Courts normally try cases where the "damages" supposedly occurred.  Mike Callicrate had already lost a case in the cattle feeding states, that's why they tried this on in Alabama.  They had to find a jury that didn't know enough about cattle feeding transactions to know who to believe.  Luckily, Judge Strom and the 11th circuit saw through the phoniness that the jury didn't or "dropping your price to reflect your previous purchases (demand)" would have been considered market manipulation.

The Pickett verdict proved that our courts still operate on fact and not emotion.

~SH~