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

R-CALF addresses "legitimate business practice" of

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
An answer to Judge Strom's requirement that Pickett had to show Tyson lacked a legitimate reason for using marketing agreements.

Judge Strom, "If there is evidence from which a jury reasonably could find that none of Tyson's asserted justifications are real, that each is pretectual, Pickett wins. Otherwise Tyson wins.

Put differenlty, any valid business justification for the marketing agreements in issue would defeat pickett's PSA relief, regardless of whether a less harmful or restrictive means of accomplishing the alleged justification might exist or could be found. Under this framework, it was immaterial that the jury found (a) that Pickett's cattle were higher quality than the cattle from Tyson't captive souce, yet (b) because of the long-term marketing agreements, Pickett received a lower price."

Sandhusker, "Does it look like Tyson's use of marketing agreements is working like they said? Regardless, no other court has held the opinion that a legitimate purpose excuses any improprieties."

The Eleventh Circuit ruled below that a plaintiff must show that a defendant's conduct was absolutely anti-competitive to establish a PSA violation. Thus, any business justification for challenged business behavior would constitute a "saving grace" and defeat a plaintiff's claim for relief. Thus, the eleventh Circuit held that the Act "requires a plaintiff to show an adverse effect on competition.

The Supreme Court takes another angle. The Supreme Court has said in considering whether business conduct is impermissible, "it is relevant to consider its impact on consuers and whether it has impaired competiton in an unnecessarily restrictive way." Emphasis added Sandhusker, "Note, there is no back door of any legitimate uses."

In a ruling against Armour, the Seventh Circuit said, "While Section 202(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act may be broader than antecedent antitrust legislation," it does not allow:....condemnig practices which are neither deceptive nor injurious to competition nor indended to be so... Even if predatory intent is absent, Armour's coupon program might violate Section 202(a) if it would probaby result in competitive injury, tend to restrain trade or create a monopoly.

Sandhusker, "Note, Armour probably had a legitimate use for their coupon program - the court didn't even consider it."


OK, packer hacks. Whaddusay now?
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
Sandhusker said:
An answer to Judge Strom's requirement that Pickett had to show Tyson lacked a legitimate reason for using marketing agreements.

Judge Strom, "If there is evidence from which a jury reasonably could find that none of Tyson's asserted justifications are real, that each is pretectual, Pickett wins. Otherwise Tyson wins.

Put differenlty, any valid business justification for the marketing agreements in issue would defeat pickett's PSA relief, regardless of whether a less harmful or restrictive means of accomplishing the alleged justification might exist or could be found. Under this framework, it was immaterial that the jury found (a) that Pickett's cattle were higher quality than the cattle from Tyson't captive souce, yet (b) because of the long-term marketing agreements, Pickett received a lower price."

Sandhusker, "Does it look like Tyson's use of marketing agreements is working like they said? Regardless, no other court has held the opinion that a legitimate purpose excuses any improprieties."

The Eleventh Circuit ruled below that a plaintiff must show that a defendant's conduct was absolutely anti-competitive to establish a PSA violation. Thus, any business justification for challenged business behavior would constitute a "saving grace" and defeat a plaintiff's claim for relief. Thus, the eleventh Circuit held that the Act "requires a plaintiff to show an adverse effect on competition.

The Supreme Court takes another angle. The Supreme Court has said in considering whether business conduct is impermissible, "it is relevant to consider its impact on consuers and whether it has impaired competiton in an unnecessarily restrictive way." Emphasis added Sandhusker, "Note, there is no back door of any legitimate uses."

In a ruling against Armour, the Seventh Circuit said, "While Section 202(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act may be broader than antecedent antitrust legislation," it does not allow:....condemnig practices which are neither deceptive nor injurious to competition nor indended to be so... Even if predatory intent is absent, Armour's coupon program might violate Section 202(a) if it would probaby result in competitive injury, tend to restrain trade or create a monopoly.

Sandhusker, "Note, Armour probably had a legitimate use for their coupon program - the court didn't even consider it."


OK, packer hacks. Whaddusay now?


Yes, the "legitimate business reason" has never had any place as an excuse for otherwise unfair behavior in any other Circuit besides the 11th, nor has the Supreme Court ever held so in any kind of anti-trust case.

R-CALF's brief shows how much the 11th Circuit is out of whack with the rest of the world on this particular issue. And yes, I would again say they are way out in LEFT field. I can't think of any better way to express the idea that they don't care what the original wording or intent of the PSA is.

~SH~ and his buddies are going to have to depend on the likes of Souter, Ginsberg and Stephens for help.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
The question we all need to ask is how did we get such a disfunctional 11th circuit? Can we not get some accountability in our judges? What about the economic damage they are allowing to occur to our economy and "the little guy"? There should be some way of holding these guys a little more accountable.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
One simple question boys, where is your proof of market manipulation?

Such a simple and relevant question and you have no answer.

Poor little packer blamers!


~SH~
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
~SH~ said:
One simple question boys, where is your proof of market manipulation?

Such a simple and relevant question and you have no answer.

Poor little packer blamers!


~SH~

It was presented at trial, SH, where it belongs. If you want the evidence that convinced the jury, get the trial transcripts from your buddy Agman.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conman: "It was presented at trial, SH, where it belongs. If you want the evidence that convinced the jury, get the trial transcripts from your buddy Agman."

Hahaha!

I'll take that as an admission that you have no proof.

IMAGINE THAT??????

Until the point where you can provide the actual proof of market manipulation, you got nothing.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Conman: "It was presented at trial, SH, where it belongs. If you want the evidence that convinced the jury, get the trial transcripts from your buddy Agman."

Hahaha!

I'll take that as an admission that you have no proof.

IMAGINE THAT??????

Until the point where you can provide the actual proof of market manipulation, you got nothing.


~SH~

Why do you demand proof from somebody that wasn't there and had nothing to do with the case? You say there was no proof, but then you have the votes of 12 jurors who reached a unamious decision. Lets see, 12 people who were there and heard every second of testimony, verses a gopher trapper in SD who probably couldn't find Alabama on a map. My, oh, my. Who are we to believe?

Get a flippin transcript and have somebody read it to you if you want the proof.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,159
Reaction score
379
Location
Big Muddy valley
Why don't you guys just post the proof of market manipulation on here for all of us to see instead of making us all get it from Agman. Don't you guys have it?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Big Muddy rancher said:
Why don't you guys just post the proof of market manipulation on here for all of us to see instead of making us all get it from Agman. Don't you guys have it?

When you fix the market concentration in your own back yard, BMR. You could have easily gone down to Alabama and watched the trial, BMR. If you want to see the proof in that was presented, either get a transcript or do a mock trial and pay for it yourself (I hope you have a lot of money). Putting up any evidence for a person like you who has been in leadership in the Canadian cattle business while allowing the recent events in your country to unfold as they have without you saying a word in protest is insane.

When you can run the cattle business in Canada for the producers competently, put on your high hat and come south to help where the figtht is being fought right now. Otherwise, your wife and your cheerleading for the packers is noted.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,159
Reaction score
379
Location
Big Muddy valley
Econ101 said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Why don't you guys just post the proof of market manipulation on here for all of us to see instead of making us all get it from Agman. Don't you guys have it?

When you fix the market concentration in your own back yard, BMR. You could have easily gone down to Alabama and watched the trial, BMR. If you want to see the proof in that was presented, either get a transcript or do a mock trial and pay for it yourself (I hope you have a lot of money). Putting up any evidence for a person like you who has been in leadership in the Canadian cattle business while allowing the recent events in your country to unfold as they have without you saying a word in protest is insane.

When you can run the cattle business in Canada for the producers competently, put on your high hat and come south to help where the figtht is being fought right now. Otherwise, your wife and your cheerleading for the packers is noted.



