Phil Mickelson with the preemptive Gentleman's Acquittal

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
the association
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2016 6:57 am    Post subject: Phil Mickelson with the preemptive Gentleman's Acquittal

http://espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/15608179/phil-mickelson-not-charged-sec-allegedly-profiting-insider-stock-tip

Is anybody surprised here? OF COURSE he won't be charged! Our fear industrial complex cannot just willy-nilly step to an esteemed fellow like Phil Mickelson, FFS.

tl/dr: Accountability and the rule of law are for the little people. Don't try this at home, fam ...

#exemptfromjustice
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12612

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2016 9:59 am    Post subject: Re: Phil Mickelson with the preemptive Gentleman's Acquittal

the association wrote:
http://espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/15608179/phil-mickelson-not-charged-sec-allegedly-profiting-insider-stock-tip

Is anybody surprised here? OF COURSE he won't be charged! Our fear industrial complex cannot just willy-nilly step to an esteemed fellow like Phil Mickelson, FFS.

tl/dr: Accountability and the rule of law are for the little people. Don't try this at home, fam ...

#exemptfromjustice


Nor if you are a woman who writes cookbooks.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
the association
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2016 11:08 am    Post subject: Re: Phil Mickelson with the preemptive Gentleman's Acquittal

ribeye wrote:
the association wrote:
http://espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/15608179/phil-mickelson-not-charged-sec-allegedly-profiting-insider-stock-tip

Is anybody surprised here? OF COURSE he won't be charged! Our fear industrial complex cannot just willy-nilly step to an esteemed fellow like Phil Mickelson, FFS.

tl/dr: Accountability and the rule of law are for the little people. Don't try this at home, fam ...

#exemptfromjustice


Nor if you are a woman who writes cookbooks.


Yeah, she was a massive exception to a pretty airtight rule ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2016 11:17 am    Post subject:

The government usually does not bring criminal charges in cases like this. You're making way too much of this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
the association
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2016 12:11 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
The government usually does not bring criminal charges in cases like this. You're making way too much of this.


The government also doesn't file charging documents on the daily against anyone in the Wall Street set ... I'm arguing that the absence of criminal cases (on the insider trading front, as well as within the broader financial services sector) is a function of an abuse of prosecutorial discretion, not the lack of basis upon which to file charges. And I'm further insinuating that Phil Mickelson is viewed very favorably by an influential group in our country who wouldn't look kindly upon charges being leveled against their guy.

If the same burden of proof standard that prosecutors crow about applying in determining whether to bring a case (which is largely a farce ... let's be 100 here; the calculus underlying any charged case [at least one of greater consequence than a garden variety DUI case] is often driven by a series of nuanced and frequently illogical considerations, few of which have any concern for whether the People can get a conviction) was applied here, Mickelson's attorneys would be requesting a bond hearing right about now ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2016 12:43 pm    Post subject:

That's a load of BS. The burden of proof in a civil case is not the same as in a criminal case, and federal prosecutors do not bring DUI charges. In order to get a criminal conviction, the prosecutors would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mickelson knew he was receiving illegal insider information. Not all inside information and tips are illegal.

If your point is that the government is more likely to seek civil penalties instead of criminal penalties for white collar crimes, well, duh. Civil penalties are usually sufficient.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
the association
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2016 1:37 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
That's a load of BS. The burden of proof in a civil case is not the same as in a criminal case, and federal prosecutors do not bring DUI charges. In order to get a criminal conviction, the prosecutors would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mickelson knew he was receiving illegal insider information. Not all inside information and tips are illegal.

If your point is that the government is more likely to seek civil penalties instead of criminal penalties for white collar crimes, well, duh. Civil penalties are usually sufficient.


1. I never argued that the (illusory) burden of proof in a civil setting is the same as in a criminal setting.

2. I never argued that a federal prosecutor brings DUI charges, though I believe you're incorrect on that point ... DUI in a national park, DUI on a military installation, or DUI on other federal lands ... I've seen all three scenarios prosecuted by U.S. Attorneys. These aren't garden variety cases, but my point regarding "garden variety" charging decisions was obviously intended to be a more expansive comment beyond this Mickelson story anyway.

3. As to what a prosecutor "needs to do", I vigorously disagree that they are generally held to the lofty standard you suggest above. We agree that's the narrative. We agree that's the "veneer" of our system. Apparently we disagree with the reality on the ground.

4. Per the SEC, illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security. Insider trading violations may also include "tipping" such information, securities trading by the person "tipped", and securities trading by those who misappropriate such information.

5. Agreed re: the likelihood of civil penalties, but what do you mean by "sufficient"? From whose perspective is that "usually sufficient"? The defendant's?

Based on the publicly-available information, I believe Mickelson should be on the hook on the civil side, and facing criminal charges, as well. I don't see much room for alternative interpretation. But if you disagree, that's fine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2016 2:11 pm    Post subject:

I'm well aware of the definition of insider trading. If you think that the tippee is automatically liable for a criminal offense, you are wrong. When you talk about the burden of proof being illusory, I have to wonder whether you have any idea what you are talking about.

In financial cases, civil penalties are usually sufficient to vindicate the public interest. That is the purpose of the system. The government doesn't prosecute except in egregious cases.

But I get it. You want blood. You want to believe that this is some vast conspiracy against the common man. Knock yourself out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 38751

PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2016 2:13 pm    Post subject:

Prosecutor doesn't bring charges if they don't think they can get a conviction. Don't forget these people need to keep up their exceptional prosecution rates since a lot of them will end up running for political office in the future. They won't press charges if it ends up being a longshot to get a conviction and/or they don't have enough evidence to make it stick in a criminal trial.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
the association
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982

PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2016 8:13 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
I'm well aware of the definition of insider trading. If you think that the tippee is automatically liable for a criminal offense, you are wrong. When you talk about the burden of proof being illusory, I have to wonder whether you have any idea what you are talking about.

In financial cases, civil penalties are usually sufficient to vindicate the public interest. That is the purpose of the system. The government doesn't prosecute except in egregious cases.

But I get it. You want blood. You want to believe that this is some vast conspiracy against the common man. Knock yourself out.


I didn't say "automatically" ... and I make no apologies for calling it like it is when it comes to our system: the deck is stacked favorably and sufficiently for even the most inept prosecutor to get their conviction, even if tasked with prosecuting Taylor Swift for being "too tall and popular". This isn't a conspiracy theory; it's reality. You regularly comment that others don't understand the system, but more often than not, I actually find myself wondering whether you understand it yourself. And let's be clear: the highly-touted convictions rates (noted by the previous poster) that prosecutors and those in their camp prattle on about are the effortless product of a system that mercilessly grinds out plea agreements for 90%+ of those "wins". Sorry, but the best of the best don't ply their trade on behalf of the "People".

But over time, defendants capitulate to a plea for many reasons. Our system has evolved in ways that impose enormous psychological, social and financial pressure on offenders to eventually give up the ghost. So given that foundation of "success" (90%+), prevailing on 1/2 - 2/3 of the remaining cases that go to trial, when the guy on the bench has his paycheck signed by the same person who signs yours (and he probably was a colleague a few years back), and the individuals in the box have a lengthy history of leaning considerably in favor of siding with you before you even clear your throat to begin speaking, doesn't really impress me the way it apparently does the previous poster. So, yeah ... if you want to attack my use of the term "illusory", I would be fairly comfortable wagering that you either don't see the inside of a Courtroom very often, or you are (or have been) a prosecutor suffering from true believer syndrome. Plain and simple ...

Frankly, I'm otherwise startled that an attorney behind a veil of anonymity would maintain this charade that the system is pure, unless you've been less-than-truthful re: your particular line of work. Are you certain you're not working off the other table, counselor?

But AH, seriously, how much smoke do you need to see with Mickelson to call "fire!"? There is convincing evidence in the public domain of his involvement in money laundering, insider trading, and other thorny activities ... above all else, did you read the details in this particular case?

So, yeah ... I'm not out for blood so much as I'm out for calling it like it is ... Mickelson is either very, very, VERY lucky to have this dark cloud threatening his liberty magically vaporize via settlement, or he's the beneficiary of a system that imposes adaptive rules on its citizens, dependent on a series of factors that too frequently fall well outside the scope of the concept "justice for all". But as I've always said, we can agree to disagree on this subject matter, too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2016 8:33 am    Post subject:

the association wrote:
I didn't say "automatically" ... and I make no apologies for calling it like it is when it comes to our system: the deck is stacked favorably and sufficiently for even the most inept prosecutor to get their conviction, even if tasked with prosecuting Taylor Swift for being "too tall and popular". This isn't a conspiracy theory; it's reality.


Wow. It must really amaze you every time someone gets acquitted.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
the association
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982

PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2016 8:44 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
the association wrote:
I didn't say "automatically" ... and I make no apologies for calling it like it is when it comes to our system: the deck is stacked favorably and sufficiently for even the most inept prosecutor to get their conviction, even if tasked with prosecuting Taylor Swift for being "too tall and popular". This isn't a conspiracy theory; it's reality.


