|Farmers Getting Closer With
Appeal Brief Filing in CBOT Lawsuit
February 11, 2003
For Immediate Release
Contact: Harvey Joe Sanner
Des Arc, Arkansas - According to Arkansas soybean farmer Harvey Joe Sanner, one of the original named plaintiffs, it's been nearly 14 years (July 11, 1989) since the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) issued the infamous Emergency Order that depressed soybean prices and caused a lawsuit to be filed Nov. 14, 1989.
Sanner said, "We have been in court all this time. The CBOT's case was based on lies from the beginning, yet they have used their money and power to avoid justice and confuse the facts in a stalling campaign that is finally nearing its end." The appeal brief requesting a new trial has been filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on behalf of a class of soybean growers (see web link below). This case has been before the Appellate Court three times and each time the decisions of the lower court was partially or completely overturned. In 1992 the CBOT argued that they were immune from antitrust liability. They lost that argument."
"Perhaps the most telling decision that goes to the heart of the dishonesty employed by the CBOT in this case was the 1995 Appellate Court ruling that granted farmers the standing to sue the CBOT. The CBOT argued for 6 years that farmers had no right to sue the Board and claimed that their futures market activities didn't impact farmers who use the cash market. In a 1990 Top Producer magazine interview, Cash Mahlmann, Chairman of the CBOT said this, "All farmers have a stake in whatever happens at the Board, because all farmers use the Board in some form to sell their crops." As one can see, Mr. Mahlmann admitted that all farmers are impacted by the Board -- but it spent tons of money and court time denying that truth. The same disregard for the truth happened when Mr. Mahlmann swore under oath and denied that Cargill -- a major grain trader who benefited from the Emergency Order -- had complained to him about the market conditions in 1989. Trial evidence proves that Cargill had numerous contacts with Chairman Mahlmann -- urging him to intervene in the market -- and he complied with Cargill's wishes."
Sanner suggests that a good question for the CBOT would be why they convinced a judge to place a seal or gag order on the evidence of this case back in 1989. They should also answer why they recently asked the Appellate Court to seal all the evidence presented to them. The appeals court denied their request.
"I guess the most amazing thing about this whole issue is how someone can be proven dishonest and yet continue a defense based on dishonesty for all these years. If a local yokel is caught lying to a court here, the wrath of a judge would hit him like a thunderstorm. But you can go to Chicago, hire a fancy law firm and a public relations guru that's short on scruples, and live a lie forever -- or at least for 14 years."
For a copy of the appeal filed with United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, go to: