landis sued by uci?

[Cloxxki]

Excellent idea.
Sue me as well.
I'll add my former UCI licence number, suggest those with more than one ball add their current or former one. Mine is less than 8 years old.
Take my wins, if you can find them. Bunch of currupt money laundring clowns.

 

[MarkvW]

The Landis ruling in the Swiss Courts has a few days until his opportunity to appeal is gone.

His lawyer has now acknowledged the case was heard and judgement passed and he now has the opportunity to appeal and pleading ignorance or sitting still and complaining won’t make it go away it will simply pass into law as a conviction and Landis has no option other than to comply.
If it's not as legal as his lawyers are saying then they should appeal.

If he doesn’t comply I cannot see a Swiss Court sitting back and accepting it in the same way any other Court wont. Additionally if he has provided testimony used in the USADA/LA case he may have to retract that also or face further action, possibly USADA will have to remove it also, regardless of FL actions, as a Court ruling under the Code is deemed accepted and repeating this will place in the same position as L'Equipe are, heading to court, for printing the story in the first place.
I dont think USADA leaving it in the 'File' would be wise when they are sending it to Switzerland where a Court has already ruled on it and in the hands of enemy No1 UCI! It may however cause one or two at UCI to have a heart atack reading it.

It's at times like this we all see why organisations like UCI and FIFA etc. decide to set up their HQ in Switzerland!

I hope he doesn’t comply and we get to see where it goes.

Regardless of any comments by me or anyone else it is still one of the funniest things I have read in a long time, comedy gold.

A judgment is a piece of paper with writing on it. A foreign judgment is a piece of paper with writing on it made in a foreign country.

McBruggen now has this piece of paper. What can they do with it? It's not very useful, intrinsically, because it has writing on it. It might make decent scrap paper, but it's only real value is only its usefulness in persuading Floyd to do stuff.

The first problem is that Floyd and all his stuff are here in the USA while McBruggen and the judges are in Switzerland. It's not like McBruggen and the judges can just send collection agents over to the USA to take Floyd's stuff from him. Taking Floyd's stuff without a VALID judgment in a LEGALLY UNAUTHORIZED manner is a crime. No (legitimate) collection agent is ever going to take that job!

The USA has this doctrine called sovereignty. And the sovereignty of the USA is a little bit more than mere words (like McBruggen's judgment) because it is backed up by a really expensive army. In other words, no Swiss dudes are coming over to the USA to mess with Floyd or Floyd's stuff unless the USA law permits it. And the Swiss are really cool with this because we don't invade Switzerland every time we want to take stuff from Swiss citizens (we do it without invasion--ask UBS). Turn about is fair play. Diplomacy. . .

Anyway. McBruggen's Swiss piece of paper will only authorize action in the USA if a US court says that it does. And US courts just ADORE things like "notice" and "reasonable opportunity to be heard." No notice equals no enforceable judgment. That's McBruggen's first problem. To make their Swiss piece of paper into something that will work in the USA, they'll have to convince a US judge that they gave Floyd adequate notice of the proceedings BEFORE they got their Swiss piece of paper. There is grave doubt that McBruggen can do this.

McBruggen will have more problems if they can surmount the notice problem.

 

[MarkvW]

The Landis ruling in the Swiss Courts has a few days until his opportunity to appeal is gone.

His lawyer has now acknowledged the case was heard and judgement passed and he now has the opportunity to appeal and pleading ignorance or sitting still and complaining won’t make it go away it will simply pass into law as a conviction and Landis has no option other than to comply.
If it's not as legal as his lawyers are saying then they should appeal.

If he doesn’t comply I cannot see a Swiss Court sitting back and accepting it in the same way any other Court wont. Additionally if he has provided testimony used in the USADA/LA case he may have to retract that also or face further action, possibly USADA will have to remove it also, regardless of FL actions, as a Court ruling under the Code is deemed accepted and repeating this will place in the same position as L'Equipe are, heading to court, for printing the story in the first place.
I dont think USADA leaving it in the 'File' would be wise when they are sending it to Switzerland where a Court has already ruled on it and in the hands of enemy No1 UCI! It may however cause one or two at UCI to have a heart atack reading it.

It's at times like this we all see why organisations like UCI and FIFA etc. decide to set up their HQ in Switzerland!

I hope he doesn’t comply and we get to see where it goes.

Regardless of any comments by me or anyone else it is still one of the funniest things I have read in a long time, comedy gold.

A judgment is a piece of paper with writing on it. A foreign judgment is a piece of paper with writing on it made in a foreign country.

McBruggen now has this piece of paper. What can they do with it? It's not very useful, intrinsically, because it has writing on it. It might make decent scrap paper, but it's only real value is its usefulness in persuading Floyd to do stuff, or in persuading other people to take Floyd or his stuff.

The first problem is that Floyd and all his stuff are here in the USA while McBruggen and the judges are in Switzerland. It's not like McBruggen and the judges can just send collection agents over to the USA to take Floyd's stuff from him. Taking Floyd's stuff without a VALID judgment in a LEGALLY UNAUTHORIZED manner is a crime. No (legitimate) collection agent is ever going to take that job!

The USA has this doctrine called sovereignty. And the sovereignty of the USA is a little bit more than mere words (like McBruggen's judgment) because it is backed up by a really expensive army. In other words, no Swiss dudes are coming over to the USA to mess with Floyd or Floyd's stuff unless the USA law permits it. And the Swiss are really cool with this because we don't invade Switzerland every time we want to take stuff from Swiss citizens (we do it without invasion--ask UBS). Turn about is fair play. Diplomacy. . .

Anyway. McBruggen's Swiss piece of paper will only authorize action in the USA if a US court says that it does. And US courts just ADORE things like "notice" and "reasonable opportunity to be heard." No notice equals no enforceable judgment. That's McBruggen's first problem. To make their Swiss piece of paper into something that will work in the USA, they'll have to convince a US judge that they gave Floyd adequate notice of the proceedings BEFORE they got their Swiss piece of paper. There is grave doubt that McBruggen can do this.

McBruggen will have more problems if they can surmount the notice problem.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

A judgment is a piece of paper with writing on it. Aa foreign judgment is a piece of paper with writing on it made in a foreign country.

McBruggen now has this piece of paper. What can they do with it? It's not very useful, intrinsically, because it has writing on it. It might make decent scrap paper, but it's only real value is only its usefulness in persuading Floyd to do stuff.

The first problem is that Floyd and all his stuff are here in the USA while McBruggen and the judges are in Switzerland. It's not like McBruggen and the judges can just send collection agents over to the USA to take Floyd's stuff from him. Taking Floyd's stuff without a VALID judgment in a LEGALLY UNAUTHORIZED manner is a crime. No (legitimate) collection agent is ever going to take that job!

The USA has this doctrine called sovereignty. And the sovereignty of the USA is a little bit more than mere words (like McBruggen's judgment) because it is backed up by a really expensive army. In other words, no Swiss dudes are coming over to the USA to mess with Floyd or Floyd's stuff unless the USA law permits it. And the Swiss are really cool with this because we don't invade Switzerland every time we want to take stuff from Swiss citizens (we do it without invasion--ask UBS). Turn about is fair play. Diplomacy. . .

Anyway. McBruggen's Swiss piece of paper will only authorize action in the USA if a US court says that it does. And US courts just ADORE things like "notice" and "reasonable opportunity to be heard." No notice equals no enforceable judgment. That's McBruggen's first problem. To make their Swiss piece of paper into something that will work in the USA, they'll have to convince a US judge that they gave Floyd adequate notice of the proceedings BEFORE they got their Swiss piece of paper. There is grave doubt that McBruggen can do this.

McBruggen will have more problems if they can surmount the notice problem.

UCI amd McBruggen have their 'moral' victory in the public domain. That is all they really give a 5hit about. There is no way that they will be stupid enough (?) to try and make the judgement enforceable on US soil.

 

[GeeMan]

Calm down rookie. Earn your stripes first.

WOW I didn't know your ability to share opinions on here were related to how long you have been here.

If anyone makes a stupid comment don't be surprised if you get a kick in the b@lls for it.

I've no issue with anyone making comments on what I say but try and tell me that one was productive?

Is this an open forum or run by UCI?

I'm sure you can appreciate my point!

 

[D-Queued]

Excellent idea.
Sue me as well.
I'll add my former UCI licence number, suggest those with more than one ball add their current or former one. Mine is less than 8 years old.
Take my wins, if you can find them. Bunch of currupt money laundring clowns.

Honestly, they sound so full of sh!t, they must think that they are just like Ghaddafi.

Dave.

 

[D-Queued]

added dave's ##11 and 12 and #13 from myself. Robert21, i think you are correct, but we should focus on the uci special treatment of armstrong and his teams ONLY as that's what being the substance of 2 lawsuits.

1. Contrary to overwhelming evidence, the president of the UCI stated in black and white, 'he never,never doped'. this is in public records*
2. contrary to uci statements, the lausanne lab director confirmed to usada, uci arranging secret meetings following armstrong's tds epo 'suspicious'. this is in public records
3. contrary to uci statements, the uci did attempt to white wash armstrong's 6 epo positives with vrijman report. this is in public records.
4. contrary to uci statements, there are at least several other witnesses confirming floyd's story that armstrong bragged about his influence with the uci.
5. contrary to every other known incidence, armstrong remains the only rider paying uci.**
6. contrary to other known examples, armstrong - a confirmed doping cyclist - used his influence with the uci to rat on the riders about their doping ('the spaniards on new shyt', 'tyler not normal')
7. UCI granting armstrong the license up on 2nd coming BEFORE the required 6 months of dope testing expired
8. the back dated corticosteroid prescription approved by the uci following a positive test
9. Repeated attempts to interfere in federal courts into USADA case against armstrong doping
10. UCI's persistent refusal to submit to usada some data regarding suspicious armstrong doping tests. this is in usada letters to uci and is part of the federal court proceedings.
11. UCI Chaperones providing advance notice of OOC ('surprise') tests, with notable preference to Lance/team
12. No fine/reprimand/punishment/consequence for threatening other riders (e.g. Filippo Simeoni)
13. Relentless suppression, litigation and dismissal of anyone questioning uci's lack of transparency wrt to special treatment of armstrong. examples: firing of sylvia schenk over questioning armstrong's payments, suing wada's dijk pound over his criticism of uci covering up 1999 epo positives

we need more and we need this spread all over the media and internet !

Add #14, McQuaid pre-announcement of Floyd's positive A test at the 2006 Tour, violating at least one due process rule

Among other places, this is cited in the book "Bad Blood". "It's the worst case scenario."

(I think this was the only part of Floyd's defense I agreed with)

Dave.

 

[Kennf1]

If anyone makes a stupid comment don't be surprised if you get a kick in the b@lls for it.

Like saying that Floyd has to comply with an unenforceable foreign judgement and possibly retract his testimony in a U.S. proceeding?

 

[GeeMan]

UCI amd McBruggen have their 'moral' victory in the public domain. That is all they really give a 5hit about. There is no way that they will be stupid enough (?) to try and make the judgement enforceable on US soil.

If the same happened in US would you say the same?

Have you not heard about cross border treaties which US and Switzerland have in place. If a US citizen commits a crime in Switzerland and jumps home the Swiss ask for them back and the US send them and vice versa.

Its called international cooperation m8 so Swiss Courts send the ruling to US DOJ advising that FL is not adhering to their ruling and ask for enforcement and guess what they actually do it, amazing or what!

Try and understand that the world is bigger than the US and just because it didn't take place there that it still counts and the Swiss don't sit back and allow ruling to be p@ssed all over, why else do you think UCI, FIFA etc are all based there!

 

[MarkvW]

WOW I didn't know your ability to share opinions on here were related to how long you have been here.

If anyone makes a stupid comment don't be surprised if you get a kick in the b@lls for it.

I've no issue with anyone making comments on what I say but try and tell me that one was productive?

Is this an open forum or run by UCI?

I'm sure you can appreciate my point!

There are distinct characters here, and you've just met a couple. Chewbacca knows a good amount of law and cycling history and can be more aggressive than Vinokourov on a steroids overdose. TheHog is a fine resource for older cycling history, but is constantly taking the p***.

Your post was a "pronouncement." No problem with that, but it ignored a lot of other--thoughtful--posts upthread that covered the exact same subject matter. That was what Chewbacca was ragging about. Why should he cover the same ground, again...Hoggy was just messing with you. He does that.

 

[thehog]

There are distinct characters here, and you've just met a couple. Chewbacca knows a good amount of law and cycling history and can be more aggressive than Vinokourov on a steroids overdose. TheHog is a fine resource for older cycling history, but is constantly taking the p***.

Your post was a "pronouncement." No problem with that, but it ignored a lot of other--thoughtful--posts upthread that covered the exact same subject matter. That was what Chewbacca was ragging about. Why should he cover the same ground, again...Hoggy was just messing with you. He does that.

You know me too well!

 

[peterst6906]

If the same happened in US would you say the same?

Have you not heard about cross border treaties which US and Switzerland have in place. If a US citizen commits a crime in Switzerland and jumps home the Swiss ask for them back and the US send them and vice versa.

Its called international cooperation m8 so Swiss Courts send the ruling to US DOJ advising that FL is not adhering to their ruling and ask for enforcement and guess what they actually do it, amazing or what!

Try and understand that the world is bigger than the US and just because it didn't take place there that it still counts and the Swiss don't sit back and allow ruling to be p@ssed all over, why else do you think UCI, FIFA etc are all based there!

This wasn't a criminal issue, it was a civil one.

Irrespective of treaties and agreements, extradition even for criminal situations often ends up being tested in court in many countries before it goes ahead; and that certainly doesn't apply here, nor does Floyd run the risk of bailiffs coming round without a judgment in the US.

In relation to your 2nd paragraph, do you have an example case where that occurred, or are you assuming that there are cases that have worked that way. Just one concrete example of the Swiss courts contacting the DoJ in relation to a civil matter and the DoJ enforcing that ruling for the Swiss.

 

[GeeMan]

Like saying that Floyd has to comply with an unenforceable foreign judgement and possibly retract his testimony in a U.S. proceeding?

No m8 try and read what has been written and understand the context.

Under USADA and WADC rules if a Court of Law has determined on evidence, try and note that means any Court not just a US one, it is taken as Fact without any contest and not admissible as evidence.

It also means FL is unable to repeat this in any form which also means testimony and anyone reprinting it can also be liable. I also pointed out that USADA will be sending their File to where? YES that’s right Switzerland, the lala land you feel is unimportant in all of this, where it actually was enforced and guess what UCI will do about it? Correct remove it as inadmissible and advise the Court of the breach of the ruling.

Also read other post pointing out about something called International Treaties on law etc. where the US will enforce the judgement especially when FL has time to appeal and if he doesn’t he is guilty, ala LA and USADA. Fantastic irony don’t you think?

It’s still funny as feck to read.

 

[MarkvW]

If the same happened in US would you say the same?

Have you not heard about cross border treaties which US and Switzerland have in place. If a US citizen commits a crime in Switzerland and jumps home the Swiss ask for them back and the US send them and vice versa.

Its called international cooperation m8 so Swiss Courts send the ruling to US DOJ advising that FL is not adhering to their ruling and ask for enforcement and guess what they actually do it, amazing or what!

Try and understand that the world is bigger than the US and just because it didn't take place there that it still counts and the Swiss don't sit back and allow ruling to be p@ssed all over, why else do you think UCI, FIFA etc are all based there!

Did you even read what I wrote? Have you even looked at the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Money Judgments Act? Have you thoght about DUE PROCESS as it applies to the enforcement of a foreign judgment in the USA?

And,by the way, enforcement of a Swiss judgment in the US depends on State Law, not Federal Law. There is no federal money judgment enforcement treaty.

You're spewing total BS when you say the US DOJ is going to get involved in helping private parties collect a judgment against a US citizen. They won't.

 

[Kennf1]

If the same happened in US would you say the same?

Have you not heard about cross border treaties which US and Switzerland have in place. If a US citizen commits a crime in Switzerland and jumps home the Swiss ask for them back and the US send them and vice versa.

Its called international cooperation m8 so Swiss Courts send the ruling to US DOJ advising that FL is not adhering to their ruling and ask for enforcement and guess what they actually do it, amazing or what!

Try and understand that the world is bigger than the US and just because it didn't take place there that it still counts and the Swiss don't sit back and allow ruling to be p@ssed all over, why else do you think UCI, FIFA etc are all based there!

No. The UCI judgment is a civil judgment, not criminal. The U.S. DOJ has no role. The UCI would have to file suit in a U.S. court (presumably in California where Floyd lives) to enforce it. The SPEECH Act, passed in 2010, requires that a foreign plaintiff seeking to enforce a foreign judgment for libel prove that the judgment does not violate the defendant's First Amendment rights. The UCI would also have to show that they had personal jurisdiction over Landis and that he had proper legal notice of the proceeding.

 

[thehog]

Do you smell what I smell?

 

[Kennf1]

No m8 try and read what has been written and understand the context.

Under USADA and WADC rules if a Court of Law has determined on evidence, try and note that means any Court not just a US one, it is taken as Fact without any contest and not admissible as evidence.

It also means FL is unable to repeat this in any form which also means testimony and anyone reprinting it can also be liable. I also pointed out that USADA will be sending their File to where? YES that’s right Switzerland, the lala land you feel is unimportant in all of this, where it actually was enforced and guess what UCI will do about it? Correct remove it as inadmissible and advise the Court of the breach of the ruling.

Also read other post pointing out about something called International Treaties on law etc. where the US will enforce the judgement especially when FL has time to appeal and if he doesn’t he is guilty, ala LA and USADA. Fantastic irony don’t you think?

It’s still funny as feck to read.

Well "mate," you're being aggressively ignorant of international law. Point me to that "something called International Treaties on law etc." that says the UCI judgment is now automatically enforceable in the U.S.

 

[peterst6906]

Do you smell what I smell?

I think everyone smells it at the moment. In trying to be positive, I'll assume it's just enthusiasm, but you know what they say about assumptions.

 

[GeeMan]

This wasn't a criminal issue, it was a civil one.

Irrespective of treaties and agreements, extradition even for criminal situations often ends up being tested in court in many countries before it goes ahead; and that certainly doesn't apply here, nor does Floyd run the risk of bailiffs coming round without a judgment in the US.

Extradition is for criminal offences which I agree take a lot longer to agree a committal and this is a Civil case.

You are wrong about how this works however and it doesn't need tested in many courts first. Its as simple as Swiss Courts asking for the DOJ to deal with the matter which involves serving non compliance papers on FL and asking for a written response when they intend to comply. If they dispute it a hearing takes place and they can advise reasons which is taken against Swiss Law where the case was ruled on, it won't be done on US Law as it didn't happen there and the compliance must be reviewed against the original hearing/ruling.
FL has time to contest and if he doesn't the US Courts will basically be powerless to help as he has accepted to do nothing about it.

As I said I hope he does contravene as I would like to see how UCI respond although I think their ulterior motives are USADA who cannot ignore it under their Rules but accept it.

Do i think FL will hear anything soon about it NO for the reasons above.

 

[piemonster]

I like to assume

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Do you smell what I smell?

Hope writes again.

 

[thehog]

I like to assume

I already know how this ends.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Why dont you try and not come across as being either lazy or ignorant yourself?

Is it an abuse forum or to share?

Why should I come across any differently when you embody those very things you accuse me of? I know what I'm talking about, you don't. You aren't my child, so I have no responsibility to teach you anything. I suggest doing some research before posting, but really, this isn't about that. You're just here to do your little thing you have done before. I just appreciate the fact that you didn't start with the "Long time lurker, first time poster" line. Glad that line has been added to the pile of dead troll lines, right?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

There are distinct characters here, and you've just met a couple. Chewbacca knows a good amount of law and cycling history and can be more aggressive than Vinokourov on a steroids overdose. TheHog is a fine resource for older cycling history, but is constantly taking the p***.

Your post was a "pronouncement." No problem with that, but it ignored a lot of other--thoughtful--posts upthread that covered the exact same subject matter. That was what Chewbacca was ragging about. Why should he cover the same ground, again...Hoggy was just messing with you. He does that.

You're being too kind. No salty language in the description. That really is unfair to my character.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

If the same happened in US would you say the same?

Have you not heard about cross border treaties which US and Switzerland have in place. If a US citizen commits a crime in Switzerland and jumps home the Swiss ask for them back and the US send them and vice versa.

Its called international cooperation m8 so Swiss Courts send the ruling to US DOJ advising that FL is not adhering to their ruling and ask for enforcement and guess what they actually do it, amazing or what!

Try and understand that the world is bigger than the US and just because it didn't take place there that it still counts and the Swiss don't sit back and allow ruling to be p@ssed all over, why else do you think UCI, FIFA etc are all based there!

Hmmm....where to begin.....

1) this is civil, not criminal. You refer to a crime being committed. No crime here.
2) International cooperation exists primarily for criminal matters, less on civil. Neither the US or Switzerland are all that interested in each others civil maters. The Swiss have there hands full with laundered money, tax fraud, and the trillions of $ from deposed leaders and every country in the world trying to break their banking secrecy practices.
3) The UCI would basically have to refile in the US and convince the courts of the claim's merits based on US law, and then have the case tried.
4) I am aware the world is bigger than the US. People such as myself live in Canada, but thank you for reminding me.
5) UCI and FIFA are in CH probably because it allows many aspects of their financial and business practices to remain secret.
6) IMO the Swiss court clerks laughed their butts off transcribing the ruling the ruling. They are probably still laughing.
7) Please dial down you enthusiasm.