say agman, Price-Fixing Case Is Not Over

[Anonymous]

Sandman: " Point out where I'm wrong."

Once again, you are wrong on your first post within this thread.

"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."

You interpreted that incorrectly. Just because both sides agreed that captive supplies are a legitimate business practice does not mean that the Judge disregarded the original intent of the case which was to prove whether or not price manipulation occurred.

The Plaintiffs failed to prove price manipulation and Judge Strom addressed that in his overview of the case.

The plaintiffs would rather create the "ILLUSION" that price manipulation occurred rather than actually proving it.

Sandman, you were standing incorrectly in the starting blocks before you even started running in the wrong direction. LOL!



~SH~

 

[HAY MAKER]

Sandman: " Point out where I'm wrong."

Once again, you are wrong on your first post within this thread.

"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."

You interpreted that incorrectly. Just because both sides agreed that captive supplies are a legitimate business practice does not mean that the Judge disregarded the original intent of the case which was to prove whether or not price manipulation occurred.

The Plaintiffs failed to prove price manipulation and Judge Strom addressed that in his overview of the case.

The plaintiffs would rather create the "ILLUSION" that price manipulation occurred rather than actually proving it.

Sandman, you were standing incorrectly in the starting blocks before you even started running in the wrong direction. LOL!



~SH~

interpet this sh** and remember your previous statements regarding jurors...........["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." ]
Are you saying the jurors all twelve of them were so ignorant they could'nt decide a case that the justices termed not complicated?..................good luck

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandman: " Point out where I'm wrong."

Once again, you are wrong on your first post within this thread.

"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."

You interpreted that incorrectly. Just because both sides agreed that captive supplies are a legitimate business practice does not mean that the Judge disregarded the original intent of the case which was to prove whether or not price manipulation occurred.

The Plaintiffs failed to prove price manipulation and Judge Strom addressed that in his overview of the case.

The plaintiffs would rather create the "ILLUSION" that price manipulation occurred rather than actually proving it.

Sandman, you were standing incorrectly in the starting blocks before you even started running in the wrong direction. LOL!



~SH~

And yet again, you're off topic. Go back , read my comment, and try again.

 

[Anonymous]

Hayseed,

How can any juror that understands the facts of this case agree that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies when the plaintiffs themselves testified to the contrary?

What more proof is needed that the jury did not understand the evidence presented to them than this basic fact?

That is precisely why Judge Strom overturned the jury's verdict and why the 11th circuit supported Judge Strom's decision.

I'm sure I lost you already.

Sandman: "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?"

The direction of any case is determined by the evidence and the arguments presented in that case WHICH MEANS THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PLAINTIFFS.

Tyson's justification in using captive supplies was simply ONE ARGUMENT in the case. That does not change the fact that the case addressed market manipulation and the plaintiffs failed to present evidence to support that allegation.

The case was determined by the arguments presented by both sides. The judge cannot change that direction.

This is just one more of your many assinine arguments to justify the fact that you lost this case.




~SH~

 

[HAY MAKER]

Hayseed,

How can any juror that understands the facts of this case agree that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies when the plaintiffs themselves testified to the contrary?

What more proof is needed that the jury did not understand the evidence presented to them than this basic fact?

That is precisely why Judge Strom overturned the jury's verdict and why the 11th circuit supported Judge Strom's decision.

I'm sure I lost you already.

Sandman: "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?"

The direction of any case is determined by the evidence and the arguments presented in that case WHICH MEANS THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PLAINTIFFS.

Tyson's justification in using captive supplies was simply ONE ARGUMENT in the case. That does not change the fact that the case addressed market manipulation and the plaintiffs failed to present evidence to support that allegation.

The case was determined by the arguments presented by both sides. The judge cannot change that direction.

This is just one more of your many assinine arguments to justify the fact that you lost this case.




~SH~

SH** not trying to be rude here but,I believe you were born lost,and its obvious the jurors understood the Packers and Stockyards Act well enough to render a just verdict,you twist that any way you want,its fact :wink: packers have deep pockets and they have bought off justice momentarily but this is far from over,write it down :wink: .........good luck

 

[Anonymous]

Hayseed you are a bonafide packer blamer. Therefore you will support anything that supports your need to blame. Truth does not matter to you. Fact does not matter to you. What matters to you is having someone to blame.

Since you cannot accept the judge's decision and the 11th circuit's support of that decision, you will try to drum up some wild conspiracy about Judge Strom and the 11th circuit court being bought off. Of course you have all kinds of proof of that too don't you? LOL!

That's how the blaming, conspiring mind works.

"BWAME DA PACKAH"

I don't doubt for a minute that you packer blamers will continue with your lawsuits until you find someone stupid enough to believe that lower prices due to lower demand is market manipulation.

That would justify your packer blame in your conspiring minds.



~SH~

 

[HAY MAKER]

Hayseed you are a bonafide packer blamer. Therefore you will support anything that supports your need to blame. Truth does not matter to you. Fact does not matter to you. What matters to you is having someone to blame.

Since you cannot accept the judge's decision and the 11th circuit's support of that decision, you will try to drum up some wild conspiracy about Judge Strom and the 11th circuit court being bought off. Of course you have all kinds of proof of that too don't you? LOL!

That's how the blaming, conspiring mind works.

"BWAME DA PACKAH"

I don't doubt for a minute that you packer blamers will continue with your lawsuits until you find someone stupid enough to believe that lower prices due to lower demand is market manipulation.

That would justify your packer blame in your conspiring minds.



~SH~

I am not a bona fide any thing,just a plain ole TX cow boy,that would like to see the cattle man get a fair shake ................good luck PS your name calling dont change nothing SH** remember what I promised you "slowly but surely" :wink:

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, you're STILL off topic. You didn't go back and read.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman,

You asked where you were wrong. I showed where you are wrong using your own quote. How can I be "off topic" when I quoted you?

Nice diversion!



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Sandman,

You asked where you were wrong. I showed where you are wrong using your own quote. How can I be "off topic" when I quoted you?

Nice diversion!



~SH~

Glad to see you get your spelling right, SH. I have taught you something.

Again, I might have a business justification to owning a shotgun if I sell guns. That still does not give me the right to shoot someone with it. The case was about using market power through the captive supply vehicle to reduce the price cattle ranchers recieved. The jury came back and said, yes they did.

They answered the questions very intelligently. I wish I could say the same for you. It seems hard for you to answer yes or no questions.

 

[agman]

Sandman,

You asked where you were wrong. I showed where you are wrong using your own quote. How can I be "off topic" when I quoted you?

Nice diversion!



~SH~

Glad to see you get your spelling right, SH. I have taught you something.

Again, I might have a business justification to owning a shotgun if I sell guns. That still does not give me the right to shoot someone with it. The case was about using market power through the captive supply vehicle to reduce the price cattle ranchers recieved. The jury came back and said, yes they did.

They answered the questions very intelligently. I wish I could say the same for you. It seems hard for you to answer yes or no questions.

How did they from that opinion? They formed that opinion from failed research supplied by Dr Taylor. As I previously stated, the plaintiff's attorneys hood winked the jury with Dr Taylor's conclusion. They did not however fool Judge Strom. If Judge Strom was wrong in dismissing the jury verdict this case would have been upheld by the Appellate Court. What is it about "they lost on all counts" that you do not understand? Facts please; leave your phony jargon in the classroom.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman,

You asked where you were wrong. I showed where you are wrong using your own quote. How can I be "off topic" when I quoted you?

Nice diversion!



~SH~

Glad to see you get your spelling right, SH. I have taught you something.

Again, I might have a business justification to owning a shotgun if I sell guns. That still does not give me the right to shoot someone with it. The case was about using market power through the captive supply vehicle to reduce the price cattle ranchers recieved. The jury came back and said, yes they did.

They answered the questions very intelligently. I wish I could say the same for you. It seems hard for you to answer yes or no questions.

As I previously stated, the plaintiff's attorneys hood winked the jury with Dr Taylor's conclusion. They did not however fool Judge Strom.

12 jurors of their peers were hoodwinked- but this super intelligent judge figured it out- knew more than the jurors :???: He must be related to ~SH~ :lol: :lol:

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Glad to see you get your spelling right, SH. I have taught you something.

Again, I might have a business justification to owning a shotgun if I sell guns. That still does not give me the right to shoot someone with it. The case was about using market power through the captive supply vehicle to reduce the price cattle ranchers recieved. The jury came back and said, yes they did.

They answered the questions very intelligently. I wish I could say the same for you. It seems hard for you to answer yes or no questions.

As I previously stated, the plaintiff's attorneys hood winked the jury with Dr Taylor's conclusion. They did not however fool Judge Strom.

12 jurors of their peers were hoodwinked- but this super intelligent judge figured it out- knew more than the jurors :???: He must be related to ~SH~ :lol: :lol:

Oldtimer when your the judge do you always use a jury? You should cause they could never be wrong. 12 heads are better then one. :cowboy:

 

[Econ101]

Sandman,

You asked where you were wrong. I showed where you are wrong using your own quote. How can I be "off topic" when I quoted you?

Nice diversion!



~SH~

Glad to see you get your spelling right, SH. I have taught you something.

Again, I might have a business justification to owning a shotgun if I sell guns. That still does not give me the right to shoot someone with it. The case was about using market power through the captive supply vehicle to reduce the price cattle ranchers recieved. The jury came back and said, yes they did.

They answered the questions very intelligently. I wish I could say the same for you. It seems hard for you to answer yes or no questions.

How did they from that opinion? They formed that opinion from failed research supplied by Dr Taylor. As I previously stated, the plaintiff's attorneys hood winked the jury with Dr Taylor's conclusion. They did not however fool Judge Strom. If Judge Strom was wrong in dismissing the jury verdict this case would have been upheld by the Appellate Court. What is it about "they lost on all counts" that you do not understand? Facts please; leave your phony jargon in the classroom.

Agman, How did they lose on all counts? I read the questions they were asked and the answers they gave were all consistent with the plaintiff's case. How did they lose on all counts??? Please be very specific. SH's arguments on his talking points have all been dismissed as to the questions in the case. Do you want to elaborate? Please do.

 

[Anonymous]

Econ. 101: "They answered the questions very intelligently."

Oh, so you know they answered the questions very intelligently and you can judge that without having read the court proceedings.

Hahaha! Ahh......ok?

One of the Judge's instructions to the jurors was that they had to agree that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies.

There was no testimony from the plaintiffs to support that. To the contrary, there was testimony in court from the plaintiffs that ibp had a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies.

YUP, YOU BET, REAL INTELLIGENCE THERE!


Now let's discuss your intelligence.

The fact that there is a difference between this weeks cash price and the captive supply price is proof of market manipulation?

YUP, YOU BET, REAL INTELLIGENCE THERE!


At least you have Sandman to lick your boots. He's your equal on an intellectual level.



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "One of the Judge's instructions to the jurors was that they had to agree that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies."

Thank you, SH, for helping to prove my point that this trial was railroaded from the start. What the heck does a weapon's legitimate use have to do with a trial about it's misuse?

If you were robbed at gunpoint and the judge at the trial told the jurors that they would have to agree that the robber lacked a legitimate use for the gun, would you feel you were getting a fair shake? Answer this question, please.

 

[Econ101]

Companies can always come up with "legitimate business reasons" for using market power. Should "legitimate business reasons" be a defense for shooting SH? Market power plays make the companies more money and construct barriers to entry for their businesses. They always make it harder for "honest" companies to compete. That is the reason the PSA was written!!!

It is unfortunate that the judges have added this extra hurdle in implementing the efficiencies of the free market system. It makes our economy more inefficient and creates deadweight losses. To the extent that the government is influenced by big companies so that they can get away from the efficient implementaion of acts like the PSA, our country is becoming more fascist.

When marke power (buying power) is exerted to depress the markets, the choice is not between socialism and captialism. The choice is between capitalism and fascism. Both socialism and fascism have deadweight losses to the economy. Only capitalism maximizes an economy.

SH and Agman, why haven't you taken me up on discussing the court's obvious error in thier Robinson-Patman example? They have showed their ignorance of economic principles and their inability to intelligently judge Dr. Taylor's credibility yet Taylor's credibility was the basis for their decision. They raised Daubert issues where those issues had already been sorted out. Why is the appellate court allowed so much leeway when it comes to metering out justice when they are obviously economically illiterate? Go ask Cornyn and Spector. They know the answers.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman and Econ.,

For the 14th time, what was the evidence presented in court that proved that ibp/Tyson manipulated markets with captive supplies?

You guys continually make the "market manipulation" allegation WITH NO BASIS FOR PROOF!

WHAT IS YOUR PROOF OF MARKET MANIPULATION????

No Econ, it's not the difference between this weeks cash price and last weeks weighted average price. Good grief!

Is it any wonder that this case was slam dunked?

You guys got absolutely nothing but a need to blame!


Econ. responds with another volley of statements. Imagine that?

Until you can answer the above relevant question, don't expect to lead me into any discussion cause I don't play games.



~SH~

 

[Beefman]

SH, "One of the Judge's instructions to the jurors was that they had to agree that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies."

Thank you, SH, for helping to prove my point that this trial was railroaded from the start. What the heck does a weapon's legitimate use have to do with a trial about it's misuse?

If you were robbed at gunpoint and the judge at the trial told the jurors that they would have to agree that the robber lacked a legitimate use for the gun, would you feel you were getting a fair shake? Answer this question, please.

Look Sandhusker, I'm sure the Huskers will do fine against Wake Forest this Saturday. Why are you so edgy and nervous about the game? I can think of no other reason why you're emptying the kitchen cupboard to shore up your agrument. Guns? Weapons? Holdups? What's next, firetrucks? Chicks? Dips? acid trips?

Armed robbery is a crime. Marketing cattle the way a producer sees fit isn't. The link you're attempting to establish is like trying to build a bridge from LA to Hawaii.

Lighten up. I'm sure your Huskers will do fine on Sat......pretty sure.......I think.......we'll see. Mind you, I ain't jabbing, cause KSU has their work cut out at Marshall.

Beefman

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "One of the Judge's instructions to the jurors was that they had to agree that ibp lacked a legitimate business reason for using captive supplies."

Thank you, SH, for helping to prove my point that this trial was railroaded from the start. What the heck does a weapon's legitimate use have to do with a trial about it's misuse?

If you were robbed at gunpoint and the judge at the trial told the jurors that they would have to agree that the robber lacked a legitimate use for the gun, would you feel you were getting a fair shake? Answer this question, please.

Look Sandhusker, I'm sure the Huskers will do fine against Wake Forest this Saturday. Why are you so edgy and nervous about the game? I can think of no other reason why you're emptying the kitchen cupboard to shore up your agrument. Guns? Weapons? Holdups? What's next, firetrucks? Chicks? Dips? acid trips?

Armed robbery is a crime. Marketing cattle the way a producer sees fit isn't. The link you're attempting to establish is like trying to build a bridge from LA to Hawaii.

Lighten up. I'm sure your Huskers will do fine on Sat......pretty sure.......I think.......we'll see. Mind you, I ain't jabbing, cause KSU has their work cut out at Marshall.

Beefman

Violating the PSA is a crime as well. Does the choice of weapon lessen the fact that a crime occured? Does Judge Strom's instructions make any sense to you? Really, considering what the plantiffs alledged, does that make any sense at all?

I don't know what to think of the Huskers. They were certainly less than impressive against Maine. However, we played 17 new guys and our QB threw only his second div 1 pass, so I guess we shouldn't expect so much. I do know that Wake is thinking they can win this game and the Big Red needs to strap it on tight or they'll take a "L."

Marshall is one of those MAC teams that nobody really likes to play. The MAC is no pushover conf. like some would like to think.