Tyson vs. Pickett and the Shell Game

[agman]

If Dr. Taylor was "nuts" why was his testimony allowed? Is Judge Strom in the habit of allowing the insane to testify?

Testimony was already underway. Only after he, Judge Strom, recognized how inadequate Taylor's testimony was and his failed attempts to rebut the defense did he make that statement. That would appear to be a normal course or events in a trail.

A judge belittleing witnesses is the normal course of events in a trial?

He said this to the plaintiff's attorney in closed cambers with the court reporter present. That is a matter of record. Perhaps rather than blame the judge you should express dismay the expert witness was not so expert once the cross exam got underway. But the way you like to wiggle, jiggle and evade the facts blaming someone else is par. There is always someone to blame in your world.

 

[Anonymous]

Testimony was already underway. Only after he, Judge Strom, recognized how inadequate Taylor's testimony was and his failed attempts to rebut the defense did he make that statement. That would appear to be a normal course or events in a trail.

A judge belittleing witnesses is the normal course of events in a trial?

He said this to the plaintiff's attorney in closed cambers with the court reporter present. That is a matter of record. Perhaps rather than blame the judge you should express dismay the expert witness was not so expert once the cross exam got underway. But the way you like to wiggle, jiggle and evade the facts blaming someone else is par. There is always someone to blame in your world.

Instruction to the jury:
5 - "You, as jurors, are the sole judges of the credibility of the witness and the weight their testimony deserves.

This Judge should have allowed his instructions to be followed- to the end..But there is a major push by activist Judges (former lawyers) that want professional paid (lawyer) juries- saying that juries of our peers are too ignorant to understand big business legal matters.....

God forbid if we give the attornies of the world more power.......

[/b]

 

[agman]

A judge belittleing witnesses is the normal course of events in a trial?

He said this to the plaintiff's attorney in closed cambers with the court reporter present. That is a matter of record. Perhaps rather than blame the judge you should express dismay the expert witness was not so expert once the cross exam got underway. But the way you like to wiggle, jiggle and evade the facts blaming someone else is par. There is always someone to blame in your world.

Instruction to the jury:
5 - "You, as jurors, are the sole judges of the credibility of the witness and the weight their testimony deserves.

This Judge should have allowed his instructions to be followed- to the end..But there is a major push by activist Judges (former lawyers) that want professional paid (lawyer) juries- saying that juries of our peers are too ignorant to understand big business legal matters.....

God forbid if we give the attornies of the world more power.......

[/b]

Why is there a law that allows a judge to dismiss a jury verdict? How wrong would it be to convict someone because the jury failed to understand the facts? Why would I ask you that question? You have made it abundantly clear facts are irrelevant to you. In most instances you do not even know the facts of the situation and when they are laid out to you in black and white you are too blind and biased to admit you are wrong. Example: The reason cattle price are up is because the border was closed. Well, prices also went down when the border was closed. You are just too easy OT.

While you are so keen to quote legal jargon why don't you make a post regarding the judge's right to dismiss a jury verdict? What is it about the Appellate Court's statement that "this was not a close case" and "the plaintiffs lost on all accounts" that you do not understand? How many phony excuses can you and yours dream up? It is a never ending saga of blame someone else. What a pathetic way to live.

 

[Mike]

If Dr. Taylor was "nuts" why was his testimony allowed? Is Judge Strom in the habit of allowing the insane to testify?

Testimony was already underway. Only after he, Judge Strom, recognized how inadequate Taylor's testimony was and his failed attempts to rebut the defense did he make that statement. That would appear to be a normal course or events in a trail.

Judge Strom had heard and studied Dr. Taylor's econometric models on two different occasions prior to the trial. Once by his video deposition, and once at the "DAUBERT" hearing, where Judge Strom qualified Dr. Taylor fully for presentation of his testimony at the trial. Judge Strom was aware that Dr. Taylor's models were tested by several different methods, and said so in court documents. He even agreed that the BASION test was sufficient in qualifying his 103 different models.

IBP appealed the decision by Judge Strom to allow Dr. Taylor to testify and was over-ruled by the Appeals court.

Dr. Taylor must have mysteriously gone "nuts" between the time of these hearings and the trial. :???:

The jury was comprised of 8 college graduates, 3 ex-military people, and a non-graduate research librarian. They voted unanimously on 6 different issues proposed to them by Judge Strom. That was 72 votes against the defendant. They must have had no idea the guy was nuts.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "He said this to the plaintiff's attorney in closed cambers with the court reporter present. That is a matter of record. Perhaps rather than blame the judge you should express dismay the expert witness was not so expert once the cross exam got underway. But the way you like to wiggle, jiggle and evade the facts blaming someone else is par. There is always someone to blame in your world."

And there are always many to BS in your world. You really lay it on thick about the jury being overturned on all counts and try to discredit Dr. Taylor all you can - yet we both know Judge Strom detoured the proceedings from a trial of Tyson causing damages to producers to a trial of Tyson gaining unfair advantage on their competition. That is clear to anyone who has read the transcript of the 11th court. Yet you wiggle, jiggle, and evade reality by omitting the truth behind the court's decision. Be careful, your colors are showing.

 

[agman]

Agman, "He said this to the plaintiff's attorney in closed cambers with the court reporter present. That is a matter of record. Perhaps rather than blame the judge you should express dismay the expert witness was not so expert once the cross exam got underway. But the way you like to wiggle, jiggle and evade the facts blaming someone else is par. There is always someone to blame in your world."

And there are always many to BS in your world. You really lay it on thick about the jury being overturned on all counts and try to discredit Dr. Taylor all you can - yet we both know Judge Strom detoured the proceedings from a trial of Tyson causing damages to producers to a trial of Tyson gaining unfair advantage on their competition. That is clear to anyone who has read the transcript of the 11th court. Yet you wiggle, jiggle, and evade reality by omitting the truth behind the court's decision. Be careful, your colors are showing.

Have you got anymore excuses for your failed positions?

 

[agman]

If Dr. Taylor was "nuts" why was his testimony allowed? Is Judge Strom in the habit of allowing the insane to testify?

Testimony was already underway. Only after he, Judge Strom, recognized how inadequate Taylor's testimony was and his failed attempts to rebut the defense did he make that statement. That would appear to be a normal course or events in a trail.

Judge Strom had heard and studied Dr. Taylor's econometric models on two different occasions prior to the trial. Once by his video deposition, and once at the "DAUBERT" hearing, where Judge Strom qualified Dr. Taylor fully for presentation of his testimony at the trial. Judge Strom was aware that Dr. Taylor's models were tested by several different methods, and said so in court documents. He even agreed that the BASION test was sufficient in qualifying his 103 different models.

IBP appealed the decision by Judge Strom to allow Dr. Taylor to testify and was over-ruled by the Appeals court.

Dr. Taylor must have mysteriously gone "nuts" between the time of these hearings and the trial. :???:

The jury was comprised of 8 college graduates, 3 ex-military people, and a non-graduate research librarian. They voted unanimously on 6 different issues proposed to them by Judge Strom. That was 72 votes against the defendant. They must have had no idea the guy was nuts.

Yes, but what happened under cross examination. It was only then that he had to reveal that he failed to test his own theories. You might do a copy and paste on that part of the transcript. You might want to post the part when Judge Strom asked him to repeat that comment one more time. Your friends should know why the case got squashed. I guess that educated jury must have been asleep at that time.

While you are doing your cut and paste for your friends to read be certain to post the Federal District Court's ruling after seeing ALL the evidence presented and that of the Appellate Court's first and second opinion after their review of ALL the evidence presented at trail.

 

[Econ101]

Some of your arguments seem to be persuasive, SH and Agman. The folly of your logic, however, will soon be revealed. In response to the above posts, the only thing that the judges in appeals court did not have, which is of extreme importance, is the credibility of the witnesses. In this case it was Dr. Taylor. In other times it was the witnesses for the defense. There is a reason I have my kids look me into my eye when I want to find the truth in their arguments. I think my oldest one could go toe to toe with you based the answers you have given me so far in our discussion.

Please do not quote any of my comments or sentences if they do not contain the complete thought. You could really score some points with my first sentence if you were like the judges who sat in the apeals bench. If you want the truth you have to ask the right questions. Declarations that you "only seek the truth" without the right questions shows your heart. Some would say that you are wearing it on your sleave.

I told you that "I know more than you know". I am going to inkle a little more out to the group.

I have tried to bait you to ask the right questions so you could get the right answer but you have evaded capture on some of the important ones. Do your homework if you don't know the answers. I bet you know them on a personal level.

1)Who took the words "whatsoever" out of Section 202 for a 5 year time period ending in October 2004?

2)Who was president during the law change in 1999?

3)Who was on the other side of the commodities trades of Hillary Clinton's controversial profits in her commodity profits before Clinton became president?

4)Who tried to bribe the former Secretary of Agriculture?

Don't jump to the conclusion about my political affiliations by these questions. You might just get it wrong. We all should vote for the most honest person but today we have fewer statesmen and more politicians in both parties so our choices are limited. It does not serve our country well. Answer the questions and stop evading them, if you dare. As you know, they are small but important part of the answer.

Would someone let me know how to capture different quotes from different places to be refuted? I am afraid that SH and Agman put me at a tactical disadvantage . I am afraid "You can't see the forest for the trees."

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "He said this to the plaintiff's attorney in closed cambers with the court reporter present. That is a matter of record. Perhaps rather than blame the judge you should express dismay the expert witness was not so expert once the cross exam got underway. But the way you like to wiggle, jiggle and evade the facts blaming someone else is par. There is always someone to blame in your world."

And there are always many to BS in your world. You really lay it on thick about the jury being overturned on all counts and try to discredit Dr. Taylor all you can - yet we both know Judge Strom detoured the proceedings from a trial of Tyson causing damages to producers to a trial of Tyson gaining unfair advantage on their competition. That is clear to anyone who has read the transcript of the 11th court. Yet you wiggle, jiggle, and evade reality by omitting the truth behind the court's decision. Be careful, your colors are showing.

Have you got anymore excuses for your failed positions?

You want to point out where I'm incorrect?

 

[agman]

Agman, "He said this to the plaintiff's attorney in closed cambers with the court reporter present. That is a matter of record. Perhaps rather than blame the judge you should express dismay the expert witness was not so expert once the cross exam got underway. But the way you like to wiggle, jiggle and evade the facts blaming someone else is par. There is always someone to blame in your world."

And there are always many to BS in your world. You really lay it on thick about the jury being overturned on all counts and try to discredit Dr. Taylor all you can - yet we both know Judge Strom detoured the proceedings from a trial of Tyson causing damages to producers to a trial of Tyson gaining unfair advantage on their competition. That is clear to anyone who has read the transcript of the 11th court. Yet you wiggle, jiggle, and evade reality by omitting the truth behind the court's decision. Be careful, your colors are showing.

Have you got anymore excuses for your failed positions?

You want to point out where I'm incorrect?

The fact is your side lost. Whether you will ever understand that or not is your problem . Excuses won't change the outcome.

 

[agman]

Some of your arguments seem to be persuasive, SH and Agman. The folly of your logic, however, will soon be revealed. In response to the above posts, the only thing that the judges in appeals court did not have, which is of extreme importance, is the credibility of the witnesses. In this case it was Dr. Taylor. In other times it was the witnesses for the defense. There is a reason I have my kids look me into my eye when I want to find the truth in their arguments. I think my oldest one could go toe to toe with you based the answers you have given me so far in our discussion.

Please do not quote any of my comments or sentences if they do not contain the complete thought. You could really score some points with my first sentence if you were like the judges who sat in the apeals bench. If you want the truth you have to ask the right questions. Declarations that you "only seek the truth" without the right questions shows your heart. Some would say that you are wearing it on your sleave.

I told you that "I know more than you know". I am going to inkle a little more out to the group.

I have tried to bait you to ask the right questions so you could get the right answer but you have evaded capture on some of the important ones. Do your homework if you don't know the answers. I bet you know them on a personal level.

1)Who took the words "whatsoever" out of Section 202 for a 5 year time period ending in October 2004?

2)Who was president during the law change in 1999?

3)Who was on the other side of the commodities trades of Hillary Clinton's controversial profits in her commodity profits before Clinton became president?

4)Who tried to bribe the former Secretary of Agriculture?

