mwj
Well-known member
It makes me smile when all the talk is about wonderfull courts and brilliant lawyers :lol: When the case goes the wrong way the lawyers become idiots and the courts are bought and paid for by the big corporations :roll:
ocm said:Fair questions.Beefman said:ocm said: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.
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.
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.
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.
OCM: "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."
OCM: "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."
OCM: "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."
~SH~ said:Let me give you a classic exampe of the "twist and divert" that Agman talks about:
Judge Strom's ruling pointed out very specifically as did the 11th circuit ruling that there was no PSA violation of market manipulation.
Once again, where is the examples of HOW the 11th Circuit wrongly interpreted the PSA??? NON EXISTANT! All foam and no beer again.
To suggest that formula pricing is an "otherwise illegal act" is nothing but a bold faced lie.
Judge Strom even cites a similar court case that was tried in, I BELIEVE, Kansas and they lost that case too. OCM thought he really had something when a Tyson witness stated (paraphrasing), "as the supply of formula cattle goes up, the cash price goes down". Which has as much relevance as an order buyer at the salebarn saying, "as I get my orders filled, the price I'm willing to pay goes down". IT'S ABSOLUTELY THE SAME DAMN THING. Judge Strom and the 11th circuit were smart enough to see how dangerous a presidence it would set to suggest that dropping your price in the cash market to reflect your purchases in the formula market was market manipulation. That just shows the desperate level these guys have reached.
This industry would be much better off without these blamers.
The supreme court would be foolish to address something so empty as these baseless allegatoins and Taylor's untested theories. It was my understanding that Judge Strom was even reluctant to hear the case stating that it was a very thin case.
~SH~
agman said:~SH~ said:Let me give you a classic exampe of the "twist and divert" that Agman talks about:
Judge Strom's ruling pointed out very specifically as did the 11th circuit ruling that there was no PSA violation of market manipulation.
Once again, where is the examples of HOW the 11th Circuit wrongly interpreted the PSA??? NON EXISTANT! All foam and no beer again.
To suggest that formula pricing is an "otherwise illegal act" is nothing but a bold faced lie.
Judge Strom even cites a similar court case that was tried in, I BELIEVE, Kansas and they lost that case too. OCM thought he really had something when a Tyson witness stated (paraphrasing), "as the supply of formula cattle goes up, the cash price goes down". Which has as much relevance as an order buyer at the salebarn saying, "as I get my orders filled, the price I'm willing to pay goes down". IT'S ABSOLUTELY THE SAME DAMN THING. Judge Strom and the 11th circuit were smart enough to see how dangerous a presidence it would set to suggest that dropping your price in the cash market to reflect your purchases in the formula market was market manipulation. That just shows the desperate level these guys have reached.
This industry would be much better off without these blamers.
The supreme court would be foolish to address something so empty as these baseless allegatoins and Taylor's untested theories. It was my understanding that Judge Strom was even reluctant to hear the case stating that it was a very thin case.
~SH~
Just note for readers to clarify "marketing agreements". "Marketing Agreements" are used by virtually every industry in this country. You use them but may not always recognize you are doing so. Have you purchased and/or contracted for feed or fuel from a predetermined supplier to cover extended needs? "Marketing Agreemtents" are not unique to packer/producer relationships. Not only are they legal they are protected under the Robinson-Patman Act oft cited by the opposition. You too are granted that protection.
Marketing Agreements are granted protection because the courts have recognized the right and need of businesses to secure a stable supply of product. Preferential treatment can and is justified under the same law when that treatment is essential to provide a steady flow of product to maintain a viable business. That is the basis of IBP winning the IBP/Glickman case in Kansas that was lost but fostered by the same group of people wasting money on these other frivolous and unsupported law suits. Have a great day.
~SH~ said:Let me give you a classic exampe of the "twist and divert" that Agman talks about:
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).
Typical OCM allegation with no facts to back it.
This protecting packers from one another is a classic spin job. The reason it was pointed out that other packers are using formula cattle pricing was not to suggest, as OCM has implied, the "EXCEL'S BREAKING THE LAW SO WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO TOO" phony argument. The reason it was pointed out that other packers are also using formula pricing was to point out that there is competition between the other packers who also buy formula cattle.
Where are OCM's examples to back the allegations???? NON EXISTANT!
They can always make the allegations but nothing to back them. As Agman says, "all foam and no beer".
Judge Strom's ruling pointed out very specifically as did the 11th circuit ruling that there was no PSA violation of market manipulation.
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.
Once again, where is the examples of HOW the 11th Circuit wrongly interpreted the PSA??? NON EXISTANT! All foam and no beer again.
To suggest that formula pricing is an "otherwise illegal act" is nothing but a bold faced lie.
