International arrest warrant issued against Landis

[Kennf1]

Are there two unrelated hack jobs?

1) The dopey hacking of the AFLD done by Floyd and Arnie.
2) The insidious hacking using a backdoor trojan horse on the government run agencie AFLD done by the EdF (Electricite de France).

And they only noticed the trojan horse from #2 because amateur hackers Floyd and Arnie mucked things up?

Geez, the EdF (Electricite de France) must be ****ed-off at Floyd and Arnie!

No.
There are three hack jobs. The AFLD, Greenpeace, and the attorney (who filed numerous suits against Vivendi). The EdF was allegedly interested in getting intel about Greenpeace anti-nuke activites.
EdF does not care about an anti-doping lab.

 

[Cerberus]

I used to be a fan of FL, until... his "Tour Incident" and subsequent activities. I also think there is a good chance he is guilty of something in this latest hacking case. However, I even more firmly believe in the following

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

That's the part of the US Constitution that makes us (mostly) safe from torture, forced confessions, etc. FL has this right as well and it seems to this non-lawyer that the French court is asking him to come to France, thereby depriving him of property without due course of law and incriminate himself. Viva La Bill of Rights!

Anybody know enough about French Law to say if they have the same rights?

I checked Wikipedia and in the Right to silence article it states that

"France

In France, the Code of Criminal Procedure (art. L116) makes it compulsory that when an investigating judge hears a suspect, he must warn him that he has the right to remain silent, to make a statement, or to answer questions. A person against which suspicions lay cannot legally be interrogated by justice as an ordinary witness.

At the actual trial, a defendant can be compelled to make a statement. However, the code also prohibits hearing a suspect under oath; thus, a suspect may say whatever he feels fit for his defence, without fear of sanction for perjury. This prohibition is extended to the suspects spouse and members of his close family (this extension of the prohibition may be waived if both the prosecution and the defence counsel agree to the waiver)."

I'm not sure if the Statement that the accused can be compelled to make amounts to a full testimony or if it's more limited than that.

Generally speaking the right to remain silent exists in some variation in all western countries, but as you can see it's different for France. Denmark has yet another incarnation of the principle where the suspect can neither be compelled to say anything, nor be charged with Perjury if they lie (I was suprised to learn a few years back that this could happen in the US).

 

[Polish]

No.
There are three hack jobs. The AFLD, Greenpeace, and the attorney (who filed numerous suits against Vivendi). The EdF was allegedly interested in getting intel about Greenpeace anti-nuke activites.
EdF does not care about an anti-doping lab.

EdF only cared about the anti-doping Lab as a way to get into the government computers. The anti-doping lab is a government agency in France. probably with the most lax anti-virus procedures?

 

[Kennf1]

EdF only cared about the anti-doping Lab as a way to get into the government computers. The anti-doping lab is a government agency in France. probably with the most lax anti-virus procedures?

I think you need to re-read the articles.

 

[fatandfast]

A couple of posts included stories published in Bloomberg news and the NYT. If Landis and or Dr. Baker asked for information from AFLD and they were denied access because of French law. They should be subject to penalty because they bought or had stolen property for whatever the reason. Once properly served they both should be able to exercise the right to remain silent as per French law,and be tried in absentia. It looks like a stretch that anybody would be extradited for even the highest punishment given by the French court. Just like the drug testing budgets for all of premier UCI races somebody is going to look like an idiot for squandering what little money they have on pursuing Landis and Baker. With large multi-national law firms all over the US,there has to be a way to give a video statement about any and all issues asked by the French judge.

 

[Cerberus]

A couple of posts included stories published in Bloomberg news and the NYT. If Landis and or Dr. Baker asked for information from AFLD and they were denied access because of French law. They should be subject to penalty because they bought or had stolen property for whatever the reason. Once properly served they both should be able to exercise the right to remain silent as per French law,and be tried in absentia. It looks like a stretch that anybody would be extradited for even the highest punishment given by the French court. Just like the drug testing budgets for all of premier UCI races somebody is going to look like an idiot for squandering what little money they have on pursuing Landis and Baker. With large multi-national law firms all over the US,there has to be a way to give a video statement about any and all issues asked by the French judge.

It's a criminal investigation from what I understand, why would it cost the anti-doping authorities a single cent?

 

[RTMcFadden]

Nothing is going to happen here. The judge probably issued the warrant to keep the case active. Otherwise, after three years, he's got to fish or cut bait.

The best way to look at the warrant is to remember the Roman Polanski case. He had a US warrant issued in the late 70"s. To avoid arrest, he moved to France. In 2005 an international warrant was issued, then it took several years. He was arrested only because he left France.

Same thing is going to happen here. As long as Landis stays in the US nothing is going to happen to him. If the judge really wants him, he knows the procedure. He has to issue an international warrant, then once he's apprehended, they have to follow the extradition process. This means that Landis gets his day in court in the US. It also means probable cause has to be established before extradition would be granted. I just don't think that's going to happen.

 

[VeloCity]

I disagree that "most Americans might have have a bit of a problem" with the scenario you describe. C'mon most Americans would not notice, even on a slow news day. Well, maybe a few "save the whales" activists...

It also looks like nobody in France really noticed when the Floyd warrant was issued there last month. So professor Bordry had to get on the phone to AP and Reuters and claim that an "International Warrant" was issued for Floyd just so people would pay attention. what a joke.

What does Bordry have to do with it? The warrant was issued by a French judge - you really think Bordry has so much influence on the French judicial system that he can single-handedly persuade them to issue an arrest warrant? The warrant was issued because there's evidence that Landis/Baker may have broken French law, it has nothing to do with cycling, Bordry, the AFLD, or really even the French at all, for that matter, other than the fact that it was a French lab that was hacked. Any American judge would've done the same thing if it were an American lab that was hacked by a foreign national, so why is it such a surprise or an outrage that a French judge has issued arrest warrants for suspects in a case involving a French lab being hacked?

 

[fatandfast]

It's a criminal investigation from what I understand, why would it cost the anti-doping authorities a single cent?

If the AFLD wants Landis and Baker to testify in a written form or on video it will costs them a few thousand dollars to do that in the US. We don't have a looser pays system in the US so the French gov,Power company,AFLD and anybody else who wants to talk to he defendants need to pay a law firm in the US. To send somebody a legal brief from one country to another and have it served within the hosts countries laws(US) it will cost you a few 1000. Most law firms will not open up a conference room in the US for free. Inside the offices of Skadden Arps it costs 1000's just to breath their air or use the toilet.

 

[Kennf1]

If the AFLD wants Landis and Baker to testify in a written form or on video it will costs them a few thousand dollars to do that in the US. We don't have a looser pays system in the US so the French gov,Power company,AFLD and anybody else who wants to talk to he defendants need to pay a law firm in the US. To send somebody a legal brief from one country to another and have it served within the hosts countries laws(US) it will cost you a few 1000. Most law firms will not open up a conference room in the US for free. Inside the offices of Skadden Arps it costs 1000's just to breath their air or use the toilet.

(1) This is not the AFLD's investigation. It is not a civil lawsuit. It is a French criminal investigation; (2) you don't have to take a statement in a mergers and acqusitions law firm's conference room.

 

[BroDeal]

I checked Wikipedia and in the Right to silence article it states that

"France

In France, the Code of Criminal Procedure (art. L116) makes it compulsory that when an investigating judge hears a suspect, he must warn him that he has the right to remain silent, to make a statement, or to answer questions. A person against which suspicions lay cannot legally be interrogated by justice as an ordinary witness.

At the actual trial, a defendant can be compelled to make a statement. However, the code also prohibits hearing a suspect under oath; thus, a suspect may say whatever he feels fit for his defence, without fear of sanction for perjury. This prohibition is extended to the suspects spouse and members of his close family (this extension of the prohibition may be waived if both the prosecution and the defence counsel agree to the waiver)."

I looked that up earlier. The nice thing (for FLandis) is that it appears that FLandis cannot be charged with perjury for lying about what happened if he is a "target" of the investigation instead of an ordinary witness, so there is no reason he cannot answer any questions by saying he does not know what Baker did or how Baker obtained the documents. It appears that Landis could have easily dealt with the problem without fear of commiting perjury, or he could just clam up and refuse to answer any questions. He really screwed himself over this.

 

[fatandfast]

(1) This is not the AFLD's investigation. It is not a civil lawsuit. It is a French criminal investigation; (2) you don't have to take a statement in a mergers and acqusitions law firm's conference room.

Fair to say Skadden would not be the firm of choice to represent Floyd. Point being that the US dept of Justice, I'm sure doesn't have lots of cash earmarked for a probe, a deep probe into how Baker and Landis got data from a computer 4 years ago in a different country. I am also sure that France has very little extra cash to send over a prosecution team to pursue statements from the 2 fumbling computer hacks. Although my choice of firm may have been flawed, my example was used to show the price international law is super expensive. Nobody is going spend any money making any office space government or private for this dusty hunt for French justice. Taco Bell may have a table available to question Floyd and Baker but most people will look at this over the ocean conquest to be a complete waste of money. Skadden has lawyers that also do divorces,and patent/trademark as part of the services offered by the firm

 

[Kennf1]

Fair to say Skadden would not be the firm of choice to represent Floyd. Point being that the US dept of Justice, I'm sure doesn't have lots of cash earmarked for a probe, a deep probe into how Baker and Landis got data from a computer 4 years ago in a different country. I am also sure that France has very little extra cash to send over a prosecution team to pursue statements from the 2 fumbling computer hacks. Although my choice of firm may have been flawed, my example was used to show the price international law is super expensive. Nobody is going spend any money making any office space government or private for this dusty hunt for French justice. Taco Bell may have a table available to question Floyd and Baker but most people will look at this over the ocean conquest to be a complete waste of money. Skadden has lawyers that also do divorces,and patent/trademark as part of the services offered by the firm

I agree that nothing will probably come of this, unless someone implicated in France gives up Baker's name as a "buyer." The more important focus for the French govt. is on EdF and Vivendi, and the consulting firm involved.

 

[The Crusher]

Check out the comments on the Velonews story. Priceless. Even Carboncrank might have trouble equaling this stupidity:

"I remember when they tried to do this to Lance too...accusing him of hacking into the L'Equipe system or something"

This really happened. cyclingnews reported on it.

 

[The Crusher]

Not exactly. It has been about a year.

Arnie sent out the hacked documents to various media sources back in 2007 but at the time this was all the evidence the French police had. It was only last year when the French Police arrested a hacker for hacking into the Greenpeace computers and found that he had been paid by Arnie as well. A summons was issued for Arnie and Floyd, but they ignored it, so now an arrest warrant has been issued.

Various media sources received these documents in late October of 2006, and Arnie Baker was found to have them at around the same time.

It has been reported that the hacker Alain Quiros was paid 2000 Euros by Thierry Lorho, working on behalf of Jean Francois Dominguez, who claims to have been hired by Jean-Michel Payet, who has not yet been tracked done as far as I can tell.

I've never seen it reported anywhere that any payment was connected with Arnie Baker. If you can find any such reference, we'd all be interested to see it.

 

[BikeCentric]

Various media sources received these documents in late October of 2006, and Arnie Baker was found to have them at around the same time.

It has been reported that the hacker Alain Quiros was paid 2000 Euros by Thierry Lorho, working on behalf of Jean Francois Dominguez, who claims to have been hired by Jean-Michel Payet, who has not yet been tracked done as far as I can tell.

I've never seen it reported anywhere that any payment was connected with Arnie Baker. If you can find any such reference, we'd all be interested to see it.

Oh look, Public Strategies PR flack has shown up again, right on time!

Meanwhile in reality an arrest warrant for hacking has been issued for Landis and Baker.

 

[The Crusher]

It is much easier then you think.

Flandis did not do the hacking. In the court documents, there is a confession from a computer "consultant" that planted and activated a trojan horse program. Then someone from a remote IP address connected via the password-protected trojan horse back door. Once in Arnie looked around the lab's server, took some files and sent a few fake emails. The police investigating determined the IP address to be the same as Arnie Baker's.

Then copies of documents are sent around to the media and they show up in Landis' court case..... with some changed numbers of course.

Once again the evidence is against Landis.

Seriously where are you getting this? I've never seen any of this reported anywhere, and I've been keeping on eye on this case for a while.

In fact, what you are saying directly contradicts this news item:

http://www.liberation.fr/societe/0101581518-les-trois-coups-de-l-espion

It was reported here that Jean Francois Dominguez had passed on a list of keywords to search for to Thierry Lorho. Once Lorho got the data back from his hacker Alain Quiros, he passed the data back to Dominguez. It's never been suggested (until now, by you) that Arnie Baker actually participated in the break-in.

 

[The Crusher]

Kurt, with all due respect, can you please go re-read the Cyclingnews.com article and/or the Reuters press release?

Both the articles specifically state that both Landis and Baker are being charged with the crime of hacking the labs computers. I repeat, both Landis and Baker, charged with hacking, arrest warrant issued for hacking.

According to everything I've seen, this is not true. The arrest warrants are for questioning, there are no charges mentioned at all.

 

[BroDeal]

This really happened. cyclingnews reported on it.

That has nothing to do with Armstrong hacking L'Equipe. It has to do with Armstrong using passwords from The Paceline to access the e-mail accounts of critics who had accounts at the Paceline and used the same password on the Paceline as they did with their e-mail account.

 

[BikeCentric]

According to everything I've seen, this is not true. The arrest warrants are for questioning, there are no charges mentioned at all.

"An arrest warrant for Floyd Landis was issued late last month in France. The American rider is charged in connection with the computer hacking of an anti-doping laboratory"

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/arrest-warrant-issued-for-landis-in-france

 

[The Crusher]

That has nothing to do with Armstrong hacking L'Equipe. It has to do with Armstrong using passwords from The Paceline to access the e-mail accounts of critics who had accounts at the Paceline and used the same password on the Paceline as they did with their e-mail account.

So I guess you missed this part of the article:

An article published last week in Le Monde by French journalist Stéphane Mandard contained a claim that Lance Armstrong might be the mystery hacker of the LNDD lab ...

 

[BroDeal]

So I guess you missed this part of the article:

Again, nothing to do with hacking L'Equipe and we now know who hacked into the LNDD.

 

[Epicycle]

Seriously where are you getting this? I've never seen any of this reported anywhere, and I've been keeping on eye on this case for a while.

In fact, what you are saying directly contradicts this news item:

http://www.liberation.fr/societe/0101581518-les-trois-coups-de-l-espion

It was reported here that Jean Francois Dominguez had passed on a list of keywords to search for to Thierry Lorho. Once Lorho got the data back from his hacker Alain Quiros, he passed the data back to Dominguez. It's never been suggested (until now, by you) that Arnie Baker actually participated in the break-in.

Wrong.

In November 2006, lab officials filed a formal complaint saying that its computer data had been stolen and used in Landis’s defense. That confidential data was also sent to other labs and news media, officials said. A subsequent search of the lab’s computers turned up a Trojan horse, which is a program that allowed an outsider to remotely download files.

Investigators concluded that the program could have originated from an e-mail message sent to the lab from a computer using the same Internet protocol address as Arnie Baker, Landis’s coach.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/sports/cycling/16landis.html

 

[BikeCentric]

So tell us, The Crusher, which intrepid young lawyer character from the John Grisham novels do you most associate yourself with?

 

[The Crusher]

Wrong.

In November 2006, lab officials filed a formal complaint saying that its computer data had been stolen and used in Landis’s defense. That confidential data was also sent to other labs and news media, officials said. A subsequent search of the lab’s computers turned up a Trojan horse, which is a program that allowed an outsider to remotely download files.

Investigators concluded that the program could have originated from an e-mail message sent to the lab from a computer using the same Internet protocol address as Arnie Baker, Landis’s coach.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/sports/cycling/16landis.html

Wow. I have to say I'm about 99% confident that this article is completely wrong. I've been following this case, and no one else has said this. But this is a kind of telephone-game distortion of what has been reported, which includes:

A trojan horse was used for the breakin.
An IP address allegedly belonging to Arnie Baker was connected to emails sent out when the stolen documents were being distributed publicly.

I think some reporters got in a big hurry and completely blew the story.