The fun begins - SCA now asking for money back...

[thehog]

I am well aware of how courts view arbitration and settlement agreements.

I am also well aware that courts are very reluctant to set aside settlement agreements entered into by two parties of their own volition. Not only that, but there are only certain grounds upon which they may do so. Legal arguments have to be made to get that outcome (regardless of whether or not either party thinks there will be another settlement), and those arguments have to be based on recognized grounds. Saying "Well, it's obvious that ________ existed, so set aside the settlement agreement" to a judge will get your a$$ kicked out of court and brought up on ethics charges in your state bar.

My points operate to suggest what should be included in the legal arguments.

EDIT: Also note that none of us know what was included in that settlement agreement. If you think that will have no bearing, I ask you gain access to Westlaw or Lexis, go to the search function, choose "All State and Federal cases" (or choose the "allcases" from the database drop down) and type in "set aside" /s "settlement agreement" or even change /s to /p, see what comes up, and then return with your personal observation on how often and in what context that generally happens. Also note that in those decisions, the most common grounds for doing so are fraud and...wait for it........MUTUAL MISTAKE.

I didn't start pushing out that baby by random chance.

EDIT #2: And if my arguments are not persuasive to you, disregard them. Many people disregarded my suggestion that subject matter jurisdiction would be the grounds Judge Sparks used to kick out Lance's a$$...

You do complicate things. Remember you lawyers are there to assist and advice on the law not makes spaghetti out of it!

It’s fairly straightforward what will occur in this dispute.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You do complicate things. Remember you lawyers are there to assist and advice on the law not makes spaghetti out of it!

It’s fairly straightforward what will occur in this dispute.

No, no it isn't. Lawyers (I am merely a law student) are here because people like you are incapable of understanding problems that are in reality much more complex than your simplistic assertions. Don't let it fret you too much, the world needs fry cooks to...just understand that taking a complex dish and calling it "Chicken fingers" does not mean you can actually make the dish. That is best left to a well trained chef.

Order UP!!!

 

[thehog]

No, no it isn't. Lawyers (I am merely a law student) are here because people like you are incapable of understanding problems that are in reality much more complex than your simplistic assertions. Don't let it fret you too much, the world needs fry cooks to...just understand that taking a complex dish and calling it "Chicken fingers" does not mean you can actually make the dish. That is best left to a well trained chef.

Order UP!!!

Got 'im!

Hook, line and sinker

It still very simplistic. Lets see lawman. Let's see.

 

[MarkvW]

Got 'im!

Hook, line and sinker

It still very simplistic. Lets see lawman. Let's see.

I am almost certain that there will be very aggressive maneuvering by Lance's lawyer in an attempt to keep Lance from testifying under oath.

That, alone, belies your assertion of simplicity, doesn't it?

 

[thehog]

I am almost certain that there will be very aggressive maneuvering by Lance's lawyer in an attempt to keep Lance from testifying under oath.

That, alone, belies your assertion of simplicity, doesn't it?

I agree with you. Its still simple. Lance needs to pay SCA back their money. Simple.

The only known unknown is how much time it will take for that to happen.

Lance will drag it out, yes. But its still simple. He will pay them. He'll be ordered to pay them back or he will settle.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I agree with you. Its still simple. Lance needs to pay SCA back their money. Simple.

The only known unknown is how much time it will take for that to happen.

Lance will drag it out, yes. But its still simple. He will pay them. He'll be ordered to pay them back or he will settle.

That is a DEVASTATING legal argument. Why, I'm sure any judge would apologize to you for not having thought of that themselves when you introduce it!

Stick to predicting the timing of certain events in relation to Contador and Armstrong, you're much better at that...

EDIT: Please write your complaint in comprehensible English though.

 

[thehog]

That is a DEVASTATING legal argument. Why, I'm sure any judge would apologize to you for not having thought of that themselves when you introduce it!

Stick to predicting the timing of certain events in relation to Contador and Armstrong, you're much better at that...

EDIT: Please write your complaint in comprehensible English though.

Calm down son. This is not a courtroom. Go flex your muscles & stare in the mirror somewhere else.

My points remain and are valid. No amount of showboating gets away from the obvious fact of theft by deception & fraud. Tour wins or no Tour wins.

Plain & simple. The money will be paid back. How we get there is the known unknown but it will be paid back.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Calm down son. This is not a courtroom. Go flex your muscles & stare in the mirror somewhere else.

My points remain and are valid. No amount of showboating gets away from the obvious fact of theft by deception & fraud. Tour wins or no Tour wins.

Plain & simple. The money will be paid back. How we get there is the known unknown but it will be paid back.

Sweetcheeks, you started lobbing spitballs at me. If you can't take the heat, pick on somebody smaller.

 

[MarkvW]

Calm down son. This is not a courtroom. Go flex your muscles & stare in the mirror somewhere else.

My points remain and are valid. No amount of showboating gets away from the obvious fact of theft by deception & fraud. Tour wins or no Tour wins.

Plain & simple. The money will be paid back. How we get there is the known unknown but it will be paid back.

Faith-based analysis.

 

[mikkemus23]

Come on guys, you members of the legendary clinic 12 needs to keep it (more) friendly

 

[thehog]

It's a scientific fact that women speak 7000 words a day and men 2000.

End of the day. Armstrong approached SCA with his deception. Then took action against them with deception. And now says its over they can't have their money back. Again deceptive.

Its plain to see how this will end up. The law will protect those swindled by theft.

 

[ebandit]

now.............

It's a scientific fact that women speak 7000 words a day and men 2000.

End of the day. Armstrong approached SCA with his deception. Then took action against them with deception. And now says its over they can't have their money back. Again deceptive.

Its plain to see how this will end up. The law will protect those swindled by theft.

now i understand..............your of the female gender

i'm no lawyer but i don't think that lance's chances are at all good on this

i must agree with the hog...............question is just when will lance return
$'s

 

[ChewbaccaD]

If you have 3 quarters, 4 dimes, and 4 pennies, you have $1.19. You also have the largest amount of money in coins without being able to make change for a dollar.

This could likely end in Armstrong paying the money back. Why he ends up doing so will not proceed upon the kindergarten ideas some here propose.

Personally, I don't know why this game keeps getting played. It's almost like some here are unfamiliar with my work.

 

[Velodude]

Really going to be dependent upon the the strength or weakness of the settlement agreement and Texas law.

At the time of drafting up the agreement no one could have envisaged the probability that Armstrong would be stripped of his TdF wins. Winning the TdF being central to the contract.

I doubt whether SCA would be making public overtures about recovering the moneys if their case had no merit. Not good for corporate image to flaunt a dead duck.

In the Armstrong camp they would be smugly silent if their case was a lay down misere.

Just only on appearances SCA would be at unbackable odds.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Really going to be dependent upon the the strength or weakness of the settlement agreement and Texas law.

At the time of drafting up the agreement no one could have envisaged the probability that Armstrong would be stripped of his TdF wins. Winning the TdF being central to the contract.

I doubt whether SCA would be making public overtures about recovering the moneys if their case had no merit. Not good for corporate image to flaunt a dead duck.

In the Armstrong camp they would be smugly silent if their case was a lay down misere.

Just only on appearances SCA would be at unbackable odds.

Law. Texas. Oxymoron? Not to be confused with Mittens Romney, an oxymormon.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

I am almost certain that there will be very aggressive maneuvering by Lance's lawyer in an attempt to keep Lance from testifying under oath.

That, alone, belies your assertion of simplicity, doesn't it?

Armstrong's opponents are also going to become quite agressive given what has transpired over the past month. Look for motions in every action to have Herman disqualified as his counsel. It will be interesting to see if Armstrong's CA criminal counsel is dragged into the "what did you know, and when did you know it fray" along with Tim Herman.

I'm still thinking civil RICO with the plaintiffs being most of the people Armstrong F...ed over the years.

 

[D-Queued]

If you have 3 quarters, 4 dimes, and 4 pennies, you have $1.19. You also have the largest amount of money in coins without being able to make change for a dollar.

This could likely end in Armstrong paying the money back. Why he ends up doing so will not proceed upon the kindergarten ideas some here propose.

Personally, I don't know why this game keeps getting played. It's almost like some here are unfamiliar with my work.

You see, this is the problem with lawyers. You think you know everything.

You forgot the $1 coin.

aka you missed the obvious.

Not trying to pick a fight with you (and I am bigger, I will wager), but I agree with Hog this time.

It is simple.

Dave.

 

[Carols]

For SCAs position as given by their lawyer Tilitson (?) listen here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nvv55

starting at 13:30

Highlights:

- prepared for a long fight
- 2002, 2003 payouts not included in arbitration settlement
- only legal basis for paying out was if LA was the official winner - LA lawyers very clear the if he lost titles he had no legal right to funds
- LA perjured himself and US law gives other party (SCA) independent right to undo result and seek sanctions.

Sounds like they willing to go all in.

I see you lawyer guys would rather fight then weigh in on if you think SCAs points have any merits. Do they???

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You see, this is the problem with lawyers. You think you know everything.

You forgot the $1 coin.

aka you missed the obvious.

Not trying to pick a fight with you (and I am bigger, I will wager), but I agree with Hog this time.

It is simple.

Dave.

See, that is the thing with lawyers, we read. A one dollar is EXACT coin change for a dollar bill.

aka you missed the MOST obvious.

