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

[Jeremiah]

The sentencing judge? Are you so sure he's going to be convicted of something? He hasn't even been charged yet!

Or does the fact of investigation presuppose eventual conviction?

No dude, the fact of his GUILT, which everyone including you can see, presupposes his conviction.

 

[Merckx index]

Under what "theory" does SCA lose?

Wish fulfillment? Wtf is wrong with you? You don't "wish" to see justice done? What do you wish for btw?

You really think that every single fraudulent assertion Armstrong made does not matter and Armstrong will prevail?

Under the theory that a contract that contains language specifying that the agreement is final cannot be overturned. People can disagree with Mark, but even SCA’s Tim Hamman—not to mention many lawyers who have written about this on blogs--has expressed uncertainty about the outcome, so the notion that anyone thinking SCA has a tough case is engaged in wish fulfillment is way over the top.

Last Nov. 13, our venerable Hoggie predicted that LA would settle with SCA for the full twelve million within two months. Characterized that outcome as a “slam dunk”. So, believe it or not, people in the Clinic can be wrong about these things.

I think LA should have to repay the full amount. But just because I believe that doesn't mean I'm going to predict that he definitely will. Acting as if there is no distinction between what one wants to happen, and what one believes will happen is called magical thinking, and in normal development, we start to get beyond that I believe between the ages of 6 to 8. YMMV.

If SCA has such a big problem then why did LA offer to settle already?

He offered to pay $1 million, probably not a lot more than his legal fees if it goes to court and he wins.

 

[MarkvW]

They have no problem at ALL, with Herman's opening statement.

http://platform.atavist.com/data/files/organization/2/pdf/scaarmstrong-1360267325-74.pdf

If SCA has such a big problem then why did LA offer to settle already? Out of the goodness of his heart.

Bro, he's done and I have no idea what your angle is on all this but this constant piffle you spew is absolutely pathetic.

That settlement agreement is a really big deal.

 

[ultimobici]

There may very well be a settlement. I'm not saying SCA WILL win, I'm saying that SCA has a very big problem with the settlement agreement.

Surely, if a settlement is arrived at as a result of false testimony on one side, it puts a very big hole under the waterline of that settlement? I can see that an out of court settlement would be hard to overturn but this was a judgement made on the basis of the evidence that has been shown to be false. Allowing Armstrong or Tailwind to keep the money would be no different to a person who committed arson to keep the insurance after they'd been shown to be the perpetrator.

 

[MarkvW]

Surely, if a settlement is arrived at as a result of false testimony on one side, it puts a very big hole under the waterline of that settlement? I can see that an out of court settlement would be hard to overturn but this was a judgement made on the basis of the evidence that has been shown to be false. Allowing Armstrong or Tailwind to keep the money would be no different to a person who committed arson to keep the insurance after they'd been shown to be the perpetrator.

The falsehoods need to induce the signing of the settlement agreement. They didn't in this case (a) because the agreement recites that neither side relied upon any representations of the other; and (b) because SCA obviously didn't trust anything coming out of Lance's mouth.

This was an out-of-court settlement. No judgment was ever made by the arbitrator. The arbitration was resolved by the settlement agreement.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The falsehoods need to induce the signing of the settlement agreement. They didn't in this case (a) because the agreement recites that neither side relied upon any representations of the other; and (b) because SCA obviously didn't trust anything coming out of Lance's mouth.

This was an out-of-court settlement. No judgment was ever made by the arbitrator. The arbitration was resolved by the settlement agreement.

If only SCA were trying to proceed upon the theory of fraud in the inducement, the only theory many thought they would use...then there was this one guy who suggested there was another theory upon which they might proceed...that person was told that his ideas were cute, but ultimately inconsequential...

And all this talk of SCA's problems that some here like to harp on and on about seems to suggest SCA are the one's with the biggest problem...I would suggest the abject fact that Lance Armstrong never won the Tour de France, the consideration upon which he was due money, is a pretty big problem.

Read the complaint again.

 

[reginagold]

The falsehoods need to induce the signing of the settlement agreement. They didn't in this case (a) because the agreement recites that neither side relied upon any representations of the other; and (b) because SCA obviously didn't trust anything coming out of Lance's mouth.

This was an out-of-court settlement. No judgment was ever made by the arbitrator. The arbitration was resolved by the settlement agreement.

