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

[ChewbaccaD]

Now, this back and forth is getting ridiculous. And yes, I do recognize the level or ridiculousness and arrogance in my responses.

I will leave with this: I merely suggested that mutual mistake might be grounds for setting aside the settlement agreement between SCA and Mr. Armstrong, and that mutual mistake might require less legal wrangling than other grounds like fraud. It is almost certain that a court will have to consider the question of whether to set aside the settlement agreement if Mr. Armstrong decides to fight this. He may very well not fight, and in my opinion, he will lose if he does.

Evidently, that is akin committing heresy in this forum to suggest such things. Considering the fact that I could very well be wrong about my assertion, I will offer this (as I offered all of the fanboys on Slowtwitch regarding the subject matter jurisdiction argument I had there): if that issue is never raised, I will come to this thread and admit my error and take any verbal abuse anyone wants to dole out. (and I feel that occurrence is MUCH more likely than me ever having to have done that on Slowtwitch). However, if it is included, all of those here taking pot shots need to have the testicular fortitude to come here and take a little of the medicine I would like to dole out if I am right.

And with that, this thread is dead to me until that day, so until then, keep your feet on the ground, and keep reaching for the stars.

 

[veganrob]

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.

Not to get more off topic, but I am. haha

There are some things or behaviour in society that become so commonplace it is acceptable as law even though it is really not law. That is what I am trying to get at.

BTW. I am sure you will be a good lawyer

 

[D-Queued]

Now, this back and forth is getting ridiculous. And yes, I do recognize the level or ridiculousness and arrogance in my responses.

I will leave with this: I merely suggested that mutual mistake might be grounds for setting aside the settlement agreement between SCA and Mr. Armstrong, and that mutual mistake might require less legal wrangling than other grounds like fraud. It is almost certain that a court will have to consider the question of whether to set aside the settlement agreement if Mr. Armstrong decides to fight this. He may very well not fight, and in my opinion, he will lose if he does.

Evidently, that is akin committing heresy in this forum to suggest such things. Considering the fact that I could very well be wrong about my assertion, I will offer this (as I offered all of the fanboys on Slowtwitch regarding the subject matter jurisdiction argument I had there): if that issue is never raised, I will come to this thread and admit my error and take any verbal abuse anyone wants to dole out. (and I feel that occurrence is MUCH more likely than me ever having to have done that on Slowtwitch). However, if it is included, all of those here taking pot shots need to have the testicular fortitude to come here and take a little of the medicine I would like to dole out if I am right.

And with that, this thread is dead to me until that day, so until then, keep your feet on the ground, and keep reaching for the stars.

Exam time?

BTW - while we could call the $1 coin a draw, how about adding in a $2.50 coin? We still need to consider ALL the facts.

Dave.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I tried to send this via PM because I said I wouldn't post again, but you need to clean out your box dude. So here:

Dave,

Sorry, I can be a pr!ckly pr!ck sometimes.

Lets call the coin thing a draw and go back to being intertubes friends.

Trey

I offer the same to all of you except the hog. She has actually p!ssed me off because if she understood my argument, she would understand that I was merely suggesting what I though might be a quicker, less expensive way for SCA to start the process of getting their money back. She can go ride a freight train of "go f**k yourself" straight to her winter cave.

EDIT: Not exam time yet, but it is a little over a month away, and s**t is about to get real. The great news is that I was offered a job Friday (pending my graduation and passage of the bar). I'm pretty freaking excited to say the least.

 

[MarkvW]

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

If the settlement agreement, and the circumstances surrounding it, actually effected what the parties intended to effect at the time (a final settlement), then SCA won't win.

But that is a very big if. We don't know the terms of the settlement agreement and we don't know the circumstances surrounding its execution. Everybody is very much speculating.

SCA may have arguments that can persuade a court to unwind the settlement agreement--or at least arguments that keep the case going long enough to get Lance under oath. And Lance doesn't want to testify under oath.

 

[D-Queued]

I tried to send this via PM because I said I wouldn't post again, but you need to clean out your box dude. So here:



I offer the same to all of you except the hog. She has actually p!ssed me off because if she understood my argument, she would understand that I was merely suggesting what I though might be a quicker, less expensive way for SCA to start the process of getting their money back. She can go ride a freight train of "go f**k yourself" straight to her winter cave.

