Where do you draw the line?

[fedup2]

Where is the line drawn & what line is it? Ethical? Legal? There has been hundreds of conversations on this forum about packer price manipulation. Like any other business, packer mgmt. has an obligation to do the best they can for their shareholders. There is no doubt in my mind that they use captive supply (is this the correct term for all?) to aid their marketing to some degree. At what point do they cross the line & which line?

We had a cattle buyer in the area for years who worked with verbal agreements. When the bottom dropped out of the cattle market, he still paid ranchers what he promised. (yes, he was smart enough to have hedged!) When the market came back and he went to buy more cattle, three ranchers broke their agreements with him. Said the market was to high for the deal they had made. Said they were going through tough times and needed to sell at a higher price to save their ranches. Do you feel their obligations to their family were more important that those to the cattle buyer? (No, he no longer will buy cattle from them)
Did they cross the line & if so, which line?

This morning I received a newsletter with a story about a man accused by the CFTC of conspiring with NE feedlot managers to manipulate feeder cattle futures, allegedly reporting phony cash sales to inflate the index 2.85, profiting from futures positions.
Were they just doing the best they could for themselves, good management, or where did they cross the line? What if the packers filed charges against the feedlot and a jury convicted them. How would you feel if the judge insinuated the jury was stupid and the plaintiffs were nuts & threw the case out?

There are a lot of different shoes to walk in before we condemn others. I am not a legal or moral expert. I do believe most of us know right from wrong, but when we stand to benefit, is it okay to just let you toes cross the line a little bit? LOL! Is it just good management if that is the type of business world we have to compete in? If everyone is doing it, is it okay?

I enjoy the discussions on these topics and believe I have learned something from all of you. But when you try to force your ideas or moral standards on someone else, where do you cross the line? Name calling? Belittling? Is it okay to disagree on a topic without being labeled for the duration of you posts here?

So many questions & so few answers! LOL! Sorry if I bored you.

 

[Anonymous]

You brought up both moral issues and legal issues. Legal issues have legal consequences. Moral issues have moral consequences.

If someone is accused of breaking the law, it has to be proven. The burden of proof falls on the accuser. When that proof is not provided, then the law will prevail. The accused does not have to prove their innocense as some have suggested.

Just because someone wants to believe someone is breaking the law and screwing them does not make it fact. It has to be proven and the Pickett plaintiffs simply could not do that which is why nobody here can provide the proof that justified the guilty verdict. The plaintiffs created the illusion and the jury bought it but the Judge and the 11th circuit saw right through it.

When Sandman could pick up the phone and call Tyson to clear this up and doesn't, that is a moral issue. He'd rather believe I was wrong than actually prove it because he doesn't have any integrity.

There, an example of a legal issue and a moral issue.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

You brought up both moral issues and legal issues. Legal issues have legal consequences. Moral issues have moral consequences.

If someone is accused of breaking the law, it has to be proven. The burden of proof falls on the accuser. When that proof is not provided, then the law will prevail. The accused does not have to prove their innocense as some have suggested.

Just because someone wants to believe someone is breaking the law and screwing them does not make it fact. It has to be proven and the Pickett plaintiffs simply could not do that which is why nobody here can provide the proof that justified the guilty verdict. The plaintiffs created the illusion and the jury bought it but the Judge and the 11th circuit saw right through it.

When Sandman could pick up the phone and call Tyson to clear this up and doesn't, that is a moral issue. He'd rather believe I was wrong than actually prove it because he doesn't have any integrity.

There, an example of a legal issue and a moral issue.


~SH~

The Pickett jury was 12-0 for Pickett. The proof is in Dr. Taylor's testimony. Read it.

Why should I call Tyson? You are the one who bet you could offer proof. Me calling Tyson is not you offering proof. Besides that, your call to Tyson told you nothing. You got an opinion. Where are the numbers?

I would say that hypocracy and dishonesty are moral issues, wouldn't you, SH?

 

[agman]

You brought up both moral issues and legal issues. Legal issues have legal consequences. Moral issues have moral consequences.

If someone is accused of breaking the law, it has to be proven. The burden of proof falls on the accuser. When that proof is not provided, then the law will prevail. The accused does not have to prove their innocense as some have suggested.

Just because someone wants to believe someone is breaking the law and screwing them does not make it fact. It has to be proven and the Pickett plaintiffs simply could not do that which is why nobody here can provide the proof that justified the guilty verdict. The plaintiffs created the illusion and the jury bought it but the Judge and the 11th circuit saw right through it.

When Sandman could pick up the phone and call Tyson to clear this up and doesn't, that is a moral issue. He'd rather believe I was wrong than actually prove it because he doesn't have any integrity.

There, an example of a legal issue and a moral issue.


~SH~

The Pickett jury was 12-0 for Pickett. The proof is in Dr. Taylor's testimony. Read it.

Why should I call Tyson? You are the one who bet you could offer proof. Me calling Tyson is not you offering proof. Besides that, your call to Tyson told you nothing. You got an opinion. Where are the numbers?

I would say that hypocracy and dishonesty are moral issues, wouldn't you, SH?

What proof was in Taylor's theory that he failed to test????? He is required by law to test his theories for validity when advanced to the court. He failed to do that buy his own admission under oath. In short, unsupported accusations are worthless. It is not the courts duty to test his theories for validity. Why do you ignore all the facts surrounding his testimony and claims? Do you think you know more than Judge Storm or the Appellate Court regarding his ENTIRE testimony-yes or no?

 

[Econ101]

You brought up both moral issues and legal issues. Legal issues have legal consequences. Moral issues have moral consequences.

If someone is accused of breaking the law, it has to be proven. The burden of proof falls on the accuser. When that proof is not provided, then the law will prevail. The accused does not have to prove their innocense as some have suggested.

Just because someone wants to believe someone is breaking the law and screwing them does not make it fact. It has to be proven and the Pickett plaintiffs simply could not do that which is why nobody here can provide the proof that justified the guilty verdict. The plaintiffs created the illusion and the jury bought it but the Judge and the 11th circuit saw right through it.

When Sandman could pick up the phone and call Tyson to clear this up and doesn't, that is a moral issue. He'd rather believe I was wrong than actually prove it because he doesn't have any integrity.

There, an example of a legal issue and a moral issue.


~SH~

The Pickett jury was 12-0 for Pickett. The proof is in Dr. Taylor's testimony. Read it.

Why should I call Tyson? You are the one who bet you could offer proof. Me calling Tyson is not you offering proof. Besides that, your call to Tyson told you nothing. You got an opinion. Where are the numbers?

I would say that hypocracy and dishonesty are moral issues, wouldn't you, SH?

What proof was in Taylor's theory that he failed to test????? He is required by law to test his theories for validity when advanced to the court. He failed to do that buy his own admission under oath. In short, unsupported accusations are worthless. It is not the courts duty to test his theories for validity. Why do you ignore all the facts surrounding his testimony and claims? Do you think you know more than Judge Storm or the Appellate Court regarding his ENTIRE testimony-yes or no?

What EXACT theory are you saying he did not test? What was the test? Were other tests performed? You obviously have problems with evidence that is contrary to your views, Agman. A simple calculation of the circumference of a circle does not require your definition of "testing for validity". Stop all the BS and post exactly the testimony you seem to champion or are you as full of hot air as SH?

As far as the entire testimony, the jury was to answer that question, not the judge. I saw not one scintilla of evidence that Strom could dismiss Dr. Taylor's testimony and there are REAL issues with the appellate court's opinion as to their competence. Care to go into the Robinson-Patman example? Third or Fourth challenge.

 

[Cattleman]

It is not very pretty in here sometimes. What bothers me, is how people just pound away on people, and don't really help them in anyway but argue with them. In the discussion threads, topics always go off topic (just like this one instantly did) and people broaden topics just to get out of being cornered.
The problem with most threads, and what often causes the debate, is the problem is never really defined, and not narrow enough, so someone can always change the focus. I believe a strategically well asked question will make a person go through the thought processes to realize where they may be wrong, and it is a lot more peaceful than someone just blasting everyone who says something they disagree with. You are a lot more likely to convince someone of something if you let them figure it out rather than pointing out all the faults they present!

Very good threat fedup2.

 

[fedup2]

I believe my main point in this post was lost. I take full responsibility for that as my communications skills are apparently a little on the weak side. Thanks for responding.

Agman: As you know, there is a bet on this forum. My questions to you are, if you did not have to break any rules of confidentiality, give up any client information, etc. would you provide the answer to the question ? If you had not agreed or disagreed with either participant previously, would you provide the answer? I believe you have the numbers to do so. If I phrased the question, who is correct SH or Sandhusker, could or would you answer that question.

I believe I already know the answer from reading Tysons 04 filings but if my comprehension skills are as weak as my writing skills, I could be wrong! LOL!
One more note, it is claimed that Tyson received over $42 million from the Canadian gov program. If this is so, would this be added to the lakeside bottom line directly or would Tyson list this in another area?
Thanks for reading this.

 

[fedup2]

Thank you Cattleman. I was writting the previous post as you were posting. I am happy to see I can still communicate a little! LOL! I was going back to see what the heck I wrote! LOL!
I asked Agman to provide some answers on my last post as I believe this forum has been beating some dead horses here. They are not going anywhere! The talk of cattle breeds was refreshing. All were helping & putting in their 2 cents. I believe that is what a forum is for. Oh well, as long as they are venting here, they are probably not going home and beating their wives/husbands or kicking the dog! LOL!

 

[Cattleman]

Fedup2

Oh well, as long as they are venting here, they are probably not going home and beating their wives/husbands or kicking the dog! LOL!

Well maybe at least this way we are serving a purpose!! LOL

Otherwise, most other people have left this forum, and gone over to Ranch talk to have a little more refreshing discussion.

 

[agman]

I believe my main point in this post was lost. I take full responsibility for that as my communications skills are apparently a little on the weak side. Thanks for responding.

Agman: As you know, there is a bet on this forum. My questions to you are, if you did not have to break any rules of confidentiality, give up any client information, etc. would you provide the answer to the question ? If you had not agreed or disagreed with either participant previously, would you provide the answer? I believe you have the numbers to do so. If I phrased the question, who is correct SH or Sandhusker, could or would you answer that question.

I believe I already know the answer from reading Tysons 04 filings but if my comprehension skills are as weak as my writing skills, I could be wrong! LOL!
One more note, it is claimed that Tyson received over $42 million from the Canadian gov program. If this is so, would this be added to the lakeside bottom line directly or would Tyson list this in another area?
Thanks for reading this.

Thanks for a very pertinent question. I already answered the question one time per the Canadian/NW plant situation. I also provided the correct kill data pre-BSE, during border closure and current kill levels. I do NOT believe that the losses in the NW plants exceeded the profits at their peak in Tyson's Canadian plant. There were times, as evidenced in the 10K quarterly filings with the SEC, that the losses in all of Tyson's U.S beef plants exceeded the gains in their Alberta plant. If the bet is specific to Tyson's two NW plants only then Sandhusker wins and I am confident in my information. If the bet is inclusive of all plants in the NW that is a different call and I do not have the all the factual information to say for certain who would win that bet as that would include Swift's Hyrum plant and other plants in the NW.

Regarding payments, they would be listed as a non-recurring income item and would be part of the reported income. Another point, Tyson's fiscal year is from September - August. The first quarter of their fiscal year 2004 would be September-November of 2003. Either way, if the bet is specific to Tyson's two NW plants only then Sandhusker wins. I hope this clarifies the situation. I have tried to explain the situation as clearly as possible. Thanks for an excellent question.

 

[Murgen]

If the bet is inclusive of all plants in the NW that is a different call and I do not have the all the factual information to say for certain who would win that bet as that would include Swift's Hyrum plant and other plants in the NW.

Is it only because you do not have the info. on Swift? An educated guess, would say they were dealing with the same situations, Do they have the plants in Canada to make up the difference?

 

[Sandhusker]

Thank you for the honest answer, Agman. As I've said before, we don't agree on hardly anything, but I do take you to be honest - a little misguided, but honest nonetheless.

 

[agman]

If the bet is inclusive of all plants in the NW that is a different call and I do not have the all the factual information to say for certain who would win that bet as that would include Swift's Hyrum plant and other plants in the NW.

Is it only because you do not have the info. on Swift? An educated guess, would say they were dealing with the same situations, Do they have the plants in Canada to make up the difference?

I do not have data on that plant and Swift has NO plants in Canada.

 

[agman]

Thank you for the honest answer, Agman. As I've said before, we don't agree on hardly anything, but I do take you to be honest - a little misguided, but honest nonetheless.

As an R-Calf supporter who are you to suggest anyone is misguided?!!

 

[Murgen]

I do not have data on that plant and Swift has NO plants in Canada

So I guess Swift plants aren't included in the bet, seeing as it would be hard to make up any differences, when you don't have plants in Canada!

 

[Kathy]

Hey fedup,

Good example of what you are speaking of:

My husband travelled for over an hour to another town to look at a used finishing lawn mower that a dealer had listed for sale for $1,500.00. When my hubby got there, the dealer took him out to a farm to look at it, but didn't want to load it up until the farmer who owned it got back.

Good enough, they went back to town, inked the deal, wrote a cheque and had separate lunches. After lunch, my hubby came back to the dealership and was told by the salesman that the farmer who had consigned the mower, now wanted $1,600.00 for the mower.

What would you do?

Well my hubby, thought about my father - whom he has never met (he died when I was 16), but whom he has heard nothing but high praise for management of his farm equipment/car dealership. You see my dad was the salesman, while his best friend was the mechanic. He knew that my dad was rolling over in his grave, at that moment. He knew that my father would never have attempted such a crooked maneuver. He knew that any decent salesman would have told the farmer who consigned the mower that it was listed for $1500, as agreed upon; and that the cheque was written and the deal sealed.

But this is not what happened. The salesman insisted on the extra $100.00 dollars.

What would you do?

My hubby got in his truck and came home empty handed and pissed off.

I think he did the right thing. And we won't be doing business there, ever again.

A deal is a deal.

 

[Anonymous]

Agman,

Why would BB (head of cattle procurement for Tyson) tell me that Tyson's losses in the Boise and Pasco plants were, "way more" than the profits in the Lakeside plant if that was not the case?

By your own admission, the two plants in the NW were running at 35% of normal capacity and based on the information I have presented, Tyson is still paying their employees for a 32 hour work week even when the plant is shut down.

In comparison, the profits in the Lakeside plant, based on the Canadian government's study, were not excessive due to the costs of total SRM removal in Canadian cattle under 30 months of age.

If you call BB and he agrees with you and changes his story from what he told me, I'll write the check. If not, I think he would know what the financial situation of these 3 plants was.

I'm telling you exactly what he told me.

I said, "based on the information I have read, I am under the impression that the losses in the Pasco and Boise plants were more than the profits in the Lakeside plant".

His response, "WAY MORE".

Call and ask him and lets settle this.


~SH~

 

[Cattleman]

But in your question to BB, did you consider that the losses in the US is more than just due to the border being closed!!

 

[agman]

The Pickett jury was 12-0 for Pickett. The proof is in Dr. Taylor's testimony. Read it.

Why should I call Tyson? You are the one who bet you could offer proof. Me calling Tyson is not you offering proof. Besides that, your call to Tyson told you nothing. You got an opinion. Where are the numbers?

I would say that hypocracy and dishonesty are moral issues, wouldn't you, SH?

What proof was in Taylor's theory that he failed to test????? He is required by law to test his theories for validity when advanced to the court. He failed to do that buy his own admission under oath. In short, unsupported accusations are worthless. It is not the courts duty to test his theories for validity. Why do you ignore all the facts surrounding his testimony and claims? Do you think you know more than Judge Storm or the Appellate Court regarding his ENTIRE testimony-yes or no?

What EXACT theory are you saying he did not test? What was the test? Were other tests performed? You obviously have problems with evidence that is contrary to your views, Agman. A simple calculation of the circumference of a circle does not require your definition of "testing for validity". Stop all the BS and post exactly the testimony you seem to champion or are you as full of hot air as SH?

As far as the entire testimony, the jury was to answer that question, not the judge. I saw not one scintilla of evidence that Strom could dismiss Dr. Taylor's testimony and there are REAL issues with the appellate court's opinion as to their competence. Care to go into the Robinson-Patman example? Third or Fourth challenge.

What you saw is totally irrelevant. Are you suggesting that Taylor did not say under oath that he failed to test his six theories as to how captive supply lowered prices? Those are his words under oath; read his testimony. Judge Strom asked him to repeat that statement, that too is in the testimony. So you can stop your accusing me of BS when you are once again clearly short on fact as usual. This is not about circles which you seem to be trapped in. It is about meeting a legal requirement when you advance a theory in court. Mike knows as I do that this is a legal requirement which Taylor failed to fulfill. Why are you absent of or constantly choose to skirt that important legal fact?

Regarding Robinson-Patman, the court decided that issue knowing the entire law, not just one segment. As I previously stated, if the court is wrong then this case would be a slam dunk for appeal and review by the Supreme Court. Also as previously stated, since this decision was unanimous on all counts against the plaintiffs, no dissenting opinion on any legal aspect, the Supreme Court will not accept this case for Appeal. Any impartial legal scholar will tell you that, like it or not.

You state incorrectly that the jury is the final arbiter of the evidence presented. If that is so then Judge Strom is in violation of some law-correct? The fact is that legally a judge can, if it is determined that the derived verdict could NOT be achieved if the jurors UNDERSTOOD ALL the testimony, can void the jury verdict. Are you telling me and other readers that no such provision exists in law?

I will use as an example the fact of the jury award of $1.28 billion versus Taylor's calculation of $2.1 billion. Since there was no testimony to support their $1.28 billion was that derived from a Mickey Mouse movie-were they paying attention to the testimony? Did they just make that up? Was the jury wrong or was Taylor wrong? They cannot both be correct.

Since there was no testimony to the contrary, even from the plaintiff's witnesses, how did the jury conclude that Tyson had no valid business reason to enter marketing agreements with producers? There was zero testimony to support their conclusion. Did they conclude on their own that the plaintiff and defense witnesses must all have lied under oath regarding that matter? Are jurors not required to derive their opinion from testimony or can they just make things up and convict at will? With all due respect, this case is over.

 

[fedup2]

Thank you for your response Agman. I asked you because I knew you had the answer and it would be an honest one.
There are answers to many of these discussions with the exception of the ones based solely on emotion. These are much like politics & religion.

We all have our beliefs & it does no good to argue them. You go to bed and wake up mad & accomplish nothing. They are a total waste of time and energy. These are the ones that we have to distance ourselves from Agman. We have no idea how many days we have on this earth. To waste them bickering would be senseless! Have a great weekend.