• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

The "rest of the story" behind Pickett's loss

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Agman, "Pointing it out would do no good. You would just devise another phony interpretation. The court very clearly outlined why your interpretation is wrong."

If the court "very clearly" outlined why I'm wrong, why don't you simply cut and paste? I'm tiring of this runaround. Put up or shut up, Agman.
 
Sandhusker said:
Agman, "Pointing it out would do no good. You would just devise another phony interpretation. The court very clearly outlined why your interpretation is wrong."

If the court "very clearly" outlined why I'm wrong, why don't you simply cut and paste? I'm tiring of this runaround. Put up or shut up, Agman.
Click to expand...

At least we agree on one thing-put up or shut up. You say the courts are wrong-prove it Sandbag Bob. You are spouting off that you are right and they are wrong. The burden of proof is on you, the accuser. Ask your buddy Econ101, I think he knows enough law to understand that process although he like you has provided no proof of anything. Make the call short, his phone is being tapped!!!
 
I said this is what the court did, right or wrong. You said I was making excuses. You can't prove me wrong or we wouldn't be in this peeing contest.
 
[You can't prove me wrong or we wouldn't be in this peeing contest.[/quote]


Peeing contest now thats funny! :lol: :lol: I dont care who u r !
 
shorthorn said:
[You can't prove me wrong or we wouldn't be in this peeing contest.
Click to expand...


Peeing contest now thats funny! :lol: :lol: I dont care who u r ![/quote]

Agman, SH, Shorthorn, and Shorty; Be careful not to pee in the wind.
The Robinson-Patman stab in the brief by the appellate court was used incorrectly. As to your "provide the proof" challenge, read the Robinson-Patman Act to see the reasoned approach to this topic.

"TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 13 Prev | Next

§ 13. Discrimination in price, services, or facilities
........
(b) Burden of rebutting prima-facie case of discrimination
Upon proof being made, at any hearing on a complaint under this section, that there has been discrimination in price or services or facilities furnished, the burden of rebutting the prima-facie case thus made by showing justification shall be upon the person charged with a violation of this section, and unless justification shall be affirmatively shown, the Commission is authorized to issue an order terminating the discrimination: Provided, however, That nothing herein contained shall prevent a seller rebutting the prima-facie case thus made by showing that his lower price or the furnishing of services or facilities to any purchaser or purchasers was made in good faith to meet an equally low price of a competitor, or the services or facilities furnished by a competitor. "

A prima facia case was made to and accepted by the jury. The burden of proof on refutation rests on Tyson.

These words have to do with a monopolist. A monopsonist or oligopsonist (one or few buyers) is on the other side of the equation and the economic reasoning instead of one or few sellers. The economic reasoning would be that an absolute defense would be for buyers to show that they were paying a higher price to meet an equally higher price offered by a competitor. There was no price determination set by "captive supplies" as their pricing was set by the cash market instead of competition. This was the key to the riddle. Is this getting over your head? The brief filed by the appeals court proved it was over their head. They have no ability to trump a jury on Daubert issues when they fall in their own reasoned trap. Of course they did not trump the jury on the Daubert issues, they just brought them up for arguments supporting their position. Thus, their own ruling brings up serious judicial issues of influence behind closed doors. Americans deserve better than that. Let the light shine in.
 
Has anyone seen the proof that was offered by the plaintiffs, via Econ, ocm, or Sandman, that supported their market manipulation allegation???

NEITHER HAVE I!

Econ. and ocm keep dancing and dancing and dancing around providing a smoking gun.

The light has shined Econ. 101.


When you can't provide the proof to support your position, YOU CREATE THE "ILLUSION" THAT YOU CAN.



~SH~
 
The jury had that proof and they made their decision. Getting 12 people to agree on anything is a big test and the cattlemen proved it to them. Read all of the questions they were asked and read their answers. Stop doublespeaking by saying that the cattlemen were proved wrong on all counts. The real story is that one judge and appellate courts are able to overturn verdicts based on relatively complex mathematical calculations and economic reasoning that their own writings prove they have little understanding of.

Tyson is basing its arguments of price differentiation between the captive supply and cash markets on percieved benefits of "captive supply" contracts. The only problem is that they refused to testify to the benefits they claimed the "captive supply" contracts brought to the table when asked. My earlier question about the captive supply details was answered and cleared this issue up.

Agman, do you have anything else? I am going to put my pre-teen back on line to answer the rest of your questions. I do thank you for the discussions as they show how weak your case really is.

This case points out the fact that we have a real judicial problem in this country where the big business interests win based on money donated in hidden ways and arguments behind closed doors instead of the merits to the case. In this regard we have all lost.

This case points out that not only do we have the best political leaders money can buy but that we have the best judicial system that money can buy. Access is power. Judge Strom should be given a regression analysis test to prove his intellectual prowess he uses to justify his trumping of the jury.

The courts need to be given a test on their economic prowess they feigned in their brief regarding the Robinson-Patman Act. Oh, I forgot. They already failed that one.

Agman, I quote Capernicus and you go after Newton. Move it up the line if you don't understand it. I do not really know the level you are on but this one may be over your head.

As far as the arrogance you claim I have:

"I believe no man is above me, no man is below me. It is all the grey (pun) matter in between that is the question."

This has special meaning for the big boss.
 
You don't get it, SH. You won't get it. Econ101 is waaaaay ahead of you.

In order to know what evidence Pickett provided, you would have to have been there, been a jurist, or have a transcript. However, Econ101 is showing you that none of that mattered. This trial was altered from it's original intention by the legal(?) hokey-pokey. Agman knows it but won't admit it, you can't even figure it out.
 
Sandhusker said:
You don't get it, SH. You won't get it. Econ101 is waaaaay ahead of you.

In order to know what evidence Pickett provided, you would have to have been there, been a jurist, or have a transcript. However, Econ101 is showing you that none of that mattered. This trial was altered from it's original intention by the legal(?) hokey-pokey. Agman knows it but won't admit it, you can't even figure it out.
Click to expand...

Do you really think someone such as Econ101 who has made one claim after the other without any proof is credible. He has even surpassed you in lack of credibility. Be careful when conversing with Conman101, his phone is tapped!!! He is your source and validation of truth. What do you call a person that paranoid?

He is not over my head nor Sh's. But he has really pulled the wool over your eyes. He is all smoke, no fire or more aptly put all talk, no facts-kinda like most R-Laughers. End of subject.
 
News Release

Brasil International Gazeta

Headlines - September 1

MEATS SHOULD LEAD FOREIGN SALES IN 2005

Neila Baldi
Sao Paulo

For the first time, Brazil could export more meat than soybeans. Revenues from export sales of chicken, pork and beef and their derivatives should be above US $8 billion.

-----------

Econ101 can not help himself. He has been trained to think the way he does. The same goes for Agman. Personally, I do not have a problem with that. It is best that not everyone thinks the same even though each person may be convinced that his or her view is based on "--- laws," and how many times have you heard, "It takes all kinds to make the world go around."

Therefore, once again I will plead for the fighting to stop, and for everyone to contribute his or her specialty to a common, innovative plan for the future of the U.S. beef industry. I believe the plan must include Tyson et al until they are replaced by other companies (if that happens) even though they may increase their globalization activities.

"Utopia" is probably not going to happen. Rather, the battle will become more competitive and intense and not for the faint of heart. Only a large amount of determination will enable the U.S. beef industry to survive in light of such things as the "Mexicanization of America" which brings new issues such as a higher percentage of the population being Hispanic and lower median household incomes as a result.

We need lots of thought and innovation to figure out how to deal with a total population that is not going to be able to buy as much high priced beef per capita and how to compete in production with other countries. Too much time is being wasted in my opinion. How about everyone trying to come up with some good ideas that will make survival more likely? Or is that not important to you?

Finally, let's pray for wisdom and guidance. Anybody with me? Or are you going to continue singing "the road goes on forever, and the party never ends!"
 
"Ignorance is bliss."

I sometimes wish I did not know what I know. It would be much easier.
 
Econ101 said:
"Ignorance is bliss."

I sometimes wish I did not know what I know. It would be much easier.
Click to expand...
I am certain it would be. You know so much. The only people whom I have ever met who know so much are the ones who know so very little. It is their perception of knowledge that confuses them. Any phone calls lately..tap..tap!!!!
 
Talking in the mirror again?

The tapped and dropped phone calls do not scare me. They fall into the same category as your numbered "talking points".

They actually remind me of you, Agman. Annoying but harmless unless you let them. Since taking on these issue I have learned how to deal with it.

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself"

Bullies taunt. Not enough substance, I suppose.
 
Yup Econ 101,

The jurors who couldn't follow the simplest of instructions got it right but the judge and 11th Circuit who dealt with the facts and the law didn't get it right BECAUSE THERE WAS A ....."GASP"......CONSPIRACY to taint the process.

HAHAHA!

No wonder you think your phone is tapped.

Now play the victim of bullying again to divert having to present the actual facts of the case while Sandman waves his pom poms.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz!


~SH~
 
There is no railroad.

The 11th circuit supported Judge Strom's decision. You packer blamers are simply trying to justify your loss.

Poor you!


~SH~
 
I don't necessarily believe Judge Strom was part of a conspiracy. I have covered this ground already.

It is plain by the appellate brief that the 3 panel judge team (?) either did not really write the brief or they do not know what they are talking about. In the London case that was cited and the main justification for the appellate court to deny claims was the fact that the plaintiffs did not "prove harm to competitition". In both of these instances, the London and the Pickett, this new burden of proof was put on these cases after the jury trial. There was no justification for this burden of proof as the law clearly has an "or" in between the enumerated sections instead of an "and". In addition, the word "whatsoever" was taken out for a 5 year time period that these two cases were made.

"If it looks like a rose and smells like a rose....."

"Don't go riden' that long black train......"

Hawker.
 
~SH~ said:
There is no railroad.

The 11th circuit supported Judge Strom's decision. You packer blamers are simply trying to justify your loss.

Poor you!


~SH~
Click to expand...

I'll request it again, post Strom's instructions that you seem to know about. Let's see 'em.
 
Judge Strom's decision and reasoning has already been posted Sandman.

Do a search and find it instead of always wanting someone else to do your homework for you.

Both Judge Strom's instructions to the jurors and Judge Strom's ruling have been posted and should still be in the archives.

Judge Strom addressed the PSA and even cited similar cases. One was a consortium of Kansas feeders led by none other than Mr. Perjury. That case was also shot down in flames.

If you are not willing to post the facts by the plaintiffs that prove their market manipulation conspiracy theory, don't expect me to do any homework for the likes of you.


~SH~
 

Latest posts

Top