Psst- over here

[Sandhusker]

First diversion by the little ankle biter.

NEXT!


~SH~

I can see why you're so misinformed on the topics around here, Scotty, you don't know where to get information. There were 12 people who heard every word of testimony and had the opportunity to discuss what was presented amongst themselves. Yet, you demand evidence from people who weren't there and who are blocked from even getting a transcript by Tyson's lawyers! :shock: And you really think you've got something to crow about! :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Go outside and play with your dog, Scotty - maybe teach it a trick or two or vise versa.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "I agree with Sandhusker, go back to your room."

The "Lying King" follows suit and also diverts the question.

NEXT!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "I agree with Sandhusker, go back to your room."

The "Lying King" follows suit and also diverts the question.

NEXT!


~SH~

SH, do we have to call in the nanny?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag to Agman regarding actual court testimony: "I don't buy what you've brought before and I see no reason to start believing you now."

Translation: This "snippet" of actual court testimony does not support my bias therefore I will disregard it and refuse to believe it.

Does anyone need further proof how brainwashed these packer blamers are?

Sandbag: "I can see why you're so misinformed on the topics around here, Scotty, you don't know where to get information."

More cheap talk from the cheap seats!

It's certainly easier to accuse someone of being misinformed than to actually prove it isn't it ankle biter? You haven't backed a position you have held yet with supporting facts why start now right? LOL!

As if I would be better served with more factual information by listening to R-CULT's leaders who can't win a court case and contradict their previous positions daily. Or perhaps I should listen to the Livestock Marketing Police who will say and do anything to keep their precious commission dollars rolling in. Better yet, we should listen to conspiracy theorists like Derry Brownfield, Mike Callicrate, or Conman the "Lying King" who lies about lying.

The banker who doesn't know the difference between "principle" and "principal". What a joke you are Sandbag. I take it you were the only one who applied for your job. No wonder you have so much free time.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

SH, do you want to keep stabbing at ghosts or have you been able to get the testimony in its entirity released?

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "As if I would be better served with more factual information by listening to R-CULT's leaders who can't win a court case and contradict their previous positions daily. Or perhaps I should listen to the Livestock Marketing Police who will say and do anything to keep their precious commission dollars rolling in. Better yet, we should listen to conspiracy theorists like Derry Brownfield, Mike Callicrate, or Conman the "Lying King" who lies about lying.'

No, SH, you should listen to the individual who said, "They want U.S beef and they will scramble to buy it as soon as it it made available." Oh, I forgot, you already do. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Econ lies about lying? I'm pretty sure you've been caught doing that. Should we go down memory lane?

Every time you're missing for a period of time, I always hope it was because you were someplace learning to behave like an adult, and I'm always wrong. See what misguided optimism gets you?

 

[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.

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.

If you have any factual data to refute what I posted then do so. The BS is from someone like yourself who draws an opinion from a narrow observation without knowledge of or ignoring additional facts. No wonder you belong to R-Calf because that is the MO of their so called leadership.

Your attempt to disassociate yourself from your attempt to define "low" is what I call "Real BS"!!!

 

[agman]

First diversion by the little ankle biter.

NEXT!


~SH~

I can see why you're so misinformed on the topics around here, Scotty, you don't know where to get information. There were 12 people who heard every word of testimony and had the opportunity to discuss what was presented amongst themselves. Yet, you demand evidence from people who weren't there and who are blocked from even getting a transcript by Tyson's lawyers! :shock: And you really think you've got something to crow about! :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Go outside and play with your dog, Scotty - maybe teach it a trick or two or vise versa.

There were twelve people who got it wrong and that is why the law gives that presiding judge the jurisdiction and the obligation to void a jury verdict when the verdict is inconsistent with the testimony presented.

 

[agman]

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.

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.[/quote]

What questions was Dr Taylor not allowed to answer?

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "If you have any factual data to refute what I posted then do so. The BS is from someone like yourself who draws an opinion from a narrow observation without knowledge of or ignoring additional facts. No wonder you belong to R-Calf because that is the MO of their so called leadership."

I know, I know, making narrow observations without knowledge of or igoring additional facts makes you come up with statements like "They want U.S beef and they will scramble to buy it as soon as it it made available."? :lol: :lol: :lol: I've never heard any R-CALF leader make such a bone-head call like that!

Agman, "Your attempt to disassociate yourself from your attempt to define "low" is what I call "Real BS"!!!"

Perhaps if you were to join R-CALF you would pick up some reading comprehension skills. I've told you more than once that "low" is purely subjective. I even gave you several examples. Did you have trouble understanding them? Do you need a report from the Fed.?

 

[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.

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.

What questions was Dr Taylor not allowed to answer?[/quote]

So with all this fancy lawyering, did Taylor test the reasons? The answer is yes, Agman. It is even pointed out in the snippet of testimony you posted. He even did the Hauseman test for causality, did he not? (The Hauseman test is not the definitive test by any means, he is just another bought off economist who doesn't feel comfortable showing his work for review). His testimony was not inconsistent with prior testimony, Agman. That is a big fat lie.

Did you convince the defendant's to release the whole transcript of the trial or are you content with playing poker holding all the cards? Of course you and the defendants know that is the ONLY WAY you have a chance at winning any of your small minded arguments and even then you have failed.

Perhaps we should have left the verdict with the jury, as it should be in the United States of America, not rigged Mexico.

You are one piece of work, Agman. You should be ashamed.

 

[agman]

Agman, "If you have any factual data to refute what I posted then do so. The BS is from someone like yourself who draws an opinion from a narrow observation without knowledge of or ignoring additional facts. No wonder you belong to R-Calf because that is the MO of their so called leadership."

I know, I know, making narrow observations without knowledge of or igoring additional facts makes you come up with statements like "They want U.S beef and they will scramble to buy it as soon as it it made available."? :lol: :lol: :lol: I've never heard any R-CALF leader make such a bone-head call like that!

Agman, "Your attempt to disassociate yourself from your attempt to define "low" is what I call "Real BS"!!!"

Perhaps if you were to join R-CALF you would pick up some reading comprehension skills. I've told you more than once that "low" is purely subjective. I even gave you several examples. Did you have trouble understanding them? Do you need a report from the Fed.?

Now you are admitting it was you who tried to define "low". Thanks for your honesty. That puts you one up on Econ. You should be really proud of that!!! Were you the one who advised the R-Calf lawyer on the definition of "low" which he attempted to introduce at the Appellate hearing. The lady judge who queried him really stuck his foot back in his mouth on that one. Is that why you are still muttering to yourself?

It remains to be seen as to how the Japanese will accept U.S. beef. In case you don't know we have not been exporting as of late. If you listen to the consumer groups who scream and holler as R-Calf does then you would be led to believe they do not want our beef. Those groups tend to be a vocal minority. I am not too interested in news articles.

Are you in contact with any U.S beef exporters or Japanese beef importers who are at a much better vantage point than you are in Valentine NE to assess Japanese demand? I quess not.

U.S. beef will sell as soon a it is in the retail stores and restaurants. There are many restaurants waiting for U. S. quality beef product. Unfortunately you are so engulfed in negative news as usual you miss the real event. Is that a comprehension problem on your part?

 

[Brad S]

Agman, I believe the Japanese went to 100% testing to repair consumer trust after the Japanese beef industry was caught hiding infected cows. This leads me to wonder if the consumer in Japan is critical enough to decipher the safety of North American beef without testing.

 

[Econ101]

Agman:

There were twelve people who got it wrong and that is why the law gives that presiding judge the jurisdiction and the obligation to void a jury verdict when the verdict is inconsistent with the testimony presented.

We can't get 12 people to agree with anything on this forum. For the plaintiffs to get 12 jurors to agree with them meant there must have been overwhelming evidence for the decision they made even after Judge Strom tried to admonish the plaintiff's witnesses in front of the jury.

You can take your take on this and put it in the bias file, Agman.

I don't know why you are so against producers on every one of these court cases. Makes me wonder who is lining your pockets.

Judges can not just overrule juries incorrectly without consequences. The more the truth is supressed, the bigger the effect of the lie.

Now we have taken this case out of an industry and it is affecting the credibility of the federal judiciary.

This case was rigged. It smells to high heaven.

Do you think the corruption Congress allows and benefits from has been lost on the American public, Agman?

Judges are supposed to preside over cases, not call them. It is an abomination of our Constitution and of Democracy. We will not be successful in spreading democracy in the world if we can not practice it at home. The world sees these failures in our system and that is why we are not respected.

Congress has sold themselves like a cheap whore and they are trying to hide it. They are responsible for their own poor ratings.

I just hate to see business do this to our society at home while our best and brightest are overseas trying to protect a system that is being corrupted by politicians at home.

I am especially sorry that it is a republican administration.

 

[Brad S]

Judges are supposed to preside over cases, not call them. It is an abomination of our Constitution and of Democracy. We will not be successful in spreading democracy in the world if we can not practice it at home. The world sees these failures in our system and that is why we are not respected.

First, for a judge to ovetturn a jury verdict, the jury had to be very wrong. The judge's intervention would then be especially scrutinized on appeal. The judge had better be well justified in tossing a jury verdict or the appelate court will restore the jury verdict. EVERYONE respects a jury verdict perhaps well beyond their validity. the fact Strom tossed the jury verdict and was upheld on appeal tells you the jury verdict was very flawed. When the plaintiffs went jury shopping, they sought exactly the sort of jury they got. they should have also judge shopped and got one of those old guys tthat naps on the bench.


This is a rule of law issue, not a democricy issue.

Its a big world we are respected by some and not respected by some. I guess you can find what you seek.

 

[Sandhusker]

Judges are supposed to preside over cases, not call them. It is an abomination of our Constitution and of Democracy. We will not be successful in spreading democracy in the world if we can not practice it at home. The world sees these failures in our system and that is why we are not respected.

First, for a judge to ovetturn a jury verdict, the jury had to be very wrong. The judge's intervention would then be especially scrutinized on appeal. The judge had better be well justified in tossing a jury verdict or the appelate court will restore the jury verdict. EVERYONE respects a jury verdict perhaps well beyond their validity. the fact Strom tossed the jury verdict and was upheld on appeal tells you the jury verdict was very flawed. When the plaintiffs went jury shopping, they sought exactly the sort of jury they got. they should have also judge shopped and got one of those old guys tthat naps on the bench.


This is a rule of law issue, not a democricy issue.

Its a big world we are respected by some and not respected by some. I guess you can find what you seek.

Tyson had just as much say in the jury selection as did Pickett.

I find in interesting that Tyson does not want the trial transcripts to be made available to the public, but Pickett does.

 

[Brad S]

Tyson had just as much say in the jury selection as did Pickett.

I find in interesting that Tyson does not want the trial transcripts to be made available to the public, but Pickett does.

1) the plaintiff shopped the region which is more important than voidere. there are places i n the south where businesses refuse to enter because of juries stealing from businesses.

the transcript should be foia material. Is Tyson claiming intellectual secrets?

 

[Sandhusker]

Tyson had just as much say in the jury selection as did Pickett.

I find in interesting that Tyson does not want the trial transcripts to be made available to the public, but Pickett does.

1) the plaintiff shopped the region which is more important than voidere. there are places i n the south where businesses refuse to enter because of juries stealing from businesses.

the transcript should be foia material. Is Tyson claiming intellectual secrets?

I don't know if they're giving a reason.

Do you agree with Judge Strom's reasons?

 

[Econ101]

Judges are supposed to preside over cases, not call them. It is an abomination of our Constitution and of Democracy. We will not be successful in spreading democracy in the world if we can not practice it at home. The world sees these failures in our system and that is why we are not respected.

First, for a judge to ovetturn a jury verdict, the jury had to be very wrong. The judge's intervention would then be especially scrutinized on appeal. The judge had better be well justified in tossing a jury verdict or the appelate court will restore the jury verdict. EVERYONE respects a jury verdict perhaps well beyond their validity. the fact Strom tossed the jury verdict and was upheld on appeal tells you the jury verdict was very flawed. When the plaintiffs went jury shopping, they sought exactly the sort of jury they got. they should have also judge shopped and got one of those old guys tthat naps on the bench.


This is a rule of law issue, not a democricy issue.

Its a big world we are respected by some and not respected by some. I guess you can find what you seek.

Brad, your analysis requires an independent judiciary, not one whose oversight members have had their campaign coffers filled by this industry.

Am I saying the 11th circuit was bought off? You bet. Either that or they were incompetent. There might be some validity of incompetence based on their Robinson Patman Act example.

I am still open to both possibilities.

Both are vital issues to a democracy. You just might not know it.

 

[agman]

Judges are supposed to preside over cases, not call them. It is an abomination of our Constitution and of Democracy. We will not be successful in spreading democracy in the world if we can not practice it at home. The world sees these failures in our system and that is why we are not respected.

First, for a judge to ovetturn a jury verdict, the jury had to be very wrong. The judge's intervention would then be especially scrutinized on appeal. The judge had better be well justified in tossing a jury verdict or the appelate court will restore the jury verdict. EVERYONE respects a jury verdict perhaps well beyond their validity. the fact Strom tossed the jury verdict and was upheld on appeal tells you the jury verdict was very flawed. When the plaintiffs went jury shopping, they sought exactly the sort of jury they got. they should have also judge shopped and got one of those old guys tthat naps on the bench.


This is a rule of law issue, not a democricy issue.

Its a big world we are respected by some and not respected by some. I guess you can find what you seek.

Tyson had just as much say in the jury selection as did Pickett.

I find in interesting that Tyson does not want the trial transcripts to be made available to the public, but Pickett does.

How do you know Tyson does not want the transcripts to be made public? What evidence do have to support your statement?