Schroeder Testifies For Cattlemen?

[Mike]

Judge declines request to dismiss suit
Closing arguments in federal beef trial expected to begin this morning in Aberdeen
By Scott Waltman
American News Writer

Federal Judge Charles Kornmann on Monday denied requests from the nation's largest meat packers to dismiss a lawsuit against them.

The four packers asked that a case accusing them of underpaying cattle producers in spring 2001 be tossed out. They claimed there hadn't been evidence presented proving they did anything wrong. Korn- mann, however, said the outcome will be determined by a jury of four men and four women from northeast South Dakota.

Kornmann said that if the plaintiffs - three cattlemen, including one from Herreid - win their lawsuit, he could revisit the request, if the defendants want. The judge said he doesn't like interfering with the jury system because juries almost always arrive at the proper decision on their own.

From April 2 to May 11, 2001, the USDA misreported the boxed beef cutout prices for choice and select cuts of meat. The plaintiffs in the class action suit claim the packers knowingly used that information to pay less to cattle producers than they would have if the cutouts were correct. The packers deny they knew about the faulty reports before the USDA announced the mistakes and couldn't have used them to their advantage.

The bad reports were the result of a computer software program designed by a government contractor. Lower quality meat was included in figuring the choice and select cutouts.

There was only one witness Monday. Ted Schroeder, a professor at Kansas State University, was recalled by the plaintiffs and defended a theory he developed to estimate damages to cattle producers of as much as $42.8 million.

A witness for the defendant packers previously claimed Schroeder's formula was flawed and that there is no way to determine potential losses. Schroeder said those claims aren't true.

Much of Monday was devoted to finalizing jury instructions. Closing arguments are to begin at 9 this morning at the federal courthouse in Aberdeen. The jury's verdict must be unanimous.

The plaintiffs in the case are cattlemen Herman Schumacher of Herreid, Michael Callicrate of Kansas and Roger Koch of Nebraska. The defendants are Tyson, Excel, Cargill/Swift and National Beef.

 

[Tommy]

Quote...The judge said he doesn't like interfering with the jury system because juries almost always arrive at the proper decision on their own.

He needs to talk to Judge Strom.

 

[agman]

Quote...The judge said he doesn't like interfering with the jury system because juries almost always arrive at the proper decision on their own.

He needs to talk to Judge Strom.

What is it about "almost always" that is confusing to you?

 

[Econ101]

Quote...The judge said he doesn't like interfering with the jury system because juries almost always arrive at the proper decision on their own.

He needs to talk to Judge Strom.

What is it about "almost always" that is confusing to you?

The almost.

If you try to bribe the former Pres., get a pardon, contribute a lot of money to Republicans, allow GIPSA to be run by incompetence or corruption, give more money, get federal judges to put the fix in, then get the appellates to make up law based on their own judgements instead of literal interpretation of the law, and then get your company off of a huge billion dollar lawsuit.

The almost, Agman.

 

[agman]

Quote...The judge said he doesn't like interfering with the jury system because juries almost always arrive at the proper decision on their own.

He needs to talk to Judge Strom.

What is it about "almost always" that is confusing to you?

The almost.

If you try to bribe the former Pres., get a pardon, contribute a lot of money to Republicans, allow GIPSA to be run by incompetence or corruption, give more money, get federal judges to put the fix in, then get the appellates to make up law based on their own judgements instead of literal interpretation of the law, and then get your company off of a huge billion dollar lawsuit.

The almost, Agman.

Your comments would "almost" be believable except you have no proof. Once again you have demonstrated a clear penchant to deceive and even lie to support your twisted view of events. No one believes your foolishness.

 

[Econ101]

What is it about "almost always" that is confusing to you?

The almost.

If you try to bribe the former Pres., get a pardon, contribute a lot of money to Republicans, allow GIPSA to be run by incompetence or corruption, give more money, get federal judges to put the fix in, then get the appellates to make up law based on their own judgements instead of literal interpretation of the law, and then get your company off of a huge billion dollar lawsuit.