Tim, is that you? Remember, SCA was thinking about this day coming when they had everyone talking under oath. Sure, maybe sol saves your guy from perjury, but they set up a pretty strong case for detrimental reliance on fraud. There'd never be a civil contract case in any court if the courts enforced all the clauses stating neigher side relied upon any representations of the other.

Now briefly, where are we with the major legal matters known to the public? SCA has filed for their money. Were offered 1 million to go away. Qui Tam proceeding - settlement was offered, some say in the 5 million range, but rejected by Feds. Obstruction of justice - just made public, Lance and legal team apparently unaware of this investigation until announced a few days ago. Birotte investigation - shelved but not closed. FDA investigation - ongoing, some mumbling about it not specifically targeting Lance at this point. Sunday Times - ongoing. Suit on behalf of all the book buyers in California, just getting started. Oh, and now have two more weeks to dance around with Travis/USADA over when next can win a triathlon. Am I missing anything?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Tim, is that you? Remember, SCA was thinking about this day coming when they had everyone talking under oath. Sure, maybe sol saves your guy from perjury, but they set up a pretty strong case for detrimental reliance on fraud. There'd never be a civil contract case in any court if the courts enforced all the clauses stating neigher side relied upon any representations of the other.

Now briefly, where are we with the major legal matters known to the public? SCA has filed for their money. Were offered 1 million to go away. Qui Tam proceeding - settlement was offered, some say in the 5 million range, but rejected by Feds. Obstruction of justice - just made public, Lance and legal team apparently unaware of this investigation until announced a few days ago. Birotte investigation - shelved but not closed. FDA investigation - ongoing, some mumbling about it not specifically targeting Lance at this point. Sunday Times - ongoing. Suit on behalf of all the book buyers in California, just getting started. Oh, and now have two more weeks to dance around with Travis/USADA over when next can win a triathlon. Am I missing anything?

But they aren't claiming that. They are claiming extrinsic fraud, not any form of intrinsic fraud.

Lance Armstrong stood on a podium 7 times and was presented with a ceramic bowl and was celebrated as having won the Tour de France. He was even paid as though he won the Tour de France. Here's the problem: He never won the Tour de France from a legal perspective. His fraud was perpetrated no upon SCA, it was perpetrated upon ASO. Because of that fraud, he was presented the baubles and prize money of a winner. Only he isn't the winner nor legally was he ever the winner. You have to win legally. He didn't.

MarkvW seems only capable of myopic thought. He can only address the simplest legal theories because once you get past kindergarten law, he gets lost pretty quickly. Fortunately, there are other attorneys out there who are not so limited in their thinking. He read the complaint looking for where they would address his theory that the only theory they would proceed upon was fraud in the inducement. He didn't find it, so now he assumes that it is deficient because they didn't proceed upon the grounds he says they had to proceed upon. He missed some really important stuff in the process. His blindness might be related to his limited abilities as an attorney. Then again, it could also be that he has other motives for not addressing these things that don't conform to his theory of the case. Who knows? He has been deceptive about who he is and what he does from the beginning. He has also been deceptive about his motives for engaging here. You just can't trust the guy on anything really. It's probably best to start treating him like we would someone like BPC. When you can't trust someone to engage in honest discourse, there's no real reason to engage them.

I think I am going to take my advice here and stop addressing him.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Everyone needs to be clear here, the only relation the arbitration and settlement agreement play in SCA's complaint is that they were used to to help falsely obtain Tour de France titles. To be a Tour de France winner, you must not just arrive in Paris with the lowest accumulated time. Most people think if a win as simply that. However, contractually, there are many more hurdles over which one has to or may have to surmount to be legally the winner. One of those is that you may not procure those wins through fraudulent means, one of those fraudulent means being doping. Once Armstrong's doping was exposed, he was given a legal process to defend against. He didn't because he knew he couldn't. Now, at this point, everyone thought he was "stripped" of his TdF titles, but legally, that is not what happened. Legally what happened was a recognition that he never actually won those titles. He wasn't a legitimate winner who was dispossessed of his title; he was never legitimately the winner.

That is what this complaint is recognizing. Why people keep glossing over that is a mystery to me. All the arbitration and settlement did was add to the layers of fraud and deceit that kept everyone from seeing the truth, that truth being that Lance never won the Tour de France. Read the complaint in full. It's all there in black and white as they say.

 

[Jeremiah]

Under the theory that a contract that contains language specifying that the agreement is final cannot be overturned. People can disagree with Mark, but even SCA’s Tim Hamman—not to mention many lawyers who have written about this on blogs--has expressed uncertainty about the outcome, so the notion that anyone thinking SCA has a tough case is engaged in wish fulfillment is way over the top.

Last Nov. 13, our venerable Hoggie predicted that LA would settle with SCA for the full twelve million within two months. Characterized that outcome as a “slam dunk”. So, believe it or not, people in the Clinic can be wrong about these things.

I think LA should have to repay the full amount. But just because I believe that doesn't mean I'm going to predict that he definitely will. Acting as if there is no distinction between what one wants to happen, and what one believes will happen is called magical thinking, and in normal development, we start to get beyond that I believe between the ages of 6 to 8. YMMV.



He offered to pay $1 million, probably not a lot more than his legal fees if it goes to court and he wins.

Dude, how about reading the link of the SCA's filing? Because of Armstrong's fraud, SCA was NEVER obligated to make the payments originally. The SPECIFIC language of the INITIAL contract which the WHOLE series of events is based on.

Because Armstrong and Stapleton subsequently forced SCA's hand because the cult of Lance had taken hold does not in any way mean a judge will uphold this arbitration "contract" everyone can see was fraudulently obtained.

The answers are right in front of your face and the only "magical thinking" being engaged in here is a sophisticated form of lying that MarkW and you apparently buy into and people in Jr. High start to spout when they learn a little bit. You're like babies who hold their hands in front of their eyes with this settlement agreement and think you're hiding from everyone.

'Ooh, I know it's as clear as day what's right and wrong but we can't do anything!'

Whatever, we'll see what happens and unless the world has gone completely mad your silly hand wringing over this will be shown to be just that.

And to try to bolster your silliness with what the Hog says? Good Lord! That guy was threatening to shut down a JV's spine thread a while back because it was so beyond the pale.... At any rate, I'm basing nothing on what he says.

People, even the SCOTUS has this idiotic belief that people serve the legal system when in fact the WHOLE IDEA of the legal system is to serve the people and the interest of justice. Just keep that in mind before you start engaging in this idea that we're locked into this fraud and there's nothing we can do!

Oh no!!!

 

[johnsiviour]

Everyone needs to be clear here, the only relation the arbitration and settlement agreement play in SCA's complaint is that they were used to to help falsely obtain Tour de France titles. To be a Tour de France winner, you must not just arrive in Paris with the lowest accumulated time. Most people think if a win as simply that. However, contractually, there are many more hurdles over which one has to or may have to surmount to be legally the winner. One of those is that you may not procure those wins through fraudulent means, one of those fraudulent means being doping. Once Armstrong's doping was exposed, he was given a legal process to defend against. He didn't because he knew he couldn't. Now, at this point, everyone thought he was "stripped" of his TdF titles, but legally, that is not what happened. Legally what happened was a recognition that he never actually won those titles. He wasn't a legitimate winner who was dispossessed of his title; he was never legitimately the winner.

That is what this complaint is recognizing. Why people keep glossing over that is a mystery to me. All the arbitration and settlement did was add to the layers of fraud and deceit that kept everyone from seeing the truth, that truth being that Lance never won the Tour de France. Read the complaint in full. It's all there in black and white as they say.

Too bloody right! I add that Lance's "$75M day" also never truly existed ... as without his fraudulent activities he would not have had the opportunity to obtain said sponsorship in the first place.

 

[Jeremiah]

The only issue here is the exit strategy that allows people like a former POTUS, Senators, Asst. US atty's General and other skells to escape responsibility because there were failures on so many levels.

The continued audacity of people like Herman and Armstrong is absolutely breathtaking and they are relying on the illusion that they are too big to fail and will drag too many people down with them.


Any smart former supporters LA had are frantically cutting the lines to the guy and holding him under water while they think no one is looking.

To do otherwise, is to continue making a mockery of yourself.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

Too bloody right! I add that Lance's "$75M day" also never truly existed ... as without his fraudulent activities he would not have had the opportunity to obtain said sponsorship in the first place.

Discussing the $75 million dollar day was one of the great mistakes of his Oprah interview, made him extremely unlikeable to the masses who can no way relate it.

 

[Benotti69]

The only issue here is the exit strategy that allows people like a former POTUS, Senators, Asst. US atty's General and other skells to escape responsibility because there were failures on so many levels.

