Psst- over here

[Econ101]

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?

Pointrider, what do you think?

 

[pointrider]

I asked you first -----------

 

[Econ101]

since you are hanging around, I already said what I thought. It was part of the concentration game for the packers but it got into some of the feeders and ranchers pocket book and they stood up for themselves.

I have found out that businesses and people will do anything they can get away with when it comes to money. It is a shame our court system let them get away with it. There is a real issue with concentration in agriculture and this was one of the plays. Like I said, it doesn't say much for our laws and judicial system when they can't get this one right. There was some political cover that was bought in D.C. A complete sellout if you ask me.

 

[pointrider]

Did a big ole tree fall across the road, Econ, or are you preparing a very lengthy reply?

 

[Econ101]

Did a big ole tree fall across the road, Econ, or are you preparing a very lengthy reply?

Depends on what you want, pointrider. I've got a chainsaw so I'm not afraid of trees across the road.

 

[pointrider]

You beat my last question by a few seconds, Econ. To your credit, Econ, you answered the second question, but you didn't answer the first one.

Since you answered at least one, I will give my opinion which probably isn't worth much because there is no real way to know. Anyway, I believe the ones responsible for bringing this case would have brought more cases against other packers, too. Once the wolf gets a taste of blood ---------

Also, in my opinion, this case was brought for several reasons not including the one you presented. They are

-- short term thinking (not unlike a lot of others). Many business schools teach management prospects to work on this quarter's results. They won't be judged on what can happen in most cases, but on what did happen.
-- not wanting to confront what most of them know deep in their souls - that things like low prices affect all producers and, in the end, it is the ones with the best mix of production and marketing that will survive. Anything to get help from something else instead of working on a better business plan. It's just a matter of time until higher prices enjoyed these days compared to a few years ago will cause expansion (if there's any grass available) and a shift in the price structure -- unless the ones out there today decide to be content to become a smaller industry compared to the total population and let the "cheaper" beef come in from the north and the south. The industry's herd is not keeping up with population growth.
-- a fear of the unknown (perfectly normal), and wanting to hold on to a system that is perceived to be best for them.
-- a lack of knowledge about the precedents that have been set for change over the past 5 decades

Comments welcome.

 

[Econ101]

You beat my last question by a few seconds, Econ. To your credit, Econ, you answered the second question, but you didn't answer the first one.

Since you answered at least one, I will give my opinion which probably isn't worth much because there is no real way to know. Anyway, I believe the ones responsible for bringing this case would have brought more cases against other packers, too. Once the wolf gets a taste of blood ---------

Also, in my opinion, this case was brought for several reasons not including the one you presented. They are

-- short term thinking (not unlike a lot of others). Many business schools teach management prospects to work on this quarter's results. They won't be judged on what can happen in most cases, but on what did happen.
-- not wanting to confront what most of them know deep in their souls - that things like low prices affect all producers and, in the end, it is the ones with the best mix of production and marketing that will survive. Anything to get help from something else instead of working on a better business plan. It's just a matter of time until higher prices enjoyed these days compared to a few years ago will cause expansion (if there's any grass available) and a shift in the price structure -- unless the ones out there today decide to be content to become a smaller industry compared to the total population and let the "cheaper" beef come in from the north and the south. The industry's herd is not keeping up with population growth.
-- a fear of the unknown (perfectly normal), and wanting to hold on to a system that is perceived to be best for them.
-- a lack of knowledge about the precedents that have been set for change over the past 5 decades

Comments welcome.

Pointrider, I'm going to fall short of admonishing you like I did Jason on food safety but the answer parallels Jason's answer.

If the other packers were involved in manipulating the market price as Tyson was, they would be liable for their actions just like Tyson. There would have to be a trial, evidence presented, and a jury verdict. They are not an arm of Tyson and would have to stand up in court for themselves for their own wrong doings in the market and for violating the laws of the land. There is no excuse for wrong doing if everyone else does it also. That is the legal theory Tyson attorneys are trying to push and it is just a fraud.

THE PSA WAS NOT PASSED BY CONGRESS TO PROTECT COMPETITION BETWEEN PACKERS, IT WAS PASSED TO PROTECT PRODUCERS AND THE MARKET FROM MARKET POWER ABUSES.

There are a lot of things that producers can do to increase their profitability and those things should not get confused with the illegal abuse of market power by the packers.

The "precedents" that have been passed over the past 5 decades have been court decsions from judges who don't know a thing about why the US passed the Packers and Stockyards Act and how free markets are supposed to work from an economic standpoint. Which specific court case are you talking about? The Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) have been given political cover over the past two administrations so they could hang their hat on their "do nothing" policy and the markets could become more concentrated. You have only to look at the results to see this is true. Tyson's "invisible hand" full of campaign contributions along with Arlen Specter's helf for the poultry frauds has helped them get away with this.

The fact that we have a judiciary that is not looking at what the courts are doing and continue to allow judges to make up the law instead of literal interpretation is the problem. There has been no real oversight despite language from President Bush on the subject admonishing this type of action by the judicial branch. Arlen Specter is just a puppet for the poultry industry. He sells himself as a moderate republican while allowing the the judicial system to lose credibility and undermine justice in this country.

The domestic "industry herd" as you call it, would increase if there were financial incentives. We have recently had a small time where that was the case.

Much of the South planted pine trees instead of dealing with cattle because there were economic incentives to do so. This while we have a "free trade agreeement" with Canada and tariffs that have been declared illegal in the softwood lumber trade.

What are these guys in D.C. doing to our economy?

When they don't let it work, the result is that it does not operate at its highest efficiency. We also misallocate resources. Both of these things have been happening. For what? Just to give campaign contributers advantages they ask for? It is the Mexicanization of our country.

The courts should not be shielding companies from their misdeeds in the market just because the judiciary is stacked with Congressmen who are either incompetent or corrupt.

You should also not confuse variences in individual efficiencies with the abuse of market power.

 

[pointrider]

Econ, would you agree that laws have been passed in this country that have, in essence, contradicted each other? I believe there have been some.

These laws are usually not passed at the same time. Same goes for regulations. One law is passed. Time goes by. Another law is passed without doing anything about the first one. What to do?

Usually the most current law or regulation will get the attention, the funding and the enforcement, because it has been a current issue that was pushed through the bill passing and regulation writing process.

If no one is playing watchdog on the old law, then it is in danger of being underfunded and "phased out" through the process of passing new laws and regulations.

Now, you may be thinking about our constitution. It's a pretty old law as laws go. And a lot of people want to keep it the same. Some don't (i.e. the gay marriage pro people and the con people). Our constitution is a pretty important document. Do you believe that we, as a nation, are supporting and enforcing our constitution to the letter of the law at all times? Does the Supreme Court interpret it the same as you in all cases that you have been familiar with?

The solutions are not easy many times. A person may not be too crazy about the way certain Republicans are representing them, and they can elect someone else and try again. But what if the only choice is a Democrat who is proposing liberal thinking that is even farther from the voter's ideology?

Time to promote a referendum so the people can have a say. Right? It's a good solution in many cases. Ever thought about starting a petition drive to get signatures and force your changes in the USDA et al? Maybe it's time for you to come out of the shadows. Might do some good. Huh? What do you think?

 

[Econ101]

Econ, would you agree that laws have been passed in this country that have, in essence, contradicted each other? I believe there have been some.

These laws are usually not passed at the same time. Same goes for regulations. One law is passed. Time goes by. Another law is passed without doing anything about the first one. What to do?

Usually the most current law or regulation will get the attention, the funding and the enforcement, because it has been a current issue that was pushed through the bill passing and regulation writing process.

If no one is playing watchdog on the old law, then it is in danger of being underfunded and "phased out" through the process of passing new laws and regulations.

Now, you may be thinking about our constitution. It's a pretty old law as laws go. And a lot of people want to keep it the same. Some don't (i.e. the gay marriage pro people and the con people). Our constitution is a pretty important document. Do you believe that we, as a nation, are supporting and enforcing our constitution to the letter of the law at all times? Does the Supreme Court interpret it the same as you in all cases that you have been familiar with?

The solutions are not easy many times. A person may not be too crazy about the way certain Republicans are representing them, and they can elect someone else and try again. But what if the only choice is a Democrat who is proposing liberal thinking that is even farther from the voter's ideology?

Time to promote a referendum so the people can have a say. Right? It's a good solution in many cases. Ever thought about starting a petition drive to get signatures and force your changes in the USDA et al? Maybe it's time for you to come out of the shadows. Might do some good. Huh? What do you think?

Pointrider, I think that the more power corporations exude on our politicians, the more we are all screwed. We have laws that should be enforced but are not. The republicans are taking a little heat now because they have been reluctant to enforce border laws so they cry for more stringent borders even though they themselves have not enforced the law.

I think we have a nation of corporations instead of a nation of laws.

There is nothing "constitutional" about it. More than half of the members of the judiciary in the senate and house should be in prison instead of being in charge of our politics where they sell us out and do not do their job of oversight.

There is no excuse for what the 11th circuit said in regards to the PSA and allowing stupid arguments against its intention. It is an obviously biased court system. They can not read the law and interpret it exactly opposite of how and why it was written. The judges who are going along with this should not be judges. That is why I was so concerned about the judgement. If judges can turn laws inside out so easy, why have the legislature? Why not have judges determine who wins arguments and not juries? This system is broken. We are all in danger when this happens.

As far as GIPSA, some of those government officials--they know who they are---should either start squwacking on who is pulling their chains or go straight to jail. Instead, the current government covers it up!!!!

I hope I am wrong in all of this and that there are some things going on behind the scenes. I don't see that happening though. There seems to be more backroom dealing. That is what has gotten us to this terrible point.

We need some ethical people that do not sell out our ideas, values, and laws for corporate influence.

That is not what we have today.

I think we have a nation of corporations instead of a nation of laws. We have the good old boys club instead of a respectable government. The United States deserves better than that.

It is sad to see the judiciary this way. It is probably to be expected with the caliber of men who sit on the judiciary committees in Congress and do nothing to correct it (some are trying to correct it).

 

[pointrider]

Like I said, sounds like it is the time for a lot more referendums to get these issues on the ballot. And then a lot of pressure from the same people who signed on to make sure it happens.

California has been a leader in this respect in my opinion. Lots of issues on the ballots that are determined by the people, not by "Ahnold" and the other folks in the legislature.

If you can't get enough signatures, then you might have to admit that it is an issue that is not as much of a hot button issue as you perceived with the majority of the people. But, no harm trying. At least it would get more people thinking about it.

I am old enough that I can say that I have watched the evolution of agriculture in the U.S. for the past 50 years. I am not talking about a particular law as much as the actions of the different segments of agriculture as they have gone through the "fewer and larger" evolution that is inherent in the capitalism/free enterprise system of doing business, especially when it comes to commodity production and marketing in a mature segment as opposed to some new, high-tech, niche segment that has only been around for 5 years.

It will be very difficult to force the companies who have survived and prospered for the past 50 years to change their way of looking at things. I have had enough direct involvement down through the years that I can say that I believe that a good number of major players today who have been around a long time did not achieve their current status by being "robber baron" crooks.

I've seen a lot of people make a lot of shrewd moves and a lot of just good business moves. People who were determined to grow and prosper. People who were willing to help their neighbors, and then pay the neighbor more than anyone else would have for his operation if he still couldn't make it. People who became leaders in the industry segment, donating a lot of time for the good of the entire segment.

I could go on. I don't buy your argument that pretty much the whole system is corrupt, and I never will. But you can prove me wrong if you can get enough signatures. Do you have the time? You've been spending a lot of time on Ranchers.net.

 

[Econ101]

Like I said, sounds like it is the time for a lot more referendums to get these issues on the ballot. And then a lot of pressure from the same people who signed on to make sure it happens.

California has been a leader in this respect in my opinion. Lots of issues on the ballots that are determined by the people, not by "Ahnold" and the other folks in the legislature.

If you can't get enough signatures, then you might have to admit that it is an issue that is not as much of a hot button issue as you perceived with the majority of the people. But, no harm trying. At least it would get more people thinking about it.

I am old enough that I can say that I have watched the evolution of agriculture in the U.S. for the past 50 years. I am not talking about a particular law as much as the actions of the different segments of agriculture as they have gone through the "fewer and larger" evolution that is inherent in the capitalism/free enterprise system of doing business, especially when it comes to commodity production and marketing in a mature segment as opposed to some new, high-tech, niche segment that has only been around for 5 years.

It will be very difficult to force the companies who have survived and prospered for the past 50 years to change their way of looking at things. I have had enough direct involvement down through the years that I can say that I believe that a good number of major players today who have been around a long time did not achieve their current status by being "robber baron" crooks.

I've seen a lot of people make a lot of shrewd moves and a lot of just good business moves. People who were determined to grow and prosper. People who were willing to help their neighbors, and then pay the neighbor more than anyone else would have for his operation if he still couldn't make it. People who became leaders in the industry segment, donating a lot of time for the good of the entire segment.

I could go on. I don't buy your argument that pretty much the whole system is corrupt, and I never will. But you can prove me wrong if you can get enough signatures. Do you have the time? You've been spending a lot of time on Ranchers.net.

Pointrider, I see you are waving my alma mater around.

I don't think that every law needs to be rewritten every time a big corporation feels like breaking it and not having to pay the consequences. That is exactly what has happened with Tyson.

The regulatory agency that is supposed to be regulating them has acted much like Arthur Anderson in being complicit with their misdeeds.

Did you read the OIG report or are you just bringing your own perceptions to the table?

Your posts on this subject tend to be going the same way that MRJ goes. I don't go along with the tribal thing. Like I said before, if Tyson is cheating the producers, to stay in the game, others have to find ways to cheat or be at a competitive disadvantage. If this happens, they should all be liable. Unfortunately, the rules seem to be changing when the courts can not trust the jury to get things they way their handlers want. That is a corruption of the system. Period. Juries are to judge matters of fact and they are constitutionally supposed to be respected and be the last say so. Unfortunately, in the Pickett case and the London case, the judges overturned matters of fact, set new hurdles AFTER the trial was already over just to get a verdict that the higher ups wanted. Justice is supposed to be blind meaning that it is metered out equally to whoever is before them. It aint happening.

These issues are inadvertantly what happens when the producer surplus is being surpressed by market power. In our system of govt. we have a chance to change these things through our votes. I am a little tired of the good old boys club protecting their own at my expense. It seems a lot of other people are too.

We shouldn't have to rewrite the way we interpret our laws or what is written because the "chosen ones" don't get their way. It is corruption.

If you don't see it that way, that is your business.

I say read the OIG report before you come to that conclusion.

I am not ready for the beef industry to get taken down through the market power tools that have taken away the free markets in poultry and to a large degree, hogs. You may have already given up, but I haven't.

 

[Sandhusker]

You're an Aggie, too, Econ? Well, at least thats better than a 'horn. :wink:

Pointrider, I don't think it's a real stretch to see what Tyson was doing. First of all, they are 1/3 of the fat market in the nation. That's absolultley huge. That large a fish can't help but make ripples in the pond. They know dang well how they move the markets in the course of general business. Other people do as well, but other people don't know when. You then throw in open-ended contracts and Tyson has an advantage - the know what 1/3 of the market is going to do and when, because that is them. They use the open-ended contracts to determine when to make the ripple. Since the contracts are also factors in the cash price of cattle, doing what you can to lower the contracts helps you now and helps you tomorrow. It's not a real elaborate scheme. You take away their size or you take away the open-ended contract and the jig is up.

 

[RobertMac]

Question for you, pointrider....what laws contradict the PSA? What new laws have changed the way the government views antitrust? The government broke up ATT and today, mergers are putting it back together...we have come full circle. Tyson should have never been allowed to buy IBP. This is both democrat and republican. I have always voted republican and always will because all other issues pail if someone cuts my head off or blows me up...I don't trust democrats to protect this country. Both parties are turning us into a nation of corporatism instead of nationalism...somethings we should never be depended on other nations for; defense, energy, and food. Nationalism should come first with these.

 

[Econ101]

For me, Robert Mac, the problem seems to be politicians willing to support thier party instead of their constituents or conscience. I can break out responsiblity to go with individual actions instead of the whole party. Unfortunately, the individuals responsible for much of the mess we are in are republicans who are chairmen of oversight committees or in leadership who are too embarressed to have oversight hearings for fear that their support from campaign contributors may be exposed.


They have sold out their constituents in order to finance their races. They are serving themselves instead of the people.

I don't care if you are called a democrat, a republican, a communist, or a liberal. When you do that, in my book you are corrupt and not competent ethically to hold office.

