Fox Guarding the Hen House: Trial Lawyer Who Repeatedly Sued Food Companies Now Regulating Them
by Capitol ConfidentialMississippi native J. Dudley Butler is a notorious plaintiff’s attorney who has filed numerous lawsuits against poultry companies alleging unfair marketing and procurement practices.
Before his nomination by President Obama as Administrator of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration (GIPSA) – an agency charged with monitoring the marketing of livestock, poultry, meat and other ag products and ensuring healthy competition — he was an attorney in the Butler Farm and Ranch Law Group in Canton, Mississippi and well-known to the meat and poultry industry. He was one of the “Johnnie Cochrans” of ag law: “Got a chicken? Got a case.”
His appointment as GIPSA Administrator was hailed by the populist group R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America), where he was previously a member, and by the Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM), which he helped to found. While Butler’s legal efforts to bring Packers and Stockyards Act cases against poultry companies failed, his nomination as GIPSA administrator made R-CALF and friends realize they had hit pay-dirt: The friendly lawyer who donated a saddle to their 2009 Convention fundraising auction now might be able to alter the very rules that had been an obstacle to success in court.
Attorney and fellow OCM Member Dave Domina also saw the potential for sealing legal victories: “This is a narrow moment in history when a difference can be made.”
Butler saw language in the 2008 Farm Bill that mandated GIPSA rulemaking on “undue preferences” as the train to which he could hitch a giant regulatory caboose. Instead of restricting himself to what Congress mandated, the proposal he shepherded to the Federal Register in June 2010 included language to reduce the legal obstacles he had encountered in court. Under such a scenario, the private practice to which we might return could be far more victorious in court – and far more lucrative.
When the rule finally became public, its staggering scope and impact prompted sharp criticism, especially in light of its lack of a meaningful economic impact analysis. In a move that shocked those who understand “the rules surrounding rulemaking,” Butler’s agency issued a “misconceptions and explanations” document to defuse criticism – something considered highly inappropriate once rulemaking is underway.
At the same time, many groups submitted requests for extension to the short, 60-day comment period – a common request when rules are significant. Butler replied to numerous livestock and poultry groups almost immediately and informed them there would be no extension. He forgot one critical to-do: a political reality check with his superiors. Given lawmakers’ growing understanding of the proposal’s impact and their expressions of concern, Butler’s superiors overruled his decision and granted a 90-day extension. But Butler’s stubborn refusal and knee-jerk response reveal much about the way he hopes to drive his train before he has to exit the administration.
It wasn’t long before folks in town smelled a rat.
In a highly contentious House Agriculture Committee hearing July 20, Livestock Subcommittee Chairman David Scott told Butler and Under Secretary Edward Avalos that they “very, very seriously overstepped their boundaries” and that was especially true, Scott said, given that some of the provisions in the proposed rule “were soundly rejected” by the House Agriculture Committee, the House, the Senate and conference committee during the 2008 Farm Bill debate. Reps. Minnick, Costa, Goodlatte and Chairman Peterson gave Butler a tongue-lashing that was likened by one member of the media to “breaking out a can of whoopass.”
Had the lawmakers followed some of Butler’s speaking engagements after his appointment, the proposal might not have been such a surprise.
In a speech to OCM in August 2009, Butler hinted at what the proposed rule might do. He suggested that the new proposal would be “a plaintiff lawyer’s dream.” He also talked about “real money:” “There are only certain things a violation of the regulation, if you will, written regulation, that they can fine on, I think a maximum is $11,000 that they can fine $11,000 a day, but the real money that you are talking about comes from the section dealing with damages, compensatory damages, to other types of damages that DOJ can either seek or you can seek in a private right of action.”
He urged members of OCM to file comments in support of the efforts: “Do not send us 700 letters that are exactly the same. If you can’t take the time to save your way of life and my way of life – I still live on my farm – I’m just transplanted to Washington right now, when I catch a plane this afternoon I’m going to New Orleans and drive to my farm, it is important to me. It’s important to my family so I’m begging you, sit down, take the time to write us some comments. Have friends write us a comment. Have consumers write us a comment not just from a producer standpoint. We need to hear from everybody.”
In private meetings, Butler has been known to refer to himself as “anointed,” and perhaps that self-importance has prevented the discretion that could have been his political savior.
In the Fall of 2009, Butler spoke at the Stockgrowers Annual Convention in Rapid City. At that time he was the newly appointed Administrator of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Act. According to the High Plains Journal, “Butler made a special point of asking for comments and support from farmers and ranchers by way of letters, phone calls, etc. He said he needs to receive individual comments from individual producers with their own stories. He added this is absolutely necessary to getting his job done as there will undoubtedly be litigation from those who seek to defend the current status quo.”[8]
The challenge now before him is the growing awareness among Congress of just how misguided — and downright devastating – this rule will be if finalized. More than a quarter of the U.S. House of Representatives signed onto a letter telling Agriculture Secretary Vilsack that they were extremely concerned about the adverse economic impact of the rule. Numerous Senate letters and state delegation letters have been sent, too. Even Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) sent a letter questioning why no economic analysis has been done.
If Butler is summoned back to the Hill to respond to the many new developments – including revelations about a tape of his 2009 speech to OCM where he called language in the forthcoming rule “a plaintiff laywer’s dream” – as Ricky Ricardo once said: “You got some splainin’ to do.”
In total, over 2 million jobs have been eliminated, in contrast to the over 3 million more jobs Americans were promised if Democrats’ 2009 stimulus plan passed. The only place in America that has exceeded its projected job growth following Democrats’ stimulus is Washington, D.C.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
35 Comments
If WE THE PEOPLE, do not find a way to put a stop to this nonsense, our country will never recover! I just heard that 53% of Americans feel 'less free' today, than 5 years ago…that's an ominous statement! The only ones who can fix this is the American people!!! VOTE!!!
When is enough enough. One czar or reprobate after another lands a position under the wing of this administration. Obama surrounds himself with the exact opposite of what America needs. He deseves no mercy from the American people. How can some still say they like him personally. He is horrible and completely inept.
There is only one way to fix this and fix this for good. To create a system of business and capital markets that have complete transparency so that people can decide (without a personal injury lawyer telling them they can shake someone down) how they want to allocate their purchasing power. I know this sounds like selfish self-promotion but there is only one system that I have seen that offers these advantages and it is the one I created in "The Fix – Capitalism Version 2.0".
As long as we allow ourselves to believe a lack of transparency is okay, there will be people like this parasite Mr. Butler) who will find a way to make piles of money off of it by providing NOTHING the market really values. Corruption has no value it is a cost and as long as we allow liberal-progressives to poison our children, infect our homes and destroy our systems of social and economic intercourse, they will prosper at our expense. It really is that simple and the only way to fix it is to fix it for good with an omnibus approach that puts an end to every opportunity for corruption to be introduced into our markets and society – one that doesn't rely upon corrupt lawyers to decide how our society and markets will operate, but the society and markets themselves on a real-time basis.
END TO SELFISH SELF-PROMOTION.
Now everyone should beat the fire out of me for the shamelessness of my conduct as you are at least as entitled to hold me up to derision for having the nerve to suggest I know better than anyone else – just like these shills, but at least I want a system where nobody is deciding for anyone else and we all decide for ourselves. At least I would hope to avoid a titanic flow of criticism on that count. On the other hand, flame me baby! It's Friday!
Unfrtunately there are a growing number of these 'moles' burrowing into our bureaucracies. When the White House Changes, heck when congress changes we need to call in the the bug killers to route these cockroaches out of the system. We got a lot of work to do to undo the damages that have been done and are still happening.
So, akin to the Pigford 1 & 2 lawsuits at USDA these Democrats find yet another avenue to RAPE
the US Treasury, using the USDA's back door. What did we expect?
But this ones agenda may be to loot and then align with the Vegans to use his position to change
rules that would lead us to become a meat-free society.
How long will we put up with this, why didn't someone on the Repb side out him? Because both
sides have engaged in these little partisan games to a certain extent, and they pinky-swore not to
tell on one another.
Problem is the Left have no table manners, when it's their turn they act like hungry HOGS, calling
much attention to themselves and outing the whole well-oiled process.
If we don't get a handle on this kind of stuff, we have not ONE CHNACE in HELL of this country
surviving. NOT ONE CHANCE!
FoP!!!
.
All our talk is going to be for not if we do not have "independent investigations" into all of these Marxist, Communist cancers infesting our Government. Only when they are jailed will the others take a step back and rethink what they are doing to America.
Right now, they truly believe, I mean absolutely believe they are above the law. How many of us right now could rattle off 10 Democrats who are under investigation for crimes against our country? Most of us?
It "won't" change until we MAKE our new lawmakers follow "our" wants, that is to investigate, indict, prosecute and imprison all of these traitors. Nothing less than that will impact this destructive path Mr. Obama is taking us down.
ONLY 53% holy crap, my entire household feels that way making my house 100% feeling less free. Really only 53%? That amazes me
Get the government out of my: Life, property, bank, car, health care, tanning booth, restaurant, radio, TV, schools and NOW MY FOOD. How did the people in the 1800s survive without all this government intervention?
Andrew Breitbart- Where would we be without your articles that expose the hypocracy in America! Thank You!
"(GIPSA) – an agency charged with monitoring the marketing of livestock, poultry, meat and other ag products and ensuring healthy competition."
Talk about fundamental failure. Monitoring food for quality and cleanliness is one thing. "Ensuring healthy competition" is something the government has ZERO, ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE TO ASSUME. And I don't think people realize how many of these types of bureaucracies exist in our country. They have been established slowly but steadily, particularly in the last 20 years. And hence, you have folks like myself, that see NO difference in Dems and Reps other than when it comes to social issues-that is, issues the government has no right to be involved in.
Just when you think the libs can't find a way to destroy more jobs or shut down more industries….
Next, we'll see Malik Shabazz in some race relations role. Trust me..
Being nominated by Baracky is the first clue that this guy is a SOB!
It's all par for the course in our banana republic. I guess we shouldn't be surprised considering Hussein made some pedophile pervert the school czar.
This November we throw out the leftwing filth.
Great attempting to ruin the countries food system, whats next? If anyone is interested i found a site that makes it easy to comment against this "rule"
http://nppc.org/Consumer_Postcards/default.aspx
Tort lawyer skunk; which, btw, better be on the table after Nov elections.
I would have to say that this man has been bought and paid for by Obama and the demcrates (socialist).
He has, by his actions, sold out American and it's people. Is there anything some people won't do for power and money?
ANOTHER BUTTHEAD TO FIRE WHEN THE LAW ALLOWS
now let me get this straight this clown is the chickenshit czar ???
remember, all of those Obamy voters feel uneasy when they have to make decisions on their own. Once the gov takes over all of those hard decisions for them, they will be "free" from having to do all that hard thinkin.
remember, all of those Obamy voters feel uneasy when they have to make decisions on their own. Once the gov takes over all of those hard decisions for them, they will be "free" from having to do all that hard thinkin. less thinking=more freedom see?
Ahhhh makes perfect sense now. I think I'm gonna move to the moon.
What a SPIN!!!
The fact is that Scott and many members who signed the letter to Vilsack are on the payroll of the big meat packers who are breaking the law!!! The Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration had not been doing its job for quite a while. It was even investigated by the OIG — the report came back so damning that the lady running it just disappeared! Now there is someone in who will really enforce the law instead of acting as a legal department for the meat packers. The politicians have been using the meats industry as a piggy bank for political bribes!
In my particular case, I wasn't even able to watch my livestock being weighed without retaliation. The courts and their big K Street firms have been attacking family farmer's rights to where the meat packers are not even paying based on the quality of the animals now, but formulas of their own profitability. They have stripped the profit part right out of family farmer's pocket and captured the value of their assets for themselves.
Just look up this 6th Circuit case and you can see why producers are outraged at the lack of enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act. (Terry vs. Tyson– yahoo broilers group). It is the meatpackers and their allies who want to keep from treating family farmers fairly and within the law.
This article is spin at is greatest. Now I know how Joseph Goebbles did it in Germany!!
It is just too sad that people here, as in Nazi Germany, could not see what was really happening.
you mean young ol' col. sanders…
you can not defeat an enemy when he is in your house and you don't know who he is…..
Do you people even know what you are talking about or are you just going on what you just read?
More of the same. Didn't Obama appoint some former labor bigwig to head the NRLB last year?
Breitbart is perpetuating a big lie in this column.
First, the GIPSA Rule is not staggering in its scope but rather remarkable for its brevity and clarity. Unlike the author of this column, I've read it, raise cattle and understand the issues.
Criticism of the Rule is coming from the meat packing industry and its apologists, not from independent cattle producers. The Rule is a much needed step to restore competitive markets in an industry dominated by 4 meat packers who process over 80% of the cattle in this country. One of those packers also happens to be a Brazilian packer, the world's largest.
