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

[MarkvW]

Errr, Counselor, Victor Conte was not given immunity cos he was a target not a witness. A plea bargain was struck with prosecutors and in July 2005 he entered guilty pleas and was sentenced in October of that year.

A couple of quotes confirming that the Fifth Amendment does not apply when there exists a grant of immunity.

They're still protected by the Fifth Amendment, silly. It still APPLIES (and you said it didn't apply). It's the privilege against self-incrimination--not the privilege to keep your mouth closed.

 

[Mambo95]

First you would have to explain where I ever claimed that those were the issues that concern me and offend me. They are not.

No, you said "If you can't see the difference between the Armstrong fraud and the Ullrich "fraud," then honestly...I can't help you"

I was just asking you to educate me. If you can't, then you can't. No problem there. I can't explain string theory. I just don't imply that I can, though.

 

[Granville57]

No, you said "If you can't see the difference between the Armstrong fraud and the Ullrich "fraud," then honestly...I can't help you"

I was just asking you to educate me. If you can't, then you can't.

We're in agreement then.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No opinion either way is based on fact. Your opinion that there's going to be a big trial isn't supported by any facts either.

Another strawman - I have never said there will be a "big trial".
However, as there is an ongoing investigation - I think the chances of this going to trial are a lot higher then your hope, I mean opinion.

So I have an obsession with Armstrong? You like facts. Here's some facts:

Posts my Dr Maserati in the last week: 58
Posts on this thread: 54 (93%)

Posts by Mambo95 in last week: 24
Posts on this thread: 13 (54%)

Who's obsessed?

You're obsessed with Armstrong - I am obsessed with exposing the untruths that people like yourself & others continue to post here.

 

[MarkvW]

Another strawman - I have never said there will be a "big trial".
However, as there is an ongoing investigation - I think the chances of this going to trial are a lot higher then your hope, I mean opinion.





You're obsessed with Armstrong - I am obsessed with exposing the untruths that people like yourself & others continue to post here.

That's good enough! You can be in the obsessed with Lance club too!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, you said "If you can't see the difference between the Armstrong fraud and the Ullrich "fraud," then honestly...I can't help you"

I was just asking you to educate me. If you can't, then you can't. No problem there. I can't explain string theory. I just don't imply that I can, though.

Here are some questions for you - to help educate you.
How much did Ullrich give in donations to the UCI?
Did Ullrich ever get a backdated TUE?
Did Ullrich have a positive or suspicious result not pursued?
Did Ullrich get OOC testing notification from the UCI?

I have more homework for you when you finish that.

 

[MarkvW]

Here are some questions for you - to help educate you.
How much did Ullrich give in donations to the UCI?
Did Ullrich ever get a backdated TUE?
Did Ullrich have a positive or suspicious result not pursued?
Did Ullrich get OOC testing notification from the UCI?

I have more homework for you when you finish that.

And what makes you think that Lance was the only beneficiary of such largesse? Did Lance despoil the UCI virgin or was the UCI a going brothel long before Lance came to town?

 

[mewmewmew13]

Here are some questions for you - to help educate you.
How much did Ullrich give in donations to the UCI?
Did Ullrich ever get a backdated TUE?
Did Ullrich have a positive or suspicious result not pursued?
Did Ullrich get OOC testing notification from the UCI?

I have more homework for you when you finish that.

I can add some to this lesson.
Who is considered to be a genuinely nice person? hint: Jan
Who is considered to be a genuine a**h** with a vindictive personality? hint: not Jan
Did Ullrich ever go to great lengths to make sure someone was fired or spread bad information and lies about them?
.......

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And what makes you think that Lance was the only beneficiary of such largesse?


Did Lance despoil the UCI virgin or was the UCI a going brothel long before Lance came to town?

Ok, even though you didn't answer any of your homework you have acknowledged that Lance did benefit - so can you show me another rider who "benefited" or are we back to the whole opinion based on hope and not fact thing again.

 

[Velodude]

They're still protected by the Fifth Amendment, silly. It still APPLIES (and you said it didn't apply). It's the privilege against self-incrimination--not the privilege to keep your mouth closed.

I am pleased this Forum sorted out months ago from forcing your own admission that you have no legal training and experience.

Once a witness has received a grant of immunity he/she is impaired to claim their right to invoke the Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination as a legal basis for refusing to testify.

I bet you cannot provide links to support your nonsensical contrary view that the Fifth Amendment "privilege" against self incrimination still applies with a grant of immunity. For to exercise your Fifth Amendment right you must refuse to testify on the grounds of self incrimination whereas a grant of immunity protects you against self incrimination.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Nothing like a spirit-crushing, money-sapping trial for our entertainment! But the feds almost NEVER go to trial when the odds are 50-50. They come loaded for awesomeness!

How come it's relevant that "the feds almost never go to trial" but it's not relevant that a grand jury almost never fails to indict?

IIRC, you describe the latter as a sleazy argument.

Also, where do the 50-50 odds come in? Is that a number you plucked out of thin air because it suits you agenda, or are we back talking about halfwits and nitwits?

@Granville57, liverich.org . Where can I get the gold bracelet?

 

[MarkvW]

I am pleased this Forum sorted out months ago from forcing your own admission that you have no legal training and experience.

Once a witness has received a grant of immunity he/she is impaired to claim their right to invoke the Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination as a legal basis for refusing to testify.

I bet you cannot provide links to support your nonsensical contrary view that the Fifth Amendment "privilege" against self incrimination still applies with a grant of immunity. For to exercise your Fifth Amendment right you must refuse to testify on the grounds of self incrimination whereas a grant of immunity protects you against self incrimination.

When you're talking about immunity are you talking about USE immunity or TRANSACTIONAL immunity? Does the Fifth Amendment right apply in both situations or in neither situation? Does the Fifth Amendment play any role in determining the scope of a grant of immunity?

 

[mewmewmew13]

G57...I think you are on to something here!
I , too, would love to have a gold LiveRich stretchy bracelet. You've got a pretty good market of takers here on the forum already....

 

[MarkvW]

How come it's relevant that "the feds almost never go to trial" but it's not relevant that a grand jury almost never fails to indict?

IIRC, you describe the latter as a sleazy argument.

Also, where do the 50-50 odds come in? Is that a number you plucked out of thin air because it suits you agenda, or are we back talking about halfwits and nitwits?

@Granville57, liverich.org . Where can I get the gold bracelet?

The Feds only seek indictments for cases that are really strong. And it is easy to get an indictment. All you have to do is present enough evidence to demonstrate that the person probably committed the crime.

All I'm saying is that the feds are not going to charge Lance if it is a really close question of guilt (what I was trying to express by 50-50). If they do charge him, Lance should be very fearful.

 

[mewmewmew13]

The Feds only seek indictments for cases that are really strong. And it is easy to get an indictment. All you have to do is present enough evidence to demonstrate that the person probably committed the crime.

All I'm saying is that the feds are not going to charge Lance if it is a really close question of guilt (what I was trying to express by 50-50). If they do charge him, Lance should be very fearful.

Sounds familiar

 

[Velodude]

The Feds only seek indictments for cases that are really strong. And it is easy to get an indictment. All you have to do is present enough evidence to demonstrate that the person probably committed the crime.

All I'm saying is that the feds are not going to charge Lance if it is a really close question of guilt (what I was trying to express by 50-50). If they do charge him, Lance should be very fearful.

So why is the renown "Lance Armstrong Investigation" before a Federal Grand Jury in LA, California since mid 2010 if the Feds are not confident of indicting/charging Armstrong?

It is beyond "if they charge him".

When you're talking about immunity are you talking about USE immunity or TRANSACTIONAL immunity? Does the Fifth Amendment right apply in both situations or in neither situation? Does the Fifth Amendment play any role in determining the scope of a grant of immunity?

Counselor, you are attempting to show your prowess at Googling to deflect from your totally inane and embarrassing answer that a grant of immunity does not impair a witness' Fifth Amendment rights.

I hope for your sake that you are more proficient in your real life career than this forum role playing lawyer.

 

[MarkvW]

So why is the renown "Lance Armstrong Investigation" before a Federal Grand Jury in LA, California since mid 2010 if the Feds are not confident of indicting/charging Armstrong?

It is beyond "if they charge him".



Counselor, you are attempting to show your prowess at Googling to deflect from your totally inane and embarrassing answer that a grant of immunity does not impair a witness' Fifth Amendment rights.

I hope for your sake that you are more proficient in your real life career than this forum role playing lawyer.

I'm saying that the Fifth Amendment always applies--even when a person is granted immunity. When a person is granted immunity, the Fifth Amendment protects the person (and applies) because the witnesses' immunized testimony cannot be used against the witness.

A person ALWAYS has Fifth Amendment rights. Even when the person is immunized. ---edited by mod---

 

[Velodude]

I'm saying that the Fifth Amendment always applies--even when a person is granted immunity. When a person is granted immunity, the Fifth Amendment protects the person (and applies) because the witnesses' immunized testimony cannot be used against the witness.

A person ALWAYS has Fifth Amendment rights. Even when the person is immunized. ---edited---.

"I'm saying" is not an authority.

Show the forum the links to authorities you must tacitly claim exist to support your opinion.

The Fifth Amendment against self incrimination does not apply as a grant of immunity protects the witness against self incrimination.

*** edited by mod ***

 

[MacRoadie]

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/757/757.F2d.1580.85-2111.85-2109.html

At the request of the United States Attorney pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 6003, the district court entered anticipatory orders pursuant to Sec. 6002 compelling the testimony of all appellants, and granting them immunity in any criminal prosecution according to the provisions of Sec. 6002.2 Appellants, however, refused to testify, asserting their privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment.3 After being informed by the district court of the Sec. 6002 provisions for immunity, of the court's determination that their defenses would not apply, and of the possibility that they would be held in contempt of court for continued refusal to testify, appellants again all indicated that they would not answer any of the grand jury's questions. The district court subsequently issued orders holding each of the appellants in civil contempt pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1826(a).4 Appellants were ordered confined in custody until the expiration of the term of the grand jury on March 18, 1986.

US Code - Section 6002: Immunity generally

Whenever a witness refuses, on the basis of his privilege against
self-incrimination, to testify or provide other information in a
proceeding before or ancillary to -
(1) a court or grand jury of the United States,
(2) an agency of the United States, or
(3) either House of Congress, a joint committee of the two
Houses, or a committee or a subcommittee of either House,
and the person presiding over the proceeding communicates to the
witness an order issued under this title, the witness may not
refuse to comply with the order on the basis of his privilege
against self-incrimination; but no testimony or other information
compelled under the order (or any information directly or
indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be
used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution
for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to
comply with the order.

Get subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury, assert your right aginst self-incrimination, receive a grant of immunity, still refuse to testify, go to jail. Simple.

Get a grant of immunity, then lie under oath or otherwise obstruct, still go to jail. Very simple.

 

[MarkvW]

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/757/757.F2d.1580.85-2111.85-2109.html



US Code - Section 6002: Immunity generally



Get subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury, assert your right aginst self-incrimination, receive a grant of immunity, still refuse to testify, go to jail. Simple.

Get a grant of immunity, then lie under oath or otherwise obstruct, still go to jail. Very simple.

That is the right against self incrimination in action, fairly described.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

The Feds only seek indictments for cases that are really strong.'...'

Precisely. They have a really strong case.

'...'All I'm saying is that the feds are not going to charge Lance if it is a really close question of guilt (what I was trying to express by 50-50).

Fair enough.

 

[Race Radio]

No, you said "If you can't see the difference between the Armstrong fraud and the Ullrich "fraud," then honestly...I can't help you"

I was just asking you to educate me. If you can't, then you can't. No problem there. I can't explain string theory. I just don't imply that I can, though.

Did Ulrich Pay off the UCI?
Did Jan intimidate any witnesses and actively impede a investigation?

There has already has been a German Federal investigation into Ulrich. Jan was smart, he settled and paid a significant penalty. Hopefully Armstrong is smart enough to do the same.

 

[ChrisE]

I am pleased this Forum sorted out months ago from forcing your own admission that you have no legal training and experience.

Once a witness has received a grant of immunity he/she is impaired to claim their right to invoke the Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination as a legal basis for refusing to testify.

I bet you cannot provide links to support your nonsensical contrary view that the Fifth Amendment "privilege" against self incrimination still applies with a grant of immunity. For to exercise your Fifth Amendment right you must refuse to testify on the grounds of self incrimination whereas a grant of immunity protects you against self incrimination.

Of course, even my dumbazz told him upthread they would be tossed in jail if they were granted immunity and still refused to testify.

 

[ChrisE]

Did Ulrich Pay off the UCI?
Did Jan intimidate any witnesses and actively impede a investigation?

There has already has been a German Federal investigation into Ulrich. Jan was smart, he settled and paid a significant penalty. Hopefully Armstrong is smart enough to do the same.

You don't know if he ever paid the UCI or not. This has been debated to death on here.

 

[Race Radio]

You don't know if he ever paid the UCI or not. This has been debated to death on here.

The UCI says he paid them
Lance says he paid them
Head of the Lab said positive test was ignored and Hog was given special access
Armstrong and Verburggen were business partners
Lance told multiple teammates and staff he paid off the UCI

You may not think there is an problem but Armstrong clearly thinks he is in trouble. He hired a lawyer who specializes in FCPA cases and obsessively follows a Doug Miller FCPA case