The almost, Agman.

Your comments would "almost" be believable except you have no proof. Once again you have demonstrated a clear penchant to deceive and even lie to support your twisted view of events. No one believes your foolishness.

The determinate of fact in the U.S. belongs to a jury of 12. I bet Merc doesn't have the ability to pull off what Tyson did. Then again, they didn't do all the things I mentioned above.

 

[agman]

The almost.

If you try to bribe the former Pres., get a pardon, contribute a lot of money to Republicans, allow GIPSA to be run by incompetence or corruption, give more money, get federal judges to put the fix in, then get the appellates to make up law based on their own judgements instead of literal interpretation of the law, and then get your company off of a huge billion dollar lawsuit.

The almost, Agman.

Your comments would "almost" be believable except you have no proof. Once again you have demonstrated a clear penchant to deceive and even lie to support your twisted view of events. No one believes your foolishness.

The determinate of fact in the U.S. belongs to a jury of 12. I bet Merc doesn't have the ability to pull off what Tyson did. Then again, they didn't do all the things I mentioned above.

Are juries always right-yes or no? Good luck trying to lie your way of of this one!!!

 

[RobertMac]

Agman, we trust juries to be right on capital murder cases<OJ??>(and without a second chance...double jeopardy), but they aren't trusted on civil cases<Pickett!!>...why is that? I just think that jury verdicts should stand and be corrected by appeal...if the facts merit. Isn't that the way "due process" should work?

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

I just think that jury verdicts should stand and be corrected by appeal...if the facts merit. Isn't that the way "due process" should work?

I agree Robert. The idea of a jury trial is that the more men and women you have making the decision, the greater the chance that its correct. I think a justice system is flawed if a single Judge can overturn a jury. IN other words, an appeal should be held and another trial held in front of a jury, should the appeal be successful. One man (a judge) is MORE fallible than a jury. Its the basic idea behind having jury trials.

Rod

 

[agman]

Agman, we trust juries to be right on capital murder cases<OJ??>(and without a second chance...double jeopardy), but they aren't trusted on civil cases<Pickett!!>...why is that? I just think that jury verdicts should stand and be corrected by appeal...if the facts merit. Isn't that the way "due process" should work?

Not really RM...the LAW assesses the right and obligation to the PRESIDING judge to overrule a jury verdict if the verdict is NOT consistent with testimony rendered. Unfortunately that was the case with the Pickett jury. I cited numerous instances of the verdict being contrary to testimony and neither you or anyone else has demonstrated anything from the testimony to refute what I posted. You do want the law to be followed don't you? Don't try an Econ, you are way to smart to engage in that nonsense.

Are you saying that if the judge upheld the verdict and the Appellate Court ruled as they did you would be on this forum saying Pickett was wrong? Come on RM, you would just find another reason to complain. Have a cool one.

 

[RobertMac]

Agman, we trust juries to be right on capital murder cases<OJ??>(and without a second chance...double jeopardy), but they aren't trusted on civil cases<Pickett!!>...why is that? I just think that jury verdicts should stand and be corrected by appeal...if the facts merit. Isn't that the way "due process" should work?

Not really RM...the LAW assesses the right and obligation to the PRESIDING judge to overrule a jury verdict if the verdict is NOT consistent with testimony rendered. Unfortunately that was the case with the Pickett jury. I cited numerous instances of the verdict being contrary to testimony and neither you or anyone else has demonstrated anything from the testimony to refute what I posted. You do want the law to be followed don't you? Don't try an Econ, you are way to smart to engage in that nonsense.

Are you saying that if the judge upheld the verdict and the Appellate Court ruled as they did you would be on this forum saying Pickett was wrong? Come on RM, you would just find another reason to complain. Have a cool one.

Agman, have I been here arguing the verdict? No, I haven't!!! I've argued the process. If due process followed the line I thought it should, would I agree with the verdict? No, I wouldn't....but I STILL wouldn't be here arguing the verdict. Court rulings are what they are...except them and move on to the next battle. I don't think we can sue fairness into the market place...R-CALF should concentrate on forcing the bureaucrats to enforce the laws that are in place (and this should also be the goal of NCBA). And it seems obvious, laws aren't being enforced.

My problem is with 5 companies being close to 90% of the market. Is there competition...well, yes, but look at it this way...
If you were in a race with 5 other cars, the worst you could finish is 6th.
If you were in a race with 43 cars, the worst you could finish is 43rd.
In which race would you have more competition?
In which race would the fans(consumers) have a better chance of getting their money's worth?
If the rules were skewed/interpreted to favor the deep pocket, multi-team companies, what would be your chance of being competitive?

The governing bodies of the market place have to decide which kind of capitalism there should be...corporate capitalism with a handful of companies servicing the majority of the market or free enterprise capitalism where many companies have an equal, competitive chance at satisfying the consumer.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

The plaintiffs in the case are cattlemen Herman Schumacher of Herreid, Michael Callicrate of Kansas and Roger Koch of Nebraska. The defendants are Tyson, Excel, Cargill/Swift and National Beef.



These guys should get out of the cattle business and find something to do that would keep them out of the court house. Funny how it's always the same guys. Must like the limelight.

 

[Econ101]

The plaintiffs in the case are cattlemen Herman Schumacher of Herreid, Michael Callicrate of Kansas and Roger Koch of Nebraska. The defendants are Tyson, Excel, Cargill/Swift and National Beef.



These guys should get out of the cattle business and find something to do that would keep them out of the court house. Funny how it's always the same guys. Must like the limelight.

BMR, I am sure you and Tam would like to dictate how all Americans spent their time and fight for thier country. :shock: :shock: :shock:

 

[Sandhusker]

BMR, "These guys should get out of the cattle business and find something to do that would keep them out of the court house."

Maybe if some of you up there would of spent some time inside the courthouse your packing industry wouldn't be foreign owned and you wouldn't be relying on one other country for your very survival.

 

[RobertMac]

The plaintiffs in the case are cattlemen Herman Schumacher of Herreid, Michael Callicrate of Kansas and Roger Koch of Nebraska. The defendants are Tyson, Excel, Cargill/Swift and National Beef.



These guys should get out of the cattle business and find something to do that would keep them out of the court house. Funny how it's always the same guys. Must like the limelight.

:wink: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Econ101]

Your comments would "almost" be believable except you have no proof. Once again you have demonstrated a clear penchant to deceive and even lie to support your twisted view of events. No one believes your foolishness.

The determinate of fact in the U.S. belongs to a jury of 12. I bet Merc doesn't have the ability to pull off what Tyson did. Then again, they didn't do all the things I mentioned above.

Are juries always right-yes or no? Good luck trying to lie your way of of this one!!!

Of course juries are not "always right". It is a big jump to say that given that fact, this case is one of those rare instances where they are not right. The judge has a real responsibility to make sure that his overturning of a jury verdict is responsible and just. I saw no indication of that in Strom's decision or the appellate decision. We need a little more transparency here.

I have asked you before to get the transcripts of the trial public, Agman. Have you had any success at this at all or are we all to believe your biased opinion instead of real numbers and real evidence?

 

[agman]

The determinate of fact in the U.S. belongs to a jury of 12. I bet Merc doesn't have the ability to pull off what Tyson did. Then again, they didn't do all the things I mentioned above.

Are juries always right-yes or no? Good luck trying to lie your way of of this one!!!

Of course juries are not "always right". It is a big jump to say that given that fact, this case is one of those rare instances where they are not right. The judge has a real responsibility to make sure that his overturning of a jury verdict is responsible and just. I saw no indication of that in Strom's decision or the appellate decision. We need a little more transparency here.

I have asked you before to get the transcripts of the trial public, Agman. Have you had any success at this at all or are we all to believe your biased opinion instead of real numbers and real evidence?

