Psst- over here

[RobertMac]

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."

Would you consider this corruption?

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!

The judge and lawyers are just doing their job, but the facts of the case are ignored!

 

[jojo]

Is changing your story under oath (i.e. lying) corrupt or moral?

 

[Econ101]

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."

jojo, you do have a point there. I don't know exactly what the defendant attorneys were getting at but it does seem that they cut off the testimony of Dr. Taylor in the questioning. For an attorney to question Dr. Taylor on Daubert or earlier depositions and then to suggest that his testimony on the earliers deposition was incomplete and then substituting that answer for the present, while not allowing him to answer the question fully, is lattitude by the judge. To take this and say that the adequate "tests" were not preformed for the trial based on prior testimony not having these "tests" preformed is misleading at best and outright fraud at worst. As agman pointed out, jason, the trial encompassed more than the individual depositions. Pinning down the witness is fine, but that is not what seems to be going on here.

 

[jojo]

jojo, you do have a point there. I don't know exactly what the defendant attorneys were getting at but it does seem that they cut off the testimony of Dr. Taylor in the questioning. For an attorney to question Dr. Taylor on Daubert or earlier depositions and then to suggest that his testimony on the earliers deposition was incomplete and then substituting that answer for the present, while not allowing him to answer the question fully, is lattitude by the judge. To take this and say that the adequate "tests" were not preformed for the trial based on prior testimony not having these "tests" preformed is misleading at best and outright fraud at worst. As agman pointed out, jason, the trial encompassed more than the individual depositions. Pinning down the witness is fine, but that is not what seems to be going on here.[/quote]


That is exactly what is going on here. They are impeaching a witness through his prior testimony. In fact, I would say that they were being kind to him by interupting him so that he would not be clearly lying under oath. You are under oath when you are having your deposition taken and you are under oath when you are a witness at trial. Your testimony better be the same. Otherwise, you were not telling the truth somewhere. You act like a legal expert but you don't know basic civil procedure/evidence rules.

 

[Sandhusker]

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.

You provided a cherry-picked snippet of testimony. You fail to account for the unanimous verdict of 12 mostly college educated jurors who heard the exchange you provided - and the REST of the testimony as well. :roll:

You're going to discount Japan's requests for tested beef because they didn't OFFICIALLY request it - in spite of a letter from Secretary Veneman that revealed they were requesting exactly that in negotiations? You're a fool. Whether they were requesting testing in negotiations or via a marble tablet, they were asking for tested beef. It's a fact.

Your protocol arguement is a laugher as well. Yes, Agman, they did not have a protocol for accepting tested beef from the US. They also didn't have one for accepting 20 month cattle from us either, did they? Turns out not having existing protocol isn't much of a problem, you can create one for about anything you want - I'll be dog-danged!

"Low" came from the USDA trying to tell Judge Cebull that there was a "low" chance of importing BSE from Canada - but not being able to define what "low" meant. Don't you remember defending this and then not answering me when I asked you if you would accept a doctor telling you a medication would have a "low" chance of turning you into a flaming homosexual?

It's nice of you to admit there are exceptions to the Fed's report that you wave as your banner of BSing us as to their intentions. However, we already knew that. It's not hard to pick out those exceptions. It's also not hard to pick out when you are spreading it on thick.

You don't care what I think of your credibility and I don't care what you think of mine. No problem, I guess we're even. One difference between you and me is that I don't resort to trying to pull the wool over folk's eyes under the guise of arrogant self promotion. Having to resort to strawmen (The Fed report says...) and just plain BS ("low" is a scientific measurement", "no protocol", "no OFFICIAL request" etc....) to make your point should tell you something about your point.

