Tyson Price-Manipulation Case

[Tommy]

SH...Judges understand the law better than juries.

Then why does the Constitution guarantee a right to a trial by jury? Why waste someones time by having them sit on a jury?

SH...If the supreme court refuses to hear the case, will you admit then that you had no case or will you claim "legislating from the bench" and continue to suck your thumb?


Turn that around Scott, what will your excuse be if the Supreme Court hears the case?

 

[Anonymous]

Tommy: "Then why does the Constitution guarantee a right to a trial by jury? Why waste someones time by having them sit on a jury?"

Tommy, just because the constitution guarantees the right to a trial by jury does not mean the jury always gets it right.

Do you think OJ's jury got it right?

Tommy: "Turn that around Scott, what will your excuse be if the Supreme Court hears the case?"

If the Supreme court was willing to hear this trial BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED, I would be totally shocked just as I was with the jury's original verdict.

I doubt they will hear the case.


~SH~

 

[Tommy]

SH...Do you think OJ's jury got it right?


Nope, but we are having to live with that decision aren't we? The judge didn't step in and overrull the jury's verdict. Nor was it appealed.

 

[Mike]

preponderance of the evidence
n. the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. Thus, one clearly knowledgeable witness may provide a preponderance of evidence over a dozen witnesses with hazy testimony, or a signed agreement with definite terms may outweigh opinions or speculation about what the parties intended. Preponderance of the evidence is required in a civil case and is contrasted with "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the more severe test of evidence required to convict in a criminal trial. No matter what the definition stated in various legal opinions, the meaning is somewhat subjective.

 

[Econ101]

preponderance of the evidence
n. the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. Thus, one clearly knowledgeable witness may provide a preponderance of evidence over a dozen witnesses with hazy testimony, or a signed agreement with definite terms may outweigh opinions or speculation about what the parties intended. Preponderance of the evidence is required in a civil case and is contrasted with "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the more severe test of evidence required to convict in a criminal trial. No matter what the definition stated in various legal opinions, the meaning is somewhat subjective.

But what is appalling to me is that the Judge said there was NO evidence presented which was a lie. Did he commit perjury, SH?

 

[agman]

SH...Judges understand the law better than juries.

Then why does the Constitution guarantee a right to a trial by jury? Why waste someones time by having them sit on a jury?

SH...If the supreme court refuses to hear the case, will you admit then that you had no case or will you claim "legislating from the bench" and continue to suck your thumb?


Turn that around Scott, what will your excuse be if the Supreme Court hears the case?

Why does the law specifically state that in a case such as the Pickett case he not only the legal right but a legal obligation to overturn a jury verdict if the evidence presented does not support the jury findings? Juries do get it wrong and in the Pickett case they did get it wrong.

 

[Econ101]

SH...Judges understand the law better than juries.

Then why does the Constitution guarantee a right to a trial by jury? Why waste someones time by having them sit on a jury?

SH...If the supreme court refuses to hear the case, will you admit then that you had no case or will you claim "legislating from the bench" and continue to suck your thumb?


Turn that around Scott, what will your excuse be if the Supreme Court hears the case?

Why does the law specifically state that in a case such as the Pickett case he not only the legal right but a legal obligation to overturn a jury verdict if the evidence presented does not support the jury findings? Juries do get it wrong and in the Pickett case they did get it wrong.

No, Agman, it does not apply to a case such as the Pickett case. There was evidence presented and it did support the jury findings.

Do you want to get into the Hauseman argument? Why don't you post the part of the appellate decision that you want to argue? Are you scared?

 

[agman]

SH...Judges understand the law better than juries.

Then why does the Constitution guarantee a right to a trial by jury? Why waste someones time by having them sit on a jury?

SH...If the supreme court refuses to hear the case, will you admit then that you had no case or will you claim "legislating from the bench" and continue to suck your thumb?


Turn that around Scott, what will your excuse be if the Supreme Court hears the case?

Why does the law specifically state that in a case such as the Pickett case he not only the legal right but a legal obligation to overturn a jury verdict if the evidence presented does not support the jury findings? Juries do get it wrong and in the Pickett case they did get it wrong.

No, Agman, it does not apply to a case such as the Pickett case. There was evidence presented and it did support the jury findings.

Do you want to get into the Hauseman argument? Why don't you post the part of the appellate decision that you want to argue? Are you scared?

Are you telling all readers that Judge Strom acted in violation of the law-Yes or no? You are checkmated again. You are just too easy boy.

Why would I argue the case with a fool like you who claims to know everything but has never read the testimony? For those readers who are new I will show one of your recent lies. You claimed repeatedly that Dr Taylor tested his theories as to how marketing agreements lower prices. He said twice, under oath, that he "DID NOT TEST" his theories for validity. It is in the trial testimony for all to read. To defend your own lie you would not say Dr Taylor lied under oath would you? That leaves you as the liar once again. You just got "check mated" again. A "fools mate" is more appropriate as easy as it is to bury you along with your phony claims.

You live in your own world of mental fantasy. Are those multiple voices getting to you again-too many voices, too confusing and too willing to lie to support your twisted view of of the world? That is you Conman. Thanks a good laugh today.

 

[Econ101]

Why does the law specifically state that in a case such as the Pickett case he not only the legal right but a legal obligation to overturn a jury verdict if the evidence presented does not support the jury findings? Juries do get it wrong and in the Pickett case they did get it wrong.

No, Agman, it does not apply to a case such as the Pickett case. There was evidence presented and it did support the jury findings.

Do you want to get into the Hauseman argument? Why don't you post the part of the appellate decision that you want to argue? Are you scared?

Are you telling all readers that Judge Strom acted in violation of the law-Yes or no? You are checkmated again. You are just too easy boy.

Why would I argue the case with a fool like you who claims to know everything but has never read the testimony? For those readers who are new I will show one of your recent lies. You claimed repeatedly that Dr Taylor tested his theories as to how marketing agreements lower prices. He said twice, under oath, that he "DID NOT TEST" his theories for validity. It is in the trial testimony for all to read. To defend your own lie you would not say Dr Taylor lied under oath would you? That leaves you as the liar once again. You just got "check mated" again. A "fools mate" is more appropriate as easy as it is to bury you along with your phony claims.

You live in your own world of mental fantasy. Are those multiple voices getting to you again-too many voices, too confusing and too willing to lie to support your twisted view of of the world? That is you Conman. Thanks a good laugh today.

Agman, it is late and I have to get the kids to bed. Just like your claim that marketing agreements have a legitmate use and therefore could never be used as a weapon in market manipulation, so it is with your argument here. I will go over it with you tomorrow. Don't claim your victory prematurely. You always do that before I mow your grass. You would think you would stop doing it by now, but maybe you are just an old dog.

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: " Don't claim your victory prematurely. You always do that before I mow your grass."

You'd be lucky to get a mower started. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you were the one on the insurance commercial that trimmed his hedge with a mower mowing vertically.

Conman: "No, Agman, it does not apply to a case such as the Pickett case. There was evidence presented and it did support the jury findings."

If there was evidence presented, WHY CAN'T YOU PRESENT IT???

How would you know evidence was presented if you never read the court proceedings?

You're such a phony!



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: " Don't claim your victory prematurely. You always do that before I mow your grass."

You'd be lucky to get a mower started. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you were the one on the insurance commercial that trimmed his hedge with a mower mowing vertically.

Conman: "No, Agman, it does not apply to a case such as the Pickett case. There was evidence presented and it did support the jury findings."

If there was evidence presented, WHY CAN'T YOU PRESENT IT???

How would you know evidence was presented if you never read the court proceedings?

You're such a phony!



~SH~

I have told you before, SH, if you want a private showing you will have to pay for it yourself. My 5 year old is beginning to get the concept that if you miss something, you can not go back in time and get it. Why can't you? In your case, you could ask Agman to give you the trial transcripts. Why not do your own homework? Why do you have to try to get others to do it for you for free? If you pay Agman enough, maybe he will sell you the trial transcripts.

 

[Anonymous]

Listen phony,

You can't make a claim of "PICKETT PROVED IT" if you can't even tell anyone what Pickett proved?

Either you know that Pickett proved it and can back that claim or you don't.

It's obvious you can't back your claim. True to your pathetic deceptive ways.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Listen phony,

You can't make a claim of "PICKETT PROVED IT" if you can't even tell anyone what Pickett proved?

Either you know that Pickett proved it and can back that claim or you don't.

It's obvious you can't back your claim. True to your pathetic deceptive ways.


~SH~

Go read the jury verdict, SH. It says it all.

 

[Anonymous]

You can't back your allegation any better than the Pickett blamers could you phony!

True to your deceptive pathetic ways.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

You can't back your allegation any better than the Pickett blamers could you phony!

True to your deceptive pathetic ways.


~SH~

Shall I take that as an admission that you:

1) Can not read.

2) Have readn it but don't understand it.

3) It doesn't matter anyway, the jurors were all in a conspiracy against the packers because in Alabama the people are stupid and always go against big corporations. Judges should always decide cases in the south.

 

[Anonymous]

Why would you claim that "Pickett proved it" if you hadn't read the court proceedings to know what it was that Pickett offered as proof?

You really are a mindless lemming aren't you?


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Why would you claim that "Pickett proved it" if you hadn't read the court proceedings to know what it was that Pickett offered as proof?

You really are a mindless lemming aren't you?


~SH~

There is enough evidence floating around outside of the court proceedings to know the answer to that question, SH.

You really are a mindless (packer backer) lemming aren't you?

 

[Anonymous]

Conman: "There is enough evidence floating around outside of the court proceedings to know the answer to that question, SH."

No, what is floating around is "ILLUSIONS OF EVIDENCE". If there was any real evidence, you would present it. You can't because it doesn't exist so you resort to creating "ILLUSIONS" instead.

Typical of your lying deceptive pathetic ways.



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

Conman: "There is enough evidence floating around outside of the court proceedings to know the answer to that question, SH."

No, what is floating around is "ILLUSIONS OF EVIDENCE". If there was any real evidence, you would present it. You can't because it doesn't exist so you resort to creating "ILLUSIONS" instead.

Typical of your lying deceptive pathetic ways.



~SH~

SH, you wouldn't be in a position to judge the merits anyway with your packer bias.

 

[Anonymous]

Keep diverting Conman! Your diversion only proves what a "factually void" windbag you really are.


~SH~