ECON One Question? Since it is not polite to ask how many cattle a person owns. Let me ask how you are involved in the cattle business? You want to be taken credibily so bad but no one beleives you are in any way shape or form involved in the cattle Biz.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
Big Muddy rancher said:
Econ101 said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Why don't you guys just post the proof of market manipulation on here for all of us to see instead of making us all get it from Agman. Don't you guys have it?

When you fix the market concentration in your own back yard, BMR. You could have easily gone down to Alabama and watched the trial, BMR. If you want to see the proof in that was presented, either get a transcript or do a mock trial and pay for it yourself (I hope you have a lot of money). Putting up any evidence for a person like you who has been in leadership in the Canadian cattle business while allowing the recent events in your country to unfold as they have without you saying a word in protest is insane.

When you can run the cattle business in Canada for the producers competently, put on your high hat and come south to help where the figtht is being fought right now. Otherwise, your wife and your cheerleading for the packers is noted.



ECON One Question? Since it is not polite to ask how many cattle a person owns. Let me ask how you are involved in the cattle business? You want to be taken credibily so bad but no one beleives you are in any way shape or form involved in the cattle Biz.

BMR, I respect you enough to allow you to believe in the fantasy world you create in the space between your ears, just don't expect everyone else to be there with you.

When you have to let the biggest players in the cattle business (they are not producers) answer all the questions so you don't have to think, you get leadership like you have provided the Canadian producers. Sometimes things need to change. Every Canadian producer should hold people like you accontable for allowing the cattle business in Canada to go the way it has. If you can't be held accountable, what is the use of you being in self proclaimed leadership postions?
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
22,159
Reaction score
379
Location
Big Muddy valley
Econ101 said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
Econ101 said:
When you fix the market concentration in your own back yard, BMR. You could have easily gone down to Alabama and watched the trial, BMR. If you want to see the proof in that was presented, either get a transcript or do a mock trial and pay for it yourself (I hope you have a lot of money). Putting up any evidence for a person like you who has been in leadership in the Canadian cattle business while allowing the recent events in your country to unfold as they have without you saying a word in protest is insane.

When you can run the cattle business in Canada for the producers competently, put on your high hat and come south to help where the figtht is being fought right now. Otherwise, your wife and your cheerleading for the packers is noted.



ECON One Question? Since it is not polite to ask how many cattle a person owns. Let me ask how you are involved in the cattle business? You want to be taken credibily so bad but no one beleives you are in any way shape or form involved in the cattle Biz.

BMR, I respect you enough to allow you to believe in the fantasy world you create in the space between your ears, just don't expect everyone else to be there with you.


I guess by your diversion I can take that you are not involved in the livestock industry in any but to try to give opinion. Figures, those that can do , those that can't give opinions. :cowboy:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
BMR, I respect you enough to allow you to believe in the fantasy world you create in the space between your ears, just don't expect everyone else to be there with you.

When you have to let the biggest players in the cattle business (they are not producers) answer all the questions so you don't have to think, you get leadership like you have provided the Canadian producers. Sometimes things need to change. Every Canadian producer should hold people like you accontable for allowing the cattle business in Canada to go the way it has. If you can't be held accountable, what is the use of you being in self proclaimed leadership postions?

You are a little like the father who heard the uncle in the bedroom raping his daughter who used the defense, " I didn't do anything because I couldn't. You had to be there to understand".

You sound like you are criticising a neighbor that is trying to save your child.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Econ you claim to be smarter than all of us on this board so why don't you act like it. Prove to all of us just how smart you are and bring the proof you have to back the statements you make. It would earn you alot more respect than this childish crap you always pull when you are asked a question Divert the issue and discredit the asker is your MO and I think I can say we are getting sick of it PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
Come on Tam, quit hassling poor conman the convict. His proof is in his other prison coveralls. :lol: :lol:

He has told us numerous times proof has no place on this fourm.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
0
Location
Sask
Jason said:
Come on Tam, quit hassling poor conman the convict. His proof is in his other prison coveralls. :lol: :lol:

He has told us numerous times proof has no place on this fourm.