 

[agman]

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.

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.

Why don't you post for all to read your CLAIM that Taylor tested his theories when under oath he said he did not.

 

[agman]

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)?

This case was dead on Appeal for many of the various reasons I have previously pointed out. I just posted one of them that clearly painted Taylor into a corner. He was crushed under cross-exam. The mere fact that you chose not to accept that does not alter the facts or the outcome.

I submit that Judge Strom is more expert in this type of testimony than you, I, or anyone else on this forum. He also has a legal obligation to void a verdict if the verdict is NOT supported by testimony. Should he have abandoned his legal obligation-yes or no?

 

[agman]

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.

What I provided was proof, something you know very little about, of my previous statement regarding Taylor's testimony at trail. If you think you can refute what I posted be my quest. The spin that some of you have attempted is truly laughable. Why would anyone be surprised though?

When did the Japanese government OFFICIALLY say they would accept tested beef? What documents did they present to support your claim and where and when was the protocol presented to U.S exporters? You do know a protocol has to be in place for that to happen?

Excuse me, it was you who made a failed attempt to convice the world of your definition of "low". You, just as the R-Calf attorney who presented the R-Calf version of "low" to the Appelate Court, are left muttering to yourself having totally failed to define what "low" represents either in scientific or mathematical terms. Nice attempt to lay your total blunder off on me.

Regarding why corporations relocate I will stick with the Fed's thorough analysis as opposed to your straw view. There are exceptions, I never said there were not. Cargill announced in the past two weeks the largest soybean processing facility in China. The explicit purpose as stated by the CEO was to serve the local and regional market. I guess as a junior loan officer in a bank far removed from Cargill you know more than the CEO of Cargill. You might give him a call and tell him all you think you know about Cargill's recent investment intentions in Brazil and China. I am ceratin he is interested in your version of events!

What you think of my credibility is totally irrelevant. I don't worry about what someone thinks who does not even register on the map of good and great people who comprise the entire beef industry.

 

[Econ101]

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)?

This case was dead on Appeal for many of the various reasons I have previously pointed out. I just posted one of them that clearly painted Taylor into a corner. He was crushed under cross-exam. The mere fact that you chose not to accept that does not alter the facts or the outcome.

I submit that Judge Strom is more expert in this type of testimony than you, I, or anyone else on this forum. He also has a legal obligation to void a verdict if the verdict is NOT supported by testimony. Should he have abandoned his legal obligation-yes or no?

Agman, to a 5 year old I might repeat something I know they heard.

For you...............

This case was rigged. The "proof" you proffer is nothing, and the jury was able to judge it in its totality. If this is all you can hang a rigged outcome on you have a sorry excuse. How long do you think it will take for others to see what is happening here?

They already are.

 

[RobertMac]

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)?

This case was dead on Appeal for many of the various reasons I have previously pointed out. I just posted one of them that clearly painted Taylor into a corner. He was crushed under cross-exam. The mere fact that you chose not to accept that does not alter the facts or the outcome.

I submit that Judge Strom is more expert in this type of testimony than you, I, or anyone else on this forum. He also has a legal obligation to void a verdict if the verdict is NOT supported by testimony. Should he have abandoned his legal obligation-yes or no?

Agman, I will take from your response that these few lines from a lengthy deposition and trial are what Judge Strom based his "legal obligation". I would equate this to a judge's "legal obligation" to turn a murderer free, when there were eye witnesses to the murder, because the arresting officer didn't properly read the murderer his Miranda rights.
Is it legal? Yes
Is it morally right? Not in God's eyes!

I feel sure Picket's lawyers let Dr. Taylor explain his answers to the jury (you fail to present us with both sides of the testimony) which obviously had an impact on their verdict. If Judge Strom disregarded the rest of the testimony because of this technicality, you make Econ's case for corruption. This is shameful!

 

[jojo]

This is not corruption. It appears that the defendant's attorneys were impeaching the witness by using his deposition testimony which is taken under oath as well. The defense was simply pointing out that Taylor was attempting to answer the question different than he had previously been deposed under oath. That is how it appears from the posted portion of the trial transcript.

Why are you guys defending a guy that was answering question differently than he had previously answered the question under oath. The judge and defense counsel were simply doing their job...not being "corrupt."