Tyson vs. Pickett and the Shell Game

[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?

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:

Typical of an R-Laugher such as yourself-always loooking for wiggle room. Eveidently you failed to read the rest of page 13 and 14. The key word is "competition". Where at any point in the case did the plaintiffs prove that point-nowhere did their actions lead to less competition which is what the court said was the purpose of the PSA-to maintain competition. You fell into your own sand trap once again! Yes sir, you are one hell of a cheer leader for the losers cause.

 

[Mike]

agman wrote:

The key word is "competition". Where at any point in the case did the plaintiffs prove that point-nowhere did their actions lead to less competition which is what the court said was the purpose of the PSA-to maintain competition.

Could you please show us where the word "Competition" is in the Packers and Stockyard Act?

It might be there but I haven't found it yet.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "Typical of an R-Laugher such as yourself-always loooking for wiggle room. Eveidently you failed to read the rest of page 13 and 14. The key word is "competition". Where at any point in the case did the plaintiffs prove that point-nowhere did their actions lead to less competition which is what the court said was the purpose of the PSA-to maintain competition. You fell into your own sand trap once again! Yes sir, you are one hell of a cheer leader for the losers cause. "

Ummmmmm, Agman, let me post what I wrote again, this time with a word highlighted, "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."

You still insist on making my point. I don't understand it, but I do appreciate it.

The plaintiffs did not prove a point on competition, but then again, that was not what their lawsuit was about, was it? Can you find the word "competition" in their charges? Like I said, and you've proven correct, Judge Strom detoured the trial to one of competition, not of damages to the plaintiffs.

 

[pointrider]

Sandhusker,

Do you believe that Tyson acted in collusion with other packers during the period of the claimed damages to lower prices to feeders and producers?

If yes, then we will talk about that.

If no, then Tyson, acting alone, could have hurt producers only if they did things to gain an unfair advantage over their competition. I believe the court said they did not gain unfair advantage. Right? If Tyson did not do things to have an unfair advantage (eg paying less for cattle which would enable them to sell the finished product for less), then how did they hurt the producers?

Thanks!

 

[Sandhusker]

Sandhusker,

Do you believe that Tyson acted in collusion with other packers during the period of the claimed damages to lower prices to feeders and producers?

If yes, then we will talk about that.

If no, then Tyson, acting alone, could have hurt producers only if they did things to gain an unfair advantage over their competition. I believe the court said they did not gain unfair advantage. Right? If Tyson did not do things to have an unfair advantage (eg paying less for cattle which would enable them to sell the finished product for less), then how did they hurt the producers?

Thanks!

Actually, neither the court nor Tyson denied Tyson's actions caused harm to the plaintiffs. They turned the trial from "was there a crime?" to "where is the juristiction for this crime?"

Considering the fact that the trial was initiated to show Tyson's use of marketing agreements caused harm to the plaintiffs, I don't understand your question on the relationship between Tyson's competition and damages to the producers. Tyson didn't do it to get an unfair advantage, as their actions lowered the cash prices for everybody, they did it to cut their costs in a manner that violates the wording of PSA. If they are robbing someone, why does it matter how that robbery affects anybody else? If I'm your banker and I cheat you, will you be OK with it as long as my cheating you did not give me an advantage over First National?

 

[pointrider]

Are you saying that Tyson actually admitted doing harm to producers? They actually said that they paid less for cattle THAN THEY SHOULD HAVE as a result of some of their cattle being purchased on forward contracts?

 

[pointrider]

It's one thing to admit that you did something wrong. It's another to let the subject pass without saying anything because you choose to do battle on a different front. So, once again, did they actually say that they paid too little for cattle, or did they just go on the next level?

Saying that "they did not deny" does not necessarily mean that they actually said that they paid too little on purpose.

 

[Sandhusker]

Your point is well taken, Pointrider. Of course they didn't admit to anything but their admission of lack of one really isn't the point. John Tyson himself could of taken the stand and said, "We screwed them out of X amount" and that still wouldn't of altered the ruling one iota. The courts ruled that PSA didn't apply in cases of producer vs packer, only packer vs packer.

That is why I'm really galled that Agman tries to pass this off as a huge loss to the plaintiffs. They were more or less told, "Sorry if you think you were robbed, but this is a traffic court".

 

[pointrider]

Thank you very much for your answer, Sandhusker.

You are very clear in your position that "Pickett" was supposed to be a "producer vs. packer case" as opposed to a "packer vs Packer case." And let's say that cash market prices were lower than they would have been if Tyson had not used their total supply of "marketing agreement/forward contract/captive supply/etc/etc" to get the other cattle they needed at lower prices than they would have had to pay. And let's say that other packers followed suit without there being a "formal collusion."

Let's even say that "Pickett" was a normal reaction by producers to a situation they don't like based on what they know about the total situation, and let's say that there may be another attempt some day to "save PSA provisions" that are interpreted as being for the purpose of protecting cow-calf producers as opposed to pork producers and poultry producers who, long ago, converted to contract producers.

The point I want to make is that, in Tyson, you are dealing with a large multinational poultry company first, and that Tiger does not want to change its stripes. Tyson got into the beef business to be able to control the center-of-the-plate protein complex. However, this does not mean that beef was automatically brought in as "holy grail" product that would be treasured and protected at all costs.

They have not worked that way in the past, and I do not believe they are operating that way today. Here's what I mean. They have been in other businesses before that could not compete with their poultry division and other companies successfully, and they got rid of them. They realize that they not only have to compete with other companies in the U.S., in Mexico and in other countries around the world (Pilgrim is big in Mexico), but they insist on making each division pay its way in terms of growth and profitability within Tyson. Later on I will go into some of the things they do to try to keep the pressure on keeping production costs low, etc.

Tyson just joined the S&P 500 Index Group. That group is observed as an indicator of the health of business and business profits in the U.S. Tyson will not want to be the one on the bottom of the list all the time in terms of profitability. In fact, I see them using index group results to say to themselves and others, "Hey, this is what the business community is doing. We had better do it, too."

An important question you need to ask yourself is, "Would someone else serve us better (competing with Tyson's chicken), and who would that be?" The reason I say that is important is because I believe that Tyson could say one of these days, "Let's get out of beef. Those guys out there are a pain in the butt, and they are taking too much of our time and resources." If they decide to get out, they will get out. Perhaps you would even want to run with this and try to encourage someone to buy them out. But, once again, who would that be? They will have to be pretty big. Would they act any differently? What's the best long-term solution?

I realize that these are big, serious issues and questions, but I also think I know Tyson a little from working with them some in the past. Instead of keeping this "Pickett thing" going, how about you starting a conversation on here about the different possible scenarios and the future of the beef business with emphasis on dealing with the actual companies that are out there today and who might replace them. You might be surprised at the large variety of suggestions and answers that would come to light on this board. To me it would be a refreshing change.

Thanks again!

 

[Sandhusker]

You wrote a nice post, Pointrider. I don't know if I will get your questions answered directly but, if nothing else, I'll form the world as I think it should be for whatever that is worth!

I say that Tyson is welcome to all the profits they can get as long as they are acquired honestly and with at least a hint of integrity. However, that appears to be a problem with them. Until recently, I was a Tyson shareholder but sold for the primary reason that I didn't want to be a part of them or profit by their actions. If only 10% of the stories I've heard and articles I've read on them are true, they should change their name to "Copperhead" as they appear to be snakes to me. If Tyson can't make it work without hosing people, they should get out. I wonder what is to be lost by anybody else stepping in.

I'm ready to drop this Pickett deal but there is a handful of packer-backers who tell others half of the story and gloat on the plaintiff's loss. The label "deceiver" gets tossed around here fairly liberally, but this is one time it should be applied.

 

[agman]

You wrote a nice post, Pointrider. I don't know if I will get your questions answered directly but, if nothing else, I'll form the world as I think it should be for whatever that is worth!

I say that Tyson is welcome to all the profits they can get as long as they are acquired honestly and with at least a hint of integrity. However, that appears to be a problem with them. Until recently, I was a Tyson shareholder but sold for the primary reason that I didn't want to be a part of them or profit by their actions. If only 10% of the stories I've heard and articles I've read on them are true, they should change their name to "Copperhead" as they appear to be snakes to me. If Tyson can't make it work without hosing people, they should get out. I wonder what is to be lost by anybody else stepping in.

I'm ready to drop this Pickett deal but there is a handful of packer-backers who tell others half of the story and gloat on the plaintiff's loss. The label "deceiver" gets tossed around here fairly liberally, but this is one time it should be applied.

I am quite certain your sources are highly accurate! How about their being the #1 food company for service, new product development and innovation per a vote of 10,000 food service establishments.

Accusing someone of telling half the story from an R-laugher is a real joke. You folks have mastered deception, misinformation and outright lies. You attempt to claim a victory by posting only a few lines of the PSA is a clear example of your deception. You know more than the judges about the law. You know more about packing plants then the packers. You know more about retailers then the retailers themselves. It is always someones fault for failed management. Who is kidding whom regarding deception.

Fortunately, your opinion is in the vast minority contrary to your deception that your view and that of R-Calf represents the majority of producers. Were the producers who testified for the defense all liers? I recall only one person being put down by the court for perjury. Which side did he represent? Do you have enough integrity to at least admit that or is that the judges fault too? You have already proven you cannot accept defeat without a new excuse every minute.

 

[Anonymous]

These guys (Sandman, OT, ocm, and Econ. 101) haven't offered one stitch of proof to back their market manipulation conspiracy theories.

NOT ONE STITCH.

All they have to offer up is conjecture, opinion, theory, and speculation JUST LIKE ALWAYS.

They lost this case because the plaintiffs didn't have any proof either so these guys come up with some lame excuse that the judge changed the case.

This is so typical of blamers. The blame never ends.


Here is your last chance guys, provide for all of us the proof that ibp manipulated the markets with captive supply cattle.

Watch as we have to absorb yet another volley of empty statements to divert having to provide anything that resembles supporting evidence.

Somebody wake me when these guys actually bring something relevant to the table.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

You would have to be the jury for that. I would like to hear from some of the jurors after hearing how much you have discounted them. Oh, I forgot, we heard from the jurors. I just object to your obvious intellectual ineptitude which was apparent in your arguments, Hawker. Go back to your shell pea/trick and take someone else who hasn't seen your game. You have revealed the quality of those serving on the bench or their access to accurate information. My pre-teen old would like to argue with you but I protest. She will meet people like you later in life. I hope it is not until after I show her some of the sights of the city. We don't operate like that out here in the country. If anyone wants to look at the PSA they can access it by first going to usda.gov , then go to the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. You will be able to pull up the operative Section 202 and read it for yourself if they have not taken it down by now.

 

[Anonymous]

As fully expected, my question to Econ. 101 was diverted with more statements, IMAGINE THAT???? Hahaha!

On the slight chance that you missed it, I'll ask again......

What is your proof that ibp manipulated the markets with captive supply cattle?

If it happened, WHERE'S THE PROOF Econ. 101?????

You did read the court proceedings didn't you? YOU DIDN'T????

I suppose you have to go now because someone might be tapping your phoneline huh??? LOL!

If the jury was right, WHAT WAS THE EVIDENCE THAT MADE THEM RIGHT????

Such a simple and relevant question.

Brace yourself, here comes another volley of diverting statements to avoid the question .............



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "You have already proven you cannot accept defeat without a new excuse every minute."

And you've proven your inability to show me where I'm wrong. You've never hesitated to point out where you've thought I was wrong before, and now I'm even asking you to! You duck and dodge, ask questions, tell me to read something that actually proves my point, and are back to calling it an excuse. In your own words, Agman, where am I wrong? Spell it out for everybody to read so they can see how much smarter you are than I.

