AP on Novitsky
B. Lafferty
Phil H
> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CYC_ARMSTRONG_DOPING_INVEST...
It'll be interesting to hear if anyone uses this excuse for what
others said about doping......."could have been a misconstrued comment
that was made as a joke and overheard incorrectly by others."
Phil H
B. Lafferty
How do you misconstrue a blood bag in a refrigerator or in a cooler on
the back of a motorcycle? Just curious...............:-)
derf...@gmail.com
> the back of a motorcycle? Just curious...............:-)
This blood bag, refrigerator, and motorcycle walk into a bar, and the
bartender says ....
Phil H
Oh come on, I'm sure you can think of plenty of comments where this
would apply.
For example, the so-called admission by Lance to his doctor.....an
almost perfect fit.
Phil H
Choppy Warburton
meat freezer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzsUDS59EOw
Why didn't Tyler use the old '3 pints of kramer' as a defense?
LawBoy01
Whether Lance doped when he was with Subaru-Montgomery, Motorola or
Cofidis doesn't mean shit and is of no probative value whatsoever in a
federal district court lawsuit, so who cares what Betty Andreu says.
Frankie Andreu has corroborated Betty but has gone a step further by
admitting to doping during the 1999 and 2000 USPS seasons in
preparation for and/or during those TdF campaigns (I don't recall
exactly what he said).
In my view, if Frankie says during this investigation that he
personally witnessed Lance doping or can help make a strong
circumstantial case that Lance doped, then maybe, just maybe Novitsky
can make a claim against Lance or Tailwind based on some federal law,
criminal or civil. Same goes any other teammate of Lance during the
USPS years, no so much for Landis and Hamilton unless they can be
corroborated. Lance did testify under oath in the insurance case, so
he could be prosecuted for perjury under the law of the state where
the deposition was conducted if it can be proven beyond a reasonable
doubt that he lied under oath.
The bottom line is that cases can be based and often are solely based
on circumstantial evidence essentially by connecting the dots based on
inferences. That's harder to do in criminal cases, but watch a civil
forfeiture case involving a drug dealer and you can see what I mean.
B. Lafferty
"perjury?" Can you say "perjury in furtherance of a conspiracy to
defraud?" You did go to law school right? Was it in Texas? ABA approved?
LawBoy01
> Armstrong has said under oath that he has NEVER doped. Can you say
> "perjury?"
I can say "perjury," but saying "perjury" and proving it are two
entirely different matters. More to the point, subjective disbelief
of what Lance said is not enough to prove perjury. Even Landis saying
that he personally witnessed Lance dope is no slam dunk, if only
because Landis is an admitted to perjury and fraud, meaning that the
reliability/probative value of Landis' "I was lying then but I'm
telling the truth now" testimony is about as good as the testimony of
a criminal co-conspirator (Landis) with a prior conviction that is
admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 609 and 403 and/or has
admitted to a FRE 609/403 crime and/or has been given use/
transactional immunity for his testimony against the defendant on
trial (Lance).
Investigatons of perjury that are based on swearing matches have a
better chance of resulting in an indictment, plea or conviction when
we are talking about comparing the testimony of someone like Andy
Pettitte (who when put under oath admitted to his own failures instead
of lying under oath and then saying, "yeah, I did it, but so did Roger
Clemens") on the one hand, and the testimony of Roger Clemens (whose
testimony is challenged by an admitted PED pusher in Brian McNamee and
Andy Pettitte).
In my view, Lance's biggest risk is not being the next Barry Bonds
(booooo!) or Rafael Palmeiro (hahaha). My bet is that Lance is never
convicted or found guilty of anything, civil or criminal. In the long
run, people probably just won't care even though they may be reminded
of Pete Rose when they hear Lance deny that he doped.
>Can you say "perjury in furtherance of a conspiracy to
> defraud?" You did go to law school right? Was it in Texas? ABA approved?
You're putting the cart before the horse. If the fraud has occurred
before perjury, the perjury wouldn't promote the fraud - it would be
the concealment of past acts. We all know that the SCA bonus was for
six consecutive victories from 1999-2004. Your "perjury in furtherance
of a conspiracy" charge would only hold water if, for example:
(1) SCA sought to prove that Lance doped after the 2003 TdF based on
doping that allegedly occurred from 1999-2003 seasons;
(2) Lance lies to the panel of arbitrators about doping, for purposes
of illustration, in the 2000 TdF but isn't immediately caught in the
lie;
(3) Lance beats SCA in that arbiration;
(4) Lance then goes on to win the 2004 TdF;
(5) SCA has no newly discovered evidence , i.e. no previously known or
adjudicated evidence of doping from 1999-2003 and no evidence at all
of doping in 2004;
(6) SCA pays the bonus after it gets the arbitrator's award in Lance's
favor; and
(7) SCA doesn't come up with proof that Lance perjured himself in 2003
during the arbitration until after it paid out the bonus sometime in
2005 or 2006.
Putting aside the fact that the SCA contract didn't have a "no doping"
clause, my scenario shows that how Lance's alleged perjury allowed him
to profit from a future event and/or that Lance's purported perjury
deprived SCA of the future right to hold Lance to his end of the
bargain. And that only speaks to "perjury in furtherance" and not to
the conspiracy part.
In order to prove a conspiracy, there needs to be proof of a
conspiracy. Who besides Lance had a stake in the outcome of the SCA
arbitration? You would need to show at least two people acting in
concert to deprive SCA of its legal rights.
If you're saying that Lance's testimony in the SCA lawsuit deprived
the federal government (by and through the USPS) of its rights, that's
a different story. The contract between Tailwind and the USPS would
have to specify or at least define acts of fraud because no federal
statute speaks directly to this issue and the common law is not very
helpful (I've been searching for fun and haven't found anything mail
fraud or false claims act stuff that's any where near on point - you
can try yourself). Moving past that hurdle, a prosecutor still would
need proof of how Lance's allegedly perjured testimony in the SCA
arbitration "furthered a conspiracy to defraud" the government. Can
do that, however, because the USPS/Tailwind deal ended in 2004, and
Lance didn't testify until November 30, 2005 (http://www.scribd.com/
doc/31833754/Lance-Armstrong-Testimony) by which time USPS had already
paid out everything it owed Tailwind. A prosecutor would still have
problems with establishing a conspiracy and establishing Lance's
financial interest in Tailwind.
Anyway, I spent my lunch hour discussing this because this is fun to
and interests me, and also because I enjoy poking holes in your
lustful quest for Lance's blood. I suspect that you may have to live
with pissing on Lance's leg.
FOR THE RECORD: I graduated in May of 2001 from St. Mary's University
School of Law, an accredited law school in San Antonio, Texas.
B. Lafferty
Interesting. I was accepted at St. Mary's in 1973 but decided to go to
law school in NYC instead a couple of years later.
Glad you enjoyed your lunch hour. You haven't poked any holes in any
argument I've made. You do well, though, at setting up straw men.
Fred Flintstein
> Interesting. I was accepted at St. Mary's in 1973 but decided to go to
> law school in NYC instead a couple of years later.
Did you graduate?
Fred Flintstein
B. Lafferty
LawBoy01
> On 8/10/2010 2:36 PM, LawBoy01 wrote:
>You haven't poked any holes in any argument I've made. You do well, though, at setting up straw men.
I'm not the prosecutor, Lance's defense counsel, a grand jury member,
judge or jury member, but I'm smarter than the average bear and
believe that you have not identified a singular, cognizable claim upon
which Lance could face any civil or criminal liability based on his
alleged doping apart from a simple perjury conviction (Summary: (1)
SCA didn't have a no-doping clause, and there's no grounds to re-open
that arbitration or to overturn the award; and (2) the government
doesn't have any civil or criminal law to enforce against Armstrong
personally, even if it could bust Tailwind). Thus, my opinion is that
Lance's reputation may be called into question, but if the people can
forget that Kobe the asshole admitted to having unwanted sex with a
hotel employee, the people can and will forget about the questions
surrounding Lance's legacy. I say this will the expectation that this
investigation will unearth enough evidence to establish by a
preponderance of evidence that Lance used PEDs during his career.
You graduated with honors from a better law school 20+ years before I
came out of law school. Thus, you are presumably capable of doing
more than hopefully hypothesizing about ways to establish the demise
of Lance Armstrong. So far, however, all you have done load fodder
into a cannon and fire it at the side of a ship. If you are
unimpressed by my analyses, imagine how unimpressed I am with your
complete failure (ATMO) to thoughtfully analyze and discuss on RBR any
legal theory that's been mentioned or implicated in threads on RBR. I
really think that you are a pure and simple "hater" whose ability to
analyze how all of this may play out is clouded by animus. I'd enjoy
reading any earnest and thoughtful effort to support the theories that
you post online, or, alternatively, you to point out failures in my
analyses.
