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

Psst- over here

Help Support Ranchers.net:

A

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Pickett Trial Testimony - Dr Taylor

Q…Now , your report gave six possible theories for why IBP's use of forward contracts and marketing agreements might cause the cash market to be lower, correct?

A…They could be called individual theories, but a theory can have many elements. It can also be called elements of a theory. But yes I did state that.

Q…You had six different explanations for how that happened, potentially, right?

A…Correct

Q…And you thought about what those six theories might be, but you never tested any of them individually to see if they were valid, correct?

A…I did not do any econometric test of each individual theory because the data----

Court: Wait, he just asked whether or not you had done any testing with any of them individually. You either did or you didn't.

A…I did not do any econometric tests, statistical tests.

Q…You did not do any tests, did you Professor Taylor?

Court: Answer that question yes or no.

Witness: I'm not – I don't think I can answer it with a yes or no, your honor.

Q… I am going to hand you your testimony, Dr Taylor, on March 13th, 2003. You gave this testimony under oath, correct sir?

A…Correct

Q…Would you turn to page 185, line 15?

A…Okay.

Q...Question: so you thought about what the theories might be and never tested them? Answer: Never tested them individually. Were you asked that question?

A…Yes.

Q…And did you give that answer?

A…Yes.

Q…Now if you don't test a theory, you can't know whether the theory is correct, true?

A…Not necessarily. In the context –

Q…Do you still have page 185 open, sir?

A…Yes

Q…Take a look at line 23. Question: And if you don't test a theory, you can't know as a scientist whether the theory is correct. Isn't that true, sir? Answer: Okay. Question: That's true. Answer: Yes.

Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers?

A…Yes.

The above is taken verbatim from trial testimony. I rest my case!!!

It is for you to decide who on this forum was dealing with factual information regarding this issue versus fiction, fabrication or lies. Watch the spinners go to work to defend their defenseless position. The TRIAL testimony speaks for itself and supports comments previously made by me regarding this issue. I need make no further comments-case closed.
 
You've got a snippet of Dr. Taylor's testimony - less than a minute of hours and we all know dang well you cherry picked. You've got nothing that happened before or after - just a paragraph from the middle of the book that is supposed to explain the story.

You've tried to tell us that our packers are in Canada to serve the local market and the same with Cargill in South America. You've told us the Japanese were not asking for testing and that they really want our beef. You've said that Japan could not accept tested beef because they had no protocol. You've said that "low" is a scientific term. You've told us all this nonsense under the guise of some great in-the-know pedigree in an effort to snow us all to cover up for the multi-national packers. You're a bull-shitter, Agman. You've got the credibility of your minion, SH. I don't buy what you've brought before and I see no reason to start believing you now. Your pedigree here has been established and it's not what you think it is.
 
Sandhusker said:
You've got a snippet of Dr. Taylor's testimony - less than a minute of hours and we all know dang well you cherry picked. You've got nothing that happened before or after - just a paragraph from the middle of the book that is supposed to explain the story.
Click to expand...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

A "snippet" :D of sworn testimony given under oath??? You're joking, right???

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Can you say "SPIN" boys and girls??? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Sandhusker,

I respect you as an honest person, but if you say Agman miscarried truth with an insufficient window of the transcript, by all means visit the transcript and bring what you feel more accurately defines the testimony.
 
agman said:
Pickett Trial Testimony - Dr Taylor

Q…Now , your report gave six possible theories for why IBP's use of forward contracts and marketing agreements might cause the cash market to be lower, correct?

A…They could be called individual theories, but a theory can have many elements. It can also be called elements of a theory. But yes I did state that.

Q…You had six different explanations for how that happened, potentially, right?

A…Correct

Q…And you thought about what those six theories might be, but you never tested any of them individually to see if they were valid, correct?

A…I did not do any econometric test of each individual theory because the data----

Court: Wait, he just asked whether or not you had done any testing with any of them individually. You either did or you didn't.

A…I did not do any econometric tests, statistical tests.

Q…You did not do any tests, did you Professor Taylor?

Court: Answer that question yes or no.

Witness: I'm not – I don't think I can answer it with a yes or no, your honor.

