Attacking Novitsky
BL
illegal leaking investigation information. It's difficult to believe
Novitsky would be that dumb after what he went through with BALCO.
Where's the beef, Gunderson? Better put up or shut up.
---------------------------------------------
Keker on Thursday criticized leaks of testimony to the media in the
Armstrong case and called the investigation a waste of money.
“We know Novitzky and plan to prove that these are his repeated, illegal
leaks aimed solely at destroying a true hero, not just in sports but in
the fight against cancer,” he said.
http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=ap-armstrong-doping
Phil H
Something isn't right here. If Hincapie did testify in the manner he
was reported then the game is pretty much up. However, if this was
just a plant of false information then nothing much has changed except
to whip up negative public opinion and maybe shake loose any other
condemning testimonies, if there are any. There apparently is also
leaked information on transactions due to doping......good game yes.
Judging by the pace of the total investigations against LA, the fat
lady hasn't even been born yet. There's also the well known phenomena
at play, the further we get from the so-called deeds, the more
distorted they become. As for attacking Novitzky or whoever planted
information that is found to be false, sit tight, you ain't seen
nothing yet.
Phil H
official rbr "under the bottom" poster
BL
to the Grand Jury. Per Scott Pelly on Late Night with Letterman. No word
on who said what except for Hamilton and probably Hincapie.
ilan
12 angry men. If I recall correctly, there was no women's USPS team.
-ilan
BL
whether to tell the truth or lie for a guy who employed them and might
still be able to make life miserable for them if they cross him. I'm
told that actually walking into a grand jury room as a witness is an
extremely sobering experience. Hamilton alluded to this in his
interview. Any idea of outright lying or shading the facts to help the
former boss man are likely to go right out the window the moment the
questioning in the GJ room starts.
dave a
It's only sobering if you have something to hide, but you knew that.
Jimmy July
> Twelve men under gran jury subpoena. Twelve men suddenly considering
> whether to tell the truth or lie for a guy who employed them and might
> still be able to make life miserable for them if they cross him. I'm
> told that actually walking into a grand jury room as a witness is an
> extremely sobering experience. Hamilton alluded to this in his
> interview. Any idea of outright lying or shading the facts to help the
> former boss man are likely to go right out the window the moment the
> questioning in the GJ room starts.
So people don't lie to Grand Juries in your fantasy world. Great.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:4de003ad$1...@news.x-privat.org...
If I were before a Grand Jury and concerned about what others might be
saying, even if I were completely innocent I would be extremely nervous and
probably resist answering as much as possible, not wanting to provide
anything contradictory at that time. If I had facts I could use later to
refute what others *might* be saying, I think I'd save those facts... for
later. This assumes I was concerned that I was victim of a witch hunt, and
telling the truth at that point would have no bearing on the outcome because
it was simply be assumed I was lying.
Or not. Maybe I couldn't be that cool in the heat. Maybe I would start
disbelieving my own truth.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
Fred Flintstein
If you lie about something that isn't illegal, is that perjury?
I'm pretty sure it isn't, that the lie has to be relevant to
some illegal activity.
Shame there isn't a lawyer posting here.
F
Juan Gunderson
wrote:
You are a full metal retard.
ilan
In any case, the legal definition of lying is "knowingly saying
something false", which would be very hard to prove in this case. I
don't see how proof could be given here that testimony was false.
-ilan
--D-y
> I just read a report that thus far 12 postal riders have given testimony
> to the Grand Jury. Per Scott Pelly on Late Night with Letterman. No word
> on who said what except for Hamilton and probably Hincapie.
That's not what Scott Pelly said-- to repeat, I just watched that crap
on Youtube and Pelly did not say that 12 Postal riders had "thus far"
given grand jury testimony.
Whew! Pelly is smelly. He said that Hamilton "had" to tell his story
(implying, strongly, that Hamilton "had" to tell his story on TV);
when Letterman pressed, Pelly straightened out and said "Well, federal
prosecutors...(blah blah blah). Not hard to see how Pelly swam to the
top, that was some excellent (and instant) rhetorical linkage between
holy (not) federal prosecutors and his shoddy tv news network. He is
slick, that Pelly.
That stinkyness was offered up right after Pelly bragged about getting
his first job by lying about his age, and having his mother aid in the
deception.
He also claimed to take no joy in having Hamilton on his show. You can
accept that if you want. I don't.
They were all doping. Some of them are still riding.
--D-y
BL
what I've been told by two people I know who have appeared, neither of
whom had anything to hide.
BL
assert a privilege and refuse to answer the question.
BL
> On 5/27/2011 3:03 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
>> On 5/27/2011 11:55 AM, BL wrote:
>>
>>> Twelve men under gran jury subpoena. Twelve men suddenly considering
>>> whether to tell the truth or lie for a guy who employed them and might
>>> still be able to make life miserable for them if they cross him. I'm
>>> told that actually walking into a grand jury room as a witness is an
>>> extremely sobering experience. Hamilton alluded to this in his
>>> interview. Any idea of outright lying or shading the facts to help the
>>> former boss man are likely to go right out the window the moment the
>>> questioning in the GJ room starts.
>>
>> So people don't lie to Grand Juries in your fantasy world. Great.
>>
>
> If you lie about something that isn't illegal, is that perjury?
Moron, if you lie under oath, by definition, you have committed perjury.
Whether or not what you lied about involves a crime or not is irrelevant.
> I'm pretty sure it isn't, that the lie has to be relevant to
> some illegal activity.
>
> Shame there isn't a lawyer posting here.
It's a shame that you're a Moron.
>
> F
Fred Flintstein
> On 5/27/2011 4:21 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
>>
>> If you lie about something that isn't illegal, is that perjury?
>
> Moron, if you lie under oath, by definition, you have committed perjury. Whether or not what you lied about involves a crime or not is irrelevant.
>
Have you checked with a lawyer about that?
F
Scott
Wait, hold on... you're the r.b.r. resident legal guru (self-
appointed) and now you're telling us that what you know about grand
juries is from second hand anecdotes?
Hell, I'd have assumed you've spent the better part of your adult life
in a grand jury setting, based on your posts.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
> On 5/27/2011 4:21 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 5/27/2011 3:03 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
> >> On 5/27/2011 11:55 AM, BL wrote:
>
> >>> Twelve men under gran jury subpoena. Twelve men suddenly considering
> >>> whether to tell the truth or lie for a guy who employed them and might
> >>> still be able to make life miserable for them if they cross him. I'm
> >>> told that actually walking into a grand jury room as a witness is an
> >>> extremely sobering experience. Hamilton alluded to this in his
> >>> interview. Any idea of outright lying or shading the facts to help the
> >>> former boss man are likely to go right out the window the moment the
> >>> questioning in the GJ room starts.
>
> >> So people don't lie to Grand Juries in your fantasy world. Great.
>
> > If you lie about something that isn't illegal, is that perjury?
>
> Moron, if you lie under oath, by definition, you have committed perjury.
> Whether or not what you lied about involves a crime or not is irrelevant.
The statement has to be material. What is material
is open to interpretation by prosecutors, judge, jury.
I doubt that I would get indicted for saying I had a
turkey sandwich for lunch when it was really pork,
unless the trial was about sandwiches.
When are you going to answer my question about why
you keep saying Ochowicz is in legal danger and will rat out
Armstrong, given that Ochowicz was never involved with
Tailwind Sports? Not that I care about Ochowicz's skin.
I'm just trying to assess the credibility of the witness here.
Fredmaster Ben
RicodJour
>
> Wait, hold on... you're the r.b.r. resident legal guru (self-
> appointed) and now you're telling us that what you know about grand
> juries is from second hand anecdotes?
>
> Hell, I'd have assumed you've spent the better part of your adult life
> in a grand jury setting, based on your posts.
