Official lance armstrong thread, part 2 (from september 2012)

Page 121 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
MarkvW said:
It has always seemed to me that Lance should just pay off the Sunday Times. (a) He can't defend himself without testifying under oath; (b) he plainly defrauded them; and (c) the Times can milk the legal drama for every last drop of advertising value. Paying off the Sunday Times would be very expensive, but the alternatives would seem to be much worse. And doesn't the winner in a GB lawsuit get attorney fees?

If Lance doesn't pay up quick, he must be seriously insolvent or totally bat**** crazy.

This will be fun to watch.
He could just ignore it and avoid the U.K.

Will they pursue him in the U.S.?
 
BroDeal said:
He could just ignore it and avoid the U.K.

Will they pursue him in the U.S.?
I don't think they can as this would likely be classified a civil matter. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

This nice steady legal grind will end up costing a fortune to defend. So, far just on the civil front we've got this matter and the SCA insurance payout costing Wonderboy lots of money. AFAICT, he's got lawyers wrangling to keep legal documents hidden too. No income....

I don't see the guy changing, so he will probably delay at all cost until the last possible moment then capitulate and pretend he's come out ahead somehow.

Meanwhile, we all know he wants to do another scam as a way to get the last word in. You have to wonder what Wiesel's taste for risk is right now.
 
Fortyninefourteen said:
MarkvW said:
It has always seemed to me that Lance should just pay off the Sunday Times. (a) He can't defend himself without testifying under oath; (b) he plainly defrauded them;
MarkvW said:
[

This applies to every claim against him.


I don't agree with that. SCA was not defrauded into entering into a settlement agreement that purports to be final. SCA was not defrauded because they didn't rely on any of Lance's "I wasn't doping" lies when they signed the settlement agreement. There may be other examples. I am using this one example to challenge the global nature of your assertion.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
I don't think they can as this would likely be classified a civil matter. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

This nice steady legal grind will end up costing a fortune to defend. So, far just on the civil front we've got this matter and the SCA insurance payout costing Wonderboy lots of money. AFAICT, he's got lawyers wrangling to keep legal documents hidden too. No income....

I don't see the guy changing, so he will probably delay at all cost until the last possible moment then capitulate and pretend he's come out ahead somehow.

Meanwhile, we all know he wants to do another scam as a way to get the last word in. You have to wonder what Wiesel's taste for risk is right now.
Any judgment awarded to the Times in UK an be taken out and enforced against Armstrong's US assets within the state jurisdiction of the domicile of those assets.

The usual US exception is the question whether that judgment could have been taken out in the US with regard to any Constitutional grounds for defense.

It is a civil action instigated by the Times but there could be a criminal action against Armstrong for perjury in the wind commenced by the Crown.

Having a criminal conviction would make Armstrong persona non grata to obtain a visa for entry to most countries on this earth.
 
Velodude said:
Any judgment awarded to the Times in UK an be taken out and enforced against Armstrong's US assets within the state jurisdiction of the domicile of those assets.

The usual US exception is the question whether that judgment could have been taken out in the US with regard to any Constitutional grounds for defense.
Isn't it one thing to win the judgement, then completely another to collect on the judgement? Just basing that question on what I've seen.

Velodude said:
It is a civil action instigated by the Times but there could be a criminal action against Armstrong for perjury in the wind commenced by the Crown.
The gift that keeps giving! Lets hope the political will is there. Wonderboy certainly makes the threat of perjury seem hollow.
 
DirtyWorks said:
Isn't it one thing to win the judgement, then completely another to collect on the judgement? Just basing that question on what I've seen.


The gift that keeps giving! Lets hope the political will is there. Wonderboy certainly makes the threat of perjury seem hollow.
I think the key is tying him up in knots as he can't testify. Just sending him 'unless orders' for the next 6 months and he'll break.

For the cost of postage stamps the Sunday Times will get 1.5m - easy.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
Isn't it one thing to win the judgement, then completely another to collect on the judgement? Just basing that question on what I've seen.


The gift that keeps giving! Lets hope the political will is there. Wonderboy certainly makes the threat of perjury seem hollow.
Not to have a judgment debt settled translates to Wonderboy now not having sufficient net assets to prevent the enforcement of a judgment.

From an estimated $125m to zero value of assets is not palatable.

The judgment creditor would commence bankruptcy action and leave it to that action to bring to account transactions that occurred to defeat creditors.

Centuries ago you went to jail if you were made bankrupt. Today jail time only awaits if you are found entering into fraudulent arrangements to defeat creditors.
 
Perjury charges in the UK are very unlikely in my opinion.

1) Prosecutions for perjury are usually not pursued.

2) Did Lance actually make false claims under oath. Remember the case was settled out of court.

3) He would not be tried in absentia.

4) UK would not bother to instigate extradition proceedings for perjury.

so I think we can forget about UK perjury charges relating to this Sunday Times case.
 
wirral said:
Perjury charges in the UK are very unlikely in my opinion.

1) Prosecutions for perjury are usually not pursued.

2) Did Lance actually make false claims under oath. Remember the case was settled out of court.

3) He would not be tried in absentia.

4) UK would not bother to instigate extradition proceedings for perjury.

so I think we can forget about UK perjury charges relating to this Sunday Times case.
I've not read Walsh's new book 7DS but I was texted this today by an associate in relation to the SCA situ;

Bob Hamman of SCA Promtions wants his money back too. In David Walsh's new book, 'Seven Deadly Sins: My pursuit of Lance Armstrong', Walsh stated that Hamman--a professional bridge and poker player prior to starting SCA--read 'LA Confidentiel' and deliberately wanted, even though he knew he was going to lose his case before the three-person arbitration panel, to have the Armstrong accusers named in 'LA Confidetiel', including Armstrong himself, testify in depositions (under oath, penalty of perjury). He did this so he could see everyone's playing cards and know what they knew. Hamman intentionally ran out the legal bills, some 2.6 million to Armstrong's attorneys and 1.7 million to his own, 'cause he wanted Armstrong to refute the testimonies of his accusers, under oath, penalty of perjury. Walsh stated knowing Hamman's pit-bull take-no-prisoners reputation of a card player, Hamman wants ALL his money back plus the legal fees to get it.
 
thehog said:
I've not read Walsh's new book 7DS but I was texted this today by an associate in relation to the SCA situ;

Bob Hamman of SCA Promtions wants his money back too. In David Walsh's new book, 'Seven Deadly Sins: My pursuit of Lance Armstrong', Walsh stated that Hamman--a professional bridge and poker player prior to starting SCA--read 'LA Confidentiel' and deliberately wanted, even though he knew he was going to lose his case before the three-person arbitration panel, to have the Armstrong accusers named in 'LA Confidetiel', including Armstrong himself, testify in depositions (under oath, penalty of perjury). He did this so he could see everyone's playing cards and know what they knew. Hamman intentionally ran out the legal bills, some 2.6 million to Armstrong's attorneys and 1.7 million to his own, 'cause he wanted Armstrong to refute the testimonies of his accusers, under oath, penalty of perjury. Walsh stated knowing Hamman's pit-bull take-no-prisoners reputation of a card player, Hamman wants ALL his money back plus the legal fees to get it.
wow
.......
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
thehog said:
I've not read Walsh's new book 7DS but I was texted this today by an associate in relation to the SCA situ;

Bob Hamman of SCA Promtions wants his money back too. In David Walsh's new book, 'Seven Deadly Sins: My pursuit of Lance Armstrong', Walsh stated that Hamman--a professional bridge and poker player prior to starting SCA--read 'LA Confidentiel' and deliberately wanted, even though he knew he was going to lose his case before the three-person arbitration panel, to have the Armstrong accusers named in 'LA Confidetiel', including Armstrong himself, testify in depositions (under oath, penalty of perjury). He did this so he could see everyone's playing cards and know what they knew. Hamman intentionally ran out the legal bills, some 2.6 million to Armstrong's attorneys and 1.7 million to his own, 'cause he wanted Armstrong to refute the testimonies of his accusers, under oath, penalty of perjury. Walsh stated knowing Hamman's pit-bull take-no-prisoners reputation of a card player, Hamman wants ALL his money back plus the legal fees to get it.
It's like we've been saying...Lance is in a pinch either way. He'll settle to keep the lid on the facts but that only emboldens the next guy in line. It would be absolutely stellar if Mr. Hamman decided the price of truth needed to cost Lance more...
 
Aug 7, 2010
1,247
0
0
thehog said:
I've not read Walsh's new book 7DS but I was texted this today by an associate in relation to the SCA situ;

Bob Hamman of SCA Promtions wants his money back too. In David Walsh's new book, 'Seven Deadly Sins: My pursuit of Lance Armstrong', Walsh stated that Hamman--a professional bridge and poker player prior to starting SCA--read 'LA Confidentiel' and deliberately wanted, even though he knew he was going to lose his case before the three-person arbitration panel, to have the Armstrong accusers named in 'LA Confidetiel', including Armstrong himself, testify in depositions (under oath, penalty of perjury). He did this so he could see everyone's playing cards and know what they knew. Hamman intentionally ran out the legal bills, some 2.6 million to Armstrong's attorneys and 1.7 million to his own, 'cause he wanted Armstrong to refute the testimonies of his accusers, under oath, penalty of perjury. Walsh stated knowing Hamman's pit-bull take-no-prisoners reputation of a card player, Hamman wants ALL his money back plus the legal fees to get it.[/QUOTE

At the end of it, those seeking money from Armstrong will have to be happy with negociating and settling out of court, iron clad non-disclosures, and 'no comment' talking points. There is simply no other way forward for LA to play.
He has surely been shielding some assets in other parts of the world but I am pretty sure he will not be able to live (publicly) like a wealthy guy.
Ironically, Herman's fees over the years probably add up to more tha LA will be left with ....
 
May 6, 2010
158
0
0
Velodude said:
Not to have a judgment debt settled translates to Today jail time only awaits if you are found entering into fraudulent arrangements to defeat creditors.
I have zero doubt this is going on. Zero. Lance is a professional criminal (con-man/grifter) and I would be willing to bet he is frantically shipping his assets to fiscal paradises and hiding them behind shell companies. He has known right from the beginning that he was engaged in a large-scale fraud, there's never been a moment in his career when he was straightforward and honest. As a professional criminal he has in all likelihood been laundering large amounts of money since his first big contracts with USPS. It would take a major international financial investigation to find that money, if the US feds didn't do it I don't think anyone else will.
 
Fortyninefourteen said:
At the end of it, those seeking money from Armstrong will have to be happy with negociating and settling out of court, iron clad non-disclosures, and 'no comment' talking points. There is simply no other way forward for LA to play.
He has surely been shielding some assets in other parts of the world but I am pretty sure he will not be able to live (publicly) like a wealthy guy.
Ironically, Herman's fees over the years probably add up to more tha LA will be left with ....
You are so right here. Herman (and others) have made their fortunes on the back of the scam, now they will suck the well dry on the way down.

Think what you may of Armstrong, what a waste of human energy gone into all the deception, legal harassment and battles, bullying (and the bullied defending themselves). One stupid little person can really cause a lot of damage.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
wirral said:
Perjury charges in the UK are very unlikely in my opinion.

1) Prosecutions for perjury are usually not pursued.

2) Did Lance actually make false claims under oath. Remember the case was settled out of court.

3) He would not be tried in absentia.

4) UK would not bother to instigate extradition proceedings for perjury.

so I think we can forget about UK perjury charges relating to this Sunday Times case.
Suggest you refer to the high profile Jeffrey Archer case. Archer was convicted of perjury for fraud to obtain a libel settlement and served time in the slammer.

The Daily Star demanded the return of £500,000 in damages - plus interest.

The paper said that although Ted Francis's statement was never used in court during the 1987 case, knowledge it had been fabricated could have affected the outcome.

As a result of the revelations the police began a perjury investigation.
Law enforcers select high profile cases to maximize public awareness.

Armstrong filed sworn affidavits and, obviously, in those affidavits he denied doping as the fundamental thrust of his libel action against his doping accusers.
 
Velodude said:
Suggest you refer to the high profile Jeffrey Archer case. Archer was convicted of perjury for fraud to obtain a libel settlement and served time in the slammer.

Law enforcers select high profile cases to maximize public awareness.

Armstrong filed sworn affidavits and, obviously, in those affidavits he denied doping as the fundamental thrust of his libel action against his doping accusers.
The Archer case was a very egregious example. It involved perjury, subornation of perjury, paying witnesses to disappear, manufacture of evidence, etc. It also went to trial. On top of that, Archer had been committing various frauds, embezzlements, and such since the late 60s or early 70s. He also was a staunch ally of a political party, thus a good target for political purposes. I doubt the Brits would go through the trouble of prosecuting a foreigner who would never appear to face charges.
 
Velodude,

The Jeffrey Archer case, which I am familiar with, has nothing in common with this case for the 4 reasons I detailed and the reasons stated in Brodeal's post.

Very little chance of a perjury charge in a UK court pertaining to the Sunday Times settlement.

Please re-read my reasons. You will see why.
 
Love the Scenery said:
I have zero doubt this is going on. Zero. Lance is a professional criminal (con-man/grifter) and I would be willing to bet he is frantically shipping his assets to fiscal paradises and hiding them behind shell companies. He has known right from the beginning that he was engaged in a large-scale fraud, there's never been a moment in his career when he was straightforward and honest. As a professional criminal he has in all likelihood been laundering large amounts of money since his first big contracts with USPS. It would take a major international financial investigation to find that money, if the US feds didn't do it I don't think anyone else will.
You're pretty spot on here.


Translation=Liestrong!!!! Like Bernie Madoff, Wonderboy will eventually go down too.
 
BroDeal said:
The Archer case was a very egregious example. It involved perjury, subornation of perjury, paying witnesses to disappear, manufacture of evidence, etc. It also went to trial. On top of that, Archer had been committing various frauds, embezzlements, and such since the late 60s or early 70s. He also was a staunch ally of a political party, thus a good target for political purposes. I doubt the Brits would go through the trouble of prosecuting a foreigner who would never appear to face charges.
Curious if you or others think LeMond will follow suit and try suing? I Mean, it's a well known fact that Wonderboy's "influence" w/Trek caused them to dump Greg and his co. and side with the doper. Trek looks bad now for hitching their wagon to a cheat/doper(I'll never buy another Trek product because of it). But so does Armstrong.

Does Greg sue to seek some sort of retribution, or no?
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
wirral said:
Velodude,

The Jeffrey Archer case, which I am familiar with, has nothing in common with this case for the 4 reasons I detailed and the reasons stated in Brodeal's post.

Very little chance of a perjury charge in a UK court pertaining to the Sunday Times settlement.

Please re-read my reasons. You will see why.
Your claims and my comments:

1) Prosecutions for perjury are usually not pursued.
Usually? But in numerous cases they are pursued. For instance, suggest you acquaint yourself with the case of Jonathon Aitken (former MP) who sued the Guardian for libel (a la Armstrong). His case collapsed when he swore false evidence concerning the payment of a hotel bill in Paris. He was convicted for perjury and sentenced.

The truth caught Aitken out during proceedings. The truth now has caught up with Armstrong in his fraudulently obtaining a substantial monetary settlement (considered at law in England & Wales to be a court judgment) by perjuring himself.


2) Did Lance actually make false claims under oath. Remember the case was settled out of court.
It was a civil action so evidence in support of his summons or claim was by way of sworn affidavit. It may have been "settled out of court" but it was stamped by the court and is deemed at law a judgment of the court.

3) He would not be tried in absentia.
He can be criminally tried in absentia.

It would be a slam dunk conviction as the Times would be receiving a refund of the settlement and costs either voluntarily by Armstrong, an admission, or by court order. It is up to Armstrong to attempt to defend the indefensible at this level to avoid any later criminal conviction.

It would not be a lack of natural justice or due process if Armstrong was aware of the criminal proceedings and voluntarily elected not to make an appearance.


4) UK would not bother to instigate extradition proceedings for perjury.
Hardly likely the UK would pursue extradition. Armstrong would suffer in future as a persona no grata to travel to UK and Europe. Did the French pursue Landis after his in absentia conviction and issue of an arrest warrant by a French judge in 2010?
 
Jun 12, 2012
83
0
0
Velodude said:
Your claims and my comments:

It was a civil action so evidence in support of his summons or claim was by way of sworn affidavit. It may have been "settled out of court" but it was stamped by the court and is deemed at law a judgment of the court.
That very much depends upon what was sworn. There was obviously some brinksmanship going on at the time; did the LA side go as far as swearing false statements?
 
Velodude.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here.

I am confident that there will be NO perjury charges against Armstrong in the UK relating to the Sunday Times settlement. The CPS would not pursue it even if a police file were ever created.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY