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

[thehog]

I am a retired lawyer in Canada and therefore by definition under Canadian law no longer a lawyer. I was both a Crown Prosecutor (14 years) and a Defence Counsel (21 years") I don't know the law of perjury in Texas, nor am I offering any advice.

The Texas Penal Code provides two classes of perjury, one a Class A misdemeanor and the other a felony. These two crimes are defined as follows:


§ 37.02. PERJURY. (a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to deceive and with knowledge of the statement's meaning:
(1) he makes a false statement under oath or swears to
the truth of a false statement previously made and the statement is
required or authorized by law to be made under oath; or
(2) he makes a false unsworn declaration under Chapter
132, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

§ 37.03. AGGRAVATED PERJURY. (a) A person commits an offense if he commits perjury as defined in Section 37.02, and the false statement:
(1) is made during or in connection with an official
proceeding; and
(2) is material.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.

What I don't know is whether or not testimony in an arbitration in Texas is subject to these laws. One would think so, otherwise there would be no point in taking evidence under oath at an arbitration (This is not advice, just a common sense observation).

However I understand there were two arbitration agreements governing the procedural and evidentiary rules at the SCA/Armstrong arbitration. I have not read those agreements so I do not know how they might impact a charge of perjury.

One of the interesting parts of section 37.03 is whether or not the arbitration hearing was an "official proceeding" A Texas lawyer could comment on that.

In my experience, the lawyers in an arbitration are more focused on settling the case, as opposed to concerning themselves with a bit of perjury. In addition I do not know the process of how Armstrong's perjury gets reported to law enforcement in Texas, i.e. does someone have to make a complaint to the police or the District Attorney's office or can these institutions initiate an investigation on their own?

Lastly there is the question of Statute of Limitations and whether or not the Nov. 11, 2005 testimony of Armstrong is beyond that.

I really have to defer to those who are experts in Texas law and hopefully a Texas attorney could elaborate and fix any misunderstandings I may have made.

The entire point missed is that perjury is a criminal offence and not civil... unless loss can be determined.

The SCA (re)hearing is not to hear a perjury case or loss thereof.

Civil cases and that of arbitration are riddle with perjury and lies.

Sit in any employment tribunal for a day and you'll hear lies behind what was uttered at the SCA hearings.

If you read the testimony from all during the SCA proceedings and you think "is that it?" They said that?

It's not a criminal trial that's for sure.

Nevertheless Armstrong stacked the entire proceedings. That I feel should be investigated criminally. He completely aborted justice via pressure and manipulation. A horrible abortion of justice.

But I doubt he'll pay much for it. Such a sad state of affairs.

 

[thehog]

I cannot speak for the lawyers, and don't know what you mean by legal sense, but it makes perfect sense if they are at the brink of a settlement - which they almost certainly are.

Filing such an appeal would be something I would encourage my legal team to do if I were really close to an agreement in such an important negotiation, but where I/we couldn't be certain that such an agreement would be achieved by the deadline. In fact, I would expect my legal team to advise me to do so.

This wouldn't be the typical try and put everything off forever, but rather to assure success.

Presumably: Lance does not want to testify

Presumably: Lance will lose a bunch whether he testifies or not

Presumably: It is in SCA's interests to get money sooner than later (lower legal costs, higher certainty)

Then, it is in everyone's interests to get this deal now - and before any further deposition.

Dave.

Agree with most of this and Henman is a "plug". The guy you send in to string out and delay the process. He's not there for his legal nous.

SCA also don't want to drag this out but they are fortunate that they can represent themselves and keep costs down.

To he settlement. Just a small insight in to something I actually know about (for a change!) is structured settlements.

Armstrong risk is probably about $2m on SCA. He has probably sold his risk to an investment firm whom will ultimately negotiate the final settlement with SCA.

Settlements rarely if at all are paid in lump sum, upfront. SCA would never expect to get 12m in one cheque. Settlements are generally paid over months and years.

If the deal is decided at $12m, the investment firm will offer $8m upfront. SCA will likely accept. Lance will pay the fund $2m which they will investment and provided him a return to pay off the $6m loan plus interest they've given him. He will then continue to extend and roll this over until finally paid off or sold on as part of another risk package.

This practise is very normal and very lucrative for investment firms.

The point at which you send in your "negotiators" is the day before a hearing or trial. To that point you just delay and delay. Giving your opponent time to decide or raise your offer is counter productive. Back it into a corner and offer $8m, which they'll take.

Lance is not going to allow himself to be deposed. And he's right that it would have far and reaching consequences if he did.

Armstrong has 3 cards to play. Wiesel, UCI (hein) and Nike/Trek etc. No way he plays those now. He needs to save those cards for the QTam.

 

[RownhamHill]

Armstrong risk is probably about $2m on SCA. He has probably sold his risk to an investment firm whom will ultimately negotiate the final settlement with SCA.

Settlements rarely if at all are paid in lump sum, upfront. SCA would never expect to get 12m in one cheque. Settlements are generally paid over months and years.

If the deal is decided at $12m, the investment firm will offer $8m upfront. SCA will likely accept. Lance will pay the fund $2m which they will investment and provided him a return to pay off the $6m loan plus interest they've given him. He will then continue to extend and roll this over until finally paid off or sold on as part of another risk package.

This practise is very normal and very lucrative for investment firms.

Sorry thehog, but could you explain that model in a little bit more detail, as I think I'm missing something.

What I took from it is that Armstrong owes SCA, say $8 dollars. So he gives $2 to firm x, who then pay $8 dollars to SCA (and they're -$6 out of pocket at this stage), and then invest the $2 from Lance in order to make a capital return of 300% as well as dividend income on the $2 investment in excess of the interest they're paying (or at least pricing) on the $8 they've had to pay out in the first place. And Lance doesn't have to make any other payments. Is that right?

It doesn't sound very lucrative for firm x to me.

 

[Race Radio]

Sorry thehog, but could you explain that model in a little bit more detail, as I think I'm missing something.

What I took from it is that Armstrong owes SCA, say $8 dollars. So he gives $2 to firm x, who then pay $8 dollars to SCA (and they're -$6 out of pocket at this stage), and then invest the $2 from Lance in order to make a capital return of 300% as well as dividend income on the $2 investment in excess of the interest they're paying (or at least pricing) on the $8 they've had to pay out in the first place. And Lance doesn't have to make any other payments. Is that right?

It doesn't sound very lucrative for firm x to me.

It does not sound lucrative because it isn't. It has zero relation to the Armstrong SCA case. No idea why he posted it

SCA paid Armstrong the full amount, they sent it to him within 90 days of the signature. It was not a "Structured Settlement" This is not a personal injury case. SCA is now looking for their money back, with fees, penalties, and interest. Armstrong will pay that out of his pocket. SCA knows that Armstrong faces an avalanche of financial exposure and will likely want their cash straight up, not spread over many years.

When they do settle SCA may not pocket the entire amount. It depends if they used re-insurers for the initial deal. I have heard both yes and no.

 

[RownhamHill]

It does not sound lucrative because it isn't. It has zero relation to the Armstrong SCA case. No idea why he posted it

SCA paid Armstrong the full amount, they sent it to him within 90 days of the signature. It was not a "Structured Settlement" This is not a personal injury case. SCA is now looking for their money back, with fees, penalties, and interest. Armstrong will pay that out of his pocket. SCA knows that Armstrong faces an avalanche of financial exposure and will likely want their cash straight up, not spread over many years.

When they do settle SCA may not pocket the entire amount. It depends if they used re-insurers for the initial deal. I have heard both yes and no.

Interesting, that explanation sounds a lot more like how I understand reality to operate. Would love to hear further explanation from thehog though, as if I could work out how to turn $2 into $8 plus interest I might have a career change coming up.

 

[Kennf1]

It does not sound lucrative because it isn't. It has zero relation to the Armstrong SCA case. No idea why he posted it

SCA paid Armstrong the full amount, they sent it to him within 90 days of the signature. It was not a "Structured Settlement" This is not a personal injury case. SCA is now looking for their money back, with fees, penalties, and interest. Armstrong will pay that out of his pocket. SCA knows that Armstrong faces an avalanche of financial exposure and will likely want their cash straight up, not spread over many years.

When they do settle SCA may not pocket the entire amount. It depends if they used re-insurers for the initial deal. I have heard both yes and no.

Correct. Structured settlements with annuities are usually limited to serious personal injury cases, not breach of contract or fraud cases.