I've been on a grand jury. Has anyone else here? It was very
interesting, and at times very frustrating. Not all grand juries are
created equal.
R
Simply Fred
> When are you going to answer my question about why
> you keep saying Ochowicz is in legal danger and will rat out
> Armstrong, given that Ochowicz was never involved with
> Tailwind Sports? Not that I care about Ochowicz's skin.
> I'm just trying to assess the credibility of the witness here.
You probably don't have to worry about ever being selected for a jury.
BL
I don't recall appointing myself to any legal positions here. I simply
bring what I know and what I've experienced to the table. It is true
that I've never been called as a witness to give testimony to a Grand
Jury. Not many people have. I do have to friends who have been and
their comments contradict your assertion above.
>
> Hell, I'd have assumed you've spent the better part of your adult life
> in a grand jury setting, based on your posts.
You assumption would be illogical at best, more likely disingenuous
hyperbole.
BL
BL
> On May 27, 4:01 pm, BL<b...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 5/27/2011 4:21 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 5/27/2011 3:03 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
>>>> On 5/27/2011 11:55 AM, BL wrote:
>>
>>>>> Twelve men under gran jury subpoena. Twelve men suddenly considering
>>>>> whether to tell the truth or lie for a guy who employed them and might
>>>>> still be able to make life miserable for them if they cross him. I'm
>>>>> told that actually walking into a grand jury room as a witness is an
>>>>> extremely sobering experience. Hamilton alluded to this in his
>>>>> interview. Any idea of outright lying or shading the facts to help the
>>>>> former boss man are likely to go right out the window the moment the
>>>>> questioning in the GJ room starts.
>>
>>>> So people don't lie to Grand Juries in your fantasy world. Great.
>>
>>> If you lie about something that isn't illegal, is that perjury?
>>
>> Moron, if you lie under oath, by definition, you have committed perjury.
>> Whether or not what you lied about involves a crime or not is irrelevant.
>
> The statement has to be material. What is material
> is open to interpretation by prosecutors, judge, jury.
>
> I doubt that I would get indicted for saying I had a
> turkey sandwich for lunch when it was really pork,
> unless the trial was about sandwiches.
Most questions asked of Grand Jury witnesses are material. But, you are
correct that is has to be a material misstatement of fact, also
knowingly made.
>
> When are you going to answer my question about why
> you keep saying Ochowicz is in legal danger and will rat out
> Armstrong, given that Ochowicz was never involved with
> Tailwind Sports? Not that I care about Ochowicz's skin.
> I'm just trying to assess the credibility of the witness here.
I suggest that you do a search of Ochawitz relationship to Weisel and
Weisel's involvement in professional cycling. And that's all I'm going
to tell you pre-indictment.
>
> Fredmaster Ben
Jimmy July
> I doubt that I would get indicted for saying I had a
> turkey sandwich for lunch when it was really pork,
> unless the trial was about sandwiches.
It's not illegal to eat a pork sandwich for lunch but, if you conspire
to conceal that you ate said sandwich, then you're providing Brian with
a new obsession for after this LA thing blows over.
Don't do it. For the love of GOD, admit you had pork! Confess!
Fredmaster of Brainerd
The FDA has tested me hundreds of times and I
never tested porksitive.
Now if the governing body was the Union of Orthodox
Rabbis then things might be different, but that's my
story and my lawyer will repeat it as often as necessary.
Fredmaster Ben
Fredmaster of Brainerd
> On 5/27/2011 11:07 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>
> > The statement has to be material. What is material
> > is open to interpretation by prosecutors, judge, jury.
>
> > I doubt that I would get indicted for saying I had a
> > turkey sandwich for lunch when it was really pork,
> > unless the trial was about sandwiches.
>
> Most questions asked of Grand Jury witnesses are material. But, you are
> correct that is has to be a material misstatement of fact, also
> knowingly made.
