Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[blackcat]

 

[blackcat]

They're refrigerated, like Motoman's motorcycle panniers.

sadness needs to be kept at <0degrees

 

[blackcat]

Yep, and I almost heard her say, 'my son's backpack of valor.' It's a whole soap opera inside a Christian Dior backpack.

yeah, she mentioned her private jet (you mean the Oakley guys liarjet) and her Louis Vuitton luggage.

Zach Galiafinakis ftw. He reminds me, or Floyd reminds me of Zach.
thats a Lewis Veeton http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W2IVzRYMgs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7DRB3zk8OE

 

[Kennf1]

From SCA's brief, filed on March 14:

"The depth of Mr. Armstrong's 'contemptuous conduct' is stunning. The record will show that he did more that just commit wanton perjury. He intimidated witnesses, recklessly sued people to keep them quiet, likely bribed regulatory officials, and even altered documents and official reports to hide his doping activities. Together with Mr. Stapleton, Mr. Armstrong engaged in a masive conspiracy to destroy anyone who challanged him. SCA bore the brunt of outrageous conduct."

No need to sugar coat it SCA!

Armstrong/Tailwind announced they will be filing a reply brief on March 21.

 

[thehog]

From SCA's brief, filed on March 14:

"The depth of Mr. Armstrong's 'contemptuous conduct' is stunning. The record will show that he did more that just commit wanton perjury. He intimidated witnesses, recklessly sued people to keep them quiet, likely bribed regulatory officials, and even altered documents and official reports to hide his doping activities. Together with Mr. Stapleton, Mr. Armstrong engaged in a masive conspiracy to destroy anyone who challanged him. SCA bore the brunt of outrageous conduct."

No need to sugar coat it SCA!

Armstrong/Tailwind announced they will be filing a reply brief on March 21.

Makes good reading. Well said!

 

[Hemassist]

Tillotson filed SCA's response yesterday. Should have a response from the judge next week. If she agrees with Armstrong, something I highly doubt, SCA will appeal. If she does not then Lance has 2 choices

Settle
Go under oath

One:
Truth: Perjury


Two:
There are! I say there are so many amendments in the constitution of the United States of Americaaaa! I can only choose one! I can only choose ooooooone! I plead the fif! I plead the fif! FIVE! 1,2,3,4, fiiiif! Anything you say! FIIIF! Go ahead and ask me a question!


For the visual...check out the Chappelle show clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdeo7Q2E5cE

 

[Race Radio]

Lance shut the door on USADA

https://audioboo.fm/boos/2005223-armstong-has-shut-the-door-on-co-operating-with-usada

 

[86TDFWinner]

Lance shut the door on USADA

https://audioboo.fm/boos/2005223-armstong-has-shut-the-door-on-co-operating-with-usada

Then Wonderboy just needs to STHU about how USADA's "wronged him", he did this himself.

 

[Merckx index]

Could this happen to LA?

Whatever Alex Rodriguez is up to these days, one thing he apparently hasn’t been doing is writing checks to his lawyers. The New York Daily News reported earlier this week that the suspended New York Yankees third baseman owes about $3 million to his legal representatives from his fight against Major League Baseball’s ban for use of performance-enhancing drugs.

The thing is, A-Rod apparently will have to pay or face having some ugly truths revealed.

“If he resists paying, he will pay anyway and he will suffer,” a source told the Daily News. “If he forces people to prove he owes them money, the issues that he discussed with his attorneys will be made public — and Alex doesn’t want people telling the truth.”

Does LA have any secrets left?

 

[Benotti69]

Could this happen to LA?

Does LA have any secrets left?

I guess the offshore accounts are all that is left and was he stupid enough to boast to people how much he had offshore

 

[MonkeyFace]

I guess the offshore accounts are all that is left and was he stupid enough to boast to people how much he had offshore

He could see real prison time for something like that. Estimating someones income based on spending isn't that hard.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

“If he forces people to prove he owes them money, the issues that he discussed with his attorneys will be made public...

Does this mean the attorney-client seal can be broken if the client fails to pay his bill?

 

[thehog]

Does this mean the attorney-client seal can be broken if the client fails to pay his bill?

Easily repaired by giving them one dollar.

Maybe those lawyers have A-Rod false hope that he could take on MLB and win?

 

[MarkvW]

Does this mean the attorney-client seal can be broken if the client fails to pay his bill?

No. Ethics rules won't allow it. Also, if the secrets are embarrassing, it could be extortion. That's if everybody is playing by the rules.

Attorney-client confidentiality isn't absolutely inviolable though. If the client sues the attorney for malpractice, he opens the door. That's one example I know of.

I suppose that if the client asserts that the attorney did not do the work, that documentation of the actual work performed would be made a part of the record. I'd think that such material would be kept under seal, though.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Easily repaired by giving them one dollar.

Maybe those lawyers have A-Rod false hope that he could take on MLB and win?

Wrong again.

 

[Northern rider]

Mark, from your sig, would you be a fan of Mr Andrson et al ?

 

[Fausto's Schnauzer]

Mark, from your sig, would you be a fan of Mr Andrson et al ?

Watching as the frilly panties run?

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Does this mean the attorney-client seal can be broken if the client fails to pay his bill?

The answer to this is no.

The lawyer can sue for his account, but the only information or evidence that would be public arising out of the lawsuit, is the terms of any retainer agreement and the evidence of the nature of the work done by the lawyers.

Even that may have to be redacted or covered by privilege, if it infringes on solicitor (attorney)-client communications performed in the lawyer's professional capacity. In the USA the lawyers work and the product of that work is privileged.

Keep in mind not all communications between a lawyer and his client are covered by the attorney-client privilege. The privilege exists if the communications are made in the context of seeking legal advice and with the intent they are to be confidential. This covers a broad spectrum of communications. It depends on the issues in the case.

Many jurisdictions also have arbitration like processes to settle a lawyer's account whereby either the client or the lawyer can have their account evaluated by a independent third party. In some jurisdictions this is called "taxation" of the account. It is much cheaper than a lawsuit and less public.

PS Sorry I did not see Mark's reply with which I agree.

 

[MarkvW]

Mark, from your sig, would you be a fan of Mr Andrson et al ?

Definitely.

 

[Archibald]

From SCA's brief, filed on March 14:

"The depth of Mr. Armstrong's 'contemptuous conduct' is stunning. The record will show that he did more that just commit wanton perjury. He intimidated witnesses, recklessly sued people to keep them quiet, likely bribed regulatory officials, and even altered documents and official reports to hide his doping activities. Together with Mr. Stapleton, Mr. Armstrong engaged in a masive conspiracy to destroy anyone who challanged him. SCA bore the brunt of outrageous conduct."

No need to sugar coat it SCA!

Armstrong/Tailwind announced they will be filing a reply brief on March 21.

well, it's now monday 24th. Anything on the reply yet?

 

[DirtyWorks]

well, it's now monday 24th. Anything on the reply yet?

You aren't on Texas time. Give it 48 hours (your time) for another delay/appeal to be announced.

 

[thehog]

You aren't on Texas time. Give it 48 hours (your time) for another delay/appeal to be announced.

It's dragging.

My uninformed take is Lance's team will request that if a deposition has to take place, then all shall be deposed. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since 2006. Let's get them all back and schedule a hearing for say 18 months now.

In which time SCA will settle.

Who knows?, I don't. Let's see. Not a bad strategy to take.

 

[Kennf1]

well, it's now monday 24th. Anything on the reply yet?

No reply on file yet, but Armstrong/Tailwind did file a motion to consolidate their interlocutory appeal with the mandamus proceeding, which was filed separately. Although the court of appeals ordered a stay of the arbitration pending reolution of the mandamus proceding, Armstrong/Tailwind want to make sure the stay is in effect for the interlocutory appeal as well. Really just a housekeeping matter.

 

[spetsa]

It's dragging.

My uninformed take is Lance's team will request that if a deposition has to take place, then all shall be deposed. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since 2006. Let's get them all back and schedule a hearing for say 18 months now.

In which time SCA will settle.

Who knows?, I don't. Let's see. Not a bad strategy to take.

the first bold says it all

 

[gooner]

I think in this case it was to be expected.

Lance Armstrong won dismissal of a lawsuit by buyers of FRS Co.’s energy drinks who claimed they wouldn’t have bought the product if they had known it wasn’t the “secret weapon” behind his Tour de France victories.

The consumers had been given a chance to fix flaws identified by a judge in their original complaint alleging they were duped by advertisements into thinking that FRS’s drinks, rather than performance-enhancing drugs, were Armstrong’s secret weapon. U.S. District Judge Beverly Reid O’Connell in Los Angeles dismissed the case on March 21 after the plaintiffs elected to appeal her initial ruling rather than file an amended complaint.

“The reasonable consumer would not make the inference that a healthy energy drink could be the proprietary reason a decorated cyclist achieves success,” O’Connell said in a Feb. 25 decision that allowed the plaintiffs to revise their original claims.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...-dismissal-of-false-advertising-lawsuit.html?