Letters Rogatory Issue
BLafferty
samples for testing by the Feds here in the US.
Not a good omen for Armstrong.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by-us-authorities
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:rP2dnY2wN95hrPjQ...@giganews.com...
If they could have simply "asked" for the AFLD or whomever to turn over
the samples, then why the expense of a trip to Europe a few months ago?
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
BLafferty
TheCoz
> The process has officially started to obtain Armstrong's 1999 urine
> samples for testing by the Feds here in the US.
I thought the '99 samples were tainted, mishandled and contaminated?
Hasn't thousands of dollars been spent analyzing the '99 samples
allready?
What about the years after '99? I think the 02, 03 and 04 samples
should be put under extensive tests.
Coz
BLafferty
evidence of different types. They probably asked to see the chain of
custody as it exists at the French lab for Armstrong's, and perhaps
other rider's, samples from 1999 and later. They would not go the
Letters Rogatory route unless they were satisfied there are no chain of
custody problems.
It appears the Letters Rogatory process was started soon after their
return to the US. I've done one Letter Rogatory in a civil case through
diplomatic channels. It took about 7 months to effect service of the
materials in Germany. My understanding is that in criminal matters, the
process is now much quicker as the offices of Interpol are used.
If the AUSA obtains and tests urine and blood samples for Armstrong and
his teammates from every tour they rode for Postal, there could be an
avalanche of incriminating evidence produced at trial in this country.
It looks like finally the shit is hitting the fan, despite the PR
presented via the AP article of a couple of weeks ago questioning
whether Armstrong would ever be indicted.
BLafferty
Armstrong has alleged that the chain of custody was broken. Apparently
not (surprise, surprise) as evidenced by the Letters Rogatory request.
Yes, other samples from the postal days from all teammates who rode can
be requested--probable have been, too. :-)
BLafferty
start making deals to testify for immunity or a reduced plea.
Mike Jacoubowsky
Speaking as someone with no background in such things, could you explain
in what way a "Letters Rogatory" guarantees immunity from "chain of
custody" issues?
Looking here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_rogatory - it appears
that a "Letters Rogatory" request is nothing more than a formal request
for evidence between parties in different jurisdictions, without mention
of the quality or validity of that evidence being relevant.
BLafferty
> "BLafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:uaCdnYtuCPPP2vjQ...@giganews.com...
>> On 2/23/2011 11:55 AM, TheCoz wrote:
>>> On Feb 23, 10:12 am, BLafferty<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> The process has officially started to obtain Armstrong's 1999 urine
>>>> samples for testing by the Feds here in the US.
>>>> Not a good omen for
>>>> Armstrong.http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrongs-urine-samples-requested-by...
>>>
>>> I thought the '99 samples were tainted, mishandled and contaminated?
>>> Hasn't thousands of dollars been spent analyzing the '99 samples
>>> allready?
>>> What about the years after '99? I think the 02, 03 and 04 samples
>>> should be put under extensive tests.
>>> Coz
>>
>> Armstrong has alleged that the chain of custody was broken.
>> Apparently not (surprise, surprise) as evidenced by the Letters
>> Rogatory request. Yes, other samples from the postal days from all
>> teammates who rode can be requested--probable have been, too. :-)
>
> Speaking as someone with no background in such things, could you explain
> in what way a "Letters Rogatory" guarantees immunity from "chain of
> custody" issues?
The Letters Rogatory request has nothing to do with proving at trial a
valid chain of custody. My point is that the feds would not start the
Rogatory process if they were not convinced there were not chain of
custody problems on the French side.
DirtRoadie
That's a weak cheerleader's conclusion. They will keep fishing and
only worry about what they have to "throw back" if and when the time
comes.
In the same vein, they don't know what witnesses will say but they
take the testimony anyhow.
DR
BLafferty
Fred Flintstein
> Speaking as someone with no background in such things, could you explain
> in what way a "Letters Rogatory" guarantees immunity from "chain of
> custody" issues?
What that means is that Laff is having fantasies about
rogering LANCE.