You failed to read any testimony but you stand in judgment of the judges legitimate and proper decision. Par for you-all accusation and no facts. Why is it you take a position and then expect someone else to provide data to you?

Talk about bias, making the phony claims you do without ever reading the transcript is as biased, phony and deceptive as it gets-a real measure of your integrity. The rest of the world does not live in the fantasy world you live in. No one believes anything you post anyway.

You were at least honest enough to agree that juries are NOT always right. That surely blows the hell out of your statement that the 12 folks who comprise the jury are the only fact finders. Which is it, you cannot have it both ways? Checkmated again-you just can't win no matter how you twist and deceive.

 

[Econ101]

Are juries always right-yes or no? Good luck trying to lie your way of of this one!!!

Of course juries are not "always right". It is a big jump to say that given that fact, this case is one of those rare instances where they are not right. The judge has a real responsibility to make sure that his overturning of a jury verdict is responsible and just. I saw no indication of that in Strom's decision or the appellate decision. We need a little more transparency here.

I have asked you before to get the transcripts of the trial public, Agman. Have you had any success at this at all or are we all to believe your biased opinion instead of real numbers and real evidence?

You failed to read any testimony but you stand in judgment of the judges legitimate and proper decision. Par for you-all accusation and no facts. Why is it you take a position and then expect someone else to provide data to you?

Talk about bias, making the phony claims you do without ever reading the transcript is as biased, phony and deceptive as it gets-a real measure of your integrity. The rest of the world does not live in the fantasy world you live in. No one believes anything you post anyway.

You were at least honest enough to agree that juries are NOT always right. That surely blows the hell out of your statement that the 12 folks who comprise the jury are the only fact finders. Which is it, you cannot have it both ways? Checkmated again-you just can't win no matter how you twist and deceive.

Have you been able to get the transcripts and data released yet, Agman?

I guess in your imaginary chess game (I like playing real chess) you can decide who is and is not checkmated as you are only arguing with yourself again.

You might want to get a little help with that.

I would still like to see the data and transcripts instead of taking your word for it. A little transparency, that is all.

 

[Beefman]

Agman, we trust juries to be right on capital murder cases<OJ??>(and without a second chance...double jeopardy), but they aren't trusted on civil cases<Pickett!!>...why is that? I just think that jury verdicts should stand and be corrected by appeal...if the facts merit. Isn't that the way "due process" should work?

Not really RM...the LAW assesses the right and obligation to the PRESIDING judge to overrule a jury verdict if the verdict is NOT consistent with testimony rendered. Unfortunately that was the case with the Pickett jury. I cited numerous instances of the verdict being contrary to testimony and neither you or anyone else has demonstrated anything from the testimony to refute what I posted. You do want the law to be followed don't you? Don't try an Econ, you are way to smart to engage in that nonsense.

Are you saying that if the judge upheld the verdict and the Appellate Court ruled as they did you would be on this forum saying Pickett was wrong? Come on RM, you would just find another reason to complain. Have a cool one.

Agman, have I been here arguing the verdict? No, I haven't!!! I've argued the process. If due process followed the line I thought it should, would I agree with the verdict? No, I wouldn't....but I STILL wouldn't be here arguing the verdict. Court rulings are what they are...except them and move on to the next battle. I don't think we can sue fairness into the market place...R-CALF should concentrate on forcing the bureaucrats to enforce the laws that are in place (and this should also be the goal of NCBA). And it seems obvious, laws aren't being enforced.

My problem is with 5 companies being close to 90% of the market. Is there competition...well, yes, but look at it this way...
If you were in a race with 5 other cars, the worst you could finish is 6th.
If you were in a race with 43 cars, the worst you could finish is 43rd.
In which race would you have more competition?
In which race would the fans(consumers) have a better chance of getting their money's worth?
If the rules were skewed/interpreted to favor the deep pocket, multi-team companies, what would be your chance of being competitive?

The governing bodies of the market place have to decide which kind of capitalism there should be...corporate capitalism with a handful of companies servicing the majority of the market or free enterprise capitalism where many companies have an equal, competitive chance at satisfying the consumer.

