Time to pay up

[agman]

In a second five page opinion, The 11th Circuit court of Appeals upheld the districts courts decision by Judge Strom to assess the plaintiffs in the Pickett case appropriate court costs amounting to $70,000 under Rule 54(d)(1).

The court stated from page 4....."While the jury's answers to the interrogatory questions on the special verdict form where in Pickett's favor, the district court did not enter judgment on the verdict, and we have affirmed its decision not to do so. Because Pickett lost on EVERY (my emphasis) aspect of the case and Tyson prevailed on it, Tyson is the "prevailing party" for purposes of Rule 54(d)(1)."

I did not expect any of the R-Calf supporters like Mike or OCM members would make this known just as they conveniently extracted only one paragraph from Circuit Court's decision in an attempt to support the plaintiff's failed case. It is noteworthy to repeat "Because Pickett lost on EVERY (my emphasis) aspect of their case and Tyson prevailed on it..." The key element is "Pickett lost on every aspect".

Truth wins out over false accusations, misrepresentation and hate. Thank God for that.

 

[Tam]

Now if only the Ninth would make R-CALF pay for the damage they have caused with their failed on every count ruling. What ever happen to the NMA's action to make R-CALF pay for damages if they were not successful in court?

 

[HAY MAKER]

In a second five page opinion, The 11th Circuit court of Appeals upheld the districts courts decision by Judge Strom to assess the plaintiffs in the Pickett case appropriate court costs amounting to $70,000 under Rule 54(d)(1).

The court stated from page 4....."While the jury's answers to the interrogatory questions on the special verdict form where in Pickett's favor, the district court did not enter judgment on the verdict, and we have affirmed its decision not to do so. Because Pickett lost on EVERY (my emphasis) aspect of the case and Tyson prevailed on it, Tyson is the "prevailing party" for purposes of Rule 54(d)(1)."

I did not expect any of the R-Calf supporters like Mike or OCM members would make this known just as they conveniently extracted only one paragraph from Circuit Court's decision in an attempt to support the plaintiff's failed case. It is noteworthy to repeat "Because Pickett lost on EVERY (my emphasis) aspect of their case and Tyson prevailed on it..." The key element is "Pickett lost on every aspect".

Truth wins out over false accusations, misrepresentation and hate. Thank God for that.

Once again agman sides with the multinational packers against the cattle man.................good luck

 

[Sandhusker]

Let's just examine the entire opinion, shall we? Excluding the title page, it consists of 32 pages. The first 6 pages lay a foundation of the case explaining the basic principles of the business. Of the remaining 26 pages, 16 concern justification of Tyson's use of marketing agreements. That sure seems to be a lot considering that is not what the case was about in the first place!

The case was about Tyson using marketing agreements to lower the cash price of fat cattle, not whether or not Tyson had any valid uses for marketing agreements. Judge Strom commented that, "there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices paid for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole." That only took up one paragraph.

The real reason Pickett lost the case, and Agman knows this, is that the court did not take any of the jury's finding or even Strom's own comments into consideration as, at the urging of Tyson's lawyers, it was ruled that "in order to suceed on a claim under PSA, a plaintiff must show that the defendant's unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive practice adversely affects or is likely to adversely affect competition". In layman's terms, as long as Tyson's use of marketing agreements does not give them a leg up on other packers, whether or not they screwed producers doesn't matter.

According to this court, the PSA only applies between packers. John Tyson himself could of sat his fat arse in the chair and bragged how he hosed Pickett over, but as long as it didn't affect any other packers negetively, it would not of changed the outcome one bit.

You've sure got a lot to brag on, Agman. Hell of a victory. :roll:

 

[agman]

Let's just examine the entire opinion, shall we? Excluding the title page, it consists of 32 pages. The first 6 pages lay a foundation of the case explaining the basic principles of the business. Of the remaining 26 pages, 16 concern justification of Tyson's use of marketing agreements. That sure seems to be a lot considering that is not what the case was about in the first place!

The case was about Tyson using marketing agreements to lower the cash price of fat cattle, not whether or not Tyson had any valid uses for marketing agreements. Judge Strom commented that, "there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices paid for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole." That only took up one paragraph.

The real reason Pickett lost the case, and Agman knows this, is that the court did not take any of the jury's finding or even Strom's own comments into consideration as, at the urging of Tyson's lawyers, it was ruled that "in order to suceed on a claim under PSA, a plaintiff must show that the defendant's unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive practice adversely affects or is likely to adversely affect competition". In layman's terms, as long as Tyson's use of marketing agreements does not give them a leg up on other packers, whether or not they screwed producers doesn't matter.

According to this court, the PSA only applies between packers. John Tyson himself could of sat his fat arse in the chair and bragged how he hosed Pickett over, but as long as it didn't affect any other packers negetively, it would not of changed the outcome one bit. You've sure got a lot to brag on, Agman. Hell of a victory. :roll:

The second opinion which I reference is dated August 19 is only 5 pages. You are short on facts once again.

I see you are still trying to convince yourself of that one paragraph which is in the first 33 page opinion. I also surmise that you failed to read notation #7 on page thirteen of that opinion. That kind of squashes your one paragraph which you and yours attempt to hang onto! You guys lost on EVERY case per the second opinion which I quoted verbatim and you most likely have not even seen that opinion yet.

 

[agman]

In a second five page opinion, The 11th Circuit court of Appeals upheld the districts courts decision by Judge Strom to assess the plaintiffs in the Pickett case appropriate court costs amounting to $70,000 under Rule 54(d)(1).

The court stated from page 4....."While the jury's answers to the interrogatory questions on the special verdict form where in Pickett's favor, the district court did not enter judgment on the verdict, and we have affirmed its decision not to do so. Because Pickett lost on EVERY (my emphasis) aspect of the case and Tyson prevailed on it, Tyson is the "prevailing party" for purposes of Rule 54(d)(1)."

I did not expect any of the R-Calf supporters like Mike or OCM members would make this known just as they conveniently extracted only one paragraph from Circuit Court's decision in an attempt to support the plaintiff's failed case. It is noteworthy to repeat "Because Pickett lost on EVERY (my emphasis) aspect of their case and Tyson prevailed on it..." The key element is "Pickett lost on every aspect".

Truth wins out over false accusations, misrepresentation and hate. Thank God for that.

Once again agman sides with the multinational packers against the cattle man.................good luck

I am for what is right and factual and stand for most of the cattlmen who think for themselves, unlike yourself. You and R-Calf are the minority, despite all the noise and claims you make.

 

[Mike]

Let's just examine the entire opinion, shall we? Excluding the title page, it consists of 32 pages. The first 6 pages lay a foundation of the case explaining the basic principles of the business. Of the remaining 26 pages, 16 concern justification of Tyson's use of marketing agreements. That sure seems to be a lot considering that is not what the case was about in the first place!

The case was about Tyson using marketing agreements to lower the cash price of fat cattle, not whether or not Tyson had any valid uses for marketing agreements. Judge Strom commented that, "there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices paid for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole." That only took up one paragraph.

The real reason Pickett lost the case, and Agman knows this, is that the court did not take any of the jury's finding or even Strom's own comments into consideration as, at the urging of Tyson's lawyers, it was ruled that "in order to suceed on a claim under PSA, a plaintiff must show that the defendant's unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive practice adversely affects or is likely to adversely affect competition". In layman's terms, as long as Tyson's use of marketing agreements does not give them a leg up on other packers, whether or not they screwed producers doesn't matter.

According to this court, the PSA only applies between packers. John Tyson himself could of sat his fat arse in the chair and bragged how he hosed Pickett over, but as long as it didn't affect any other packers negetively, it would not of changed the outcome one bit. You've sure got a lot to brag on, Agman. Hell of a victory. :roll:

The second opinion which I reference is dated August 19 is only 5 pages. You are short on facts once again.

