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

Tyson Price-Manipulation Case

Help Support Ranchers.net:

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Cattle Producers Urge U.S. Supreme Court

to Review Tyson Price-Manipulation Case



(Billings, Mont.) - Today, R-CALF USA - along with 36 local, state and tribal groups that represent independent cattle producers across the nation - jointly filed a friend-of-the-court brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a recent decision by the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) on price manipulation in the meatpacking industry (Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.).



In the brief, R-CALF USA argues that failure to review the 11th Circuit's decision could profoundly undermine the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 (PSA), a key component of U.S. law, which regulates market abuses by the meatpacking industry.



"This case deserves the Supreme Court's attention," said R-CALF USA President Chuck Kiker. "The PSA was enacted to rein in the worst excesses of a highly concentrated meatpacking industry at the beginning of the last century.



"The industry is again becoming highly consolidated, and today, meatpackers use increasingly sophisticated techniques to deny cattle producers an honest price for their product," Kiker explained. "Independent cattle producers have been deeply concerned for many years over the packing industry's captive-supply practices, and a review of the Pickett case by the Supreme Court will help clarify whether these practices violate the current law, as many cattle producers believe."



The Pickett case was brought as a class-action suit on behalf of sellers of fed cattle to challenge marketing arrangements used by the nation's largest meatpacker, Tyson Fresh Meats Inc. The cattlemen plaintiffs argued that Tyson forced cattle prices lower with captive-supply contracts, which lessened Tyson's need to bid fair market value for cattle in the open market, thus giving the packer greater control over the supply and price of cattle.



In 2004, a unanimous jury found these captive-supply contracting methods violated the PSA's provisions on unfair practices and price manipulation. But the jury verdict was set aside by the trial-court judge, who found that Tyson's own business justifications defeated the PSA claim. The 11th Circuit affirmed the trial-court judge, and the plaintiffs have now filed a petition for certiorari seeking Supreme Court review.



"The PSA has been an important law for the cattle industry for over 80 years," said Leo McDonnell, Co-Founder and Past President of R-CALF USA. "We believe the plaintiffs in the Pickett case presented a strong claim and we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will accept this case.



"Supreme Court clarification of the ongoing viability of the PSA can help ensure we have a strong and healthy cattle industry in the United States," McDonnell continued. "Just last month, USDA's own Inspector General reported the agency is failing to fulfill its duty to enforce the PSA.



"Cattle producers may face increasing difficulty in enforcing their own rights under the Act, unless the Pickett decision is accepted for review, and the bounds of the law are made clear for all," emphasized McDonnell.



# # #



Note: The friend-of-the-court brief is available at www.r-calfusa.com on the Home Page.



# # #



R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) represents thousands of U.S. cattle producers on domestic and international trade and marketing issues. R-CALF USA, a national, non-profit organization, is dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA's membership consists primarily of cow/calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and feedlot owners. Its members - over 18,000 strong - are located in 47 states, and the organization has over 60 local and state association affiliates, from both cattle and farm organizations. Various main street businesses are associate members of R-CALF USA. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516.
 

Jason

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,994
Reaction score
0
Location
Alberta Canada
Good thing those fund raisers were so successful. R-whocanwesuenow has enough money to push dead causes further.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
HAY MAKER said:
Cattle Producers Urge U.S. Supreme Court

to Review Tyson Price-Manipulation Case



(Billings, Mont.) - Today, R-CALF USA - along with 36 local, state and tribal groups that represent independent cattle producers across the nation - jointly filed a friend-of-the-court brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a recent decision by the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) on price manipulation in the meatpacking industry (Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.).



In the brief, R-CALF USA argues that failure to review the 11th Circuit's decision could profoundly undermine the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 (PSA), a key component of U.S. law, which regulates market abuses by the meatpacking industry.



"This case deserves the Supreme Court's attention," said R-CALF USA President Chuck Kiker. "The PSA was enacted to rein in the worst excesses of a highly concentrated meatpacking industry at the beginning of the last century.



"The industry is again becoming highly consolidated, and today, meatpackers use increasingly sophisticated techniques to deny cattle producers an honest price for their product," Kiker explained. "Independent cattle producers have been deeply concerned for many years over the packing industry's captive-supply practices, and a review of the Pickett case by the Supreme Court will help clarify whether these practices violate the current law, as many cattle producers believe."



The Pickett case was brought as a class-action suit on behalf of sellers of fed cattle to challenge marketing arrangements used by the nation's largest meatpacker, Tyson Fresh Meats Inc. The cattlemen plaintiffs argued that Tyson forced cattle prices lower with captive-supply contracts, which lessened Tyson's need to bid fair market value for cattle in the open market, thus giving the packer greater control over the supply and price of cattle.



In 2004, a unanimous jury found these captive-supply contracting methods violated the PSA's provisions on unfair practices and price manipulation. But the jury verdict was set aside by the trial-court judge, who found that Tyson's own business justifications defeated the PSA claim. The 11th Circuit affirmed the trial-court judge, and the plaintiffs have now filed a petition for certiorari seeking Supreme Court review.



"The PSA has been an important law for the cattle industry for over 80 years," said Leo McDonnell, Co-Founder and Past President of R-CALF USA. "We believe the plaintiffs in the Pickett case presented a strong claim and we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will accept this case.



"Supreme Court clarification of the ongoing viability of the PSA can help ensure we have a strong and healthy cattle industry in the United States," McDonnell continued. "Just last month, USDA's own Inspector General reported the agency is failing to fulfill its duty to enforce the PSA.



"Cattle producers may face increasing difficulty in enforcing their own rights under the Act, unless the Pickett decision is accepted for review, and the bounds of the law are made clear for all," emphasized McDonnell.



# # #



Note: The friend-of-the-court brief is available at www.r-calfusa.com on the Home Page.



# # #



R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) represents thousands of U.S. cattle producers on domestic and international trade and marketing issues. R-CALF USA, a national, non-profit organization, is dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA's membership consists primarily of cow/calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and feedlot owners. Its members - over 18,000 strong - are located in 47 states, and the organization has over 60 local and state association affiliates, from both cattle and farm organizations. Various main street businesses are associate members of R-CALF USA. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516.

If I recall correctly R-Calfers claimed previously that R-Calf was not involved and behind this case. It looks like the truth is finally out.

The chance that the Supreme Court will hear this case is as close to ZERO as it can get. Result: R-Calfers wasting their money on another frivolous lawsuit.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
0
Location
GWN
Jason said:
Good thing those fund raisers were so successful. R-whocanwesuenow has enough money to push dead causes further.
At least with this law suit they aren't using BSE scare tactics on the US consumer in their ongoing PR campaign to get them to quit eating beef.

We don't produce beef, WE RAISE CATTLE! :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
8,789
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas
Bill said:
Jason said:
Good thing those fund raisers were so successful. R-whocanwesuenow has enough money to push dead causes further.
At least with this law suit they aren't using BSE scare tactics on the US consumer in their ongoing PR campaign to get them to quit eating beef.

We don't produce beef, WE RAISE CATTLE! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Bill you will be rethinking your insults mighty damn quick,when there is a confirmed human Illness caused by "BSE",because you and your partner packers are to cheap to test all these cattle,you wont hafta exagerate createing illusions, etc.etc.because cattle wont be worth a dime,yours or mine ,just a matter of time till it happens,"TEST EM ALL NOW"...........good luck
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
agman said:
HAY MAKER said:
Cattle Producers Urge U.S. Supreme Court

to Review Tyson Price-Manipulation Case



(Billings, Mont.) - Today, R-CALF USA - along with 36 local, state and tribal groups that represent independent cattle producers across the nation - jointly filed a friend-of-the-court brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a recent decision by the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) on price manipulation in the meatpacking industry (Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.).



In the brief, R-CALF USA argues that failure to review the 11th Circuit's decision could profoundly undermine the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 (PSA), a key component of U.S. law, which regulates market abuses by the meatpacking industry.



"This case deserves the Supreme Court's attention," said R-CALF USA President Chuck Kiker. "The PSA was enacted to rein in the worst excesses of a highly concentrated meatpacking industry at the beginning of the last century.



"The industry is again becoming highly consolidated, and today, meatpackers use increasingly sophisticated techniques to deny cattle producers an honest price for their product," Kiker explained. "Independent cattle producers have been deeply concerned for many years over the packing industry's captive-supply practices, and a review of the Pickett case by the Supreme Court will help clarify whether these practices violate the current law, as many cattle producers believe."