RM, I know you asked Agman for a response, and his will be better than mine. Plus, he's got car racing in his blood. However, if I may, here's my two bits worth.

Beef and car racing. Two great past times. We can make a nice analogy here. Car racing is competitive from your local dirt track up to the Nextel Cup. Give me a local 3/8 or ½ mile dirt track and the World of Outlaws racing sprint cars anytime. Preferably in Belleville, KS home of the world's fastest ½ mile dirt track.

RM: If you were in a race with 5 other cars, the worst you could finish is 6th. If you were in a race with 43 cars, the worst you could finish is 43rd. In which race would you have more competition?

The number of cars you need for a competitive race is 2. They right set of 6 racers can make a hell of a race. Finishing 4th in a tight race of 6 is more meaningful than finishing 42 in a field of 43. The only thing you have in a field of 43 is more cars. The number of cars does not dictate whether or not a race is competitive.

Likewise, if 5 companies have 90% of the beef market, having (say) 20 companies bidding on cattle / marketing beef doesn't mean the market is any more / less competitive. I could go buy an old 76 Camaro, pull the body off, and mount it on a racing frame. Just because I can't race side by side against Jimmy Johnson doesn't mean I can't be competitive as some level. There is a level somewhere I CAN compete, just as there's an entry level somewhere for entry into the beef biz. It's my job ( producers) to find out where I'm most competitive.

RM: In which race would the fans(consumers) have a better chance of getting their money's worth?

Have you ever attended a major NASCAR event with (close to) 43 cars? See all those people in the stands with radio headsets on, listening to the conversations involving their favorite driver? Wanna bet that most of those fans are tuned in to the conversations of the same 5 or 6 drivers? They're watching their favorite(s), and ignoring the others. Now go into the parking lot….see all the tailgaters, flags, grills, etc. Ever wonder why 80% of the fans display flags, tents, etc for Dale Jr? Does Dale's team have more cash to spend than the others? Probably so. His team promotes how they see fit. That's marketing. Doesn't mean racing is any more / less competitive. NASCAR does a great job of marketing. That's why most of their major events are sold out, and the face value of tickets is close to $200.

Likewise, we're handed a report card in the beef industry every time consumers buy our product. They have more choices than ever before. The pork and poultry people aren't standing still, and neither can we.

RM: If the rules were skewed/interpreted to favor the deep pocket, multi-team companies, what would be your chance of being competitive?

You've just described professional baseball, not racing, and not the beef industry.


Bottom line, there's competition, and entry points in all facets of beef production, as there is in car racing. Can you and I buy a packing plant today and compete in the marketplace tomorrow against Tyson, Cargil, etc? If we get our heads handed to us in three weeks, whose fault is that? We either hit 'em where they ain't, or do what they do better. We can figure out ways to value add, make a little money and survive. The recent edition of Drovers Journal listed 53 different alliances for marketing value added beef. Several of these avenues are someone other than the top 5. Someone figured out how to hit 'em where they ain't or do what they do better. The beef industry has several entry points for opportunity, as does car racing. In 20 years from now, the survivors will be the ones that followed this strategy. The complainers in 20 years will likely be the descendants of the complainers we have today. Funny how genetics work. As you stated, we won't sue fairness into the marketplace. Fear can be a powerful motivator. You have two options, get PO'd and complain, or, hit 'em where they ain't or do what they do better. There's lots of opportunity in the beef industry today.


RM: The governing bodies of the market place have to decide which kind of capitalism there should be...corporate capitalism with a handful of companies servicing the majority of the market or free enterprise capitalism where many companies have an equal, competitive chance at satisfying the consumer.

We have the latter today. Either do what the top 5 do better, or hit 'em where they ain't.

 

[Anonymous]

We have the latter today. Either do what the top 5 do better, or hit 'em where they ain't.

Creekstone tried that- but the big money guaranteed the top 5 get it the way they want it- so much for your free enterprise :roll: ......