 

[agman]

Agman, "You have already proven you cannot accept defeat without a new excuse every minute."

And you've proven your inability to show me where I'm wrong. You've never hesitated to point out where you've thought I was wrong before, and now I'm even asking you to! You duck and dodge, ask questions, tell me to read something that actually proves my point, and are back to calling it an excuse. In your own words, Agman, where am I wrong? Spell it out for everybody to read so they can see how much smarter you are than I.

The mere fact that you refuse to recognize how wrong your are does not eliminate the fact that you are WRONG. You have been on the losing side of every issue. Only in your sand swept mind does that make you right!!!

You are on the losing side for the same reason you fail to acknowledge the losses on the legal front. You have your own interpretation of events. You copy one sentence and try to convince everyone that is the only part of the law. That tactic is typical of you R-Laughers, half facts, half truths and half assed results. You know the laws better than the judges!! Given me a break and go play in your sand box. You are simply wrong.

You always want proof but cannot provide proof of the validity of your interpretation. The courts ruled otherwise. When you get beat all you can come up with is as Econ101 aptly demonstrates is another conspiracy theory. Yes, his phone is tapped and now I suppose yours is also. Rover, quit tapping the phone with your tail!! That is the only tap you folks might get!!! You guys are too much when you actually believe your own BS.

If you want to let readers know the truth post page 13 and 14 of the Appellate Court's opinion to let them see the courts interpretation of your claim. Do you honestly think you know more regarding the PSA law then the Judges?!!!!!!

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "...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."

You say you want to be proven incorrect? That certainly won't take long.

The above statement was your first position you took on this thread and it was wrong. No need to proceed further.

The judge did not detour the proceedings from a trial of Tyson causing damages to the producers to a trial of Tyson gaining unfair advantage on their competition.

The Judge can't detour a trial. The course of a trial is established by the case presented by the plaintiffs and the defense.

You are not even smart enough to understand that.

In Judge Stroms ruling, he directly addresses the Packers and Stockyards Act and finds no grounds for violations. He even cited similar court cases.

A much easier question would be, when have you been right?

Face the facts. The judge overruled the juries decision because they couldn't even follow the simplest of instructions and didn't understand the evidence. The circuit court judges upheld Judge Strom's decision on all counts.

You're on the losing side of this issue like you are with most issues Sandman. You are too busy chasing the "fools gold" of a blamer to acknowledge the facts.

"L"

What was the evidence that was presented by the plaintiffs that supported the market manipulation allegation?

I bet you can't even tell me that.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "The mere fact that you refuse to recognize how wrong your are does not eliminate the fact that you are WRONG. You have been on the losing side of every issue. Only in your sand swept mind does that make you right!!!"

And you can't seem to point out where I am wrong - you can only tell me that I am. As your deciple says, talk is cheap. Either show me where I am wrong or don't bother to post anything.

 

[agman]

Agman, "The mere fact that you refuse to recognize how wrong your are does not eliminate the fact that you are WRONG. You have been on the losing side of every issue. Only in your sand swept mind does that make you right!!!"

And you can't seem to point out where I am wrong - you can only tell me that I am. As your deciple says, talk is cheap. Either show me where I am wrong or don't bother to post anything.

Post page 13 & 14 for people to see how wrong you are. What more need I say.

 

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "The mere fact that you refuse to recognize how wrong your are does not eliminate the fact that you are WRONG. You have been on the losing side of every issue. Only in your sand swept mind does that make you right!!!"

And you can't seem to point out where I am wrong - you can only tell me that I am. As your deciple says, talk is cheap. Either show me where I am wrong or don't bother to post anything.

Post page 13 & 14 for people to see how wrong you are. What more need I say.

Be my guest. Make sure you highlight the areas that prove me wrong to make it easier for people to see your point.