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

[Cimacoppi49]

I'll take a former attorney with many years of experience over a practicing "baby lawyer" any day. Seems law schools prefer it too. Lots of "experienced" lawyers, no longer practicing law.



Don't know, but both sound better than "random internet critic who's never even practiced law, but would rather attempt to discredit a poster than than provide a rational counterpoint to the opinion provided".

Curiously, whenever they need a learned commentator in the media to provide insight into leagal proceedings, they tend to prefer those "former" and "experienced" guys. They too, seem to still have their finger on the pulse of the legal community through these prior associations. Can't remember the last time a major, mainstream news organization cut away to seek expert commentary from the law student, rather than the professor...

Thanks. Would it also help that I'm a former administrative law judge for the City of NY commissioned under three mayors (Koch, Dinkins and Guiliani) and a former Assistant District Attorney?

 

[Cimacoppi49]

I'll take a former attorney with many years of experience over a practicing "baby lawyer" any day. Seems law schools prefer it too. Lots of "experienced" lawyers, no longer practicing law.



Don't know, but both sound better than "random internet critic who's never even practiced law, but would rather attempt to discredit a poster than than provide a rational counterpoint to the opinion provided".

Curiously, whenever they need a learned commentator in the media to provide insight into leagal proceedings, they tend to prefer those "former" and "experienced" guys. They too, seem to still have their finger on the pulse of the legal community through these prior associations. Can't remember the last time a major, mainstream news organization cut away to seek expert commentary from the law student, rather than the professor...

Thanks. Would it also help that I'm a former administrative law judge for the City of NY commissioned by three mayors (Koch, Dinkins and Guiliani) and a former Assistant District Attorney?

 

[Cimacoppi49]

I think I understand your reasoning. The Attorneys are making their motions because Lance is about to be charged and we know that Lance is about to be charged because the attorneys are making their motions.

Whatever.

No. You clearly don't understand. But, that's OK.

 

[JRTinMA]

Thanks. Would it also help that I'm a former administrative law judge for the City of NY commissioned by three mayors (Koch, Dinkins and Guiliani) and a former Assistant District Attorney?

Means nothing in the prediction department, I see you're back to imminent again. You need to cover the time between imminent and Christmas, maybe suggest halloween or thanksgiving.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Means nothing in the prediction department, I see you're back to imminent again. You need to cover the time between imminent and Christmas, maybe suggest halloween or thanksgiving.

Rotflmao!! I don't recall making any "predictions" here. Some things are likely to happen, but you really should use a dictionary more. As to anything being "imminent," you either missed or did not understand my comments to Polish in post #6010. If you need help understanding what I wrote, you might consider Sylvan Learning Centers. There are several in Massachusetts.
http://boston.sylvan-learning.info/slc/172/index_b.aspx

 

[thehog]

Means nothing in the prediction department, I see you're back to imminent again. You need to cover the time between imminent and Christmas, maybe suggest halloween or thanksgiving.

Love the sig!!

 

[MarkvW]

Thanks. Would it also help that I'm a former administrative law judge for the City of NY commissioned by three mayors (Koch, Dinkins and Guiliani) and a former Assistant District Attorney?

Not really. Saying "Trust me, I'm a lawyer." Isn't the most effective forensic device.

Only someone with inside information would know if an indictment is imminent--especially after all this time. You don't profess that (to your credit) and you provide no reasonable grounds for believing that Lance has inside knowledge.

If you want us to believe Lance will imminently be indicted, tell us, specifically what he will be indicted for (charge and date(s) of offense). If you can't do that, then you are just saying he will imminently be indicted for something based on your conversations with AUSAs not involved with the case and the fact that Lance is acting twitchy.

This is just another drumroll.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Not really. Saying "Trust me, I'm a lawyer." Isn't the most effective forensic device.

Only someone with inside information would know if an indictment is imminent--especially after all this time. You don't profess that (to your credit) and you provide no reasonable grounds for believing that Lance has inside knowledge.

If you want us to believe Lance will imminently be indicted, tell us, specifically what he will be indicted for (charge and date(s) of offense). If you can't do that, then you are just saying he will imminently be indicted for something based on your conversations with AUSAs not involved with the case and the fact that Lance is acting twitchy.

This is just another drumroll.

No. That's not what I'm saying at all. I think you know that. Try again.

If you go back and actually read my prior posts here, you will see that IMO it is likely Armstrong and others will be indicted under RICO with the underlying felonies including charges like conspiracy, fraud on the US government, insurance fraud, money laundering, income tax evasion, perjury, suborning perjury, mail and wire fraud, witness intimidation, drug smuggling, illegal use of prescription medications, practicing medicine without a license, and bribing foreign officials under the FCPA to name the most obvious. If I were privy to the grand jury investigation, which I certainly am not, I would still not be able to tell you with specificity what Armstrong and friends are facing due to grand jury secrecy requirements. Just like you, we all have to just sit back and be patient.

As to what we do "know" about the investigation thus far, we have reports, direct and indirect, of what several gj witnesses have testified to. We know about meetings between US and foreign investigators. We have reports in the press that Treasury Dept. forensic accountants have been in Switzerland examining bank records. So actually we can piece together pretty well, just as Armstrong's excellent counsel can, the scope and general direction of the government's investigation.

A final note. It seems that Fabiani has stopped harping on the FDA for investigating Armstrong. Perhaps this is because the press reports have made increasingly clear that the investigation involves many more agencies than the FDA. The list would include, FBI, IRS,Treasury Dept. (likely the Secret Service Electronic Crimes Task Force as well as other TD investigators like the aforementioned accountants), Department of State.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Cross-hairs

Lance Is In The Cross-hairs.

The brief filed Wednesday states that Armstrong's attorneys would gain access to information that they have no right to see at this point if the motion is unsealed or redacted. The motion "describes an ongoing, active, pre-indictment investigation for which secrecy is necessary to preserve its quality and integrity."
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/more/08/24/Armstrong-grand-jury-investigation.ap/index.html

 

[Polish]

Thanks. Would it also help that I'm a former administrative law judge for the City of NY commissioned by three mayors (Koch, Dinkins and Guiliani) and a former Assistant District Attorney?

Multiple incorrect predictions made by a retired Judge are just as bad as multiple incorrect predictions made by a Marine Biologist.

Some would argue worse, but not me.

I'm an Architect, and I predict the indictments will be handed down on Nigel Tufnel Day......11/11/11

 

[JRTinMA]

Love the sig!!

Respect, its your house.

 

[DirtyWorks]

If you want us to believe Lance will imminently be indicted, tell us, specifically what he will be indicted for (charge and date(s) of offense).

I don't want to know in advance. An unintended consequence of the 60 Minutes story was it generated a foothold for the Fabricator to try to weasel into the grand jury's information. (Nicely played by the Justice Department.)

Let them hang out in the wind with no information until at least the grand jury is ready. Ideally other enforcement agencies will have separate charges.


Finally, your request is impossible to fulfill and that doesn't discredit anyone. My understanding of the Grand Jury process is at the end, Wonderboy and hopefully the rest of Tailwind gets to meet with the Grand Jury to review the charges and maybe do a deal right there. If I'm wrong about the process, tell me so.

Based on politics alone, it's almost impossible to know what, if any charges go public.

 

[powerste]

Lance Is In The Cross-hairs.

The brief filed Wednesday states that Armstrong's attorneys would gain access to information that they have no right to see at this point if the motion is unsealed or redacted. The motion "describes an ongoing, active, pre-indictment investigation for which secrecy is necessary to preserve its quality and integrity."
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/more/08/24/Armstrong-grand-jury-investigation.ap/index.html

I love the difference in tone between the two sides. Yesterday & today's example:

"The government's furtive efforts to prevent Armstrong from seeing even a single word of their response is disingenuous, troubling and inconsistent with our justice system."

The motion "describes an ongoing, active, pre-indictment investigation for which secrecy is necessary to preserve its quality and integrity."

One of my favorite LOL aspects of the ongoing saga is the highly charged, accusatory babble of team LA vs clear and uncluttered counterpoint of the team who are actually in charge of this thing.

 

[MarkvW]

I don't want to know in advance. An unintended consequence of the 60 Minutes story was it generated a foothold for the Fabricator to try to weasel into the grand jury's information. (Nicely played by the Justice Department.)

Let them hang out in the wind with no information until at least the grand jury is ready. Ideally other enforcement agencies will have separate charges.


Finally, your request is impossible to fulfill and that doesn't discredit anyone. My understanding of the Grand Jury process is at the end, Wonderboy and hopefully the rest of Tailwind gets to meet with the Grand Jury to review the charges and maybe do a deal right there. If I'm wrong about the process, tell me so.

Based on politics alone, it's almost impossible to know what, if any charges go public.

I think that the GJ has been very secure. I'm aware of nothing that has been reported that hasn't sourced from a witness that has chosen to talk about his/her testimony. Out of such a secure proceeding, you can't reasonably infer that a charge is "imminent." What data do you rely on in trying to make such an inference? That's the gap in Fausto's reasoning.

You're a little wrong on the process. Indictment is a right, but it can be knowingly and voluntarily waived. Such a waiver takes the GJ out of the picture, because their job, ultimately is indict, or not. If indictment is waived, then the person can be charged by "information." The case can proceed in the ordinary course after that--incuding the possibility of a plea bargain that is presented by the US and the Defendant to the judge for approval.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Multiple incorrect predictions made by a retired Judge are just as bad as multiple incorrect predictions made by a Marine Biologist.

Some would argue worse, but not me.

I'm an Architect, and I predict the indictments will be handed down on Nigel Tufnel Day......11/11/11

Please quote my "predictions" here. Thanks.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Not really. Saying "Trust me, I'm a lawyer." Isn't the most effective forensic device.

Only someone with inside information would know if an indictment is imminent--especially after all this time. You don't profess that (to your credit) and you provide no reasonable grounds for believing that Lance has inside knowledge.

If you want us to believe Lance will imminently be indicted, tell us, specifically what he will be indicted for (charge and date(s) of offense). If you can't do that, then you are just saying he will imminently be indicted for something based on your conversations with AUSAs not involved with the case and the fact that Lance is acting twitchy.

This is just another drumroll.

Just to be clear here - is your argument against the use of the word imminent?

If so, then I think it is the correct term, particularly in regards to the highlighted.
There is a clock ticking away in the background on SOLs for certain activities - I remember someone in the legal thread saying that would expire by the end of this year (IIRC October), if that is the case then indictments are coming sooner rather than later.

Tomorrow is just as good a guess as 3 months from now, unless you have something conclusive to suggest that it will take longer.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

I think that the GJ has been very secure. I'm aware of nothing that has been reported that hasn't sourced from a witness that has chosen to talk about his/her testimony. Out of such a secure proceeding, you can't reasonably infer that a charge is "imminent." What data do you rely on in trying to make such an inference? That's the gap in Fausto's reasoning.

You're a little wrong on the process. Indictment is a right, but it can be knowingly and voluntarily waived. Such a waiver takes the GJ out of the picture, because their job, ultimately is indict, or not. If indictment is waived, then the person can be charged by "information." The case can proceed in the ordinary course after that--incuding the possibility of a plea bargain that is presented by the US and the Defendant to the judge for approval.

Just a note, IIRC, if a person is arrested on an information, there is a hearing to determine if there is probable cause to bind the accused over for trial. When a Grand Jury hands down an indictment, the probable cause finding has been made by the GJ.

 

[MarkvW]

[IQUOTE=Dr. Maserati;655475]Just to be clear here - is your argument against the use of the word imminent?

If so, then I think it is the correct term, particularly in regards to the highlighted.
There is a clock ticking away in the background on SOLs for certain activities - I remember someone in the legal thread saying that would expire by the end of this year (IIRC October), if that is the case then indictments are coming sooner rather than later.

Tomorrow is just as good a guess as 3 months from now, unless you have something conclusive to suggest that it will take longer.[/QUOTE]

Basically, yes. More precisely the objection to imminence was based upon the lack of supporting info. I'm hopeful about indictment, but very uncertain. I certainly would not bet my own money on an indictment--and I wouldn't bet my own money against one, either.

Thanks for the SOL reference. I'll look it up. But no way am I going to get into another SOL discussion without a clear charge and date of offense.

 

[Polish]

Please quote my "predictions" here. Thanks.

Multiple incorrect predictions made by you.
Multiple incorrect predictions made by "your sources".
And your "source's sources".

C'mon Cimacoppi49, pleading ignorance of your multiple incorrect predictions is no defense.
Probably tough to cop an insanity plea also.

Unless one of your sources is a Giant Fuzzy Rabbit.
Do you have a giant fuzzy rabbit giving you the scoop on Lance?
Hop hop hop.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Multiple incorrect predictions made by you.
Multiple incorrect predictions made by "your sources".
And your "source's sources".

C'mon Cimacoppi49, pleading ignorance of your multiple incorrect predictions is no defense.
Probably tough to cop an insanity plea also.

Unless one of your sources is a Giant Fuzzy Rabbit.
Do you have a giant fuzzy rabbit giving you the scoop on Lance?
Hop hop hop.

Polish, I would just like to thank you for not giving up the fight. It is extremely entertaining to watch as you go far far beyond full *** in your efforts to have Lance's back (or possibly in your case backside).

 

[Polish]

I think that the GJ has been very secure. I'm aware of nothing that has been reported that hasn't sourced from a witness that has chosen to talk about his/her testimony. .

Yes, you are not aware.
But maybe the FBI could find something you missed?

And are you saying it is ok for the FEDs to tell a reporter something that happened in the GJ room as long as the witness has already disclosed it?

 

[thehog]

Yes, you are not aware.
But maybe the FBI could find something you missed?

And are you saying it is ok for the FEDs to tell a reporter something that happened in the GJ room as long as the witness has already disclosed it?

Lance was so busy winning the Tour and fighting cancer he had no time to break the law. He'll be fine. In fact I'm looking forward to him being vindicated and clearing his name. Lance has always been a fighter and this is just another battle he has to win. Lance is just bluffing now just like he did with Ullrich in 2001. I still believe. Livin’Strong.

 

[Polish]

Polish, I would just like to thank you for not giving up the fight. It is extremely entertaining to watch as you go far far beyond full *** in your efforts to have Lance's back (or possibly in your case backside).

Thank you Hugh.

I must admit it is kind of fun being the "Alan Colmes" of the Clinic lol.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Thank you Hugh.

I must admit it is kind of fun being the "Alan Colmes" of the Clinic lol.

LOL Colmes' demeanor is more like a puppy that has been beaten since birth.

 

[JRTinMA]

Multiple incorrect predictions made by you.
Multiple incorrect predictions made by "your sources".
And your "source's sources".

C'mon Cimacoppi49, pleading ignorance of your multiple incorrect predictions is no defense.
Probably tough to cop an insanity plea also.

Unless one of your sources is a Giant Fuzzy Rabbit.
Do you have a giant fuzzy rabbit giving you the scoop on Lance?
Hop hop hop.

Good stuff Polish. Even with all of his *** credentials I would rather have you as my lawyer.