Official Lance Armstrong Thread **READ POST #1 BEFORE POSTING**

[Dr. Maserati]

I ran "racketeer influenced" & "equitable tolling"& ti("United States") and got 26 cases. I added the "united states" in the title to weed out the civil RICO cases, because in every criminal fed prosecution the US is a party. This left a bunch of cases where the US was the defendant or the case was noncriminal (irrelevant) and where the defendant was trying to use equitable tolling to get around a postconviction relief time bar (irrelevant).
Only one case mentioned equitable tolling--Kozeny (which I've already mentioned). The mention was brief--the opinion merely stated that the government had failed in an earlier attempt to use equitable tolling.

Read US V. Atiyeh, 402 F.3d 354 at 367. Show me a case where equitable tolling EVER extended the SOL in a criminal case! You can't.

I preferred Rocky vs The Russian myself.

In a bid to broaden my CV on legal experience I watched a Matlock episode today.
It was exceedingly informative but in the bits I didn't sleep through there appeared to be no mention of SOL or in particular "racketeer influenced" and lets be fair, his teeth would have fallen out, so I would have remembered that.
Could you recommend another episode?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The fact that I have just read too many pages of the same old faces still sniping at one another tells me there is nothing new on this story.

Are you kidding.
You are getting a masterclass in how to avoid taxes and getting away with being embroiled in a criminal conspiracy - pay attention and you too could be defrauding people with impunity.

 

[Anonymous]

I ran "racketeer influenced" & "equitable tolling"& ti("United States") and got 26 cases. I added the "united states" in the title to weed out the civil RICO cases, because in every criminal fed prosecution the US is a party. This left a bunch of cases where the US was the defendant or the case was noncriminal (irrelevant) and where the defendant was trying to use equitable tolling to get around a postconviction relief time bar (irrelevant).
Only one case mentioned equitable tolling--Kozeny (which I've already mentioned). The mention was brief--the opinion merely stated that the government had failed in an earlier attempt to use equitable tolling.

Read US V. Atiyeh, 402 F.3d 354 at 367. Show me a case where equitable tolling EVER extended the SOL in a criminal case! You can't.

You need to refine your questions better I guess because that was not the call. You said he couldn't find a single case where they applied the concept. He didn't, but I did. Here is a towel to wipe the egg off. I understand the anger (unleash the fury of CAPS LOCK!!!!), people like you don't like to be wrong.

As for the rest, I don't have the time nor inclination to do an exhaustive study. What I do know is that if the feds file charges (something it sounds like you claim is impossible now doing a cursory reading of your most recent posts. I could be wrong about that.), then you have egg on your face again.

My advice to everyone else is to steer clear of you because you are not being honest about who you are and the motives you have for posting this crap. Either you are someone who just loves to enter into arguments with people who are not in the profession and will naturally not have the expertise to counter your pronouncements (so that you can feel like a big man who is smarter than everyone), or you have some reason to run interference for Armstrong. Either way, you are being dishonest.

Also, thanks for taking the Westlaw bait. I knew you were using that or Lexis, so I purposefully baited my post to draw that out. I even messaged RR that I was almost certain you were using that, and my beliefs regarding your profession/future profession. You can pull the hook out with a pair of pliers, it will only hurt for a second.

 

[pedaling squares]

Don't come anywhere near this thread without the facts.

Hog my brother, did you really just write that?!

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Actually, I believe they have:

Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax 2010

Approx. $42million in revenue and $31million in total expenses. Fascinating.
No independent audited financials.
Armstrong only averages 52 hours a year of work for the foundation. Fascinating.

 

[fatandfast]

I've seen this several times on here, but I don't think I've ever seen it outside of this forum.

Did George actually say this (has his grand jury testimony been leaked??)??

no he never said this to anybody publicly. The VN and 60 minutes stuff linked is also word play about what they think he may have said.

 

[MarkvW]

no he never said this to anybody publicly. The VN and 60 minutes stuff linked is also word play about what they think he may have said.

If George had claimed that the only source of his information was a GJ leak, you can be positive Armstrong would have used it, because that would be great evidence. The failure of Armstrong to present such evidence is a good indicator that it doesn't exist.

 

[MarkvW]

I preferred Rocky vs The Russian myself.

In a bid to broaden my CV on legal experience I watched a Matlock episode today.
It was exceedingly informative but in the bits I didn't sleep through there appeared to be no mention of SOL or in particular "racketeer influenced" and lets be fair, his teeth would have fallen out, so I would have remembered that.
Could you recommend another episode?

You are very entertaining. Watch My Cousin Vinny. It is a very good law movie. In it, you will learn that Lance will be charged soon because (now wait for it) . . . Lance will be charged soon!

 

[Deagol]

.... The failure of Armstrong to present such evidence is a good indicator that it doesn't exist.

But the response by GH when asked about it is a good indicator that it does exist.

 

[fatandfast]

If George had claimed that the only source of his information was a GJ leak, you can be positive Armstrong would have used it, because that would be great evidence. The failure of Armstrong to present such evidence is a good indicator that it doesn't exist.

not sure about any of that, I am sure that if big George would have said Lance supplied him with drugs that both 60 Minutes and VeloNews would have used it , VN for days if not weeks. Scott Pelley would have delayed his place at the news desk for sure. If Hincapie made those or similar comments to a grand jury that is his business. If Lance never goes to trial it will all be for nothing anyway.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You are very entertaining. Watch My Cousin Vinny. It is a very good law movie. In it, you will learn that Lance will be charged soon because (now wait for it) . . . Lance will be charged soon!

I saw that movie already! Does that mean I can start charging people for my legal advice?

I'm sure you're right - the Feds are just continuing on the investigation because they have lots of money to burn and that there are no other crimes happening.
I guess they will pretend that they are about to charge Armstrong Inc and then go "oh no, the statute of limitations", and pretend that they had no idea.

 

[MarkvW]

I'm not well enough informed about the George testimony angle and was asking for clarification...I've seen it talked about here, but hadn't seen a report that basically said "GH said he and Lanced used together".....I thought I missed something.

So I asked for clarification.

That's it, no trolling, just looking for more info on something that I don't know much about. 1st or 5000th post, it shouldn't matter. I'm uninformed, looking to become more informed.

There's really no need to be a di*k about it...

Welcome! Give this thread a read from the beginning. You'll learn all you'd ever want to know about why you should love Lance or hate Lance. This particular topic has been addressed at least a couple of times since the 60 Minutes show.

 

[fatandfast]

I saw that movie already! Does that mean I can start charging people for my legal advice?

I'm sure you're right - the Feds are just continuing on the investigation because they have lots of money to burn and that there are no other crimes happening.
I guess they will pretend that they are about to charge Armstrong Inc and then go "oh no, the statute of limitations", and pretend that they had no idea.

better than that would be if they pulled a Barry Bonds and from one boss to the next, each new guy sees the busy beehive and assumes it worth the manpower and cash being expended.
Some experts in the Bonds case said that they should have pulled out but that would have imploded the inter office morale of all the people and hard work that went into catching and convicting Bonds. No matter how weak the case let it ride. They may be thinking the same thing about Lance, lots of krappy behavior, some of it against the law, but none of it worth the hours and millions to weave it into a multi-year conviction that involves jail time. The SOL may be self imposed. If Armstrong did a bunch of sketchy stuff 10 years ago and it tapered off toward the end it may make the case look more difficult with possible expiration dates on lots of evidence. Novitzky's bosses better spend money wisely if they take 10 years and millions to get another slap on the wrist it will be goodbye career for a few of them

 

[MarkvW]

I saw that movie already! Does that mean I can start charging people for my legal advice?

I'm sure you're right - the Feds are just continuing on the investigation because they have lots of money to burn and that there are no other crimes happening.
I guess they will pretend that they are about to charge Armstrong Inc and then go "oh no, the statute of limitations", and pretend that they had no idea.

I get that you have no clue about the effect of the statute of limitations. It is easier for you to say that the feds are investigating Lance, so they must not have any limitations problems. You can't rebut the arguments I present, so you utilize ridicule and dismissiveness as your argumentative tools. Cool. You're welcome to your opinion and I enjoy reading your posts.

 

[Velodude]

Approx. $42million in revenue and $31million in total expenses. Fascinating.
No independent audited financials.
Armstrong only averages 52 hours a year of work for the foundation. Fascinating.

Plus there is an (unprecedented?) editorial from Livestrong as an introduction to guide the uninformable. It notes that LA has made the largest donation of $6m in the history of Livestrong and does not seek reimbursement of his travelling expenses.

As the donation is expressed in the singular could it have occurred in the 2010 year? If so, the results would have been more abysmal without that amount.

Looks like a lot of suspicious movements of the deck chairs.

Explanatory notes claim the accounts are audited by an outside firm. And an outside firm is then engaged to prepare Form 990 tax return. Appears that one firm is checking the other firm. But it is the same Austin Tx based firm of accountants! Very misleading.

Form 990 states that financial statements are made available on website. Not so for missing 2010 financial statements.

Over half of the travelling expenses are not satisfactorily explained in detail.

That is just from a cursory glance.

 

[MarkvW]

better than that would be if they pulled a Barry Bonds and from one boss to the next, each new guy sees the busy beehive and assumes it worth the manpower and cash being expended.
Some experts in the Bonds case said that they should have pulled out but that would have imploded the inter office morale of all the people and hard work that went into catching and convicting Bonds. No matter how weak the case let it ride. They may be thinking the same thing about Lance, lots of krappy behavior, some of it against the law, but none of it worth the hours and millions to weave it into a multi-year conviction that involves jail time. The SOL may be self imposed. If Armstrong did a bunch of sketchy stuff 10 years ago and it tapered off toward the end it may make the case look more difficult with possible expiration dates on lots of evidence. Novitzky's bosses better spend money wisely if they take 10 years and millions to get another slap on the wrist it will be goodbye career for a few of them

But is the investigation all about Lance Armstrong? Maybe there are other focal points (Michael Ball, Joe Papp, etc.). Maybe the feds are going after long running doping networks. Maybe the feds are more focused on dealers than users.

The feds have huge problems proving the old Postal doping fraud. If that is taken off the table, why wouldn't the feds treat Lance like Barry Bonds--give him immunity and walk him into a perjury trap? If I were a fed prosecutor and I could use Lance to rip up Ferrari and Carmichael (if you believe Floyd), it would be very tempting. Not to mention that seeing Lance turn snitch would be one of the greatest schadenfreude moments of all time.

Giving Lance immunity would be a perfect thing. He would selfishly agonize over his own narcissistic self-interest. If he denies, you've got a mint-fresh perjury charge along with multiple witnesses to prove him a liar. If he tells the truth, he abases himself by testifying against the people who helped lift him to greatness while shattering his own reputation.

 

[Velodude]

But is the investigation all about Lance Armstrong? Maybe there are other focal points (Michael Ball, Joe Papp, etc.). Maybe the feds are going after long running doping networks. Maybe the feds are more focused on dealers than users.

The feds have huge problems proving the old Postal doping fraud. If that is taken off the table, why wouldn't the feds treat Lance like Barry Bonds--give him immunity and walk him into a perjury trap? If I were a fed prosecutor and I could use Lance to rip up Ferrari and Carmichael (if you believe Floyd), it would be very tempting. Not to mention that seeing Lance turn snitch would be one of the greatest schadenfreude moments of all time.

Giving Lance immunity would be a perfect thing. He would selfishly agonize over his own narcissistic self-interest. If he denies, you've got a mint-fresh perjury charge along with multiple witnesses to prove him a liar. If he tells the truth, he abases himself by testifying against the people who helped lift him to greatness while shattering his own reputation.

My advice to you role playing a wannabe lawyer is never be a self litigant. Self litigants are generally known to have idiots as clients!

 

[Neworld]

Plus there is an (unprecedented?) editorial from Livestrong as an introduction to guide the uninformable. It notes that LA has made the largest donation of $6m in the history of Livestrong and does not seek reimbursement of his travelling expenses. That is just from a cursory glance.

Interesting post.

Hopefully the FBI will check the video feed from the accountants office and catch someone on tape walking out with the vital files...just ask Conrad Black how that feels.

NW

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I get that you have no clue about the effect of the statute of limitations. It is easier for you to say that the feds are investigating Lance, so they must not have any limitations problems. You can't rebut the arguments I present, so you utilize ridicule and dismissiveness as your argumentative tools. Cool. You're welcome to your opinion and I enjoy reading your posts.

Well, lets see.
Are the Feds investigating Lance inc. Why, yes they are.
Will they have difficulties with SOL. Yes.
Does that mean they cannot proceed. No.

How are my doing so far?

 

[thehog]

Plus there is an (unprecedented?) editorial from Livestrong as an introduction to guide the uninformable. It notes that LA has made the largest donation of $6m in the history of Livestrong and does not seek reimbursement of his travelling expenses.

As the donation is expressed in the singular could it have occurred in the 2010 year? If so, the results would have been more abysmal without that amount.

Looks like a lot of suspicious movements of the deck chairs.

Explanatory notes claim the accounts are audited by an outside firm. And an outside firm is then engaged to prepare Form 990 tax return. Appears that one firm is checking the other firm. But it is the same Austin Tx based firm of accountants! Very misleading.

Form 990 states that financial statements are made available on website. Not so for missing 2010 financial statements.

Over half of the travelling expenses are not satisfactorily explained in detail.

That is just from a cursory glance.

I'd say the 6 million came from the Demand/Livestrong IPO so it was Peter paying Paul there. I'd say the 6 was being provided as a Futures Option from 2010 and paid in 2011 or when the money is realised from the options. That’s my take - not real money just perceived.