If you'd like, we can have an off RBR email exchange and I can send
you the case law that I've gathered. You can show me what you've got,
so long as they aren't newspaper articles. I'm looking for case law
and legal commentary to identify possible legal theories.
Your turn.
B. Lafferty
Turn at what?
Kurgan Gringioni
"B. Lafferty" <b...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:fLmdnWEumObaA_zR...@giganews.com...
: Glad you enjoyed your lunch hour. You haven't poked any holes in any
: argument I've made.
Dumbass -
Yes he has.
Perjury.
The standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt". As lawboy noted, not
that easy to prove. If they're not able to come up with a paper trail . . .
.
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
B. Lafferty
conviction, mon petit.
LawBoy01
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nobody's said that you haven't said otherwise. We're just saying that
you take it for granted that he's going to be busted for perjury,
particularly when you come up with "perjury in furtherance of a
conspiracy to defraud" as a basis for a civil or criminal claim
against Lance.
LawBoy01
>
> - Show quoted text -
Providing a thoughtful analysis of your theories, which - and I mean
this in all sincerity and without any intent to be a dick - you
haven't done in any of your posts on the doping investigation.
Come on, Brian: we can have some fun engaging in a meaningful
discussion of this investigation even if we disagree. You might wind
up enlightening me and the interested members of RBR.
B. Lafferty
have been known to do strange and amazing things.
K. Fred Gauss
At 9:19 am this morning (Pacific time) you either took a perjury
conviction for granted or else you entered a post that made no sense at
all. Probably both.
LawBoy01
>
> - Show quoted text -
There you go again, you said it would be "strange and curious" for a
jury to acquit Armstrong. You just can't help yourself.
H. Fred Kveck
LawBoy01 <phi...@pwm-law.com> wrote:
> I suspect that you may have to live with pissing on Lance's leg.
I think he'd rather be humping LANCE's leg.
B. Lafferty
My comment was a general one, not specific to Mr. Armstrong.
As I've said here before, regarding Mr. Armstong, I do believe that, by
a clear preponderance of what I have read in the press, he's a doper.
If Landis' allegations are corroborated by other witnesses and real
evidence, he will probably be indicted as has been noted in numerous
accounts in the press. Will he be convicted? Juries do strange and
amazing things--they have been known to find the guilty to be not guilty
and visa versa.
Kurgan Gringioni
:
: As I've said here before, regarding Mr. Armstong, I do believe that, by
: a clear preponderance of what I have read in the press, he's a doper.
: If Landis' allegations are corroborated by other witnesses and real
: evidence, he will probably be indicted as has been noted in numerous
: accounts in the press.
Dumbass -
There's gotta be a clear and convincing case available to the prosecutor.
Otherwise it's a waste of time, especially since there isn't a true
"victim".
Phil H
Wouldn't there be an inconsistency with that speculation. Frankie
corroborates Betty's story but doesn't add anything about personally
witnessing Lance doping........until 10 years later????
How credible would that be?
Phil H
LawBoy01
> Wouldn't there be an inconsistency with that speculation. Frankie
> corroborates Betty's story but doesn't add anything about personally
> witnessing Lance doping........until 10 years later????
>
> How credible would that be?
Phil,
Prosecutors present to grand juries based on something akin to
reasonable suspicion or at the most probable cause because the
Government has the right to gather evidence to determine whether there
are ground to indict. Indeed, federal grand jury subpoenas are
presumed to be reasonable and the burden of showing unreasonableness
is on the recipient. A motion to quash a federal grand jury subpoena
on relevancy grounds must be denied unless there is no reasonable
possibility that the category of materials the Government seeks will
produce information relevant to the general subject of the grand
jury’s investigation. Good luck with that!
As a practical matter, a federal grand jury will almost always return
an indictment presented to it by a prosecutor. This is the basis for
Judge Saul Wachler’s famous saying that a prosecutor can get a grand
jury to “indict a ham sandwich.”
Once the federal prosecutor, usually an Assistant United States
Attorney (“AUSA”), get an indictment, he can file a case in a federal
district court or do nothing; that's prosecutorial discretion. Once
he files, he can dismiss without prejudice before a jury is impaneled
or with prejudice after a jury is impaneled (prejudice refers to a
prosecutor's right to obtain another indictment within the confines of
the U.S. Constitution and "double jeopardy" jurisprudence. Of course,
no conviction can be obtained involuntarily without the Goverment
establishing proof of each element of a claim beyond a reasonable
doubt.
I hope this helps.
-Philip
Henry
all this Grand Jury palaver is a bit of a mystery to me as a non-
American.
We have judicial reviews, courts of enquiry and, very seldom, a Royal
Commission of Enquiry.
There seems to be a compulsion on people to give evidence? There also
seems to be a different set of rules about evidence too, less like a
criminal court and more like civil proceedings. That would make me
nervous no matter how innocent I was.
Phil H
Thanks, it sure does help even though it doesn't make it any easier to
figure out how the contents of Frankie's guts (metaphorically
speaking) could figure in all of this.
Phil H
Fredmaster of Brainerd
"Grand juries" are very different from regular juries.
The grand jury only hears evidence and decides whether
to return an indictment. They don't rule on guilt. If there
is an indictment, then there is an actual trial before a regular
jury, at which evidence is presented according to normal rules.
At the trial, the defendant is present, the defendant has an attorney,
evidence must be presented anew and can be challenged and
disputed in a way that does not happen before a grand jury.
The grand jury is something of a formality because, as was
previously alluded to in re: U.S. vs. Ham Sandwich, a prosecutor
can nearly always persuade the grand jury to return an
indictment. That does not mean the indicted party is
necessarily going to be convicted by the trial jury.
Fredmaster Ben
snogfest
B. Lafferty
>
> The grand jury is something of a formality because, as was
> previously alluded to in re: U.S. vs. Ham Sandwich, a prosecutor
> can nearly always persuade the grand jury to return an
> indictment. That does not mean the indicted party is
> necessarily going to be convicted by the trial jury.
>
> Fredmaster Ben
While generally true, there have been instances where grand juries have
refused to return an indictment. The only thing a grand jury is there
for is to find there is reasonable basis on which to charge a person
with a crime.
LawBoy01
>
> - Show quoted text
Can't be un-American because it's part of the Constitution. Can it be
unfair? Sure. But at the same time, it would be unfair to the People
if the Government couldn't investigate until it had probable cause.
You shouldn't be able to get away with breaking the law just because
you're not flagrant. And yes, this applies to Lance as much as it
does to me.
LawBoy01
>
> - Show quoted text -
What I don't like about grand juries is that the prosecutor in all
actuality serves as the buffer instead of the grand jury. There are
ways to piss of prosecutors during grand jury investigatons. The key
is to put the grand jury in control. Anybody can present a complaint
to a grand jury. Not just prosecutors. Likewise, anybody not
subpoenaed can ask to be heard by the grand jury - and this is where
defense attorneys fail. If the allegation is serious enough, and the
bailiff is passed a note to the grand jury foreman that says a witness
wants to be heard, the prosecutor is put on the spot, out of his
comfort level because he's in a position of potentially having to
explain why this person wasn't subpoenaed. There's often good reason
for there being no subpoeana, but sometimes that extra witness results
in a no-bill (no return of an indictment).
snogfest
If LA (or whoever) lacks the $ to hire a lawyer, what happens ?
I guess I don't like the implication that a court that doesn't (seem)
to follow the rules of evidence and innocent until proven guilty can
grill people without them having adequate counsel.
Except Marion Jones, she was a DAMF ho'
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Innocent until proven guilty applies to trials. Grand juries
aren't trials. You can't be found guilty of anything by a
grand jury, only indicted. You can be compelled to testify,
and the testimony can't be used for other purposes - grand jury
testimony is secret, which is why one of the lawyers in the
BALCO case got nailed for leaking it. However, you better not
lie to a grand jury or you can be charged with perjury.
I don't know the rules on whether a person who cannot
afford counsel can ask for legal advice from e.g. Legal Aid
lawyers (?).
Your attitude toward Marion Jones and dopers in general
is deplorable and undermines everything else you say.
I don't particularly like Jones, but you can't have two sets of
laws, one for people you think are guilty and one for people
you think are innocent.
Fredmaster Ben
Fredmaster of Brainerd
Here's an example - an extreme example - of a
grand jury refusing to indict, in Phoenix:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/28d7h65
It has to be said that this is a very special case, basically
Sheriff Joe Arpaio, possibly the dirtiest, most incompetent
law enforcement official in the US, and his crony in the
country attorney's office, cooking up investigations of any
politician or judge in the county who dares to cross them,
doesn't do their bidding, or looks like a potential rival for
power. Banana-republic type stuff. Fortunately it appears
that their incompetence rivals their dirtiness.
Fredmaster Ben
snogfest
I don't know that I said MJ was guilty and anyone else wasn't. Just
that she was a DAMF ho'. She certainly seems to have been at least
guilty of fibbing.
I am nothing if not hypocritical, condescending and sanctimonious.
My argument with LA - actually anyone accused of cheating - is that we
all deserve the right of innocence and a Fair Go.
I read somewhere, I think it was to do with Nixon, that *nobody* can
survive having their life put under a microscope. We all fall short of
the glory © Lenny Kravitz
Beloved Fred No. 1
> Here's an example - an extreme example - of a
> grand jury refusing to indict, in Phoenix:
>
> http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/08/12/20100812sheriff-joe-arpaio-investigation-documents-released-thursday.html
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/28d7h65
>
> It has to be said that this is a very special case, basically
> Sheriff Joe Arpaio, possibly the dirtiest, most incompetent
> law enforcement official in the US, and his crony in the
> country attorney's office, cooking up investigations of any
> politician or judge in the county who dares to cross them,
> doesn't do their bidding, or looks like a potential rival for
> power.
Hoover is an inspirational figure.
Ryan Cousineau
The sentiment goes back somewhat further than that:
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of
men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
This is attributed to Cardinal de Richelieu, but the attribution is
disputed. the quote was known at least as early as 1867, though.
Frederick the Great
<284ac956-02a7-4fda...@g6g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
You are taking sides in a dirty political fight. This
is not a typical grand jury. It is a tool in a dirty
political fight. Unsealing the records is evidence that
it is a dirty political fight. The unsealing order may
even be a move by a party in the dirty political fight.
--
Old Fritz
Fredmaster of Brainerd
> In article
> <284ac956-02a7-4fda-9c6e-61d8a3789...@g6g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> > grand jury refusing to indict, in Phoenix:
>
>
> >http://preview.tinyurl.com/28d7h65
>
> > It has to be said that this is a very special case, basically
> > Sheriff Joe Arpaio, possibly the dirtiest, most incompetent
> > law enforcement official in the US, and his crony in the
> > country attorney's office, cooking up investigations of any
> > politician or judge in the county who dares to cross them,
> > doesn't do their bidding, or looks like a potential rival for
> > power. Banana-republic type stuff. Fortunately it appears
> > that their incompetence rivals their dirtiness.
>
> You are taking sides in a dirty political fight. This
> is not a typical grand jury. It is a tool in a dirty
> political fight. Unsealing the records is evidence that
> it is a dirty political fight. The unsealing order may
> even be a move by a party in the dirty political fight.
Dumbass,
You bet your ass I am taking sides. When one
set of crooks is engaging in Nixonian abuses of
law enforcement power and the other set is just
garden variety county politicians with run of the mill
dirtiness, I am going to take sides. You are free
to stand on the sidelines and mutter about how
the Kennedys were just as dirty as Nixon and so
Watergate was a put-up job, if you want.
Fredmaster Ben
p.s. I went to the old Nixon library, before they appointed
an actual historian to run it, and although you could
listen to Watergate tapes in the Watergate section, the
wall text really did hint that the prosecution was a put-up
job inspired by those damn Kennedys.
Beloved Fred No. 1
> p.s. I went to the old Nixon library, before they appointed
> an actual historian to run it, and although you could
> listen to Watergate tapes in the Watergate section, the
> wall text really did hint that the prosecution was a put-up
> job inspired by those damn Kennedys.
At least it wasn't the Dead Kennedy's.
Frederick the Great
<e03eb729-768f-4829...@p22g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
Fredmaster of Brainerd <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> p.s. I went to the old Nixon library, before they appointed
> an actual historian to run it, and although you could
> listen to Watergate tapes in the Watergate section, the
> wall text really did hint that the prosecution was a put-up
> job inspired by those damn Kennedys.
Suture self. First I ever heard of this talking point
and I had to hear it from "the other side."
--
Old Fritz