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

[MarkvW]

You guys/gals are really going to like this. Looks like everyone's favorite Weisel, found a way to "weasel" hmself out of the Wonderboy case. He skates AGAIN.


http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_26018378/ross-resident-thomas-weisel-no-longer-part-case

Was discussed upthread. He's home free. If Lance can't suck him in now, he never will.

 

[Race Radio]

Was discussed upthread. He's home free. If Lance can't suck him in now, he never will.

Nope.

In a civil case dismissal without prejudice is a dismissal that allows for re-filing of the case in the future.

Give it a few months

 

[MarkvW]

It is foolish to think that Weisel is vulnerable to Armstrong.

 

[Race Radio]

It is foolish to think that Weisel is vulnerable to Armstrong.

It is the Feds, not Armstrong, who are taking depositions all summer. It is foolish to think Weisel is not vulnerable to the Feds.

 

[MarkvW]

Lance Armstrong isn't going to cut his own throat in a hopeless attempt to make Weisel liable. Even if he did, his word is next to valueless. Weasel is going to stay dismissed. This isn't even a close call.

 

[Race Radio]

Lance Armstrong isn't going to cut his own throat in a hopeless attempt to make Weisel liable. Even if he did, his word is next to valueless. Weasel is going to stay dismissed. This isn't even a close call.

That is nice

How about the other witnesses?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/228466340/Gov-Witness-List

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Lance Armstrong isn't going to cut his own throat in a hopeless attempt to make Weisel liable. Even if he did, his word is next to valueless. Weasel is going to stay dismissed. This isn't even a close call.

With your track record, I think Wiesel better be nervous.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

That is nice

How about the other witnesses?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/228466340/Gov-Witness-List

Thanks for posting. Turns out limited vision is MarkvW's specialty...yea, only Lance knows something...

 

[MarkvW]

The government has presumably talked to most of its other witnesses before filing its case. That's why the government didn't file against Weisel. Weasel was Floyd's longshot, that's all.

 

[Race Radio]

The government has presumably talked to most of its other witnesses before filing its case. That's why the government didn't file against Weisel. Weasel was Floyd's longshot, that's all.

yeah, I am sure they talked some of them......and they lied.

Will be fun to see what happens when they tell the truth

 

[MarkvW]

The idea that people who lied to the feds before are going to suddenly tell the truth when they are deposed is silly.

Anybody who lied to the feds in the course of criminal investigations, isn't likely to turn around and tell the truth now, under oath in a civil case deposition. They'd be putting their necks in the noose. If they lied before, they'll take the Fifth now.

Weisel's in the clear.

 

[Race Radio]

The idea that people who lied to the feds before are going to suddenly tell the truth when they are deposed is silly.

Anybody who lied to the feds in the course of criminal investigations, isn't likely to turn around and tell the truth now, under oath in a civil case deposition. They'd be putting their necks in the noose. If they lied before, they'll take the Fifth now.

Weisel's in the clear.

Yeah....nobody has even change their testimony before, never happened....yup

 

[MarkvW]

Yeah....nobody has even change their testimony before, never happened....yup

Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[Scott SoCal]

That is nice

How about the other witnesses?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/228466340/Gov-Witness-List

That... Is quite a list.

Let's hope the ex-Mrs Stapleton gets called if nothing else but pure f'ing entertainment at the expense of some world class pricks.

 

[86TDFWinner]

That is nice

How about the other witnesses?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/228466340/Gov-Witness-List

Looks like our dear friend Stephanie from Joakley might want to come clean afterall:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-02/sponsor-turned-blind-eye-to-lance-armstrongs-doping/5564074

 

[Ferminal]

Much better than previous documentaries as it told a story rather than "omg, people dope".

 

[One Eyed Aussie]

Much better than previous documentaries as it told a story rather than "omg, people dope".

Fantastic and well made doco. Highly recommended.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Wow. What a witness list. Anybody who was anybody in the Armstrong debacle is there. This includes The Weasel, Motoman, Ferrari, Celaya, LAs ex Kristin, Sheryl Crow, Phat Pat, Verbruggen, all the usual suspect riders at USPS (Hamilton, Hincapie et al) and Betsy Andreu.

We now have a pretty good handle on the amount of damages being claimed. The lawsuit says that in total USPS paid out $40,520,765.83 from 1998 to 2004. They say after June 10, 2000 they paid $32,321,821.94 which is the amount they claim is available for triple damages. They are also claiming penalties which is between $5,500 and $11,500 each count.

Here is a summary, with any errors and omissions excepted,

1. Funds before June 10, 2000 $ 8,198,943.89
2. Pre & post judgement interest - Don't know rate
3. Funds after June 10, 2000 - trebled (gross) $ 96,965,465.82
(This will depend on either a gross or net calculation - I have done gross)

4. Unjust enrichment - Armstrong, approx. $ 17,800,000.00
5. Pre & post judgement interest on unjust enrich. - Don't know rate
6. Unjust enrichment - Bruyneel+Tailwind, approx $ 22,700,000.00
7. Pre & post judgment interest on unjust enrich. - Don't know rate
8. Penalties per count - I did not calculate
9. Costs - Don't know at this stage
10. Lawyers fees - Don`t know at this stage


Total (without interest, costs, legal fees and penalties), approx. $145,664,409.71

It looks to me that with interest, costs, legal fees and penalties the judgment could be $200 million easily. I also do not know if all the damages would be cumulative. Perhaps a US lawyer with experience in qui tam suits could tell us.

But the Gov. has claimed Armstrong is jointly and severally liable for the whole amount, whatever it is, which means regardless of what he actually received he would be personally liable for the whole amount!!!!!!

If I have got anything wrong please do not hesitate to correct my calculations.

This lawsuit, presumably open to the public, should be televised if possible. It would turn OJ into a grade B movie.

 

[RownhamHill]

Looks like our dear friend Stephanie from Joakley might want to come clean afterall:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-02/sponsor-turned-blind-eye-to-lance-armstrongs-doping/5564074

Can anyone explain what happened to the Grand Jury testimony, which is apparently 'sealed'? Would the 'feds' involved in the grand jury investigation be the same 'feds' involved in the Qui Tam? And would they be aware of what the testimony was in the Grand Jury? I'm wondering, with regards to Stephanie for example, whether the Qui Tam 'feds' could be expected to know what she said in her Grand Jury testimony, or what would happen if she changed her testimony now. Thanks.

 

[MarkvW]

Can anyone explain what happened to the Grand Jury testimony, which is apparently 'sealed'? Would the 'feds' involved in the grand jury investigation be the same 'feds' involved in the Qui Tam? And would they be aware of what the testimony was in the Grand Jury? I'm wondering, with regards to Stephanie for example, whether the Qui Tam 'feds' could be expected to know what she said in her Grand Jury testimony, or what would happen if she changed her testimony now. Thanks.

Testimony remains sealed. Different lawyer teams. Qui tam (civil case) lawyers would not have access to grand jury (criminal) testimony (unless by court order).

Investigators with knowledge of sealed grand jury testimony could rather easily obtain access to qui tam case testimony. If those investigators learn that statements made under oath in the qui tam proceeding are inconsistent with statements made in the grand jury proceeding, then (1) the person who made the inconsistent statements is at risk for perjury or obstruction prosecution; and (2) that person's grand jury testimony might get unsealed.

It is extremely unrealistic to think that is going to happen. It would be nuts for any person to switch their testimony in Lance's civil case from their previous testimony before the grand jury. Nobody can compel a witness to make inconsistent sworn statements. When confronted with the risk of inconsistent statements and perjury prosecution, all the witness needs to do is take the Fifth Amendment.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Testimony remains sealed. Different lawyer teams. Qui tam (civil case) lawyers would not have access to grand jury (criminal) testimony (unless by court order).

Investigators with knowledge of sealed grand jury testimony could rather easily obtain access to qui tam case testimony. If those investigators learn that statements made under oath in the qui tam proceeding are inconsistent with statements made in the grand jury proceeding, then (1) the person who made the inconsistent statements is at risk for perjury or obstruction prosecution; and (2) that person's grand jury testimony might get unsealed.

It is extremely unrealistic to think that is going to happen. It would be nuts for any person to switch their testimony in Lance's civil case from their previous testimony before the grand jury. Nobody can compel a witness to make inconsistent sworn statements. When confronted with the risk of inconsistent statements and perjury prosecution, all the witness needs to do is take the Fifth Amendment.

Mark, questions for you.

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 this).

But perhaps more importantly it goes to the credibility of the witnesses. Does the sealing of that testimony prevent the subpoena of that evidence directly from the court? Could each witness be subpoenaed to bring their personal GJ testimony ( a subpoena duces tecum)? 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?

 

[RownhamHill]

Testimony remains sealed. Different lawyer teams. Qui tam (civil case) lawyers would not have access to grand jury (criminal) testimony (unless by court order).

Investigators with knowledge of sealed grand jury testimony could rather easily obtain access to qui tam case testimony. If those investigators learn that statements made under oath in the qui tam proceeding are inconsistent with statements made in the grand jury proceeding, then (1) the person who made the inconsistent statements is at risk for perjury or obstruction prosecution; and (2) that person's grand jury testimony might get unsealed.

It is extremely unrealistic to think that is going to happen. It would be nuts for any person to switch their testimony in Lance's civil case from their previous testimony before the grand jury. Nobody can compel a witness to make inconsistent sworn statements. When confronted with the risk of inconsistent statements and perjury prosecution, all the witness needs to do is take the Fifth Amendment.

Thanks for the answer. I was thinking more from the point of view of the Wiesel indictment (or lack thereof) - so had witnesses in the Grand Jury mentioned/implicated him (I don't know if they did!), would the lawyers/prosecutors preparing the Qui Tam have access to that evidence, or be able to action it at this stage? (I'm presuming that even if Novitsky or whoever told them off the record what was said, if it's sealed they can't action that at this point?)

 

[MarkvW]

Thanks for the answer. I was thinking more from the point of view of the Wiesel indictment (or lack thereof) - so had witnesses in the Grand Jury mentioned/implicated him (I don't know if they did!), would the lawyers/prosecutors preparing the Qui Tam have access to that evidence, or be able to action it at this stage? (I'm presuming that even if Novitsky or whoever told them off the record what was said, if it's sealed they can't action that at this point?)

The federal lawyers in the qui tam have no access to the sealed GJ evidence. Whatever they present in the civil case cannot be derived from sealed GJ material.

BTW, the qui tam lawyers for the government would have to disclose all the evidence they possess to the lawyers for the other sides.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

MarkvW, no offense intended, but your track record has been a bit... shaky when it comes to your legal certainties. I'm the last person to appeal to authority by credentials, but I'm wondering what yours are. Procedurally, legal/courtroom stuff takes years to master, kind of like becoming a surgeon. And if you don't have those years...

Well, you seem like a super intelligent and nice guy, but I sometimes wonder if the stuff you say is correct. How certain are you that the Grand Jury testimonies are perma-sealed, and why are you certain they can't be used by the government? Can a judge order them to be un-sealed?

John Swanson

 

[MarkvW]

MarkvW, no offense intended, but your track record has been a bit... shaky when it comes to your legal certainties. I'm the last person to appeal to authority by credentials, but I'm wondering what yours are. Procedurally, legal/courtroom stuff takes years to master, kind of like becoming a surgeon. And if you don't have those years...

Well, you seem like a super intelligent and nice guy, but I sometimes wonder if the stuff you say is correct. How certain are you that the Grand Jury testimonies are perma-sealed, and why are you certain they can't be used by the government? Can a judge order them to be un-sealed?

John Swanson

They can be unsealed on a showing of "compelling and particularized" circumstances. They can't be used by the government in a civil case because they're sealed. A mere possibility of inconsistent statement doesn't appear to be enough to warrant unsealing. I'm ultra certain of the first sentences in this paragraph, and kinda certain of the last.

The evidence that the GJ uncovered is still out there, though. The feds will presumably discover and present (if they choose) much of the same testimony discovered through independent means. I'm not suggesting that GJ secrecy is a hindrance to the qui tam.

I won't discuss myself, sorry.