 

[Econ101]

jojo, you do have a point there. I don't know exactly what the defendant attorneys were getting at but it does seem that they cut off the testimony of Dr. Taylor in the questioning. For an attorney to question Dr. Taylor on Daubert or earlier depositions and then to suggest that his testimony on the earliers deposition was incomplete and then substituting that answer for the present, while not allowing him to answer the question fully, is lattitude by the judge. To take this and say that the adequate "tests" were not preformed for the trial based on prior testimony not having these "tests" preformed is misleading at best and outright fraud at worst. As agman pointed out, jason, the trial encompassed more than the individual depositions. Pinning down the witness is fine, but that is not what seems to be going on here.

That is exactly what is going on here. They are impeaching a witness through his prior testimony. In fact, I would say that they were being kind to him by interupting him so that he would not be clearly lying under oath. You are under oath when you are having your deposition taken and you are under oath when you are a witness at trial. Your testimony better be the same. Otherwise, you were not telling the truth somewhere. You act like a legal expert but you don't know basic civil procedure/evidence rules.[/quote]

You missed the point, jason. They are substituting the incomplete deposition record for the present trial and not allowing Taylor to complete the testimony in the present. The pre trial is never complete. Daubert hearings and the other depositions serve a purpose but are not complete. The trial is supposed to be what is complete. The defendant lawyers seem to want to substitute the incompleteness of the pre trial hearings for the trial while not allowing Taylor to complete even his sentences, let alone his explanation in this little snippet of testimony. That is a far cry different than present testimony being in contridiction to prior depositions.

It is a lawyer parlor trick to subvert the truth.

The judge should have allowed Dr. Taylor to finish his answers instead of allowing the defendant lawyers to subvert the truth in this manner.

Judge Strom was not doing his job.

 

[jojo]

Econ101,

First, I am not Jason.

Second, you could not be more wrong. It appears that Taylor was asked the same questions at the deposition as he was at the trial. He was trying to answer them differently both times. The defense lawyer was impeaching the witness by showing this fact. Do you know what that means? You obviously do not know the law very well. Please go back to your area of expertise...whatever that is.

 

[Econ101]

Econ101,

First, I am not Jason.

Second, you could not be more wrong. It appears that Taylor was asked the same questions at the deposition as he was at the trial. He was trying to answer them differently both times. The defense lawyer was impeaching the witness by showing this fact. Do you know what that means? You obviously do not know the law very well. Please go back to your area of expertise...whatever that is.

jojo, there was no requirement for Taylor to have completed all of his work required in the pre trial transcripts or for the pre trial transcripts to contain all of the work he did pre trial. They serve a different purpose. To interpose them on the trial as the lawyers did is just a parlor trick. The attorneys did not impeach Taylor with his depositions, they torpedoed him unfairly with the lattitude the judge allowed in his courtroom. The judge should have had more control of the procedure. It goes to show the influence once again a judge can have on the "truth". This judge had some problems in that respect. Same thing with Callicrate's testimony.

The material elements of part of Callicrate's testimony were presented at a different time from a different source. No matter that this testimony corraborated Callicrate's testimony, the judge still admonished him.

In addition, the points brought up are not even relevant. Taylor did not have to individually quantify the reasons Tyson would be able to manipulate the market. They only needed to be viewed in their totality. The testimony provided even states that Taylor did a statistical correlation on the items in question in their totality.

This is not rocket science. The jury got it right. This is a rigged deal.

Keep arguing the points and please leave out the personal attacks. I have the propensity to do the same. Sorry for calling you jason.

 

[jojo]

This is my last reply on this thread.

The witness was asked the same question at trial and in his deposition. At trial, he was trying to give a different answer. The defense jumped all over this (as they should). They pointed out the inconsistencies; thus, they were attempting to show his lack of credibility. I am not jumping to conclusions here. That is what appears to be happening from the posted transcript. This does not show corruption or a lack of control in the courtroom. This is exactly what any competent attorney should be doing. Your opinion of the trial being the entire story is not entirely true. There is a lot of evidence that is not allowed to show the entire story. RobertMac's Miranda Rights example is a perfect example.

My only point is that you are incorrect in saying that there was anything corrupt about this trial. The judge was doing his job the entire time, even when he ruled on the JNOV motion.

Trust me, I am as critical of attorney's and judges as anyone; however, there does not appear to be anything wrong with what happened in this trial.

I have wasted too much time on here today. I just could not sit by and watch everyone to twist what was occuring in the trial transcript in this thread.

 

[Econ101]

This is my last reply on this thread.

The witness was asked the same question at trial and in his deposition. At trial, he was trying to give a different answer. The defense jumped all over this (as they should). They pointed out the inconsistencies; thus, they were attempting to show his lack of credibility. I am not jumping to conclusions here. That is what appears to be happening from the posted transcript. This does not show corruption or a lack of control in the courtroom. This is exactly what any competent attorney should be doing. Your opinion of the trial being the entire story is not entirely true. There is a lot of evidence that is not allowed to show the entire story. RobertMac's Miranda Rights example is a perfect example.

My only point is that you are incorrect in saying that there was anything corrupt about this trial. The judge was doing his job the entire time, even when he ruled on the JNOV motion.

Trust me, I am as critical of attorney's and judges as anyone; however, there does not appear to be anything wrong with what happened in this trial.

I have wasted too much time on here today. I just could not sit by and watch everyone to twist what was occuring in the trial transcript in this thread.

jojo, are you saying that all of the requirements for trial have to be included in every pre trial transcript? You are just wrong on that account.

Much of agman's case is that the defense brought in a witness that "tore" Taylor apart. Was everything that Hauseman testified to in the corresponding daubert/depositional preliminary hearing?

This was a rigged case and even this little snippet of the trial shows it.

I don't think anything was wrong with the questioning; it is what happens every day in trials. What was wrong was that the appellate briefs by the defense mischaracterized what happened in this case and this is a perfect example of that mischaracterization.

The plaintiff's testimony on marketing agreements is another. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Competent lawyers may have a duty to do what they did in this case, but for a judge or a set of appellate judges to not realize what was happening and not giving deference to a jury in this case is just plain wrong.

It is a rigged system and the judges who are participating in this are committing a fruad upon the American people and a fraud upon our justice system. Congressional oversight has been nonexistent by the republicans overseeing this.

If you are so interested in not allowing things to be twisted, please have the complete trial transcripts with supporting depositions released for all of us to see.

What is the matter? Do you have something to hide?

 

[ocm]

This is my last reply on this thread.

The witness was asked the same question at trial and in his deposition. At trial, he was trying to give a different answer. The defense jumped all over this (as they should). They pointed out the inconsistencies; thus, they were attempting to show his lack of credibility. I am not jumping to conclusions here. That is what appears to be happening from the posted transcript. This does not show corruption or a lack of control in the courtroom. This is exactly what any competent attorney should be doing. Your opinion of the trial being the entire story is not entirely true. There is a lot of evidence that is not allowed to show the entire story. RobertMac's Miranda Rights example is a perfect example.

My only point is that you are incorrect in saying that there was anything corrupt about this trial. The judge was doing his job the entire time, even when he ruled on the JNOV motion.

Trust me, I am as critical of attorney's and judges as anyone; however, there does not appear to be anything wrong with what happened in this trial.

I have wasted too much time on here today. I just could not sit by and watch everyone to twist what was occuring in the trial transcript in this thread.

Please quote the testimony part that contradicts the deposition. What you said is not accurate, Taylor was not contradicting his deposition.

The whole picture is this

The defense called them theories. Taylor did not. (He still contends they are not "theories", but rather possible causation mechanisms.)
Did he test them, yes.
Did he test them individually, no
Did he test them econometrically, no
Did he test them statistically, yes.

Does the individual vs overall testing make a difference, no.

Taylor's deposition and court testimony are 100% consistent with what I have said here.

 

[Econ101]

This is my last reply on this thread.

The witness was asked the same question at trial and in his deposition. At trial, he was trying to give a different answer. The defense jumped all over this (as they should). They pointed out the inconsistencies; thus, they were attempting to show his lack of credibility. I am not jumping to conclusions here. That is what appears to be happening from the posted transcript. This does not show corruption or a lack of control in the courtroom. This is exactly what any competent attorney should be doing. Your opinion of the trial being the entire story is not entirely true. There is a lot of evidence that is not allowed to show the entire story. RobertMac's Miranda Rights example is a perfect example.

My only point is that you are incorrect in saying that there was anything corrupt about this trial. The judge was doing his job the entire time, even when he ruled on the JNOV motion.

Trust me, I am as critical of attorney's and judges as anyone; however, there does not appear to be anything wrong with what happened in this trial.

I have wasted too much time on here today. I just could not sit by and watch everyone to twist what was occuring in the trial transcript in this thread.

Please quote the testimony part that contradicts the deposition. What you said is not accurate, Taylor was not contradicting his deposition.

The whole picture is this

The defense called them theories. Taylor did not. (He still contends they are not "theories", but rather possible causation mechanisms.)
Did he test them, yes.
Did he test them individually, no
Did he test them econometrically, no
Did he test them statistically, yes.

Does the individual vs overall testing make a difference, no.

Taylor's deposition and court testimony are 100% consistent with what I have said here.

In fact, given the limitations of the data, I am not sure you could ever "test them" to the extent the defendants wanted. That was part of their lawyer argument defense that the jury did not buy.

Agman can't test the causative factors in the beef demand paper the checkoff funded for 100% accuracy and they don't hold true to their calculated values all the time or even through the supply chain because too many variables change. Humans are can make decisions but they are not mathematical computer decisions. Econometrics and statistical tools can only approximate and qualify to a degree of probablity those human decisions.

The ultimate decision of the question of fact, whether these models are 10% accurate or 90% accurate, still rests with the jury in our country. That is why there is a trial with 12 jurors. Otherwise we could feed it into one big computer and bingo, we would have the answer on every trial. It is never going to work that way. Someone will always find a way around it.

 

[agman]

This is my last reply on this thread.

The witness was asked the same question at trial and in his deposition. At trial, he was trying to give a different answer. The defense jumped all over this (as they should). They pointed out the inconsistencies; thus, they were attempting to show his lack of credibility. I am not jumping to conclusions here. That is what appears to be happening from the posted transcript. This does not show corruption or a lack of control in the courtroom. This is exactly what any competent attorney should be doing. Your opinion of the trial being the entire story is not entirely true. There is a lot of evidence that is not allowed to show the entire story. RobertMac's Miranda Rights example is a perfect example.

My only point is that you are incorrect in saying that there was anything corrupt about this trial. The judge was doing his job the entire time, even when he ruled on the JNOV motion.

Trust me, I am as critical of attorney's and judges as anyone; however, there does not appear to be anything wrong with what happened in this trial.

I have wasted too much time on here today. I just could not sit by and watch everyone to twist what was occuring in the trial transcript in this thread.

jojo, are you saying that all of the requirements for trial have to be included in every pre trial transcript? You are just wrong on that account.

Much of agman's case is that the defense brought in a witness that "tore" Taylor apart. Was everything that Hauseman testified to in the corresponding daubert/depositional preliminary hearing?

This was a rigged case and even this little snippet of the trial shows it.

I don't think anything was wrong with the questioning; it is what happens every day in trials. What was wrong was that the appellate briefs by the defense mischaracterized what happened in this case and this is a perfect example of that mischaracterization.

The plaintiff's testimony on marketing agreements is another. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Competent lawyers may have a duty to do what they did in this case, but for a judge or a set of appellate judges to not realize what was happening and not giving deference to a jury in this case is just plain wrong.

It is a rigged system and the judges who are participating in this are committing a fruad upon the American people and a fraud upon our justice system. Congressional oversight has been nonexistent by the republicans overseeing this.

