Any good legal minds in RBR - Kristin Armstrong Question?
Anton Berlin
a grand jury if given immunity for any personal involvement?
At first glance the answer might be yes.
RicodJour
Immunity? What, they're going to take away her Olympic medal?
R
DirtRoadie
I'm sure the answer is yes in general, but the subject matter of the
questions comes into play.
For some questions the answer might be no - using the same source.
"The person subpoenaed to testify then is compelled to answer
questions unless he or she can claim a specific privilege, such as the
_marital privilege_, lawyer/client privilege, or the privilege against
self-incrimination."
So the clear answer is, "It depends."
Anton Berlin
Good thing his name isn't John Smith. You'd be really fucking
confused about your butcher.
Anton Berlin
There were probably a number of laws broken by both parties over the
course of the marraige.
Does marital privilege remain once divorced?
RicodJour
> On Nov 12, 8:32 pm, RicodJour <ricodj...@worldemail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 12, 8:51 pm, Anton Berlin <truth_88...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Could Kristin Armstrong be compelled to answers questions in front of
> > > a grand jury if given immunity for any personal involvement?
>
> > > At first glance the answer might be yes.
>
> > >http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html
>
> > Immunity? What, they're going to take away her Olympic medal?
>
>
> confused about your butcher.
Whoosh, but never mind.
What laws did Kirstin break, Sparky?
R
RicodJour
>
> There were probably a number of laws broken by both parties over the
> course of the marraige.
Avoid unnecessary comments. Stick with Kristin. What laws did she
"probably" break? I'll speed up things and post my follow up reply
now:
You're probably wrong. I'm probably right. You probably don't
believe me.
> Does marital privilege remain once divorced?
I don't know, do they give you your money back if the traffic
infraction laws change?
The answer to your question is pretty obvious, isn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_privilege
R
DirtRoadie
That's easier. Nope.
Except that what was privileged during the marriage probably remains
so. So maybe the answer to your question is yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spousal_privilege
Just what laws do you think were broken?
Anton Berlin
>
> Just what laws do you think were broken?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kids, these are the kind of things grand juries discover through their
inquiry.
http://www.isla-int.com/html_seiten/i_neu_pressetext7_engl.htm
Might be some examples there
Something here perhaps
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=43227&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
and...
http://149.101.225.20/dea/concern/steroids.html
and even general fraud and theft by deception, contract fraud the list
goes on and on....
RicodJour
>
> Kids, these are the kind of things grand juries discover through their
> inquiry.
>
> http://www.isla-int.com/html_seiten/i_neu_pressetext7_engl.htm
>
> Might be some examples there
Nope, nothing there.
> Something here perhaps
>
> http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=43227&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_S...
Nope, nothing there either. We are talking about Kirstin, right?
Stay with the program.
> and...
>
> http://149.101.225.20/dea/concern/steroids.html
Strike three. Good going, Ryan Howard.
> and even general fraud and theft by deception, contract fraud the list
> goes on and on....
Don't be stupid. SHE never signed a contract. SHE is a mom, and
being a reasonable person from all indications, wouldn't want her
KIDS' dad to be destroyed as their hero. That's if he did dope. If
he didn't dope, and there's a witch hunt going on, which there is,
then the smart thing to do is to clam up.
I am not surprised that that logic escapes you. You would have made a
truly terrible lawyer and probably would have been on that SuperLawyer
web site.
R
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
>
> and...
>
> http://149.101.225.20/dea/concern/steroids.html
>
> and even general fraud and theft by deception, contract fraud the list
> goes on and on....
Dumbass -
You're starting to act like Brian Lafferty. This is very unfortunate.
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
RicodJour
What a nasty thing to say - true, but it is nasty.
R
bjwe...@gmail.com
>
> and...
>
> http://149.101.225.20/dea/concern/steroids.html
>
> and even general fraud and theft by deception, contract fraud the list
> goes on and on....
WTF dude,
Where is this grand jury going to come from?
Lemond is currently fighting a civil lawsuit vs Trek.
There is no criminal action. Typically, discovery in
a civil lawsuit can be fairly wide ranging, so Lemond
can go on a fishing expedition if he wants. There is
often a standard that the subject of the question
has to be admissible or reasonably calculated to
lead to the possible discovery of admissible evidence.
(You can ask a lot, but not completely irrelevant or
embarrassing questions, as far as I know. I am not
a lawyer.)
However, that has nothing to do with grand juries.
To get Kristin A. in front of a grand jury, a prosecutor
would have to care; to think there was a reasonable
chance of bringing an indictment and winning a
criminal case. Lemond is not a prosecutor, yet.
I give this kerfuffle very little chance of drawing the
interest of a prosecutor unless he thinks somebody
lied under oath.
Ben
Susan Walker
> What laws did Kirstin break, Sparky?
Depending on her testimony, possibly: trading, trafficking, owning
illegal drugs.
MagillaGorilla
In order to indict Lance, you would first have to prove he took dope in
a particular jurisdiction. How they gonna prove that? There will
never be a grand jury.
Magilla
RicodJour
Her testimony isn't the question. I'm asking what laws Sparky thinks
she broke - in other words how Lance reached out to his wife to aid
him in his purported doping, and what she actively did to assist him.
If she broke laws, it doesn't matter about her testimony (excepting
perjury). It's tough to commit perjury if you don't answer a
question.
R
Anton Berlin
>
> - Show quoted text -
This has nothing to do with the Lemon case
Anton Berlin
Fucking a, thank you Susan.
Anton Berlin
Granted, at first glance there appears to be stronger laws in Europe
about these things despite Ricord head up his ass analysis.
Anton Berlin
Dumbfuckingcuntfacestupidshitass, this is the reason for the question
in the first fucking place.
We are all god damn aware that she can go to a civil deposition and
pull an Alberto Gonzalez.
The question was and is might there be a venue and a set of conditions
that could compell her to tell everything she knows to discover if a
crime was committed.
The main thing we've learned here is that you have the attention span
of a dog and the reasoning of a brick and that there is no legal
expertise in RBR.
Where the FUCK is LAWBOY when you need him? We might have a
chance.
RicodJour
Avoid unnecessary outbursts - they are unseemly.
You post an American Bar link in the OP.
The LemonD lawsuit was filed in civil court in the US.
Allow me to summarize your apparent position:
Your knickers are in a knot due to some lack of agreement for your
supposition of a hypothetical lawsuit in an unknown jurisdiction based
on unsubstantiated rumors of doping in your unasked question. Well,
gee, Sparky, how could I have been so blind?
It's really very simple, Brian, you don't have to have a court to
convict him in your mind. It's ever so much simpler.
R
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Dumbass -
What Ben said about a prosecutor needing to care is totally relevant.
They've got better things (real crime) to worry about.
There's something else too. If there were any "crimes" committed w/
regards to doping, it was almost certainly done on European soil, not
US soil. The hypothetical prosecutor who cares about that alleged
doping wouldn't have jurisdiction.
z
Dumbass,
Prosecutor having better things to worry about?
Martha Stewart disagrees.
William Asher
>
> There's something else too. If there were any "crimes" committed w/
> regards to doping, it was almost certainly done on European soil, not
> US soil. The hypothetical prosecutor who cares about that alleged
> doping wouldn't have jurisdiction.
>
Yeah. If only LANCE would knock over a bank on US soil. By god, then they
would have the bastard!
--
Bill Asher
Donald Munro
> Yeah. If only LANCE would knock over a bank on US soil. By god, then they
> would have the bastard!
A Blood bank perhaps.
RicodJour
Blood bank?
R
cur...@the-md-russells.org
Gringioni." <kgrin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Dumbass -
>
>What Ben said about a prosecutor needing to care is totally relevant.
>They've got better things (real crime) to worry about.
>
>There's something else too. If there were any "crimes" committed w/
>regards to doping, it was almost certainly done on European soil, not
>US soil. The hypothetical prosecutor who cares about that alleged
>doping wouldn't have jurisdiction.
>
>thanks,
>
>Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Well, unless there was betting on the outcome in the U.S. Protecting
the bettors seems to be grounds for some interesting charges in the
U.S., starting with fraud. But unfortunately for Greggy, no one in the
U.S. bets on Tour de France outcomes, which is generally the only
place one would pick LA to win, or now, place or show. You fly across
the pond and find a London bookie...
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Fred Fredburger
> Kurgan. presented by Gringioni. wrote:
>
>> There's something else too. If there were any "crimes" committed w/
>> regards to doping, it was almost certainly done on European soil, not
>> US soil. The hypothetical prosecutor who cares about that alleged
>> doping wouldn't have jurisdiction.
>>
>
> Yeah. If only LANCE would knock over a bank on US soil.
You can't prove he didn't.
DirtRoadie
Its seems obvious he did. He has lots of money. Robbing a bank would
result in a lot of money. QED
William Asher
Bank robbing is much too simple a crime in relation to what LANCE could
possibly have done and we can't prove he didn't. Following that logic,
it's clear he should be executed, because he fits the profile of all those
crimes as well as that of bank robber.
--
Bill Asher
Fred Fredburger
Say it with CONVICTION!
William Asher
news:4afd...@news.x-privat.org:
No, because if you piss off Lance, he's liable to get drunk and come over
and fuck your walrus. You can't prove he wouldn't.
