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

[ChewbaccaD]

Wonder how things are going in the SCA case?

Wasn't it meant to be over by now, like wasn't Boh just waiting a few weeks for his 15 million pay day?

Well, he's not going to get paid anything because of accumulated interest, so no biggie, right?

Good post Chewie.

 

[Race Radio]

My intention is not to offend or get under your skin.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

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.

Stand up straight when you mention our savior. He's more of a man than you.

 

[thehog]

I try my best RaceRadio but some are just so delicate...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I try my best RaceRadio but some are just so delicate...

Like a flower.

Good post Chewie.

 

[Race Radio]

Wonder how things are going in the SCA case?

Wasn't it meant to be over by now, like wasn't Boh just waiting a few weeks for his 15 million pay day?

Over by now? Who said that?

Lance went under oath and had a sudden case of amnesia. Perhaps it is his age, poor guy. Stapleton rescheduled his depo, IIRC it is in 2 weeks.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Over by now? Who said that?

Lance went under oath and had a sudden case of amnesia. Perhaps it is his age, poor guy. Stapleton rescheduled his depo, IIRC it is in 2 weeks.

It doesn't matter because Lance will never pay anything because of annuities and stuff. He will actually make money on this deal. Dude has a Midas touch...

 

[Race Radio]

It doesn't matter because Lance will never pay anything because of annuities and stuff. He will actually make money on this deal. Dude has a Midas touch...

Yup. He rolled the eleventy billion he got from Bob into an easy 15% tax free annual return. Hid the profits in a cave in Guam. Taxes are for the little people. Untouchable. SCA will be his most profitable deal yet.

 

[thehog]

Over by now? Who said that?

Lance went under oath and had a sudden case of amnesia. Perhaps it is his age, poor guy. Stapleton rescheduled his depo, IIRC it is in 2 weeks.

I thought would just be waiting "a few more weeks for his money" about 4 months ago..,

The deposition is confidential. You don't know what he said. Or not said. Surely you're not suggesting it has been shared?

 

[thehog]

Yup. He rolled the eleventy billion he got from Bob into an easy 15% tax free annual return. Hid the profits in a cave in Guam. Taxes are for the little people. Untouchable. SCA will be his most profitable deal yet.

Yes apparently getting a 7 million interest free loan is losing money...

And hedge funds only have one global indices with every stock and fund following that value

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Yes apparently getting a 7 million interest free loan is losing money...

And hedge funds only have one global indices with every stock and fund following that value

Good post Chewie.

 

[Race Radio]

Yes apparently getting a 7 million interest free loan is losing money...

And hedge funds only have one global indices with every stock and fund following that value

He invested it with Hog financial. Smart move. "Easy" tax free 15% returns and free trips to Hawaii. Its no brainer. Guaranteed upside with zero risk. Taxes and indices are for the little people.

You don't really think he pocketed $7 million do you?

 

[mewmewmew13]

Stand up straight when you mention our savior. He's more of a man than you.

Floyd is ten+ times the man that Lance wishes he could be.
Lance's aggressiveness is his way of masking his inadequacies

 

[thehog]

He invested it with Hog financial. Smart move. "Easy" tax free 15% returns and free trips to Hawaii. Its no brainer. Guaranteed upside with zero risk. Taxes and indices are for the little people

No sweat man. This is your thread.

I don't think anyone dare post in it anymore let alone read it

 

[Afrank]

Let's remember to keep the discussion on Armstrong and not on each other. Okay? Good.

 

[D-Queued]

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?"

Allow me, a regular old lay person and not a lawyer, para-legal, legal assistant or a lay person who has a special interest in legal issues, to offer some Googly insights:

Your presumptions do not apply. Or, at least not in Connecticut.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0453.htm

Connecticut law authorizes a grand jury investigation under certain circumstances. Under the grand jury law, investigations generally take place in private but various documents can be available to the public or individuals at different stages of the investigation. Under the grand jury law:

1. the initial application for a grand jury investigation and the order of the three-judge panel reviewing it are sealed;

2. the panel's summary of an investigation's scope, which it submits to the chief court administrator, is available to the public unless the panel orders it sealed;

3. the grand jury's investigation is private unless the panel determines that disclosure is in the public interest;

4. a grand jury's finding of probable cause is disclosed to the public unless the court prohibits it on request of a prosecutor who requested the investigation;

5. a defendant can get sealed records containing his or her testimony; and

6. witnesses can get sealed records with their testimony if it is in the best interest of justice.

The law allows (1) a person to apply to the panel for disclosure of sealed portions of the record and (2) the panel to disclose any part of the record that is in the public interest. But records containing allegations where the grand jury did not find probable cause cannot be disclosed unless the subject of the allegation requests release.

Dave.

 

[oboingo]

Allow me, a regular old lay person and not a lawyer, para-legal, legal assistant or a lay person who has a special interest in legal issues, to offer some Googly insights:

Your presumptions do not apply. Or, at least not in Connecticut.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0453.htm

Dave.

I'm not in any way affiliated with the legal profession either, but you might want to look at the Barry Bonds case for precedent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Bonds_perjury_case

It's not out of the question that the Feds could call for a _second_ grand jury, possibly for the qui tam case against LA, or later on down the road. It's the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Allow me, a regular old lay person and not a lawyer, para-legal, legal assistant or a lay person who has a special interest in legal issues, to offer some Googly insights: Your presumptions do not apply. Or, at least not in Connecticut. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0453.htm Dave.

Thanks Dave. But my first observation is you are talking about the GJ rules for a state. The GJ in LAs case was a federal GJ so the rules may be different, but would have uniform application across the USA in federal courts.

Secondly even on the information you have provided it would appear there is a mechanism in Connecticut to get a transcript of a particular witnesses grand jury testimony.

The starting point is a fundamental rule of evidence or procedure regarding cross examination. A witnesses testimony about his or her knowledge about the doping practices of the USPS in the GJ case and in the qui tam case are identical. When a witness in the qui tam case testifies about the doping practices of the USPS then any lawyer with a right to cross examine such a witness is entitled by virtue of Evidence Acts to cross examine a witness on a prior sworn statement about the same subject matter. This only makes common sense. In the qui tam case this may be the sworn testimony of the witness from the GJ case.

The reason this is a rule of law is that the prior statement may be inconsistent with the witnesses present testimony and thus is crucial to the credibility of the witness. Public policy, common sense and fairness dictate that the cross examining lawyer should therefore be able to use the transcript of the GJ testimony to confront the witness. This is fundamental to a fair hearing and is a well recognized principle of law.

The issue then becomes what does the law say about how the cross examining lawyer goes about getting the GJ transcript, and at the same time preserving the privacy of grand jury cases.

So in the case of a transcript of witness testimony from a Connecticut GJ your item #3 would apply. It would be in the public interest to allow a cross examining lawyer in the qui tam case to cross examine on prior sworn statement made before a Connecticut GJ and I would think most judges would agree with this.

In addition your #6 would also apply. If I were a cross examining lawyer in the qui tam case I would subpoena a Connecticut witness to bring to the qui tam case their GJ testimony so I could examine it to make sure that witnesses qui tam testimony is consistent with their Connecticut GJ testimony because it would be in the best interest of justice to ensure the witness in the qui tam case is telling the truth.

The bottom line is that at least in the case of a Connecticut witness there appears to be mechanisms to get at the GJ testimony for the qui tam case. And your emboldening of #3 and #6 indicate you have a good grasp of the issues.

Thanks for you information.

 

[sittingbison]

Gentle(wo)men,
although this is a venerable thread and many of you have been jousting for years, there really is no excuse for knifing MarkvW like several of you have done over the past day.

Keep is civil, keep it impersonal.

cheers
bison

 

[D-Queued]

...

The starting point is a fundamental rule of evidence or procedure regarding cross examination. A witnesses testimony about his or her knowledge about the doping practices of the USPS in the GJ case and in the qui tam case are identical. When a witness in the qui tam case testifies about the doping practices of the USPS then any lawyer with a right to cross examine such a witness is entitled by virtue of Evidence Acts to cross examine a witness on a prior sworn statement about the same subject matter. This only makes common sense. In the qui tam case this may be the sworn testimony of the witness from the GJ case.

...

Again, this is a lay person's view, but the secrecy of a Grand Jury is sacrosanct.

Thus, your rules of evidence don't hold.

This time borrowing from Florid, rather than Connecticut:

The United States Supreme Court has enumerated the policies underlying grand jury secrecy:
1. The fear that witnesses will not come forward voluntarily if their identity is not protected;
2. The fear that witnesses will be less likely to give full and frank testimony if their identity is known so that they become subject to retribution or inducements;
3. The risk that the indicted will flee if indictments are made public prior to arrest;
4. The danger that a potential defendant might influence the votes of grand jurors; and
5. The protection of the reputation of an individual who is accused but not indicted by the grand jury

Now, trying to patch this all together and tie back to rules of evidence, Rule 801 (d)(1)(A) was added by Congress such that GJ testimony be subject to the penalty of perjury.

But, based upon further Google research, this rule does not appear to supersede the essential Secrecy of GJ proceedings and allow the unsealing of GJ testimony for use in other proceedings.

Dave.

 

[MarkvW]

Again, this is a lay person's view, but the secrecy of a Grand Jury is sacrosanct.

Thus, your rules of evidence don't hold.

This time borrowing from Florid, rather than Connecticut:

The United States Supreme Court has enumerated the policies underlying grand jury secrecy:
1. The fear that witnesses will not come forward voluntarily if their identity is not protected;
2. The fear that witnesses will be less likely to give full and frank testimony if their identity is known so that they become subject to retribution or inducements;
3. The risk that the indicted will flee if indictments are made public prior to arrest;
4. The danger that a potential defendant might influence the votes of grand jurors; and
5. The protection of the reputation of an individual who is accused but not indicted by the grand jury

Now, trying to patch this all together and tie back to rules of evidence, Rule 801 (d)(1)(A) was added by Congress such that GJ testimony be subject to the penalty of perjury.

But, based upon further Google research, this rule does not appear to supersede the essential Secrecy of GJ proceedings and allow the unsealing of GJ testimony for use in other proceedings.

Dave.

There's two basic kinds of impeachment. One kind is where you attack the opponent's witness with questions designed to draw out the witness' flaws. The other kind is where you expose the witness to actual evidence that the jury gets to consider. The second kind is usually the most awesome by far. There is a big thicket of rules (evidence rules and case law interpretations of them) that address the subject. There is lots of discretion and ambiguity around the edges of these rules and this is where a lot of games get played.

Assume that X is relevant subject matter at trial--something like "I saw Dr. Ferrari stick a hypodermic needle into Lance's arm while telling Lance 'this erythropoetin will really jack you up here at stage 8 of the Tour.'"

When a witness testifies to X before the grand jury and later testifies to not X in a subsequent trial, the grand jury testimony is going to be fully admissible non-hearsay evidence that the lawyer interrogating the witness can use to his or her heart's content.

But the lawyer has to have the sworn statement! If he doesn't have it, he can't use it. That's where sealing and unsealing come in. If the prior inconsistent statement is sealed, then the lawyer can't get at it--he can't confront the witness with it at trial and he can't get it admitted as evidence.

I haven't found any rule or case that says that civil litigants get access to grand jury testimony for the purpose of potential impeachment. My research has been very cursory, though.

 

[oboingo]

Again, this is a lay person's view, but the secrecy of a Grand Jury is sacrosanct.

Thus, your rules of evidence don't hold.

This time borrowing from Florid, rather than Connecticut:

The United States Supreme Court has enumerated the policies underlying grand jury secrecy:
1. The fear that witnesses will not come forward voluntarily if their identity is not protected;
2. The fear that witnesses will be less likely to give full and frank testimony if their identity is known so that they become subject to retribution or inducements;
3. The risk that the indicted will flee if indictments are made public prior to arrest;
4. The danger that a potential defendant might influence the votes of grand jurors; and
5. The protection of the reputation of an individual who is accused but not indicted by the grand jury

Now, trying to patch this all together and tie back to rules of evidence, Rule 801 (d)(1)(A) was added by Congress such that GJ testimony be subject to the penalty of perjury.

But, based upon further Google research, this rule does not appear to supersede the essential Secrecy of GJ proceedings and allow the unsealing of GJ testimony for use in other proceedings.

Dave.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Barry-Bonds-grand-jury-transcript-unsealed-3224762.php

Judges unsealing GJ transcripts in perjury cases is nowhere as rare as you imagine.

 

[MarkvW]

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Barry-Bonds-grand-jury-transcript-unsealed-3224762.php

Judges unsealing GJ transcripts in perjury cases is nowhere as rare as you imagine.

Agree. I would expect unsealing for a perjury prosecution.

 

[D-Queued]

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Barry-Bonds-grand-jury-transcript-unsealed-3224762.php

Judges unsealing GJ transcripts in perjury cases is nowhere as rare as you imagine.

Just for the record, I'm not trying to imagine how often GJ perjury cases are pursued.

As I understand it, the 801 (d)(1)(A) rule was added in reaction to Watergate. In which case, I hope it is applied as frequently as possible.

Dave.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

In all honesty, I'd do some research, but I'm taking the California bar next February, and you couldn't get me to give a sh!t about this subject right now, nor any subject that doesn't directly involve me making money...and this one doesn't. The thought of having to study again non-stop for 3 months makes me feel like I want to puke...I think I'm gonna' switch to hanging drywall. Fu*k it.