Holding call stats confirmed

[Kaiser]

Ah, I see, the "vast majority."

Feel free to share A SINGLE CASE so we can discuss.

Steven A Cohen of SAC Capital, I mentioned him above. He is a Billionaire that is one of the most famous and habitual inside traders on Wall Street. He has always gotten with just fines for exactly the reasons I stated.

Discuss.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

Steven A Cohen of SAC Capital, I mentioned him above. He is a Billionaire that is one of the most famous and habitual inside traders on Wall Street. He has always gotten with just fines for exactly the reasons I stated.

Discuss.

This doesn't support your contention.

You said the FBI is convicting people without a smoking gun. Was Steven A. Cohen convicted? Yes or no?

 

[Kaiser]

And, yes, the FBI is absolutely given a "smoking gun" in the form of recordings, documents, witness testimony, from someone or something that fills the void and links causality.

This is your statement about smoking guns. Give me some examples to discuss.

My example about Steve Cohen is that smoking guns very rarely exist.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

This is your statement about smoking guns. Give me some examples to discuss.

My example about Steve Cohen is that smoking guns very rarely exist.

He was never convicted of insider trading.

What's the point?

I asked you to pull an example from the "vast majority" of cases where someone was convicted without evidential basis.

Lool, you want examples of the FBI using evidence i.e. a smoking gun to convict someone?

Here:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/20/fbi-informant
https://theintercept.com/2017/10/10...l-fbi-tactics-to-recruit-potential-informant/
https://www.thestreet.com/story/140...ecording-in-case-against-insurer-amtrust.html
http://www.tennessean.com/story/new...d-of-trying-to-put-a-hit-on-husband/22608907/

In every single one of those examples the FBI is utilizing different tactics, be it recordings, a mole, undercover agent, et cetera, to substantiate and provide evidence of illegal activity....that's a smoking gun.

 

[greatwallofdallas]

Any professional sport in which a plethora of money is involved is rigged to some extent.

This link was posted March 29 and it predicted pretty much what is happening to the Cowboys season right now.

Here’s an updated link:

 

[Proximo]

dudes, this was just stats on holding calls, not the end-all, be-all on why they suck...there are plenty of threads for that...I got sick of hearing that there are never holds against the dallas DLine, although they have most recently been in the top 5 in the league in sacks....then I tossed in an observation about the DBs since I hear their name too much in a negative way

Agree agree agree.

There's a multitude of things wrong with us right now, but this ridiculousness with the opposition NEVER being called for holding is a completely legitimate topic and needs attention, and not just by us here on CZ.

 

[Kaiser]

What's the point?

I asked you to pull an example from the "vast majority" of cases where someone was convicted without evidential basis.

Lool, you want examples of the FBI using evidence i.e. a smoking gun to convict someone?

You said there was always a smoking gun, not that you can find examples where they did. The examples you list are Counterterroism cases and Murder for hire that are rare cases. This was your exact words one page back:

And, yes, the FBI is absolutely given a "smoking gun" in the form of recordings, documents, witness testimony, from someone or something that fills the void and links causality.

Here is the first example in Google of a conspiracy conviction without a recording, etc. They show exactly what I'm talking about, laying out the benefit without a document or recording of the defendants agreeing to a conspiracy -

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/p...cted-conspiracy-and-aggravated-identity-theft

Here is the DOJ News link and the top case listed where they didn't prove conspiracy, they got the guy to plead to a lesser charge:

https://www.justice.gov/briefing-room

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/p...cted-conspiracy-and-aggravated-identity-theft

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

You said there was always a smoking gun, not that you can find examples where they did. The examples you list are Counterterroism cases and Murder for hire that are rare cases. This was your exact words one page back:

And, yes, the FBI is absolutely given a "smoking gun" in the form of recordings, documents, witness testimony, from someone or something that fills the void and links causality.

Here is the first example in Google of a conspiracy conviction without a recording, etc. They show exactly what I'm talking about, laying out the benefit without a document or recording of the defendants agreeing to a conspiracy -

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/p...cted-conspiracy-and-aggravated-identity-theft

Here is the DOJ News link and the top case listed where they didn't prove conspiracy, they got the guy to plead to a lesser charge:

https://www.justice.gov/briefing-room

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/p...cted-conspiracy-and-aggravated-identity-theft

I think you're obfuscating a bit. What exactly is the point about counterterroism or murder-for-hire? The FBI is not typically not brought in for local candy store robberies. We're talking about federal crimes; they're all serious by default. The point is that the FBI is looking for substantial evidence to hang their hat on, not motive mongering.

Have we abandoned the Stephen Cohen example?

I just read the example you provided (https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/p...cted-conspiracy-and-aggravated-identity-theft).

The three insurance agents were caught conspiring in doing the following:

1. Submitting "applications for life insurance policies on behalf of people at least some of whom did not know that a policy was applied for or issued in their name and/or did not want a life insurance policy."
2. Sharing "the commissions and bonuses issued by American Income Life Insurance (AIL) in connection with the fraudulent policies." In other words, the FBI had proof of them sharing the ill-gotten-gains...verifiable evidence.
3. Paying "recruiters to find people willing to take medical exams in exchange for approximately $100, and then took the personal information associated with those people and submitted applications for life insurance in their names, in many cases without the individuals’ knowledge."
   
4. The insurance agents fraudulently "opened hundreds of bank accounts to fund the premiums on the fraudulent policies, and typically paid one to four months of premiums before letting the policies lapse."
5. "All three defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud."

The charges for conspiracy to commit wire fraud were all substantiated by points 1-4, or in other words, proof (i.e. smoking guns).

To utilize the same rationale being applied to league bias theory being spun, you'd have to show all three of these insurance agents were convicted based on nothing more than the FBI looking at their bank accounts and surmising "meh, how else would they have gotten that money," leveling charges and actually getting the conviction.

Bringing it back to Goodell/penalties/bias and the Cowboys. I'm still waiting for one piece of actual evidence that substantiates the conspiracy theory to the extent it was demonstrated in the insurance conspiracy fraud case.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Has Garrett gotten mad once at the refs and in their face? How does he not when they slammed Witten to the ground?

He is too busy clapping to get pissed at the refs.

 

[Dre11]

Awesome. Maybe when the team is actually competitive these will actually matter?

But since we're talking about penalties here's some more info: only TWO teams have FEWER penalties called against them per game this season. TWO.

So while we're obsessing over holding calls as proof of some sort of vendetta, we're ignoring the fact that 29 teams have more penalties called against them than the Dallas Cowboys. Twenty-nine teams.

https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/penalties-per-game

Damn JG doing a hell of a job. Discipline

 

[Beast_from_East]

Legit question guys.......................over these past three games, do you really think a holding call or two would have changed the outcome?

We are losing games by over 20+ points, is one or two holding penalties on our opponents really going to make that much difference at this point?

And by the way, I agree that the lack of holding calls has something to do with Jerry vs Goddell, I just don't think it would matter right now.

 

[Kaiser]

I think you're obfuscating a bit. What exactly is the point about counterterroism or murder-for-hire?

Because those are extreme examples in law enforcement for cases you rarely see. A counterterrorism case is done at the National level with assets from the Intelligence Community, its irrelevant to a criminal conspiracy case. If I saw Jones can fire Jason Garrett, you might point to Seal Team Six carrying out the Osama Bin Laden raid, but it isn't relevant.

 

[Kaiser]

Have we abandoned the Stephen Cohen example?

There was no smoking gun whatsoever and Cohen agreed to a fine of 1.2 Billion dollars after he pled guilty. They had the cause and effect, but no smoking gun.

 

[greatwallofdallas]

Pro sports are scripted to some extent however most fans enjoy playing mental gymanastics to help themselves not see it.

Here’s an example of mental gymnastics:

We get invited to visit the house of someone you admire.....

As soon as we enter the house we are greeted by a pungent smell... then I ask if you can smell that and you say yes....

Then we see the walls and notice brown smears all over them and I point at it for you to see..

Then we look at the floor and all over the rug we see more brown smelly stains....

When we leave the house I tell you, “ I’m sure there was feces in that house”

And you disagree because you never saw an actual physical turd.

And that is how fans defend sports till the bitter end....

 

[Dre11]

Legit question guys.......................over these past three games, do you really think a holding call or two would have changed the outcome?

We are losing games by over 20+ points, is one or two holding penalties on our opponents really going to make that much difference at this point?

And by the way, I agree that the lack of holding calls has something to do with Jerry vs Goddell, I just don't think it would matter right now.

Certainly, changes momentum in a game. Look at the call that took away a td for us. Look at a missed call that let one stand for the Chargers.

 

[Kaiser]

Bringing it back to Goodell/penalties/bias and the Cowboys. I'm still waiting for one piece of actual evidence that substantiates the conspiracy theory to the extent it was demonstrated in the insurance conspiracy fraud case.

In the linked case they had the cause and effect and documentation of the benefit, but not the type of document admitting the conspiracy. That's the point of the last couple of pages of this thread.

To the NFL example, I've never said a smoking gun is publicly known. My point is that they rarely exist and the Steven Cohen case is an example of that. What you are calling a smoking gun is the evidence of the effect. In this case guys like Pants are going to look at the statistics to see, but at this point it certainly walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

There was no smoking gun whatsoever and Cohen agreed to a fine of 1.2 Billion dollars after he pled guilty. They had the cause and effect, but no smoking gun.

Cohen was never convicted of insider trading. You said he was, habitually.

He was charged for failing to prevent insider trading by employees at his firm. He plead guilty.

 

[Kaiser]

Cohen was never convicted of insider trading. You said he was, habitually.

He was charged for failing to prevent insider trading by employees at his firm. He plead guilty.

He pled guilty before trial and paid a fine of over a billion dollars. Without a "smoking gun". Are you really arguing there is a substantive difference?

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

In the linked case they had the cause and effect and documentation of the benefit, but not the type of document admitting the conspiracy. That's the point of the last couple of pages of this thread.

To the NFL example, I've never said a smoking gun is publicly known. My point is that they rarely exist and the Steven Cohen case is an example of that. What you are calling a smoking gun is the evidence of the effect. In this case guys like Pants are going to look at the statistics to see, but at this point it certainly walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

Kaiser, this is a bit of strawman you've built up (i.e. "they don't have guys being recorded saying 'let's get them Cowboys'").

I never made that oversimplified definition of a smoking gun. What I have maintained is that the FBI would have substantive evidence to show causality, demonstrate culpability or clear nexus. The loose theory of 'Goodell's mad at Jerruh, so he's got the refs screwing the Boys...look here's the stats' isn't substantial evidence. It's simply a convenient pet theory that makes connections but doesn't provide the dots (i.e. facts, substantive evidence, etc.).

Evidence of the effect? Oh, please do explain because that's quite literally the exact opposite of what I'm doing.

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

He pled guilty before trial and paid a fine of over a billion dollars. Without a "smoking gun". Are you really arguing there is a substantive difference?

Again, your application of "smoking gun" is oversimplified and I'm not going to be saddled with it.

That said, the sword cuts both ways.

Are you telling me Cohen would agree to plead guilty and that SAC would agree to pay $1.2B in fines knowing the SEC didn't have substantial damning evidence against them?

Anyways, this has been fun and respectful. If you wanna discuss it further I'm game, but otherwise we can just agree to disagree.