The Court Kicker

[Econ101]

Lawsuit over beef prices nears end



Associated Press

Aberdeen News

Apr. 11, 2006



ABERDEEN, S.D. - A federal judge denied a request from meatpacking companies to dismiss a lawsuit that accuses them of underpaying cattle producers four years ago.



Judge Charles Kornmann's decision cleared the way for closing arguments to a jury Tuesday morning.



Herman Schumacher of Herreid, Michael Callicrate of Kansas and Roger Koch of Nebraska sued Tyson, Excel, Cargill/Swift, and National Beef.



From April 2 to May 11, 2001, the U.S. Department of Agriculture misreported the boxed beef cutout prices for choice and select cuts of meat.



The cattlemen argue in their class action lawsuit that the meatpackers 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 erroneous reports were the result of a flawed computer program. When calculating cutouts for choice and select cuts, a lesser quality of beef was also used. As a result, the choice and select cutouts were too low.



The cattlemen claim the reports cost farmers and ranchers as much as $42.8 million.



In denying the meatpackers' request to dismiss the lawsuit, Kornmann said if the plaintiffs win, he could revisit the request at the defendants' request.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Information from: Aberdeen American News

aberdeennews.com

 

[Econ101]

Looks to me that Tyson is fishing for decisions with a rigged fishing pole.

Maybe the U.S. should make a law that says Tyson can do what ever they want as long as they keep up their presence and presents on capital hill so everyone will know the rules of the game beforehand.

 

[agman]

Looks to me that Tyson is fishing for decisions with a rigged fishing pole.

Maybe the U.S. should make a law that says Tyson can do what ever they want as long as they keep up their presence and presents on capital hill so everyone will know the rules of the game beforehand.

What you think does not matter-who really cares? Another accusation without merit from Econ, the king of fairyland.

 

[Econ101]

Looks to me that Tyson is fishing for decisions with a rigged fishing pole.

Maybe the U.S. should make a law that says Tyson can do what ever they want as long as they keep up their presence and presents on capital hill so everyone will know the rules of the game beforehand.

What you think does not matter-who really cares? Another accusation without merit from Econ, the king of fairyland.

Would it be too much to ask for a little proof here Agman instead of just trusting your opinion?

What is the matter, having trouble getting the transcripts released? Is there some "trade secret" data even though the data is years old?

 

[agman]

Looks to me that Tyson is fishing for decisions with a rigged fishing pole.

Maybe the U.S. should make a law that says Tyson can do what ever they want as long as they keep up their presence and presents on capital hill so everyone will know the rules of the game beforehand.

What you think does not matter-who really cares? Another accusation without merit from Econ, the king of fairyland.

Would it be too much to ask for a little proof here Agman instead of just trusting your opinion?

What is the matter, having trouble getting the transcripts released? Is there some "trade secret" data even though the data is years old?

I have not asked for the transcripts but I certainly will now tht the trial is over. In case you don't know the trial just ended this afternoon.

You should be quite bothered by this statement from the judge which you posted. "In denying the meatpackers' request to dismiss the lawsuit, Kornmann said if the plaintiffs win, he could revisit the request at the defendants' request."

If eveidence was clearly presented to convict why would he bother to make that statement?

 

[Brad S]

AgMan,

That remark by the judge indicates to me that dismissal is a real possibility. I don't have a dog in this race, but I can't interpret it any other way.

 

[agman]

AgMan,

That remark by the judge indicates to me that dismissal is a real possibility. I don't have a dog in this race, but I can't interpret it any other way.

I would put the odds of dismissal at the Appellate level at 90% from what I have learned.

Different subject: It looks like corn is buying acreage. Plantings could be up 1.0 million acres from inital intentions. Have a good one.

 

[Econ101]

AgMan,

That remark by the judge indicates to me that dismissal is a real possibility. I don't have a dog in this race, but I can't interpret it any other way.

I would put the odds of dismissal at the Appellate level at 90% from what I have learned.

Different subject: It looks like corn is buying acreage. Plantings could be up 1.0 million acres from inital intentions. Have a good one.

I would too, with this rigged federal judiciary. They are following Bush with the "I don't have to follow the law" mentality, "I make the law". Arlen Spector has done a spectacular job overseeing our judicial nominations and their corporate bias.