Don't jump to the conclusion about my political affiliations by these questions. You might just get it wrong. We all should vote for the most honest person but today we have fewer statesmen and more politicians in both parties so our choices are limited. It does not serve our country well. Answer the questions and stop evading them, if you dare. As you know, they are small but important part of the answer.

Would someone let me know how to capture different quotes from different places to be refuted? I am afraid that SH and Agman put me at a tactical disadvantage . I am afraid "You can't see the forest for the trees."

Your point is...what? What does this have to do with the outcome of the verdict? I now, it was a back room deal!! Is that not what you implied? Did you not ask me to prove that point wrong? I cannot prove a negative nor can you but basic law places the burden of proof on you since you made the accusation. Perehaps you get by with that nonsense in the classroom while trying to impress students with your knowledge of subject matter. So far you have struck out on this forum.

 

[Sandhusker]

Have you got anymore excuses for your failed positions?

You want to point out where I'm incorrect?

The fact is your side lost. Whether you will ever understand that or not is your problem . Excuses won't change the outcome.

Let's try again with out the dodging - you want to point out where I'm incorrect? Here, let me post what I wrote to make it easy for you;
We both know Judge Strom detoured the proceedings from a trial of Tyson causing damages to producers to a trial of Tyson gaining unfair advantage on their competition.

 

[agman]

You want to point out where I'm incorrect?

The fact is your side lost. Whether you will ever understand that or not is your problem . Excuses won't change the outcome.

Let's try again with out the dodging - you want to point out where I'm incorrect? Here, let me post what I wrote to make it easy for you;
We both know Judge Strom detoured the proceedings from a trial of Tyson causing damages to producers to a trial of Tyson gaining unfair advantage on their competition.

Where was the proof of damage? Before you can prove damage you have to prove the cause/affect realtionship. So, tell me, what did Taylor prove?

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "Where was the proof of damage? Before you can prove damage you have to prove the cause/affect realtionship. So, tell me, what did Taylor prove?"

I see you've been taking notes on the SH style of debate! :wink: That, my friend, was an attempt at setting up a strawman. However, my fullback read the blitz and picked it up.

I asked you to show me where I was incorrect in stating that Judge Strom turned the trial from examining if Tyson's actions violated the PSA and hurt the plaintiffs to a trial examining if Tyson's actions gave them an unfair advantage on their competiton. Why won't you honor my request and show me where I am wrong?

 

[agman]

Agman, "Where was the proof of damage? Before you can prove damage you have to prove the cause/affect realtionship. So, tell me, what did Taylor prove?"

I see you've been taking notes on the SH style of debate! :wink: That, my friend, was an attempt at setting up a strawman. However, my fullback read the blitz and picked it up.

I asked you to show me where I was incorrect in stating that Judge Strom turned the trial from examining if Tyson's actions violated the PSA and hurt the plaintiffs to a trial examining if Tyson's actions gave them an unfair advantage on their competiton. Why won't you honor my request and show me where I am wrong?

Answer my question...no proof again just more rehetoric from the grand stand.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "Where was the proof of damage? Before you can prove damage you have to prove the cause/affect realtionship. So, tell me, what did Taylor prove?"

I see you've been taking notes on the SH style of debate! :wink: That, my friend, was an attempt at setting up a strawman. However, my fullback read the blitz and picked it up.

I asked you to show me where I was incorrect in stating that Judge Strom turned the trial from examining if Tyson's actions violated the PSA and hurt the plaintiffs to a trial examining if Tyson's actions gave them an unfair advantage on their competiton. Why won't you honor my request and show me where I am wrong?

Answer my question...no proof again just more rehetoric from the grand stand.

I believe I'm first in line. This is the third time you've dodged me. Either I'm correct and you can admit it, or I'm not and you can point out where the problem is. Pretty simple.

 

[agman]

Agman, "Where was the proof of damage? Before you can prove damage you have to prove the cause/affect realtionship. So, tell me, what did Taylor prove?"

I see you've been taking notes on the SH style of debate! :wink: That, my friend, was an attempt at setting up a strawman. However, my fullback read the blitz and picked it up.

I asked you to show me where I was incorrect in stating that Judge Strom turned the trial from examining if Tyson's actions violated the PSA and hurt the plaintiffs to a trial examining if Tyson's actions gave them an unfair advantage on their competiton. Why won't you honor my request and show me where I am wrong?

Answer my question...no proof again just more rehetoric from the grand stand.

I believe I'm first in line. This is the third time you've dodged me. Either I'm correct and you can admit it, or I'm not and you can point out where the problem is. Pretty simple.

You have not answered one of my questions per this subject. Sorry, I am not going to play your game. BTW, I believe you are confused with what the Appellate Court did.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "You have not answered one of my questions per this subject. Sorry, I am not going to play your game. BTW, I believe you are confused with what the Appellate Court did."

I'm not playing any games, Agman. I made a statement, you said it was just an excuse and I asked you to point out where I was wrong. You have now dodged my request four times. First you simply repeated your original statement. My second request garnered a question. The third request you tried a straw man, and the last was trying the same strawman again. I'll ask for a fifth time, WHERE AM I WRONG?

 

[agman]

Agman, "You have not answered one of my questions per this subject. Sorry, I am not going to play your game. BTW, I believe you are confused with what the Appellate Court did."

I'm not playing any games, Agman. I made a statement, you said it was just an excuse and I asked you to point out where I was wrong. You have now dodged my request four times. First you simply repeated your original statement. My second request garnered a question. The third request you tried a straw man, and the last was trying the same strawman again. I'll ask for a fifth time, WHERE AM I WRONG?

You have not quite figured out that you lost. You might want to re-read the 11th Circuit Court's opinion once again. The answer to your question lies in the opinion. They point out quite clearly what the PSA Act does protect and what Pickett failed to prove.

Specifically re-read page 13, second paragraph and page 14. While you are at it read the footnote #7 on page 13.

Now, if you are a legal expert and believe the court is wrong you should lend your services to the plaintiff's free of charge as I did with the aiding the defense. Appeal to the Supreme Court. For the third time I will say as the court did "this case was not even close". You can debate the technicalities or provide your own interpretation of the law with yourself.

The odds of this case getting to the Supreme Court are as close to zero as you can get-write it down. In the end what is important is what the court determined, not what either you, Econ101 or I believe the law should be. I am quite certain that neither of us have the legal expertise of the judges who precided over this case.

Since you failed to answer several previous questions per this case I will leave you with this simple question. How long will you keep supporting a loser's cause?

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "You have not answered one of my questions per this subject. Sorry, I am not going to play your game. BTW, I believe you are confused with what the Appellate Court did."

I'm not playing any games, Agman. I made a statement, you said it was just an excuse and I asked you to point out where I was wrong. You have now dodged my request four times. First you simply repeated your original statement. My second request garnered a question. The third request you tried a straw man, and the last was trying the same strawman again. I'll ask for a fifth time, WHERE AM I WRONG?

You have not quite figured out that you lost. You might want to re-read the 11th Circuit Court's opinion once again. The answer to your question lies in the opinion. They point out quite clearly what the PSA Act does protect and what Pickett failed to prove.

Specifically re-read page 13, second paragraph and page 14. While you are at it read the footnote #7 on page 13.

Now, if you are a legal expert and believe the court is wrong you should lend your services to the plaintiff's free of charge as I did with the aiding the defense. Appeal to the Supreme Court. For the third time I will say as the court did "this case was not even close". You can debate the technicalities or provide your own interpretation of the law with yourself.

The odds of this case getting to the Supreme Court are as close to zero as you can get-write it down. In the end what is important is what the court determined, not what either you, Econ101 or I believe the law should be. I am quite certain that neither of us have the legal expertise of the judges who precided over this case.

Since you failed to answer several previous questions per this case I will leave you with this simple question. How long will you keep supporting a loser's cause?

I have read page 13 several times, and it only proves me right. Maybe you should be the one reading it? Here is my original statement:
"we both know Judge Strom detoured the proceedings from a trial of Tyson causing damages to producers to a trial of Tyson gaining unfair advantage on their competition. That is clear to anyone who has read the transcript of the 11th court."

The second paragraph on page 13 that you reference states, "in order to succeed on a claim under the PSA, a plaintiff must show that the defendant's unfair, discriminatory or deceptive practice adversely affects or is likely to adversely affect competition."

I asked you to point out where I was wrong, instead you prove my case? You're a helluva a guy! :lol: