Livestrong lobbyist working for Lance the doper

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
MarkvW said:
Despite what you write, USADA is not going to want to participate in civil discovery with Mr. Armstrong. They are going to want to stay discovery. Think "exhaustive depositions of every USADA witness," and you will begin to understand why USADA does absolutely not want to go there. They have a streamlind hearing process for good reasons, and they don't want to be burdened by a very expensive civil discovery process.
Also, I never stated the USADA wants to be involved in a civil case with Armstrong, given his obvious resources and the way civil juries are manipulated.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
Turner29 said:
The notion that Armstrong will not have access to evidence is misinformation. If the case moves to Arbitration, Armstrong will have access to all evidence.

Do criminal defendants have access to Grand Jury evidence prior to charges being filed? No. The USADA investigation is essentially a Grand Jury.

Now that charges have been "filed" against Armstrong, he has a choice: arbitrate or not. Plain and simple. Should he chose arbitration, he will have access to all evidence.
Obviously procedural fairness or natural justice was not on the curriculum in the Matlock School of Law :)

Every defendant/respondent has a legal right to know the case they have to meet and the evidence obtained by the applicant/plaintiff/prosecution to establish that case.
 
Nov 20, 2010
786
0
0
dbrower said:
I think it likely there'd be a protective order on the depositions. I cannot believe Armstrong would want the voluminous raw testimony in the open under any circumstances.

-dB
That would be difficult with major media like the Washington Post, WSJ, NY Times going to court for access. Sealing is only appropriate when there is a proprietary secret to protect or very personal matters. Besides, Armstong won't settle and there's no way the trial will be anything but VERY public.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Velodude said:
Obviously procedural fairness or natural justice was not on the curriculum in the Matlock School of Law :)

Every defendant/respondent has a legal right to know the case they have to meet and the evidence obtained by the applicant/plaintiff/prosecution to establish that case.
Federal Courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. If a reasonable question has been raised regarding the existence of jurisdiction, it is normal practice for the court to stay discovery (unnecessary to decide jurisdiction) until that question can be resolved. It is normal because Federal Judges are ever-mindful of staying within their limited jurisdiction--and discovery is an exercise of judicial power.

Every Google Lawyer knows this. You must have gone to the Yahoo School of Law.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Cimacoppi49 said:
That would be difficult with major media like the Washington Post, WSJ, NY Times going to court for access. Sealing is only appropriate when there is a proprietary secret to protect or very personal matters. Besides, Armstong won't settle and there's no way the trial will be anything but VERY public.
Depositions only get in the record if a party puts them in the record (usually in aid of a motion). Armstrong's not going to put them in the record unless it helps him. USADA might put Armstrong-damaging stuff in the record, but only after they've exhausted all jurisdictional or waiver type arguments first.

Armstrong wants the facts buried, period, and USADA wants the facts disclosed only in the context of their process. I would not expect to see any discovery going on until later on in the case--if the case survives USADA's counterattack.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
The problem isn't that the LAF is lobbying in support of its founder, as legally, a foundation has legs that are "independent" of its founder. IE, the organization is quite literally dependent on the reputation OF its founder for survival.

There are two problems:

1) That we allow people to set up non-profit, tax-exempt corporations and then use them as tax shelters for themselves, and

2) That we give corporations (profit or non) the same rights as people when it comes to access to the legal system. Corporations should not be allowed to lobby congress, as they're essentially "The Borg". The collective financial resources of thousands (sometimes millions) of people. The Borg can crush individual voters, but individual voters can't even make a dent in The Borg.

Our issue here is really the former. The LAF is not the LAF, but Lance himself. Everyone employed at the LAF works for Lance, and they damn well know it.

Hopefully Lance's narcissism here will draw some much-needed legislative attention to the greater problem of how people use these non-profits as their private tax-free piggy banks. I'm glad that the representative from NY had the huevos to divulge this visit.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
BotanyBay said:
The problem isn't that the LAF is lobbying in support of its founder, as legally, a foundation has legs that are "independent" of its founder. IE, the organization is quite literally dependent on the reputation OF its founder for survival.

There are two problems:

1) That we allow people to set up non-profit, tax-exempt corporations and then use them as tax shelters for themselves, and

2) That we give corporations (profit or non) the same rights as people when it comes to access to the legal system. Corporations should not be allowed to lobby congress, as they're essentially "The Borg". The collective financial resources of thousands (sometimes millions) of people. The Borg can crush individual voters, but individual voters can't even make a dent in The Borg.