Q… I am going to hand you your testimony, Dr Taylor, on March 13th, 2003. You gave this testimony under oath, correct sir?

A…Correct

Q…Would you turn to page 185, line 15?

A…Okay.

Q...Question: so you thought about what the theories might be and never tested them? Answer: Never tested them individually. Were you asked that question?

A…Yes.

Q…And did you give that answer?

A…Yes.

Q…Now if you don't test a theory, you can't know whether the theory is correct, true?

A…Not necessarily. In the context –

Q…Do you still have page 185 open, sir?

A…Yes

Q…Take a look at line 23. Question: And if you don't test a theory, you can't know as a scientist whether the theory is correct. Isn't that true, sir? Answer: Okay. Question: That's true. Answer: Yes.

Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers?

A…Yes.

The above is taken verbatim from trial testimony. I rest my case!!!

It is for you to decide who on this forum was dealing with factual information regarding this issue versus fiction, fabrication or lies. Watch the spinners go to work to defend their defenseless position. The TRIAL testimony speaks for itself and supports comments previously made by me regarding this issue. I need make no further comments-case closed.
Click to expand...

A…I did not do any econometric test of each individual theory because the data----

Court: Wait, he just asked whether or not you had done any testing with any of them individually. You either did or you didn't.

A…I did not do any econometric tests, statistical tests.

Q…You did not do any tests, did you Professor Taylor?

Court: Answer that question yes or no.

Witness: I'm not – I don't think I can answer it with a yes or no, your honor.

Pretty easy to see that the lawyers in this case did not allow Dr. Taylor to finish his answers and lead him (with the court's help) down a path of words that did not reveal the truth.

Agman, you should be ashamed of this type of court behavior. Unfortunately, it is all too common when judges want to favor one side over the other. Thank you for posting this part of the transcript. It clearly shows how cases can be rigged and how the judge allowed it to happen.

So Taylor did do tests, didn't he, Agman? They were statistical tests, weren't they? You said he did not test his "theories" (that word in itself is misleading) and he did.

YOU LIED! ANOTHER LIE BY AGMAN!

Would you care to go into the econometric vs. statistical tests, Agman?

If you open any mathematical textbook you will see that almost all higher math is composed of "theories".

Pick up any geometry book, algebra book, calculus book, or trigonometry book and you will see that every one of them contain THEORIES.

For some of the more advanced, here is a list of mathematical theories:
This is a list of mathematical theories, by Wikipedia page.

* Algebraic K-theory
* Approximation theory
* Automata theory
* Braid theory
* Brill-Noether theory
* Catastrophe theory
* Category theory
* Character theory
* Choquet theory
* Class field theory
* Coding theory
* Cohomology theory
* Computation theory
* Deformation theory
* Dimension theory
* Distribution theory
* Field theory
* Elimination theory
* Extremal graph theory
* Galois theory
* Game theory
* Graph theory
* Grothendieck's Galois theory
* Group theory
* Hodge theory
* Homology theory
* Homotopy theory
* Information theory
* Invariant theory
* K-theory
* Knot theory
* L-theory
* Local class field theory
* M-theory
* Matrix theory
* Measure theory
* Model theory
* Morse theory
* Module theory
* Network theory
* Nevanlinna theory
* Number theory
* Obstruction theory
* Operator theory
* Percolation theory
* Perturbation theory
* Probability theory
* Proof theory
* Quantum theory
* Queue theory
* Recursion theory
* Representation theory
* Ring theory
* Scheme theory
* Set theory
* Sheaf theory
* Singularity theory
* Spectral theory
* String theory
* Surgery theory
* Theory of equations
* Topos theory
* Transcendence theory
* Twistor theory


In economics, unless you keep everything else constant, which is NEVER the case, you can only isolate reactions to variables mathematically. To test for significance (if you read shroeder's demand report, you will see they tried doing this with correlation of data over time) mathematically. The math used to do this is statistics or probabilities. Are probablilites always exact? Of course not, because if they were, there would be no need for probabilities.

Taylor said he tested statistically the "theories" as the defense called them, and yet Agman does not post this information. Was the defense competent enough to ask for those tests or more interested in twisting the truth?

The jury answered that question. It is pretty easy to see by this snippet of testimony what was happening in this trial and you should be ashamed of it, Agman. It wouldn't fool smart people, only people who wanted to be fooled.

Thanks again for posting how the truth was circumvented by the lawyers, Agman. It was very revealing.
 
Econ101 said:
A…I did not do any econometric tests, statistical tests.

Q…You did not do any tests, did you Professor Taylor?

Court: Answer that question yes or no.

Witness: I'm not – I don't think I can answer it with a yes or no, your honor.
Click to expand...

I've always thought this kind of crap should be outlawed. There are often no Yes or No answers to many questions, and I though that only TV lawyers truly used it, but I guess not.

Rod
 
Agman, in a court case, both sides of the issue are presented...you have given us a brief exert from one side. The jury obviously heard other evidence that cause them to reach their verdict. Are you telling us that Judge Strom and the Appellate Court used a few lines from a 185 plus page deposition to decide this case? Could or would the Appellate Court have overturned this case if the jury verdict had been allowed to stand(as I think it should have...Judge Strom's reputation be damned)?
 
Excerpt from Court Rules:

"The federal rules and most jurisdictions discourage the use of leading questions on direct examination. These are questions designed to elicit a particular answer by suggesting it. For example, the question "Didn't the defendant then aim the gun at the police officer?" is a leading question, and normally would not be permitted on direct examination. By contrast, "What did the defendant do next?" is a nonleading question and would be permitted on direct examination. In most cases, questions that can be answered with either "Yes" or "No" are considered to be leading questions."
 
These lawyers made this line of questioning up for the kind of arguments that Agman and SH have brought up, "Taylor was required to test his theories and he said under oath he did not".

It is just a big fat lie.

The jury saw through it. Why couldn't the appellate courts? They were just a pile of pancakes. Stacked. All built on the lies of big money.

That is what is wrong with our country today.

Bill Clinton started it with Tyson and GW has continued it. Such sellouts to our democracy are a disgrace.
 
These lawyers made this line of questioning up for the kind of arguments that Agman and SH have brought up, "Taylor was required to test his theories and he said under oath he did not".
Click to expand...

Econ, if this is so, it is up to the other side to raise this issue.


If a lawyer asks guestions that can be answered with other than a yes or no he is a boob. Eg, "please read your statement from some previous period, did you make that statement?" My attorney brother calls it "stapling someone's feet to the floor."
 
Brad S said:
These lawyers made this line of questioning up for the kind of arguments that Agman and SH have brought up, "Taylor was required to test his theories and he said under oath he did not".
Click to expand...

Econ, if this is so, it is up to the other side to raise this issue.


If a lawyer asks guestions that can be answered with other than a yes or no he is a boob. Eg, "please read your statement from some previous period, did you make that statement?" My attorney brother calls it "stapling someone's feet to the floor."
Click to expand...

Brad, you do bring up a good point here. For the point to be valid, however, the elements that make up the point must be valid.

First of all, the "theories" were just reasons. The defense called them theories and was given that lattitude by the judge. Taylor listed a bunch of reasons for the manipulation. The reasons as a group were statistically tested as to the validity of the claim. The above testimony shows that clearly. The defense then went on to break out the reasons in the questioning and asked if Taylor had tested them individually. To my knowledge he did not. He was not required to as it has no real relevance to the question of manipulation. You could have a million reasons for doing something you do and you don't have to test every one of them as to their individual portion.

For example, maybe you have 10 reasons (Letterman here) for killing someone. Does the prosecutor have to prove the exact degree you benefit from each of these reasons individually to prove the motive? Of course not. The reasons are presented to the jury to establish motive. the jury is responsible for weighing each of these reasons and then THINKING as a whole if they constitute a motive. In the Pickett case, they did.

I do not have that much of a problem with the yes or no questions and to Agman's credit, the testimony was presented with the hesitations and the cut off sentences that the jury heard. I do have a problem with the ability of the lawyers (and judge) to misuse this lattitude to say something entirely different from what the witness wanted to say and then attributing that testimony to the witness with the yes or no questions. It is just a lawyer parlor trick and the judge seems to have participated in this fraud. The jury was smarter than that.

It is the same thing with the marketing agreements argument. Some of the plaintif's witnesses said they (I forgot exactly how agman put it) thought marketing agreements were legal and beneficial to the feeders. Agman constructed this to say that the plaintiffs themselves said the use of marketing agreements were legal and beneficial ALL THE TIME. This is a big leap in logic that was not established in trial and yet the defense uses this as an argument on this forum and probably with the judges in their briefs. The judges were just dumb or corrupt (or human) enough to go along with this argument and they should have had the judicial capacity to see this difference but did not. They are not good judges. They are corrupt or incompetent.

Do incompetent or corrupt judges know more about the law than the jury as agman puts it? They should, but they obviously do not. They know what they probably can get away with and the Supreme Court let them do it. It doesn't show much for role of judicial oversight by the new justices. You can count it up to their being new justices, but the staffs are probably not.

Much of the time specific testimony is not refuted directly because the lawyers make the decision that there is enough evidence presented that the lawyers on the other side are just full of crap and there is no need to contest such obvious displays of parlor tricks. The evidence of what was happening is there for the appellate judges to look at, whether it be in the Daubert hearings, or in some other previous court procedure. Perhaps the appellate judges did not do their due dilligence in their haste to save Tyson a billion plus verdict and save the people who appointed them their campaign contributors. It is the Mexicanization of our political system.

Brad, you brought up some good points.

The more we hear from Agman on the specifics behind his "expert" or "privleged" information, the more we realize he is just full of crap.
 
Brad S said:
Sandhusker,

I respect you as an honest person, but if you say Agman miscarried truth with an insufficient window of the transcript, by all means visit the transcript and bring what you feel more accurately defines the testimony.
Click to expand...

I don't have the transcript nor know where to get it. It's not redily available to the general public. I know for a fact that Dr. Taylor would like to see everything presented at the trail made available, then everybody, including other economists, could go thru it piece by piece. Guess which side is not allowing that to happen?

Maybe Agman would like to post Bruce Bass's testimony?
 
To my knowledge he did not. He was not required to as it has no real relevance to the question of manipulation
Click to expand...

No real relevance, then why have this "expert" witness testify?
 
Murgen said:
To my knowledge he did not. He was not required to as it has no real relevance to the question of manipulation
Click to expand...

No real relevance, then why have this "expert" witness testify?
Click to expand...

Did you read anything I wrote and understand it, Murgen? Your question is a stupid one.

There was no relevance as to the degree each of the causative factors that Taylor hypothesized were the cause of the manipulation. All put together, reasons added up to the manipulation.

In my example, I used all the reasons a man would murder another man. The jury only needs one. The data collected had its limitations. The limitation was not whether or not the manipulation occurred but as to how much each of the causative factors individually had on the result.

Agman, post the factors that were being talked about here.

OR ARE YOU SCARED?
 
Sandhusker said:
Brad S said:
Sandhusker,

I respect you as an honest person, but if you say Agman miscarried truth with an insufficient window of the transcript, by all means visit the transcript and bring what you feel more accurately defines the testimony.
Click to expand...

I don't have the transcript nor know where to get it. It's not redily available to the general public. I know for a fact that Dr. Taylor would like to see everything presented at the trail made available, then everybody, including other economists, could go thru it piece by piece. Guess which side is not allowing that to happen?

Maybe Agman would like to post Bruce Bass's testimony?
Click to expand...

AMEN!!!
 
Murgen said:
Did you read anything I wrote and understand it, Murgen? Your question is a stupid one.
Click to expand...

yep, that's me. I only ask stupid ones!
Click to expand...

None of them are stupid if you learn from them. Get your head up. You can't be in the bull session if you are a sissy.
 
Everyone has been chewin' this ole piece of gristle for a long time now, and it seems to me that no one has changed his or her mind on how the case should have been handled and what the outcome should have been. So, I think I will make an attempt to put things in a slightly different light and see what happens.

Here goes.

If the verdict had gone the other way, do you believe similar charges would have been brought against Cargill and other packers? What was the real reason for bringing this case to trial?
 

Latest posts

Top