If SCA had reinsurance on the risk, they'll simply split the recovery with the reinsurer(s) according to the terms of the treaty, but it won't complicate settlement, since SCA would retain full authority to negotiate the deal.

 

[thehog]

Sorry thehog, but could you explain that model in a little bit more detail, as I think I'm missing something.

What I took from it is that Armstrong owes SCA, say $8 dollars. So he gives $2 to firm x, who then pay $8 dollars to SCA (and they're -$6 out of pocket at this stage), and then invest the $2 from Lance in order to make a capital return of 300% as well as dividend income on the $2 investment in excess of the interest they're paying (or at least pricing) on the $8 they've had to pay out in the first place. And Lance doesn't have to make any other payments. Is that right?

It doesn't sound very lucrative for firm x to me.

Is be happy to but what I posted for simpleness of how a structured settlement is put together.

There's a big difference between winning a judgment and enforcing it.

Settlements are just that. Settling on the terms of what is agreed per a contract.

SCA and the investment firm acting on behalf of Armstrong come to an agreed settlement then it's binding. That settlement may be for less as it's it's paid upfront.

None of this is unusual and very normal. There's not many people who have 12m just sitting in a bank account.

If you want me to flesh out an actual financial model closer to reality I would do so on PM only. If you like?

 

[thehog]

Correct. Structured settlements with annuities are usually limited to serious personal injury cases, not breach of contract or fraud cases.

If SCA had reinsurance on the risk, they'll simply split the recovery with the reinsurer(s) according to the terms of the treaty, but it won't complicate settlement, since SCA would retain full authority to negotiate the deal.

Structured Settlements or similar can be used anywhere one agrees to using it. Many people use a 3rd party to make payment or own the payment on their behalf.

They are not limited to personal injury cases. If you have money and don't wish to pay 12m, then you have options to limit your liability.

Welcome to the world of finance and it's debt products.

 

[Race Radio]

Correct. Structured settlements with annuities are usually limited to serious personal injury cases, not breach of contract or fraud cases.

If SCA had reinsurance on the risk, they'll simply split the recovery with the reinsurer(s) according to the terms of the treaty, but it won't complicate settlement, since SCA would retain full authority to negotiate the deal.

Agreed.

In the SCA case there was not a structured settlement. It was not spread over multiple years.

The $5,000,000 that was under dispute and held in escrow and was released the day after the settlement was signed. An additional $500,000 was paid after the 60 day window for changes in the settlement. The remaining $2,000,000 was paid 1 year after the settlement.

It would be pretty silly for Lance to resell the settlement when he received the vast majority of it the day after the agreement was signed.

 

[thehog]

Correct. Structured settlements with annuities are usually limited to serious personal injury cases, not breach of contract or fraud cases.

If SCA had reinsurance on the risk, they'll simply split the recovery with the reinsurer(s) according to the terms of the treaty, but it won't complicate settlement, since SCA would retain full authority to negotiate the deal.

Sorry edit. You've missed my point.

I wasn't saying the original settlement was a structured deal.

However Armstrong "now" can sell his "risk", his "debt" to a 3rd party to negotiate on his behalf and receive payment over time for doing so.

I.e. The 3 party settles with SCA.

Then the 3rd party has a separated deal with Armstrong to receive their money plus interest. The 3rd parties gain is the 2m from Armstrong in one financial product. And a second 6m loan in another financial product. Each earning their own profit and loss etc. but separated from each other. One product will pay the loan in the other or successful. If not Armstrong must pick up the shortfall.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Sorry edit. You've missed my point.

I wasn't saying the original settlement was a structured deal.

However Armstrong "now" can sell his "risk", his "debt" to a 3rd party to negotiate on his behalf and receive payment over time for doing so.

I.e. The 3 party settles with SCA.

Meanwhile, SCA gets their topline settlement number heavily discounted over time because presumably, this would be paid off over years.

Once you've got plenty of money to pay for structured finance while wailing and moaning about being broke, there are lots of cool tricks like this.

 

[thehog]

Once you've got plenty of money to pay for structured finance while wailing and moaning about being broke, there are lots of cool tricks like this.

Correct, yes this is the first part. Keep up the premise you have "nothing". And they'll never get there 12m or have to chase you through the courts etc. to get something and that could take years etc. and cost them more money.

Then 8m upfront becomes more attractive.

The investment fund takes 2m but they've rolled that up 10 times over and it's 20m. They shop that fund around and at times could get 20% return on it dependant on their investment strategy (high risk, tech/bio stocks, patents, oil).

I have a good friend who has his own debt firm. They spend their days looking around for guys like Armstrong who have money and owe money but don't want to pay out any money. The business has skyrocketed since the financial crisis.

 

[RownhamHill]

Is be happy to but what I posted for simpleness of how a structured settlement is put together.

There's a big difference between winning a judgment and enforcing it.

Settlements are just that. Settling on the terms of what is agreed per a contract.

SCA and the investment firm acting on behalf of Armstrong come to an agreed settlement then it's binding. That settlement may be for less as it's it's paid upfront.

None of this is unusual and very normal. There's not many people who have 12m just sitting in a bank account.

If you want me to flesh out an actual financial model closer to reality I would do so on PM only. If you like?

That would be lovely.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

The entire point missed is that perjury is a criminal offence and not civil... unless loss can be determined.

The SCA (re)hearing is not to hear a perjury case or loss thereof.

Civil cases and that of arbitration are riddle with perjury and lies.

Sit in any employment tribunal for a day and you'll hear lies behind what was uttered at the SCA hearings.

If you read the testimony from all during the SCA proceedings and you think "is that it?" They said that?

It's not a criminal trial that's for sure.

Nevertheless Armstrong stacked the entire proceedings. That I feel should be investigated criminally. He completely aborted justice via pressure and manipulation. A horrible abortion of justice.

But I doubt he'll pay much for it. Such a sad state of affairs.

A person who commits perjury in a civil case can be and is frequently prosecuted for perjury under the criminal justice system.

However in practice, this happens less so than perjury in a criminal case. It is also true that it is less likely a criminal charge would arise out of an arbitration hearing. But it could. And Armstrong's well known perjury is so well known it would be hard to believe that the District Attorney's office in Texas was not aware of it!

As I pointed out in my previous post a Texas lawyer could assist us in determining if the SCA arbitration in 2005 constitutes an "official proceeding" sufficiently to invoke Section 37.03 of the Texas Penal Code unless barred by Statute of Limitations.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Lance Armstrong sells $80k classic car given to him by ex Sheryl Crow after Tour de France win

...Lance put the gift up for auction through RKMCCA Collector Car Auctions in November, according to an article on Thursday by RadarOnline.com.

The vehicle had an anticipated sales price between $60,000 and $80,000.

A representative for the North Carolina-based auto auction company declined to reveal the selling price, but confirmed the car was bought....

 

[thehog]

A person who commits perjury in a civil case can be and is frequently prosecuted for perjury under the criminal justice system.

However in practice, this happens less so than perjury in a criminal case. It is also true that it is less likely a criminal charge would arise out of an arbitration hearing. But it could. And Armstrong's well known perjury is so well known it would be hard to believe that the District Attorney's office in Texas was not aware of it!

As I pointed out in my previous post a Texas lawyer could assist us in determining if the SCA arbitration in 2005 constitutes an "official proceeding" sufficiently to invoke Section 37.03 of the Texas Penal Code unless barred by Statute of Limitations.

To be honest. Considering some of the testimony. The entire hearing was a sham.

Beggars belief what some people commited to the record. Clearly all "arranged" by Armstrong but not a lot of people told the real story.

Try pulling perjury out of that hearing?!

Nevertheless. The entire hearing was stacked. SCA were shafted up ended.

 

[TexPat]

Lance Armstrong sells $80k classic car given to him by ex Sheryl Crow after Tour de France win

One of the last times that I saw him, he was standing on the side of the road with a cell phone held to his ear because that very car had broken down. Strange portent.

 

[thehog]

A person who commits perjury in a civil case can be and is frequently prosecuted for perjury under the criminal justice system.

However in practice, this happens less so than perjury in a criminal case. It is also true that it is less likely a criminal charge would arise out of an arbitration hearing. But it could. And Armstrong's well known perjury is so well known it would be hard to believe that the District Attorney's office in Texas was not aware of it!

As I pointed out in my previous post a Texas lawyer could assist us in determining if the SCA arbitration in 2005 constitutes an "official proceeding" sufficiently to invoke Section 37.03 of the Texas Penal Code unless barred by Statute of Limitations.

I would agree.

My one concern is the testimony given during those proceedings. It wasn't just Armstrong who was lying or giving a concealed version of events. SCA have grounds to recover monies from a few others if they weren't successful with Armstrong. The lack of a doping clause made most of what was said irrelevant.

If the authorities were going to start focusing on perjury they could clean up in and family and divorce courts every day of the week!

I think the issue of 'intimidation of witnesses' holds more fruit.

The again what was Armstrong thinking? Taking out the policy in the first place but then suing them?

 

[mewmewmew13]

One of the last times that I saw him, he was standing on the side of the road with a cell phone held to his ear because that very car had broken down. Strange portent.

THAT picture in my mind…so ironic isn't it

 

[D-Queued]

I would agree.

My one concern is the testimony given during those proceedings. It wasn't just Armstrong who was lying or giving a concealed version of events. SCA have grounds to recover monies from a few others if they weren't successful with Armstrong. The lack of a doping clause made most of what was said irrelevant.

If the authorities were going to start focusing on perjury they could clean up in and family and divorce courts every day of the week!

I think the issue of 'intimidation of witnesses' holds more fruit.

The again what was Armstrong thinking? Taking out the policy in the first place but then suing them?

Isn't there only one witness where this is a substantive issue in the SCA case, with outright perjury on the part of the witness coming as a direct result of threats/intimidation/coercion?

Not that his dopeness didn't sit in on Betsy's deposition with the only possible motive being intimidation. But, intimidated or not, she didn't lie for him. And, he was within his rights to sit there.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

Isn't there only one witness where this is a substantive issue in the SCA case, with outright perjury on the part of the witness coming as a direct result of threats/intimidation/coercion?

Not that his dopeness didn't sit in on Betsy's deposition with the only possible motive being intimidation. But, intimidated or not, she didn't lie for him. And, he was within his rights to sit there.

Dave.

Correct re: Betsy.

Then there was the Oakley rep. Frankie's depo is a total mystery. Armstrong calling everyone up beforehand was brainless behaviour. What was he thinking?

And Cathy LeMond told some interesting stories which cannot be validated.

So pulling perjury out of that mess would be impossible. In hindsight it sounded like a group of school friends recollecting about who slept with who during high school. Just gossip.

A little like Justin Beiber's deposition this week. Did you see that? They had the gore to ask him about Selena Gomez! Clearly they were trying to bait Bieber with questions which were out of scope to lure a reaction. They then leaked the video. Nasty tricks. Bieber was well within his right not to answer those questions.

And so coming back to SCA there was a lot of testimony at that hearing which was way out of scope for the terms of the contract. Way way out of scope.

But SCA deserve their money back. Armstrong never should have taken out the contract in first place knowing he was cheating to win. A judge would put both parties back in the position they were prior to contract. If it ever got that far, which it won't.

 

[blackcat]

Correct re: Betsy.

Then there was the Oakley rep. Frankie's depo is a total mystery. Armstrong calling everyone up beforehand was brainless behaviour. What was he thinking?

And Cathy LeMond told some interesting stories which cannot be validated.

So pulling perjury out of that mess would be impossible. In hindsight it sounded like a group of school friends recollecting about who slept with who during high school. Just gossip.

A little like Justin Beiber's deposition this week. Did you see that? They had the gore to ask him about Selena Gomez! Clearly they were trying to bait Bieber with questions which were out of scope to lure a reaction. They then leaked the video. Nasty tricks. Bieber was well within his right not to answer those questions.

And so coming back to SCA there was a lot of testimony at that hearing which was way out of scope for the terms of the contract. Way way out of scope.

But SCA deserve their money back. Armstrong never should have taken out the contract in first place knowing he was cheating to win. A judge would put both parties back in the position they were prior to contract. If it ever got that far, which it won't.

had the gall had the gall had the gall typo typo typohttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/gall

 

[thehog]

had the gall had the gall had the gall typo typo typohttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/gall

iPad predictive keyboard

 

[blackcat]

iPad predictive keyboard

it works,

have faith in the turin algorithm

just dont get jailed for sodomy

 

[thehog]

it works,

have faith in the turin algorithm

just dont get jailed for sodomy

Bayes theorem?