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

[Velodude]

The primary point was that the sentence I quoted in the previous post doesn't make any sense at all.

Apparently you have a knowledge of the terms of the contract between Armstrong and Anderson. Where can those terms be found? Without knowledge of the contract's terms, a reasonable opinion of the scope of that contract cannot be formed.

I believe if you study my initial post on this subject I stated:

"The release that LA attempted Mike Anderson to sign included releasing "Tailwind Sports Corp"."

"Attempted" suggests that Mr Armstrong was not successful in obtaining Mr Anderson's signature to the agreement.

The "letter agreement" that Armstrong, through LA associate Knaggs, wanted Mike Anderson to sign incorporated some provisions verbatim in Anderson's "Defendant's Third Amended Answer And Second Amended Counterclaim".

The parties that Armstrong proposed through this draft agreement that Anderson was to "release, acquit and forever discharge" were (as presented with errors) "Luke David, LLC, Tailwind Sports Corp, and Lance Armstrong, and all persons natural or corporate, in privity with them, ..."

"Luke David" are the given names of Armstrong's first child so it is assumed Luke David LLC is a corporation in which LA has some direct or indirect control.

I did not ask you or any other person to form a learned opinion on the scope of the contract. No instruction, no bill of costs.

 

[MarkvW]

I believe if you study my initial post on this subject I stated:

"The release that LA attempted Mike Anderson to sign included releasing "Tailwind Sports Corp"."

"Attempted" suggests that Mr Armstrong was not successful in obtaining Mr Anderson's signature to the agreement.

The "letter agreement" that Armstrong, through LA associate Knaggs, wanted Mike Anderson to sign incorporated some provisions verbatim in Anderson's "Defendant's Third Amended Answer And Second Amended Counterclaim".

The parties that Armstrong proposed through this draft agreement that Anderson was to "release, acquit and forever discharge" were (as presented with errors) "Luke David, LLC, Tailwind Sports Corp, and Lance Armstrong, and all persons natural or corporate, in privity with them, ..."

"Luke David" are the given names of Armstrong's first child so it is assumed Luke David LLC is a corporation in which LA has some direct or indirect control.

I did not ask you or any other person to form a learned opinion on the scope of the contract. No instruction, no bill of costs.

In that case, what you are saying is nonsense. Neither Lance Armstrong nor Tailwind can obtain a benefit by Armstrong's proffering of a release (a contract) that is not accepted.

 

[Velodude]

In that case, what you are saying is nonsense. Neither Lance Armstrong nor Tailwind can obtain a benefit by Armstrong's proffering of a release (a contract) that is not accepted.

I suggest you read my first post quite carefully and slowly.

I believe it is clear that the post by referring to the (draft) agreement to attempt to settle the dispute between Armstrong and Anderson LA was implying, by including Tailwind in the mix, that he was more than an employee of Tailwind. Claiming in 2010 to be only a mere employee of Tailwind/US Postal was an asinine statement by Armstrong to refute in advance a prospective RICO indictment. RICO is his huge problem.

That a contract had been entered into was never stated or implied by myself. I repeat the word "attempted" was used. The filed document goes on to inform that the agreement was refused by Anderson.

The filed document, "Defendant's Third Amended Answer And Second Amended Counterclaim", was linked in the post I was responding.

I am starting to have concerns about whether your experience as a lawyer has longevity, if you are a lawyer.

 

[MarkvW]

I suggest you read my first post quite carefully and slowly.

I believe it is clear that the post by referring to the (draft) agreement to attempt to settle the dispute between Armstrong and Anderson LA was implying, by including Tailwind in the mix, that he was more than an employee of Tailwind. Claiming in 2010 to be only a mere employee of Tailwind/US Postal was an asinine statement by Armstrong to refute in advance a prospective RICO indictment. RICO is his huge problem.

That a contract had been entered into was never stated or implied by myself. I repeat the word "attempted" was used. The filed document goes on to inform that the agreement was refused by Anderson.

The filed document, "Defendant's Third Amended Answer And Second Amended Counterclaim", was linked in the post I was responding.