Wow. It must really amaze you every time someone gets acquitted.


You're correct; it (generally) does!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
JerryMagicKobe
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 15100

PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2016 9:57 am    Post subject:

Mickelson's fame thrusts his name into the headlines, but this case is about Davis (the insider), and Walters who was the main beneficiary of Davis' information. I have little doubt that Mickelson is dirty, but his value to the prosecution is as a witness rather than a defendant.

Mickelson's gambling is the bigger story.
Phil has maintained a long-term gambling relationship with Billy Walters.
Billy Walters is a shark involved in criminal activity.
Phil owed him a lot of money.
Walters offered an illegal means to satisfy that debt, and Phil (knowingly or not) took that opportunity and broke the law.
Phil was involved in another legal matter involving ties to a notorious sports gambler (Gregory Silveira), large sums of money ($2.75M), money laundering and illegal sports bets.
Phil has demonstrated a consistent pattern of behavior that has put him on the wrong end of a Federal investigation involving illegal gambling and criminal activity twice.

How is this guy still allowed on Tour?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2016 11:43 am    Post subject:

BREAKING NEWS: Phil Mickelson retires from golf to give baseball a try, saying that he'd always been thinking about it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
the association
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982

PostPosted: Fri May 20, 2016 1:12 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
<b>BREAKING NEWS</b>: Phil Mickelson retires from golf to give baseball a try, saying that he'd always been thinking about it.


He looks like what I imagine a Birmingham Baron might look like, so there's that ... however, he also looks like the next time he runs will be the first time, so ... toss-up
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
the association
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:14 am    Post subject:

Update on this embarrassing chapter in American criminal jurisprudence ...

http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/19045918/phil-mickelson-paid-19-million-gambling-debt-vegas-bettor-billy-walters-documents-say
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
splashmtn
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 3961

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:28 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
I'm well aware of the definition of insider trading. If you think that the tippee is automatically liable for a criminal offense, you are wrong. When you talk about the burden of proof being illusory, I have to wonder whether you have any idea what you are talking about.

In financial cases, civil penalties are usually sufficient to vindicate the public interest. That is the purpose of the system. The government doesn't prosecute except in egregious cases.

But I get it. You want blood. You want to believe that this is some vast conspiracy against the common man. Knock yourself out.
to the bolded. to some degree it is a vast conspiracy against the common man. even though it may not be done in that manner.

quite a few of these insiders are getting inside information and making moves based on that intel. which is usually illegal. how illegal? that all depends. But its usually illegal since most of us outsiders dont know what the know. at least not at first.

it's like payola. which still happens today. its just done a bit differently. is that a vast conspiracy against real low level no name independent artists? not directly. but in the end payolay is done best when you have people behind you with the strings to pull or cash to give to make that needle move. only a select few people have that kind of power. and they will only give it to a select few artists. which in the end makes it an issue against the other independent artists/no namers without that big label push.


how does one think all this money stays at the tipee top?

Rules are changed, regulation is loosened. even when its tightened for the common man to believe he has a shot. you find out later the people in charge of actually doing something about the wrong doers dont actually use that ability. so in reality, no matter what the rules state. These cheaters or semi cheaters dont do real jail time, dont get fined enough to matter. so again it does start to look like a conspiracy against the common man. if everything thats supposed to fight for the common man is actually in the pocket of the ultra rich (insiders) what should a common man think?

its a few years old but still makes the point.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-insider-trading-still-rampant/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jonnybravo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 30621

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:51 pm    Post subject:

the association wrote:
Update on this embarrassing chapter in American criminal jurisprudence ...

http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/19045918/phil-mickelson-paid-19-million-gambling-debt-vegas-bettor-billy-walters-documents-say


Despite all this, what bothers me most are his man boobs. Da heck homie, you're a professional "athlete" on TV. Have some pride.
_________________
KOBE
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
the association
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 11:11 pm    Post subject:

jonnybravo wrote:
the association wrote:
Update on this embarrassing chapter in American criminal jurisprudence ...

http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/19045918/phil-mickelson-paid-19-million-gambling-debt-vegas-bettor-billy-walters-documents-say


Despite all this, what bothers me most are his man boobs. Da heck homie, you're a professional "athlete" on TV. Have some pride.


https://www.si.com/more-sports/photos/2014/05/30/rare-phil-mickelson-photos
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakerLanny
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 Oct 2001
Posts: 47565

PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 5:49 pm    Post subject:

This Billy Walters guy is an interesting character. I have to admit, I like his style.
_________________
Love, Laker Lanny
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB