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

[Anonymous]

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.

I don't think the case on that is closed yet. From my reading, the statute it much too open to render any of us having ANY idea of the facts and evidence in the hands of the Feds, and as such cannot in ANY WAY render judgment on the question of SOL. Just because MarkvW can create lots of smoke and noise with legalese doesn't mean he is any more right than someone saying that the SOL will not be an issue. He just wants you to think he is more legitimate because he uses "terms of art" and quotes cases from Westlaw or Nexis.

Personally, I think the guy is full of it, but I will give his proclamations a good looking into this weekend.

 

[Anonymous]

. . . 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?

Your whole posting style is an insult. Someone here said you claimed you were not an attorney. Mmmmkay, so did you flunk the Bar, or are you, like me, still in school? Maybe a paralegal, but nothing short of that for sure. You used the **** out of Westlaw (or was it Lexis? I don't know terms and connectors in Lexis because I like Westlaw's interface better) today, so unless you are cash strong and like to get your jollies by paying buckets of money to have access to legal databases for no real reason (maybe a reporter, but you don't come across as a reporter...or are you.......nah, couldn't be), you are here insulting the intelligence of everyone with your charade.

 

[Velodude]

. . . 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?

I prefer idiots to fools - cos that fits the bill.

Your post has already been subject to critiques but I shall add:

MarkvW wrote:

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 acted upon the Landis 2010 email. That email only relates to US Postal and Armstrong. Armstrong is the catalyst.

MarkvW wrote:

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.

The proving of the Postal doping is no legal problem. No documents required just eyewitness accounts from team members showing a pre 2002 pattern and 2002-2004 events. That team members admitted to their own and witnessed others drug administering under team directions of drugs supplied by the team and (illegally) self administered.

MarkvW wrote:

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.

That would give him a get out of jail for free card. LA would tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth to avoid jail time. Everyone will have immunity so Feds cannot present a case for prosecution. Good one counselor!

Remember Bonds was not about Bonds but about BALCO. Feds were prosecuting BALCO.

 

[Martin318is]

ding ding ding!

Okay everybody - end of the round. Back to your corners and take a breather for a few minutes or so.

When you come back to post, lets try to do it by discussing the topic and not just insulting each other.

Or the usual comment from moderators at this point will apply.

 

[MarkvW]

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.

Do you honestly think that equitable tolling plays ANY role involving Armstrong? Show me the trickery! Show me the rare circumstances that apply here! I didn't bring up that inapplicable doctrine. That was somebody else's legal absurdity. Use your Westlaw to come up with one case where the feds got a CRIMINAL SOL extended by equitable tolling.

Your vulgar language doesn't further your argument. And why parrot the argument that there is no SOL problem because the feds must know what they are doing. That's not particularly insightful.

I have never suggested that the prosecutors are sleeping on their case. I suggest that they have difficult issues to resolve because of the age of the case. They play the hand they're dealt. I'm interested in discussing, realistically, what that hand is.

You say the feds are "pursuing charges" against Armstrong? Back that statement up. What charges are they pursuing? How do you know?

 

[MarkvW]

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?

He certainly wouldn't be charged if he was offered immunity!
What makes you think Lance won't be charged? I haven't seen an indication one way or the other.
I never liked Matlock. The current show with Kathy Bates is REALLY good!

 

[Anonymous]

Do you honestly think that equitable tolling plays ANY role involving Armstrong? Show me the trickery! Show me the rare circumstances that apply here! I didn't bring up that inapplicable doctrine. That was somebody else's legal absurdity. Use your Westlaw to come up with one case where the feds got a CRIMINAL SOL extended by equitable tolling.

Your vulgar language doesn't further your argument. And why parrot the argument that there is no SOL problem because the feds must know what they are doing. That's not particularly insightful.

1. You said that equitable tolling is not pertinent to criminal law. Case law says differently. Don't blame me that you misspoke.

2. Use Westlaw to prove they can't...oh wait, you can't.

3. Why create the argument that there is a problem with the SOL when YOU don't know the evidence in the hands of the Federal Investigators. I did a quick read through of RICO and IF they charge him under that statute (and logic says they are at least looking into it, otherwise he SOL issue WOULD HAVE ended any investigation into Armstrong.) then there is plenty of room for them to capture events 10 years prior to the final act of conspiracy. (if there was a conspiracy) So long as that final act was within the SOL which, barring any unseen issue with bank fraud, would be 5 years if my quick reading is correct.

4. The vulgar language wasn't there to further my argument, it was there as a representation of how much distaste I have for someone who comes in here with legal training and beats on the locals to get his jollies.

I have never suggested that the prosecutors are sleeping on their case. I suggest that they have difficult issues to resolve because of the age of the case. They play the hand they're dealt. I'm interested in discussing, realistically, what that hand is.

You say the feds are "pursuing charges" against Armstrong? Back that statement up. What charges are they pursuing? How do you know?

Interesting, in one paragraph you discuss the Feds having a "case," then you ask in the next about how I know they are "pursuing charges." How do you know they have a "case" and if they didn't, why would you be discussing SOL in relation to Armstrong if Armstrong isn't being investigated? I mean, your whole case is based on the actions of Armstrong being too old and causing SOL problems...so if they aren't pursuing charges against him, why are you discussing it?

Me, I am going on the "where there is smoke" theory right now because I don't know what is going on (neither do you), so this is all just a friendly discussion...until someone comes in swinging with case law researched from very expensive legal databases. Then I get a little tweaked because it was done to obfuscate rather than illuminate.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

He certainly wouldn't be charged if he was offered immunity!
What makes you think Lance won't be charged? I haven't seen an indication one way or the other.
I never liked Matlock. The current show with Kathy Bates is REALLY good!

Oh, don't worry Mark - I believe he will be charged.

 

[MarkvW]

Oh, don't worry Mark - I believe he will be charged.

With what?

 

[MarkvW]

1. You said that equitable tolling is not pertinent to criminal law. Case law says differently. Don't blame me that you misspoke.

2. Use Westlaw to prove they can't...oh wait, you can't.

3. Why create the argument that there is a problem with the SOL when YOU don't know the evidence in the hands of the Federal Investigators. I did a quick read through of RICO and IF they charge him under that statute (and logic says they are at least looking into it, otherwise he SOL issue WOULD HAVE ended any investigation into Armstrong.) then there is plenty of room for them to capture events 10 years prior to the final act of conspiracy. (if there was a conspiracy) So long as that final act was within the SOL which, barring any unseen issue with bank fraud, would be 5 years if my quick reading is correct.

4. The vulgar language wasn't there to further my argument, it was there as a representation of how much distaste I have for someone who comes in here with legal training and beats on the locals to get his jollies.



Interesting, in one paragraph you discuss the Feds having a "case," then you ask in the next about how I know they are "pursuing charges." How do you know they have a "case" and if they didn't, why would you be discussing SOL in relation to Armstrong if Armstrong isn't being investigated? I mean, your whole case is based on the actions of Armstrong being too old and causing SOL problems...so if they aren't pursuing charges against him, why are you discussing it?

Me, I am going on the "where there is smoke" theory right now because I don't know what is going on (neither do you), so this is all just a friendly discussion...until someone comes in swinging with case law researched from very expensive legal databases. Then I get a little tweaked because it was done to obfuscate rather than illuminate.

Before you go all hogwild on the obfuscation theme, why don't you read my post no 308 in the Is Barrry Bonds' Trial the Hold Up thread.

I discuss Midgley and Atiyeh and point out the law.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

With what?

You seriously think Armstrong was not doping for Comeback 2. oh oh?
You think Michele provided his services for free?

Why do you think the only statement about the investigation that Armstrong made was to deny any ownership in the team?
Which of course we showed here within minutes was false.

 

[Anonymous]

Before you go all hogwild on the obfuscation theme, why don't you read my post no 308 in the Is Barrry Bonds' Trial the Hold Up thread.

I discuss Midgley and Atiyeh and point out the law.

Here is a quote from that post:

So, I was technically wrong in my last post. On the other hand, in the matter of Armstrong, there is zero likelihood that equitable tolling will be applied because the facts cannot support it.

Now, where do you get your information? I mean, it seems unlikely that they will use equitable tolling, but "zero?" You are presenting that you know the facts and evidence and you don't. Aren't you being a bit hypocritical in admonishing people for speculation about what is happening in the investigation when you too clearly are doing the same thing?

 

[MarkvW]

You seriously think Armstrong was not doping for Comeback 2. oh oh?
You think Michele provided his services for free?

Why do you think the only statement about the investigation that Armstrong made was to deny any ownership in the team?
Which of course we showed here within minutes was false.

Of course I think he was doping.
Of course he paid Ferrari money.

But where does that get us? My beliefs don't count for anything. Possession of dope is almost never done without the dope as evidence. You've got to prove he actually possessed the prohibited chemical. That's almost always done with lab analysis of the seized substance. We ain't getting that with experienced doper Armstrong. Maybe there is conspiracy to possess (if there's a snitch), but the feds don't do multimillion dollar investigations for possession, much less conspiracy to possess.

Ferrari? Can't Lance just say the payments were training consults? What would the feds have to rebut that? Lance might have been stupid on this one, though, because of the money laundering payment reporting statutes. I could see problems if he didn't disclose $10K+ payments as required. That could happen. He wants to hide his relationship with Ferrari so he lies on his disclosure forms. . . . That would be interesting (and no SOL problem either). That one makes sense. Definite possible.

Denial of ownership isn't a crime. The next question is what crime would that false denial be evidence of? I can't think of any.