Judge Strom even cites a similar court case that was tried in, I BELIEVE, Kansas and they lost that case too. OCM thought he really had something when a Tyson witness stated (paraphrasing), "as the supply of formula cattle goes up, the cash price goes down". Which has as much relevance as an order buyer at the salebarn saying, "as I get my orders filled, the price I'm willing to pay goes down". IT'S ABSOLUTELY THE SAME DAMN THING. Judge Strom and the 11th circuit were smart enough to see how dangerous a presidence it would set to suggest that dropping your price in the cash market to reflect your purchases in the formula market was market manipulation. That just shows the desperate level these guys have reached.
Typical of their lying deceiving ways, they also misinterpreted the Tyson representative's statement. When the Tyson representative said, "......the cash price goes down", he was talking about TYSON'S cash price, not the cash market as a whole. If Tyson could actually control "THE" cash market at all, THEY WOULD DO IT ALL THE TIME.
This "misinterpretation of the PSA" allegation is just more "thumbsucking by those who couldn't win a court case if their life depended on it.
Argument 3
This case has national import. The dicision here affects businesses nationwide. Therefore it is important that the Supreme Court address the issue.
That same argument could be used for any U.S. court case.
OCM: "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."
So what? Should there be a periodic court case without justification?
OCM: "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."
Once again, where is the specifics to prove differences in interpretation???
NON EXISTANT! All foam and no beer.
OCM: "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."
More recent??? 1921??? HAHAHAHA! Yup, real recent. The date of the PSA in itself leaves the interpretation argument open to mockery because how would anyone know NOW what the original intent was WHEN THE LAW WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN unless examples were given. The examples that were given were related to price fixing and collusion, not formula pricing with a base price based on last week's weekly weighted average WHICH EVERY FEEDER KNOWS BEFORE AGREEING TO THE SALE.
In all honesty, you would have had a better chance of making a case of "preferential treatment" due to the "SOCIALISITIC" aspects of the PSA which would not allow preferential treatment for volume customers which to my conservative way of thinking is total "socialistic" bullsh*t. Packer should be able to pay more to customers who are willing to help them schedule slaughter. This fighting with the packer attitude is one of the most self destructive, self defeating aspects of this industry all brought to you by these conspiracy theorist packer blamers like OCM.
This industry would be much better off without these blamers.
The supreme court would be foolish to address something so empty as these baseless allegatoins and Taylor's untested theories. It was my understanding that Judge Strom was even reluctant to hear the case stating that it was a very thin case.
~SH~
Sandhusker said:agman said:~SH~ said:Let me give you a classic exampe of the "twist and divert" that Agman talks about:
Judge Strom's ruling pointed out very specifically as did the 11th circuit ruling that there was no PSA violation of market manipulation.
Once again, where is the examples of HOW the 11th Circuit wrongly interpreted the PSA??? NON EXISTANT! All foam and no beer again.
To suggest that formula pricing is an "otherwise illegal act" is nothing but a bold faced lie.
Judge Strom even cites a similar court case that was tried in, I BELIEVE, Kansas and they lost that case too. OCM thought he really had something when a Tyson witness stated (paraphrasing), "as the supply of formula cattle goes up, the cash price goes down". Which has as much relevance as an order buyer at the salebarn saying, "as I get my orders filled, the price I'm willing to pay goes down". IT'S ABSOLUTELY THE SAME DAMN THING. Judge Strom and the 11th circuit were smart enough to see how dangerous a presidence it would set to suggest that dropping your price in the cash market to reflect your purchases in the formula market was market manipulation. That just shows the desperate level these guys have reached.
This industry would be much better off without these blamers.
The supreme court would be foolish to address something so empty as these baseless allegatoins and Taylor's untested theories. It was my understanding that Judge Strom was even reluctant to hear the case stating that it was a very thin case.
~SH~
Just note for readers to clarify "marketing agreements". "Marketing Agreements" are used by virtually every industry in this country. You use them but may not always recognize you are doing so. Have you purchased and/or contracted for feed or fuel from a predetermined supplier to cover extended needs? "Marketing Agreemtents" are not unique to packer/producer relationships. Not only are they legal they are protected under the Robinson-Patman Act oft cited by the opposition. You too are granted that protection.
Marketing Agreements are granted protection because the courts have recognized the right and need of businesses to secure a stable supply of product. Preferential treatment can and is justified under the same law when that treatment is essential to provide a steady flow of product to maintain a viable business. That is the basis of IBP winning the IBP/Glickman case in Kansas that was lost but fostered by the same group of people wasting money on these other frivolous and unsupported law suits. Have a great day.
Another note to readers; Nobody is saying marketing agreements themselves should be banned. There is nothing wrong with them per se. The problem arises when marketing agreements are used not for they are seen at face value, but for the purposes of manipulating the markets they are a part of. I'd also like to point out in Pickett v Tyson, Tyson argued they needed marketing agreements to provide a steady supply of quality cattle. The evidence showed the cattle in the cash markets were of higher quality than the cattle acquired in the marketing agreements, and the cash cattle were also cheaper.
Sandbag: "The problem arises when marketing agreements are used not for they are seen at face value, but for the purposes of manipulating the markets they are a part of."
Sandbag: "I'd also like to point out in Pickett v Tyson, Tyson argued they needed marketing agreements to provide a steady supply of quality cattle. The evidence showed the cattle in the cash markets were of higher quality than the cattle acquired in the marketing agreements, and the cash cattle were also cheaper."
~SH~ said:Sandbag: "The problem arises when marketing agreements are used not for they are seen at face value, but for the purposes of manipulating the markets they are a part of."
Which was never proven. There is just as many times when the cash price was higher than the formula price for cattle delivered in the same week.
Sandbag: "I'd also like to point out in Pickett v Tyson, Tyson argued they needed marketing agreements to provide a steady supply of quality cattle. The evidence showed the cattle in the cash markets were of higher quality than the cattle acquired in the marketing agreements, and the cash cattle were also cheaper."
The cash cattle were cheaper primarily because the market was declining.
The higher quality grade argument is irrelevant from two standpoints:
1. Cash cattle were less current because they were backed up in the feedyards. This created more carcasses with excessive backfat and also created a larger overall supply of higher grading cattle which narrowed the choice select spread. During this time period there was actually a time when select cattle were worth more than choice due to an overabundance of choice cattle.
2. As Agman pointed out, Tyson is a leader in higher yielding cattle which makes the quality grade argument irrelevant.
NOTHING AGAIN SANDBAG!
You rest your case huh OCM? With such a weak case I can't say I blame you.
~SH~
Conman: "When you have as much market share as Tyson, you have incentives to play these market games and pawn them off as "normal" market behavior. Unfortunately this market behavior---which skews free and competitive market outcomes, is all too common with concentrated markets. Recent reports regarding GIPSA's regulatory role have been damning enough to have the secretary leave and be replaced."
Conman: "Congressional oversight is being called for but the party that is taking huge industry bribes and is in control of the congressional oversight committees is not allowing these oversight hearings."
~SH~ said:Conman: "When you have as much market share as Tyson, you have incentives to play these market games and pawn them off as "normal" market behavior. Unfortunately this market behavior---which skews free and competitive market outcomes, is all too common with concentrated markets. Recent reports regarding GIPSA's regulatory role have been damning enough to have the secretary leave and be replaced."
Tyson is "a market", not "the market". Unless you can prove collusion or a price fix you have nothing. The fact that you lost the case and judge Strom's decision was upheld by the 11th circuit proves you had no case.
Conman: "Congressional oversight is being called for but the party that is taking huge industry bribes and is in control of the congressional oversight committees is not allowing these oversight hearings."
ANOTHER LIE!
If you have proof of these bribes, bring them.
I knew you were a flaming liberal and this post is proof.
~SH~
Conman: "If Tyson wanted to prove that there was competition as a defense, they should have done it. They had the burden of proving that, not the assumption that it was so."
~SH~ said:Conman: "If Tyson wanted to prove that there was competition as a defense, they should have done it. They had the burden of proving that, not the assumption that it was so."
The burden of proof falls on the accuser, not the accused.
Don't you know anything? Of course you don't!
~SH~
Econ101 said:No need for me to say anything here. Looks like OCM and Sandhusker have this easily handled.
Agman, you show your intentions when you post what you post. I need to ask you a question again:
What is your economic connection with Tyson or the packers?
Econ101 said:~SH~ said:Conman: "If Tyson wanted to prove that there was competition as a defense, they should have done it. They had the burden of proving that, not the assumption that it was so."
The burden of proof falls on the accuser, not the accused.
Don't you know anything? Of course you don't!
~SH~
The burden of proof against Tyson was met. Just because Tyson puts up the defense you suggest, doesn't mean the jury (the only legal fact finders) believed them. Tyson had to show their defense was valid, not just a given truth. The jury made their decision.
agman said:Econ101 said:~SH~ said:The burden of proof falls on the accuser, not the accused.
Don't you know anything? Of course you don't!
~SH~
The burden of proof against Tyson was met. Just because Tyson puts up the defense you suggest, doesn't mean the jury (the only legal fact finders) believed them. Tyson had to show their defense was valid, not just a given truth. The jury made their decision.
Are juries ever wrong? Yes or no.