R-CALF Convention

[Mike]

United States Court of Appeals:

"Pickett contends he has established unfairness and price control or manipulation under the PSA by proving that Tyson's marketing agreements caused the cash market price, and the overall market price, for cattle to be lower than it otherwise would be. If that were all Pickett were required to prove he might win, because there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole".

 

[Anonymous]

If the courts deemed that dropping your price in the cash market due to your needs being met in the formula market is truly market manipulation, the same principles would need to apply to every facet of this industry. An order buyer that dropped his price in the cash market due to having most of his needs filled by the video auction would be market manipulation. A producer who dropped the price he was willing to pay for bulls or heifers as his bull and heifer needs were fulfilled would be market manipulation.

You cannot set this standard for the packing industry and not have it apply to every other segment of the industry.

Dropping your price in the cash market because you have your needs fulfilled in the formula market is not and never will be considered market manipulation. It's a normally functioning market based on supply and demand.


~SH~

 

[TimH]

United States Court of Appeals:

"Pickett contends he has established unfairness and price control or manipulation under the PSA by proving that Tyson's marketing agreements caused the cash market price, and the overall market price, for cattle to be lower than it otherwise would be. If that were all Pickett were required to prove he might win, because there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole".

The entire document that the above excerpt is taken from can be found here.......

www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200412137.pdf

 

[Econ101]

If the courts deemed that dropping your price in the cash market due to your needs being met in the formula market is truly market manipulation, the same principles would need to apply to every facet of this industry. An order buyer that dropped his price in the cash market due to having most of his needs filled by the video auction would be market manipulation. A producer who dropped the price he was willing to pay for bulls or heifers as his bull and heifer needs were fulfilled would be market manipulation.


Dropping your price in the cash market because you have your needs fulfilled in the formula market is not and never will be considered market manipulation. It's a normally functioning market based on supply and "You cannot set this standard for the packing industry and not have it apply to every other segment of the industry.demand.


~SH~

SH, we probably need to make special rules for you.

The law was what was broken. It is specific. Whether you want to call it market manipulation or ice cream suday does not matter.

The appellate court overturned the verdict based on the London case where they substituted the words "and" instead of what was passed by Congress, "or"s. They rewrote the law to come up with the decision they wanted. They also allowed London to be discriminated against because he testified in a racial discrimination case against the integrator.

This 11th circuit has some real problems and real problematic judges. They are discrediting the justice system in the U.S.

SH:
"You cannot set this standard for the packing industry and not have it apply to every other segment of the industry."

Don't tell Congress what they can write into law or not. Run for office if you want to do this.

"
Dropping your price in the cash market because you have your needs fulfilled in the formula market is not and never will be considered market manipulation."

Colluding on the way you get the price for captive supply is market manipulation, especially if it is not indicative of the supply and demand characteristics that set market prices. You have admitted to that time and time again.

 

[ocm]

OCM: "Documentation, please!"

Ask John Lockie for documentation, he's the one who said captive supplies were over 80%. Ask Bullard for documentation, he was the one that pulled the 40% figure out of his ars.

POLICE YOUR OWN RANKS!


~SH~

John Lockie no longer works for either R-CALF nor for OCM. Is this your way of saying there is no documentation that you can provide.

YOU HAVE NOTHING!!!!!!!

I have never heard the 80% figure (or anything else that high) except for an occasional week or two, but never an average.

Was this an average, an anomolous week or what. Documentation please. Hearsay unacceptable. Document that Lockie said it and what EXACTLY he said. Or you can dodge and discredit!

 

[Sandhusker]

If the courts deemed that dropping your price in the cash market due to your needs being met in the formula market is truly market manipulation, the same principles would need to apply to every facet of this industry. An order buyer that dropped his price in the cash market due to having most of his needs filled by the video auction would be market manipulation. A producer who dropped the price he was willing to pay for bulls or heifers as his bull and heifer needs were fulfilled would be market manipulation.