:wink: He seems to be having a problem with proof this morning isn't he. I'm waiting to see if he will apologize for this morning or if he thinks his diversionary tactics to numerous posters will just be forgotten. GEEZ he is having a bad day. :wink: :lol: :lol2:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ocm said:
Sandhusker said:
An answer to Judge Strom's requirement that Pickett had to show Tyson lacked a legitimate reason for using marketing agreements.

Judge Strom, "If there is evidence from which a jury reasonably could find that none of Tyson's asserted justifications are real, that each is pretectual, Pickett wins. Otherwise Tyson wins.

Put differenlty, any valid business justification for the marketing agreements in issue would defeat pickett's PSA relief, regardless of whether a less harmful or restrictive means of accomplishing the alleged justification might exist or could be found. Under this framework, it was immaterial that the jury found (a) that Pickett's cattle were higher quality than the cattle from Tyson't captive souce, yet (b) because of the long-term marketing agreements, Pickett received a lower price."

Sandhusker, "Does it look like Tyson's use of marketing agreements is working like they said? Regardless, no other court has held the opinion that a legitimate purpose excuses any improprieties."

The Eleventh Circuit ruled below that a plaintiff must show that a defendant's conduct was absolutely anti-competitive to establish a PSA violation. Thus, any business justification for challenged business behavior would constitute a "saving grace" and defeat a plaintiff's claim for relief. Thus, the eleventh Circuit held that the Act "requires a plaintiff to show an adverse effect on competition.

The Supreme Court takes another angle. The Supreme Court has said in considering whether business conduct is impermissible, "it is relevant to consider its impact on consuers and whether it has impaired competiton in an unnecessarily restrictive way." Emphasis added Sandhusker, "Note, there is no back door of any legitimate uses."

In a ruling against Armour, the Seventh Circuit said, "While Section 202(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act may be broader than antecedent antitrust legislation," it does not allow:....condemnig practices which are neither deceptive nor injurious to competition nor indended to be so... Even if predatory intent is absent, Armour's coupon program might violate Section 202(a) if it would probaby result in competitive injury, tend to restrain trade or create a monopoly.

Sandhusker, "Note, Armour probably had a legitimate use for their coupon program - the court didn't even consider it."


OK, packer hacks. Whaddusay now?


Yes, the "legitimate business reason" has never had any place as an excuse for otherwise unfair behavior in any other Circuit besides the 11th, nor has the Supreme Court ever held so in any kind of anti-trust case.

R-CALF's brief shows how much the 11th Circuit is out of whack with the rest of the world on this particular issue. And yes, I would again say they are way out in LEFT field. I can't think of any better way to express the idea that they don't care what the original wording or intent of the PSA is.

~SH~ and his buddies are going to have to depend on the likes of Souter, Ginsberg and Stephens for help.

I get a chuckle out of watching ~SH~, Agman, MRJ, etal defending the actions of activist Judges that overruled a Jury decision and reinterpretted the law...These are the exact same type of activist Judges that have taken away much of the rest of our culture and heritage- but they will defend them to the end on this because it fits their vision...The best example is the ruling against having the Ten Commandments in a Courtroom or outside a Courthouse... Personally I can think of no better place to display the Ten Commandments than a Courtroom!!!!!!!
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Oldtimer said:
ocm said:
Sandhusker said:
An answer to Judge Strom's requirement that Pickett had to show Tyson lacked a legitimate reason for using marketing agreements.

Judge Strom, "If there is evidence from which a jury reasonably could find that none of Tyson's asserted justifications are real, that each is pretectual, Pickett wins. Otherwise Tyson wins.

Put differenlty, any valid business justification for the marketing agreements in issue would defeat pickett's PSA relief, regardless of whether a less harmful or restrictive means of accomplishing the alleged justification might exist or could be found. Under this framework, it was immaterial that the jury found (a) that Pickett's cattle were higher quality than the cattle from Tyson't captive souce, yet (b) because of the long-term marketing agreements, Pickett received a lower price."

Sandhusker, "Does it look like Tyson's use of marketing agreements is working like they said? Regardless, no other court has held the opinion that a legitimate purpose excuses any improprieties."

The Eleventh Circuit ruled below that a plaintiff must show that a defendant's conduct was absolutely anti-competitive to establish a PSA violation. Thus, any business justification for challenged business behavior would constitute a "saving grace" and defeat a plaintiff's claim for relief. Thus, the eleventh Circuit held that the Act "requires a plaintiff to show an adverse effect on competition.

The Supreme Court takes another angle. The Supreme Court has said in considering whether business conduct is impermissible, "it is relevant to consider its impact on consuers and whether it has impaired competiton in an unnecessarily restrictive way." Emphasis added Sandhusker, "Note, there is no back door of any legitimate uses."

In a ruling against Armour, the Seventh Circuit said, "While Section 202(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act may be broader than antecedent antitrust legislation," it does not allow:....condemnig practices which are neither deceptive nor injurious to competition nor indended to be so... Even if predatory intent is absent, Armour's coupon program might violate Section 202(a) if it would probaby result in competitive injury, tend to restrain trade or create a monopoly.

Sandhusker, "Note, Armour probably had a legitimate use for their coupon program - the court didn't even consider it."


OK, packer hacks. Whaddusay now?


Yes, the "legitimate business reason" has never had any place as an excuse for otherwise unfair behavior in any other Circuit besides the 11th, nor has the Supreme Court ever held so in any kind of anti-trust case.

R-CALF's brief shows how much the 11th Circuit is out of whack with the rest of the world on this particular issue. And yes, I would again say they are way out in LEFT field. I can't think of any better way to express the idea that they don't care what the original wording or intent of the PSA is.

~SH~ and his buddies are going to have to depend on the likes of Souter, Ginsberg and Stephens for help.

I get a chuckle out of watching ~SH~, Agman, MRJ, etal defending the actions of activist Judges that overruled a Jury decision and reinterpretted the law...These are the exact same type of activist Judges that have taken away much of the rest of our culture and heritage- but they will defend them to the end on this because it fits their vision...The best example is the ruling against having the Ten Commandments in a Courtroom or outside a Courthouse... Personally I can think of no better place to display the Ten Commandments than a Courtroom!!!!!!!


OT, enjoy your time in fantasyland! You may have to wake up to realities of life one of these days.

MRJ
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Econ101 said:
~SH~ said:
One simple question boys, where is your proof of market manipulation?

Such a simple and relevant question and you have no answer.

Poor little packer blamers!


~SH~

It was presented at trial, SH, where it belongs. If you want the evidence that convinced the jury, get the trial transcripts from your buddy Agman.

If you would read the transcripts rather then make assumptions you might have something truthful to say for once.

Are you talking about the same evidence that had serious Daubert issues per the court. Do you care to post the quote from footnote 10 page 13 of the Appellate Court unamious ruling regarding that so-called evidence?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
agman said:
Econ101 said:
~SH~ said:
One simple question boys, where is your proof of market manipulation?

Such a simple and relevant question and you have no answer.

Poor little packer blamers!


~SH~

It was presented at trial, SH, where it belongs. If you want the evidence that convinced the jury, get the trial transcripts from your buddy Agman.

If you would read the transcripts rather then make assumptions you might have something truthful to say for once.

Are you talking about the same evidence that had serious Daubert issues per the court. Do you care to post the quote from footnote 10 page 13 of the Appellate Court unamious ruling regarding that so-called evidence?

Simple question; Did Dr. Taylor pass the Daubert test?
 

Latest posts

Top