If Armstrong is caught in a lie to the grand jury
then he is up shit creek without a pedal. However,
I imagine that he got extensive legal advice about
what he could say, and it was obvious that his former
teammates would be called to testify. If he really
is in danger of a perjury charged based on his grand
jury testimony then his legal counsel is as incompetent
as you have been wishing.
A more likely issue is whether he is exposed to a perjury
charge based on his deposition in the SCA insurance case.
There, I believe Flintstein's position is that since ultimately
that case had nothing to do with doping (the case went
against SCA regardless since there was no anti-doping
clause in the contract), Armstrong's testimony about doping
would be immaterial.
I suppose one could go either way on this. It turned out to
be irrelevant, but was it immaterial? Does it matter that the
determination of irrelevancy came afterwards? I don't know
enough law or precedent to say. I also don't even remember
exactly what Armstrong said (or really care).
My recollection is that lawyers have extremely wide latitude
in questions they can ask in depositions, and although
objections are allowed, most questions still have to be answered
(even if the deposed answers are disallowed later).
For an extreme example, suppose the SCA lawyers had asked
Armstrong some embarrassing question, like "Have you
stopped beating your wife?" or "Have you ever dated a
woman who doesn't look like your mom?" He might have
had to answer (unless he asserted a privilege against
incrimination, although dating women who look like your
mom isn't criminal unless they are underage). But if he said
"Yes" and the answer is "No," it's unlikely he'd ever get brought
up on a perjury charge over it.
> > When are you going to answer my question about why
> > you keep saying Ochowicz is in legal danger and will rat out
> > Armstrong, given that Ochowicz was never involved with
> > Tailwind Sports? Not that I care about Ochowicz's skin.
> > I'm just trying to assess the credibility of the witness here.
>
> I suggest that you do a search of Ochawitz relationship to Weisel and
> Weisel's involvement in professional cycling. And that's all I'm going
> to tell you pre-indictment.
Oh, I know Ochowicz worked for Weisel and that Weisel's
tentacles are all over US pro cycling. I just have never seen
any shred of evidence that Ochowicz had an involvement
with Tailwind or US Postal. During that timeframe he was
involved with Phonak and BMC, IIRC. So I doubt he's gonna
have any exposure in the USPS fraud investigation.
If you won't say anything pre-indictment, and Och never gets
indicted or called to testify, what are you going to say and
when will you justify your assertions? Or will those statements
simply be no longer operative?
Fredmaster Ben
A. Dumas
> You are a full metal retard.
Hi Floyd or one his 1000 chamois-sniffing Twitter followers.
Simply Fred
>> You are a full metal retard.
A. Dumas wrote:
> Hi Floyd or one his 1000 chamois-sniffing Twitter followers.
He's (Landis) has got a long way to go to catch up with Charlie Sheen.
Perhaps he needs more tutoring in how to sound completely nuts in public.
BL
> On May 28, 8:12 am, BL<b...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 5/27/2011 11:07 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
>>
>>> The statement has to be material. What is material
>>> is open to interpretation by prosecutors, judge, jury.
>>
>>> I doubt that I would get indicted for saying I had a
>>> turkey sandwich for lunch when it was really pork,
>>> unless the trial was about sandwiches.
>>
>> Most questions asked of Grand Jury witnesses are material. But, you are
>> correct that is has to be a material misstatement of fact, also
>> knowingly made.
>
> If Armstrong is caught in a lie to the grand jury
> then he is up shit creek without a pedal. However,
> I imagine that he got extensive legal advice about
> what he could say, and it was obvious that his former
> teammates would be called to testify. If he really
> is in danger of a perjury charged based on his grand
> jury testimony then his legal counsel is as incompetent
> as you have been wishing.
If Armstrong has been or is called before the Grand Jury I expect he
will, or has, asserted his 5th Amendment privilege. I have never
expressed any hope that he hire incompetent counsel. Your comment is
pure hyperbole.
>
> A more likely issue is whether he is exposed to a perjury
> charge based on his deposition in the SCA insurance case.
