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

[Dr. Maserati]

Minor point: Conte was not the manufacturer of the "the Clear". That dubious distinction belongs to Patrick Arnold.

Actually it is not a minor point - it is exactly the point.
If it was discussed in a forum as LA is being discussed he would be as (if not moreso) guilty than the bio-chemist. "The guy owned the business that made unapproved drugs, he is probably looking at 10 years for that alone...."

 

[thehog]

My sentiments exactly.

Could SCA produce a trump card?

eg Pay up WonderBoy or else we ask the relevant authorities to persue a perjury charge.

I still think that a perjury charge could be one of the more serious charges he may face.

Does perjury lead to the same house as Marion was forced to stay at?

stay tuned
.

No need to threaten. Once the Federal ruling is made they can lodge an appeal to re-open the case based on the new evidence. This would be enough. Armstrong/Tailwind would begin negotiation with SCA and come to an agreement that SCA wouldn’t to pursue the matter any further for 20m over 3 years - job done. The case wouldn’t reach an open court.

If it did SCA would murder them based on the lies and fabrications told at the hearing and all that is uncovered in the Federal ruling. There are several clauses in the contract in regards to “good faith” – “within the legal premise” etc. that they’d get him on. Doping and number of wins etc. is no longer relevant.

 

[Cloxxki]

Actually it is not a minor point - it is exactly the point.
If it was discussed in a forum as LA is being discussed he would be as (if not moreso) guilty than the bio-chemist. "The guy owned the business that made unapproved drugs, he is probably looking at 10 years for that alone...."

Please say you don't mean this in relation to HemAssist.
Someone "lost" a couple of boxes. Half a career's worth for a well responding cyclist. The owner or CEO of the producer goes to jail, and the guy that used it to defrauded 28 million cancer sufferers, donors and all who stood in line for bullying, he goes free?

 

[Velodude]

No need to threaten. Once the Federal ruling is made they can lodge an appeal to re-open the case based on the new evidence. This would be enough. Armstrong/Tailwind would begin negotiation with SCA and come to an agreement that SCA wouldn’t to pursue the matter any further for 20m over 3 years - job done. The case wouldn’t reach an open court.

If it did SCA would murder them based on the lies and fabrications told at the hearing and all that is uncovered in the Federal ruling. There are several clauses in the contract in regards to “good faith” – “within the legal premise” etc. that they’d get him on. Doping and number of wins etc. is no longer relevant.

Someone with decisive powers would need to look carefully at the settlement and release documents between SCA and Tailwind (and its servants and/or agents) settling the litigation.

They are usually drawn up to be all encompassing to preclude any legal action of any kind between the parties relating to a usual recital of all the events.

It could be if LA was stripped of any TdF win on which SCA paid a bonus to Tailwind the settlement and release agreement would prevent SCA revisiting the matter under any circumstance unless the settlement agreement was obtained by Tailwind's fraud (through its shareholder/director Armstrong who claims only to be an employee).

 

[python]

It does - however it did not involve you, this is a different matter involving Python from another thread.

both of us quoted you directly from this thread. how does this relate to other threads meserati.

you engaged in the pointless arguments with larry for OVER 10 pages, way before i noted them and now because you can not face the music your 'dance' with larry was about me ??

you failed meserati to note that your deflections are being done in public, bud (wink emoticon)

 

[MarkvW]

both of us quoted you directly from this thread. how does this relate to other threads meserati.

you engaged in the pointless arguments with larry for over 10 pages way before i noted them and now you can not face the music. you failed meserati to note that your deflections were done in public.

Ah, let it slide. You've made your point and Maserati will never agree that you have made your point. Impasse. Peace!

 

[LarryBudMelman]

LBM -

It seems you're saying that anybody can lie on the stand or to the GJ about anything, as long as their lies don't pertain to the "subject" being investigated?

If the questions have no relevance to any crimes, why are they being asked in the first place.

So, if I ever get subpenaed and they ask me to state my name, I can say "Larry Bud Melman"? Then, shoot my finger at them when it pizzes them off?

You can try that, I wouldn't. I'm not a lawyer but I actually think there is settled law on the necessity of identifying yourself to the ahh, proper authorities..

When does lying go from being "innocent" or "irrelevant" to obstruting justice?

I think that's up to the judge and the applicable case law. Things like discretion come into play, I would think.

In Jones v Clinton I believe the judge admitted to making a mistake in allowing the part of the deposition regarding Lewinsky. You can check it out. The problem for Clinton was that the damage was already done and to be arguing the merits at that point kills his PR, wouldn't you think?

He just wanted it to all go away.......

 

[DirtyWorks]

....I'm not a lawyer ....

Then please do not use legal anything like 'precedent' and 'settled law' among other things like you did in your last comment. It only adds junk to the already noisy thread.

 

[ChrisE]

If the questions have no relevance to any crimes, why are they being asked in the first place.