Our issue here is really the former. The LAF is not the LAF, but Lance himself. Everyone employed at the LAF works for Lance, and they damn well know it.

Hopefully Lance's narcissism here will draw some much-needed legislative attention to the greater problem of how people use these non-profits as their private tax-free piggy banks. I'm glad that the representative from NY had the huevos to divulge this visit.
Le association caritative cest moi!

Pardon my french!
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
BotanyBay said:
The problem isn't that the LAF is lobbying in support of its founder, as legally, a foundation has legs that are "independent" of its founder. IE, the organization is quite literally dependent on the reputation OF its founder for survival.

There are two problems:

1) That we allow people to set up non-profit, tax-exempt corporations and then use them as tax shelters for themselves, and

2) That we give corporations (profit or non) the same rights as people when it comes to access to the legal system. Corporations should not be allowed to lobby congress, as they're essentially "The Borg". The collective financial resources of thousands (sometimes millions) of people. The Borg can crush individual voters, but individual voters can't even make a dent in The Borg.

Our issue here is really the former. The LAF is not the LAF, but Lance himself. Everyone employed at the LAF works for Lance, and they damn well know it.

Hopefully Lance's narcissism here will draw some much-needed legislative attention to the greater problem of how people use these non-profits as their private tax-free piggy banks. I'm glad that the representative from NY had the huevos to divulge this visit.
Le association caritative c'est moi!

Pardon my french!
 
Nov 20, 2010
786
0
0
MarkvW said:
Depositions only get in the record if a party puts them in the record (usually in aid of a motion). Armstrong's not going to put them in the record unless it helps him. USADA might put Armstrong-damaging stuff in the record, but only after they've exhausted all jurisdictional or waiver type arguments first.

Armstrong wants the facts buried, period, and USADA wants the facts disclosed only in the context of their process. I would not expect to see any discovery going on until later on in the case--if the case survives USADA's counterattack.
The record yes, but depositions have a way of seeking the light of day all on their own. If it comes to that, USADA will make a motion and attach them as exhibits. We did that in a Federal case in West Texas three years ago. POed our adversary who also didn't want the bad publicity. I love to see people like this POed
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
Seemingly, many of the recent comment assume Armstrong is going to win and his case will be tried in a civil court. Perhaps I am being overly optimistic but I still believe Judge Sparks will throw out Armstrong's motion on several grounds:

1) Hasn't the USADA's authority already been unsuccessfully challenged?
2) Even if 60% funded by the government, it is not fully funded nor is USA Cycling, by any law, required to use the USADA and does so voluntarily.
3) Impact on other arbitration agencies such as FINRA.
 
Cimacoppi49 said:
And likely the whole world will know what Lance and USADA know. That would not be a bad thing.
Not if it invalidates the conclusion to this process.

In a perfect world, the conclusion of the USADA process opens new and multi-faceted civil and criminal cases.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
Not if it invalidates the conclusion to this process.

In a perfect world, the conclusion of the USADA process opens new and multi-faceted civil and criminal cases.
And it very well may.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
Turner29 said:
And it very well may.
So at what point do Armstrong's lawyers tell him, "Screw your reputation. We need to concentrate on avoiding civil and criminal fallout without being hampered by public relation concerns."?
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
BroDeal said:
So at what point do Armstrong's lawyers tell him, "Screw your reputation. We need to concentrate on avoiding civil and criminal fallout without being hampered by public relation concerns."?
After they have bled him dry of any penny possible.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
BroDeal said:
So at what point do Armstrong's lawyers tell him, "Screw your reputation. We need to concentrate on avoiding civil and criminal fallout without being hampered by public relation concerns."?
If he was in charge of reason he'd know that ship sailed along time ago. He's surrounded by paid syncophants and attorneys dying a failed politician's demise. As long as the people in the room keep telling him what he wants to hear he won't know it's gone wrong until the Olson twin won't answer his phone call. I forget which one but neither one will pick up when caller ID says...(this is where you get to fill in their nickname for LA).
 
BroDeal said:
So at what point do Armstrong's lawyers tell him, "Screw your reputation. We need to concentrate on avoiding civil and criminal fallout without being hampered by public relation concerns."?
They probably don't tell him as long as they are playing with Lances money. And Lance would not listen either. You couldn't put a 10 gallon hat on that head.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY