say agman, Price-Fixing Case Is Not Over

[HAY MAKER]

Cattlemen's Lawyer Says Tyson
Price-Fixing Case Is Not Over

The lead attorney for the cattlemen who sued the world's largest beef packer says the case is not over, but the packer says the cattlemen will have to pay the packer's legal expenses.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel this summer upheld a federal district judge's decision that IBP, now Tyson Fresh Foods, has a legitimate business interest in using marketing agreements to purchase live cattle. In 2004, following a five-week trial in Montgomery, Ala., a jury found that there was no legitimate business reason and awarded an estimated 30,000 cattlemen more than $1.28 billion in damages in a class action lawsuit.

Six cattlemen, representing cattlemen who had sold cattle to IBP during the period covered by the suit, had accused IBP of violating the Packers and Stockyards Act.

While the jury found for the cattlemen, U.S. Senior District Judge Lyle E. Strom ruled in April 2004 that as a matter of law, the cattlemen did not present evidence to prove their case and set aside the jury's award.

The cattlemen appealed, and in August, a three-member panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court upheld Strom's ruling.

David Domina, the cattlemen's lead attorney in the case, says the setback does not mean the case is over.

"We expect to ask for review by the entire 11th Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court," the Omaha, Neb., -based attorney said in a prepared statement.

"Certainly, the three-judge panel's decision is a major disappointment, and I am especially disappointed with this ruling in view of the attentive efforts of the jury for five weeks and its five full days of deliberations."

Domina presented an emotional appeal to the jury, but the appeals panel contended the evidence was lacking.

"This case was decided by a fair-minded, intelligent, focused jury," Domina said. "It was upset by an appellate tribune with less regard for the principle that a jury's decision is to remain inviolate than I had hoped the court would exhibit."

The 11th Circuit panel also ruled that the cattlemen must pay IBP's court expenses. The appellate judges upheld Strom's decision that the plaintiffs — the cattlemen — must pay more than $70,000 in expenses related to the trial in Montgomery.

Gary Mickelson, a spokesman for Tyson, says the appeals court rejected the cattlemen's argument that the case was close and that they should be exempt from paying Tyson's expenses.

Mickelson says the court wrote that the case was not a close or difficult one and that the cattlemen lost every aspect of it.

The appeals panel noted in their decision that witnesses for both parties, the cattlemen and the packer, agreed that the packer had a number of competitive justifications for using marketing agreements.

"The legal issues were not particularly novel or difficult," the judges wrote in their opinion. "Although it took a long time to try, the case was not especially complicated."

(Editor's note: Well, that's why lawyers — and lawyers who become judges — make the big bucks. No one disputes the fact that captive supplies manipulate the market and thereby reduce prices; even IBP/Tyson's own witnesses freely admitted to that. The only question was whether that is illegal under the Packers and Stockyards Act. As we commoners read the language of that law, it appears to say "It shall be unlawful for any packer … to: (e) Engage in any course of business or do any act for the purpose of or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices …" It doesn't appear to say anything whatsoever about illegal and prohibited conduct being acceptable just because everybody else does it or because the packer can rationalize an excuse by pretending he had a different intention. It says the conduct is unlawful if it has "the effect of manipulating or controlling prices" — period. Unlike us commoners, Judge Strom and the three wise men of the appellate panel evidently are able to see the invisible ink that says something different. Even Superman didn't have eyes that good. Then there's the part where they found that eliminating half the competition in the market actually increases competition. Are these guys amazing, or what?)

 

[agman]

Cattlemen's Lawyer Says Tyson
Price-Fixing Case Is Not Over

The lead attorney for the cattlemen who sued the world's largest beef packer says the case is not over, but the packer says the cattlemen will have to pay the packer's legal expenses.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel this summer upheld a federal district judge's decision that IBP, now Tyson Fresh Foods, has a legitimate business interest in using marketing agreements to purchase live cattle. In 2004, following a five-week trial in Montgomery, Ala., a jury found that there was no legitimate business reason and awarded an estimated 30,000 cattlemen more than $1.28 billion in damages in a class action lawsuit.