I am starting to have concerns about whether your experience as a lawyer has longevity, if you are a lawyer.

I don't think it is at all clear that the proposed agreement implied that Lance was more than an employee of Tailwind. Lance was Tailwind's most valuable asset. Damage to Lance was damage to Tailwind. It would be reasonable for Tailwind to want to be a party to the agreement so that they could get money if the agreement was breached.

And I still don't know what you meant to imply by linking the doctrine of standing to a rejected settlement agreement.

 

[Benotti69]

If you read the Anderson complaint you will see there is a pattern of intimidation that goes back much farther then this twitter exchange. Interesting how it includes many of the same threats he used on Tyler.

it makes me remember the intimidation of former masseuse Emma O'Reiily where he basically insinuated she was a sleeping around the team.

 

[Velodude]

it makes me remember the intimidation of former masseuse Emma O'Reiily where he basically insinuated she was a sleeping around the team.

Ah, so that was the genesis of the televised oral statement by Armstrong to the media in attempting to discredit O'Reilly with words to the effect:

"There was dissatisfaction with her at all levels of the team"

It was contrary to the glowing reference she received from the team and the team media release reported in Cyclingnews on her departure.

 

[Velodude]

I don't think it is at all clear that the proposed agreement implied that Lance was more than an employee of Tailwind. Lance was Tailwind's most valuable asset. Damage to Lance was damage to Tailwind. It would be reasonable for Tailwind to want to be a party to the agreement so that they could get money if the agreement was breached.

And I still don't know what you meant to imply by linking the doctrine of standing to a rejected settlement agreement.

Think you had better read the paragraphs of the agreement and the following additional facts in the document of Michael Anderson more closely.

Michael Anderson was to release, inter alia, "Tailwind Sports Corp." from any prospective claim.

If Anderson were to breach the proposed contract condition relating to non disclosure of confidential information concerning any entity remotely connected to LA, Tailwind Sports being particularised, then liquidated damages of $500,000 was payable by Anderson equally only to LA and Luke David LLC (total $1m).

If Tailwind Sports were to be damaged by Anderson, Armstrong and his company only would financially benefit in redressing that damage with damages contractually set at $1m.

Mere employee Armstrong, as he claims 2010, would unprecedentedly profit at his employer's pain. That is the issue of LA's false 2010 statement of being only a Tailwind employee that your sharp lawyer's mind has difficulty in grasping.

The drafting of this proposed release was on the factual basis that through Armstrong's holding and directorship of Tailwind Sports to the date of Anderson's dismissal Tailwind Sports had standing with Armstrong before the court if litigation resulted.

If Armstrong was only an employee, Tailwind Sports had no standing in a court with Armstrong more particularly as the sum and direction of the liquidated damages were to be contractually set.

I am at a loss as to why Armstrong mouthed off "I am only an employee" when that statement can be quickly refuted on documentation, conduct and even this document filed into court relating to other litigation.

 

[Polish]

I am at a loss as to why Armstrong mouthed off "I am only an employee" when that statement can be quickly refuted on documentation, conduct and even this document filed into court relating to other litigation.

I think Lance said he was "just a rider" in that time frame.
Ya right, just a rider.
Just an AWESOME rider is more like it lol.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Ah, so that was the genesis of the televised oral statement by Armstrong to the media in attempting to discredit O'Reilly with words to the effect:

"There was dissatisfaction with her at all levels of the team"

It was contrary to the glowing reference she received from the team and the team media release reported in Cyclingnews on her departure.

Camp RICO's mo has always been character assassination. Emma was defamed by Armstrong, pure and simple.

 

[thehog]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[ChrisE]

Camp RICO's mo has always been character assassination. Emma was defamed by Armstrong, pure and simple.

So, why doesn't she sue him?

 

[Benotti69]

Ah, so that was the genesis of the televised oral statement by Armstrong to the media in attempting to discredit O'Reilly with words to the effect:

"There was dissatisfaction with her at all levels of the team"

It was contrary to the glowing reference she received from the team and the team media release reported in Cyclingnews on her departure.

