Micheal Anderson Testimony / Versus Lance Armstrong And David Luke LLC

[Monte Zoncolon]

Micheal Anderson / Versus Lance Armstrong And David Luke LLC

Micheal Anderson / Versus Lance Armstrong And David Luke LLC

 

[Monte Zoncolon]

 

[Monte Zoncolon]

 

[Monte Zoncolon]

 

[Monte Zoncolon]

 

[Monte Zoncolon]

 

[Monte Zoncolon]

 

[Monte Zoncolon]

 

[Monte Zoncolon]

 

[Monte Zoncolon]

 

[goober]

" It will also give the reader a real insight into the type of Character Lance Armstrong really is."

Maybe. The reader has to understand the context.

 

[Black-Balled]

The cartoon was much easier to understand.

Looks like work to read...and is nothing more than the reason you don't employ your friends.

 

[BotanyBay]

The cartoon was much easier to understand.

Looks like work to read...and is nothing more than the reason you don't employ your friends.

Every day, week, month, year and decade that goes by, evidence piles-up. It's important for people to sort of act as archivists here, so I'm glad that the OP has carried-on with the important work.

It is especially important now, as the sheep are starting to stir in their sleep. These postings help wake people up.

 

[PumpySchwartz]

i enjoy TexPat's posts

 

[Barrus]

The following is the entire Transcript of the Testimony. Micheal Anderson was a former friend and Employee Of Lance Armstrong. Their friendship turned bitter. The reason's for which are outlined in this Transcript. It resulted in Micheal Anderson being terminated as an Employee of Lance Armstrong. This resulted with Litigation, because Lance Armstrong did not adhere to the term's of the originally agreed severance package deal, amongst other thing's. This testimony will also leave no doubt in the readers mind about Lance Armstrong's use of Androgen's ( steroid's). It will also give the reader a real insight into the type of Character Lance Armstrong really is.

Not precisely it is not a transcript of any testimony, as far as I can make out it is a written piece of the attorneys of Anderson describing their case for the court and outlining their arguments. Concerning the trouble for some of you reading is mainly due to the fact that it was intended for the court and is thus written in legalese in many parts. Because it is written by the lawyers of msiter Anderson we cannot know to what extend this is completely to be taken as the truth, seeing how they were attempting to win this particular case.

 

[BotanyBay]

It's actually called a "Sworn Affadavit" in the U.S. legal system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affadavit

Barrus wrote:

Because it is written by the lawyers of msiter Anderson we cannot know to what extend this is completely to be taken as the truth,

Well, he's essentially swearing it to be true (under penalty of perjury).

 

[Monte Zoncolon]

Not precisely it is not a transcript of any testimony, as far as I can make out it is a written piece of the attorneys of Anderson describing their case for the court and outlining their arguments.

Yes You are correct Barrus. It it not a transcript of a Testimony. Put that down as a typing Freudian slip on My Behalf. It is a sworn affidavit. My mistake.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Well, he's essentially swearing it to be true (under penalty of perjury).

Hence why it says so often "I believe that this meant..." rather than "this is 100% proof that.....". It is easier to swear "truthfully" that you believe it is true, rather than to claim it is true.

In other words, a lot of the overt and covert accusations are still witness interpretations by someone who wants to make the best possible case he can make, without us seeing the comeback by the opposing side. Not straight facts.

Which won't stop many people from taking all the interpretations as proven facts, I guess.

 

[Monte Zoncolon]

Affidavits are considered "hearsay" and are not admissable as 'best evidence." Best evidence would be the testimony, in person, of the individual who gave the affidavit. Such a personal appearance allows the opposing side to cross-examine the witness. You can't cross-examine a piece of paper.

 

[El Oso]

It's neither testimony nor an affidavit, it's an

Luke David LLC sued Anderson (page 24 paragraph 43). In the American legal system, once you are sued (by a complaint) you respond with an answer and at that time can file a counterclaim. That is what this is, an answer and counterclaim. Usually the answer is just bs boilerplate defenses which you must raise at the time or you waive them (pages 34-35).

An answer and cross-complaint is not evidence unless it is verified, which this is not. Note that Anderson did not sign the answer and counterclaim. Thus the counterclaim is just Anderson's allegations against Armstrong (which even if only some of them are true shows how much of an @$$ he is).

 

[BotanyBay]

Who sued who first?

 

[Barrus]

Who sued who first?

In this case that would be Armstrong and that company

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Who sued who first?

I was thinking the same thing.

From what I read the Anderson document it appears to me that Armstrong got the first actual lawsuit filed. Then Anderson counter claimed.

I think from the beginning it was Anderson’s intention to force Armstrong to act on his word and agreement outlined in a email. He was not fully intending to sue Armstrong unless forced to do so by the lack of action on his claims.

I do not remember but how as this decided? Was it settled or did they start WWIII?

 

[runninboy]

Hence why it says so often "I believe that this meant..." rather than "this is 100% proof that.....". It is easier to swear "truthfully" that you believe it is true, rather than to claim it is true.

Which won't stop many people from taking all the interpretations as proven facts, I guess.

When you swear an oathe you are only swearing to the best of your knowledge. You can claim it is 100% true & not perjure yourself as it your belief to the best of your knowledge. Others can question the extent of your knowledge base, or the veracity of your statement or possible motives to potentially commit perjury. But i believe in the US swearing "truthfully" and claiming something is true would be the same. In other words witnesses are not required to be 100 percent correct for their testimony to carry any legal weight.

 

[Monte Zoncolon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong

On March 31, 2005, Mike Anderson filed a brief in Travis County District Court in Texas, as part of a legal battle following his termination in November 2004 as an employee of Armstrong. Anderson worked for Armstrong for two years as a personal assistant. In the brief, Anderson claimed that he discovered a box of androstenone while cleaning a bathroom in Armstrong's apartment in Girona, Spain. Androstenone is not on the list of banned drugs. Anderson stated in a subsequent deposition that he had no direct knowledge of Armstrong using a banned substance. Armstrong denied the claim and issued a counter-suit. The two men reached an out-of-court settlement in November 2005; the terms of the agreement were not disclosed.