Mike
Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Might be a good topic for a John Grisham book if they were.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Tyson vs. Pickett and the Shell Game
- Thread starter Econ101
- Start date
Help Support Ranchers.net:
Might be a good topic for a John Grisham book if they were.
Mike said:Sandhusker said:~SH~ said: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?
Might be a good topic for a John Grisham book if they were.
Now that was funny.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Doesn't the history channel have a series on conspiracies? They should get some footage while the conspiracy is ongoing.
Econ101 said:Mike said:Sandhusker said:Are the jurists part of the conspiracy, too?
Might be a good topic for a John Grisham book if they were.
Now that was funny.
I'll admit, John Grisham does spin a good yarn. One of my favorite authors. I've read all of his books.
In fact, it might be time for the Pickett plaintiffs to turn their case and notes over to Grisham. No doubt Grisham is always looking for a new source of FICTION for his next conspiracy legal thriller.
Too bad Tyson did not have you on the jury. They would have loved that. You would make a good judge for them, however.
Sometimes fact is more dramatic than fiction. Just look at the world today. Open your eyes.
Sometimes fact is more dramatic than fiction. Just look at the world today. Open your eyes.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandman: "Are the jurists part of the conspiracy, too?"
They obviously believed the conspiracy theories.
The judge didn't and neither did the circuit court judges.
What was the evidence provided by the plaintiffs to support the theory that "captive supplies" manipulated the cash markets?
Let's hear it!
All of you Pickett supporters and not one of you can tell me what evidence the case was based on????
What a bunch of clones.
~SH~
~SH~ said:Sandman: "Are the jurists part of the conspiracy, too?"
They obviously believed the conspiracy theories.
The judge didn't and neither did the circuit court judges.
What was the evidence provided by the plaintiffs to support the theory that "captive supplies" manipulated the cash markets?
Let's hear it!
All of you Pickett supporters and not one of you can tell me what evidence the case was based on????
What a bunch of clones.
~SH~
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ,next..................good luck
You know damn well what the evidence was,countless hours of honest cattle men confirming to the jurors,that packers do not use captive supplies to be come more efficent,they use them to get in and out of the cash market,we call that, dishonest,the "CAPTIVE SUPPLY REFORM ACT" will remedy this....................good luck
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hayseed: "You know damn well what the evidence was,countless hours of honest cattle men confirming to the jurors,that packers do not use captive supplies to be come more efficent,they use them to get in and out of the cash market,we call that, dishonest,the "CAPTIVE SUPPLY REFORM ACT" will remedy this.............."
Hayseed you couldn't even define captive supplies so why would you want to make a bigger fool of yourself?
Honest cattlemen? Would that explain why Mike Callicrate lied under oath? His testimony was thrown out because he perjured himself. Do you know what perjury means? Look it up.
How can packers "USE THEM" if feeders willingly enter captive supply arrangements? That doesn't even make sense.
Trust me Hayseed, your Captive Supply Reform Act to dictate what marketing options feeders can use will never pass as it's written.
The day when a handfull of packer blamers start dictating to the rest of this industry how they will market their cattle will be a cold day in hell.
WRITE THAT DOWN!
Now that I have defined "captive supply" for you repeatedly, do you think you know the definition now?
I'll even let you pick between GIPSA's definition and the Pickett case's definition. Either would be a step up for you.
~SH~
Mike
Well-known member
Judge Strom's Instruction #6 to the Jury:
"During the testimony of Mr. Callicrate, I instructed you to disregard a portion of his testimony because I found it was not true. You should consider his testimony on other subjects with caution and weigh it with great care. You may disregard his testimony in whole or part, except insofar as it may have been corroborated by other credible evidence. Remember, that you, as jurors, are the sole judges of the truthfulness of the witnesses and the weight their testimony deserves."
This whole paragraph is a contradiction within itself, i.e. "HE" found it was not true, but the jury is the "SOLE" judge of truthfulness.
"During the testimony of Mr. Callicrate, I instructed you to disregard a portion of his testimony because I found it was not true. You should consider his testimony on other subjects with caution and weigh it with great care. You may disregard his testimony in whole or part, except insofar as it may have been corroborated by other credible evidence. Remember, that you, as jurors, are the sole judges of the truthfulness of the witnesses and the weight their testimony deserves."
This whole paragraph is a contradiction within itself, i.e. "HE" found it was not true, but the jury is the "SOLE" judge of truthfulness.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Mike: "This whole paragraph is a contradiction within itself, i.e. "HE" found it was not true, but the jury is the "SOLE" judge of truthfulness."
WRONG!
If that was true there would be no reason for a judge.
What a ridiculous statement.
Econ.,
Mike Callicrate lied under oath. Judge Strom caught him at it. That is why Judge Strom's instructions to the jury was to disregard part or all of Mike's testimony. Mike Callicrate is a compulsive liar. He got caught lying in Pierre at the Governor's Cattle Conference when he claimed that IBP had contractual arrangements with the other major packers. Bob Peterson, ibp CEO, stated that he would offer $1000 to anyone who would provide the proof for this lie. Nobody took the offer because most knew it was a lie. Mike Callicrate has also stated that packers and retailers are making $400 per head profits yet he's charging consumers 10% to 20% more for his branded beef, paying producers a top premium of $50 per head for their cattle, and has yet to realize a profit according to R-CULT's publication.
All of Mike's testimony should have been thrown out but the Judge offered the jury the leeway to disregard a portion of it rather than all of it.
~SH~
If I offer a $1,000.00 bounty on what was in the "captive supply" contracts that made them be priced higher than the cash market would Tyson provide that information?
Why did they not provide that information at the trial or in the discovery where they had a legal duty to do it?
I do not know if what Mike C. said in some statement was correct or not, but your methodology of proving accuracy is way off.
Again, your credibility is at stake.
I want to know where he perjured himself in the trial.
Please answer the question and stop dancing yourself. You are stepping on my feet.
Why did they not provide that information at the trial or in the discovery where they had a legal duty to do it?
I do not know if what Mike C. said in some statement was correct or not, but your methodology of proving accuracy is way off.
Again, your credibility is at stake.
I want to know where he perjured himself in the trial.
Please answer the question and stop dancing yourself. You are stepping on my feet.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Econ. 101: "If I offer a $1,000.00 bounty on what was in the "captive supply" contracts that made them be priced higher than the cash market would Tyson provide that information?"
Why are you asking me?
I don't speak for Tyson, I simply presented facts on the case.
Facts which you cannot refute.
Econ. 101: "Why did they not provide that information at the trial or in the discovery where they had a legal duty to do it?"
First of all, with all the other unfounded allegations you have spewed out in your posts, I am not about to take your word for this.
Second, how would you know whether or not they did or did not present this evidence WHEN YOU ADMITTED THAT YOU HADN'T EVEN READ THE COURT PROCEEDINGS???
Third, this isn't about Tyson proving their innocense, this is about the packer blamers proving Tyson's guilt. Presumption of innocense, a concept that is foreign to the average packer blamer.
Econ. 101: "I do not know if what Mike C. said in some statement was correct or not, but your methodology of proving accuracy is way off."
You haven't backed any of your allegations of market manipulation with facts and you want to lecture me on proving accuracy??? Hahaha!
Your arrogance knows no bounds does it?
Econ. 101: "Again, your credibility is at stake."
Listen to you! LOL!
You haven't disproven me on a single aspect of this discussion yet and you haven't even read the court proceedings yet you think you can lecture me on credibility.
You are so in over your head.
Econ. 101: "I want to know where he perjured himself in the trial."
Then perhaps you should read the court proceedings YA THINK?????
I'll start answering your questions when you quit diverting mine.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Econ101, has the entertainment value of "debating" SH started to wear thin, yet? Afterwhile you'll just get tired of the his water torture methods and you'll give up.
You are the one who said he perjured himself. Back it up or is it another one of those things you say with no backing?
My question about Tyson was one of an example. Perhaps you did not understand that. I will try to go down to your level.
Was Mike C. ever brought up on charges of perjury or did you make up that conviction? Perjury is about lying to a jury under oath. Did this happen and was it proven? Does presumption of innocence only pertain to packers? You seem to be doublespeaking here.
I did not go to the trial but your arguments can be refuted by anyone who is willing to think about it and give you the time of day.
If you are the person who cattlemen have to talk to in order to sell their fat cattle then I you might be able to make a prima facia case that it is more efficient to have some pricing mechanism that is not based on haggling with you. I would be willing to testify on that one.
If you have evidence to support your position you should post it. Stop spewing stuff that you have to back away from later. All talk and no show.
I have not made any unfounded allegations; they were merely questions to the "logical" conclusions you draw on your talking points.
Again, the evidence of price depression was evident in both of the decisions I read on the case. The factual evidence was presented to the jury and they accepted it. The jury did not fall into the little traps that were set up by the jury instructions. That fact in itself leads me to trust their credibility over yours.
Again, your arguments are the diverticuli of our discussion. Either empty or full of SH--.
My question about Tyson was one of an example. Perhaps you did not understand that. I will try to go down to your level.
Was Mike C. ever brought up on charges of perjury or did you make up that conviction? Perjury is about lying to a jury under oath. Did this happen and was it proven? Does presumption of innocence only pertain to packers? You seem to be doublespeaking here.
I did not go to the trial but your arguments can be refuted by anyone who is willing to think about it and give you the time of day.
If you are the person who cattlemen have to talk to in order to sell their fat cattle then I you might be able to make a prima facia case that it is more efficient to have some pricing mechanism that is not based on haggling with you. I would be willing to testify on that one.
If you have evidence to support your position you should post it. Stop spewing stuff that you have to back away from later. All talk and no show.
I have not made any unfounded allegations; they were merely questions to the "logical" conclusions you draw on your talking points.
Again, the evidence of price depression was evident in both of the decisions I read on the case. The factual evidence was presented to the jury and they accepted it. The jury did not fall into the little traps that were set up by the jury instructions. That fact in itself leads me to trust their credibility over yours.
Again, your arguments are the diverticuli of our discussion. Either empty or full of SH--.
Juan said:econ101.........
If someone is stepping on your feet,why don't you get the hell off the dance floor?
'cause I was born to dance!
Econ 101 said:I want to know where he perjured himself in the trial.
The court listened to an audio tape where Bob Peterson was speaking. Mike C testified as to when the recording was made. It was later shown that the tape was not an original but a dupe. Therefore the tape was not made as Mike testified.
When faced with this information in court Mike agreed that the information could possibly be correct and his memory defective.
There you go Econ 101. ~SH~'s truth = Mike C perjured himself.
Oh yes. He's the one who sold cattle through marketing agreements and then sued Tyson because of them. Mike ran a feedlot. One (or more than one) customer wanted his cattle sold through a marketing agreement. Mike grudgingly obliged.
There you go. ~SH~'s truth = Mike's a hypocrite.
I refer you to an earlier comment of mine about subjective knowledge replacing objective knowledge. You can see it happening before your very eyes.
agman
Well-known member
Mike said:Judge Strom's Instruction #6 to the Jury:
"During the testimony of Mr. Callicrate, I instructed you to disregard a portion of his testimony because I found it was not true. You should consider his testimony on other subjects with caution and weigh it with great care. You may disregard his testimony in whole or part, except insofar as it may have been corroborated by other credible evidence. Remember, that you, as jurors, are the sole judges of the truthfulness of the witnesses and the weight their testimony deserves."
This whole paragraph is a contradiction within itself, i.e. "HE" found it was not true, but the jury is the "SOLE" judge of truthfulness.
Mike you know better than to try an pull a fast one. The judge was very specific as to what the jury was to exclude as the judge discovered it to be untrue. The truthfulness of Mike's other comments were at the discretion of the jurors to decide. There is no contradiction at all-just an attempt by yourself to snow some unknowing reader.