Emma O'Reilly in a letter to Strickland, a Lance lackey;

I went because I was telling the truth, and also because a certain Mr. Armstrong sued me for a million euros because of my interview with David. If my word is so worthless, Mr. Strickland, why did Lance feel the need to terrorize me for more than two years? Why did Lance feel the need to try and break me? Why did I have his solicitor in my house trying to get me to retract parts of my interview?

I have been called all things under the sun since I spoke the truth

I also find it interesting to see that you decide the allegation will be in favor of someone who used his privilege of oath to call me disgusting names he wouldn’t say without protection.

http://bicycling.com/blogs/theselection/2011/04/27/emma-o’reilly-responds-to-strickland’s-“endgame”/

David Walsh in his interview to Competitor radio also backs up the 'disgusting names' and 'been called all things under the sun' by Armstrong....

http://competitorradio.competitor.com/?s=walsh

 

[Benotti69]

So, why doesn't she sue him?

to sue people requires money and time. Michael Anderson explained why it is not worth it. go search..

 

[powerste]

So, why doesn't she sue him?

For that matter, why isn't LA suing everyone under the sun any more? Unlike Emma, he's got plenty of lawyers and cash.

 

[GreasyMonkey]

For that matter, why isn't LA suing everyone under the sun any more? Unlike Emma, he's got plenty of lawyers and had lots of cash.

Correcting that for you...

 

[Cobblestoned]

Correcting that for you...

Yeah, I think Lance bought a cancer-causing beer last night and has only 39.999.998 $ left now.

Oh wait, he just told me it were 2 beers. So only 39.999.996 $ left.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Today is the 5th of September, btw.
Time to celebrate thehog.

LMAO

It's coming soon....the drumroll...

 

[ChrisE]

to sue people requires money and time. Michael Anderson explained why it is not worth it. go search..

I get it. There are no lawyers out there willing to work for a % of the windfall in an allegedly (by clinic standards) slam dunk case.

Hey, I am just trying to apply the clinic logic equally across the board. LA doesn't sue people because he would lose. The pretzel logic hypocrisy of why those wronged by LA don't sue is a different beast altogether, that doesn't register in the mindset of LA hater's of course.

 

[Benotti69]

I get it. There are no lawyers out there willing to work for a % of the windfall in an allegedly (by clinic standards) slam dunk case.

Hey, I am just trying to apply the clinic logic equally across the board. LA doesn't sue people because he would lose. The pretzel logic hypocrisy of why those wronged by LA don't sue is a different beast altogether, that doesn't register in the mindset of LA hater's of course.

No you dont get it. Emma O'Reilly stated quite clearly that she wants to get on with here life and put the episode of working in cycling behind her. Not everyone in the world believes in sprinting for their lawyer every time something happens, maybe that's the amercian way but not the european way, yet!

Armstrong tried to sue Emma O'Reilly and as far as i know didn't dare go to court.

 

[ChrisE]

No you dont get it. Emma O'Reilly stated quite clearly that she wants to get on with here life and put the episode of working in cycling behind her. Not everyone in the world believes in sprinting for their lawyer every time something happens, maybe that's the amercian way but not the european way, yet!

Armstrong tried to sue Emma O'Reilly and as far as i know didn't dare go to court.

Wait a second. Powerste said she didn't go to court becuase she has no $. I say there are lawyers willing to take a slam dunk case on the come.

Now you say she didn't sue because, even though she was defamed, she wants to get on with her life. This is after you say:

to sue people requires money and time.

***edited by mod ***

 

[python]

No you dont get it.

by now you should know that 'getting it' was not the intention

 

[python]

*** deleted by mod **

 

[Benotti69]

by now you should know that 'getting it' was not the intention

i only reply cos i believe it keeps him away from the facts4lance.org while he has to think of replies on here

 

[Benotti69]

Wait a second. Powerste said she didn't go to court becuase she has no $. I say there are lawyers willing to take a slam dunk case on the come.

Now you say she didn't sue because, even though she was defamed, she wants to get on with her life. This is after you say:

I am quoting her letter to LA chamois muncher Strickland.

 

[ChrisE]

*** edited by mod ***