If you are so interested in not allowing things to be twisted, please have the complete trial transcripts with supporting depositions released for all of us to see.

What is the matter? Do you have something to hide?

Taylor beat himself, it was the defense attorney who exposed the weakness of his position and his manipulation conclusion. As you should know the expert witness for the defense did not cross exam Dr Taylor which is what you implied with your statement. Was that intentional on your part to mislead readers again or are you just that ignorant of the legal process?

How was it rigged Econ? Where is your proof? False and slanderous accusations from you are a daily event. You have just demonstrated your ignorance of the case and the legal process. As usual, you are left with nothing but another phony accusation. Par for you and yours. Continued false accusations are a product of ignorance and you are at the top of the pile.

We are all supposed to believe that all the judges are always wrong and only your perverted and demented interpretation of the legal process is correct. Give the world a break from your fantasy world.

 

[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, 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!

Wrong RM, you have jumped to the wrong conclusion. I only posted one inconsistency in Taylor's work. I was challenged by several readers on this forum per that specific issue so rather than argue I just posted the testimony which I had previously referred too. The spin from those who challenged the validity of my comment is quite hilarious. Fact are impossible to defeat.

There were many others problems with his testimony. He never established "Causation". His works failed the Hausman test for "causality". While he did establish "correlation" it is the "causation"requirement that was not met. The difference between "causation" and correlation was demonstrated by the defense attorney this way. Q...Professor Taylor would you agree with me that there is a big difference between correlation and causation, correct? A...Yes Q...There is a correlation between robins and the coming of the spring. right? A...Yes Q...But that does not mean that robins cause the coming of spring, does it? A...That's correct.

Probably the best witnesses for the defense were the plaintiffs and their witnesses. Have a cool one.

 

[ocm]

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!

Wrong RM, you have jumped to the wrong conclusion. I only posted one inconsistency in Taylor's work. I was challenged by several readers on this forum per that specific issue so rather than argue I just posted the testimony which I had previously referred too. The spin from those who challenged the validity of my comment is quite hilarious. Fact are impossible to defeat.

There were many others problems with his testimony. He never established "Causation". His works failed the Hausman test for "causality". While he did establish "correlation" it is the "causation"requirement that was not met. The difference between "causation" and correlation was demonstrated by the defense attorney this way. Q...Professor Taylor would you agree with me that there is a big difference between correlation and causation, correct? A...Yes Q...There is a correlation between robins and the coming of the spring. right? A...Yes Q...But that does not mean that robins cause the coming of spring, does it? A...That's correct.

Probably the best witnesses for the defense were the plaintiffs and their witnesses. Have a cool one.

Taylor has told me on more than one occasion that he subjected his data to the Hausman test for causality and it passed. Is there testimony that says otherwise?

 

[Econ101]

This is my last reply on this thread.

The witness was asked the same question at trial and in his deposition. At trial, he was trying to give a different answer. The defense jumped all over this (as they should). They pointed out the inconsistencies; thus, they were attempting to show his lack of credibility. I am not jumping to conclusions here. That is what appears to be happening from the posted transcript. This does not show corruption or a lack of control in the courtroom. This is exactly what any competent attorney should be doing. Your opinion of the trial being the entire story is not entirely true. There is a lot of evidence that is not allowed to show the entire story. RobertMac's Miranda Rights example is a perfect example.

My only point is that you are incorrect in saying that there was anything corrupt about this trial. The judge was doing his job the entire time, even when he ruled on the JNOV motion.

Trust me, I am as critical of attorney's and judges as anyone; however, there does not appear to be anything wrong with what happened in this trial.

I have wasted too much time on here today. I just could not sit by and watch everyone to twist what was occuring in the trial transcript in this thread.

jojo, are you saying that all of the requirements for trial have to be included in every pre trial transcript? You are just wrong on that account.