Six cattlemen, representing cattlemen who had sold cattle to IBP during the period covered by the suit, had accused IBP of violating the Packers and Stockyards Act.

While the jury found for the cattlemen, U.S. Senior District Judge Lyle E. Strom ruled in April 2004 that as a matter of law, the cattlemen did not present evidence to prove their case and set aside the jury's award.

The cattlemen appealed, and in August, a three-member panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court upheld Strom's ruling.

David Domina, the cattlemen's lead attorney in the case, says the setback does not mean the case is over.

"We expect to ask for review by the entire 11th Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court," the Omaha, Neb., -based attorney said in a prepared statement.

"Certainly, the three-judge panel's decision is a major disappointment, and I am especially disappointed with this ruling in view of the attentive efforts of the jury for five weeks and its five full days of deliberations."

Domina presented an emotional appeal to the jury, but the appeals panel contended the evidence was lacking.

"This case was decided by a fair-minded, intelligent, focused jury," Domina said. "It was upset by an appellate tribune with less regard for the principle that a jury's decision is to remain inviolate than I had hoped the court would exhibit."

The 11th Circuit panel also ruled that the cattlemen must pay IBP's court expenses. The appellate judges upheld Strom's decision that the plaintiffs — the cattlemen — must pay more than $70,000 in expenses related to the trial in Montgomery.

Gary Mickelson, a spokesman for Tyson, says the appeals court rejected the cattlemen's argument that the case was close and that they should be exempt from paying Tyson's expenses.

Mickelson says the court wrote that the case was not a close or difficult one and that the cattlemen lost every aspect of it.

The appeals panel noted in their decision that witnesses for both parties, the cattlemen and the packer, agreed that the packer had a number of competitive justifications for using marketing agreements.

"The legal issues were not particularly novel or difficult," the judges wrote in their opinion. "Although it took a long time to try, the case was not especially complicated."

(Editor's note: Well, that's why lawyers — and lawyers who become judges — make the big bucks. No one disputes the fact that captive supplies manipulate the market and thereby reduce prices; even IBP/Tyson's own witnesses freely admitted to that. The only question was whether that is illegal under the Packers and Stockyards Act. As we commoners read the language of that law, it appears to say "It shall be unlawful for any packer … to: (e) Engage in any course of business or do any act for the purpose of or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices …" It doesn't appear to say anything whatsoever about illegal and prohibited conduct being acceptable just because everybody else does it or because the packer can rationalize an excuse by pretending he had a different intention. It says the conduct is unlawful if it has "the effect of manipulating or controlling prices" — period. Unlike us commoners, Judge Strom and the three wise men of the appellate panel evidently are able to see the invisible ink that says something different. Even Superman didn't have eyes that good. Then there's the part where they found that eliminating half the competition in the market actually increases competition. Are these guys amazing, or what?)

The supreme court will not waste five minutes on this cases. There were no dissenting opinions. What do you think Domina is going to say-we lost soundly because we had no case to begin with? Their grandstanding may have hood winked the jury but not the judge. I noted with interest there is no mention of where this article came from or who the editor is. Why would that be?

 

[HAY MAKER]

Cattlemen's Lawyer Says Tyson
Price-Fixing Case Is Not Over

The lead attorney for the cattlemen who sued the world's largest beef packer says the case is not over, but the packer says the cattlemen will have to pay the packer's legal expenses.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel this summer upheld a federal district judge's decision that IBP, now Tyson Fresh Foods, has a legitimate business interest in using marketing agreements to purchase live cattle. In 2004, following a five-week trial in Montgomery, Ala., a jury found that there was no legitimate business reason and awarded an estimated 30,000 cattlemen more than $1.28 billion in damages in a class action lawsuit.

Six cattlemen, representing cattlemen who had sold cattle to IBP during the period covered by the suit, had accused IBP of violating the Packers and Stockyards Act.

While the jury found for the cattlemen, U.S. Senior District Judge Lyle E. Strom ruled in April 2004 that as a matter of law, the cattlemen did not present evidence to prove their case and set aside the jury's award.

The cattlemen appealed, and in August, a three-member panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court upheld Strom's ruling.

David Domina, the cattlemen's lead attorney in the case, says the setback does not mean the case is over.

"We expect to ask for review by the entire 11th Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court," the Omaha, Neb., -based attorney said in a prepared statement.

"Certainly, the three-judge panel's decision is a major disappointment, and I am especially disappointed with this ruling in view of the attentive efforts of the jury for five weeks and its five full days of deliberations."

Domina presented an emotional appeal to the jury, but the appeals panel contended the evidence was lacking.

"This case was decided by a fair-minded, intelligent, focused jury," Domina said. "It was upset by an appellate tribune with less regard for the principle that a jury's decision is to remain inviolate than I had hoped the court would exhibit."

The 11th Circuit panel also ruled that the cattlemen must pay IBP's court expenses. The appellate judges upheld Strom's decision that the plaintiffs — the cattlemen — must pay more than $70,000 in expenses related to the trial in Montgomery.

Gary Mickelson, a spokesman for Tyson, says the appeals court rejected the cattlemen's argument that the case was close and that they should be exempt from paying Tyson's expenses.

Mickelson says the court wrote that the case was not a close or difficult one and that the cattlemen lost every aspect of it.

The appeals panel noted in their decision that witnesses for both parties, the cattlemen and the packer, agreed that the packer had a number of competitive justifications for using marketing agreements.

"The legal issues were not particularly novel or difficult," the judges wrote in their opinion. "Although it took a long time to try, the case was not especially complicated."

(Editor's note: Well, that's why lawyers — and lawyers who become judges — make the big bucks. No one disputes the fact that captive supplies manipulate the market and thereby reduce prices; even IBP/Tyson's own witnesses freely admitted to that. The only question was whether that is illegal under the Packers and Stockyards Act. As we commoners read the language of that law, it appears to say "It shall be unlawful for any packer … to: (e) Engage in any course of business or do any act for the purpose of or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices …" It doesn't appear to say anything whatsoever about illegal and prohibited conduct being acceptable just because everybody else does it or because the packer can rationalize an excuse by pretending he had a different intention. It says the conduct is unlawful if it has "the effect of manipulating or controlling prices" — period. Unlike us commoners, Judge Strom and the three wise men of the appellate panel evidently are able to see the invisible ink that says something different. Even Superman didn't have eyes that good. Then there's the part where they found that eliminating half the competition in the market actually increases competition. Are these guys amazing, or what?)

The supreme court will not waste five minutes on this cases. There were no dissenting opinions. What do you think Domina is going to say-we lost soundly because we had no case to begin with? Their grandstanding may have hood winked the jury but not the judge.

I noted with interest there is no mention of where this article came from or who the editor is. Why would that be?

And I also noticed with interest........[ The legal issues were not particularly novel or difficult," the judges wrote in their opinion. "Although it took a long time to try, the case was not especially complicated." ]
so which was it ,and so much for your cheap theory about the legalities being over the juror's heads.............good luck

 

[Sandhusker]

"The appeals panel noted in their decision that witnesses for both parties, the cattlemen and the packer, agreed that the packer had a number of competitive justifications for using marketing agreements."

There's your snowjob, folks. You can use your shotgun for robbery as long as you also use it for hunting and skeet.

 

[Mike]

Some time ago the U. S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held:

The primary purpose of the P&S Act was to "assure fair competition and fair trade practices in livestock marketing."

Just one more question as to why Strom and the 11th Appeals court changed the meaning of "competition" to fit the packer side of the argument?

 

[agman]

"The appeals panel noted in their decision that witnesses for both parties, the cattlemen and the packer, agreed that the packer had a number of competitive justifications for using marketing agreements."

There's your snowjob, folks. You can use your shotgun for robbery as long as you also use it for hunting and skeet.

Your version of events once again. I have to chuckle that witness for "both parties" agreed. Witnesses from which side lied or did they all lie? Quit crying an go play in your sandbox.

