- Aug 7, 2010
- 1,247
- 0
- 0
-
Giro d'Italia 2025 - Follow the race via our live blog for all the latest news!
- May 27, 2012
- 6,458
- 0
- 0
- May 27, 2012
- 6,458
- 0
- 0
Digger said:
To be fair, he said he doesn't believe that it was shut down because of political influence because he's afraid of sullying the reputation of a US Attorney with his completely anonymous, completely dishonest intertubes personality...because he's got principles and all...
No wait, he likely said it because RR said the opposite...because that's just how he rolls.
- May 27, 2010
- 6,333
- 3
- 17,485
MarkvW said:
When everyone else is giving you the gears, I am going to complement you on this.
If posters have to promote some totally unrelated, on-line university degree(s) they might (or might not) possess to pretend that they have any kind of authority on a given subject, then their arguments are fundamentally undermined.
What you posted about GJ testimony makes sense. For the lazy, are there any good on-line examples we can refer to?
How much of the GJ testimony release rules are state jurisdiction specific?
As I understand it/them, a witness (universally, under all state jurisdictions) typically cannot get access to their own testimony.
Is that true? Or, at least true enough?
Thus, if one of these witnesses had misspoke to the GJ, isn't it likely that they might not be able to review their prior statements to assure that new testimony in this case be fully consistent?
In other words, isn't the ability of any given witness to maintain consistent lies difficult, and thus, any application of the fifth might be challenging?
Dave.
- Aug 10, 2010
- 6,285
- 2
- 17,485
D-Queued said:
States are not uniform in the way GJ proceedings are handled. I don't know enough about state processes. GJs are very infrequent in my state. To get release of sealed material, you apply to the court that presided over the proceedings (and now holds the sealed docs).
I found a couple of cases where former GJ witnesses were allowed to review their own testimony. That doesn't seem to be as much a big deal because a witness can always (1st Amendment) talk about his or her own testimony.
The witness risking self incriminating ought to have his or her lawyer available to avoid the pitfalls you suggest. Further, if a judge compels a person taking the 5th to testify, then that person gets immunity from prosecution. I can see that happening rarely in a criminal case, but never in a civil case. Besides, the judge's job is to ensure 5th Amendment protections are respected. With all that, I don't see any traps for the unwary witness who lied to the GJ.
- Dec 7, 2010
- 5,507
- 0
- 0
ScienceIsCool said:
MarkvW said:
That's OK. You already did.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=703429&postcount=7004
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=703630&postcount=7022
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=703661&postcount=7025
- Nov 8, 2012
- 12,104
- 0
- 0
MarkvW said:
Ain't that rich. You're anonymous and other anonymous posters are essentially calling you out. Why the hell should you care? You are either correct or incorrect. Defend your absolutes or stop making them. It's pretty simple.
- Jun 16, 2010
- 1,458
- 0
- 10,480
I am not interested in getting into the debate regarding Mark W's qualifications, be he a lawyer, para-legal, legal assistant or a lay person who has a special interest in legal issues. It was probably unfair of me to pose them to Mark W.
But I would like to get some feedback from a qualified US lawyer, law professor or legal scholar regarding the questions I posed.
My questions are,
"The grand jury testimony is clearly prior sworn statements relevant to the same general issues as the qui tam case. Most statutory Evidence Acts clearly authorize cross examination on prior consistent or inconsistent statements, relevant to the same subject matter.
Such cross examination is clearly relevant to establishing the truth about the doping (Although it seems pretty clear the fed qui tam lawyers will have no problem in proving the extent of the organized doping on USPS).
But perhaps more importantly what was testified to in the grand jury inquiry goes to the credibility of the witnesses. Does the sealing of that testimony prevent the subpoena of that evidence directly from the court or as Mark W suggested does that require a court order, keeping in mind that a subpoena is a form of court order?
Could each witness who testified at the GJ and who is also subpoenaed to be a witness in the qui tam case be subpoenaed to bring their personal GJ testimony transcript (a subpoena duces tecum) or do they not have any control over their own testimony under US law?
Will the qui tam feds apply to unseal the GJ evidence? What are their chances?
Does the 5th allow a witness to refuse to answer a question on cross where the purpose is to show that on a prior occasion relevant to the same subject matter, the witness gave a different answer under oath?"
But I would like to get some feedback from a qualified US lawyer, law professor or legal scholar regarding the questions I posed.
My questions are,
"The grand jury testimony is clearly prior sworn statements relevant to the same general issues as the qui tam case. Most statutory Evidence Acts clearly authorize cross examination on prior consistent or inconsistent statements, relevant to the same subject matter.
Such cross examination is clearly relevant to establishing the truth about the doping (Although it seems pretty clear the fed qui tam lawyers will have no problem in proving the extent of the organized doping on USPS).
But perhaps more importantly what was testified to in the grand jury inquiry goes to the credibility of the witnesses. Does the sealing of that testimony prevent the subpoena of that evidence directly from the court or as Mark W suggested does that require a court order, keeping in mind that a subpoena is a form of court order?
Could each witness who testified at the GJ and who is also subpoenaed to be a witness in the qui tam case be subpoenaed to bring their personal GJ testimony transcript (a subpoena duces tecum) or do they not have any control over their own testimony under US law?
Will the qui tam feds apply to unseal the GJ evidence? What are their chances?
Does the 5th allow a witness to refuse to answer a question on cross where the purpose is to show that on a prior occasion relevant to the same subject matter, the witness gave a different answer under oath?"
- Jul 21, 2012
- 9,860
- 3
- 0
- May 27, 2012
- 6,458
- 0
- 0
MarkvW said:
Pointing out reality has now become "insults." Maybe quit writing things that turn out to be completely wrong, and your fragile intertubes ego will be spared...
That, or just quit taking the exact opposite position that RR holds...well, because that's really what you do most of all.
thehog
BANNED
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
Scott SoCal said:
They're not really calling Mark out. They are just bluffing.
If you're a lawyer then you mealy advise and interpret the law. You do not rule and you certainly aren't the law.
The law is available to all. Be a lawyer or not. Everyone has a right to make their interpretation on what the law means. That's why we have courts, representation, judges and juries.
A person who has passed their law degree with zero professional or practical experience out in the field is probably a little dangerous in this situation. Stating "I'm lawyer, I know" generally is the best time to walk away.
I always defer my judgment to those with experience in legal matters. They know best.
- May 27, 2012
- 6,458
- 0
- 0
thehog said:
...says the guy who couldn't get a legal point right if you wrapped it up and sent it to him with a bow and specific instructions about what to do with it...but you keep telling yourself your assessment is valid...it's a wonderfully funny troll, and everyone enjoys it time and again.
Good post Chewie
- May 27, 2012
- 6,458
- 0
- 0
MarkvW said:
There's two of 'em in concert. Beautiful, but we're talking about a guy who snorted more coke than the city of Maimi in the '80's, so lets just say he got lucky with that lyric...
"Pink is my favorite color..." really encapsulates that dou(henozzle in a more complete manner...
thehog
BANNED
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
ChewbaccaD said:
If you felt this directed at you, it wasn't. Apologies if it hit a nerve and you felt the need to respond.
I was mealy providing a commentary, an observers view of what I noted.
I guess in a way your response validates the observation, although not intended at yourself. But interesting that you responded from nowhere in under a minute and half
- May 27, 2012
- 6,458
- 0
- 0
thehog said:If you felt this directed at you, it wasn't. Apologies if it hit a nerve and you felt the need to respond.
I was mealy providing a commentary, an observers view of what I noted.
I guess in a way your response validates the observation, although not intended at yourself. But interesting that you responded from nowhere in under a minute and half
I read fast.
Good post Chewie.
- Aug 13, 2009
- 12,854
- 1
- 0
RobbieCanuck said:
Very limited. Doubt it will happen.....but if multiple witnesses contradict what someone told the Grand Jury don't be surprised if they get talked to
thehog
BANNED
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
And type fast and often use poor humour to hide the fact that Mark is willing to enter into discussion and debate and your not.
Again, just an observation. I ask you don't take it personally with more similar comments using poor humour as a cover. My intention is not to offend or get under your skin.
Again, just an observation. I ask you don't take it personally with more similar comments using poor humour as a cover. My intention is not to offend or get under your skin.
- May 27, 2012
- 6,458
- 0
- 0
- Aug 10, 2010
- 6,285
- 2
- 17,485
Some people think Lance is an evil virus that infected pro cycling--that he is the worstest and evillest person who ever "turned a pedal in anger."
I look at Lance as cycling's Frankenstein monster: an impressionable young asshole manufactured by the monsters who ran USAC and transplanted in the fertile cesspool of European pro cycling.
Floyd's just an angry Lance wannabe, diving in for sloppy seconds.
I look at Lance as cycling's Frankenstein monster: an impressionable young asshole manufactured by the monsters who ran USAC and transplanted in the fertile cesspool of European pro cycling.
Floyd's just an angry Lance wannabe, diving in for sloppy seconds.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d'Italia 2025, stage 3: Vlorë > Vlorë (160 km)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 370
-
Giro d'Italia 2025, stage 2: Tirana - Tirana (13.7k ITT)- Started by Gigs_98
- Replies: 556
-
-
Giro d'Italia Giro d'Italia 2025, stage 1: Durrës - Tirana (160.0k)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 436
-
Paris-Roubaix 2025, one day monument, April 13 (men)- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 2K
-
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 30K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram