Econ101 said:
agman said:
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.