I still not convinced on the travel - its been routed via Demand/Livestrong.org/.com - we'll find out soon enough.

 

[MarkvW]

Well, lets see.
Are the Feds investigating Lance inc. Why, yes they are.
Will they have difficulties with SOL. Yes.
Does that mean they cannot proceed. No.

How are my doing so far?

Good! Now present the analysis supporting each conclusion!

We'll get you there yet!

 

[MarkvW]

My advice to you role playing a wannabe lawyer is never be a self litigant. Self litigants are generally known to have idiots as clients!

. . . it's "fools for clients." Big difference between a fool and an idiot. It's not stupidity or idiocy that defeats self-lawyering, it's foolishness--the inability to apply cold reason to emotionally charged problems.

But what's wrong with my post? Are insults all you can do?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Good! Now present the analysis supporting each conclusion!

We'll get you there yet!

Ok.

Are the Feds investigating Lance inc. Why, yes they are. Yes, they really really are.
Will they have difficulties with SOL. Yes. How difficult? Quite difficult.
Does that mean they cannot proceed. No. Why not? Because there can be extensions on some SOLs up to 8 years.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But what's wrong with my post? Are insults all you can do?

The post where you suggested that Lance might be offered immunity?
Remember Lance isn't going to be charged - because of the SOL and any evidence won't be in context.....etc etc. Have you seen his tax returns? Have you seen Matlock?

 

[Anonymous]

I ran "racketeer influenced" & "equitable tolling"& ti("United States") and got 26 cases. I added the "united states" in the title to weed out the civil RICO cases, because in every criminal fed prosecution the US is a party. This left a bunch of cases where the US was the defendant or the case was noncriminal (irrelevant) and where the defendant was trying to use equitable tolling to get around a postconviction relief time bar (irrelevant).
Only one case mentioned equitable tolling--Kozeny (which I've already mentioned). The mention was brief--the opinion merely stated that the government had failed in an earlier attempt to use equitable tolling.

Read US V. Atiyeh, 402 F.3d 354 at 367. Show me a case where equitable tolling EVER extended the SOL in a criminal case! You can't.

Okay, so I read it, and found the language related (but nowhere near being on point for a reason I will highlight. I guess you quoted a case without reading it, or maybe you just can't read, anyway...) to equitable tolling:
"The Government, as a fallback to its unpersuasive statutory interpretation argument, argues that because it relied in good faith on the order of the Grand Jury Supervising Judge suspending the statute of limitations, we should apply equitable tolling to save the untimely counts in the indictment. Although we have never foreclosed the possibility that equitable tolling applies to criminal statutes of limitations, see United States v. Midgley,142 F.3d 174, 178 (3d Cir.1998) (observing "that criminal statutes of limitations are subject to tolling, suspension, and waiver"), we may invoke the doctrine "only sparingly," and under very narrow circumstances. Irwin v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs,498 U.S. 89, 96, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990). "Absent a showing of intentional inducement or trickery by the defendant, a statute of limitations should be tolled only in the `rare situation where equitable tolling is demanded by sound legal principles as well as the interest of justice.'" Midgley, 142 F.3d at 179 (quoting Alvarez-Machain v. United States,96 F.3d 1246, 1251 (9th Cir.1996))."

The bolded section makes this ruling immaterial to the Armstrong case unless you can show me an order by the "Grand Jury Supervising Judge suspending the statute of limitations" that Novitzki is in good faith relying upon right now.

The underlined section is the part you have yet to conquer with your "it cannot apply to criminal cases." You might blow smoke up the a$$es of the rest of these guys (you aren't, you just think you are), but I have a smokeless a$$hole at this point.

Here is the RICO handbook: http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/rico.pdf

Go to page 388 and start reading. Then come back and explain how you have the information regarding this particular investigation to prove that the prosecutors and investigators are sleeping on their case and have stupidly allowed their case to be ruined. You'd figure that if they knew they would have no case because the SOL ran, they would just drop it. The running of the statute is an affirmative defense, so Tex can certainly make a case, but I am guessing that if they are going to the expense (and according to the protestations of the Uniballer's fans, it is expensive as heck) of pursuing these charges because they know that they will lose on the SOL. You just want us to think they will for some reason.

Past that, keep picking on the guys here who are not trained legally, it must make you feel really good. It must also suck to be challenged by a 2L who sees through your bull****. Better warm up the CAPS LOCK dude, because I am done with midterms tomorrow, and I will have a bit more time to dedicate to deconstructing the arguments you have made to see if they hold water. So far, your batting average seems a bit suspect. I wonder, are you in AA, because you don't appear to be in the big leagues, or at least I hope not.