Corn isn't buying acreage. Acreage is a fixed cost. Agribusiness has achieved their ability to run agriculture on variable costs, thus eliminating the profit of owning the assets with their cheap food policy. Corn is up on the ethanol craze because of the high cost of oil and the ability of ethanol to substitute for it. Iran scares are running that one.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman,

Explain to me how Tyson, Excel, and Swift can be held accountable for USDA's ADMITTED boxed beef price reporting mistake????

Should I be able to sue the feeders who bought feeder calves for less money on the basis of an inconclusive BSE positive?

Same argument!

Once you have explained how Tyson, Excel and Swift can be held responsible for USDA's mistake, bring me the proof that Tyson, Excel, and Swift knew about the flawed reports before USDA announced it?

How did Excel, Swift, and Tyson know that the prices were falsely reported and National not know? Haha!

This is too funny!


~SH~

 

[Brad S]

Agman,
Thanks for the corn update, I really apreciate it - although I don't always know what to do with info.


Econ001
It is better to be quiet and thought a fool, than yipe up and remove all doubt. If you can't make use of Agman's corn tracking, perhaps it wasn't meant for you.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman,
Thanks for the corn update, I really apreciate it - although I don't always know what to do with info.


Econ001
It is better to be quiet and thought a fool, than yipe up and remove all doubt. If you can't make use of Agman's corn tracking, perhaps it wasn't meant for you.

I was in Eastern Nebraska (corn country) when the initial report came out - nobody got real excited. "There's a lot of time between that report and actual planting" was the general comment. Increased plantings are widely expected.

 

[Econ101]

Agman,
Thanks for the corn update, I really apreciate it - although I don't always know what to do with info.


Econ001
It is better to be quiet and thought a fool, than yipe up and remove all doubt. If you can't make use of Agman's corn tracking, perhaps it wasn't meant for you.

Perhaps you did not understand my post, Brad. It had nothing to do with the corn analysis and it wasn't meant to. It had everything to do with the cheap food policy we have in the U.S. under this USDA.

If you and Agman want to converse by yourselves, there are plenty of ways to do it. On the open forum, it is open game.

I will concede that Agman has a lot of relevant data regarding this industry. That relevent data does not mean he has a monopoly on policy.

Any information coming from Agman regarding future prices of cattle may or may not be helpful to the average person such as yourself. I have no reason to get involved in his industry specific information, except to the extent that he uses it as a springboard for the policy/market scams. As a matter of fact, Agman's analysis, even though I disagree with it at times, is useful, and I am always ready to listen to it when it has substance.

 

[Brad S]

Econ dude - ethanol use is raising consumption which raises price which raises plantings ergo increase price bought acres - keep up ok.


Sandhusker,
I think AgMan was confirming what many were speculating. AgMan don't abide much speculation. Has anyone ever seen AgMan and Spock at the same time?

My Dad is a corn farmer from Hell, and he sez good weather will usually inspire extra plantings.

 

[Sandhusker]

"My Dad is a corn farmer from Hell"


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ,

 

[Econ101]

Econ dude - ethanol use is raising consumption which raises price which raises plantings ergo increase price bought acres - keep up ok.


Sandhusker,
I think AgMan was confirming what many were speculating. AgMan don't abide much speculation. Has anyone ever seen AgMan and Spock at the same time?

My Dad is a corn farmer from Hell, and he sez good weather will usually inspire extra plantings.

I know the analysis, Brad S.

"ADM produced about one billion gallons of ethanol last year, roughly a quarter of the industry's production. It also plans to build a corn-to-ethanol mill in Columbus, Neb., capable of making 275 million gallons annually, eclipsing the capacity of its closest rival." ADM generates about 5% of revenue from ethanol but its shares have climbed about 50% so far this year.--WSJ

Irrational (or not?) exhuberance is a part of the free market place. Market info is still good as part of the mix. I will not hold that against Agman, as I said before.

I still like your Dad's explanation. My daughter and I planted corn yesterday and it was really nice and sunny.

 

[agman]

Agman,
Thanks for the corn update, I really apreciate it - although I don't always know what to do with info.


Econ001
It is better to be quiet and thought a fool, than yipe up and remove all doubt. If you can't make use of Agman's corn tracking, perhaps it wasn't meant for you.

Perhaps you did not understand my post, Brad. It had nothing to do with the corn analysis and it wasn't meant to. It had everything to do with the cheap food policy we have in the U.S. under this USDA.

If you and Agman want to converse by yourselves, there are plenty of ways to do it. On the open forum, it is open game.

I will concede that Agman has a lot of relevant data regarding this industry. That relevent data does not mean he has a monopoly on policy.

Any information coming from Agman regarding future prices of cattle may or may not be helpful to the average person such as yourself. I have no reason to get involved in his industry specific information, except to the extent that he uses it as a springboard for the policy/market scams. As a matter of fact, Agman's analysis, even though I disagree with it at times, is useful, and I am always ready to listen to it when it has substance.

You fool no one with your outright lies. "I have no reason to get involved in his industry specific information, except to the extent that he uses it as a springboard for the policy/market scams."

What do you know about industry specific information? All you do is make baseless accusations which you cannot and do not ever support.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "Any information coming from Agman regarding future prices of cattle may or may not be helpful to the average person such as yourself. I have no reason to get involved in his industry specific information, except to the extent that he uses it as a springboard for the policy/market scams. As a matter of fact, Agman's analysis, even though I disagree with it at times, is useful, and I am always ready to listen to it when it has substance."

What on God's green earth would you know about what is and what is not useful information? You've proven yourself to be a complete fool with your relentless lies. How could anyone believe anything you had to say?


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "Any information coming from Agman regarding future prices of cattle may or may not be helpful to the average person such as yourself. I have no reason to get involved in his industry specific information, except to the extent that he uses it as a springboard for the policy/market scams. As a matter of fact, Agman's analysis, even though I disagree with it at times, is useful, and I am always ready to listen to it when it has substance."

What on God's green earth would you know about what is and what is not useful information? You've proven yourself to be a complete fool with your relentless lies. How could anyone believe anything you had to say?


~SH~

SH, I would be a fool to think your opinion mattered. I would much sooner be mindless enough to pray to a circus chicken.

You have not caught me in a lie yet.

You are like a good used car salesman.

Do you think if you say it enough times it becomes true? Maybe you should try tapping your ruby shoes together.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "You have not caught me in a lie yet."

Hahaha!

I don't have to go past one of today's posts.

You claimed that the PSA was being misinterpreted in Pickett vs. IBP, based on the London Case, to suggest that the PSA was referring to competition between the packer and retailer rather than competition between the packer and the feeder/producer.

YOUR WORDS!

WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK "STOCKYARD" MEANS???

Is that on the producer end or the retail end?

I didn't have to go past your most recent post to catch you in a lie.

PROVE ME WRONG!!

Bring me the proof that the PSA was misinterpreted in Pickett to mean competition between the packer and the retailer. BRING IT!

Watch the lying !@%^@!%* dance like a circus chicken ..............



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "You have not caught me in a lie yet."

Hahaha!

I don't have to go past one of today's posts.

You claimed that the PSA was being misinterpreted in Pickett vs. IBP, based on the London Case, to suggest that the PSA was referring to competition between the packer and retailer rather than competition between the packer and the feeder/producer.

YOUR WORDS!

WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK "STOCKYARD" MEANS???

Is that on the producer end or the retail end?

I didn't have to go past your most recent post to catch you in a lie.

PROVE ME WRONG!!

Bring me the proof that the PSA was misinterpreted in Pickett to mean competition between the packer and the retailer. BRING IT!

Watch the lying !@%^@!%* dance like a circus chicken ..............



~SH~

SH, do you even know the section of the PSA that has the definitions in it? Maybe you could go to the newrules website that has the PSA written out that I keep posting from to get your answer. Maybe it doesn't really include poultry or poultry dealers because they didn't change the name to the "Packers and Stockyards and Poultry Dealers Act."

Perhaps you would like to do a little research yourself on this one. You might would like to refer to some of your old posts. Maybe Agman could help you out.

MRJ may be able to lend you some of her memory pills.

By the way, have you two had your water tested?