Tyson vs. Pickett and the Shell Game

[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.

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

No I am not your guest-don't want to be. You prove your claim by posting pages 13 & 14 and see who agrees with your version of the PSA law. Now that Bagdad Bob has disappeared from the seen you surface as Sandbag Bob. You still think you are one up on everyone when in fact you have lost on all counts. All your crying won't change a thing.

 

[Sandhusker]

You told me I was wrong. Prove it.

 

[Econ101]

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.

No I am not your guest-don't want to be. You prove your claim by posting pages 13 & 14 and see who agrees with your version of the PSA law. Now that Bagdad Bob has disappeared from the seen you surface as Sandbag Bob. You still think you are one up on everyone when in fact you have lost on all counts. All your crying won't change a thing.

The operative words in the act are OR between the unlawful practices enumerated in the subsections. Did the ones who passed the act in 1921 know the difference between "or" and "and" or is it just the appellate court? On page 13 the court said:

"Tyson, of course, urges a contrary reading of the PSA. It takes the position that because the PSA was meant as a protection against anti-competitive practices by meat packers, Pickett must establish more than that the use of marketing agreements have decreased the price for cattle...."

This of course was based on a recent decision, the London decision which is said to settle this issue.

The court is quoting itself for justification and the quote it is using, the London case, is or is about to be appealed to the Supreme Court. It looks like the court is using its own re-interpretation as a justification of reinterpretation. Sounds a lot like you and SH, Agman. Again, my pre-teen could out argue you on these positions.

Again, why don't we discuss the Robinson-Patman inkled defense. We have already discussed the Daubert issue, and you have not carried the day on that one.

This is not the first time an act that was written against the economic harms has been turned around by those whose actions it was meant to curtail. I suppose you are going to say all of the cash price people are monopolists by agreeing to sell their cattle in the cash market?

Blaming someone for losing when cheating is going and then using their losing as a justification for your cheating them is the kind of reasoning that the court uses. It is intellectually insulting.

 

[ocm]

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

No I am not your guest-don't want to be. You prove your claim by posting pages 13 & 14 and see who agrees with your version of the PSA law. Now that Bagdad Bob has disappeared from the seen you surface as Sandbag Bob. You still think you are one up on everyone when in fact you have lost on all counts. All your crying won't change a thing.

The operative words in the act are OR between the unlawful practices enumerated in the subsections. Did the ones who passed the act in 1921 know the difference between "or" and "and" or is it just the appellate court? On page 13 the court said:

"Tyson, of course, urges a contrary reading of the PSA. It takes the position that because the PSA was meant as a protection against anti-competitive practices by meat packers, Pickett must establish more than that the use of marketing agreements have decreased the price for cattle...."

This of course was based on a recent decision, the London decision which is said to settle this issue.

The court is quoting itself for justification and the quote it is using, the London case, is or is about to be appealed to the Supreme Court. It looks like the court is using its own re-interpretation as a justification of reinterpretation. Sounds a lot like you and SH, Agman. Again, my pre-teen could out argue you on these positions.

Again, why don't we discuss the Robinson-Patman inkled defense. We have already discussed the Daubert issue, and you have not carried the day on that one.

This is not the first time an act that was written against the economic harms has been turned around by those whose actions it was meant to curtail. I suppose you are going to say all of the cash price people are monopolists by agreeing to sell their cattle in the cash market?

Blaming someone for losing when cheating is going and then using their losing as a justification for your cheating them is the kind of reasoning that the court uses. It is intellectually insulting.

Furthermore, none of the precedents they cited dealt with a price manipulation case. Only one dealt with producers (the London case).

The court delved into new territory here and is legislating from the bench. NONE of their justification comes from the exact wording of the PSA. It was a LIBERAL decision, just like Kelo.

 

[agman]

No I am not your guest-don't want to be. You prove your claim by posting pages 13 & 14 and see who agrees with your version of the PSA law. Now that Bagdad Bob has disappeared from the seen you surface as Sandbag Bob. You still think you are one up on everyone when in fact you have lost on all counts. All your crying won't change a thing.

The operative words in the act are OR between the unlawful practices enumerated in the subsections. Did the ones who passed the act in 1921 know the difference between "or" and "and" or is it just the appellate court? On page 13 the court said:

"Tyson, of course, urges a contrary reading of the PSA. It takes the position that because the PSA was meant as a protection against anti-competitive practices by meat packers, Pickett must establish more than that the use of marketing agreements have decreased the price for cattle...."

This of course was based on a recent decision, the London decision which is said to settle this issue.

The court is quoting itself for justification and the quote it is using, the London case, is or is about to be appealed to the Supreme Court. It looks like the court is using its own re-interpretation as a justification of reinterpretation. Sounds a lot like you and SH, Agman. Again, my pre-teen could out argue you on these positions.

Again, why don't we discuss the Robinson-Patman inkled defense. We have already discussed the Daubert issue, and you have not carried the day on that one.

This is not the first time an act that was written against the economic harms has been turned around by those whose actions it was meant to curtail. I suppose you are going to say all of the cash price people are monopolists by agreeing to sell their cattle in the cash market?

Blaming someone for losing when cheating is going and then using their losing as a justification for your cheating them is the kind of reasoning that the court uses. It is intellectually insulting.

Furthermore, none of the precedents they cited dealt with a price manipulation case. Only one dealt with producers (the London case).

The court delved into new territory here and is legislating from the bench. NONE of their justification comes from the exact wording of the PSA. It was a LIBERAL decision, just like Kelo.

Whoa, your rendition of events OCM. Where did we discuss the Daubert issues? You posted Daubert qualifications and pre-trial events. What did footnote #7 on page 13 say? Does it say there are serious Daubert concerns with Dr Taylor, the plaintiff's expert witness. A yes no will do.

What occurred before trail prior to cross exam is irrelevant versus what happened during cross exam. By your logic ,if one did not commit perjury prior to trail then he could not commit perjury during the trial. How would you judge that comment in a debate?

 

[Anonymous]

Econ 101 continues to rattle off theories, opinions, conjecture, and speculation as he avoids the question.


ECON,

The question isn't going to go away just because you don't want to answer it.

PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE THE PLAINTIFFS OFFERED THAT SUPPORTED THE MARKET MANIPULATION ALLEGATION?????

Quit dancing and let's get to the heart of the issue.



~SH~

 

[ocm]

Whoa, your rendition of events OCM. Where did we discuss the Daubert issues? You posted Daubert qualifications and pre-trial events. What did footnote #7 on page 13 say? Does it say there are serious Daubert concerns with Dr Taylor, the plaintiff's expert witness. A yes no will do.

What occurred before trail prior to cross exam is irrelevant versus what happened during cross exam. By your logic ,if one did not commit perjury prior to trail then he could not commit perjury during the trial. How would you judge that comment in a debate?

What you've written here doesn't seem to relate to anything I have previously written. Was it somebody else's comments. I have not posted on Daubert qualifications nor pre-trial events. My comments were about the published opinion of the 11th Circuit Court.

The fact that they mentioned the Daubert issue is curious. It is not a matter of law but part of the merits of the case. The 11th Circuit cannot (because of the 7th amendment) rule on the merits of the case. This alone gives good reason to appeal to the Supreme Court. The only question before them was whether "economic justification" was a proper part of the jury instructions and whether Strom was correct in declaring that insufficient evidence was presented by the plaintiff on that point.

The 11th Circuits opinion went way beyond that. In the tradition of LIBERALS, they brought in issues of the merits of the case and even Domina's opening remarks. Those are entirely irrelevant as issues of law.

Their entire opinion REEKS with a LIBERAL judicial philosophy.

I have noted that you have twice ignored my remarks about Scalia reviewing this case. Having heard him explain how he approaches a decision, I have little doubt that he would make toast of the 11th Circuit opinion.

 

[Econ101]

Econ 101 continues to rattle off theories, opinions, conjecture, and speculation as he avoids the question.


ECON,

The question isn't going to go away just because you don't want to answer it.

PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE THE PLAINTIFFS OFFERED THAT SUPPORTED THE MARKET MANIPULATION ALLEGATION?????

Quit dancing and let's get to the heart of the issue.



~SH~

I know you will not get this one SH-

"The absence of information is information"

Before you make a fool of yourself in answering:

It is the essence of all binary code.

It is the answer to my question to my kids, "Have you done your homework and why haven't you brought it to me?"

It is the answer to so many unanswered questions.

The plaintiffs won on all accounts with the questions to the jury. What were the terms of the "captive supply" agreements? I think we already went over that one.

It is the answer to my Robinson-Patman inkled defense question. Must I go on? You really are like my two kids. They think the last one to answer is the winner while they divulge from substantive discourse. Maybe we should call you rambler. Do you want to go over your talking points again?

 

[Anonymous]

Econ. 101: ""The absence of information is information"

What kind of divertion is that?

As fully expected, you can't provide the evidence the plaintiffs provided for cross examination because all they did was create the "ILLUSION" of market manipulation.

Who do you think you're kidding with all your phsychobabble to divert the question?

You can't convict someone without evidence you fool.

Econ. 101: "The plaintiffs won on all accounts with the questions to the jury."

They lost!

They lost with Judge Strom and they lost with the 11th circuit because the jurors didn't understand the evidence as it was presented.

They couldn't even understand the judge's instructions. Their answer contradicted the testimony of the plaintiffs.

This jury proved why we have an appeals system. You'd praise the appeals process if it allowed you to convict a large corporation because that's what this is all about anyway.

ANTI CORPORATE VICTIM MENTALITY!

BLAME!


You have provided absolutely nothing to back your case except a bunch of mindless rhetoric.


~SH~

 

[Econ101]

In reference to your catch, I will use the analogy that comes to mind in your arguments. Your arguments are the diverticuli of our discussion, not mine. I am just pointing out how devoid they are of truth and full of SH—they are. Little diversions to catch one in empty arguments, just as your constant name calling does. Did you know that is the doggie brain working? It is so easy to make you bark.

I am certainly not anti-corporate, I am anti-corruption. This problem is evident on the hill with both Ds and Rs. These are not questions of the right vs. the left, they are questions of right vs. wrong.

Everyone must play by the rules of the game and Tyson just wants to use its money to change those rules midstream. It is no secret that they tried to gut the PSA and when they could not, they set up the case law scenario I have previously explained.

This meddling with our country's laws is making our country one where corporations rule instead of the rule of law. It is a step towards fascism.

Again, you claim your right to not be a socialist so that you can be a fascist. It is just wrong. Be honest, meet at the cross.

If there was any difference in price between the "captive supply" and the cash market then that is the proof required for the case. Your position is that there were differences in efficiencies in between the two markets and that was the reason for the difference in prices between the two but you lacked the evidence to support it with the "captive supply" contracts innards. They may have proved the point one way or another. Apparently Tyson refused to bring into court that evidence. The jury obviously saw through this hole in the argument and the evidence. In fact, the argument you propose, that not all of the years had the same manipulation exerted on the market due to the amount of captive supplie,s is an argument against your position, not for it. If these contracts had the efficiencies you propose then they would have out priced the cash market all of the time due to their efficiencies. This clearly was not the case by your own admission. Again, the lack of evidence is evidence itself.

The lack of powder burns on a victim's hand is ample evidence to have a reasonable person conclude that the arguments a suspect makes are false. The suspect claimed "He shot at me and then I fired back!" A lack of evidence is evidence itself. Again, I do not need a smoking gun. And yes, a conviction could hinge on that statement if the evidence did not support the claim.

The one answer that the jury did answer "no" shows me that they did understand the evidence in the case and didn't just make up some verdict for the plaintiffs because they hated Tyson. I wish we could say as much for the judicial reviews. Judges should never be allowed to tell the jury what verdict they should give; that would gut the whole jury system.

I would have to say that this whole charade has been well planned. It is unfortunate that we apparently do not have an independent judiciary. That fact is not just Pickett's problem, it is everyone's problem.

Interest rates have been low in this country, one could argue, due to the deflation that China and market power plays of corporations that break the PSA, Robinson-Patman and other acts. When we have such deficit spending and farmers and ranchers along with manufacturers have to pay the ultimate price then it is hard to judge the executive branch for their role in the economy that they are playing. Truths eventually become known.

The winds of Katrina are going to change that and there is nothing the executive branch can do about that. It is already happening now and will continue. We will all bear these costs. They are the costs of government being run for special interests instead of public interest

The Secretary of Agriculture should never have to ask "How do we get young folks in Agriculture?" If farmers and ranchers were paid enough then there would not be a shortage. It is the same with teachers, engineers, or other professions. Supply/Demand would work and we would get the maximum from our economy. You get what you pay for.

In reference to an investigation into our oil companies: Maybe this would lead to a real energy policy instead of the corporate welfare we had this last go round. Again, the follies of our energy policy are being shown by Katrina. There are differences between public policy and a policy of helping special interests. The light is shining as it will shine on your diverticuli upon careful dissection of your case.

The truth is not in you.

Hawker.

 

[Sandhusker]

Teddy Roosevelt, we need you!

 

[Anonymous]

Another volley of factually void statements from Econ 101.

Whoda thought? LOL!

Econ: "I am just pointing out how devoid they are of truth and full of SH—they are."

Keep telling yourself that because it's a lot easier than proving it isn't it? Talk is so cheap with packer blamers. You sound like Saddam claiming victory after the gulf war.

If you had anything of relevance you could take my quote and bring the facts to the contrary that prove me wrong. You won't because you can't so you resort to empty cheap talk like most packer blamers do.


The question is so easy to answer, why do you continue to skirt it??

The burden of proof falls on the accuser, not the accused.

What is your proof that Tyson manipulated the markets with captive supply in violation of the PSA?

Your answer:

OCM: "If there was any difference in price between the "captive supply" and the cash market then that is the proof required for the case."

That's the lamest excuse I have ever heard.

This week's weekly weighted average base price for formula and grid cattle could be higher or lower than next weeks cash price based on the direction of boxed beef demand. That is a fact!

Go ahead, take your shot at trying to disprove that. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable with another volley of empty statements? LOL!

To use your ridiculous argument is to believe the fat cattle price is not driven by anything other than packer whims. Periods of "packer generosity" in higher markets and period of "market manipulation" in lower markets. To believe this is to believe, as Mike Callicrate does, that cattle prices are completely arbitrary and have no relation to supply and demand. Is that what you really believe?

Perhaps you'd like to prove that there is no relation between boxed beef prices and live cattle prices? Feel bullet proof? BRING IT!

How can anyone be so naive as to believe that boxed beef prices have no impact on fat cattle prices from week to week when boxed beef prices is the first thing most progressive feeders look at in making their marketing decisions.

No wonder you resort to philisophical arguments and analogys. Good grief! If that's all I had I would stay out of the ring and save yourself from further embarrassment.

Econ 101: "It is no secret that they tried to gut the PSA and when they could not, they set up the case law scenario I have previously explained."

In judge Strom's ruling he stated that he found no evidence to support a violation of the PSA. The only "gutting" that occurred was in your conspiring mind again.

If you had facts to the contrary, you would be shouting it from the mountain tops. You have nothing so you resort to your "baffling bullsh*t" to avoid having to present the facts that you don't have to support your empty position.

Econ 101: "Your position is that there were differences in efficiencies in between the two markets and that was the reason for the difference in prices between the two but you lacked the evidence to support it with the "captive supply" contracts innards."

The evidence is that boxed beef prices can and does change weekly which pulls live cattle prices up or down.

This is so elementary. Really, you mean you didn't realize this?

I don't remember stating differences in efficiencies. One market is value based (formula and grids), one market is forward contract and based on the futures market, and the other market is the cash market.

I never mentioned anything about efficiencies of each. Another illusion you chose to create. Talk about desperate!

Econ 101: "In fact, the argument you propose, that not all of the years had the same manipulation exerted on the market due to the amount of captive supplie,s is an argument against your position, not for it."

I never stated anything about manipulation except that there was never any proof that it ever existed.

Are you so desperate at this point that you think you have to lie about my position? What a pathetic individual you are. No wonder you and Sandman get along so well. Master "illusionists". If you can't support your position with facts, create the illusion that you can.

BRING YOUR PROOF OF MARKET MANIPULATION OR QUIT WASTING MY TIME!

The burden of proof falls on you to prove ibp/Tyson guilty, not for ibp/Tyson to prove their innocense. Don't you know anything about law?

Why don't you just admit that you don't have any proof of market manipulation so you are left with nothing but creating the "ILLUSION" that it actually exists.

Econ 101: "The truth is not in you."

Talk is so cheap with a packer blamer.

You haven't proven me wrong on anything yet. NOTHING!

You couldn't be more empty handed when all you have to support your "OPINIONS" and "THEORIES" is empty statements, analogys, and philosophies.

Talk about "reaching".


~SH~

 

[PORKER]

What is your proof that Tyson manipulated the markets with captive supply
I never stated anything about manipulation except that there was never any proof that it ever existed.
One Big FACT ,as Tyson thought what was done in the states they could do the same manipulation of markets ,when they bought out and set up a plant in POLAND this year, The EU and Poland stepped in an stopped the Americanation of the packing industry there.

 

[Anonymous]

YOU CALL POLAND'S CONCERNS WITH TYSON A FACT TO SUPPORT MARKET MANIPULATION???

A concern is not proof of market manipulation!
A concern does not gain a conviction on market manipulation!

Only PROOF can gain a conviction, not SPECULATION!

Something you guys haven't learned yet.

If Poland had justification to stop Tyson, WHAT WAS IT????

Was it more "OPINION"?
Was it more "THEORY"?
Was it more "SPECULATION"?

Or did they actually have tangible evidence that nobody can present?

You got nothing here Porker!



~SH~

 

[Econ101]

YOU CALL POLAND'S CONCERNS WITH TYSON A FACT TO SUPPORT MARKET MANIPULATION???

A concern is not proof of market manipulation!
A concern does not gain a conviction on market manipulation!

Only PROOF can gain a conviction, not SPECULATION!

Something you guys haven't learned yet.

If Poland had justification to stop Tyson, WHAT WAS IT????

Was it more "OPINION"?
Was it more "THEORY"?
Was it more "SPECULATION"?

Or did they actually have tangible evidence that nobody can present?

You got nothing here Porker!



~SH~

I have already posted the part of the Robinson-Patman Act that covers the burden of proof theory you bring.

The evidence was presented at trial and the jury believed it. You and the judges overturning this decision have the burden of proof as it was already made to 12 jurors. It is unfortunate that the judges showed their ignorance in their own words.

The world is still flat to you and probably always will be. I have circumnavigated all of your talking points and you still say the world is flat.

One day you will fall off of it.

Hawker.

 

[Anonymous]

Econ 101: "The evidence was presented at trial and the jury believed it."

WHAT WAS THAT EVIDENCE ECON??????

JUDGE STROM SAYS IT NEVER EXISTED.

IF JUDGE STROM IS WRONG, WHY CAN'T YOU BRING THIS EVIDENCE??????

IF THE PLAINTIFFS HAD IT AND JUDGE STROM FAILED TO RECOGNIZE IT, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO BRING IT.

WHAT IS THIS EVIDENCE YOU SAY WAS PRESENTED??????

The Plaintiffs convinced the jury with "theories", "speculation", "conjecture" and "opinion", NOT FACT.

Judge Strom warned the jury repeatedly not to base their decision on "opinions" and "theories" but they went ahead and did it anyway.

If the facts for a market manipulation conviction really existed, you would bring them. YOU CAN'T BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST!

That's why you keep dancing around this question with a never ending volley of empty statements.


~SH~

 

[rancher]

Why didn't the judge over turn the verdict on OJ's trial? I didn't know they had the power until now.

 

[Sandhusker]

Econ 101: "The evidence was presented at trial and the jury believed it."

WHAT WAS THAT EVIDENCE ECON??????

JUDGE STROM SAYS IT NEVER EXISTED.

IF JUDGE STROM IS WRONG, WHY CAN'T YOU BRING THIS EVIDENCE??????

IF THE PLAINTIFFS HAD IT AND JUDGE STROM FAILED TO RECOGNIZE IT, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO BRING IT.

WHAT IS THIS EVIDENCE YOU SAY WAS PRESENTED??????

The Plaintiffs convinced the jury with "theories", "speculation", "conjecture" and "opinion", NOT FACT.

Judge Strom warned the jury repeatedly not to base their decision on "opinions" and "theories" but they went ahead and did it anyway.

If the facts for a market manipulation conviction really existed, you would bring them. YOU CAN'T BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST!

That's why you keep dancing around this question with a never ending volley of empty statements.


~SH~

Ask any one of the jurists. There were twelve of them, and they all voted that they has seen evidence.

 

[Anonymous]

Why would you respond Sandman?

There was never a doubt that you wouldn't provide the evidence.

You have never backed your positions before why would you start now?

There was no proof of market manipulation.

It's nothing more than a bullsh*t packer blaming conspiracy theory.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Why would you respond Sandman?

There was never a doubt that you wouldn't provide the evidence.

You have never backed your positions before why would you start now?

There was no proof of market manipulation.

It's nothing more than a bullsh*t packer blaming conspiracy theory.


~SH~

Are the jurists part of the conspiracy, too?