> There, I believe Flintstein's position is that since ultimately
> that case had nothing to do with doping (the case went
> against SCA regardless since there was no anti-doping
> clause in the contract), Armstrong's testimony about doping
> would be immaterial.
>
> I suppose one could go either way on this. It turned out to
> be irrelevant, but was it immaterial? Does it matter that the
> determination of irrelevancy came afterwards? I don't know
> enough law or precedent to say. I also don't even remember
> exactly what Armstrong said (or really care).
Armstrong, under oath, testified in the SCA arbitration that he had
never used PEDs. He also disputed the Andreaus testimony as to the
hospital room incident. Those questions and answers are material and
relevant to the present investigation.
The arbitration panels determination that the arbitration decision would
go against SCA based on contract terms, really has no impact on the
relevance or materiality of what Armstrong testified to as to his
non-use of PEDs and how that testimony related to the present
investigation and a perjury charge and/or how that testimony is material
and relevant to other charges the government is considering.
>
> My recollection is that lawyers have extremely wide latitude
> in questions they can ask in depositions, and although
> objections are allowed, most questions still have to be answered
> (even if the deposed answers are disallowed later).
Armstrong testified at an arbitration hearing, not a deposition. The
rules of evidence in an arbitration can vary somewhat from those in a
judicial trial.
>
> For an extreme example, suppose the SCA lawyers had asked
> Armstrong some embarrassing question, like "Have you
> stopped beating your wife?" or "Have you ever dated a
> woman who doesn't look like your mom?" He might have
> had to answer (unless he asserted a privilege against
> incrimination, although dating women who look like your
> mom isn't criminal unless they are underage). But if he said
> "Yes" and the answer is "No," it's unlikely he'd ever get brought
> up on a perjury charge over it.
You're typing nonsense.
>
>>> When are you going to answer my question about why
>>> you keep saying Ochowicz is in legal danger and will rat out
>>> Armstrong, given that Ochowicz was never involved with
>>> Tailwind Sports? Not that I care about Ochowicz's skin.
>>> I'm just trying to assess the credibility of the witness here.
>>
>> I suggest that you do a search of Ochawitz relationship to Weisel and
>> Weisel's involvement in professional cycling. And that's all I'm going
>> to tell you pre-indictment.
>
> Oh, I know Ochowicz worked for Weisel and that Weisel's
> tentacles are all over US pro cycling. I just have never seen
> any shred of evidence that Ochowicz had an involvement
> with Tailwind or US Postal. During that timeframe he was
> involved with Phonak and BMC, IIRC. So I doubt he's gonna
> have any exposure in the USPS fraud investigation.
>
> If you won't say anything pre-indictment, and Och never gets
> indicted or called to testify, what are you going to say and
> when will you justify your assertions? Or will those statements
> simply be no longer operative?
Do your own Internet research. I have no obligation to you to rehash
what's already been discussed here and elsewhere. Be patient. We'll
have lots to discuss post-indictment.
>
> Fredmaster Ben
Fredmaster of Brainerd
>
> If Armstrong has been or is called before the Grand Jury I expect he
> will, or has, asserted his 5th Amendment privilege. I have never
> expressed any hope that he hire incompetent counsel. Your comment is
> pure hyperbole.
I meant your comments about what a clown Fabiani is,
questioning Herman's strategies, and so on.
Do you read "As the Toto Turns" e.g.
http://nyvelocity.com/content/toto/2011/toto-turns-229 ?
You have to read it for a while to get any of the jokes
(like, Lance is always calling Leipheimer "Bottle").
Anyway, Fabiani is represented as Foghorn Leghorn.
Thought you would like that.
IIRC, Armstrong _was_ deposed, and his deposition was used
in the arbitration hearing. I don't think he actually testified in
person at the hearing. I don't know how the rules of evidence in
that state modify what could be asked at the deposition. It's unclear
to me why Armstrong's lawyers, who hopefully read the contract
and saw that it had no anti-doping clause, allowed the SCA
lawyers to go on a fishing expedition, but perhaps they had
no choice.