You cannot set this standard for the packing industry and not have it apply to every other segment of the industry.

Dropping your price in the cash market because you have your needs fulfilled in the formula market is not and never will be considered market manipulation. It's a normally functioning market based on supply and demand.


~SH~

Did you even read what Mike posted? Read it. Ask questions. Read it again.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "The law was what was broken. It is specific."

The law was not broken or the judge would have agreed with the jury and THAT decision would have been upheld by the 11th circuit.

Conman: "The appellate court overturned the verdict based on the London case where they substituted the words "and" instead of what was passed by Congress, "or"s. They rewrote the law to come up with the decision they wanted. They also allowed London to be discriminated against because he testified in a racial discrimination case against the integrator.'

Judge Strom overruled the jury's decision and his decision was upheld by the 11th circuit because there was no proof of market manipulation. Judge Strom even cited similar cases that also proved no market manipulation with similar allegations. THERE WAS NO PROOF OF MARKET MANIPULATION. NONE!

Conman: "This 11th circuit has some real problems and real problematic judges. They are discrediting the justice system in the U.S."

That's what all the packer blamers say when there is no proof to back their allegations.

Conman: "Don't tell Congress what they can write into law or not. Run for office if you want to do this."

You think dropping your price to meet your needs should only be considered market manipulation in the packing segment of our industry and not to other segments of this industry?

I can only imagine what this nation would be like if idiots like you were writing the laws.

Conman: "Colluding on the way you get the price for captive supply is market manipulation, especially if it is not indicative of the supply and demand characteristics that set market prices."

What an arrogant @^!%&@!#* you are to think that the feeding industry needs you to save them from their own marketing alternatives. If everyone has both the cash market and the formula market available to them and one price is higher than the other, HOW THE HELL CAN IT BE MARKET MANIPULATION WHEN EVERY FEEDER HAS THE SAME MARKETING OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THEM?

You pathetic packer blamers make me sick! Here, suck on this pacifier.


OCM,

Did John Lockie work for OCM or did he not? Yes or no?

John Lockie was quoted as stating that captive supplies were as high as 80% in either the Western Livestock Journal or the Tri-State Livestock News. If this was for a certain time period, he did not specify that. It was deceptive either way. I wrote the quote down when I read it. I'm not going to go back and dig through piles of newspapers to find it just to satisfy you.

Unless you flat out admit that he didn't say it. Then it will be worth my time to prove you a liar.



~SH~

 

[ocm]

OCM,

Did John Lockie work for OCM or did he not? Yes or no?

John Lockie was quoted as stating that captive supplies were as high as 80% in either the Western Livestock Journal or the Tri-State Livestock News. If this was for a certain time period, he did not specify that. It was deceptive either way. I wrote the quote down when I read it. I'm not going to go back and dig through piles of newspapers to find it just to satisfy you.

Unless you flat out admit that he didn't say it. Then it will be worth my time to prove you a liar.

~SH~

Sounds like either hearsay or a misquote or a quote out of context or a misstatement by John Lockie.

Worst case--John Lockie misstated. Would his misstatement continually and forever be held to the account of everybody who has ever joined R-CALF????

Your position on this is absurd. You are really reaching hard on this one.

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "The law was what was broken. It is specific."

The law was not broken or the judge would have agreed with the jury and THAT decision would have been upheld by the 11th circuit.

Conman: "The appellate court overturned the verdict based on the London case where they substituted the words "and" instead of what was passed by Congress, "or"s. They rewrote the law to come up with the decision they wanted. They also allowed London to be discriminated against because he testified in a racial discrimination case against the integrator.'

Judge Strom overruled the jury's decision and his decision was upheld by the 11th circuit because there was no proof of market manipulation. Judge Strom even cited similar cases that also proved no market manipulation with similar allegations. THERE WAS NO PROOF OF MARKET MANIPULATION. NONE!

Conman: "This 11th circuit has some real problems and real problematic judges. They are discrediting the justice system in the U.S."