 

[MarkvW]

Here is a quote from that post:


Now, where do you get your information? I mean, it seems unlikely that they will use equitable tolling, but "zero?" You are presenting that you know the facts and evidence and you don't. Aren't you being a bit hypocritical in admonishing people for speculation about what is happening in the investigation when you too clearly are doing the same thing?

Great. Thanks for reading. Yup. Zero, until you show me a case where equitable tolling was ever applied to extend the SOL in a criminal prosecution. There are few things I can be sure of, and this is one of them. You want to spend time researching equitable tolling, be my guest.

I'm not being hypocritical, I like your admonishments!

 

[Race Radio]

Of course I think he was doping.
Of course he paid Ferrari money.

But where does that get us? My beliefs don't count for anything. Possession of dope is almost never done without the dope as evidence. You've got to prove he actually possessed the prohibited chemical. That's almost always done with lab analysis of the seized substance. We ain't getting that with experienced doper Armstrong. Maybe there is conspiracy to possess (if there's a snitch), but the feds don't do multimillion dollar investigations for possession, much less conspiracy to possess.

Ferrari? Can't Lance just say the payments were training consults? What would the feds have to rebut that? Lance might have been stupid on this one, though, because of the money laundering payment reporting statutes. I could see problems if he didn't disclose $10K+ payments as required. That could happen. He wants to hide his relationship with Ferrari so he lies on his disclosure forms. . . . That would be interesting (and no SOL problem either). That one makes sense. Definite possible.

Denial of ownership isn't a crime. The next question is what crime would that false denial be evidence of? I can't think of any.

Do you really think we have seen all the evidence? Do you really think a guy who barely graduated high school never made a mistake? really?

Given we have multiple direct witnesses saying that Ferrari was paid for doping services, not interval workouts, it is not as simple as you are trying so hard to portray. Does not help that Armstrong is in multiple ads and interviews talking about how Chris Comical is his coach. Hard to explain the guy he gave millions of $$$ to, who BTW is going to prison for doping charges, is just a 2nd coach.

If it helps you then by all means continue pretending nothing will happen and they can't prove anything.....you have a couple more weeks of bliss

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Of course I think he was doping.
Of course he paid Ferrari money.

But where does that get us? My beliefs don't count for anything. Possession of dope is almost never done without the dope as evidence.

Now you are making something up so you can refute it.
Of course they are not going to find 'dope' - this is not about possession, this is about money.

You've got to prove he actually possessed the prohibited chemical. That's almost always done with lab analysis of the seized substance. We ain't getting that with experienced doper Armstrong. Maybe there is conspiracy to possess (if there's a snitch), but the feds don't do multimillion dollar investigations for possession, much less conspiracy to possess.

"Almost always", eh?
And in the other cases?

We are not discussing narcotics flown in from Columbia.
PEDs are approved drugs that have a legitimate use through prescription.

Ferrari? Can't Lance just say the payments were training consults? What would the feds have to rebut that? Lance might have been stupid on this one, though, because of the money laundering payment reporting statutes. I could see problems if he didn't disclose $10K+ payments as required. That could happen. He wants to hide his relationship with Ferrari so he lies on his disclosure forms. . . . That would be interesting (and no SOL problem either). That one makes sense. Definite possible.

He could say they were for training consults. Very expensive training consults.
(Of course saying he was training with Ferrari would put Michele in big difficulty in Italy)
You believe that will have been paid with from a checking account?

Denial of ownership isn't a crime. The next question is what crime would that false denial be evidence of? I can't think of any.

No denial of ownership is not a crime.
But why try and distance yourself (& be found out to be lying) that you are not involved in an honest and law abiding company?

 

[MarkvW]

Do you really think we have seen all the evidence? Do you really think a guy who barely graduated high school never made a mistake? really?

Given we have multiple direct witnesses saying that Ferrari was paid for doping services, not interval workouts, it is not as simple as you are trying so hard to portray.

If it helps you then by all means continue pretending nothing will happen and they can't prove anything

I'm not pretending nothing will happen. If you'd read my post you'd see I speculated that money laundering is a distinct possibility.

Maserati and I were disscussing the comeback. Please tell me who the multiple direct witnesses are for the comeback doping assistance of Ferrari. Or do you want to discuss the old stuff from the turn of the century?

I think Lance has made mistakes.

 

[MarkvW]

Now you are making something up so you can refute it.
Of course they are not going to find 'dope' - this is not about possession, this is about money.


"Almost always", eh?
And in the other cases?

We are not discussing narcotics flown in from Columbia.
PEDs are approved drugs that have a legitimate use through prescription.


He could say they were for training consults. Very expensive training consults.
(Of course saying he was training with Ferrari would put Michele in big difficulty in Italy)
You believe that will have been paid with from a checking account?



No denial of ownership is not a crime.
But why try and distance yourself (& be found out to be lying) that you are not involved in an honest and law abiding company?

Are we talking about crimes or are we talking about why we should hate Lance? Or are they both the same thing?

Reread my post. I speculate that money laundering is a definite possibility. If they have Ferrari's records, and those records describe +$10K payments that Armstrong didn't report, then they are quite a ways toward proving Armstrong did not make the required disclosures.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm not pretending nothing will happen. If you'd read my post you'd see I speculated that money laundering is a distinct possibility.

Maserati and I were disscussing the comeback. Please tell me who the multiple direct witnesses are for the comeback doping assistance of Ferrari. Or do you want to discuss the old stuff from the turn of the century?

I think Lance has made mistakes.

From Sports Illustrated:

Around 8 p.m. on Nov. 11, 2010, Italian police and customs officials acting at the behest of agents of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pulled over Yaroslav Popovych as he drove on a roundabout in Quarrata, a quaint Tuscan village of stucco facades and colorful shutters between Pistoia and Florence. The officials had been looking for Popovych, one of Lance Armstrong's Radio Shack teammates, to execute a search warrant. Italian authorities say the Ukrainian cyclist was startled but cooperative. He led them through olive groves to his house beside a cemetery. There the officials found drug-testing documents, medical supplies and performance-enhancing drugs. They also found e-mails and texts that, they say, establish that as recently as 2009 Armstrong's team had links to controversial Italian physician Michele Ferrari, with whom the Texan had said he cut ties in 2004.

 

[Race Radio]

I'm not pretending nothing will happen. If you'd read my post you'd see I speculated that money laundering is a distinct possibility.

Maserati and I were disscussing the comeback. Please tell me who the multiple direct witnesses are for the comeback doping assistance of Ferrari. Or do you want to discuss the old stuff from the turn of the century?

I think Lance has made mistakes.

Could you tell us again about RICO and SOL?

limitations period begins to run at the time of the last substantive violation committed by the defendant

Hummm, which teammate was arrested, found with drugs, and is trying to figure out how to stay out of jail? Which co-conspirator is looking at spending a large portion of the rest of his life in prison?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Are we talking about crimes or are we talking about why we should hate Lance? Or are they both the same thing?

I am talking about crimes.
Although your attempt at introducing the word "hater" has been noted.

As you are the internet lawyer, can you show legal ways why Armstrong might be in possession of EPO and sharing it with other (healthy) riders?

Reread my post. I speculate that money laundering is a definite possibility. If they have Ferrari's records, and those records describe +$10K payments that Armstrong didn't report, then they are quite a ways toward proving Armstrong did not make the required disclosures.

So?
You want to ignore what the money laundering was for. You might want to consider why the FDA were the ones to open investigations.

 

[Race Radio]

You want to ignore what the money laundering was for. You might want to consider why the FDA were the ones to open investigations.

And why the DEA, FBI, and IRS are involved.....sure it is all just a witch hunt. All those investigators who have no understanding of the law. Our tax dollars at work. blah, blah, blah

 

[Anonymous]

Great. Thanks for reading. Yup. Zero, until you show me a case where equitable tolling was ever applied to extend the SOL in a criminal prosecution. There are few things I can be sure of, and this is one of them. You want to spend time researching equitable tolling, be my guest.

I'm not being hypocritical, I like your admonishments!

I am not sure how you can be 100% sure when the court in Midgley clearly stated it was a relevant consideration in very limited circumstances. How do you know that neither of us can find the case because some District court used the idea and it was never appealed? As for searching more, I am still studying, so these little forays into legal la la land.

However, nothing you can say counters the fact that equitable tolling can apply in criminal cases...unless the court in Midgley was wrong. And please don't quote Atiyeh again because that case had nothing to do with equitable tolling based on the conduct of the defendant. It was the judge's actions that didn't allow the concept to be used. It is there clear as day. The fact that you do not see that makes me question if you even understand the basics of equitable tolling, because that has to do with actions on the part of a defendant (if criminal, which Midgley says is possible, or a defendant in a civil case, or a prisoner appealing to a higher court), but has nothing to do with the prosecution relying on a judge overseeing a GJ giving telling a prosecutor that the SOL won't run, and that prosecutor relying on that judges decision erroneously. If you don't know the difference, quit talking about the subject please.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

And why the DEA, FBI, and IRS are involved.....sure it is all just a witch hunt. All those investigators who have no understanding of the law. Our tax dollars at work. blah, blah, blah

The IRS doesn't send forensic accountants to Switzerland to examine banking records on any old hunch.

 

[Anonymous]

The IRS doesn't send forensic accountants to Switzerland to examine banking records on any old hunch.

And you add in some form of bank fraud and RICO (if that statute is used) becomes a real solid mother****er. But I am sure they sent them there because the SOL had run, and they had nothing better to do...