Much of agman's case is that the defense brought in a witness that "tore" Taylor apart. Was everything that Hauseman testified to in the corresponding daubert/depositional preliminary hearing?

This was a rigged case and even this little snippet of the trial shows it.

I don't think anything was wrong with the questioning; it is what happens every day in trials. What was wrong was that the appellate briefs by the defense mischaracterized what happened in this case and this is a perfect example of that mischaracterization.

The plaintiff's testimony on marketing agreements is another. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Competent lawyers may have a duty to do what they did in this case, but for a judge or a set of appellate judges to not realize what was happening and not giving deference to a jury in this case is just plain wrong.

It is a rigged system and the judges who are participating in this are committing a fruad upon the American people and a fraud upon our justice system. Congressional oversight has been nonexistent by the republicans overseeing this.

If you are so interested in not allowing things to be twisted, please have the complete trial transcripts with supporting depositions released for all of us to see.

What is the matter? Do you have something to hide?

Taylor beat himself, it was the defense attorney who exposed the weakness of his position and his manipulation conclusion. As you should know the expert witness for the defense did not cross exam Dr Taylor which is what you implied with your statement. Was that intentional on your part to mislead readers again or are you just that ignorant of the legal process?

How was it rigged Econ? Where is your proof? False and slanderous accusations from you are a daily event. You have just demonstrated your ignorance of the case and the legal process. As usual, you are left with nothing but another phony accusation. Par for you and yours. Continued false accusations are a product of ignorance and you are at the top of the pile.

We are all supposed to believe that all the judges are always wrong and only your perverted and demented interpretation of the legal process is correct. Give the world a break from your fantasy world.

Agman, don't be an idiot. The SuperHero has you beat there hands down and you will never beat him. I never said Hauseman cross examined Taylor. This again shows your inability to comprehend. The defense tried to make a big deal out the lack of certain information between the pre trial depositions/hearings and the trial testimony and then they tried to make the point that Taylor was lying because of it. They knew it was a fraud upon the court. You know it is too. The pre trial depositions/hearings do not necessarily contain everything in the trial because they are not the trial, as you yourself have pointed out. Lawyers are asked to promote these type of frauds by our system to protect their clients. They tried it, and the jury did not buy it. Judge Strom corrupted the ability of the judicial system to see through such legal tactics and put a black mark on his ending reputation as a federal judge. He will have to answer for that one day and that day is coming statistically closer than the day you or I must answer for our transgressions.

The correlation argument vs. causation is one I brought up, although not in the kindergarten way the lawyers did.

Taylor didn't beat himself. Tyson lawyers didn't even beat him. The jury saw right through this type of crap. The judge reversed the jury decision!!! Tyson was able to subvert the jury system and that puts into jeapordy the credibility of the whole judicial system in the United States.

Have you ever determined what demand determinates identified by Shcroeder in the paper you had input on were factors in the difference in price being offered and paid between the cash and captive supply markets? Show us the Hauseman test on that, Agman.

We have the money lenders (or makers) in Washington D.C. subverting our democratic system of government and they need to be thrown out. Some of them need to be put in jail.

The same goes for the Federal Judiciary.

Here is the link with Senator John Cornyn , just one of the members of the Senate Judiciary who oversees the appointments of Federal judges, and the Food industry:

Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SEPTEMBER 13, 2005
7:55 PM


CONTACT: Public Citizen

As Senate Nears Vote on Agriculture Agency's Appropriations, Industry Cash Speaks Louder than Consumers' Voices
New Analysis Shows How Millions of Dollars Spent in Lobbying and Elections Has Helped Thwart Key Food Labeling Law


WASHINGTON - September 13 - As the Senate prepares to vote this week on its version of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) budget, a new Public Citizen investigation released today illustrates how big agribusiness used millions of dollars in lobbying expenditures and campaign contributions, and a network of Washington insiders with close connections to the Bush administration and Congress, to thwart a consumer-friendly provision mandating country-of-origin labeling, popularly known as COOL.