Read before embarrassing yourself like that. The sentence said WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO MAKE CHANGE. If you give someone a $1 dollar coin for a $1 bill, you have MADE CHANGE. Sure it is the exact same thing, but the point of the sentence you quoted is that that combination of coins cannot equal one dollar.

Not trying to pick a fight or anything...

It is simple.

Trey

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You see, this is the problem with lawyers. You think you know everything.

You forgot the $1 coin.

aka you missed the obvious.

Not trying to pick a fight with you (and I am bigger, I will wager), but I agree with Hog this time.

It is simple.

Dave.

See, that is the thing with lawyers, we read. A one dollar is EXACT coin change for a dollar.

aka you missed the MOST obvious.

Read before embarrassing yourself like that. The sentence said WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO MAKE CHANGE. If you give someone a $1 dollar coin for a $1 bill, you have MADE CHANGE. The point of the sentence (actually, the point of my sentence was something completely different, but on its face, this is what it was about) I made is that group of coins cannot EQUAL $1. A one dollar coin can by definition.

Not trying to pick a fight or anything...

In light of that, you are probably about as right about the above as you are about hog's assertions.

It is simple.

Trey

 

[Velodude]

I see you lawyer guys would rather fight then weigh in on if you think SCAs points have any merits. Do they???

It is not that simple.

My guess is that SCA expects Armstrong to settle to avoid legal costs and his sworn guilt exposure to other prospective claimants. Hence, the public promoting by SCA of the grounds of its case.

It would appear Armstrong breached the confidentiality terms of the settlement agreement.

Unless there were penalty clauses incorporated to benefit SCA for a breach by Armstrong a breach, if by SCA, can only usually benefit the claimant (Armstrong) as they have compromised on their claim to settle the arbitration.

The settlement document and Texas law are the issues.

 

[veganrob]

Haha. this is a funny arguement but the way I see it. Giving a coin for a bill is not change as understood, it is an exchange. Or trade of equal value. If you ask say 1000 people on the street change for a dollar, my guess is 1000 of said people will be looking to break it into coins.
While you may be correct literally, maybe, Is their not an understood language common to the people also which in this case would trump your lawyer definition. Even in a court of law.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Armstrong's opponents are also going to become quite agressive given what has transpired over the past month. Look for motions in every action to have Herman disqualified as his counsel. It will be interesting to see if Armstrong's CA criminal counsel is dragged into the "what did you know, and when did you know it fray" along with Tim Herman.

I'm still thinking civil RICO with the plaintiffs being most of the people Armstrong F...ed over the years.

If he's smart, he'll do what the hog suggests and settle very quickly. He has legal arguments, but I think SCA has the better arguments (I think I've made clear what I think one of them should be); thus, if Armstrong refuses to settle, he will likely pay for a protracted legal battle that he loses which will cost him much more. Knowing his personality, he probably wants to fight, but maybe the a$$ kickings over the past two or three months have shown him that somebody put the stink eye on him, and his fortunes have changes.

But my hope is that the attorneys working for him be employed to fight this, and that they will reap great reward for doing so. I am doubly happy for the attorneys for SCA. The old joke: "The attorney's fees were over one third of the entire award!" To wit the attorney replied "I love a happy ending."

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Haha. this is a funny arguement but the way I see it. Giving a coin for a bill is not change as understood, it is an exchange. Or trade of equal value. If you ask say 1000 people on the street change for a dollar, my guess is 1000 of said people will be looking to break it into coins.
While you may be correct literally, maybe, Is their not an understood language common to the people also which in this case would trump your lawyer definition. Even in a court of law.

It is "change" by definition. And if one of those 1000 were an attorney, you'd only have 999 people who thought they knew what they were talking about.

And the argument that you are "literally correct, yet you are wrong" is simply stupid. It is the dumbest, most infuriatingly moronic argument I encounter. Take that to court. indeed.

 

[purcell]

If you have 3 quarters, 4 dimes, and 4 pennies, you have $1.19. You also have the largest amount of money in coins without being able to make change for a dollar.

This could likely end in Armstrong paying the money back. Why he ends up doing so will not proceed upon the kindergarten ideas some here propose.

Personally, I don't know why this game keeps getting played. It's almost like some here are unfamiliar with my work.

This is a very poor way to try and sway any argument. I have lost track of whether you are now a lawyer, or are a student, regardless, this does not mean you are the fount of knowledge.

I am not a lawyer, but I hire them on an almost daily basis. What I will tell you is on a sensitive matter, or one where the opinion I have received from counsel is suspect, I hire another one to give me a second, or third, or fourth opinion.

I do not, and would not accept any opinion as given, especially if it sent my radar tingling.

If any lawyer, ever gave me the "I am the lawyer so I am right" line - it would be the last billable hour that lawyer would ever spend on any account of mine.