That's what all the packer blamers say when there is no proof to back their allegations.

Conman: "Don't tell Congress what they can write into law or not. Run for office if you want to do this."

You think dropping your price to meet your needs should only be considered market manipulation in the packing segment of our industry and not to other segments of this industry?

I can only imagine what this nation would be like if idiots like you were writing the laws.

Conman: "Colluding on the way you get the price for captive supply is market manipulation, especially if it is not indicative of the supply and demand characteristics that set market prices."

What an arrogant @^!%&@!#* you are to think that the feeding industry needs you to save them from their own marketing alternatives. If everyone has both the cash market and the formula market available to them and one price is higher than the other, HOW THE HELL CAN IT BE MARKET MANIPULATION WHEN EVERY FEEDER HAS THE SAME MARKETING OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THEM?

You pathetic packer blamers make me sick! Here, suck on this pacifier.


OCM,

Did John Lockie work for OCM or did he not? Yes or no?

John Lockie was quoted as stating that captive supplies were as high as 80% in either the Western Livestock Journal or the Tri-State Livestock News. If this was for a certain time period, he did not specify that. It was deceptive either way. I wrote the quote down when I read it. I'm not going to go back and dig through piles of newspapers to find it just to satisfy you.

Unless you flat out admit that he didn't say it. Then it will be worth my time to prove you a liar.



~SH~

Conman: "The appellate court overturned the verdict based on the London case where they substituted the words "and" instead of what was passed by Congress, "or"s. They rewrote the law to come up with the decision they wanted. They also allowed London to be discriminated against because he testified in a racial discrimination case against the integrator.'

Judge Strom overruled the jury's decision and his decision was upheld by the 11th circuit because there was no proof of market manipulation. Judge Strom even cited similar cases that also proved no market manipulation with similar allegations. THERE WAS NO PROOF OF MARKET MANIPULATION. NONE!

SH, do you know the difference between the appellate court and Judge Strom? This reply shows that you have a little trouble on that one. Are you saying that there was no trial also?

Conman: "Colluding on the way you get the price for captive supply is market manipulation, especially if it is not indicative of the supply and demand characteristics that set market prices."

What an arrogant @^!%&@!#* you are to think that the feeding industry needs you to save them from their own marketing alternatives. If everyone has both the cash market and the formula market available to them and one price is higher than the other, HOW THE HELL CAN IT BE MARKET MANIPULATION WHEN EVERY FEEDER HAS THE SAME MARKETING OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THEM?

I never said the feeding industry needs me. That is your own argument you made up. The packers need to stop trying to make the case that if they do market manipulation with the use of some kind of contract, that the fact that another person is on the other side of the contract excuses them from market manipulation. That is just absurd. You make funny arguments, SH. Market manipulation can happen when every feeder has the same marketing options available to them. That alleged fact has nothing to do with whether or not there is a market manipulation or not. If packers were discriminating against the cash market and the cash market set the formula price next week, that could be market manipulation. I said could here. We have already argued the exceptions here. Would you like to remember what happened last time before we do it again? I can like you even if you have alzheimers.

 

[mrj]

OCM,

Did John Lockie work for OCM or did he not? Yes or no?

John Lockie was quoted as stating that captive supplies were as high as 80% in either the Western Livestock Journal or the Tri-State Livestock News. If this was for a certain time period, he did not specify that. It was deceptive either way. I wrote the quote down when I read it. I'm not going to go back and dig through piles of newspapers to find it just to satisfy you.

Unless you flat out admit that he didn't say it. Then it will be worth my time to prove you a liar.

~SH~

Sounds like either hearsay or a misquote or a quote out of context or a misstatement by John Lockie.

Worst case--John Lockie misstated. Would his misstatement continually and forever be held to the account of everybody who has ever joined R-CALF????

Your position on this is absurd. You are really reaching hard on this one.

ocm, just an observation, but realizing you and Sandhusker probably are not the same person, you do pretty much talk from the same play book, and he definitely holds some former NCBA staff people accountable for every utterance he deems inappropreate "continually and forever".