I see you are still trying to convince yourself of that one paragraph which is in the first 33 page opinion. I also surmise that you failed to read notation #7 on page thirteen of that opinion. That kind of squashes your one paragraph which you and yours attempt to hang onto! You guys lost on EVERY case per the second opinion which I quoted verbatim and you most likely have not even seen that opinion yet.

How many danged opinions are they gonna write? One for the winner and one for the loser?

 

[agman]

Let's just examine the entire opinion, shall we? Excluding the title page, it consists of 32 pages. The first 6 pages lay a foundation of the case explaining the basic principles of the business. Of the remaining 26 pages, 16 concern justification of Tyson's use of marketing agreements. That sure seems to be a lot considering that is not what the case was about in the first place!

The case was about Tyson using marketing agreements to lower the cash price of fat cattle, not whether or not Tyson had any valid uses for marketing agreements. Judge Strom commented that, "there was evidence at trial to support the jury's finding that the use of marketing agreements has resulted in lower prices paid for cattle both on the cash market and the market as a whole." That only took up one paragraph.

The real reason Pickett lost the case, and Agman knows this, is that the court did not take any of the jury's finding or even Strom's own comments into consideration as, at the urging of Tyson's lawyers, it was ruled that "in order to suceed on a claim under PSA, a plaintiff must show that the defendant's unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive practice adversely affects or is likely to adversely affect competition". In layman's terms, as long as Tyson's use of marketing agreements does not give them a leg up on other packers, whether or not they screwed producers doesn't matter.

According to this court, the PSA only applies between packers. John Tyson himself could of sat his fat arse in the chair and bragged how he hosed Pickett over, but as long as it didn't affect any other packers negetively, it would not of changed the outcome one bit. You've sure got a lot to brag on, Agman. Hell of a victory. :roll:

The second opinion which I reference is dated August 19 is only 5 pages. You are short on facts once again.

I see you are still trying to convince yourself of that one paragraph which is in the first 33 page opinion. I also surmise that you failed to read notation #7 on page thirteen of that opinion. That kind of squashes your one paragraph which you and yours attempt to hang onto! You guys lost on EVERY case per the second opinion which I quoted verbatim and you most likely have not even seen that opinion yet.

How many danged opinions are they gonna write? One for the winner and one for the loser?

A third opinion assessing all legal costs to the plaintiffs would be fine with me. Perhaps that would prevent these frivolous, unsubstantiated and phony lawsuits, from being filed. What do you think Mike?

 

[Mike]

What do you think Mike?

I think anyone who would champion this as a "great victory" is slime.

I don't care too much for gloating either.

That's what I think.

 

[agman]

What do you think Mike?

I think anyone who would champion this as a "great victory" is slime.

I don't care too much for gloating either.

That's what I think.

You guys just cannot face the fact that you were wrong again - a perfect record on your part. I guess if that is what you think that is fine with me. The slime are the fools who bring these frivolous lawsuits only to have others cheer them on, now that is slime.

I am not gloating. I am just wanting to make certain the facts get out. It is quite apparent by your original post per this subject you did not want all the facts known. As such, you posted only one paragraph from a 33 page ruling attempting to support the indefensible. Now, what would you call that Mike; deception, misinformation or perhaps slime. It is your choice, you made the post.

 

[ocm]

Once again agman sides with the multinational packers against the cattle man.................good luck

Let's not forget to add that he also supports the decision of liberal activist judges who did not interpret the PSA literally.

Didn't I say something before about exposing some of these guys as not being conservative?

Oh, we could mention the 9th Circuit decision, too. Supporting another liberal court decision. That's two for two. If it walks like a duck.............

 

[Murgen]

"Democrats" aren't they the ones that supported an American president that spent more on fighting a Capitalist named Bill Gates, than to find the ones who bombed the WTC the first time in 1993?