And in all seriousness, I would not expect quality legal
commentary from Laff on anything to do with LANCE.
Fred Flintstein
DirtRoadie
My ignorance? You mean the fact that I don't know what will happen? I
don't. And that I have made no predictions and have no stake in the
matter?
Was there some point you wanted to make?
No? I thought as much.
We know your bias. That does not change facts,
nor the possibility that some portions of the investigation may lead
to dead ends, no matter how much YOU really really want it to be
otherwise.
So, Mister Know-it-all, what was that about a January indictment?
DR
BLafferty
Feds are being quite specific and narrow in what they are looking for at
this point in the investigation.
BLafferty
If you have something to point to where I'm incorrect on the law or
procedure, please do advise. Have you ever done a Letter Rogatory?
Simply Fred
>> Speaking as someone with no background in such things, could you explain
>> in what way a "Letters Rogatory" guarantees immunity from "chain of
>> custody" issues?
Fred Flintstein wrote:
> What that means is that Laff is having fantasies about
> rogering LANCE.
Which means it must be a French letter rogetory.
Fred Flintstein
Dumbass,
When it comes to candyassing law or procedure, you're the best.
> Have you ever done a Letter Rogatory?
Dude, if you want to give LANCE a good rogering that's none of
my business. I find your desire to include me in your fantasy
to be more than a bit disquieting.
Fred Flintstein
PS Have the Feds gone after Flandis yet for hacking the French
lab's computer?
BLafferty
Brad Anders
> The process has officially started to obtain Armstrong's 1999 urine
> samples for testing by the Feds here in the US.
OK, let's say the samples are re-tested here in the US. Possible
outcomes:
1. All of LA's samples test clean. Unlikely, but possible. Bad news
for Fed case.
2. Some/all of LA's samples test positive for EPO, and they exactly
mirror the AFLD's previous results. LA's lawyers challenge the results
on 12-year-old urine as being invalid on the grounds of intentional/
unintentional contamination, loss of chain of custody, or a dozen
other reasons they will dredge up. Issues with statute of limitations
seems possible, too. Add in that LA wasn't riding for Postal in '99 to
this equation, too.
3. As in 2, but while showing positives, they don't mirror the AFLD's
results. LA's lawyers cite this as evidence of the unreliability of
the results, along with everything else in 2.
IMO, these samples will not prove to be decisive in any case against
LA. The idea that LA's teammates from '99 should be cutting deals
based on this is pretty ridiculous.
The Feds need to show the money trail. They need to prove on paper the
flow of money from Postal to buying drugs. Without a strong case to
prove the misuse of funds, nobody is going to get convicted. From what
I've read so far on this case, there's no indication that the Feds
have evidence of this nature.
DirtRoadie
I used "fishing" as an analogy in the general sense of trying to catch
something. Maybe they will, maybe they won't.
Sorry you were confused.
But we appreciate your vast and accurate knowledge, insight and
inside information.
And its so refreshing that you share your information without ANY bias
or speculation.
BTW, I lost track, was it NEXT January you were previously referring
to- or perhaps even the one after that?
DR
DirtRoadie
Serious question (for Lafferty) - what portion of your past-life
practice was prosecution or criminal defense? And, if any, how much in
federal court?
DR
Fred Fredburger
He's grasping your nuts in a vise. You did say that Flandis would be
prosecuted for hacking, many of us remember even if you do not. You
asked when you had been wrong about a legal matter like this, Mr.
Flintstone told you.
Fred Fredburger
Will they arrive on a Tuesday?
Fredmaster of Brainerd
LA was riding for Postal in 1999, yes?
Otherwise I agree, this is not a doping case, it
is a fraud case. Whatever happened to "Follow
the money"? Now we have "Follow the pee."
I have little clue why a teammate of LANCE should
turn state's evidence on this news. Unless they are
potentially up on a perjury charge and the positive test
would be the evidence against them. This could
happen - although I'm not sure an 8-10 year old sample
would convict anyone - but only if they were careless
in the initial grand jury testimony.
Remember, LANCE does not get the chair if one
of his teammates confesses to having used PEDs.
He might fry if one of his teammates testifies, LANCE
wrote me a check on the team account and said,
"Go buy yourself some EPO, kid. We need some wins
so the USPS will renew our contract."
Letters Rogatory aren't a guarantee to get the cops that
if they haven't gotten it already. Supporting evidence
yes, frying evidence no.
However, let's appreciate Rogatory for what it is -
one of those oddball words that are almost always
used with a prefix of opposition - "derogatory."
Like "defenestrate." When was the last time
anyone got fenestrated?
Fredmaster Ben
Brad Anders
>
> LA was riding for Postal in 1999, yes?
Duh, sorry. Wasn't thinking.
Mike Jacoubowsky
Can't say that I go along with that conclusion. If I were the prosecutor and
thought there might be something interesting, even as background
information, I'd go for it regardless of validity in court. What can it
hurt? It gets the French thinking you're taking them seriously, so they're
going to cooperate. And the downside? None that I can see. It's still good
PR if you can slander the defendent without introducing it as evidence isn't
it?
>>
>> Looking here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_rogatory - it appears
>> that a "Letters Rogatory" request is nothing more than a formal request
>> for evidence between parties in different jurisdictions, without mention
>> of the quality or validity of that evidence being relevant.
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
--
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"BLafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:GM6dnZezgPSBzvjQ...@giganews.com...
BLafferty
Rogatory. But, that's OK. Keep trying to divert attention for the real
issue on to me. I don't mind at all.
BLafferty
That's why you're not a prosecutor. We know they met with French
officials who have said they found EPO in Armstrong's urine from 1999.
The feds undoubtedly looked at the chain of custody documentation/logs
and concluded there were no chain problems. Thus, they decided to issue
Letters Rogatory to obtain the samples for testing in their own facility
to confirm the French lab's findings.
The US government does not just issue Letters Rogatory to see what might
turn up. That is to say, they don't involve foreign
governments/judicial systems in a criminal matter absent a very good
reason--more than what you suggest.
I wonder whether the US Attorney will subpoena Armstrong to testify
before the grand jury before or after they have the samples and test
them. Fabio is already rehearsing Armstrong asserting his 5th Amendment
privilege against self-incrimination.
Can't wait for the AP hacks next article with his inside the Justice
Dept. "insights."
BLafferty
against self-incrimination on a Tuesday. :-)
Anton Berlin
Did someone provide the drugs for free ? Then there's a money trail
and what appears to be the resources and desire to find it.
DirtRoadie
> On 2/24/2011 1:44 AM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> > And the downside? None that I can see. It's
> > still good PR if you can slander the defendent without introducing it as
> > evidence isn't it?
Certainly a possibility. Novitsky isn't known as a fair player.
> That's why you're not a prosecutor.
And have YOU ever done prosecution or criminal defense in federal
court?
> We know they met with French
> officials who have said they found EPO in Armstrong's urine from 1999.
> The feds undoubtedly looked at the chain of custody documentation/logs
> and concluded there were no chain problems. Thus, they decided to issue
> Letters Rogatory to obtain the samples for testing in their own facility
> to confirm the French lab's findings.
Yes, so?
> The US government does not just issue Letters Rogatory to see what might
> turn up. That is to say, they don't involve foreign
> governments/judicial systems in a criminal matter absent a very good
> reason--more than what you suggest.
Pretty unconvincing (and unsupported) argument. They are
investigating, among other things, activities which may have taken
place on foreign soil.
Hardly a surprise that they would use a formal foreign legal
connection, even just to investigate.
> I wonder whether the US Attorney will subpoena Armstrong to testify
> before the grand jury before or after they have the samples and test
> them. Fabio is already rehearsing Armstrong asserting his 5th Amendment
> privilege against self-incrimination.
That could very well be. Which is exactly why Armstrong is not likely
to be subpoenaed. Except for the purpose of making a spectacle. You do
realize that "pleading the 5th" is not an admission, don't you?
Legally speaking, that is. The cheerleaders can do all the speculating
they want.