The Pickett case was brought as a class-action suit on behalf of sellers of fed cattle to challenge marketing arrangements used by the nation's largest meatpacker, Tyson Fresh Meats Inc. The cattlemen plaintiffs argued that Tyson forced cattle prices lower with captive-supply contracts, which lessened Tyson's need to bid fair market value for cattle in the open market, thus giving the packer greater control over the supply and price of cattle.



In 2004, a unanimous jury found these captive-supply contracting methods violated the PSA's provisions on unfair practices and price manipulation. But the jury verdict was set aside by the trial-court judge, who found that Tyson's own business justifications defeated the PSA claim. The 11th Circuit affirmed the trial-court judge, and the plaintiffs have now filed a petition for certiorari seeking Supreme Court review.



"The PSA has been an important law for the cattle industry for over 80 years," said Leo McDonnell, Co-Founder and Past President of R-CALF USA. "We believe the plaintiffs in the Pickett case presented a strong claim and we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will accept this case.



"Supreme Court clarification of the ongoing viability of the PSA can help ensure we have a strong and healthy cattle industry in the United States," McDonnell continued. "Just last month, USDA's own Inspector General reported the agency is failing to fulfill its duty to enforce the PSA.



"Cattle producers may face increasing difficulty in enforcing their own rights under the Act, unless the Pickett decision is accepted for review, and the bounds of the law are made clear for all," emphasized McDonnell.



# # #



Note: The friend-of-the-court brief is available at www.r-calfusa.com on the Home Page.



# # #



R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) represents thousands of U.S. cattle producers on domestic and international trade and marketing issues. R-CALF USA, a national, non-profit organization, is dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA's membership consists primarily of cow/calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and feedlot owners. Its members - over 18,000 strong - are located in 47 states, and the organization has over 60 local and state association affiliates, from both cattle and farm organizations. Various main street businesses are associate members of R-CALF USA. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516.

If I recall correctly R-Calfers claimed previously that R-Calf was not involved and behind this case. It looks like the truth is finally out.

The chance that the Supreme Court will hear this case is as close to ZERO as it can get. Result: R-Calfers wasting their money on another frivolous lawsuit.

R-CALF was not previously involved. The OIG report triggered this response from R-CALF. It still remains true that R-CALF HAD no relationship to Pickett. That has now changed.

You should read the amicus brief yourself agman, the "close to zero" chance of the Supreme Court hearing the case might be out of date.

The brief is absolutely excellent. The Court doesn't choose the 2% they hear based on a lottery system. They choose based on a number of important issues. That brief brings up those issues.

With regard to wasting money on lawsuits. You aren't going to claim that money on lawsuits is wasted because the USDA is doing their job properly are you?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OCM: "R-CALF was not previously involved. The OIG report triggered this response from R-CALF. It still remains true that R-CALF HAD no relationship to Pickett. That has now changed."

R-CALF was continually asking for support in the Pickett case. Who do you think you're deceiving now?



OCM: "You should read the amicus brief yourself agman, the "close to zero" chance of the Supreme Court hearing the case might be out of date."

You packer blamers will get your collective heads handed to you again.



OCM: "The brief is absolutely excellent."

So says you!

ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz!


OCM: "With regard to wasting money on lawsuits. You aren't going to claim that money on lawsuits is wasted because the USDA is doing their job properly are you?"

You can't find what doesn't exist but you packer blamers like chasing ghosts and thinking your really accomplishing something. Meanwhile, the industry moves forward without you.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Quote:
OCM: "The brief is absolutely excellent."


SH, "So says you! ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz! "

Have you read it?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "Have you read it"?

Sandbag type response in response: "That depends on what you mean by read it".

We'll see how you like being introduced to your own diversionary tactics. I'm going to start giving you as straight of answers as you give everyone else. Two can play your game.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "Have you read it"?

Sandbag type response in response: "That depends on what you mean by read it".

We'll see how you like being introduced to your own diversionary tactics. I'm going to start giving you as straight of answers as you give everyone else. Two can play your game.


~SH~

I take that as a no. Why not save your comments until you know what you're commenting on? It might give your comments a hope of credibility.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "Why not save your comments until you know what you're commenting on? It might give your comments a hope of credibility."

You have no credibility so you can't possibly judge credibility.

Judge Strom cited no PSA violation. The 11th Circuit upheld his decision. Do you honestly think that R-CALF will pull a rabbit out of a hat by throwing new sh*t against the wall that will actually stick?

