- Jun 19, 2009
miloman said:I followed the link and heard the tape. Even though I was familiar with the content from other sources, it was the first time I had heard it for myself. Fascinating stuff! Unfortunately, from what I know of the law, it is totally inadmissible. Do you really think that a current employee and wife of a high-ranking executive with Oakley is going to recant her testimony? She has already gone on record as saying something contrary to what she said on LeMond’s tape. To recant her testimony now will open herself up to perjury charges. Ouch!
I’m not sure who to feel sorry for. They all behaved poorly. I guess in the end as Captain Jack Sparrow said, “they done right by them and you can’t expect anything more than that!”
Since you read enough of the other thread to know Stephanies husband is "a high-ranking executive with Oakley" - how is it that you then ignore the bits about the law that were explained there?
The call was recorded from Minnesota where one party consent is allowed.
If Stephanie lies to the Feds, then she is in trouble- which is why she asked that a lawyer be present when the Fed's requested an interview.