• 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 sticking it to Schumacher

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Location
Nebraska
Schumacher Loses Over $260,000 from Cattle Sales to Tyson;

Now Tyson Wants Schumacher's Home

Billings, Mont. – Herreid, S.D., rancher and cattle feeder Herman Schumacher has suffered losses exceeding $260,000 from the sale of three pens of cattle (984 head) sold to Tyson Fresh Meats Inc. (Tyson) since January 1, 2009, yet Schumacher's three pens of cattle were top performers. His 984 cattle gained an average of 459 pounds in just 136 days, representing an average daily gain of 3.37 pounds. Schumacher lost an average of over $265 per animal when he sold his cattle to Tyson, which resulted in a total loss to Schumacher of nearly $261,000.

"Schumacher's cattle were obviously of high quality, and his losses cannot be explained by market fundamentals," said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard. "The only conclusion to be reached is that the cattle market is being manipulated by the dominant meatpackers. Otherwise, consumers would not still be paying near record beef prices for the meat derived from devalued cattle sold by Schumacher and other cattle feeders."

The average retail price for Choice beef in the first quarter of 2009 was over $4.33 per pound, significantly higher than the average price during the same period last year which was $4.16 per pound. However, the average price that Schumacher and other cattle producers received for their cattle in the first quarter of 2009 was $8.62 per hundredweight less than what they received during the same period in 2008.

"Due to their unrestrained exercise of market power, the dominant meatpackers are severely exploiting both consumers and cattle producers, resulting in financial ruin for Schumacher and others, but windfall profits for the meatpackers" said Bullard

On June 11, 2009, Tyson filed legal action presumably to publicly embarrass Schumacher for daring to protect the U.S. cattle market against manipulation by the meatpackers. Tyson has taken legal action in an effort to seize Schumacher's home.

Bullard said the U.S. cattle industry is under attack by these dominant meatpackers, which are following the same market-control model that resulted in the loss of 90 percent of U.S. hog farmers and 80 percent of the nation's dairy producers since 1980.

"The small independent cattle feeders, who typically feed 1,000 head or fewer, are on the front lines of this market manipulation fiasco, and 5,000 of these smaller feeding operations were eliminated from our industry between 2007 and 2008," he pointed out.

Bullard explained that the price of calves sold by the nation's family operated cow/calf operations are tied to the prices that Schumacher and other cattle feeders receive for their fed cattle.

"These below cost-of-production fed cattle prices will translate to lower prices paid to cow/calf producers, and that spells disaster for our industry," he said. "There are not too many producers who can withstand the horrendous financial losses that Schumacher has experienced in selling cattle to Tyson, and that's why so many producers are exiting our industry.

"The safety and security of our food supply is at risk because of the failure of both USDA and Congress to protect the cattle market from the anticompetitive practices of the dominant meatpackers," Bullard continued. "Schumacher took steps to stop Tyson and the other meatpackers from manipulating the cattle market, only to find that the judicial system will afford farmers and ranchers no protection unless they can also prove that the unlawful conduct of the meatpackers – which forced cattle prices below the price a competitive market would predict – was done intentionally.

"Meanwhile, as our industry shrinks and more and more control is placed in the hands of the meatpackers, cattle feeders like Schumacher are losing hundreds of thousands of dollars, and as exemplified by Schumacher's current situation, if a rancher dares stand up to protect their rights and the rights of consumers, Tyson will attempt to seize their home," he concluded.



Schumacher's close-out sheets on his three pens of cattle are available here.
 
This is so wrong. If our politicians can't get this sort of thing fixed our country will just continue to go down the drain and we will all become slaves of the oligarchs.

Some people at the USDA and the courts need to go to jail over this. Senator Johanns should have to pay all of the legal fees for Schumacher and the 9.75 million that the class was cheated out of by these robber barons.

These judges have made themselves the law and given defined the "just us" as the robber barons who are cheating the system and buying politicians.

We have no accountability in government. It is so sold out and corrupt that I don't know if it could be turned around at this point.

Tex
 
Reader said:
Herman chose to file the lawsuit. He lost and must pay the bill the same as you and I if we file a suit against someone and lose.

You don't know much about the case, do you, Reader?
 
Reader said:
Herman chose to file the lawsuit. He lost and must pay the bill the same as you and I if we file a suit against someone and lose.

Reader, you don't know anything about this case, it is obvious. They didn't lose the case, they won. Judges turned it over based on "liberal" interpretation. These judges need to be reigned in. They are taking from the taxpayers with out real value of justice, and turning it into "just us".

Judges don't get to just make up stuff as they are doing here to pay off people who contribute heavily to politicians. These judges are no better than the people who appointed them and approved them.


Tex
 
Sandhusker said:
Reader said:
Herman chose to file the lawsuit. He lost and must pay the bill the same as you and I if we file a suit against someone and lose.

You don't know much about the case, do you, Reader?

Yes but the difference in you and I is that I dont base my opinions off of emotions. I also understand the judicial system.
 
Reader said:
Sandhusker said:
Reader said:
Herman chose to file the lawsuit. He lost and must pay the bill the same as you and I if we file a suit against someone and lose.

You don't know much about the case, do you, Reader?

Yes but the difference in you and I is that I dont base my opinions off of emotions. I also understand the judicial system.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Reader said:
Sandhusker said:
Reader said:
Herman chose to file the lawsuit. He lost and must pay the bill the same as you and I if we file a suit against someone and lose.

You don't know much about the case, do you, Reader?

Yes but the difference in you and I is that I dont base my opinions off of emotions. I also understand the judicial system.

Emotion?

You know reader, I don't think it is emotion at all. It is the difference between right and wrong and the rationalizations that some people go to justify wrong.


Words are just tools, misused by the legal system more than anyone or any other system. A jury of 12 has a better ability to understand this misuse than a panel of elite judges and our founding fathers knew it. This wisdom is not just yesterday's thought or today's emotion, it is wisdom of the centuries.

I think your analysis of the justification that the legal system has given is about as shallow as the understanding of this case. To justify this judgment you have to more shallow than your accusation of being "emotion" driven. I think you do understand the legal and judicial system. You just don't understand it beyond the errors their self diefication has created.

Tex
 
Tex said:
Reader said:
Sandhusker said:
You don't know much about the case, do you, Reader?

Yes but the difference in you and I is that I dont base my opinions off of emotions. I also understand the judicial system.

Emotion?

You know reader, I don't think it is emotion at all. It is the difference between right and wrong and the rationalizations that some people go to justify wrong.


Words are just tools, misused by the legal system more than anyone or any other system. A jury of 12 has a better ability to understand this misuse than a panel of elite judges and our founding fathers knew it. This wisdom is not just yesterday's thought or today's emotion, it is wisdom of the centuries.

I think your analysis of the justification that the legal system has given is about as shallow as the understanding of this case. To justify this judgment you have to more shallow than your accusation of being "emotion" driven. I think you do understand the legal and judicial system. You just don't understand it beyond the errors their self diefication has created.

Tex
And the plaintifs didnt abuse the system by taking it where they did to file? They accidentally chose an area known for huge jury rulings? Give me a break. I for one am glad I have the option to appeal a ruling.
 
Reader said:
Tex said:
Reader said:
Yes but the difference in you and I is that I dont base my opinions off of emotions. I also understand the judicial system.

Emotion?

You know reader, I don't think it is emotion at all. It is the difference between right and wrong and the rationalizations that some people go to justify wrong.


Words are just tools, misused by the legal system more than anyone or any other system. A jury of 12 has a better ability to understand this misuse than a panel of elite judges and our founding fathers knew it. This wisdom is not just yesterday's thought or today's emotion, it is wisdom of the centuries.

I think your analysis of the justification that the legal system has given is about as shallow as the understanding of this case. To justify this judgment you have to more shallow than your accusation of being "emotion" driven. I think you do understand the legal and judicial system. You just don't understand it beyond the errors their self diefication has created.

Tex
And the plaintifs didnt abuse the system by taking it where they did to file? They accidentally chose an area known for huge jury rulings? Give me a break. I for one am glad I have the option to appeal a ruling.

Oh, so every jury verdict against anybody big isn't based on the merits of the case but on the propensity of juries to give big awards in certain places?

Can you even listen to yourself? I see you as one of the jurors on the OJ trial, unwilling to listen to any evidence because of a personal corporate bias.

Perhaps it is your emotions that are getting in the way, not mine.

Did the defendants get any type of comparative advantage (yes, this is an economic term because this an economic fraud) as I stated in the outline of the case?

You are sounding a whole lot like mrj here. Everything is a conspiracy against big business. Did you ever think that these big businesses got big in part because of the comparative advantages they achieved with market power (yes this is the economic evil the Packers and Stockyards Act addresses)?



Tex
 
Tex said:
Reader said:
Tex said:
Emotion?

You know reader, I don't think it is emotion at all. It is the difference between right and wrong and the rationalizations that some people go to justify wrong.


Words are just tools, misused by the legal system more than anyone or any other system. A jury of 12 has a better ability to understand this misuse than a panel of elite judges and our founding fathers knew it. This wisdom is not just yesterday's thought or today's emotion, it is wisdom of the centuries.

I think your analysis of the justification that the legal system has given is about as shallow as the understanding of this case. To justify this judgment you have to more shallow than your accusation of being "emotion" driven. I think you do understand the legal and judicial system. You just don't understand it beyond the errors their self diefication has created.

Tex
And the plaintifs didnt abuse the system by taking it where they did to file? They accidentally chose an area known for huge jury rulings? Give me a break. I for one am glad I have the option to appeal a ruling.

Oh, so every jury verdict against anybody big isn't based on the merits of the case but on the propensity of juries to give big awards in certain places?

Can you even listen to yourself? I see you as one of the jurors on the OJ trial, unwilling to listen to any evidence because of a personal corporate bias.

Perhaps it is your emotions that are getting in the way, not mine.

Did the defendants get any type of comparative advantage (yes, this is an economic term because this an economic fraud) as I stated in the outline of the case?

You are sounding a whole lot like mrj here. Everything is a conspiracy against big business. Did you ever think that these big businesses got big in part because of the comparative advantages they achieved with market power (yes this is the economic evil the Packers and Stockyards Act addresses)?



Tex
Way off the mark. Herman doesnt live in Alabama he is from SD, so why did they pick Alabama? Because the history of juries there. That is manipulating the system in my book.
 
Like I said before, Reader, you don't know much about this case. The suit wasn't filed in Alabama, it was filed in South Dakota.
 
Reader said:
Tex said:
Reader said:
And the plaintifs didnt abuse the system by taking it where they did to file? They accidentally chose an area known for huge jury rulings? Give me a break. I for one am glad I have the option to appeal a ruling.

Oh, so every jury verdict against anybody big isn't based on the merits of the case but on the propensity of juries to give big awards in certain places?

Can you even listen to yourself? I see you as one of the jurors on the OJ trial, unwilling to listen to any evidence because of a personal corporate bias.

Perhaps it is your emotions that are getting in the way, not mine.

Did the defendants get any type of comparative advantage (yes, this is an economic term because this an economic fraud) as I stated in the outline of the case?

You are sounding a whole lot like mrj here. Everything is a conspiracy against big business. Did you ever think that these big businesses got big in part because of the comparative advantages they achieved with market power (yes this is the economic evil the Packers and Stockyards Act addresses)?



Tex
Way off the mark. Herman doesnt live in Alabama he is from SD, so why did they pick Alabama? Because the history of juries there. That is manipulating the system in my book.

Reader, what are you talking about here? Perhaps you would like to just go back to your source info you happen to believe in and cite that source as you obviously are just repeating something instead of actually thinking about it. Can you tell us where you heard about this case? It might be pretty revealing.

Tex
 
Reader said:
Tex said:
Reader said:
And the plaintifs didnt abuse the system by taking it where they did to file? They accidentally chose an area known for huge jury rulings? Give me a break. I for one am glad I have the option to appeal a ruling.

Oh, so every jury verdict against anybody big isn't based on the merits of the case but on the propensity of juries to give big awards in certain places?

Can you even listen to yourself? I see you as one of the jurors on the OJ trial, unwilling to listen to any evidence because of a personal corporate bias.

Perhaps it is your emotions that are getting in the way, not mine.

Did the defendants get any type of comparative advantage (yes, this is an economic term because this an economic fraud) as I stated in the outline of the case?

You are sounding a whole lot like mrj here. Everything is a conspiracy against big business. Did you ever think that these big businesses got big in part because of the comparative advantages they achieved with market power (yes this is the economic evil the Packers and Stockyards Act addresses)?



Tex
Way off the mark. Herman doesnt live in Alabama he is from SD, so why did they pick Alabama? Because the history of juries there. That is manipulating the system in my book.

Reader, what are you talking about here? Perhaps you would like to just go back to your source info you happen to believe in and cite that source as you obviously are just repeating something instead of actually thinking about it. Can you tell us where you heard about this case? It might be pretty revealing.

And by the way, the PICKETT case was in Alabama because Pickett lived in Alabama. Perhaps that is what you are talking about. This lack of detail of these two different cases shows me you are the one possibly guilty of the emotional response you first brought up and short on the facts of the actual cases themselves.

You might also tell us why or how you know the judicial system. Are they a bunch of emotional limpets who don't do their stated job of honoring the legislative branch and instead pick and chose which laws they want enforced through the courts? If so, that is a real good case to impeach a bunch of them.



Tex
 
While it was SD, not AL, it is a jurisdiction obviously friendly to R-CALF interests.

mrj
 
mrj said:
While it was SD, not AL, it is a jurisdiction obviously friendly to R-CALF interests.

mrj

So basically your judgment should sit in the place of jurors because you happen to hate rcalf?

mrj, what is wrong with you?

Tex
 
Poor Tex, always seeing black helicopters where there are none!!! No, I don't hate R-CALF, just don't see the benefit to the beef industry of a lawsuit happy group that needs strife and unhappiness to scare cattle producers into keeping the money rolling in.

And I'm happy with the jury system, unless they ignore the fact that the plaintiffs didn't prove their case beyond a shadow of doubt, as the higher judge ruled. One would meed to believe the crystal ball gazing premise that the judge is being paid off under the table to render an unfair or illegal judgement, and many of us simply don't trust crystal ball gazing to give honest results


ISandhusker, that court is in Schumachers 'neighborhood', and previously ruled in favor of the R-CALF and friends lawsuit against the beef checkoff, which was reversed in the Supreme Court of the USA. People from that area probably could cite more reasons, but my stating them would be considered hearsay, so I won't.

mrj
 
mrj said:
Poor Tex, always seeing black helicopters where there are none!!! No, I don't hate R-CALF, just don't see the benefit to the beef industry of a lawsuit happy group that needs strife and unhappiness to scare cattle producers into keeping the money rolling in.

And I'm happy with the jury system, unless they ignore the fact that the plaintiffs didn't prove their case beyond a shadow of doubt, as the higher judge ruled. One would meed to believe the crystal ball gazing premise that the judge is being paid off under the table to render an unfair or illegal judgement, and many of us simply don't trust crystal ball gazing to give honest results


ISandhusker, that court is in Schumachers 'neighborhood', and previously ruled in favor of the R-CALF and friends lawsuit against the beef checkoff, which was reversed in the Supreme Court of the USA. People from that area probably could cite more reasons, but my stating them would be considered hearsay, so I won't.
mrj

It appears to me that the people in Schumacher's neighborhood have a good deal of common sense.
 
mrj said:
Poor Tex, always seeing black helicopters where there are none!!! No, I don't hate R-CALF, just don't see the benefit to the beef industry of a lawsuit happy group that needs strife and unhappiness to scare cattle producers into keeping the money rolling in.

And I'm happy with the jury system, unless they ignore the fact that the plaintiffs didn't prove their case beyond a shadow of doubt, as the higher judge ruled. One would meed to believe the crystal ball gazing premise that the judge is being paid off under the table to render an unfair or illegal judgement, and many of us simply don't trust crystal ball gazing to give honest results


ISandhusker, that court is in Schumachers 'neighborhood', and previously ruled in favor of the R-CALF and friends lawsuit against the beef checkoff, which was reversed in the Supreme Court of the USA. People from that area probably could cite more reasons, but my stating them would be considered hearsay, so I won't.

mrj

mrj, what is your point? Is it that the Supreme Court doesn't see things like most regular people in America? The Supreme Court is one of man's constructs. They are not always right, nor are they representative of the common person. They are about as elite as you get. Remember, it is the jury that the founders believed in, not an elite set of people running the country with an elite set of views like judges.

In that case, it seems that the Supreme Court went with taxation without representation which was one of the reasons we had a revolution and a the birth of this great experiment we call the United States. Kind of ironic isn't it? Some of our founding fathers would no doubt be revolutionaries given what has happened recently in our country.

Tex
 

Latest posts

Back
Top