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

[Cimacoppi49]

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.

Now Polish, if there are "multiple incorrect predictions," you should easily be able to quote two or three of them. Unless you're BSing. Just because you state a falsity over and over like Armstrong will not make it any more true than it is for your idol. I'm beginning to seriously think you and JT are Fabiani trolls posting from Fabiani's Pit of Falsity.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

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

Not certain if your post is intended to be funny, pathetic or both. If you are seriously questioning my credentials and saying I have lied about them, by all means state that clearly and provide your name and address for service of process.

As for Polish being your attorney, have you ever been charged with a crime? Let a clown like Polish represent you and you'll find yourself with a full dance card unless you decide to ***

 

[Cimacoppi49]

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.

rotfl!!

 

[MarkvW]

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?

Separation of Powers. Judges won't start an investigation absent a factual predicate. Lance wants the judge to go off on a fishing expedition.

 

[Velodude]

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

But would you have an architect as a lawyer?

Posted by Polish today:

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

Or, heaven forbid, a bike shop employee thrusting and parrying on your behalf to keep you out of the prison showers.

Conversation response by Polish on her/his public profile:

sfbiker, I used an XT M771-SGS Top normal Rear Der.
The bike was for a customer and was shifting great when it left the shop. She has not brought the bike back for break-in adjustments yet...but I expect it working fine.

 

[dolophonic]

Yes the last post by the Hog was pure gold. Great work . You could get recruited if your not careful. That kind of penmanship could be valuable.
Livestrong indeed.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

But would you have an architect as a lawyer?

Or, heaven forbid, a bike shop employee thrusting and parrying on your behalf to keep you out of the prison showers.

An architect who also works at a bike shop? I think we now know who Polish really is. He is George Costanza.

 

[Hugh Januss]

But would you have an architect as a lawyer?



Or, heaven forbid, a bike shop employee thrusting and parrying on your behalf to keep you out of the prison showers.

He's kind of a jack off all trades.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Enough. Back on topic.

Susan

 

[MarkvW]

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.

A waiver of the indictment is a waiver of a determination of probable cause by the GJ.

Your recollection is incorrect. See US v Saussy, 802 F.2d 849 (6th Cir. 1986). "Defendant's argument that when an information is filed it affords the defendant an opportunity for a probable cause hearing is incorrect." (Citing United States v. Funk, 412 F.2d 452, 455 (8th Cir. 1969)).

The probable cause hearing is of course necessary if the gov't is going to keep somebody in the slammer pretrial. Gerstein; Riverside.

 

[Polish]

Separation of Powers. Judges won't start an investigation absent a factual predicate. Lance wants the judge to go off on a fishing expedition.

Do Lance's lawyers want the judge to go on a "fishing expedition"?
Or have the judge rule that the FBI should go on a fishing expedition....

Neither I would say.

The Smear Campaign / Witch Hunt was very evident.
Fact right there. Plethora of facts. Fact-o-rama.
The smearing has stopped, but that is a different matter.

BTW, is it OK for Tyler's Lawyers and/or Floyd's Lawyers to discuss with the FEDs what can and can not be said to 60Minutes or WSJ or whoever?

I mean, is it OK for the FEDs to advise those guys in anything media related?
Is it ok for the media to contact the FEDs in regards to a story?

Not saying that I know that these kinds of things happened.
But are these kinds of things legal?

PS Hugh, I am also the master of my domain

 

[WinterRider]

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.

60 minutes reported that George Hincapie testified that Lance used PEDs. Now perhaps George told that to 60 minutes, but all indications are that he did not, so someone else must have leaked that information.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

60 minutes reported that George Hincapie testified that Lance used PEDs. Now perhaps George told that to 60 minutes, but all indications are that he did not, so someone else must have leaked that information.

Yeah, it could not possibly be George telling friends and acquaintances what happened with the grand jury and those people telling 60 Minutes. It had to be a leak.

 

[Benotti69]

60 minutes reported that George Hincapie testified that Lance used PEDs. Now perhaps George told that to 60 minutes, but all indications are that he did not, so someone else must have leaked that information.

you think George is gonna have a problem lying to the public after years of living the lie of pro cycling?

Tyler might have told 60 minutes.

Plenty of people could have been told by George and therefore the info got to 60 mins.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

A waiver of the indictment is a waiver of a determination of probable cause by the GJ.

Your recollection is incorrect. See US v Saussy, 802 F.2d 849 (6th Cir. 1986). "Defendant's argument that when an information is filed it affords the defendant an opportunity for a probable cause hearing is incorrect." (Citing United States v. Funk, 412 F.2d 452, 455 (8th Cir. 1969)).

The probable cause hearing is of course necessary if the gov't is going to keep somebody in the slammer pretrial. Gerstein; Riverside.

A defendant in Federal court can waive the indictment if done in open court on the record. The case then proceeds on a information. All capital charges and those that can result in more than a year in prison must be brought by indictment if not waived. That said, many states allow felonies to be charged by information followed by a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is enough evidence to bind the defendant over for trial this being derived from common law.

However, if the government proceeds on a felony by information, there is a requirement for a preliminary hearing set out in FRCP 5.1 (a) This is generally why Federal felonies are usually brought by indictment. The problem arises because since Erie, there is no Federal common law.

 

[Polish]

you think George is gonna have a problem lying to the public after years of living the lie of pro cycling?

Tyler might have told 60 minutes.

Plenty of people could have been told by George and therefore the info got to 60 mins.

A "friend of a friend" story is fine for The Clinic.

But does 60 Minutes have higher standards?
If Big George is such a liar, wouldn't/shouldn't 60minutes check harder?
Make sure the doping story is correct?

I would guess the "unnamed source" is very reputable

 

[Benotti69]

I would guess the "unnamed source" is very reputable

my guess it is George

 

[MarkvW]

A defendant in Federal court can waive the indictment if done in open court on the record. The case then proceeds on a information. All capital charges and those that can result in more than a year in prison must be brought by indictment if not waived. That said, many states allow felonies to be charged by information followed by a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is enough evidence to bind the defendant over for trial this being derived from common law.

However, if the government proceeds on a felony by information, there is a requirement for a preliminary hearing set out in FRCP 5.1 (a) This is generally why Federal felonies are usually brought by indictment. The problem arises because since Erie, there is no Federal common law.

Dude! At least read the rule you quote. Rule 5.1(a)(3) says that a judge must conduct a preliminary hearing UNLESS the government files an information under Rule 7(b) charging the defendant with a felony! And what does Rule 7(b) say? "An offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year may be prosecuted by information if the defendant --in open court and after being advised of the nature of the charge and of the defendant's rights--WAIVES PROSECUTION BY INDICTMENT."

Your Erie quote is grandiloquently inapposite. All we're talking about here is FEDERAL law: federal (statutory) criminal law; and federal procedural law. Erie is all about the State law --Federal Court interplay.

You CAN'T be the experienced lawyer you claim to be.

 

[MarkvW]

Do Lance's lawyers want the judge to go on a "fishing expedition"?
Or have the judge rule that the FBI should go on a fishing expedition....

Neither I would say.

The Smear Campaign / Witch Hunt was very evident.
Fact right there. Plethora of facts. Fact-o-rama.
The smearing has stopped, but that is a different matter.

BTW, is it OK for Tyler's Lawyers and/or Floyd's Lawyers to discuss with the FEDs what can and can not be said to 60Minutes or WSJ or whoever?

I mean, is it OK for the FEDs to advise those guys in anything media related?
Is it ok for the media to contact the FEDs in regards to a story?

Not saying that I know that these kinds of things happened.
But are these kinds of things legal?

PS Hugh, I am also the master of my domain

The media can contact anybody. Its freedom city.
The fed investigators can talk like crazy to the GJ witnesses--just not about GJ proceedings.

Lance wants a peek at what the feds know. I don't have any idea why Lance is so peeky.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Dude! At least read the rule you quote. Rule 5.1(a)(3) says that a judge must conduct a preliminary hearing UNLESS the government files an information under Rule 7(b) charging the defendant with a felony! And what does Rule 7(b) say? "An offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year may be prosecuted by information if the defendant --in open court and after being advised of the nature of the charge and of the defendant's rights--WAIVES PROSECUTION BY INDICTMENT."

Your Erie quote is grandiloquently inapposite. All we're talking about here is FEDERAL law: federal (statutory) criminal law; and federal procedural law. Erie is all about the State law --Federal Court interplay.

You CAN'T be the experienced lawyer you claim to be.

Dude, Erie overruled Swift and made very clear that there is no general federal common law. Since Erie, federal courts are bound to apply the common law of the state as applicable to the particular case. Erie is about a bit more than just state federal interplay.

And yes, the FRCP are rather circular which was my point in noting them. They are circular thanks to Congress which effectively repealed the common law usage of indictments and informations which still prevail in some states as either common law or codified common law enshrined in statute.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Lance wants a peek at what the feds know. I don't have any idea why Lance is so peeky.

You don't have any idea?? lol Maybe his lawyers are just looking for ways to justify their billable hours. The innocent Lance should have just taken some Xanax and not hired those expensive suits............

 

[mewmewmew13]

W/r to the Hincapie confession I would hope that 60 minutes would not bother to report that if it were 3rd-hand info...it must be quite credible. They would not go down over that...

On another track, after yesterday's stage we saw Lance's elusive black-draped form moving around in the crowd...and presumably that was his blond girlfriend that the cam briefly focused on. Does anyone know if he actually spoke to Big George or if the two were on jubilant and congratulatory terms?? ...just curious as the players were there ....George, Lance , Levi..

 

[MarkvW]

Dude, Erie overruled Swift and made very clear that there is no general federal common law. Since Erie, federal courts are bound to apply the common law of the state as applicable to the particular case. Erie is about a bit more than just state federal interplay.

And yes, the FRCP are rather circular which was my point in noting them. They are circular thanks to Congress which effectively repealed the common law usage of indictments and informations which still prevail in some states as either common law or codified common law enshrined in statute.

You don't get it. Federal crimes are all statutory. There are no federal common law crimes. This has been so since the year the British burned Washington (damn them). See Liparota v. United States, 471 US 419, 424 (1985). Erie was a 1938 case, forchrissake. Erie has nothing to do with Lance Armstrong!

I cite you cases and I cite you the FRCP, and you dismiss those references by saying that the (straightforward and obvious) Federal Rules are "circular?" The rules don't conform to your argument, so they are faulty.

Q.E.D.

 

[WinterRider]

you think George is gonna have a problem lying to the public after years of living the lie of pro cycling?

Tyler might have told 60 minutes.

Plenty of people could have been told by George and therefore the info got to 60 mins.

You really think that a current pro cyclist is going to run around and tell, after 17 years of silence, that he does/did PEDS and also ratted out Lance. Doesn't seem likely.

More likely that someone in the investigation, or GJ talked either to CBS, or to someone else that told CBS.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

You don't get it. Federal crimes are all statutory. There are no federal common law crimes. This has been so since the year the British burned Washington (damn them). See Liparota v. United States, 471 US 419, 424 (1985). Erie was a 1938 case, forchrissake. Erie has nothing to do with Lance Armstrong!

I cite you cases and I cite you the FRCP, and you dismiss those references by saying that the (straightforward and obvious) Federal Rules are "circular?" The rules don't conform to your argument, so they are faulty.

Q.E.D.

I do get it, but I think you may not be appreciating my point about informations as a creature of common law and the impact Erie has on that. And yes, the FRCP is circular, and in my opinion, badly crafted. This has nothing to do with federal common law crimes. lol We're discussing procedure in bringing charges. By statute (because Congress post-Erie has kept criminal procedure out of the detritus of federal common law) the feds require indictments for crimes where the penalty is greater than one year unless the defendant waives the indictment and effectively agrees to proceed on an information. Really no need to get quite so testy.