marketing practices.
"I salute them for their courage," said McDonnell. "It is more clear than ever that the ultimate battle lies in Congress, where laws must be passed to reinforce the mechanisms already in place to protect our markets."
David Domina, the lead attorney to represent the cattlemen in this case, said the setback does not mean the case is over.
"We expect to ask for review by the entire 11th Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court," he said. "Certainly, the three-judge panel's decision is a major disappointment, and I am especially disappointed with this ruling in view of the attentive efforts of the jury for five weeks and its five full days of deliberations.
"This case was decided by a fair-minded, intelligent, focused jury," Domina continued. "It was upset by an appellate tribune with less regard for the principle that a jury's decision is to remain inviolate than I had hoped the court would exhibit."
# # #
"The court has given the big four meat packers eminent economic domain over the cattle industry," said Randy Stevenson, co-chair of R-CALF USA's Marketing Committee. "The statutory language in the Packers and Stockyards Act prohibits price manipulation. This law does not state packers can justify price manipulation, or other unfair marketing practices, with a business justification. The 11th Circuit inserted its own language into the law, language Congress did not include when passing the Act in 1921. This decision is a blow to U.S. cattlemen, and if allowed to stand, the decision guts the Packers and Stockyards Act."
The trial lasted over one month in January and February 2004. The cattlemen plaintiffs showed Tyson forced cattle prices lower with captive supply contracts by lessening their need to bid fair market value for cattle in the open market. Tyson argued it needed captive supply cattle to gain a consistent supply, but showed neither the dollar value of this benefit, nor that it could not buy enough cattle from the open market.
"This decision has absolutely no logic," noted Stevenson. "The court indicated that if Tyson gained any economic benefit from the captive supplies used to pressure markets, we must overlook the producer harm inflicted, even if the market harm overwhelmingly exceeds the benefit to Tyson. This ruling is outrageous."
Leo McDonnell, R-CALF USA President and Co-Founder, praised the Pickett plantiffs' courage.
"This case has been ongoing for nearly a decade," he said. "The plaintiffs in this case have never wavered from their conviction that the federal government is failing to enforce the laws of this nation that were passed by Congress to protect individual cattle producers from harmful meat packer marketing practices.
"I salute them for their courage," said McDonnell. "It is more clear than ever that the ultimate battle lies in Congress, where laws must be passed to reinforce the mechanisms already in place to protect our markets."
David Domina, the lead attorney to represent the cattlemen in this case, said the setback does not mean the case is over.
"We expect to ask for review by the entire 11th Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court," he said. "Certainly, the three-judge panel's decision is a major disappointment, and I am especially disappointed with this ruling in view of the attentive efforts of the jury for five weeks and its five full days of deliberations.
"This case was decided by a fair-minded, intelligent, focused jury," Domina continued. "It was upset by an appellate tribune with less regard for the principle that a jury's decision is to remain inviolate than I had hoped the court would exhibit."
# # #
A
Anonymous
Guest
To the contrary it is you that is wrong AS ALWAYS.
Judge Strom did not change the definition of "captive supply", he simply changed the term "captive supply" to "marketing agreements". Why would the judge change the definition when he is ruling over the case.
How stupid can you be?
It was the Packer blamers that changed the definition of captive supply to include formula and grid cattle to make the numbers appear larger.
You know, the old deceptive "ILLUSION" trick that you know so well.
I mean explain it. "Theft by deception" is your term. Explain what that means in your own words. Don't copy/paste some R-CULT opinion.
Tell me what "Theft by deception" means.
~SH~
pointrider
Well-known member
I have two questions for this distinguished panel of experts, please.
#1 - During the period of time that Tyson manipulated the market prices by using captive supplies and paid less than they should have paid for cattle according to the plaintiffs, why did the plaintiffs sell their cattle to Tyson or anyone else if they felt they were not getting what they should have gotten for those cattle? Perhaps more of the argument should have been directed toward the auction barns and feedlots that sold "too cheap" instead of finding buyers who were willing to pay the "correct" price. If, on the other hand, there were no other buyers out there willing to pay more than Tyson, then was Tyson's price really unfair?
#2 - Where can we get an actual example of what the cattle were sold for that were sold "too cheap" and what those cattle should have brought? This is probably in the transcript which I have not read. Somebody had to have some numbers to come up with a total amount of damage being claimed. An average would do for now. On the average how much per pound were the cattle undervalued during the period of time used in the suit, and how much of that came out of the cow-calf producers' pockets as opposed to the feedlots?
Actually, that's 4 or 5 questions. Oh well. Thanks in advance!
#1 - During the period of time that Tyson manipulated the market prices by using captive supplies and paid less than they should have paid for cattle according to the plaintiffs, why did the plaintiffs sell their cattle to Tyson or anyone else if they felt they were not getting what they should have gotten for those cattle? Perhaps more of the argument should have been directed toward the auction barns and feedlots that sold "too cheap" instead of finding buyers who were willing to pay the "correct" price. If, on the other hand, there were no other buyers out there willing to pay more than Tyson, then was Tyson's price really unfair?
#2 - Where can we get an actual example of what the cattle were sold for that were sold "too cheap" and what those cattle should have brought? This is probably in the transcript which I have not read. Somebody had to have some numbers to come up with a total amount of damage being claimed. An average would do for now. On the average how much per pound were the cattle undervalued during the period of time used in the suit, and how much of that came out of the cow-calf producers' pockets as opposed to the feedlots?
Actually, that's 4 or 5 questions. Oh well. Thanks in advance!
