Why would someone that tested clean 500 times need attorneys such as these?
Anton Berlin
John Keker and Elliot Peters of San Francisco represented Major League
Baseball players as they won a key appeals court case two years ago in
which a panel of federal judges ruled that agents had no right to
seize baseball's anonymous drug-testing results from 2003.
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/moresports/story/2011/05/26/sp-uci-armstrong.html?ref=rss#ixzz1NTawb1Pj
Choppy Warburton
http://www.bikecircle.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-13123.html
--D-y
Because we all in America are entitled to the best legal defense we
can afford.
Or, when they come for you, you can just go along with it-- or, the
way a person I know in the legal business used to say:
"Which ones of your rights do you want to give up?".
The agent in question being Novitsky, who still hasn't returned the
illegally gathered materials in spite of a legal request to do so?
I gotta say, if so, that was really chicken-shit on your part. And it
does go back to protection, and not being the victim of a witch hunt,
whether you are "guilty" or not.
If "they" can, they will nail Armstrong to the cross. There is money
to be made here! (the Federales having hired "the best" they could
get). Book deals, interviews-- fame, fortune in who-knows-what manners
and forms...
--D-y
BL
from what I've been told.
Phil H
Probably because there are a large number of people who think Lance is
guilty even before the trial. But you knew that. Plus the US system
doesn't let innocence get in the way of a guilty verdict. You probably
knew that also. I've noticed that Lance likes to be well (over)
prepared for anything......he likes to have "the shit that'll kill
em". A primary source on Hincapie is still missing.
Phil H
ilan
Of course, if he were innocent, he wouldn't need a lawyer since he
wouldn't have anything to hide. Anyway, you can't trust what lawyers
say in the courtroom, since they are being paid by the defendant.
-ilan
--D-y
The materials were illegally gathered and apparently continue to be
illegally held. Novitsky was point in the operation. Don't make
excuses.
--D-y
BL
to obey a court order is either ignorant or disingenuous. He doesn't,
AFAIK, have possession of them nor are they presently under his control.
--D-y
Right, he got fired from that job. Thanks for reminding me, Brian.
Point being, he, from report, illegally collected evidence which was
not given up even after a judge ordered it returned.
The fact that the evidence was thrown out (by your say-so) doesn't
make it OK to violate human rights during search and seizure.
I mean, where do you stand to accuse anyone of anything when "thrown
out" is a defense against crime?
Novitsky, by account, did something very wrong. If Armstrong must be
punished because he (allegedly) did something wrong, why hasn't
Novitsky long since paid the price of his misdeeds?
How is going to be when they come for you, Brian Lafferty?
--D-y
BL
Fired? Source and cite please.
>
> Point being, he, from report, illegally collected evidence which was
> not given up even after a judge ordered it returned.
It isn't all that unusual for evidence to be thrown out as being outside
the scope of a search warrant. In this instance it seems likely that a
decision was made to seize the samples and see what the court would
decide. To ignore the samples would likely mean their very quick
destruction. This way, the Feds at least had a shot at preserving them
and using them in evidence. The court disagreed. That's the way it goes.
>
> The fact that the evidence was thrown out (by your say-so) doesn't
> make it OK to violate human rights during search and seizure.
Which human rights were violated other than the 4th amendment right to
be free of unreasonable search and seizure? The sanction is the
exclusion of the evidence under the Exclusionary Rule. BTW, you might
want to look at the law in other jurisdictions, like the UK, where there
is no Exclusionary Rule. If the evidence is relevant, it comes in no
matter how obtained.
>
> I mean, where do you stand to accuse anyone of anything when "thrown
> out" is a defense against crime?
Excluded evidence is NOT a defense to a crime. It is an evidentiary
rule that keeps evidence out at trial, meaning that is can not be used
to support the prosecution's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Quite different from an affirmative defense to a crime, e.g. Necessity.
> Novitsky, by account, did something very wrong. If Armstrong must be
> punished because he (allegedly) did something wrong, why hasn't
> Novitsky long since paid the price of his misdeeds?
That isn't the way it works. The "punishment" is the exclusion of
evidence. I don't recall Novitsky having been charged with any crime(s)
relating to conducting the search.
>
> How is going to be when they come for you, Brian Lafferty?
Who's coming? Is there a party at my house that I don't know about? ROTFL!
> --D-y
Fred Flintstein
> Hey Anton. Is this you?
>
> http://www.bikecircle.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-13123.html
>
He'll be back. Guys like him can't stay away.
Good work.
F
Scott
wrote:
It was funny reading all those comments about the necessity to
specialize in the Kilo, and how important an explosive start is, then
think about how T Phinney rides a kilo. He is almost deliberately
slow out of the gate, then ramps it up like mad all the way to the
line. He's not a specialist, he's not a gym rat, and he doesn't
explode out of the gate. But, he is fast.
Fredmaster of Brainerd
wrote:
That website is weird. It's a fragment of an rbr thread
and each posters' name has been replaced with
some sort of random handle. I would have guessed
an ineffective content-farming scheme, but they don't even
appear to be selling ads with it.
Here's the original:
Fredmaster Ben
Randall
subject of a grand jury investigation. There is a 90% indictment rate
in grand jury investigations as I stated earlier. So it makes good
sense to have a strong defense team.
A. Dumas
> Hey Anton. Is this you?
> http://www.bikecircle.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-13123.html
Who? Why? That is some sort of cyclingmorons.com fuck-up of this:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/46db07a7b614d46
Fred Flintstein
Interesting who got assigned the name 'tarty'.
F
Anton Berlin
I don't know who Anton Quist is
Fred Flintstein
Just in case you were wondering, that isn't perjury.
F