 

[Beefman]

Cattlemen's Lawyer Says Tyson
Price-Fixing Case Is Not Over

The lead attorney for the cattlemen who sued the world's largest beef packer says the case is not over, but the packer says the cattlemen will have to pay the packer's legal expenses.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel this summer upheld a federal district judge's decision that IBP, now Tyson Fresh Foods, has a legitimate business interest in using marketing agreements to purchase live cattle. In 2004, following a five-week trial in Montgomery, Ala., a jury found that there was no legitimate business reason and awarded an estimated 30,000 cattlemen more than $1.28 billion in damages in a class action lawsuit.

Six cattlemen, representing cattlemen who had sold cattle to IBP during the period covered by the suit, had accused IBP of violating the Packers and Stockyards Act.

While the jury found for the cattlemen, U.S. Senior District Judge Lyle E. Strom ruled in April 2004 that as a matter of law, the cattlemen did not present evidence to prove their case and set aside the jury's award.

The cattlemen appealed, and in August, a three-member panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court upheld Strom's ruling.

David Domina, the cattlemen's lead attorney in the case, says the setback does not mean the case is over.

"We expect to ask for review by the entire 11th Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court," the Omaha, Neb., -based attorney said in a prepared statement.

"Certainly, the three-judge panel's decision is a major disappointment, and I am especially disappointed with this ruling in view of the attentive efforts of the jury for five weeks and its five full days of deliberations."

Domina presented an emotional appeal to the jury, but the appeals panel contended the evidence was lacking.

"This case was decided by a fair-minded, intelligent, focused jury," Domina said. "It was upset by an appellate tribune with less regard for the principle that a jury's decision is to remain inviolate than I had hoped the court would exhibit."

The 11th Circuit panel also ruled that the cattlemen must pay IBP's court expenses. The appellate judges upheld Strom's decision that the plaintiffs — the cattlemen — must pay more than $70,000 in expenses related to the trial in Montgomery.

Gary Mickelson, a spokesman for Tyson, says the appeals court rejected the cattlemen's argument that the case was close and that they should be exempt from paying Tyson's expenses.

Mickelson says the court wrote that the case was not a close or difficult one and that the cattlemen lost every aspect of it.

The appeals panel noted in their decision that witnesses for both parties, the cattlemen and the packer, agreed that the packer had a number of competitive justifications for using marketing agreements.

"The legal issues were not particularly novel or difficult," the judges wrote in their opinion. "Although it took a long time to try, the case was not especially complicated."

(Editor's note: Well, that's why lawyers — and lawyers who become judges — make the big bucks. No one disputes the fact that captive supplies manipulate the market and thereby reduce prices; even IBP/Tyson's own witnesses freely admitted to that. The only question was whether that is illegal under the Packers and Stockyards Act. As we commoners read the language of that law, it appears to say "It shall be unlawful for any packer … to: (e) Engage in any course of business or do any act for the purpose of or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices …" It doesn't appear to say anything whatsoever about illegal and prohibited conduct being acceptable just because everybody else does it or because the packer can rationalize an excuse by pretending he had a different intention. It says the conduct is unlawful if it has "the effect of manipulating or controlling prices" — period. Unlike us commoners, Judge Strom and the three wise men of the appellate panel evidently are able to see the invisible ink that says something different. Even Superman didn't have eyes that good. Then there's the part where they found that eliminating half the competition in the market actually increases competition. Are these guys amazing, or what?)

The supreme court will not waste five minutes on this cases. There were no dissenting opinions. What do you think Domina is going to say-we lost soundly because we had no case to begin with? Their grandstanding may have hood winked the jury but not the judge.

I noted with interest there is no mention of where this article came from or who the editor is. Why would that be?

And I also noticed with interest........[ The legal issues were not particularly novel or difficult," the judges wrote in their opinion. "Although it took a long time to try, the case was not especially complicated." ]
so which was it ,and so much for your cheap theory about the legalities being over the juror's heads.............good luck

Notice Agman, he ignored your request for a proof source. Historically, this means a Lee Pitts cut and paste job. Or is it Earl Pitts? Not sure, but for Haymaker, he knows his position on this matter is truely the Pitts.

