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

[FoxxyBrown1111]

What deposition? He responded to basic questions in documented form. He was not deposed.

Scope will be issue. Fun times.

"his first publicly revealed answers under oath" ... and a few sentences later "One day before he was scheduled to give a deposition ... cancel the deposition"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...g-named-names-written-answers-doping/7532825/

So what now? Did he, or didn´t he talk under oath? Is it that difficult for US "justice" to understand and thus rule, that indeed LA admitted doping to courts? I mean WTF if he did it in a written statement, or bend to a judge, kissed his feet, and then admitted... Sorry, but the system stinks...

Every normal person with at least one brain cell accepts that he acknowledged his doping not only to a TV audience and newspapers, but also to offical court. Why can´t overpaid judges and attorneys accept this simple truth?

 

[MarkvW]

"his first publicly revealed answers under oath" ... and a few sentences later "One day before he was scheduled to give a deposition ... cancel the deposition"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...g-named-names-written-answers-doping/7532825/

So what now? Did he, or didn´t he talk under oath? Is it that difficult for US "justice" to understand and thus rule, that indeed LA admitted doping to courts? I mean WTF if he did it in a written statement, or bend to a judge, kissed his feet, and then admitted... Sorry, but the system stinks...

Every normal person with at least one brain cell accepts that he acknowledged his doping not only to a TV audience and newspapers, but also to offical court. Why can´t overpaid judges and attorneys accept this simple truth?

Two ways (at least) to get statements under oath. One is "deposition," which is your basic sworn sit-down Q&A under oath. Another is "interrogatory," where one side sends the other side written questions and the other side sends back written answers, where the answers are sworn to under oath.

Interrogatories are usually done before depositions.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Two ways (at least) to get statements under oath. One is "deposition," which is your basic sworn sit-down Q&A under oath. Another is "interrogatory," where one side sends the other side written questions and the other side sends back written answers, where the answers are sworn to under oath.

Interrogatories are usually done before depositions.

So that means he gave a statement under the law to a offical court, thus admitting doping under oath. So what is all the fuss about delaying? He did perjury and therefore should be indicted. Am I right?

I mean isn´t there a simple "yes" or "no" answer on this matter?

 

[thehog]

So that means he gave a statement under the law to a offical court, thus admitting doping under oath. So what is all the fuss about delaying? He did perjury and therefore should be indicted. Am I right?

I mean isn´t there a simple "yes" or "no" answer on this matter?

Indicted for what? Perjury doesn't always mean you are charged.

People lie in court every day and all the time. The courts are full of lies and withholding information.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. What do you want to occur here?

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Indicted for what? Perjury doesn't always mean you are charged.

People lie in court every day and all the time. The courts are full of lies and withholding information.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. What do you want to occur here?

My opening Q was simply if LA admitted his doping under oath. Further I asked, if he did, why is he delaying?

 

[Merckx index]

I’m with Foxxy on this, I never understood why it was so important for LA to avoid a deposition, given he has already admitted doping. Can’t he be charged with perjury in the SCA case, given his admission to Oprah, even if that wasn’t under oath?

Bill Clinton denied under oath a relationship with Monica Lewinsky in the Paula Jones case. Special investigator Ken Starr then later charged Clinton with perjury based on the testimony of Lewinsky’s co-worker Linda Tripp and the semen-stained dress. How is that evidence any better than LA’s confessions to Oprah?

Suppose he’s deposed right now in the SCA case. What exactly is he going to admit to that he hasn’t already admitted to?

 

[thehog]

My opening Q was simply if LA admitted his doping under oath. Further I asked, if he did, why is he delaying?

Delaying what? I'm still not following.

Settlement? Why would he give SCA money they gave him? That wouldn't make any sense. They need to demonstrate why he should give it back before he gives it back. That's fairly normal. It's not a doping contract. It was a insurance contract. He believes he still won those Tours, SCA don't. SCA gave him a binding settlement. One which they are trying to undo That process has to take place if they don't settle. Even with deposition that may not occur. But don't think it will get that far.

What fun. SCA are very lucky. Very.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I’m with Foxxy on this, I never understood why it was so important for LA to avoid a deposition, given he has already admitted doping. Can’t he be charged with perjury in the SCA case, given his admission to Oprah, even if that wasn’t under oath?

Bill Clinton denied under oath a relationship with Monica Lewinsky in the Paula Jones case. Special investigator Ken Starr then later charged Clinton with perjury based on the testimony of Lewinsky’s co-worker Linda Tripp and the semen-stained dress. How is that evidence any better than LA’s confessions to Oprah?

Suppose he’s deposed right now in the SCA case. What exactly is he going to admit to that he hasn’t already admitted to?

And the case with LA is way more tight, since he gave a written doping admission to a court of which the USA-Today article I linked and" MarkW" state it was under oath....
But when even "Merckx" don´t know a straight answer, I must assume the US justice system is indeed rotten to the core. So much so that not even the more smart and knowing posters have a clear answer. Let alone the hedge lawyers and judges who literally rapped the US law system.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Delaying what? I'm still not following.

He canceled the deposition one day before the deadline (see USA-Today link). Since then he prevents to talk under oath, going as far as burning money to delay his day in the court. Again: For what, if he already admitted his doping in a written statement under oath. It makes no sense (at least to non US citizens).
Am I clear enough now? Please.
Thanks...

 

[MarkvW]

So that means he gave a statement under the law to a offical court, thus admitting doping under oath. So what is all the fuss about delaying? He did perjury and therefore should be indicted. Am I right?

I mean isn´t there a simple "yes" or "no" answer on this matter?

Statute of Limitations. The SCA lies were years ago.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

So we can agree he indeed admitted under oath (see USAtoday), but now is delaying the SCA case because of other reasons. Am I right? If so, then we had some misleading posts (I don´t mean Hog) the past few days, because it was assumed that LA delayed solely b/c of not wanting to talk "under oath".
Is that correct?

 

[thehog]

He canceled the deposition one day before the deadline (see USA-Today link). Since then he prevents to talk under oath, going as far as burning money to delay his day in the court. Again: For what, if he already admitted his doping in a written statement under oath. It makes no sense (at least to non US citizens).
Am I clear enough now? Please.
Thanks...

95% of civil proceedings end in settlement. Generally the day of or just after deposition they are settled. Nobody wants to go to court. Time consuming, expensive, unpredictable and opens cans of worms you don't want no matter what side you're on.

He won't depose himself as he has to limit exposure. Admitting doping is such a small part or it. Not illegal in itself. The QT is not in essence about he use of doping products it's about the use of Federal money for fraud.

That's the difference. He just can't afford to be in a position whereby being asked questions about doping opens the can of worms labelled fraud.

If he can limit scope on the SCA depo he may sit down. But all his efforts are for the QT to limit payout and potential criminal charges.

He also has reasonable defence with Weisel and the UCI. Cards to be played at a later date. Not now.

 

[Race Radio]

Statute of Limitations. The SCA lies were years ago.

Yup. He will likely work hard to limit the questioning but given the nature of the case this will be hard for lance's legal to pull off. SCA will be able to ask him all sorts of questions about how he pulled off his fraud, who helped, etc. He will also be asked questions that, if he tells the truth, could directly contradict what some friends told the Grand Jury. His Depo will give the Fed's lots of ammo for their case and their questioning. Perjury in civil cases are seldom persuaded, but lie to the Feds and you are in trouble. Obfuscate to the Feds and you are obstructing.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I must assume the US justice system is indeed rotten to the core.

Well, money has always affected the outcome in the judicial system. Remember that the venue is arbitration. And my understanding is truth can take a holiday in that venue.


The quit tam case is serious and probably won't put up with as much lying.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

95% ...

OK, thanks Hog. You know I asked the Qs to understand what´s going on. I am interested in the case, and just look for a clear picture, if that´s possible.
But you would agree that he opened himself up for a (theoretically) perjury indictment (with his written statement), if a state attorney would care?

 

[MarkvW]

OK, thanks Hog. You know I asked the Qs to understand what´s going on. I am interested in the case, and just look for a clear picture, if that´s possible.
But you would agree that he opened himself up for a (theoretically) perjury indictment, if a state attorney would care?

If he told a lie in a current proceeding, and the lie was provable beyond a reasonable doubt, then I'd think he would be at real risk for prosecution. But what would motivate him to lie now? Vanity??

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Yup. He will likely work hard to limit the questioning but given the nature of the case this will be hard for lance's legal to pull off. SCA will be able to ask him all sorts of questions about how he pulled off his fraud, who helped, etc. He will also be asked questions that, if he tells the truth, could directly contradict what some friends told the Grand Jury. His Depo will give the Fed's lots of ammo for their case and their questioning. Perjury in civil cases are seldom persuaded, but lie to the Feds and you are in trouble. Obfuscate to the Feds and you are obstructing.

Couldn´t they work without a deposition of him? I mean they can just use the given statements in the Acceptance case. It´s all in there...

 

[thehog]

OK, thanks Hog. You know I asked the Qs to understand what´s going on. I am interested in the case, and just look for a clear picture, if that´s possible.
But you would agree that he opened himself up for a (theoretically) perjury indictment (with his written statement), if a state attorney would care?

They don't care because they know Federally his ---- will be handed to him on a grand scale.

Little point chasing down a perjury charge in a civil suit when there's a federal fraud case in play.

Perjury at a civil level would be a fine. SCA did as much damage to their own success as Armstrong did to them.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

They don't care because they know Federally his ---- will be handed to him on a grand scale.

Little point chasing down a perjury charge in a civil suit when there's a federal fraud case in play.

Perjury at a civil level would be a fine. SCA did as much damage to their own success as Armstrong did to them.

Allright, now it gets clearer and clearer. Didn´t know that perjury in a civil case just gets you a little slap on the ****.
So he is preventing at all costs to talk to criminal court/court of claims (or whatever the name of non civil court is), because he would open up himself for possible fraud. By delaying the SCA case, it prevents him to talk more details in a Q/A battle with Tilliston which could be used against him in the federal case.
Further he delays the civil SCA case to prevent paying back the 12 millions.
Am I correct in the bigger picture (barring details)?

 

[thehog]

Allright, now it gets clearer and clearer. Didn´t know that perjury in a civil case just gets you a little slap on the ****.
So he is preventing at all costs to talk to criminal court/court of claims (or whatever the name of non civil court is), because he would open up himself for possible fraud. By delaying the SCA case, it prevents him to talk more details in a Q/A battle with Tilliston.
Further he delays the civil SCA case to prevent paying back the 12 millions.
Am I correct in the bigger picture (barring details)?

Employment tribunals, divorce courts the world over are full of some fairly horrendous levels of perjury. Never punished. Small claims, trials large companies withhold evidence against laypersons and lie. Nothing happens. Report it to the police. They'll get around to it..... never.

Look at Vaughters statement at SCA. What was that? Perjury? Economies of truth? Yikes. Not all one way traffic here.

You can sue for perjury. That's an option.

But yes what you summarise is about correct. He doesn't want it pay and even if did want to pay the strategy is always to wear out the other side till they accept less. Personal injury claims for straightforward cases take upwards of 3 years. Those who have medical bills to pay have to arrange forwarding loans etc. it's an entire industry in itself.

But not to be depose is also important. And to limit the scope of deposition. Scope creep in deposition is always an issue. But I don't think he'd risk it. Your counsel can't advise you in deposition. They can tell the opposing lawyer if they behave unfairly but can't anwser for you or advise you what to say.

And they are recorded.

 

[mewmewmew13]

OK, thanks Hog. You know I asked the Qs to understand what´s going on. I am interested in the case, and just look for a clear picture, if that´s possible.
But you would agree that he opened himself up for a (theoretically) perjury indictment (with his written statement), if a state attorney would care?

I feel your pain Foxxy! finally got an answer in there that made me fairly satisfied

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Employment ....

So in the written Acceptance statement (of course) his lawyers advised him. A deposition is something like Q/A but without a judge, and your attorney can´t help you? And the next level is the courtroom Q/A, right?
IOW, as soon as making a deposition he would talk himself into big trouble.
Now that I have a clearer pic, I can give my two cents:
After having delayed the inevitable, he´ll hold up his right hand and declare bankruptcy, millions laying saved under an obscure limited name in Bermudas, Landis will go out empty, as the government will. A pyrrhic victory for the feds, unless they can bring him to jail...

Thx again for the enlightment.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I feel your pain Foxxy! finally got an answer in there that made me fairly satisfied

Me too. Took a couple of days. But what are days when the LA collapse took us ten years?

 

[thehog]

So in the written Acceptance statement (of course) his lawyers advised him. A deposition is something like Q/A but without a judge, and your attorney can´t help you? And the next level is the courtroom Q/A, right?
IOW, as soon as making a deposition he would talk himself into big trouble.
Now that I have a clearer pic, I can give my two cents:
After having delayed the inevitable, he´ll hold up his right hand and declare bankruptcy, millions laying saved under an obscure limited name in Bermudas, Landis will go out empty, as the government will. A pyrrhic victory for the feds, unless they can bring him to jail...

Thx again for the enlightment.

Jeff Scilling just before he was carted away in handcuffs wired $200m to his lawyers on retainer. Since that time he claims he's bankrupt. Finally managed to do a deal with the government and had 10 years cut from his sentence. He'll be out in 2019 surely to find those millions again that he stashed under the bed.

The government does give up against the banks and settle for fines. Where do those fines go?

Those looking for redemption may get some satisfaction in 2019 but these cases often plead out after years or paper work. But this is a little different and think it will go the course.

SCA has months to go. It's been going on 2 years now. Not seeing a payment being made in the near future. Regardless of what we all think of LA how does one untie a full and final settlement? I don't know. The courts will decide that one.

 

[Race Radio]

Jeff Scilling just before he was carted away in handcuffs wired $200m to his lawyers on retainer. Since that time he claims he's bankrupt. Finally managed to do a deal with the government and had 10 years cut from his sentence. He'll be out in 2019 surely to find those millions again that he stashed under the bed.

.....Nonsense.