The packers have been using a number of practices to eliminate a competitive cash market for livestock and thereby force cattle producers into vertically integrated relationships with them, similar to those which exist in the poultry business.
The quote used in the column–taken from Beef Magazine–is a deliberate distortion of Administrator Butler's remarks in a disgusting strategy of making Butler a strawman rather than focusing on and debating the actual language of the Rule, something which Breitbart's column conspicuously avoids. The absence of any discussion of the Rule itself compels the conclusion that Breitbart has no clue as to what the Rule actually does and is simply parroting information provided him by the meat packing industry.
Administrator Butler did not suggest that the Rule would be a "plaintiff lawyer's dream" as the Breitbart suggests. To the contrary. What Mr. Butler actually stated is that "Sections 202 A and B" of the Packers and Stockyards Act with their undefined use of "terms like unfair, unreasonable, or undue prejudice, that’s a lawyer’s dream, a plaintiff lawyer’s dream."
He then said that the Rule would "define some of these terms, to put parameters around them." In other words, the proposed Rule will reduce litigation by defining terms which the Act makes actionable but fails to define. The manner in which Mr. Butler's statement was lifted mid-sentence and out of context is most unethical and Breitbart, by relying on Beef Magazine rather than the original statement, is guilty of shoddy journalism.
The proposed Rule was not formulated under the Farm Bill, as Breitbart asserts, but under the Packers and Stockyards Act. This is a crucial point as the Breitbart also references the July 20 Subcommittee hearing chaired by David Scott (D-GA). That was the tactic Chairman Scott took. I watched that hearing and a couple of others. Chairman Scott's lack of knowledge is an embarrassment to production agriculture.
But then, he needs no real knowledge on this or any other production agricultural issue. You see, the good chairman took in $24,000 from the meat packing industry and its apologists during the 2009-2010 election cycle. He took in another $3,000 from Charlie Rangel but Breitbart somehow views Chairman Scott as protecting us from the heavy handed regulation of big government. (Scott received not a penny from the proponents of the Rule.)
Scott's job is to derail the rule. Ditto for Chairman Peterson (D-MN) who in the same election cycle took in $123,800 from the meat packing industry and its apologists.
No, Breitbart, this is not about the Obama Administration and a regulatory burden on the economy. This is about a proposed rule under the Packers and Stockyards Act designed to define undue preferences and other anti-competitive actions by meat packers which are made actionable under the Act. The Rule is a minor, yet vital first step in restoring competitiveness to livestock cash markets.
The issue is whether the Rule will be derailed by the meat packing industry and the democrat members of congress it has purchased with campaign contributions.
By the way, I am a lifetime Republican, did not vote for Obama and feel he should be impeached. Breitbart, however, is dead wrong on this issue, one he obviously knows nothing about.
Jeff,
do you work for pork producers council? How did you conveniently find that website? NPPC has misrepresented the Rule and its effect on producers, claiming that it limits who producers can sell their livestock to. This is a bald faced lie. I am a livestock producer, have read the rule, and it in no wise limits who I sell my livestock to.
You are either badly misinformed or an employee of NPPC.
GIPSA is charged with enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act which does address undue preferences and anti-competitive practices by meat packers. It is somewhat analogous to the Sherman anti-Trust Act.
You mean the same Sherman Anti-Trust act that single handedly destroyed capitalism in this country? Is that what you're talking up?
oh and the gov't definition of 'anti-competitive' is…..actual competitiveness. can't do better than the next guy, noooooooooooooooooooo. That would be fair, and right….two things gov't hasn't a clue about.
It has nothing to do with poltical parties and everything to do with statism. Learn what it is, and stop being a tool for it, tool.
I well understand statism–I've battled it for 30 years as a small business owner. I also understand what happens with the incestuous relationship between big government and big business. Have you read the GIPSA Rule? Do you know what formula or grid cattle are and what is meant by the term captive supplies? That's what this debate is about, not an academic discussion on statism.
riiiiight….just ignore the big bad wolf in the room, he won't hurt any of the sheep. noooooooo he only wants to see us all equal and fair.
seriously, to say that statism doesn't have anything to do with this (or just about any other political issue you want to bring up), is utterly moronic. apparently you DON'T understand statism, if you did you would not brush it aside like dirt on your shoulder. either that, or you are willfully compliant with statism, for your own reasons. which is it?
You must be logged in to post a comment.