EDIT: Not exam time yet, but it is a little over a month away, and s**t is about to get real. The great news is that I was offered a job Friday (pending my graduation and passage of the bar). I'm pretty freaking excited to say the least.

Apology not required.

I pay really close attention to your comments on legal issues.

I may not like them, though! And, sometimes it takes me longer than it should to admit openly that you are (far more likely than me) right.

From a lay perspective, the SCA case should be air-tight. But, it may be another instance where we are disappointed in the legal system.

Obviously the silence is golden moment from Lance suggests that FOR ONCE he is listening to his attorneys.

I would like to see that as confirmation that he is finally very worried about his chances.

Dave.

 

[Carols]

If the settlement agreement, and the circumstances surrounding it, actually effected what the parties intended to effect at the time (a final settlement), then SCA won't win.

But that is a very big if. We don't know the terms of the settlement agreement and we don't know the circumstances surrounding its execution. Everybody is very much speculating.

SCA may have arguments that can persuade a court to unwind the settlement agreement--or at least arguments that keep the case going long enough to get Lance under oath. And Lance doesn't want to testify under oath.

As indicated by the SCA lawyer the 2002, 2003 payouts ($5M) were Not part of the settlement arbitration so wouldn't they be fair game regardless of the settlement agreement for the 2004 (non)win?

Would SCA have to prove in court that he perjured himself to open a new action?

Are they just trying to scare him into paying, do you think?

Thanks for the response!

 

[thehog]

I offer the same to all of you except the hog. She has actually p!ssed me off because if she understood my argument, she would understand that I was merely suggesting what I though might be a quicker, less expensive way for SCA to start the process of getting their money back. She can go ride a freight train of "go f**k yourself" straight to her winter cave.

.

Charming.

Your legal-aid clients will be enamored to have you selected to represent them!

Please be civil.

I fully understood what you were saying. It's just the way you said and the means by which you tried to turn it into a dissertation of 10,000 words.

Brevity is key on the legal field. Just ask Judge Sparks

 

[MarkvW]

As indicated by the SCA lawyer the 2002, 2003 payouts ($5M) were Not part of the settlement arbitration so wouldn't they be fair game regardless of the settlement agreement for the 2004 (non)win?

Would SCA have to prove in court that he perjured himself to open a new action?

Are they just trying to scare him into paying, do you think?

Thanks for the response!

Those would look like fair game to me! As to those, they would seem to have a good chance of recovery. I hadn't thought about them before.

We are in the realm of speculation, so it's way to early to evaluate anything.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Charming.

Your legal-aid clients will be enamored to have you selected to represent them!

Please be civil.

I fully understood what you were saying. It's just the way you said and the means by which you tried to turn it into a dissertation of 10,000 words.

Brevity is key on the legal field. Just ask Judge Sparks

I was offered a job Friday by the woman who I am currently interning with and I still have a year to go, so thanks for the suggestion of legal-aid, but I'll take Real Estate Law FTW.

Sorry I used big words. I'll draw pictures next time. Sorry about the genetics also.

Was that brief enough?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Charming.

Your legal-aid clients will be enamored to have you selected to represent them!

Please be civil.

I fully understood what you were saying. It's just the way you said and the means by which you tried to turn it into a dissertation of 10,000 words.

Brevity is key on the legal field. Just ask Judge Sparks

Also know that I am doubly p***ed because your ratio of claiming something will happen and it actually happening is abysmal (that means really bad), so I am now almost certain SCA are jinxed.

Do everyone in Vegas a favor and never go there.

 

[thehog]

I was offered a job Friday by the woman who I am currently interning with and I still have a year to go, so thanks for the suggestion of legal-aid, but I'll take Real Estate Law FTW.

Sorry I used big words. I'll draw pictures next time. Sorry about the genetics also.

Was that brief enough?

C'Mon Chewy I'm just yankin' ya chain!

The SCA case will be fun. Lance will dancing all around it. It will be good to watch.

 

[mewmewmew13]

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

.........

 

[thehog]

.........

I have several case studies conducted via my own research

 

[ChewbaccaD]

C'Mon Chewy I'm just yankin' ya chain!

The SCA case will be fun. Lance will dancing all around it. It will be good to watch.

You're just so d*mn lovable...I can't stay mad at 'ya baby.

Take me back baby, take me BACK!!!

 

[Velodude]

If the settlement agreement, and the circumstances surrounding it, actually effected what the parties intended to effect at the time (a final settlement), then SCA won't win.

But that is a very big if. We don't know the terms of the settlement agreement and we don't know the circumstances surrounding its execution. Everybody is very much speculating.

SCA may have arguments that can persuade a court to unwind the settlement agreement--or at least arguments that keep the case going long enough to get Lance under oath. And Lance doesn't want to testify under oath.

Notice you are back trying to take the high ground on legal advice.

I know you were a strong supporter of KingsMountain when he was giving "legal" advice in the Clinic in support of Lance Armstrong. You deferred to his appearance of superior legal standing on these subjects on a number of occasions when you were strongly behind LA.

Now it would appear that KingsMountain (who morphed into mountainrman) is a long time LA supporter, tri athlete and slowtwitch website owner. No where in his CV can we find lawyer.

But when USADA commenced its action against LA in June 2012 you again sought his "wise" counsel on a legal issue (anti USADA?).

Your message is on KingsMountain's CN Forum profile.

The blind leading the blind?

 

[MarkvW]

Notice you are back tring to take the high ground on legal advice.

I know you were a strong supporter of KingsMountain when he was giving "legal" advice in the Clinic in support of Lance Armstrong. You deferred to his appearance of superior legal standing on these subjects on a number of occasions when you were strongly behind LA.

Now it would appear that KingsMountain (who morphed into mountainrman) is a long time LA supporter, tri athlete and slowtwitch website owner. No where in his CV can we find lawyer.

But when USADA commenced its action against LA in June 2012 you again sought his "wise" counsel on a legal issue (anti USADA?).

Your message is on KingsMountain's CN Forum profile.

The blind leading the blind?

I'm just a google lawyer. Completely blind. Why bother to attack me personally?

 

[runninboy]

the hog is right on this one.
It's like the old law school saying
when you have the law on your side
you pound on the law
when you have the facts on your side
you pound on the facts
when you have neither
you pound the table.

In this case the fraud predates the original contract, you cannot have a legally binding contract based on fraud. So the money must be returned.
Now Lances lawyer's will pound the table about everything, the subsequent settlement language blah blah blah. But it all comes back to the original contract not being legal or binding on the basis of the fraud.
So SCA have the law and facts on their side
Lance's lawyer pound the table. It stalls the inevitable. Even if Lance finds a sympathetic judge that will indulge them eventually the law will prevail at a higher level.
While it might seem simplistic, that is also how you win cases. Making a case that is based on the law and is as straight forward as possible. Lance's position to prevail is complicated out of neccessity, because on it's merits it cannot stand. Pay no attention to the facts, we have a settlement here. sure it's based on ignoring the fraud that was perpetrated from the beginning predating the settlement, and the original contract as well but we got a John Hancock on there and well, that's good enough for us!
I know nothing of contract law other than you cannot have a legal contract based on something illegal. It's unenforceable. The concept is readily apparent and applies in this case.
the hog is right
love you all but he is spot on.

 

[Oldman]

the hog is right on this one.
It's like the old law school saying
when you have the law on your side
you pound on the law
when you have the facts on your side
you pound on the facts
when you have neither
you pound the table.

In this case the fraud predates the original contract, you cannot have a legally binding contract based on fraud. So the money must be returned.
Now Lances lawyer's will pound the table about everything, the subsequent settlement language blah blah blah. But it all comes back to the original contract not being legal or binding on the basis of the fraud.
So SCA have the law and facts on their side
Lance's lawyer pound the table. It stalls the inevitable. Even if Lance finds a sympathetic judge that will indulge them eventually the law will prevail at a higher level.
While it might seem simplistic, that is also how you win cases. Making a case that is based on the law and is as straight forward as possible. Lance's position to prevail is complicated out of neccessity, because on it's merits it cannot stand. Pay no attention to the facts, we have a settlement here. sure it's based on ignoring the fraud that was perpetrated from the beginning predating the settlement, and the original contract as well but we got a John Hancock on there and well, that's good enough for us!
I know nothing of contract law other than you cannot have a legal contract based on something illegal. It's unenforceable. The concept is readily apparent and applies in this case.
the hog is right
love you all but he is spot on.

You could actually have a contract on just about anything, but your point about fraudulent representation is/was appropriate. SCA and Lance settled based on a new set of testimony and that's more important to the issue now for Lance. His perjury revealed to the public opens a floodgate of other litigation most likely. I still think they'll stall because even a settlement will invite some level of disaster for his empire. How long would be a worthwhile betting pool topic.

 

[KingsMountain]

I know you were a strong supporter of KingsMountain when he was giving "legal" advice in the Clinic in support of Lance Armstrong. You deferred to his appearance of superior legal standing on these subjects on a number of occasions when you were strongly behind LA.

Now it would appear that KingsMountain (who morphed into mountainrman) is a long time LA supporter, tri athlete and slowtwitch website owner. No where in his CV can we find lawyer.

But when USADA commenced its action against LA in June 2012 you again sought his "wise" counsel on a legal issue (anti USADA?).

Your message is on KingsMountain's CN Forum profile.

Velodude:
What a load of cr*p! I haven't provided any advice to Armstrong, supportive or otherwise, and I'm certainly not mountainrman.
One of the handy things about having only made 40 posts is that it possible to go back and read them all. Go ahead, read a few and see if you can back up your assertion.

BTW, I have no appearance or actuality of superior legal standing. Instead, I am a scientist (more of a manager these days). That may be why I prefer facts as opposed to accepting any concept simply because it is consistent with an agenda or belief.

As for being a long time supporter of Armstrong, I am an old fart who last raced a bicycle in 1963. My concept of undoped athletes is based on the performances seen in the 60s, and I'm inclined to look askance at any pro cyclist from roughly 1980 through today. So no, I never "believed" in Armstrong (nor Indurain and many other cyclists of the past).

 

[thehog]

You're just so d*mn lovable...I can't stay mad at 'ya baby.

Take me back baby, take me BACK!!!

"No matter what his lawyers say, we intend to seek sanctions against Mr. Armstrong for lying in our proceedings," said Jeff Tillotson, an attorney for SCA. "He lied to the judges, and they retain the right to sanction him."

SCA are coming to get their money!

"Dallas firm wants Lance Armstrong punished for perjury"

 

[Microchip]

Originally Posted by thehog
It's a scientific fact that women speak 7000 words a day and men 2000.
..........snip............




.........

This response alone disproves that...

 

[D-Queued]

"No matter what his lawyers say, we intend to seek sanctions against Mr. Armstrong for lying in our proceedings," said Jeff Tillotson, an attorney for SCA. "He lied to the judges, and they retain the right to sanction him."

SCA are coming to get their money!

"Dallas firm wants Lance Armstrong punished for perjury"

Seems fair.

I'm pretty tired of what his lawyers have to say as well.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

Seems fair.

I'm pretty tired of what his lawyers have to say as well.

Dave.

Well it just shows they're going for the "original deception". I think bigging it in the media is to manoeuvre Armstrong into a speedy settlement. Which he will.

Armstrong doesn't want the authorities to start sniffing around perjury counts.

 

[MarkvW]

SCA are coming to get their money!

"Dallas firm wants Lance Armstrong punished for perjury"

SCA has a nice extra argument, somewhat independent of the argument relating to the disputed payouts and settlements. They're arguing that Lance should be sanctioned by the Court for lying in the deposition, simple as that.

And they are explicitly baiting Lance in the media: Swear that you didn't dope (and risk perjury) or pay up.

This is so hilarious!

All it takes is one ornery judge, who doesn't like liars, and Lance will have to testify about every tiny little detail in the USADA reports. Lance under oath would be too good. Things that good never happen.

Herman is talking fight, so it looks like Lance is going to make a motion to dismiss based on the finality settlement agreement, and try to halt the deposition process in the meantime. It's Rubicon-City for Mr. Armstrong.