R-CALF loses again!

[cowsense]

Judge Cebull of U.S. District Court, Montana Division, has denied R-CALF's Motion for Summary Judgement and granted USDA's. This means R-CALF's request for a permanent injunction against Canadian live cattle and beef is finished in Montana District Court. R-CALF could appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals however R-CALF has not been successful in any of its appeals to that court thus far.

 

[Sandhusker]

This means every citizen of the US loses. Government agencies are officially not accountable to the public now.

 

[cowsense]

This means every citizen of the US loses. Government agencies are officially not accountable to the public now.

NO: What it does mean is that a responsible set of guidelines based on the latest in international accepted policy takes precedence over simple, single minded protectionist and sensationalist rhetoric!!!!!

 

[Manitoba_Rancher]

 

[ocm]

Judge Cebull of U.S. District Court, Montana Division, has denied R-CALF's Motion for Summary Judgement and granted USDA's. This means R-CALF's request for a permanent injunction against Canadian live cattle and beef is finished in Montana District Court. R-CALF could appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals however R-CALF has not been successful in any of its appeals to that court thus far.

I would bet that Cebull's decision will make interesting reading. This is exactly what I expected. R-CALF gave Cebull his chance to vent about the outrageous decision of the Ninth Circus. That can hardly be defined as a loss. What Cebull has written is going to be very useful.

Cebull did not have a great deal of choice in what he decided, but he could say what he wanted to say in the decision itself. Something he couldn't do otherwise. Several other judges had expressed their own outrage at the Ninth Circus' decision becuse it stripped the Administrative Procedures Act and did not want Cebull to drop it.

What the request to Cebull's court by R-CALF did was set up a "loss" on R-CALF's own terms since it wasn't going to get past the Ninth Circus. Doubt me? This may be the end of the case, but the case's usefulness continues.

 

[cowsense]

R-CALF .......Ranchers caring about lawyers futures :twisted:

 

[Anonymous]

OCM,

You blamers will eventually run out of excuses for your losses in the court room. Your track record of court losses is staggering. How long do you think producers will continue to support your baseless allegations with their hard earned dollars? You guys have an excuse for every loss you have been dealt in the courtroom but eventually you will have to start bringing facts to the table, not emotionally driven populist baseless conspiracy theories.


~SH~

 

[agman]

This means every citizen of the US loses. Government agencies are officially not accountable to the public now.

No, only you and your precious misguided leaders lose again. Some record.........keep chasing fools gold.

Was Cebull's latest ruling rigged and what might your interpretation of the law be? I am certain everyone is awaiting your legal discourse on this matter.

 

[Sandhusker]

This means every citizen of the US loses. Government agencies are officially not accountable to the public now.

No, only you and your precious misguided leaders lose again. Some record.........keep chasing fools gold.

Was Cebull's latest ruling rigged and what might your interpretation of the law be? I am certain everyone is awaiting your legal discourse on this matter.

Then tell me, Agman, if a government agency is doing something that is totally out of line, what can be done? You can't vote them out as they are appointed and the Ninth says you can't take them to court. What recourse does the public have? Letters to the editor?

 

[ocm]

This means every citizen of the US loses. Government agencies are officially not accountable to the public now.

No, only you and your precious misguided leaders lose again. Some record.........keep chasing fools gold.

Was Cebull's latest ruling rigged and what might your interpretation of the law be? I am certain everyone is awaiting your legal discourse on this matter.

Then tell me, Agman, if a government agency is doing something that is totally out of line, what can be done? You can't vote them out as they are appointed and the Ninth says you can't take them to court. What recourse does the public have? Letters to the editor?

I've heard some people say that if you are going to be raped anyway, you might as well enjoy it. I don't subscribe to that idea, do you?

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

OCM could you post what "Several other judges" wrote about the ninth's decision. I read Cebulls decision and didn't think it was very scathing of the Ninth.

 

[Anonymous]

OCM: "I've heard some people say that if you are going to be raped anyway, you might as well enjoy it. I don't subscribe to that idea, do you?"

No OCM, the idea you subscribe to is the presumption of rape even after being proved innocent. You blamers are truly a pathetic bunch.


~SH~

 

[agman]

Judge Cebull of U.S. District Court, Montana Division, has denied R-CALF's Motion for Summary Judgement and granted USDA's. This means R-CALF's request for a permanent injunction against Canadian live cattle and beef is finished in Montana District Court. R-CALF could appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals however R-CALF has not been successful in any of its appeals to that court thus far.

I would bet that Cebull's decision will make interesting reading. This is exactly what I expected. R-CALF gave Cebull his chance to vent about the outrageous decision of the Ninth Circus. That can hardly be defined as a loss. What Cebull has written is going to be very useful.

Cebull did not have a great deal of choice in what he decided, but he could say what he wanted to say in the decision itself. Something he couldn't do otherwise. Several other judges had expressed their own outrage at the Ninth Circus' decision becuse it stripped the Administrative Procedures Act and did not want Cebull to drop it.

What the request to Cebull's court by R-CALF did was set up a "loss" on R-CALF's own terms since it wasn't going to get past the Ninth Circus. Doubt me? This may be the end of the case, but the case's usefulness continues.

What a spin job. Run that one by all of us again. Do you always set up losses on your own terms?!! Losses are losses no matter how you try to spin the results-you still lose. Your side has clearly shown they know how to lose. Are you going to start selling DVD's on how to lose consistently and on your terms? Sandhusker will be first in line. Why not deal with facts and reality and produce victories? Your spin job should make the Jay Leno comedy series tonight-stay tuned.

 

[Sandhusker]

This means every citizen of the US loses. Government agencies are officially not accountable to the public now.

No, only you and your precious misguided leaders lose again. Some record.........keep chasing fools gold.

Was Cebull's latest ruling rigged and what might your interpretation of the law be? I am certain everyone is awaiting your legal discourse on this matter.

Then tell me, Agman, if a government agency is doing something that is totally out of line, what can be done? You can't vote them out as they are appointed and the Ninth says you can't take them to court. What recourse does the public have? Letters to the editor?

Are you still thinking on this one, Agman?

 

[agman]

No, only you and your precious misguided leaders lose again. Some record.........keep chasing fools gold.

Was Cebull's latest ruling rigged and what might your interpretation of the law be? I am certain everyone is awaiting your legal discourse on this matter.

Then tell me, Agman, if a government agency is doing something that is totally out of line, what can be done? You can't vote them out as they are appointed and the Ninth says you can't take them to court. What recourse does the public have? Letters to the editor?

Are you still thinking on this one, Agman?

No, there is no need to accept your view of events. You are on the wrong side of the issues. You are running with the wrong crowd, you should realize that.

 

[Sandhusker]

Then tell me, Agman, if a government agency is doing something that is totally out of line, what can be done? You can't vote them out as they are appointed and the Ninth says you can't take them to court. What recourse does the public have? Letters to the editor?

Are you still thinking on this one, Agman?

No, there is no need to accept your view of events. You are on the wrong side of the issues. You are running with the wrong crowd, you should realize that.

MY view of events? Government agencies not having elected positions is MY view of events? The Ninth saying government agencies should be given deference is MY view of events? :roll: You answer questions just like your little minion, SH.

Actually, every day reaffirms that I am running with the right crowd and the reasons that I should be with them.

You support this ruling, why not answer a simple question? What recourse does the public have now?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandbag: "Actually, every day reaffirms that I am running with the right crowd and the reasons that I should be with them."

Yup, really the right crowd!

1. Dumping case against Canada - LOST
2. Injunction against USDA to stop Canadian imports - LOST
3. Injuntion against USDA to stop Canadian imports appealed to the 9th Circuit - LOST
4. Permanent injunction to stop Canadian imports in Cebull's court - LOST
5. Pickett vs. IBP - LOST
6. Pickett vs. IBP appealed to the 11th circuit court - LOST
7. Pickett vs. IBP appealed to the Supreme court - Refused
8. Beef checkoff constitutionality lawsuit - LOST
9. CAFTA - LOST
10. Lawsuit against packers for market manipulation on falsely reported prices - WILL BE ANOTHER LOSS


That's quite a crowd you're running with Sandbag. A crowd of blamers just like you. Facts and truth don't mean sh*t to any of you. You guys need someone or something to blame and that will continue to drive you. When you lose in court, you blame the courts and fabricate conspiracy theories to justify your losses.


~SH~

 

[agman]

Are you still thinking on this one, Agman?

No, there is no need to accept your view of events. You are on the wrong side of the issues. You are running with the wrong crowd, you should realize that.

MY view of events? Government agencies not having elected positions is MY view of events? The Ninth saying government agencies should be given deference is MY view of events? :roll: You answer questions just like your little minion, SH.

Actually, every day reaffirms that I am running with the right crowd and the reasons that I should be with them.


You support this ruling, why not answer a simple question? What recourse does the public have now?

Facts, something you know very little about. When did you pass the bar exam as to convince yourself what the law and previous legal precedent has established? I apologize, you are with the right crowd for the lame positions you take-always on the losing side.

You seem to forget your side represents a very small minority of producers and even a much smaller percentage of those cattlemen who actually feed cattle who are involved in marketing agreements. Most cattlemen do not agree with your position contrary to the propaganda published by your leaders.

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandhusker, "You support this ruling, why not answer a simple question? What recourse does the public have now?"


Agman, "Facts, something you know very little about. When did you pass the bar exam as to convince yourself what the law and previous legal precedent has established? I apologize, you are with the right crowd for the lame positions you take-always on the losing side."

You still didn't answer the question, Agman. Facts are the public's recourse? :shock: Why not just give out your patented "You just wouldn't understand" answer and be done? You clearly have no answer.

I haven't passed the bar. However, set aside your arrogance for a minute and consider this; A judge being overturned is no headline in itself. It happens all the time. This means a judge was wrong - either the first judge or the overruling judge. They both can't be right. I'm sure there's been times when you've felt a judge was wrong too. How about this same Ninth Circuit that ruled that government agencies should be given deference. Do you think they were correct when they ruled the words "Under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegance? How about when they ruled that the government should have more say in what school children are taught, as opposed to parents? Think they got those right? Are they infallable? Yet, with overrulings and dumb-ass decisions in mind, you seem to think a common man being right and a judge being wrong is such a stretch, but you don't question a judge telling an economics professor from a major US university that his testimony on an economic issue is nuts? :roll: Geeeeeeeeeze.

Agman, "You seem to forget your side represents a very small minority of producers and even a much smaller percentage of those cattlemen who actually feed cattle who are involved in marketing agreements. Most cattlemen do not agree with your position contrary to the propaganda published by your leaders."

You seem to not realize that entire paragraph is merely your opinion. The truth is that my side IS producers. Remember the "we" in your lumber analogy? Who is that "we"? Who is your side, Agman?

 

[ocm]

Sandhusker, "You support this ruling, why not answer a simple question? What recourse does the public have now?"


Agman, "Facts, something you know very little about. When did you pass the bar exam as to convince yourself what the law and previous legal precedent has established? I apologize, you are with the right crowd for the lame positions you take-always on the losing side."

You still didn't answer the question, Agman. Facts are the public's recourse? :shock: Why not just give out your patented "You just wouldn't understand" answer and be done? You clearly have no answer.

I haven't passed the bar. However, set aside your arrogance for a minute and consider this; A judge being overturned is no headline in itself. It happens all the time. This means a judge was wrong - either the first judge or the overruling judge. They both can't be right. I'm sure there's been times when you've felt a judge was wrong too. How about this same Ninth Circuit that ruled that government agencies should be given deference. Do you think they were correct when they ruled the words "Under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegance? How about when they ruled that the government should have more say in what school children are taught, as opposed to parents? Think they got those right? Are they infallable? Yet, with overrulings and dumb-ass decisions in mind, you seem to think a common man being right and a judge being wrong is such a stretch, but you don't question a judge telling an economics professor from a major US university that his testimony on an economic issue is nuts? :roll: Geeeeeeeeeze.

Agman, "You seem to forget your side represents a very small minority of producers and even a much smaller percentage of those cattlemen who actually feed cattle who are involved in marketing agreements. Most cattlemen do not agree with your position contrary to the propaganda published by your leaders."

You seem to not realize that entire paragraph is merely your opinion. The truth is that my side IS producers. Remember the "we" in your lumber analogy? Who is that "we"? Who is your side, Agman?

I haven't noticed something in my years of experience--that there is an inverse relationship between arrogance and IQ.

This has been noted previously in history. The word idiot is derived from the Greek word for oneself.