R-CALF addresses "legitimate business practice" of

[Econ101]

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?

Bring it on, if you dare, Agman. I have asked you to do this before and you have not done so yet.

 

[Econ101]

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.

Tam, What is your question? Is it BMR's?:

"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."

He started saying how impolite his question was, and then asked it. Just because you can recognize how impolite you are doesn't mean you have a right to be impolite---or have the right to demand an answer to any question you pose on this board. I am sorry if this frustrates you and your packer backer family who are all in bed together. If you would stay on topic and have questions that helped in the discussion, I might answer them. The fish you throw out don't happen to lure me to your bait, and I don't care at all if you get upset that I don't answer your little questions. I have to respect someone for me to be worried if I lose their respect. That doesn't happen to be a bunch of packer lackeys like you, BMR, SH, Jason, Agman or others.

Here is a pertinent question to the discussion:

Did Taylor pass the Daubert Test, Agman?

 

[Jason]

BMR never asked you how many cows you have Conman the convict, he asked how you are affiliated with the cattle industry. Talk about a lack of reading comprehension.

Asking how a person is affiliated with the cattle industry is not a rude question. Asking how many cows you own is. We all know you don't own any cows anyway. Your lack of understanding in the cattle business shows you only have some bias against Tyson. You single them out every post.

I think you have been convicted of fraud against Tyson when you tried to steal some chicken feet from them while sweeping the floors.

Of course I have about as much evidence of this as you do that Tyson manipulates markets.

 

[Tam]

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.

Tam, What is your question? Is it BMR's?:

"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."

He started saying how impolite his question was, and then asked it. Just because you can recognize how impolite you are doesn't mean you have a right to be impolite---or have the right to demand an answer to any question you pose on this board. I am sorry if this frustrates you and your packer backer family who are all in bed together. If you would stay on topic and have questions that helped in the discussion, I might answer them. The fish you throw out don't happen to lure me to your bait, and I don't care at all if you get upset that I don't answer your little questions. I have to respect someone for me to be worried if I lose their respect. That doesn't happen to be a bunch of packer lackeys like you, BMR, SH, Jason, Agman or others.

Here is a pertinent question to the discussion:

Did Taylor pass the Daubert Test, Agman?

Take your pick of any question asked of you today Econ I'm sure you haven't answered any of them to anyones satisfaction. You can start with BMR's question on how you are involved in cattle business so we know if you are the KNOW IT ALL OUTSIDER WE THINK YOU ARE. Then you can move on to My question of Do you have proof of the statement you made about the Japanese delegation fearing for their lives that I asked when you said

When you are in a foreign country with a bunch of crooks with knives, should you speak against the crooks or wait till you get back home to do it?

then you can prove your statement about S.S.A.P. then you can answer what ever Jason asked as I'm sure you have diverted the topic went he asked you a question at least once today. Then if you have anytime left you can go back and answer anybody elses question you refuse to answer as the answer will only prove what a phoney you really are.

doesn't mean you have a right to be impolite---or have the right to demand an answer to any question you pose on this board.

If you want any credibility on this board you had better get a different attitude towards proving you statements when someones asks you to back them up with something besides name calling and diversionary tactics. TALK ABOUT BEING IMPOLITE you take the cake, icing and ALL.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

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.

Econ I didn't ask you the impolite question. I asked you how you were involved in the cattle industry? But per usual you won't answer.


Also Econ if by any stretch of the imagination you can relate the sexual abuse of a child the the captive supply reform act you should seek immediate mental health care cause you are sick. Please call your Doctor.

 

[Econ101]

BMR never asked you how many cows you have Conman the convict, he asked how you are affiliated with the cattle industry. Talk about a lack of reading comprehension.

Asking how a person is affiliated with the cattle industry is not a rude question. Asking how many cows you own is. We all know you don't own any cows anyway. Your lack of understanding in the cattle business shows you only have some bias against Tyson. You single them out every post.

I think you have been convicted of fraud against Tyson when you tried to steal some chicken feet from them while sweeping the floors.

Of course I have about as much evidence of this as you do that Tyson manipulates markets.

You are right about singling out Tyson, Jason. I didn't read appellate decisons about the other packers. When you want to beat a group, the best strategy is often to take on the biggest one in the group. After that, everyone else falls in line. Why do you think I ignore you and your dumb questions a lot of the time?

 

[Jason]

Because I embarrass you and make you look like a fool.

Any idea about cwt yet?

 

[Econ101]

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.

Econ I didn't ask you the impolite question. I asked you how you were involved in the cattle industry? But per usual you won't answer.


Also Econ if by any stretch of the imagination you can relate the sexual abuse of a child the the captive supply reform act you should seek immediate mental health care cause you are sick. Please call your Doctor.

I wasn't relating it to the captive supply reform act, BMR, I was relating it to you.

"All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."

I understand why you don't do anything. Does that disqualify you from being a "good man" to allow that evil to prevail? I hope you never have to answer that question. At least some are not putting their blind acceptance to what is going on in this industry as the families that are involved in incest do. I find the character trait that allows that to happen rather weak and pathetic. I am sorry if the shoe fits. You could at least speak out, whether or not you could change the outcome. You are a self acclaimed leader of this industry.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

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.

Econ I didn't ask you the impolite question. I asked you how you were involved in the cattle industry? But per usual you won't answer.


Also Econ if by any stretch of the imagination you can relate the sexual abuse of a child the the captive supply reform act you should seek immediate mental health care cause you are sick. Please call your Doctor.

I wasn't relating it to the captive supply reform act, BMR, I was relating it to you.

"All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."

I understand why you don't do anything. Does that disqualify you from being a "good man" to allow that evil to prevail? I hope you never have to answer that question. At least some are not putting their blind acceptance to what is going on in this industry as the families that are involved in incest do. I find the character trait that allows that to happen rather weak and pathetic. I am sorry if the shoe fits. You could at least speak out, whether or not you could change the outcome. You are a self acclaimed leader of this industry.

Econ if you knew me you would know that I speak up. But not just to be heard .

 

[agman]

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!!!!!!!

Did you also chuckle at the snow jobs your friends did on Judge Cebull?
Your friends sucked him in and made a damn fool out of his decision. I quess you should pat your friends on the back for that work of genius.

Since you are a professed legal beagle tell us what law Judge Strom violated with his decision to void the jury verdict? Name it please. Did judge Strom abide by legal precedent or not-yes or no? On what grounds can a judge void a jury verdict? If there was no basis for his decision why haven't your brilliant legal advisors requested and been granted a retrial?

The fact is that you are on the wrong side of a losing issue once again and you do not have the integrity to admit it. No facts, no win, that is the way it should be.

If you want to use R-Calf's brief as evidence of legislating from the bench I hope it is better than all the previous briefs filed in the Pickett case. The authors were armatures versus those written in support of the defense. The authors of your latest brief are the same one's who got clobbered in the Pickett case by misreading case law and established precedent. I expect they will fare no better with the latest brief. There are lawyers on the other side who will separate fact from R-Calf's fiction very quickly.

BTW have you figured out yet that a decline in domestic cow slaughter of 2.7 million head has a greater price impact than the loss of 330,000 head of cow imports?!!! You might consult your brilliant legal advisors, the one's that keep losing cases, I am certain they can figure that one out. While you cannot master that simple concept I would bet one of those legal minds could aid in solving your confusion over that simple issue.

 

[agman]

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?

Read the transcripts and see what happened at trail and cross exam. The mere fact that he was accepted as an expert witness does not not mean his testimony at trail fulfilled all the requirements of Daubert. One requirement is theories advanced at trail must be tested for validity. Have you conveniently forgotten that under oath and during trail he said his did not test his six theories for validity? His works did not pass the "Hausman" test for causality either.

 

[Anonymous]

Isn't it amazing that die hard packer blamers like Sandbag and Conman can keep repeating the market manipulation allegation without even knowing what facts were presented in Pickett to support that allegation???

Hahaha! All they can do is create the "ILLUSION" that proof actually existed. Par for their deceptive ways.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Econ I didn't ask you the impolite question. I asked you how you were involved in the cattle industry? But per usual you won't answer.


Also Econ if by any stretch of the imagination you can relate the sexual abuse of a child the the captive supply reform act you should seek immediate mental health care cause you are sick. Please call your Doctor.

I wasn't relating it to the captive supply reform act, BMR, I was relating it to you.

"All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."

I understand why you don't do anything. Does that disqualify you from being a "good man" to allow that evil to prevail? I hope you never have to answer that question. At least some are not putting their blind acceptance to what is going on in this industry as the families that are involved in incest do. I find the character trait that allows that to happen rather weak and pathetic. I am sorry if the shoe fits. You could at least speak out, whether or not you could change the outcome. You are a self acclaimed leader of this industry.

Econ if you knew me you would know that I speak up. But not just to be heard .

You are right, BMR, I don't know you and I don't want to rush to judgement so fast. As I said, this is much like a case of incest. There are a lot of abused members of the family. It is not totally functional. When you get beat around a little it puts things in a different perspective. Still not right, but more understandable.

 

[Econ101]

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?

Read the transcripts and see what happened at trail and cross exam. The mere fact that he was accepted as an expert witness does not not mean his testimony at trail fulfilled all the requirements of Daubert. One requirement is theories advanced at trail must be tested for validity. Have you conveniently forgotten that under oath and during trail he said his did not test his six theories for validity? His works did not pass the "Hausman" test for causality either.

Why don't you post it, Agman?

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

So Econ are you going to tell me how you are involved with the cattle industry?

 

[Econ101]

So Econ are you going to tell me how you are involved with the cattle industry?

No.

 

[Tam]

So Econ are you going to tell me how you are involved with the cattle industry?

No.

Let's simplfy the question Econ ARE YOU INVOLVED IN THE CATTLE INDUSTRY IN ANY FORM AT ALL? Other than a consumer of our product.

 

[Econ101]

So Econ are you going to tell me how you are involved with the cattle industry?

No.

Let's simplfy the question Econ ARE YOU INVOLVED IN THE CATTLE INDUSTRY IN ANY FORM AT ALL? Other than a consumer of our product.

Tam, do you think I am going to tell you? Jason can't get an answer I don't want to give out, neither can SH or BMR. What qualities do you bring to the table that make you any different than them?

It would be better to stick to the topics instead of wasting your time trying to get me to reveal who I am until I am ready to do that. It took Deep Throat a long time before he was revealed. It shouldn't matter anyway. The posts you bring to this forum should stand on their own without any personal fluff. I am sorry you and BMR have decided the fluff is necessary or beneficial. It allows stagnation of thought, something I really don't approve of. I like to listen to a variety of people and not pigeonhole anyone. Everyone has a viewpoint to bring to the table. Your questions seem to frustrate that process. I said I would probably reveal it someday. Up to that day, your questions and Jason's guessing will have to suffice.

 

[Tam]

Maybe if we knew your credentials we could understand where you are really coming from. Your thoughts on BSE testing would have more weight if you were the one that would be paying for the testing out of the price you get for your cattle if the consumer refuses to pay extra for it. And the Hate you have for Tyson would maybe make sense if you were a producer that made a bad deal with them and got took. But if you are a producer I feel sorry for you as no self proclaimed intellegent man should be proven wrong so many times when it comes to an industry that he makes a living at. As it stands you are looking like a self proclaimed KNOW IT ALL that likes sticking his nose into issues he know little to nothing about. So don't bother telling any of us what your credentials are and we will go on believeing what we are about you. :roll:

 

[Econ101]

Maybe if we knew your credentials we could understand where you are really coming from. Your thoughts on BSE testing would have more weight if you were the one that would be paying for the testing out of the price you get for your cattle if the consumer refuses to pay extra for it. And the Hate you have for Tyson would maybe make sense if you were a producer that made a bad deal with them and got took. But if you are a producer I feel sorry for you as no self proclaimed intellegent man should be proven wrong so many times when it comes to an industry that he makes a living at. As it stands you are looking like a self proclaimed KNOW IT ALL that likes sticking his nose into issues he know little to nothing about. So don't bother telling any of us what your credentials are and we will go on believeing what we are about you. :roll:

Sorry you take things so personally, Tam. I know the situation is not easy. Think about the comparison I made. It fits like a glove. That is what makes it so hard to tackle.

I wouldn't ask of you what I wouldn't do myself.