I think that's up to the judge and the applicable case law. Things like discretion come into play, I would think.

In Jones v Clinton I believe the judge admitted to making a mistake in allowing the part of the deposition regarding Lewinsky. You can check it out. The problem for Clinton was that the damage was already done and to be arguing the merits at that point kills his PR, wouldn't you think?

He just wanted it to all go away.......

I believe that you must answer any question truthfully, and you cannot willfully lie regardless of the question else it is perjury. In a trial, either the prosecution or the defense could object to an irrelevant line of questioning else witnesses must answer truthfully if they can. I'm not a lawyer either, maybe velodude will chime in.

Clinton's license got revoked. It would seem that somebody other than the judge thought he did something wrong (in terms of what he said on the stand, not the farcical ordeal in general).

 

[MarkvW]

I believe that you must answer any question truthfully, and you cannot willfully lie regardless of the question else it is perjury. In a trial, either the prosecution or the defense could object to an irrelevant line of questioning else witnesses must answer truthfully if they can. I'm not a lawyer either, maybe velodude will chime in.

Clinton's license got revoked. It would seem that somebody other than the judge thought he did something wrong (in terms of what he said on the stand, not the farcical ordeal in general).

The word you're looking for is "materiality." It isn't perjury if you testify under oath about something immaterial. For example, if I'm in a civil deposition under oath as only a witness, in an auto accident case, and I'm asked if I ever engaged in intercourse before I was married, and I lied, that would NOT be perjury because no way is a witness' pre-marriage sexual history material to an auto accident case.

It is safe to say that if the witness lies in response to a relevant question asked in an official proceeding, then the witness is at risk for perjury.

Criminal prosecutions for perjury occurring in civil cases are pretty rare.

 

[Ferminal]

both of us quoted you directly from this thread. how does this relate to other threads meserati.

you engaged in the pointless arguments with larry for OVER 10 pages, way before i noted them and now because you can not face the music your 'dance' with larry was about me ??

you failed meserati to note that your deflections are being done in public, bud (wink emoticon)

Ah, let it slide. You've made your point and Maserati will never agree that you have made your point. Impasse. Peace!

You've got it Mark, let's not keep coming back to this one please.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Who takes all this so damn seriously that they disable their emoticons, anyway?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Then please do not use legal anything like 'precedent' and 'settled law' among other things like you did in your last comment. It only adds junk to the already noisy thread.

What's the precedent for not allowing anyone other than a lawyer to use the word precedent?

 

[ChrisE]

The word you're looking for is "materiality." It isn't perjury if you testify under oath about something immaterial. For example, if I'm in a civil deposition under oath as only a witness, in an auto accident case, and I'm asked if I ever engaged in intercourse before I was married, and I lied, that would NOT be perjury because no way is a witness' pre-marriage sexual history material to an auto accident case.

It is safe to say that if the witness lies in response to a relevant question asked in an official proceeding, then the witness is at risk for perjury.

Criminal prosecutions for perjury occurring in civil cases are pretty rare.

I could say something here about the premarital sex/driving/accident, but with the heightened sense of security around here I will pass.

I'm still fuzzy on this.....people are under oath to tell the truth. People are not under "I will tell the truth unless I find it irrelevant oath". That is for others to decide, not the witness or the deposed. I would hope lawyers wouldn't ask about the sex lives of people in relation to something that has nothing to do with it, so I find your example a little preposterous to consider it a good example.

If LA says in SCA he paid the UCI much less money than he actually did or he claims he doesn't remember, is that perjury? If he says he wasn't on the board of Tailwind when he was, is that perjury? Why should it be under your definition (I think it is)? SCA was about whether he cheated to win 5 tours, not about the amount of money he "donated" to the UCI when it is public knowledge that he donated some amount or whether he was an owner in Tailwind at the time. So, was he free to lie about that?

Perhaps fraiming this in SCA is not good because it was civil, but what if he pulled the same thing in front of the GJ or on the stand?

 

[ChrisE]

What's the precedent for not allowing anyone other than a lawyer to use the word precedent?

I thought you were busy?

 

[doolols]

Who takes all this so damn seriously that they disable their emoticons, anyway?

I think that actually might be something to do with those annoying ads that seem to be proliferating all over the forum

 

[KingsMountain]

ChrisE,
Read about perjury in Federal cases here. It may be more than you want to know, but it does describe "materiality" on page 4. The paragraph begins "Materiality is perhaps the most nettlesome of perjury’s elements."

 

[ChrisE]

ChrisE,
Read about perjury in Federal cases here. It may be more than you want to know, but it does describe "materiality" on page 4. The paragraph begins "Materiality is perhaps the most nettlesome of perjury’s elements."

Thanks. I learned something today.

 

[LarryBudMelman]

Then please do not use legal anything like 'precedent' and 'settled law' among other things like you did in your last comment. It only adds junk to the already noisy thread.

Oh, you're being silly.

 

[MarkvW]

I could say something here about the premarital sex/driving/accident, but with the heightened sense of security around here I will pass.

I'm still fuzzy on this.....people are under oath to tell the truth. People are not under "I will tell the truth unless I find it irrelevant oath". That is for others to decide, not the witness or the deposed. I would hope lawyers wouldn't ask about the sex lives of people in relation to something that has nothing to do with it, so I find your example a little preposterous to consider it a good example.

If LA says in SCA he paid the UCI much less money than he actually did or he claims he doesn't remember, is that perjury? If he says he wasn't on the board of Tailwind when he was, is that perjury? Why should it be under your definition (I think it is)? SCA was about whether he cheated to win 5 tours, not about the amount of money he "donated" to the UCI when it is public knowledge that he donated some amount or whether he was an owner in Tailwind at the time. So, was he free to lie about that?

Perhaps fraiming this in SCA is not good because it was civil, but what if he pulled the same thing in front of the GJ or on the stand?

If you didn't have the materiality requirement, perjury could easily be abused. Imagine an out of control prosecutor who gets a witness in front of a grand jury and asks all sorts of irrelevant questions for the sole purpose of trying to set a perjury trap to catch a political opponent. That wouldn't be good.

 

[ChrisE]

If you didn't have the materiality requirement, perjury could easily be abused. Imagine an out of control prosecutor who gets a witness in front of a grand jury and asks all sorts of irrelevant questions for the sole purpose of trying to set a perjury trap to catch a political opponent. That wouldn't be good.

I agree. Isn't there a judge in the GJ process to reign in this type of activity, if it occurs?

 

[LarryBudMelman]

I believe that you must answer any question truthfully, and you cannot willfully lie regardless of the question else it is perjury. In a trial, either the prosecution or the defense could object to an irrelevant line of questioning else witnesses must answer truthfully if they can. I'm not a lawyer either, maybe velodude will chime in.

Clinton's license got revoked. It would seem that somebody other than the judge thought he did something wrong (in terms of what he said on the stand, not the farcical ordeal in general).

One thing that's pretty funny is the public misperception that if you spend a fortune on a lawyer you get good representation. Clinton's lawyer was Bill Bennetts brother and he was awful. All Clinton was looking for was temporary immunity from the civil suit until his term was over and Bennett couldn't even get that.

Bennett argued Seperation of Powers. What he should have argued is this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balancing_test

The SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that the civil trial should proceed immediately. Their rationale in letting the trial proceed was shown to be completely idiotic. Here is was Breyer and Stevens wrote. It proves that just because you're a legal genius you're not immune to massively effing up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones

In his concurring opinion, Breyer argued that presidential immunity would apply only if the President could show that a private civil lawsuit would somehow interfere with the President's constitutionally assigned duties.

In the Court's opinion in Clinton v. Jones, Stevens had written, "...it appears to us highly unlikely to occupy any substantial amount of petitioner's time."


Maybe you can tell me, did the civil lawsuit interfere with the POTUS constitutionally assigned duties and did it consume any of his time?

 

[LarryBudMelman]

If you didn't have the materiality requirement, perjury could easily be abused. Imagine an out of control prosecutor who gets a witness in front of a grand jury and asks all sorts of irrelevant questions for the sole purpose of trying to set a perjury trap to catch a political opponent. That wouldn't be good.

Exactly what Ken Starr did!

 

[LarryBudMelman]

I could say something here about the premarital sex/driving/accident, but with the heightened sense of security around here I will pass.

I'm still fuzzy on this.....people are under oath to tell the truth. People are not under "I will tell the truth unless I find it irrelevant oath". That is for others to decide, not the witness or the deposed. I would hope lawyers wouldn't ask about the sex lives of people in relation to something that has nothing to do with it, so I find your example a little preposterous to consider it a good example.

If LA says in SCA he paid the UCI much less money than he actually did or he claims he doesn't remember, is that perjury? If he says he wasn't on the board of Tailwind when he was, is that perjury? Why should it be under your definition (I think it is)? SCA was about whether he cheated to win 5 tours, not about the amount of money he "donated" to the UCI when it is public knowledge that he donated some amount or whether he was an owner in Tailwind at the time. So, was he free to lie about that?

Perhaps fraiming this in SCA is not good because it was civil, but what if he pulled the same thing in front of the GJ or on the stand?

It's up to your attorney to object to the admission of immaterial and irrelevant testimony. Then again, if the judge screws up and allows it, that cat's out of the bag as the case was with Clinton.

He's a liar no matter what he does. If he tells the truth about his affair, he's a lying adulterous disgrace, if he lies to save face and protect his family, he's guilty of perjury. All because immaterial questioning was incorrectly allowed.

 

[Polish]

Not sure what President Clinton has to do with the Lance thread?
Bill and Lance are friends - that's on topic I guess.
They worked together on some projects too
And they are both awesome. Bingo!