Lance's Lawyers Tries to Blow Smoke
B. Lafferty
Fall of 2004 and acted in reliance thereon. He became a shareholder when
the board voted him the stock. He could have sued the board at any time
subsequent to that vote to compel the board to issue him his stock. The
actual issuance is merely evidence that they did it that Lance, as a
shareholder is entitled to have and hold for himself, his heirs and
assigns. Nice try Mr. Herman. I'll give you a D+ for effort. I hope
you have your lawyer's act refined a bit better for the Grand Jury
appearance.
drmofe
> Note to Lance's attorney. Lance was entitled to the stock as of the
> Fall of 2004 and acted in reliance thereon. He became a shareholder when
I'm presuming that the isue is if Lance was a shareholder prior to US
Postal pulling out as sponsor and there was institutionalized doping,
that US Govt money could have been used in the doping program?
Which then makes it Federal, and brings in DEA and RICO statutes?
RicodJour
> Note to Lance's attorney. Lance was entitled to the stock as of the
> Fall of 2004 and acted in reliance thereon.
Entitled - okay, sure. Acted in reliance...? Cite.
Everybody and their fookin' uncle knew OJ was guilty. Lawyers are
invidious and not to be trusted. You should know that. You should
know that you can't even trust your own opinion on anything, which,
for the record, is not an opinion but tumescence speaking for you.
R
B. Lafferty
We'll that's one issue. But, if Lance, Johan and Stapleton were in on
knowingly perpetrating a fraud along with Weisel, then Lance and friends
lack of a formal ownership interest would not shield them from fraud
indictments. RICO is a hard charge to make compared to mail and wire
fraud. I doubt the DEA will involve itself in this case.
B. Lafferty
> On Jul 15, 3:11 pm, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Note to Lance's attorney. Lance was entitled to the stock as of the
>> Fall of 2004 and acted in reliance thereon.
>
> Entitled - okay, sure. Acted in reliance...? Cite.
Armstrong claimed he was an owner of Tailwind on numerous occasions.
According to Coyle, Landis and others he acted with the apparent
authority of an owner many times which leads one to conclude that he
relied on the assurances of Stapleton and other that he was a part owner
of Tailwind.
>
> Everybody and their fookin' uncle knew OJ was guilty. Lawyers are
> invidious and not to be trusted. You should know that.
What I know is that lawyers, good ones, zealously represent their
clients within the bounds of the law. Herman is doing his job.
However, I will be very surprised if he throws that argument in a motion
to dismiss if he knows he's not correct on the law. That's where Rule
11 sanctions come in. Lawyers like to avoid that.
> You should
> know that you can't even trust your own opinion on anything, which,
> for the record, is not an opinion but tumescence speaking for you.
I think not, Rico. I trust my own judgment as an attorney who has been
admitted to practice for going on thirty years. I suggest that you
learn to deal with the fact that a) I know what I'm writing about as to
legal principles and issues; and b) whether you like it or not I have
more accurate legal knowledge and expertise in my little toe than you
have in your entire brain. Ponder that tonight when you stroke yourself
off to sleep. Nite, nite. :-)
>
> R
Keith
wrote:
Pretty pathetic and again, this is giving credit to the Landis
accusations, the guy is losing it.
RicodJour
Lame. Yeah, continuing to breathe leads to expertise and pre-eminence
in a field. As I used to say to guys I was correcting who would
exclaim, "I've been doing it this way for thirty years!" My response,
the obvious, "Yeah, and you've been doing it wrong for thirty years."
If your LANCErection subsides for a minute, you might get some blood
back in the old beanpot and realize that you are not being rational,
you're being emotional. That's okay. People do that at your time of
the month...or year. It is after all July and you've been ramping up
to this for a couple of months.
You were just moaning in another thread how you're fed up with the US
courts because they don't do things the way you'd like. That's
wrapping it up in a pretty package when you really mean to say that
people don't agree with you and don't behave they way you want them
to. Wot a surprise. I'll alert the media.
R
B. Lafferty
So, tell me exactly what part of my legal analysis is wrong.
>
> You were just moaning in another thread how you're fed up with the US
> courts because they don't do things the way you'd like. That's
> wrapping it up in a pretty package when you really mean to say that
> people don't agree with you and don't behave they way you want them
> to. Wot a surprise. I'll alert the media.
No, Rico, that's not what I said. The courts ultimately did what our
side asked for which forced the other side to settle rather than reveal
certain documents--like Federal income tax return and other business
records. The ruling on that could have come 8 month or more earlier had
the Federal judge assigned to that case sat down with the parties for a
scheduling conference as most Federal judges do. The fact that one of
the defendants was arrested and taken away in handcuffs by the US Secret
Service at the lunch break during court ordered mediation also helped
move the other side to think more about getting out from under the
litigation.
Our US adversarial system has become less efficient at weeding out the
bullshit to get at the truth. That's because in an adversarial system
winning takes precedence over truth finding as the world saw in the OJ
case. The continental justice systems, which are Roman Law based, put a
higher value on finding the truth. In a criminal proceeding, the
defendants counsel has a serious, positive duty to help the
investigating magistrate find the truth even if in so doing he
compromises his client interests. The defendant also has that duty in a
continental system.
>
> R
Fredmaster of Brainerd
> >> What I know is that lawyers, good ones, zealously represent their
> >> clients within the bounds of the law. Herman is doing his job.
> >> However, I will be very surprised if he throws that argument in a motion
> >> to dismiss if he knows he's not correct on the law. That's where Rule
> >> 11 sanctions come in. Lawyers like to avoid that.
> So, tell me exactly what part of my legal analysis is wrong.
You're talking about what Herman says to counter a
bunch of newspaper articles and applying it to what Herman
should or should not say in a motion to dismiss, when
there is nothing to dismiss because there isn't even a
proceeding, let alone a charge.
You should know that statements to the press and legal
motions are two different things.
> Our US adversarial system has become less efficient at weeding out the
> bullshit to get at the truth. That's because in an adversarial system
> winning takes precedence over truth finding as the world saw in the OJ
> case. The continental justice systems, which are Roman Law based, put a
> higher value on finding the truth. In a criminal proceeding, the
> defendants counsel has a serious, positive duty to help the
> investigating magistrate find the truth even if in so doing he
> compromises his client interests. The defendant also has that duty in a
> continental system.
Serious miscarriages of justice also occur in
continental systems. This idea of a higher value on
finding the truth sounds great unless you are the
object of a judicial proceeding in a continental system,
then you might start to remember why English law
instituted the provisions it has - partly for protections
against abuse of power.
Fredeven a guilty man can be framed Ben
B. Lafferty
> On Jul 16, 3:21 am, "B. Lafferty"<b...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>> What I know is that lawyers, good ones, zealously represent their
>>>> clients within the bounds of the law. Herman is doing his job.
>>>> However, I will be very surprised if he throws that argument in a motion
>>>> to dismiss if he knows he's not correct on the law. That's where Rule
>>>> 11 sanctions come in. Lawyers like to avoid that.
>
>> So, tell me exactly what part of my legal analysis is wrong.
>
> You're talking about what Herman says to counter a
> bunch of newspaper articles and applying it to what Herman
> should or should not say in a motion to dismiss, when
> there is nothing to dismiss because there isn't even a
> proceeding, let alone a charge.
>
> You should know that statements to the press and legal
> motions are two different things.
I appreciate exactly what Herman is doing. What did you find incorrect
in my LEGAL analysis?
>
>> Our US adversarial system has become less efficient at weeding out the
>> bullshit to get at the truth. That's because in an adversarial system
>> winning takes precedence over truth finding as the world saw in the OJ
>> case. The continental justice systems, which are Roman Law based, put a
>> higher value on finding the truth. In a criminal proceeding, the
>> defendants counsel has a serious, positive duty to help the
>> investigating magistrate find the truth even if in so doing he
>> compromises his client interests. The defendant also has that duty in a
>> continental system.
>
> Serious miscarriages of justice also occur in
> continental systems. This idea of a higher value on
> finding the truth sounds great unless you are the
> object of a judicial proceeding in a continental system,
> then you might start to remember why English law
> instituted the provisions it has - partly for protections
> against abuse of power.
Both systems are run by humans and are imperfect as are all human
institutions. A recent corrective within the Euro system is the
European human rights court which has thrown out cases from both common
law and roman law based systems.
BTW, I assume that you are aware that there is effectively no
exclusionary rule in British and Scots law for the admission of what we
would term tainted evidence.
Perry
But now, as he nears the end, maybe a lot of reflective people have
stopped
buying into Lance's concocted-by-an-agent-for-a-heartening-money-
making-miraculous "cancer cure"story.
"CANCER"+STEROIDS = $
Look you sports dupes. It doesn't take the brains of an ashtray to
deduce that if Armstrong's stage 4 bodywide cancer recovery was free
of fiction, his every physiological and cellular aspect would have
been studied and scrutinized by researchers to the Nth-degree to
determine if his recovery path could be replicated in/by other
seriously ill patients.
Of course, THAT route would have required long-term, in-depth BLOOD
exams and analyses, wouldn't it?