Time to pay up

[Sandhusker]

What is the truth you reference, Agman? What exactly was the decision concerning Pickett's claim that Tyson was manipulating the cash markets with their marketing agreements? According to the court, did they or didn't they?

 

[agman]

What is the truth you reference, Agman? What exactly was the decision concerning Pickett's claim that Tyson was manipulating the cash markets with their marketing agreements? According to the court, did they or didn't they?

They used the word "might", not would. The problem is the results as presented were suspect as they pointed out in footnote #7 on page 13. What part of "the plaintiffs lost on EVERY count" do you not understand.
What you and others think or try to spin in your favor is irrelevant.

 

[Sandhusker]

What is the truth you reference, Agman? What exactly was the decision concerning Pickett's claim that Tyson was manipulating the cash markets with their marketing agreements? According to the court, did they or didn't they?

They used the word "might", not would. The problem is the results as presented were suspect as they pointed out in footnote #7 on page 13. What part of "the plaintiffs lost on EVERY count" do you not understand.
What you and others think or try to spin in your favor is irrelevant.

You're dodging - you know that the court did not rule on what Tyson did to Pickett and anybody who has read the opinion or followed this thread knows it as well. I'll give you the same encouragement as I did SH; keep on talking - the more you talk the more your colors show.

 

[Anonymous]

Listen to you Sandman,

You packer victims got your asses kicked and now you are trying to save face by throwing up "red herrings" again to create the "ILLUSION" that Strom and the circuit court judges got it wrong.

You are so pathetic.



~SH~

 

[agman]

What is the truth you reference, Agman? What exactly was the decision concerning Pickett's claim that Tyson was manipulating the cash markets with their marketing agreements? According to the court, did they or didn't they?

They used the word "might", not would. The problem is the results as presented were suspect as they pointed out in footnote #7 on page 13. What part of "the plaintiffs lost on EVERY count" do you not understand.
What you and others think or try to spin in your favor is irrelevant.

You're dodging - you know that the court did not rule on what Tyson did to Pickett and anybody who has read the opinion or followed this thread knows it as well. I'll give you the same encouragement as I did SH; keep on talking - the more you talk the more your colors show.

Talk about dodging, how many cases has your side lost and not one of you has the integrity to recognize defeat? "Might" does not mean "would" and you conveniently dismiss the Daubert concern when "might" was mentioned-par for the blind R-Calf followers. You go back to the same old blame and deception game. The last two cases you have lost on EVERY account and you still think the court did not rule against you!!!!! Somehow you want to twist the facts to convince yourself the court ruled in your favor!!!!

Despite OCM's claims, Taylor and Siskin's work was dismantled by the defense-period. Yet you cling to their second rate work as gospel. Their production certainly did not fool the defense nor did it fool Judge Strom-that is a good thing. The win represented the views of the majority of producers who believe they have the right to determine how to market their cattle. You forget, you guys are the minority in this great industry; that also is a very good thing.

I said before that that R-Calf has seen its best days and failed miserably. It is down hill from here as their lies, deception and misrepresentation are being laid bare for all to see. Save your $50.00, buy some cool ones.