--
Bill Asher
Fred Fredburger
Which, from a certain perspective, proves he did.
Thank God Lafferty isn't still around or we'd be reading this accusation
for the years to come, complete with cover-up conspiracy.
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
>
> Well, unless there was betting on the outcome in the U.S. Protecting
> the bettors seems to be grounds for some interesting charges in the
> U.S., starting with fraud.
Dumbass -
They don't do that when there's indisputable evidence of doping, for
instance in Major League Baseball.
There's gambling on baseball and there was doping in baseball. No
prosecution for fraud.
Same goes for football. They have a case where there was clear
incidences of cheating, Spygate, where the New England Patriots team
videotaped the opponents signals from the sideline. It was against the
rules, they got busted, and there was no prosecutions for fraud. All
this while the Patriots won 3 Super Bowls. There is usually upwards of
$1 billion wagered on Super Bowls.
If they don't prosecute for fraud in those cases, they sure the hell
won't do jack about cycling.
bjwe...@gmail.com
Dumbass,
But that was just cheating. Everyone expects a little
cheating to win. They don't prosecute for throwing
spitballs either.
What you don't understand is that Lance fraudulently
deprived a true American hero, Greg Lemond, of the
title of Greatest American Cyclist. This is a deception
upon the American people, which must not be allowed
to stand!
Please, think of the children!
Sincerely,
Greg Lemond
Donald Munro
>> No, because if you piss off Lance, he's liable to get drunk and come
>> over and fuck your walrus. You can't prove he wouldn't.
Fred Fredburger wrote:
> Thank God Lafferty isn't still around or we'd be reading this accusation
> for the years to come, complete with cover-up conspiracy.
Is fucking a walrus some new US slang ? The best I could come up with on
Urbandictionary was walrus punch or frosty walrus. Goo goo a joob might
even make sense in that context.
Fred Fredburger
> William Asher wrote:
>>> No, because if you piss off Lance, he's liable to get drunk and come
>>> over and fuck your walrus. You can't prove he wouldn't.
>
> Fred Fredburger wrote:
>> Thank God Lafferty isn't still around or we'd be reading this accusation
>> for the years to come, complete with cover-up conspiracy.
>
> Is fucking a walrus some new US slang ?
All the cool kids are doing it.
William Asher
news:d3b2t6-...@ad.doubleclick.net:
> Is fucking a walrus some new US slang ? The best I could come up with
> on Urbandictionary was walrus punch or frosty walrus. Goo goo a joob
> might even make sense in that context.
In this context, "fucking a walrus" means "having sexual relations with
a large aquatic mammal of the Odobenidae family." "Goo goo ga joob" is
the result of such relations.
--
Bill Asher
William Asher
news:4afedce0$1...@news.x-privat.org:
Once you go with a pinniped, you never go back. Just ask Jacques
Cousteau.
--
Bill "nothing scared" Asher
Donald Munro
>>> Is fucking a walrus some new US slang ?
Fred Fredburger wrote:
>> All the cool kids are doing it.
William Asher wrote:
> Once you go with a pinniped, you never go back.
Or never come (forwards or backwards).
Donald Munro
> In this context, "fucking a walrus" means "having sexual relations with
> a large aquatic mammal of the Odobenidae family." "Goo goo ga joob" is
> the result of such relations.
LIVEDRUNKards probably mistake walruses and for mermaids regularly.
MagillaGorilla
> RicodJour wrote:
> > What laws did Kirstin break, Sparky?
>
> Depending on her testimony, possibly: trading, trafficking, owning
> illegal drugs.
None of the drugs Lance took were likely "illegal." And most everything
he did was likely done in Spain, ergo, no jurisdiction in the U.S. not
to mention the statute of limitations has expired for those types of
offenses.
Also, it is very unlikely Kristin could ever be implicated in any such
things (trafficking, owning....).
Merely having knowledge that her husband had them in his possession
(something I do not even believe occurred) still does not translate into
a criminal charge against her.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Yes, this is what I said. Not only is jurisdiction a deal breaker, but so is the statute of limitations.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Hey asshole, Martha Stewart was investigated by the FBI, not prosecutors.
It was the FBI who recommended charges be brought against her, not prosecutors.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
> On Nov 13, 8:52�am, MagillaGorilla <magi...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
> > Anton Berlin wrote:
> > > Could Kristin Armstrong be compelled to answers questions in front of
> > > a grand jury if given immunity for any personal involvement?
> >
> > > At first glance the answer might be yes.
> >
> > >http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html
> >
> > In order to indict Lance, you would first have to prove he took dope in
> > a particular jurisdiction. �How they gonna prove that? � There will
> > never be a grand jury.
> >
> > Magilla
>
> Granted, at first glance there appears to be stronger laws in Europe
> about these things despite Ricord head up his ass analysis.
Say again? U.S. prosecuted the BALCO case...they took down Marion Jones,
Tammy Thomas, indicted and convicted numerous people (all who went to jail
(included BALCO founder Victor Conte)...indcited the homerun king in MLB
(Barry Bonds, who is facing trial)..then compare that to what Spain did in
the Operacion Puerto case...nothing. Not a single conviction. Not a single
jail term.
Let me know if you want to clarify your position.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Correct. But there is nothing "fraudulent" per se about what the NE
Patriots did. It might have been a rule violation, but no more so than
holding or pass interference. And if you engage in those offenses, it's
not considered fraud.
Also, the NFL commissioner fined NE coach $500,000, which is not exactly
a slap on the wrist...even for a millionaire.
Magilla
Fred Fredburger
... and have difficulty getting laid in either case.
z
Which changes the point not at all.
z
What did they get prosecuted for?
Susan Walker
> Also, it is very unlikely Kristin could ever be implicated in any such
> things (trafficking, owning....).
Remember Edita Rumsas.
z
I thought about that very briefly, but the difference in sophistication
between the Rumsas family and the Armstrong family is huge.
Susan Walker
> Susan Walker wrote:
>> Remember Edita Rumsas.
>
> I thought about that very briefly, but the difference in sophistication
> between the Rumsas family and the Armstrong family is huge.
Quite.
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
>
> Correct. But there is nothing "fraudulent" per se about what the NE
> Patriots did. It might have been a rule violation, but no more so than
> holding or pass interference. And if you engage in those offenses, it's
> not considered fraud.
<snip>
Dumbass -
IMO, most doping is also a "rule violation". Sometimes it's also
illegal, but it'd be easy enough to get around that. It's a normal
thing for the population in general to pay doctors to prescribe them
drugs.
It's not like the doctor says at the yearly checkup, "You need
Viagra".
The patients ask for it and the doctors prescribe it.
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Dumbass -
Bonds and Jones got prosecuted for lying to federal agents and grand
juries (perjury).
Another BALCO customer, Jason Giambi, told the truth and was never
under any threat of prosecution by any legal authority.
MagillaGorilla
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Google it..it should be easy enough.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
Correct.. And what's wrong with that? Did you like think there were federal
laws against doping in sport? Marion Jones also received substantial fines and
lost all her gold medals as did her husband Tim Montgomery.
They are also convicted felons now and cannot vote or own a firearm...and their
employment is limited.
Tammy Thomas now cannot also be a lawyer because she is a convicted felon.
These were pretty serious consequences.
Magilla
MagillaGorilla
And how long did she spend in jail? 2 months? What a joke.
Magilla
z
I don't need to Google it. It wasn't for doping, dope. It was for perjury.
MagillaGorilla
No shit, dumbass....it's not a violation of federal law to use
performance-enhancing substances in sport. Did you actually think there were such
federal laws? The feds prosecuted them for everything they could.
Magilla
cur...@the-md-russells.org
<mag...@sandiegozoo.com> wrote:
>Correct.. And what's wrong with that? Did you like think there were federal
>laws against doping in sport? Marion Jones also received substantial fines and
>lost all her gold medals as did her husband Tim Montgomery.
>
>They are also convicted felons now and cannot vote or own a firearm...and their
>employment is limited.
>
>Tammy Thomas now cannot also be a lawyer because she is a convicted felon.
>These were pretty serious consequences.
Having tossed this part of the thread out there, I should have checked
the actual cases. All of the ones I could find are anti-tampering
statutes at the state levels and some states have used them rather
broadly. Not sure if they have been used for drug use, but they could.
The Kansas statute (hey, it was the first one I found) and the New
York statute pretty much say that anything that is done to interfere
with the outcome of a sporting competition is open for action. I
wouldn't use drugs to win a bike race in Kansas without checking with
legal counsel first.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
<snip>
Dumbass -
My post was meant to imply that there are not federal laws (in the
United States) against doping in sport.
That's why the idea that a grand jury would depose Kristin Armstrong
is absurd.
MagillaGorilla
Correct.
Magilla
William Asher
You know what they say about a tight seal.
--
Bill Asher
z
Looser,
Similar to the BALCO case with TT, the charges rought against Martha y
the FBI were for conspiracy to obstruct justice, make false statements,
and to commit perjury. Not corruption on Wall Street.
As for the SEC, I'm so glan they were more focused on Mark Cuban and
Martha than Bernie Madoff.
Anton Berlin
>
> - Show quoted text -
Cuban is doing fine, I had floor seats just opposite him tonight.
Too bad cycling doesn't someway, somehow have all the production
values that bb does.