> > For an extreme example, suppose the SCA lawyers had asked
> > Armstrong some embarrassing question, like "Have you
> > stopped beating your wife?" or "Have you ever dated a
> > woman who doesn't look like your mom?" He might have
> > had to answer (unless he asserted a privilege against
> > incrimination, although dating women who look like your
> > mom isn't criminal unless they are underage). But if he said
> > "Yes" and the answer is "No," it's unlikely he'd ever get brought
> > up on a perjury charge over it.
>
> You're typing nonsense.
It is a reductio ad absurdum. Obviously lawyers are not
supposed to go around asking irrelevant questions in
depositions just to embarrass the witness. But they can ask
questions in such a way as to fluster the witness.
I don't know how the line is drawn as to what questions
are considered permissible. In testimony in court there
is a more obvious mechanism to prevent irrelevancy.
> >>> When are you going to answer my question about why
> >>> you keep saying Ochowicz is in legal danger and will rat out
> >>> Armstrong, given that Ochowicz was never involved with
> >>> Tailwind Sports? Not that I care about Ochowicz's skin.
> >>> I'm just trying to assess the credibility of the witness here.
>
> >> I suggest that you do a search of Ochawitz relationship to Weisel and
> >> Weisel's involvement in professional cycling. And that's all I'm going
> >> to tell you pre-indictment.
>
> > Oh, I know Ochowicz worked for Weisel and that Weisel's
> > tentacles are all over US pro cycling. I just have never seen
> > any shred of evidence that Ochowicz had an involvement
> > with Tailwind or US Postal. During that timeframe he was
> > involved with Phonak and BMC, IIRC. So I doubt he's gonna
> > have any exposure in the USPS fraud investigation.
>
> > If you won't say anything pre-indictment, and Och never gets
> > indicted or called to testify, what are you going to say and
> > when will you justify your assertions? Or will those statements
> > simply be no longer operative?
>
> Do your own Internet research. I have no obligation to you to rehash
> what's already been discussed here and elsewhere. Be patient. We'll
> have lots to discuss post-indictment.
"Do your own Internet research" is something people say
when they can't quickly find support for their own position
on Wikipedia.
Fredmaster Ben
BL
> On May 29, 7:22 am, BL<b...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> If Armstrong has been or is called before the Grand Jury I expect he
>> will, or has, asserted his 5th Amendment privilege. I have never
>> expressed any hope that he hire incompetent counsel. Your comment is
>> pure hyperbole.
>
> I meant your comments about what a clown Fabiani is,
> questioning Herman's strategies, and so on.
No. Your statement, which you conveniently edit out, stated that I
wished Armstrong's counsel to be incompetent. I have never wished any
such thing. He has generally competent counsel. Fabiani is not one of
his trial lawyers. He's a politically connected PR hack who repeats the
party line decided on by Armstrong's other lawyers. Tim Herman is an
excellent commercial attorney. He is out of his depth as to what
Armstrong now faces. He's put his foot in his mouth on more than one
occasion. By all accounts, all of Armstrong's other counsel (criminal)
are tops in their fields as one would expect given that this is all
costing Armstrong between $3-400,000 per month.
>
> Do you read "As the Toto Turns" e.g.
> http://nyvelocity.com/content/toto/2011/toto-turns-229 ?
No.
Armstrong was deposed, but also testified at the arbitration. I was
referencing what I recollect was that latter testimony.
Anton Berlin
> If you lie about something that isn't illegal, is that perjury?
> I'm pretty sure it isn't, that the lie has to be relevant to
> some illegal activity.
>
thought you could break your own record.
Anton Berlin
wrote:
> "Jimmy July" <F...@Burger.com> wrote in message
Incompleteness is perjury Mike
1. Law The deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or
incomplete testimony under oath.
2. The breach of an oath or promise.