Tyson sticking it to Schumacher

[Reader]

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

I dont live on the internet like some of you and yes I was thinking of the Pickett case. Either way the system is set up for appeals. If you lose you pay unless you win the appeal. Herman knew that going in or his lawyers should have told him. This is the fault of the USDA and no one else.

 

[Tex]

reader, you don't even know the issues do you?

What was it that the court said Schumaker had to prove (which was an additional item made up by the court)?

I will remind you that one of the basic tenants of the law in the United States is not what someone thinks, but what they actually do. What was it that the packers did and does it fall into the above case?

It is obvious to me that you don't know a thing about this case other than the appeals court made a decision against Schumaker. That is irrefutable. What is in question is the actual ruling and whether it was judicial and enforced justice based on the law (and not impromptu made up law).

Tex

 

[Tex]

reader, you don't even know the issues do you?

What was it that the court said Schumaker had to prove (which was an additional item made up by the court)?

I will remind you that one of the basic tenants of the law in the United States is not what someone thinks, but what they actually do. What was it that the packers did and does it fall into the above case?

It is obvious to me that you don't know a thing about this case other than the appeals court made a decision against Schumaker. That is irrefutable. What is in question is the actual ruling and whether it was judicial and enforced justice based on the law (and not impromptu made up law).

Tex

Reader, I am waiting on your response on this. Is there going to be a new standard in the courts that you have to be able to read minds and what kind of proof is acceptable for that mind reading?

These judges have shown how they have bent over backwards and lost all jurisprudence to put it to Schumaker and the others. They need to be impeached from the bench and sent back to their palm readers. They have proven they don't belong in any place of being able to render judicial decisions. Sometimes you just have to throw out rotten apples or it will ruin the whole batch. The judicial system needs to clean up these characters and the people who appointed them need to be held accountable for appointing them. Yes, it is from both parties because it is not a political question of right or left but a corruption issue of right and wrong.

Tex

 

[mrj]

Tex, how about you 'educating' us for a change, and tell us what it is that was "an additional item made up by the court"?

Like Reader, my playing on the computer is very limited in comparison to some of you.

mrj

 

[Tex]

Tex, how about you 'educating' us for a change, and tell us what it is that was "an additional item made up by the court"?

Like Reader, my playing on the computer is very limited in comparison to some of you.

mrj

mrj, it is there for anyone who wants to see it to see it. Perhaps you would like to answer the questions posed to reader.

This might help the slow of mind out a little:

"the [appeals] court decided it wasn't enough for Schumacher to prove that the packers had committed actions prohibited by the PSA. The 8th Circuit overturned the jury's verdict on the basis that "a plaintiff (Schumacher, Callicrate and Koch) must show that a packer intentionally committed unlawful conduct."


Just why couldn't you figure that out, mrj?

Tex

 

[Sandhusker]

So then, if I was to go out to MRJ's place during deer season and shoot half a dozen of her best horses, I can claim that I just made a mistake and she has to prove that I intentionally shot her horses for her to get any damages?

 

[Tex]

So then, if I was to go out to MRJ's place during deer season and shoot half a dozen of her best horses, I can claim that I just made a mistake and she has to prove that I intentionally shot her horses for her to get any damages?

No, it is worst that that. With what the other courts have decided, mrj would have to prove not only that you intended to kill her horses even though you might be hunting deer and not brought your glasses with you, but that in killing her horses you created a harm to other people in the business who had horses and competed with mrj.

In short, mrj would just have no way of getting any damages from you. If those above excuses didn't work and she proved those things, the court could then make up some new excuse AFTER THE TRIAL WAS OVER.

We have judges who don't want to enforce these laws. They don't have that role in our democracy and should be removed for thinking they do. It is judicial incompetency or corruption. The House has a lot of work to do to set this system right. It could be set straight by the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court has made its own excuses for protecting these crooks. Of course it always helps when the crooks control industries and can pay off politicians.

In this case, mrj could win in her trial but that doesn't matter anymore. The judges could just rule against her and make her pay for suing you for taking you to court over shooting her horses.

Such a scam.

Tex

 

[Anonymous]

Tex: "We have judges who don't want to enforce these laws."

I'm sure you can prove that just like you can prove that the large packers knew that the USDA reported prices were faulty for the period of time in question. This is so typical of the blaming segment of the cattle industry. They never base any of their decisions on facts but rather WHAT THEY WANT TO BELIEVE.

I thought this was probably one of R-CALF's most baseless cases yet. How can it be the packer's fault for USDA's faulty price reporting? Good grief! What a waste of time and energy.

I suppose it's the driver's fault who ran through an intersection when the stop sign was knocked over. "Well, well, he should have known there was a stop sign there once". Same ridiculous logic.

Can someone remind me which constituency brought us the MANDATORY PRICE REPORTING LAW in the first place? Then they sue when the process they mandated breaks down.

You Tex, and others like you will always blame the judicial system until it reaches a verdict you agree with. FACTS BE DAMNED.

Bottom line, it was not the packer's fault for USDA's mistake in price reporting. That was the final ruling. Accept it and move on.

To date R-CALF has lost every court case they have been involved in. Mostly at the appeals level and above. EVERY ONE!!! Last count it was 9 I believe.

It takes a real stretch of the imagination to believe that every one of those judges was wrong and R-CALF right. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems R-CALF started to unravel at the seams when Bullard wanted to once again try to stop importation of cattle from Canada when their own lawyers told them they had a 90%+ chance of losing again. FACTS DON'T MATTER TO SOMEONE BENT ON A NEED TO BLAME.

R-CALF and their baseless conspiracy theories have done more damage to this industry then they will ever know. Instead of focusing on things that really matter like increasing consumer demand for beef, they're always looking for someone or something to blame when they don't understand market fundamentals of supply and demand. All you have to do is talk to the average consumer at the supermarket and ask them why they are buying chicken instead of beef to understand what's happening to beef demand. All you have to do is ask a feedlot operator how the price of corn affects the price of feeder calves but noooooo, the lower cattle market has to be some baseless conspiracy theory.

The Canadian border was closed in 2004 to cattle under 30 months.
The Canadian border was open in 2005 to cattle under 30 months.

2005 gave us the highest feeder cattle prices ever recorded.

HOW CAN THAT BE WITH AN OPENED CANADIAN BORDER, SAME LEVEL OF PACKER CONCENTRATION, AND SAME LEVEL OF CAPTIVE SUPPLIES???

But, but, but......

Do you deny your own calf checks???? Is the obvious too obvious???

Baseless conspiracy theories are a cancer on the cattle industry.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

SH,"I thought this was probably one of R-CALF's most baseless cases yet. How can it be the packer's fault for USDA's faulty price reporting? Good grief! What a waste of time and energy. "


SH, if the bank makes a mistake and puts money into your account that isn't yours, you have to give it back. The USDA's misreporting was putting money into the packer's accounts that wasn't theirs. They need to give it back.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker: "SH, if the bank makes a mistake and puts money into your account that isn't yours, you have to give it back. The USDA's misreporting was putting money into the packer's accounts that wasn't theirs. They need to give it back."

It's not that simple and the courts obviously saw it differently.

First you have to prove that the packers knew that the USDA prices were inaccurate. Did you do that?

You lost again, MOVE ON!

Find something real next time. Prove legitimate market maniuplation with facts in hand then maybe the independent thinkers in the cattle industry will start taking the blaming segment of the industry more serious.

0 and 9! At what point do you realize you're backing a losing team?


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

In order to believe that the packers didn't know the USDA's numbers were off, you would have to believe that they would have no idea what the other guys were paying for cattle and what they were reporting themselves. You would have to think there were very stupid. The jury wasn't fooled.

 

[Anonymous]

The judges ruled that the packer's could not be held liable for USDA's mistake.

You lost again, MOVE ON!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

The judges ruled that the packer's could not be held liable for USDA's mistake.

You lost again, MOVE ON!


~SH~

No, they didn't. The jury's verdict was overturned because the judge ruled that "a plaintiff must show that a packer intentionally committed unlawful conduct."

Now we're back to the point that in order to believe that the packer didn't intentionally screw the feeders, you have to believe that they don't know what they reported themselves or what the other packers are paying for fats. You would have to believe that they are idiots when it comes to buying cattle.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker: "The jury's verdict was overturned because the judge ruled that "a plaintiff must show that a packer intentionally committed unlawful conduct.""

Ok, so did the plaintiff's show that the packer's intentionally committed unlawful conduct? NO! It doesn't matter what you WANT TO BELIEVE, what matters is what the facts will support.

What's ridiculous is sueing the packers for USDA's mistake.

0 and 9!


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandhusker: "The jury's verdict was overturned because the judge ruled that "a plaintiff must show that a packer intentionally committed unlawful conduct.""

Ok, so did the plaintiff's show that the packer's intentionally committed unlawful conduct? NO! It doesn't matter what you WANT TO BELIEVE, what matters is what the facts will support.

What's ridiculous is sueing the packers for USDA's mistake.

0 and 9!


~SH~

The packers proved it themselves by purchasing cattle based on prices that they knew to be inaccurate.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker: "The packers proved it themselves by purchasing cattle based on prices that they knew to be inaccurate."

The packers were not responsible for the faulty prices reported, USDA was.

If the packers knew these prices were faulty, then the feedlots selling those fats would also know those prices were faulty. Packers are not privy to any price information that the feedlots are not also privy to and that is a fact. That fat cattle pricing information is as near as a cellular phone to any feedlot at any time.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Correct, the packers were not responsible for the USDA's faulty reporting, but they knowingly profited from it.

If the bank was to make a mistake and put $1000 into your account that wasn't yours, it's not your fault, but you have to give that money back even if you spend it before the bank realized their error.

Isn't it interesting that these are the people that NCBA calls our "Partners in Industry". Great partners that will stick a knife in your back over a deal like this, aren't they?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker: "Correct, the packers were not responsible for the USDA's faulty reporting, but they knowingly profited from it."

If there was wrongdoing on the packer's part, why did the plaintiffs lose the case??

Again, the feelots are privy to the same real time price information as the packing industry.

Why did this lawsuit come from Herman and Co. as opposed to the feeders who were supposedly affected?

Saving the feeding industry from themselves again?



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandhusker: "Correct, the packers were not responsible for the USDA's faulty reporting, but they knowingly profited from it."

If there was wrongdoing on the packer's part, why did the plaintiffs lose the case??

Again, the feelots are privy to the same real time price information as the packing industry.

Why did this lawsuit come from Herman and Co. as opposed to the feeders who were supposedly affected?

Saving the feeding industry from themselves again?



~SH~

The plaintiffs won the case according to the jury. Do you realize that?

And now we go back to where we were a few posts ago where the judge said that there had to be proof that the packers knowingly screwed the feeders, which requires a belief that the packers are idiots when it comes to buying cattle.

How many times to we need to go over this?

 

[Anonymous]

Sandhusker: "The plaintiffs won the case according to the jury. Do you realize that?"

What matters is whether that decision was consistent with the Judge's ruling. In this case it was not. The plaintiff's lost when the judge overruled.

Did the plaintiff's take it through the appeals process? If the Judge's ruling was wrong and the jury's decision right, it would have been revealed in an appeals process.

Sandhusker: "And now we go back to where we were a few posts ago where the judge said that there had to be proof that the packers knowingly screwed the feeders, which requires a belief that the packers are idiots when it comes to buying cattle."

Again, the feeders are privy to the same information. The basic premise of this case would suggest that feeders are idiots regarding price when it comes to selling cattle. I happen to believe they are smarter than that which is why it takes someone like Herman to believe he has to save the feeding industry from themselves.

Sandhusker: "How many times to we need to go over this?"

I guess as long as it takes for you to accept the final ruling.


~SH~