Was it not Clinton, who said, "we will find and punish these terrorists"?

Good Job Bill, way to stick to your guns! Hell, he was probably too busy taking calls in request for relief for Somalia!

How'd that all work out, being the savior, Bill?

 

[agman]

Once again agman sides with the multinational packers against the cattle man.................good luck

Let's not forget to add that he also supports the decision of liberal activist judges who did not interpret the PSA literally.

Didn't I say something before about exposing some of these guys as not being conservative?

Oh, we could mention the 9th Circuit decision, too. Supporting another liberal court decision. That's two for two. If it walks like a duck.............

You are really funny and deceive only yourself "activist judges". Who is kidding whom? What new rulings or precedents did these judges make to be called activist? Have at it my friend!!!! You guys could make a twisted pretzel look straight with all the phony attempts to support your failed ideology and positions. You were wrong and you lost-period. If you don't have the courage to admit you were wrong at least have the integrity to do so.

You want to know something else that is really hilarious? I read in the Western Livestock Journal today where Mike Callicarate said they would appeal all the way to the Supreme Court!! You heard it here first OCM; the Supreme Court will not even accept this case-write it down. Your too funny OCM, you made my day; thanks.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "I see you are still trying to convince yourself of that one paragraph which is in the first 33 page opinion. I also surmise that you failed to read notation #7 on page thirteen of that opinion. That kind of squashes your one paragraph which you and yours attempt to hang onto! You guys lost on EVERY case per the second opinion which I quoted verbatim and you most likely have not even seen that opinion yet."

I read it all, Agman. I read it probably 5 times. No, I haven't seen the second opinion. Is it really relevant to what Pickett charged? The first opinion certainly wasn't.

Pickett didn't stand a chance to win this case, not because of what Tyson did or didn't do to him, but because of how the judges surmised the intent of congress when they drafted PSA in 1912. The following statement makes it perfectly clear; "in order to suceed on a claim under PSA, a plaintiff must show that the defendant's unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive practice adversely affects or is likely to adversely affect competition".

You claim the truth won out over false accusations - what a laugh that is. You know damn well that the judges did not even consider what happened to the plaintiffs - only what happened to Tyson's competition. Pickett's case against Tyson wasn't even tried.

What a victory for truth :roll:

 

[Les]

R-CALF supporters remind me of that information officer guy in IRAQ. War what War?...there is nothing going on here. There are no US troops in iraq.What are you talking about?

 

[ocm]

The following statement makes it perfectly clear; "in order to suceed on a claim under PSA, a plaintiff must show that the defendant's unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive practice adversely affects or is likely to adversely affect competition".

Right on Sandhusker, and that is the essence of the judges' activist non-literal interpretation.

To agman. None of the precedents they cited had anything to do with price manipulation. None except London had anything to do with processor vs producer. In short, the precedents were not relevant to this case.

They said PSA was intended to preserve competition and cited precedents, while ignoring the very words of the PSA itself that prohibits any activity that has the effect of manipulating prices (without exception) but they ADDED a new twist here. In spite of price manipulation there is economic justification. That is entirely new. That is activist. That is liberal.

Oh yes, you're "footnote 7". By inserting it into the finding they are improplerly addressing a fact of law found by the jury (and not overturned by Strom). That action ignores the 7th amendment to the Constitution.

You support it, agman? That's liberal.

Oh yes, one other error of fact you made on a much earlier post. You said Taylor FAILED the Daubert test. He did not. If he had, he would not have been permitted to testify.

 

[Murgen]

There are no US troops in iraq.What are you talking about?

Les, you forgot the second part to that statement, "okay enough questions, my fearless and indestructible leader is having a staff meeting, and it's a long trip down 30 storeys of steps to a bunker!"

Better hunker down RCALF, it's going to be a long trip!

 

[agman]

Agman, "I see you are still trying to convince yourself of that one paragraph which is in the first 33 page opinion. I also surmise that you failed to read notation #7 on page thirteen of that opinion. That kind of squashes your one paragraph which you and yours attempt to hang onto! You guys lost on EVERY case per the second opinion which I quoted verbatim and you most likely have not even seen that opinion yet."

I read it all, Agman. I read it probably 5 times. No, I haven't seen the second opinion. Is it really relevant to what Pickett charged? The first opinion certainly wasn't.

Pickett didn't stand a chance to win this case, not because of what Tyson did or didn't do to him, but because of how the judges surmised the intent of congress when they drafted PSA in 1912. The following statement makes it perfectly clear; "in order to suceed on a claim under PSA, a plaintiff must show that the defendant's unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive practice adversely affects or is likely to adversely affect competition".

You claim the truth won out over false accusations - what a laugh that is. You know damn well that the judges did not even consider what happened to the plaintiffs - only what happened to Tyson's competition. Pickett's case against Tyson wasn't even tried.

What a victory for truth :roll:

Yes sir, if you say so. You got it all figured out expect that you lost on all counts-all counts. Did you look up the legal definition of "Daubert". Yes, truth won out over deception. Try a different subject now.

 

[agman]

The following statement makes it perfectly clear; "in order to suceed on a claim under PSA, a plaintiff must show that the defendant's unfair, discriminatory, or deceptive practice adversely affects or is likely to adversely affect competition".

Right on Sandhusker, and that is the essence of the judges' activist non-literal interpretation.

To agman. None of the precedents they cited had anything to do with price manipulation. None except London had anything to do with processor vs producer. In short, the precedents were not relevant to this case.

They said PSA was intended to preserve competition and cited precedents, while ignoring the very words of the PSA itself that prohibits any activity that has the effect of manipulating prices (without exception) but they ADDED a new twist here. In spite of price manipulation there is economic justification. That is entirely new. That is activist. That is liberal.

Oh yes, you're "footnote 7". By inserting it into the finding they are improplerly addressing a fact of law found by the jury (and not overturned by Strom). That action ignores the 7th amendment to the Constitution.

You support it, agman? That's liberal.

Oh yes, one other error of fact you made on a much earlier post. You said Taylor FAILED the Daubert test. He did not. If he had, he would not have been permitted to testify.

Judge Strom made it quite clear how qualified Taylor's testimony was. I believe the phrase and description he used was "I think your expert witness is nuts". Correct me if I am wrong. Judge Strom knew Taylor was dismantled on the witness stand even though the jurors did not realize what a beating he was taking.

Your Seventh Amendment point is moot. I will give you credit for trying though.

 

[ocm]

From the University of Missouri-St Louis website on Forensic Economics

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579; 113 S.Ct. 2786; 125 L.Ed.469 (1993)(Daubert I). This decision states that the Frye Test from Fry v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) had been superceded by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) that were adopted by Congress in 1975. It directed that trial court judges should act as "gatekeepers" to insure that evidence presented in court was scientifically reliable, subject to four general tests: (1) Whether the theory or technique underlying the testimony can be or has been tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subject to peer review; (3) the known or potential rate of error should be determined, as should the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation; (4) whether the theory or technique has been generally accepted by the relevant scientific community.

And this one:

Pickett v. IBP, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19500 (M.D.Al 2000). Plaintiff had retained Drs. Robert Taylor and Bernard Siskin to develop econometric models that would produce testimony in support of plaintiff's position. To establish that the models were both "relevant and reliable," plaintiffs had submitted the models to other economic experts for evaluation. The defendant contended that the plaintiffs were "shopping" for favorable peer review of the models and intending to use only the experts who were favorable to the models. The defendant therefore wanted to discover the identity of all experts with whom the plaintiff consulted. The Court was not convinced that the plaintiff had engaged in "expert shopping" and held that the defendant could have hired its own experts to examine the models and thus denied the defendant's motion to compel discovery of the identity of the experts hired by the plaintiff for evaluation.