Cuban wins

Those of you still pining for Mark Cuban to become a Major League owner will be happy to hear that the insider trading charges have been dismissed.

The dismissal is based on a pleading deficiency. In very basic terms, the government alleged that Cuban did X wrong, but the law requires that he have done X + Y to be held liable. The government can theoretically cure with an amended complaint that alleges X + Y, but I question whether they will do that. Why? Because it doesn’t strike me that alleging X +Y would have been that hard to do back when the first complaint was filed, and the fact that they didn’t allege it suggests that they can’t prove that Cuban did X +Y as opposed to them simply making a drafting error. I mean, sure, it’s government lawyering we’re talking about here so anything is possible, but lots of people review high profile complaints like that, and I suspect that in this case they simply didn’t have the goods on Cuban.

So I guess that clears the way for him to fly in and rescue Tom Hicks from himself now.


Print This Post
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
David
Guest
David
So, the SEC had no case against Cuban.  No surprise, there.  Cuban is very smart and, based on what I’ve heard, has kept his finances and his financial prognostications as open and public as Jenna Jameson’s nether-regions.  So, their prosecution was bogus.  Why, then, did they charge him in the first place? There was an interesting motive suggested by several people in the media that goes like this: At the time the SEC started their failed investigation, Cuban was looking for hip, popular programming to generate buzz for his HD TV network.  One of the most popular documentaries on college… Read more »
Craig Calcaterra
Guest
Craig Calcaterra

Or, you know, it could have been a pleading deficiency.

David
Guest
David

Sure.  All those e-mails amongst the SEC prosecutors fixated on ‘Loose Change’ were just, well, losers at work with nothing better to do than talk about Cuban’s TV offerings.

Okay, okay, you win: the government is great, the government is God, murder the Arabs, etc., etc., etc.

Craig Calcaterra
Guest
Craig Calcaterra

Not saying it is, David. I’m just always skeptical of theories that depend on the government acting in concert to accomplish anything. Mostly because, my experience in the government, shows it to be outrageously inefficient and damn nigh incompetent when it comes to most things. 

If there was a desire on behalf of some people to put the screws to Cuban, it would have gone through ten meetings, two executive sessions, and then everyone would have forgotten about it over a long weekend, because they’ll be damned if they’re taking any work home.

David
Guest
David
(This is, obviously, a really long post.  Sorry to be so long-winded.  I wish I had the confidence to be brief!) First off, the government is so damn huge that even if only a tiny fraction of them are working in concert, it’s still a massive number of people.  How big is the government?  Well, at the last census, the three richest counties in America are all in suburban Washington D.C. (led by, of course, the Kingdom of Defense Contractors, Fairfax County, Virginia). So we have the sheer volume of people all subsisting in an environment where, as one retired… Read more »
Craig Calcaterra
Guest
Craig Calcaterra
“You say that the government is too bureaucratic to be malicious.” No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying that I am skeptical when such charges are leveled. It happens. It’s wrong in my mind, however, to assume that it happens as much as people say it does, and I think that it’s not enough to point to history and say “they do it all the time” when you’re making a case against the government. Also, you added the “wacko” part. My term “conspiracy theroy” was meant in the most literal of terms: you’re advancing a theory that a conspiracy is… Read more »
David
Guest
David
Of course not every allegation leveled at the government is true.  That’s self-evident. “The U.S. government plotted to kill Julius Casear.” That’s not true, and therefore not every accusation made can be true.  I mean, that’s not what I was saying at all.  I was making kind of the inverted point: that the government commits many crimes (actually, what I mean to say is persons within the government commit crimes) but they’re exempt from investigation – and certainly from prosecution.  And one major reason for this is because people say that anybody accusing the government of a crime is spouting… Read more »
Aaron Moreno
Guest
Aaron Moreno

I’m gonna ignore all that and say that the Feds probably pushed weak charges on Cuban to push him to deal. Like in the Bonds case, the defense saw through that, and got a good win.

David
Guest
David
Aaron: I think that that sounds every bit as probable as the idea that it was a political prosecution.  However, that would not make it similar to the Bonds case because, if the feds were just hoping for a quick plea from Bonds (like they got from Chris Webber, for instance) then they would’ve dropped the charges as soon as they saw that he was calling their bluff….and they certainly would’ve dropped them when the judge dismissed them, rather than filed an appeal that, by all accounts, has no chance of being won. It would be nice to think that… Read more »
Aaron Moreno
Guest
Aaron Moreno

I think it’s likely that this was a political prosecution against Cuban. However, David, I don’t think that the Fed is in an insane conspiracy to get back at him for supporting an insane conspiracy.

Think about it!

Jason
Guest
Jason

“And I am absolutely 100% positive about the government’s guilt on the date that came after September 10.”

Isn’t there a Godwin’s Law for this one yet?

David
Guest
David
Aaron: I did “think about it”.  I wrote about it above, and linked to a ‘New York Times’ article with transcribed e-mails in which the SEC was angrily discussing Cuban’s involvement with the political documentary (which you called “insane”, that’s a compelling argument you made!) and he was then, coincidentally, prosecuted. So, you think the government is great, and that they never conspire.  You think that dirt poor Arabs who weigh 155 lbs. can, say, overtake a pilot trained in counterterrorism who’s 6’2” with a body that Lebron James would envy, and that they could do it before he or… Read more »
Craig Calcaterra
Guest
Craig Calcaterra

David—I’m sorry, and I know that it doesn’t fit under my typical guidelines about offensiveness, etc., but I’m not going to allow 9/11 stuff on the basis of time and place.  As in this isn’t the right one of either of those things for that.

The Cuban stuff at least deals with the subject of the post and a figure relevant for sports.  If anyone wants to have a 9/11 theory conversation offline, I’ll gladly facilitate an exchange of email addresess.  But this is my forum, and I simply prefer not to have it here.

Thanks in advance.

Jason
Guest
Jason

I’d call you crazy but I don’t want to insult crazy people.

David
Guest
David

I totally understand that this is not the place for such an incendiary topic.  I’ll gladly take Craig up on his offer to further the discussion via e-mail (or via the Star Wars message boards, where anything goes!) if anybody is so interested.

tadthebad
Guest
tadthebad

David, the leaps of logic you make to “support” your agenda is troubling.

wpDiscuz