Beefman

 

[agman]

Cattlemen's Lawyer Says Tyson
Price-Fixing Case Is Not Over

The lead attorney for the cattlemen who sued the world's largest beef packer says the case is not over, but the packer says the cattlemen will have to pay the packer's legal expenses.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel this summer upheld a federal district judge's decision that IBP, now Tyson Fresh Foods, has a legitimate business interest in using marketing agreements to purchase live cattle. In 2004, following a five-week trial in Montgomery, Ala., a jury found that there was no legitimate business reason and awarded an estimated 30,000 cattlemen more than $1.28 billion in damages in a class action lawsuit.

Six cattlemen, representing cattlemen who had sold cattle to IBP during the period covered by the suit, had accused IBP of violating the Packers and Stockyards Act.

While the jury found for the cattlemen, U.S. Senior District Judge Lyle E. Strom ruled in April 2004 that as a matter of law, the cattlemen did not present evidence to prove their case and set aside the jury's award.

The cattlemen appealed, and in August, a three-member panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court upheld Strom's ruling.

David Domina, the cattlemen's lead attorney in the case, says the setback does not mean the case is over.

"We expect to ask for review by the entire 11th Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court," the Omaha, Neb., -based attorney said in a prepared statement.

"Certainly, the three-judge panel's decision is a major disappointment, and I am especially disappointed with this ruling in view of the attentive efforts of the jury for five weeks and its five full days of deliberations."

Domina presented an emotional appeal to the jury, but the appeals panel contended the evidence was lacking.

"This case was decided by a fair-minded, intelligent, focused jury," Domina said. "It was upset by an appellate tribune with less regard for the principle that a jury's decision is to remain inviolate than I had hoped the court would exhibit."

The 11th Circuit panel also ruled that the cattlemen must pay IBP's court expenses. The appellate judges upheld Strom's decision that the plaintiffs — the cattlemen — must pay more than $70,000 in expenses related to the trial in Montgomery.

Gary Mickelson, a spokesman for Tyson, says the appeals court rejected the cattlemen's argument that the case was close and that they should be exempt from paying Tyson's expenses.

Mickelson says the court wrote that the case was not a close or difficult one and that the cattlemen lost every aspect of it.

The appeals panel noted in their decision that witnesses for both parties, the cattlemen and the packer, agreed that the packer had a number of competitive justifications for using marketing agreements.

"The legal issues were not particularly novel or difficult," the judges wrote in their opinion. "Although it took a long time to try, the case was not especially complicated."

(Editor's note: Well, that's why lawyers — and lawyers who become judges — make the big bucks. No one disputes the fact that captive supplies manipulate the market and thereby reduce prices; even IBP/Tyson's own witnesses freely admitted to that. The only question was whether that is illegal under the Packers and Stockyards Act. As we commoners read the language of that law, it appears to say "It shall be unlawful for any packer … to: (e) Engage in any course of business or do any act for the purpose of or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices …" It doesn't appear to say anything whatsoever about illegal and prohibited conduct being acceptable just because everybody else does it or because the packer can rationalize an excuse by pretending he had a different intention. It says the conduct is unlawful if it has "the effect of manipulating or controlling prices" — period. Unlike us commoners, Judge Strom and the three wise men of the appellate panel evidently are able to see the invisible ink that says something different. Even Superman didn't have eyes that good. Then there's the part where they found that eliminating half the competition in the market actually increases competition. Are these guys amazing, or what?)

The supreme court will not waste five minutes on this cases. There were no dissenting opinions. What do you think Domina is going to say-we lost soundly because we had no case to begin with? Their grandstanding may have hood winked the jury but not the judge.

I noted with interest there is no mention of where this article came from or who the editor is. Why would that be?

And I also noticed with interest........[ The legal issues were not particularly novel or difficult," the judges wrote in their opinion. "Although it took a long time to try, the case was not especially complicated." ]
so which was it ,and so much for your cheap theory about the legalities being over the juror's heads.............good luck

Legal issues are different from testimony. It would be nice if you ever understood what you are talking about.

