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

[MarkvW]

Why indeed....

Mea culpa. I apologize.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Oh yeah, the feds did sneaks and peeks on Lance and the judge has sealed the warrant returns for months . . .

In the words of Eliza Doolittle, not . . . likely.

Why do you think they need to go directly to get anything from the people under investigation (not just Lance)?

We know a good number of people have been called before a GJ and that documents have been subpoenaed from various companies.
They will already have a lot of the pieces to the puzzle.

 

[MarkvW]

Why do you think they need to go directly to get anything from the people under investigation (not just Lance)?

We know a good number of people have been called before a GJ and that documents have been subpoenaed from various companies.
They will already have a lot of the pieces to the puzzle.

Mainly, I'm thinking about taxes and fraud. If there was a tax investigation, the feds would want to know everything about Lance's finances. A fraud prosecutor would also want the fullest financial picture possible. A warrant would be the most direct and sure way to get Lance's docs. If the investigation was doping related, there'd likely be no warrant because the probable cause would be too stale.

Prosecutors always want more evidence. Fed prosecutors want more than that and they have the FBI willing to get it for them.

 

[Berzin]

Oh yeah, the feds did sneaks and peeks on Lance and the judge has sealed the warrant returns for months . . .

In the words of Eliza Doolittle, not . . . likely.

Another favorite device here in the Clinic-sitting back with bemused skepticism and twisting logic around, luring other posters to confront such nonsense.

It's no one's job here to convince you of anything. If you believe what you believe good for you. Thinking reality is what you'd like it to be doesn't make it true.

Feel free to think what you like. Critical thinkers know better and aren't shackled by the bright yellow light of Armstrong fanboyism.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Mainly, I'm thinking about taxes and fraud. If there was a tax investigation, the feds would want to know everything about Lance's finances. A fraud prosecutor would also want the fullest financial picture possible. A warrant would be the most direct and sure way to get Lance's docs. If the investigation was doping related, there'd likely be no warrant because the probable cause would be too stale.

Prosecutors always want more evidence. Fed prosecutors want more than that and they have the FBI willing to get it for them.

And they do not have to go that person to get any of that information.

This is from the IRS homepage on Criminal Investigations:

Conducting a Criminal Investigation

Once an investigation is opened, the special agent obtains the facts and evidence needed to establish the elements of criminal activity. Various investigative techniques are used to obtain evidence, including interviews of third party witnesses, conducting surveillance, executing search warrants, subpoenaing bank records, and reviewing financial data.

The special agent works closely with IRS Chief Counsel Criminal Tax Attorneys during the course of the criminal investigation. This process ensures all legal aspects of the investigation and prosecution recommendation are correctly addressed.

 

[MarkvW]

Another favorite device here in the Clinic-sitting back with bemused skepticism and twisting logic around, luring other posters to confront such nonsense.

It's no one's job here to convince you of anything. If you believe what you believe good for you. Thinking reality is what you'd like it to be doesn't make it true.

Feel free to think what you like. Critical thinkers know better and aren't shackled by the bright yellow light of Armstrong fanboyism.

I would just like to see somebody pick one crime, fairly described, and and assert that Lance is going to be indicted for that. Not just "RICO" or "fraud," or "tax." Nobody is going to do that, probably because nobody can.

Thank's for telling me to feel free. I'm not sure, though that I think reality is what I like it to be. I'm getting to be more of a Rashomon guy as I age.

 

[MarkvW]

And they do not have to go that person to get any of that information.

This is from the IRS homepage on Criminal Investigations:

You are right. But evidence from the defendant's own records is so much better.

I could prove an assault with the victim's own words, but why would I stop there if I could search the defendant's house and get the bloody shirt, the threatening notes, the emails, and the video.

I'm not asserting that the absence of indicators of a warrant means that there is or will be insufficient evidence of anything, but I would have expected to see some warrants being served by now

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You are right.

Of course I am.

But evidence from the defendant's own records is so much better.

Incriminating evidence, is incriminating evidence - it matters little where it comes from.

I could prove an assault with the victim's own words, but why would I stop there if I could search the defendant's house and get the bloody shirt, the threatening notes, the emails, and the video.

I'm not asserting that the absence of indicators of a warrant means that there is or will be insufficient evidence of anything, but I would have expected to see some warrants being served by now

If CSE/Tailwind or anyone else has been served I do not expect them to go to the press and highlight it.
But I doubt they have been served - I would expect that to be the last part of the investigation.

 

[MarkvW]

Of course I am.


Incriminating evidence, is incriminating evidence - it matters little where it comes from.


If CSE/Tailwind or anyone else has been served I do not expect them to go to the press and highlight it.
But I doubt they have been served - I would expect that to be the last part of the investigation.

It wouldn't be last. First, you can't get or execute a search warrant if your information is stale. Second, your search warrant finds will often indicate new avenues of inquiry.

 

[Velodude]

You are right. But evidence from the defendant's own records is so much better.

I could prove an assault with the victim's own words, but why would I stop there if I could search the defendant's house and get the bloody shirt, the threatening notes, the emails, and the video.

I'm not asserting that the absence of indicators of a warrant means that there is or will be insufficient evidence of anything, but I would have expected to see some warrants being served by now

I suggest you review the eye witness evidences of Floyd Landis & Tyler Hamilton (contained in "60 Minutes", video interviews, Paul Kimmage interview, published emails, etc) which stand alone as admissable evidence if testified in a Federal court of law.

It would be expected that there would be supporting corroborating testimonies from other 2002-2004 US Postal team members if you claim that evidence would be dismissed on the grounds Landis & Hamilton are unreliable witnesses.

I can predict a number of indictments arising out of the the eye witness accounts in those interviews without the need for subpoenaed documentary evidence.

See how many your sharp legal mind can ferret out.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It wouldn't be last. First, you can't get or execute a search warrant if your information is stale.

No-one suggested you could - and there is nothing to suggest that the information is 'stale'.
As Tyler (& George) have confirmed Floyds story, it would be quite the opposite.

Second, your search warrant finds will often indicate new avenues of inquiry.

Unlikely in this case as the element of surprise was never there - which is why they requested documents and information from others.

 

[MarkvW]

No-one suggested you could - and there is nothing to suggest that the information is 'stale'.
As Tyler (& George) have confirmed Floyds story, it would be quite the opposite.


Unlikely in this case as the element of surprise was never there - which is why they requested documents and information from others.

"Staleness" means that the facts justifying the warrant can no longer be relied upon to establish that the evidenceis still in the place you seek to search. That is one reason why you execute a warrant sooner, rather than later.

Surprise was there, I think, in the time before Floyd went public.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

"Staleness" means that the facts justifying the warrant can no longer be relied upon to establish that the evidenceis still in the place you seek to search. That is one reason why you execute a warrant sooner, rather than later.

Surprise was there, I think, in the time before Floyd went public.

Floyd didn't leak the information - his emails to USAC were made public, big difference.
They were never going to find fresh blood or EPO when they went searching Lances fridge - this case will be built on transactions and a paper trail, which they can get elsewhere.

While you have gone in to detail on explaining the definition of 'staleness' you are have still omitted to establish where anything is becoming staler.

 

[Polish]

If the warrants had been issued, they would have been served, and that would have been in the news.

Agree +1000

And it will be in the news because LANCE will WANT it to be in the news.
Good Defense is a Strong Offense.

The backlash when the indictments come will be IMMENSE.
Taxpayer waste etc etc etc.
Lance will use that to his advantage.

The tough part for the Feds will be how to announce the indictments while minimizing the blowback.

The whole Smear Campaign by the Feds was meant to soften up the battlefield.
But the Motion put an end to the softening.

 

[MarkvW]

Floyd didn't leak the information - his emails to USAC were made public, big difference.
They were never going to find fresh blood or EPO when they went searching Lances fridge - this case will be built on transactions and a paper trail, which they can get elsewhere.

While you have gone in to detail on explaining the definition of 'staleness' you are have still omitted to establish where anything is becoming staler.

Warrants become stale--not evidence. I never asserted that a warrant has become stale.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I would just like to see somebody pick one crime, fairly described, and and assert that Lance is going to be indicted for that. Not just "RICO" or "fraud," or "tax." Nobody is going to do that, probably because nobody can.

Thank's for telling me to feel free. I'm not sure, though that I think reality is what I like it to be. I'm getting to be more of a Rashomon guy as I age.

Winning the lottery has better odds. This is a special case on many levels. You've got people that want to score some of the easiest career highlights ever in law enforcement.

I know enough law to know enforcement can bring you a good case and it can all be undone by defense. No doubt if anything gets so far as appeals, there will be a multitude of those to wipe away the conviction. Before appeals, there's a long history of celebrities getting very preferential treatment in court.

And then there's the political heat the Fabricator must be bringing in DC to try to shut this one down. Congress can and does trade funding for redirecting agency resources.

If they go straight to a plea to keep all the details out of the public record that can easily be spun as 'victim of an overzealous governent.'

There's a thousand possible and likely outcomes where Tailwind principals walk.

For someone to be able to reasonably predict an outcome is a fools errand. It's more ammunition to derail sensible discussion on a thread that wanders like a chicken on crack. (or whatever the analogy was a few posts ago)

 

[HL2037]

I would just like to see somebody pick one crime, fairly described, and and assert that Lance is going to be indicted for that. Not just "RICO" or "fraud," or "tax."

You don't think organized crime on an international level is serious enough?

 

[veganrob]

Agree +1000

And it will be in the news because LANCE will WANT it to be in the news.
Good Defense is a Strong Offense.

The backlash when the indictments come will be IMMENSE.
Taxpayer waste etc etc etc.
Lance will use that to his advantage.

The tough part for the Feds will be how to announce the indictments while minimizing the blowback.

The whole Smear Campaign by the Feds was meant to soften up the battlefield.
But the Motion put an end to the softening.

Your supposed public backlash has absolutely zero affect on feds.

Not even a good try by you.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Warrants become stale--not evidence. I never asserted that a warrant has become stale.

So, "Warrants become stale" - but you "never asserted that a warrant has become stale" - am, ah, ok.

 

[MarkvW]

You don't think organized crime on an international level is serious enough?

I can safely say that Lance will never be indicted in the US for the crime of "organized crime on an international level." That is a 100% safe prediction.

 

[MarkvW]

So, "Warrants become stale" - but you "never asserted that a warrant has become stale" - am, ah, ok.

I said there have been no warrants. If there have been no warrants, how could a warrant go stale?

 

[Race Radio]

I can safely say that Lance will never be indicted in the US for the crime of "organized crime on an international level." That is a 100% safe prediction.

So the millions of $$$ in international bank transfers to Ferrari were just for training plans?

 

[MarkvW]

I said there have been no warrants. If there have been no warrants, how could a warrant go stale?

They were probably part of an organized crime on an international level.

 

[Race Radio]

They were probably part of an organized crime on an international level.

Dude, You are talking to yourself again.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I said there have been no warrants. If there have been no warrants, how could a warrant go stale?

Well according to yourself:

Warrants become stale--not evidence. I never asserted that a warrant has become stale.

Don't worry, I share you confusion - as you have been suggesting that warrants haven't been served because:

"Staleness" means that the facts justifying the warrant can no longer be relied upon to establish that the evidenceis still in the place you seek to search. That is one reason why you execute a warrant sooner, rather than later.

Surprise was there, I think, in the time before Floyd went public.