Stop the Liar Name Calling Agman

[Econ101]

agman
Rancher
Rancher


Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 1344
Location: Denver, CO

PostPosted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:38 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Econ101 wrote:
RobertMac wrote:
Agman, I finally figured out why Judge Strom threw out the jury verdict. His ruling was based on "excepted" law, so when the Appellate Court or the Supreme Court looked at the case, the only issue they would have to look at was if "excepted" law was followed. As you said, Judge Strom had legal precedence that he followed. If the jury verdict had been let to stand, then there would have been "new" legal precedence and the Appellate Court would have had to decide between the two differing rulings. But if the Appellate Court overturned the Judge's verdict, they would be making "new" legal precedence which would make them an "activist" court. Judge Strom, acting as Judge and jury, virtually eliminated any chance Pickett would have in appeal.

Get you a cool one and go ahead and torch me. Sad


As Agman said, Judge Strom was picked for a reason. Wink Wink

Predetermination is alive in the U.S. court system. Mad Evil or Very Mad


Where did I say Judge Strom was picked for a reason? Another lie from Econ. What I said was Judge Strom was experienced in these types of cases which he is. If you have proof otherwise, not allegations, then present what you have.

agman
Rancher



Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 1344
Location: Denver, CO
Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2006 7:21 pm Post subject:


________________________________________
ocm wrote:
~SH~ wrote:
Quote:
DOT - Dr. Taylor's writings listed many respected economists who said there was incentive for the packers to manipulate markets via these marketing agreements.


Taylor was a joke. All he presented were untested "THEORIES", not proof!

Judge Strom said Taylor was "nuts". Probably a lot like Conman or maybe Taylor is Conman.




~SH~


Does it bother you at all that Judge Strom violated an oath and an ethical standard incumbent on all judges when he called Taylor "nuts." It was not only untrue, it was unethical according to the rules of behavior judges are supposed to abide by. Great judge!


Not to mention your LIE "All he presented were untested "THEORIES", not proof!"

This statement with regard to Taylor's testimony is not even close. His six causation mechanisms (not theories) were only a small part of Taylor's testimony.

I see the quality of your posts has not changed since I was gone.


Is it not a requirement that theories advanced at trial be tested for validity? "Yes" or "no" will do.

Did Taylor not say under oath that he did NOT test any of his six theories for validity? "Yes" or "no" will do.

Did Judge Strom ask Taylor to repeat his answer to the previous question? "Yes" or "no" will do.

Did Taylor's conclusion pass the "Hausman Test" for causality? "Yes" or "no" will do.

Judge Strom's comments referring to Taylor as being "nuts" were made in closed chambers to the plaintiff's attorney. As you know but did not disclose to readers the jury never heard that statement. So your comment per that statement, "It was not only untrue, it was unethical according to the rules of behavior judges are supposed to abide by. Great judge!", is not the correct and complete interpretation of the law.

Do you think this was the first time Judge Strom ever saw an expert witness in such a case or was he very well experienced with such witness and such cases? I believe he was selected to handle this case because of his prior experience with similar cases. The jurors were new to such a case, Judge Strom was not. Contrary to you opinion Taylor got dismantled by the defense attorney. It is because of that situation that the defense rested their case after only four days of testimony.

Do you think you know more than ALL of the federal judges in the 11th district? "Yes" or "no" will do. Not one of them voted to call for a vote on the "en banc" hearing requested by the plaintiff's attorney. In short, not one judge was willing to waste his time on a case that they viewed as having no merit. This is a reminder to readers; the Pickett case lost on ALL counts per the Appellate Court ruling-a complete and total loss.



_________________
Light travels in all directions while darkness is stationary.


Agman, there was NO reason to call anyone a liar over this or say that I lied. I have just brought up questions about the selection of Judge Strom. You will notice I had a wink at the end of my statement as I know neither you nor I will really know the real reason Judge Strom was selected.

Can you and SH please tone down the name calling?

 

[mrj]

I've not followed this thread closely, but am curious as to the normal "selection" process for judges. How is it done? Was there deviation from the normal situation in this case?

That brings to mind the process of plaintiffs deciding where to file their case. Rumor has it that the plaintiffs chose that particular jurisdiction for the propensity of juries in the area to go against "those with deep pockets" and to award damages in a like manner. Who knows? Most likely nothing is verifiable on why they made that choice, but the record of juries in the area should be somewhat so via news stories, etc. Any takers?

MRJ

 

[Sandhusker]

I've not followed this thread closely, but am curious as to the normal "selection" process for judges. How is it done? Was there deviation from the normal situation in this case?

That brings to mind the process of plaintiffs deciding where to file their case. Rumor has it that the plaintiffs chose that particular jurisdiction for the propensity of juries in the area to go against "those with deep pockets" and to award damages in a like manner. Who knows? Most likely nothing is verifiable on why they made that choice, but the record of juries in the area should be somewhat so via news stories, etc. Any takers?

MRJ

Would believing the reason because that is where Pickett lives be such a stretch?

 

[mrj]

I've not followed this thread closely, but am curious as to the normal "selection" process for judges. How is it done? Was there deviation from the normal situation in this case?

That brings to mind the process of plaintiffs deciding where to file their case. Rumor has it that the plaintiffs chose that particular jurisdiction for the propensity of juries in the area to go against "those with deep pockets" and to award damages in a like manner. Who knows? Most likely nothing is verifiable on why they made that choice, but the record of juries in the area should be somewhat so via news stories, etc. Any takers?

MRJ

Would believing the reason because that is where Pickett lives be such a stretch?

Was he the only plaintiff?

MRJ

 

[Sandhusker]

I've not followed this thread closely, but am curious as to the normal "selection" process for judges. How is it done? Was there deviation from the normal situation in this case?

That brings to mind the process of plaintiffs deciding where to file their case. Rumor has it that the plaintiffs chose that particular jurisdiction for the propensity of juries in the area to go against "those with deep pockets" and to award damages in a like manner. Who knows? Most likely nothing is verifiable on why they made that choice, but the record of juries in the area should be somewhat so via news stories, etc. Any takers?

MRJ

Was it the Pickett trial or the Johnson trial?

Would believing the reason because that is where Pickett lives be such a stretch?

Was he the only plaintiff?

MRJ

What was the name of the trial? The Franklin case?

 

[Anonymous]

Was it the Pickett trial or the Johnson trial?

Would believing the reason because that is where Pickett lives be such a stretch?

Was he the only plaintiff?

MRJ

What was the name of the trial? The Franklin case?

:lol: :lol: I love it when Maxine gets on here and gives me another laugh for the day :wink: :lol:

 

[mrj]

Boys, having admitted to not following this closely, and knowing some cases have multiple plaintiffs and they might not all reside in the same state, is it so difficult to understand a person could legitimately have questions as to why a particular jurisdiction was chosen for the trial?

No one answered my question as to usual selection procedures for judges. How is it done? Was there deviation from normal or usual procedures in this case?

MRJ

 

[Anonymous]

Conman,

In regards to being called a liar, as long as you continue to lie you will continue to be addressed as a liar. Pretty simple procedure. Stop lying!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Boys, having admitted to not following this closely, and knowing some cases have multiple plaintiffs and they might not all reside in the same state, is it so difficult to understand a person could legitimately have questions as to why a particular jurisdiction was chosen for the trial?

No one answered my question as to usual selection procedures for judges. How is it done? Was there deviation from normal or usual procedures in this case?

MRJ

Maybe it is a conspiracy, MRJ.

 

[Econ101]

Conman,

In regards to being called a liar, as long as you continue to lie you will continue to be addressed as a liar. Pretty simple procedure. Stop lying!


~SH~

Name one lie, SH. Please have more facts than when you called Callicrate a perjuror.