 

[HAY MAKER]

You are the computer *erd beefman,find it like you did all the other's,I will say this the editor is very reputable,something that you packer employee's are not familiar with.............good luck PS better yet read the opinion.

 

[HAY MAKER]

The supreme court will not waste five minutes on this cases. There were no dissenting opinions. What do you think Domina is going to say-we lost soundly because we had no case to begin with? Their grandstanding may have hood winked the jury but not the judge.

And I also noticed with interest........[ The legal issues were not particularly novel or difficult," the judges wrote in their opinion. "Although it took a long time to try, the case was not especially complicated." ]
so which was it ,and so much for your cheap theory about the legalities being over the juror's heads.............good luck

Legal issues are different from testimony. It would be nice if you ever understood what you are talking about.

agman you need to quit patting yourself on the back so much,you are begining to appear foolish,again...............good luck PS You're sure right about legal issuses and testimony,testimony is a hell of alot simplier,thanks for the confirmation. You need to get sh to teach you how to lie,use his tactics when you are confronted with facts.........divert :wink:

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "Your version of events once again. I have to chuckle that witness for "both parties" agreed. Witnesses from which side lied or did they all lie? Quit crying an go play in your sandbox."

You don't find it the least bit notable that attention is continually being drawn to Tyson's legitimate uses of marketing agreements and away from any possible illegal consequences of their uses?

This reminds me of the time I was in line at a 7-11 in Omaha and overheard the conversation of two women; They were lamenting how it was a shame that, "Leroy had to go to jail for stealing jewelry from the mall - after all, he was just trying to make a living and feed his chillin."

 

[Beefman]

You are the computer *erd beefman,find it like you did all the other's,I will say this the editor is very reutable,something that you packer employee's are not familiar with.............good luck PS better yet read the opinion.

You probably already know this, but there's a difference between a reporter, an editor, and an editorial. Look at every paper, magazine, radio interview, tv interview, internet site, etc, that reported on the Pickett issue. How many EDITORS of these reporting agencies whined and complained about lawyers and judges? Or, made references to making big bucks? How many of these editors continually refers to their readers as "commoners"?

You shouldn't be surprised when information such as this get picked apart. Thanks for your post.

 

[HAY MAKER]

You are the computer *erd beefman,find it like you did all the other's,I will say this the editor is very reputable,something that you packer employee's are not familiar with.............good luck PS better yet read the opinion.

You probably already know this, but there's a difference between a reporter, an editor, and an editorial. Look at every paper, magazine, radio interview, tv interview, internet site, etc, that reported on the Pickett issue. How many EDITORS of these reporting agencies whined and complained about lawyers and judges? Or, made references to making big bucks? How many of these editors continually refers to their readers as "commoners"?

You shouldn't be surprised when information such as this get picked apart. Thanks for your post.

livestockweekly.com......................good luck ps what makes you think he was refering to "his" readers as commoners?,sounds to me that he was calling himself a commoner,you find that insulting to be common?
and I believe its a stretch to say he "continually"refers to the readers as commoners. DAMN PACKERS GOT YOU BRAINWASHED.

 

[Beefman]

You are the computer *erd beefman,find it like you did all the other's,I will say this the editor is very reputable,something that you packer employee's are not familiar with.............good luck PS better yet read the opinion.

You probably already know this, but there's a difference between a reporter, an editor, and an editorial. Look at every paper, magazine, radio interview, tv interview, internet site, etc, that reported on the Pickett issue. How many EDITORS of these reporting agencies whined and complained about lawyers and judges? Or, made references to making big bucks? How many of these editors continually refers to their readers as "commoners"?

You shouldn't be surprised when information such as this get picked apart. Thanks for your post.

livestockweekly.com......................good luck ps what makes you think he was refering to "his" readers as commoners?,sounds to me that he was calling himself a commoner,you find that insulting to be common?
and I believe its a stretch to say he "continually"refers to the readers as commoners. DAMN PACKERS GOT YOU BRAINWASHED.

Nice try.

Nothing wrong with commoners, certainly describes me.

Your "editor" / editorial writer / esteemed leader / Enquirer writer / whatever needed to plug in a "poor pitiful me" character (i.e., commoner) for this story to sell and be believable. Can't blame 'em for trying.

BTW, have a safe holiday weekend, and grill lots of beef.

 

[agman]

Agman, "Your version of events once again. I have to chuckle that witness for "both parties" agreed. Witnesses from which side lied or did they all lie? Quit crying an go play in your sandbox."

You don't find it the least bit notable that attention is continually being drawn to Tyson's legitimate uses of marketing agreements and away from any possible illegal consequences of their uses?

This reminds me of the time I was in line at a 7-11 in Omaha and overheard the conversation of two women; They were lamenting how it was a shame that, "Leroy had to go to jail for stealing jewelry from the mall - after all, he was just trying to make a living and feed his chillin."

You fail to admit the problems with Taylor's so called proof. Thers was no proof, just untested allegations by his own admission under oath. Once you understand and admit to that you can cry about something else. I see you did not post the footnote on page 13. Don't you want the readers to know the truth? I am sorry, the truth will expose the fallacy of your postion. You are wrong and your side lost. Quit trying to dance around a failed postion.

 

[Sandhusker]

The man who can not point out where I was wrong calls me a dancer? :roll: :lol: Why can't you come out and say, "Sandhusker, the court did not change the course of this trial from one of Tyson causing damages to the plaintiffs to one of Tyson gaining unfair advantage over their competition because of xxxxxx?" You can't do it or you would of done it days ago.

Feel free to post any footnote you have that proves me wrong.

 

[agman]

The man who can not point out where I was wrong calls me a dancer? :roll: :lol: Why can't you come out and say, "Sandhusker, the court did not change the course of this trial from one of Tyson causing damages to the plaintiffs to one of Tyson gaining unfair advantage over their competition because of xxxxxx?" You can't do it or you would of done it days ago.

Feel free to post any footnote you have that proves me wrong.

If you cannot discern from pages 13 and 14 the court's interpretation of the law then there is nothing I can do to help you. Are you an expert in law, yes or no. If not then what makes you think your interpretation supersedes that of the judges in the trial?

 

[Sandhusker]

The man who can not point out where I was wrong calls me a dancer? :roll: :lol: Why can't you come out and say, "Sandhusker, the court did not change the course of this trial from one of Tyson causing damages to the plaintiffs to one of Tyson gaining unfair advantage over their competition because of xxxxxx?" You can't do it or you would of done it days ago.

Feel free to post any footnote you have that proves me wrong.

If you cannot discern from pages 13 and 14 the court's interpretation of the law then there is nothing I can do to help you. Are you an expert in law, yes or no. If not then what makes you think your interpretation supersedes that of the judges in the trial?

Point out where I'm wrong. You know how to type.

 

[agman]

The man who can not point out where I was wrong calls me a dancer? :roll: :lol: Why can't you come out and say, "Sandhusker, the court did not change the course of this trial from one of Tyson causing damages to the plaintiffs to one of Tyson gaining unfair advantage over their competition because of xxxxxx?" You can't do it or you would of done it days ago.

Feel free to post any footnote you have that proves me wrong.

If you cannot discern from pages 13 and 14 the court's interpretation of the law then there is nothing I can do to help you. Are you an expert in law, yes or no. If not then what makes you think your interpretation supersedes that of the judges in the trial?

Point out where I'm wrong. You know how to type.

You always want your questions answered. Why haven't you answered one question of the many questions that I posed? You have made the claim the court is wrong. I asked a simple yes or no question. Are you an expert in law, yes or no? Do you know the law better than the judges who unanimously rejected the plaintiff's case? If the courts are so wrong then this should be a slam dunk for appeal to the Supreme Court. I will repeat. They will not accept this case as there was not even one dissenting judge. End of case.

 

[Sandhusker]

Point out where I'm wrong.