Mandatory country-of-origin labeling would require beef, pork, lamb, fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables, fish, and peanuts to be labeled with where they were raised, grown or produced. Although the 2002 Farm Bill stipulated that the new program be implemented by September 2004, mandatory COOL has been postponed by Congress – where lawmakers are under intense pressure from the meat and grocery industries – for two years. In June, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to once again delay COOL's implementation for meat until 2007. Industry is strongly lobbying the Senate to either delay the funding for the USDA to work on COOL or turn it into a "voluntary" program.

"If you ask consumers, they'll tell you they want COOL, but it's apparent that Congress isn't listening. We've already watched members of the House dismiss their constituents by voting to delay this important consumer act. We urge the Senate not to follow in their footsteps," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's food program. "Consumers deserve to know where their meat is produced, and in light of all the problems our food system faces on a daily basis, COOL would serve as a vital precautionary measure."

Public Citizen analyzed donations from 19 companies and trade associations, each of which has announced opposition to mandatory country-of-origin labeling and has registered to lobby against COOL. They have contributed a total of $12.6 million to candidates for Congress and in soft money to the Republican and Democratic parties since 2000.

These companies have focused their giving on 65 members of Congress who have sponsored a bill to replace the mandatory country-of-origin requirement with a voluntary one, which is considerably weaker and does not empower consumers with the right to know where their food is from. Instead, it offers industry a way to hide critical information from the public. These 65 members, accounting for only 12 percent of Congress, have received 29 percent of contributions to candidates from the COOL foes.

Among the investigation's other findings:

* Twenty-one companies and trade organizations that outspokenly oppose the mandatory COOL law and have registered to lobby against it have spent a total of $29.2 million to lobby Congress and the executive branch on COOL and other issues from 2000 to 2004. These groups are some of the biggest names in agribusiness and include the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), Wal-Mart, Cargill, Tyson Foods, the American Meat Institute and the Grocery Manufacturers of America.

* These companies have marshaled an army of at least 160 lobbyists to oppose COOL. Among these lobbyists, at least 45 – or 28 percent – previously held positions in the federal government, many working on key agriculture issues such as COOL.

* Key lobbyists from the meat industry who fought COOL before it became law later were hired in strategic positions at the USDA, which was charged with crafting the regulations to implement COOL. Under their watch the agency estimated an initial one-year implementation cost of up to $3.9 billion, with few benefits, which served to bolster critic's views that COOL would be too expensive to warrant implementing.

* Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) is the lead sponsor of the Senate version of the voluntary COOL bill. He has received $38,250 from the COOL opponents, all of which was contributed during his inaugural 2002 Senate race. COOL foes may have relied on a special connection to lasso their man. Among the lobbyists employed by the NCBA to work on the COOL issue in the second half of 2004 was Colin Woodall. Until April of that year, Woodall worked for Cornyn on agriculture appropriations issues. The voluntary COOL bill Cornyn introduced in June 2005 appears to match the NCBA's demands.

* Well-placed Reps. Henry Bonilla (R-Texas) and Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) have been the two ringleaders in the effort to delay, and ultimately derail, COOL. And they have been well supported by agribusiness interests. Bonilla has received more than $167,000 from COOL opponents in the last three election cycles, making him their top beneficiary. As the chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, he has twice delayed the start date for the COOL program. Bonilla's delaying tactics have enabled Cornyn and Goodlatte, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, to build support for their legislation, which would make the mandatory labeling program voluntary – at least for meat products – effectively killing it. Goodlatte's actions have greatly pleased industry, which has given him more than $103,000 in the last three election cycles, ranking him No. 3 in the amount of contributions COOL opponents gave to sponsors of the voluntary COOL legislation.

One revealing example of the influence of money in politics lies in Arkansas, where lawmakers strongly supported country-of-origin labels for all food because of the state's catfish industry, which has suffered in recent years by an influx of a catfish-like species from Vietnam. But once the delegation got its way on fish labels, support disappeared for broader COOL legislation. All six members of the delegation are co-sponsoring a bill that would end the requirement for COOL labeling of meat. They received $338,500 from COOL foes in the last three election cycles. Also, among sponsors of the voluntary COOL legislation, the Arkansas delegation accounted for the only three Democrats among the top 30 recipients of contributions from COOL opponents: Sen. Blanche Lincoln and Reps. Marion Berry and Mike Ross.

"It is easy to understand how money works against consumers' interests in politics by considering that the COOL legislation made it through Congress with a strong show of support a few years ago, only to be corralled by a strong industry lobbying effort capped by a cornucopia of campaign cash," said Frank Clemente, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch.

To read the report, Tabled Labels: Consumers Eat Blind While Congress Feasts on Campaign Cash, click here.

Senator Specter has his own connections and so do other members of he House and Senate.

Our country is being run by a bunch of opportunist politicians who are sellouts to the morals, ideas, ethics, and constitution of our land for their own self interest.

 

[Anonymous]

Hahaha! That "steer's attempt" by the packer blamers to spin the facts was hilarious.

What a great source of entertainment. If anyone ever questions the lengths that packer blamers will go in order to defend their market manipulation "CONSPIRACY THEORIES", just have them read this thread.

Taylor could not prove his theories and admitted to that under oath but all the anti corporate little packer blamers line up in his defense because his "untested theories" said what they want to believe. You packer blamers absolutely have to have someone to blame don't you? Facts and truth means nothing to you does it? All that matters is creating an "ILLUSION OF GUILT" with your baseless allegations. What a sorry bunch.

What a sad day it will be when guilty verdicts are handed down based on "THEORIES" rather than "FACTS".

"THEORIES" are not "FACTS", they are "THEORIES". THEORIES PROVE NOTHING!


Conman, Sandbag, OCM, Robert Mac, Mike, Rod, and all the rest of you packer blamers, answer one simple RELEVANT question.........

WHAT WAS THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY THE PLAINTIFFS IN PICKETT VS. IBP THAT PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT TYSON/IBP MANIPULATED THE CATTLE MARKETS FOR THE PERIOD IN QUESTION?

WHAT EVIDENCE WAS PROVIDED THAT SUPPORTED TAYLOR'S "UNTESTED THEORIES"?????

That is "THE" pivotal question in this trial to determine guilt or innocense.

So boys, WHAT WAS THAT EVIDENCE???????

If Judge Strom, the 11th circuit court of appeals, and the Supreme Court got it wrong, WHERE IS YOUR PROOF??? BRING IT!!!!!

No matter how many times you make the market manipulation allegation, at some point you have to PROVE IT!

For those of you with a lick of common sense, observe as these spinmasters dance around the most relevant question for the entire trial. Not one of these guys will touch it. Not one! Guaranteed!

Dance little circus chickens, DANCE because everyone here who matters knows damn well you'll never answer this relevant question.

Wonder what the diversion will be this time? I'll have to highlight them and combine them in a followup post just to prove my point.


RATHER THAN BRING THE UNDENIABLE FACTS THAT PROVE TYSON'S GUILT, THE PACKER BLAMERS ARE LEFT WITH NOTHING MORE THAN TO CREATE THE "ILLUSION OF GUILT" WITH ALL THEIR BASELESS ALLEGATIONS than discredit those of us who let the facts form our opinions rather than a "need to blame" or a "need to support a populist position" like a bunch of mindless sheep.

This industry wastes more time chasing market manipulation ghosts for you anti corporate, thumbsucking packer blamers when not one more dime will enter this industry unless it comes from the consumer and that is a fact!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Not now, Scotty, the adults are talking.

 

[Anonymous]

First diversion by the little ankle biter.

NEXT!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

First diversion by the little ankle biter.

NEXT!


~SH~

I agree with Sandhusker, go back to your room.