The Supreme Court will not hear this phony case no matter how great OCM thinks this new brief supposedly is. I'm sure OCM think's any brief that supports his packer blaming bias is "absolutely excellent". Facts have never mattered to him before, why would they now?


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "Why not save your comments until you know what you're commenting on? It might give your comments a hope of credibility."

You have no credibility so you can't possibly judge credibility.

Judge Strom cited no PSA violation. The 11th Circuit upheld his decision. Do you honestly think that R-CALF will pull a rabbit out of a hat by throwing new sh*t against the wall that will actually stick?

The Supreme Court will not hear this phony case no matter how great OCM thinks this new brief supposedly is. I'm sure OCM think's any brief that supports his packer blaming bias is "absolutely excellent". Facts have never mattered to him before, why would they now?


~SH~

When your latest hissy fit runs it's course, I suggest you read the brief. Why not read it?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandbag: "When your latest hissy fit runs it's course, I suggest you read the brief. Why not read it?"

I could care less about reading a new R-CALF twist on the case. If they didn't come up with anything legitimate by now, they're not going to.

I've honestly reached a point where I don't give anything R-CALF says a second thought because they have lied on so many occasions.

This case is dead in the water.


~SH~
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "When your latest hissy fit runs it's course, I suggest you read the brief. Why not read it?"

I could care less about reading a new R-CALF twist on the case. If they didn't come up with anything legitimate by now, they're not going to.

I've honestly reached a point where I don't give anything R-CALF says a second thought because they have lied on so many occasions.

This case is dead in the water.


~SH~

If you could care less, why do you feel the need to comment?

Why do you feel qualified to comment when you haven't read the brief, especially when it is readily available?

You bias is showing, Mr. Truth.
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
ocm said:
agman said:
HAY MAKER said:
Cattle Producers Urge U.S. Supreme Court

to Review Tyson Price-Manipulation Case



(Billings, Mont.) - Today, R-CALF USA - along with 36 local, state and tribal groups that represent independent cattle producers across the nation - jointly filed a friend-of-the-court brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a recent decision by the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) on price manipulation in the meatpacking industry (Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.).



In the brief, R-CALF USA argues that failure to review the 11th Circuit's decision could profoundly undermine the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 (PSA), a key component of U.S. law, which regulates market abuses by the meatpacking industry.



"This case deserves the Supreme Court's attention," said R-CALF USA President Chuck Kiker. "The PSA was enacted to rein in the worst excesses of a highly concentrated meatpacking industry at the beginning of the last century.



"The industry is again becoming highly consolidated, and today, meatpackers use increasingly sophisticated techniques to deny cattle producers an honest price for their product," Kiker explained. "Independent cattle producers have been deeply concerned for many years over the packing industry's captive-supply practices, and a review of the Pickett case by the Supreme Court will help clarify whether these practices violate the current law, as many cattle producers believe."



The Pickett case was brought as a class-action suit on behalf of sellers of fed cattle to challenge marketing arrangements used by the nation's largest meatpacker, Tyson Fresh Meats Inc. The cattlemen plaintiffs argued that Tyson forced cattle prices lower with captive-supply contracts, which lessened Tyson's need to bid fair market value for cattle in the open market, thus giving the packer greater control over the supply and price of cattle.



In 2004, a unanimous jury found these captive-supply contracting methods violated the PSA's provisions on unfair practices and price manipulation. But the jury verdict was set aside by the trial-court judge, who found that Tyson's own business justifications defeated the PSA claim. The 11th Circuit affirmed the trial-court judge, and the plaintiffs have now filed a petition for certiorari seeking Supreme Court review.



"The PSA has been an important law for the cattle industry for over 80 years," said Leo McDonnell, Co-Founder and Past President of R-CALF USA. "We believe the plaintiffs in the Pickett case presented a strong claim and we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will accept this case.



"Supreme Court clarification of the ongoing viability of the PSA can help ensure we have a strong and healthy cattle industry in the United States," McDonnell continued. "Just last month, USDA's own Inspector General reported the agency is failing to fulfill its duty to enforce the PSA.



"Cattle producers may face increasing difficulty in enforcing their own rights under the Act, unless the Pickett decision is accepted for review, and the bounds of the law are made clear for all," emphasized McDonnell.



# # #



Note: The friend-of-the-court brief is available at www.r-calfusa.com on the Home Page.



# # #



R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) represents thousands of U.S. cattle producers on domestic and international trade and marketing issues. R-CALF USA, a national, non-profit organization, is dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA's membership consists primarily of cow/calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and feedlot owners. Its members - over 18,000 strong - are located in 47 states, and the organization has over 60 local and state association affiliates, from both cattle and farm organizations. Various main street businesses are associate members of R-CALF USA. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516.

If I recall correctly R-Calfers claimed previously that R-Calf was not involved and behind this case. It looks like the truth is finally out.

The chance that the Supreme Court will hear this case is as close to ZERO as it can get. Result: R-Calfers wasting their money on another frivolous lawsuit.

R-CALF was not previously involved. The OIG report triggered this response from R-CALF. It still remains true that R-CALF HAD no relationship to Pickett. That has now changed.

You should read the amicus brief yourself agman, the "close to zero" chance of the Supreme Court hearing the case might be out of date.

The brief is absolutely excellent. The Court doesn't choose the 2% they hear based on a lottery system. They choose based on a number of important issues. That brief brings up those issues.

With regard to wasting money on lawsuits. You aren't going to claim that money on lawsuits is wasted because the USDA is doing their job properly are you?

Write it down OCM - "as close to ZERO as it gets". I am certain the Amicus Brief, which I will obtain a copy of, is as accurate as previous ones!! Did Econ or you write it?

Having read the Amicus Brief I must say the reference to the farm-to-retail prices spread, footnote 10 page 16, shows the weakness in the case. That is a real hoot.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
You can get it right off the R-CALF website. While you're there, browse around a little. You might learn something of value.
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "Why not save your comments until you know what you're commenting on? It might give your comments a hope of credibility."

You have no credibility so you can't possibly judge credibility.

Judge Strom cited no PSA violation. The 11th Circuit upheld his decision. Do you honestly think that R-CALF will pull a rabbit out of a hat by throwing new sh*t against the wall that will actually stick?

The Supreme Court will not hear this phony case no matter how great OCM thinks this new brief supposedly is. I'm sure OCM think's any brief that supports his packer blaming bias is "absolutely excellent". Facts have never mattered to him before, why would they now?


~SH~

False statement. I thought the brief Pickett filed was ok, but not brilliant. The amicus brief from R-CALF is absolutely excellent.

You should read it. But then why screw up your reputation?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Creating the "ILLUSION" again huh OCM? The next "GREAT WHITE HOPE" is the R-CALF brief. LOL!! Gotta keep those packer blaming hopes alive don't ya?

R-CALF's record in the courtroom is all anyone needs to know about R-CALF having the ability to back their positions. All they do is give hope to blamers like you that need a conspiracy to sink your teeth into. Someone to blame.


~SH~
 

Beefman

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
252
Reaction score
0
ocm said:
~SH~ said:
Sandbag: "Why not save your comments until you know what you're commenting on? It might give your comments a hope of credibility."

You have no credibility so you can't possibly judge credibility.

Judge Strom cited no PSA violation. The 11th Circuit upheld his decision. Do you honestly think that R-CALF will pull a rabbit out of a hat by throwing new sh*t against the wall that will actually stick?

The Supreme Court will not hear this phony case no matter how great OCM thinks this new brief supposedly is. I'm sure OCM think's any brief that supports his packer blaming bias is "absolutely excellent". Facts have never mattered to him before, why would they now?


~SH~

False statement. I thought the brief Pickett filed was ok, but not brilliant. The amicus brief from R-CALF is absolutely excellent.

You should read it. But then why screw up your reputation?

OCM....I got a question for you and Econ.

Could you clarify the "false statement" SH supposedly made, and where is the brilliance in the brief? I don't see it.

Since you both have so frequently argued the percieved attributes of this case to make your points, can you elaborate on how often a verdict gets set aside, and how often that verdict is unamiously upheld on all accounts upon appeal? How often does this happen at the court level?

Also, let's assume you and I are on opposite sides in the courtroom. We are there over a livestock transaction dispute. You're the plaintiff, I'm the defense. As part of your arguement, your attorney testifies "it was proven to the jury in IBP v. Pickett that Tyson used formula pricing to depress cash prices." I look back at my counsel, and he is licking his chops. He whispers that you're about to go down. He's got that look in his eye that Barry Bonds must have when he knows a fastball is coming right down the middle, and the ball is about to land in the bay.

Where's the brilliance? Convince me the ball will not land in the bay once again.
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
Beefman said:
ocm said:
~SH~ said:
You have no credibility so you can't possibly judge credibility.

Judge Strom cited no PSA violation. The 11th Circuit upheld his decision. Do you honestly think that R-CALF will pull a rabbit out of a hat by throwing new sh*t against the wall that will actually stick?

The Supreme Court will not hear this phony case no matter how great OCM thinks this new brief supposedly is. I'm sure OCM think's any brief that supports his packer blaming bias is "absolutely excellent". Facts have never mattered to him before, why would they now?


~SH~

False statement. I thought the brief Pickett filed was ok, but not brilliant. The amicus brief from R-CALF is absolutely excellent.

You should read it. But then why screw up your reputation?

OCM....I got a question for you and Econ.

Could you clarify the "false statement" SH supposedly made, and where is the brilliance in the brief? I don't see it.

Since you both have so frequently argued the percieved attributes of this case to make your points, can you elaborate on how often a verdict gets set aside, and how often that verdict is unamiously upheld on all accounts upon appeal? How often does this happen at the court level?

Also, let's assume you and I are on opposite sides in the courtroom. We are there over a livestock transaction dispute. You're the plaintiff, I'm the defense. As part of your arguement, your attorney testifies "it was proven to the jury in IBP v. Pickett that Tyson used formula pricing to depress cash prices." I look back at my counsel, and he is licking his chops. He whispers that you're about to go down. He's got that look in his eye that Barry Bonds must have when he knows a fastball is coming right down the middle, and the ball is about to land in the bay.

Where's the brilliance? Convince me the ball will not land in the bay once again.
Fair questions.

The false statement is the one I changed to bold in ~SH~'s comment " I'm sure OCM think's any brief that supports his packer blaming bias is "absolutely excellent".
The proof that it is false is that my opinion differes on how good two different briefs are that are supporting the same action. The one from Pickett's own legal team. I thought it was ok, but not brilliant. R-CALF's was brilliant.

First-focus on the purpose of the brief. It is to argue why the Supreme Court should hear the appeal. It is not intended to lay out all the arguments, just to argue why this is a significant case that needs resolution by the Supreme Court.

Argument 1
Case law has drifted from the original intent of the PSA. Supported by quotes from Congressmen who helped pass the law in the first place and quotes from those who helped amend it in 1958. The original intent was to protect producers as well as consumers. The 11th Circuit interpretation essentially makes the purpose to protect packers from one another. If the meaning of the law has drifted, then the Supreme Court should address the issue and give finality (as far as courts are concerned).

Argument 2
Circuit Courts differ as to how to interpret the PSA. The 11th Circuit is way out in left field, interpreting the PSA substantially different than the other Circuits. This is particularly the case as to the question as to whether harm to competition must be proven or whether business justification is allowed to mitigate an otherwise illegal act. The 11th Circuit is all alone in this interpretation. Even thought the 11th used cases from other Circuits in their justification, this brief addresses somewhat how the 11th Circuit missapplied those cases.

Argument 3
This case has national import. The dicision here affects businesses nationwide. Therefore it is important that the Supreme Court address the issue.

There are other argument hidden away in these others, such as the fact that the Supreme Court has not addressed a PSA case since 1923. The is no other precedent on the Supreme Court level to guide the interpretation of the Circuit Courts in making their decisions.

Having different Circuits differing on interpretation is a HUGE reason for the Supreme Court to hear a case. This brief makes that case very well.

As far as the drift from the original intent, that would appeal to Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and probably Roberts. This is a key issue for the originalists on the Court.

A further example is found in the comment in the brief that the Sherman and Clayton anti-trust laws were already in effect when the PSA was passed. I saw Scalia in a lecture explain that when he looked at issues he gave priority first to the Constitution, second to more recent laws, then third to older laws. That means that he would see the PSA superseding any differences between it and the Sherman and Clayton Acts because the PSA is more recent. The "rule of reason" comes from Sherman and overturns the plain language of the PSA. The Supreme Court has never addressed whether the "rule of reason" should apply to PSA. I think it would be easy to argue Scalia into going for the plain language of the PSA. Brilliant strategy--they are addressing the conservatives of the Court.
 

Latest posts

Top