> Can't wait for the AP hacks next article with his inside the Justice
> Dept. "insights."
And here you would have us believe YOU were the one with all the
inside information.
DR
Mike Jacoubowsky
Brian: If Novitsky has half a brain (and there's evidence he's got at least
that), he knows that the French authorities have as little love for Lance as
he does. "Involving" a foreign government would be most-welcome by the
French, and help to provide a framework for further cooperation down the
road.
Or so I would think. But, as you said, I'm not a prosecutor.
> I wonder whether the US Attorney will subpoena Armstrong to testify before
> the grand jury before or after they have the samples and test them. Fabio
> is already rehearsing Armstrong asserting his 5th Amendment privilege
> against self-incrimination.
>
> Can't wait for the AP hacks next article with his inside the Justice Dept.
> "insights."
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Mike Jacoubowsky
>>> The process has officially started to obtain Armstrong's 1999 urine
>>> samples for testing by the Feds here in the US.
>>> Not a good omen for Armstrong.
>>
>> If they could have simply "asked" for the AFLD or whomever to turn over
>> the samples, then why the expense of a trip to Europe a few months ago?> They were apparently asking questions and gathering potential trial
> evidence of different types. They probably asked to see the chain of
> custody as it exists at the French lab for Armstrong's, and perhaps other
> rider's, samples from 1999 and later. They would not go the Letters
> Rogatory route unless they were satisfied there are no chain of custody
> problems.
>
> It appears the Letters Rogatory process was started soon after their
> return to the US. I've done one Letter Rogatory in a civil case through
> diplomatic channels. It took about 7 months to effect service of the
> materials in Germany. My understanding is that in criminal matters, the
> process is now much quicker as the offices of Interpol are used.
>
> If the AUSA obtains and tests urine and blood samples for Armstrong and
> his teammates from every tour they rode for Postal, there could be an
> avalanche of incriminating evidence produced at trial in this country. It
> looks like finally the shit is hitting the fan, despite the PR presented
> via the AP article of a couple of weeks ago questioning whether Armstrong
> would ever be indicted.
And it is exactly that fear that Novitsky would be capitalizing on, even if
there are continuing chain of custody issues. There could be real problems
with the evidence, but what matters is that they (the French and Novitsky,
both of whom have it in for Lance) can create an atmosphere of Fear,
Uncertainty & Doubt by providing the US with the samples. Those samples
simply have no future in France... they've done what they can do. They serve
a very useful purpose moving the show to US soil, a purpose both parties
would favor.
So again, I suggest putting faith in the "Letters Rogatory" as an indication
that the evidence is solid with no chain of custody issues could be
misplaced. Neither party (US or French) is averse to helping each other on
this matter. They're likely working together.
Theodore Heise
Brad Anders <pban...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2. Some/all of LA's samples test positive for EPO, and they
> exactly mirror the AFLD's previous results. LA's lawyers
> challenge the results on 12-year-old urine as being invalid on
> the grounds of intentional/ unintentional contamination, loss of
> chain of custody, or a dozen other reasons they will dredge up.
Absence of data supporting 12 years of sample stability?
--
Theodore (Ted) Heise <th...@heise.nu> Bloomington, IN, USA
BLafferty
Most investigators and prosecutors, regardless of nationality, don't
like criminals. That doesn't generally result in not guilty verdicts.
Fred Fredburger
> On 2/24/2011 9:44 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> Brian: If Novitsky has half a brain (and there's evidence he's got at
>> least that), he knows that the French authorities have as little love
>> for Lance as he does. "Involving" a foreign government would be
>> most-welcome by the French, and help to provide a framework for further
>> cooperation down the road.
>
> Most investigators and prosecutors, regardless of nationality, don't
> like criminals. That doesn't generally result in not guilty verdicts.
You candy-assed that statement so badly it lost all meaning. You're
saying that there are no "not guilty" statements, or else that you don't
understand the cause of them, or else that the cause for them is a
closely held secret that you are not at liberty to reveal, or...
You are an RBR treasure, Brian!