MRJ

 

[ocm]

OCM,

Did John Lockie work for OCM or did he not? Yes or no?

John Lockie was quoted as stating that captive supplies were as high as 80% in either the Western Livestock Journal or the Tri-State Livestock News. If this was for a certain time period, he did not specify that. It was deceptive either way. I wrote the quote down when I read it. I'm not going to go back and dig through piles of newspapers to find it just to satisfy you.

Unless you flat out admit that he didn't say it. Then it will be worth my time to prove you a liar.

~SH~

Sounds like either hearsay or a misquote or a quote out of context or a misstatement by John Lockie.

Worst case--John Lockie misstated. Would his misstatement continually and forever be held to the account of everybody who has ever joined R-CALF????

Your position on this is absurd. You are really reaching hard on this one.

ocm, just an observation, but realizing you and Sandhusker probably are not the same person, you do pretty much talk from the same play book, and he definitely holds some former NCBA staff people accountable for every utterance he deems inappropreate "continually and forever".

MRJ

I remember when Georgre Bush was running for President in 2000. He was criticized for speaking at Bob Jones University. The ciriticism focused on some things written by the current University president grandfather.

If you can't find something wrong with somebody, go after their grandfather, or maybe go after somebody they've never met.

Testifies to the weakness of the criticism.

 

[Sandhusker]

ocm and I are not the same person, and yes, we do agree on many things. He presents strong arguements in a non-confrontational way.

The reason I present NCBA utterings up for accountability is simply to fight fire with fire. It sure seems there is a double standard on this board concerning what an R-CALF leader might say and what a NCBA leader might say. Some will jump all over a Bullard or McDonald quote that may raise a question, but when an NCBA leader makes a similar statement, they want to know what context it was made in, did they really make it, etc.... We also get the "R-CALF lies", but with NCBA it's "they didn't know what they were talking about", "They were misinformed", or "I don't agree with that". I'm just trying to bring a little balance.

 

[ocm]

ocm and I are not the same person, and yes, we do agree on many things. He presents strong arguements in a non-confrontational way.

The reason I present NCBA utterings up for accountability is simply to fight fire with fire. It sure seems there is a double standard on this board concerning what an R-CALF leader might say and what a NCBA leader might say. Some will jump all over a Bullard or McDonald quote that may raise a question, but when an NCBA leader makes a similar statement, they want to know what context it was made in, did they really make it, etc.... We also get the "R-CALF lies", but with NCBA it's "they didn't know what they were talking about", "They were misinformed", or "I don't agree with that". I'm just trying to bring a little balance.

Thanks for the compliment. "strong arguments in a non-confrontational way" Sometimes that is difficult because there are some who really get under my skin with their deliberate ignorance.

From some of my other posts this evening you will see that I don't particularly like Canadians telling me what we should do with regard to national ID.

Which brings up another point. I don't think you and I agree completely on ID. Which means that you must be a total ignoramus!!! (joke) Who says we are unthinking followers?!!

I am going to the R-CALF convention to voice my opinion on a number of issues that may or may not go my way. I may even get my mind changed on a few things.

Someday you may even figure out who I am. We have a common contact who forwarded some of your recent analysis of a visit with a Senator. Really appreciated it.

 

[Sandhusker]

ocm and I are not the same person, and yes, we do agree on many things. He presents strong arguements in a non-confrontational way.

The reason I present NCBA utterings up for accountability is simply to fight fire with fire. It sure seems there is a double standard on this board concerning what an R-CALF leader might say and what a NCBA leader might say. Some will jump all over a Bullard or McDonald quote that may raise a question, but when an NCBA leader makes a similar statement, they want to know what context it was made in, did they really make it, etc.... We also get the "R-CALF lies", but with NCBA it's "they didn't know what they were talking about", "They were misinformed", or "I don't agree with that". I'm just trying to bring a little balance.

Thanks for the compliment. "strong arguments in a non-confrontational way" Sometimes that is difficult because there are some who really get under my skin with their deliberate ignorance.

From some of my other posts this evening you will see that I don't particularly like Canadians telling me what we should do with regard to national ID.

Which brings up another point. I don't think you and I agree completely on ID. Which means that you must be a total ignoramus!!! (joke) Who says we are unthinking followers?!!

I am going to the R-CALF convention to voice my opinion on a number of issues that may or may not go my way. I may even get my mind changed on a few things.

Someday you may even figure out who I am. We have a common contact who forwarded some of your recent analysis of a visit with a Senator. Really appreciated it.

I thought we probably had a mutual friend. I look forward to meeting you some day.

 

[Anonymous]

OCM: "Sometimes that is difficult because there are some who really get under my skin with their deliberate ignorance."

More cheap talk. It's a lot easier for an OCM supporting packer blamer to accuse someone of being ignorant than to actually prove it.


Two simple questions OCM:

1. Did John Lockie work for OCM or did he not?

Yes he did.
No he didn't.

2. Are you saying that John Lockie never stated that captive supplies were around 80%?

Yes he may have said it.
No he did not say it.


Quit dancing and answer the questions.

Conman: "I never said the feeding industry needs me. That is your own argument you made up."

If they don't need you, why the hell do you think you need to telll them how to market cattle?

Conman: "The packers need to stop trying to make the case that if they do market manipulation with the use of some kind of contract, that the fact that another person is on the other side of the contract excuses them from market manipulation. That is just absurd."

The packers were never proven to have manipulated the market. That's nothing more than a bullsh*t conspiracy theory by packer blamers like you.

Conman: "Market manipulation can happen when every feeder has the same marketing options available to them."

There is no proof of market manipulation, period. NONE!

 

[ocm]

OCM: "Sometimes that is difficult because there are some who really get under my skin with their deliberate ignorance."

More cheap talk. It's a lot easier for an OCM supporting packer blamer to accuse someone of being ignorant than to actually prove it.


Two simple questions OCM:

1. Did John Lockie work for OCM or did he not?

Yes he did.
No he didn't.

2. Are you saying that John Lockie never stated that captive supplies were around 80%?

Yes he may have said it.
No he did not say it.


Quit dancing and answer the questions.

Show me what he actually said, not what he was quoted as saying. Then I will respond.

 

[Anonymous]

Why are those questions so difficult for you to answer?

If I am going to have to take the time to sort through stacks of Tri-State Livestocks and Western Livestock Journals to find his quote, it better be worth my time. I know what I read. It might have even been posted on this site. I couldn't believe it when I read it.

To the best of my recollection, he said that "over 80% of the fat cattle are currently being sold on some captive supply arrangement".

It's a bold faced lie! Formula and grid cattle are not captive supply cattle no matter how badly you guys want them to be.

Captive supply are those cattle owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter. Most formula cattle do not fit that definition. You guys already committed to GIPSA's definition with your communist Johnson Amendment packer ban.

Now answer my questions and quit dancing!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Why are those questions so difficult for you to answer?

If I am going to have to take the time to sort through stacks of Tri-State Livestocks and Western Livestock Journals to find his quote, it better be worth my time. I know what I read. It might have even been posted on this site. I couldn't believe it when I read it.

To the best of my recollection, he said that "over 80% of the fat cattle are currently being sold on some captive supply arrangement".

It's a bold faced lie! Formula and grid cattle are not captive supply cattle no matter how badly you guys want them to be.

Captive supply are those cattle owned or otherwise controlled by packers for more than 14 days prior to slaughter. Most formula cattle do not fit that definition. You guys already committed to GIPSA's definition with your communist Johnson Amendment packer ban.

Now answer my questions and quit dancing!


~SH~

Currently is an operative word, here, SH, as I have told you time and time again about the words on the bottom of your posts, the context and time period are important.