The continued audacity of people like Herman and Armstrong is absolutely breathtaking and they are relying on the illusion that they are too big to fail and will drag too many people down with them.


Any smart former supporters LA had are frantically cutting the lines to the guy and holding him under water while they think no one is looking.

To do otherwise, is to continue making a mockery of yourself.

This is why all the sponsors dropped him. He is toxic and will get ever more so when more of the details come out.

 

[Jeremiah]

What does one do when a fraud

But they aren't claiming that. They are claiming extrinsic fraud, not any form of intrinsic fraud.

Lance Armstrong stood on a podium 7 times and was presented with a ceramic bowl and was celebrated as having won the Tour de France. He was even paid as though he won the Tour de France. Here's the problem: He never won the Tour de France from a legal perspective. His fraud was perpetrated no upon SCA, it was perpetrated upon ASO. Because of that fraud, he was presented the baubles and prize money of a winner. Only he isn't the winner nor legally was he ever the winner. You have to win legally. He didn't.

MarkvW seems only capable of myopic thought. He can only address the simplest legal theories because once you get past kindergarten law, he gets lost pretty quickly. Fortunately, there are other attorneys out there who are not so limited in their thinking. He read the complaint looking for where they would address his theory that the only theory they would proceed upon was fraud in the inducement. He didn't find it, so now he assumes that it is deficient because they didn't proceed upon the grounds he says they had to proceed upon. He missed some really important stuff in the process. His blindness might be related to his limited abilities as an attorney. Then again, it could also be that he has other motives for not addressing these things that don't conform to his theory of the case. Who knows? He has been deceptive about who he is and what he does from the beginning. He has also been deceptive about his motives for engaging here. You just can't trust the guy on anything really. It's probably best to start treating him like we would someone like BPC. When you can't trust someone to engage in honest discourse, there's no real reason to engage them.

I think I am going to take my advice here and stop addressing him.

is perpetrated on WHOLE SOCIETIES? When just about EVERYONE signs on to the fraud?

The scary thing is the influence he, and his idiotic view of the obvious, has on people who one would think are rational thinkers here on the forum.

Like this is a tough case or something?

 

[Scott SoCal]

The only issue here is the exit strategy that allows people like a former POTUS, Senators, Asst. US atty's General and other skells to escape responsibility because there were failures on so many levels.

The continued audacity of people like Herman and Armstrong is absolutely breathtaking and they are relying on the illusion that they are too big to fail and will drag too many people down with them.


Any smart former supporters LA had are frantically cutting the lines to the guy and holding him under water while they think no one is looking.

To do otherwise, is to continue making a mockery of yourself.

The continued audacity of people like Herman and Armstrong is absolutely breathtaking and they are relying on the illusion that they are too big to fail and will drag too many people down with them.

Man, if they are relying on being too big to fail... then the definition of delusional has been rewritten.

Any smart former supporters LA had are frantically cutting the lines to the guy and holding him under water while they think no one is looking.

Sally probably should be reading this, but they say love is blind

 

[Scott SoCal]

Discussing the $75 million dollar day was one of the great mistakes of his Oprah interview, made him extremely unlikeable to the masses who can no way relate it.

Even Oprah winced at that comment.

Although she probably winced because she spent that much renovating her kitchen at the Montecito mansion.

 

[Jeremiah]

Man, if they are relying on being too big to fail... then the definition of delusional has been rewritten.



Sally probably should be reading this, but they say love is blind

I agree with you 100% but imbeciles are still waving around this settlement agreement as if it means anything at all.

USADA issued a thousand pages on the fraud. LA admitted he is a fraud. But you signed here! Na, na, na na,na, NA!

AND SUPPOSED RATIONAL THINKERS BELIEVE THIS HAS MERIT? I expect it from Herman..... that dooshbag will argue anything. But to come on here and pose as THE THINKER and say, 'why I think he has something here?' What?


Damn, we know the sun is the center of the Universe but that's heresy dammit! Even though EVERYONE knows this, he must be burned at the stake!

That's what the paper says and we must follow the paper which sits upon Mt. Fraud! This is what's known as critical thinking practiced by the "mature" people....

 

[BroDeal]

But they aren't claiming that. They are claiming extrinsic fraud, not any form of intrinsic fraud.

Lance Armstrong stood on a podium 7 times and was presented with a ceramic bowl and was celebrated as having won the Tour de France. He was even paid as though he won the Tour de France. Here's the problem: He never won the Tour de France from a legal perspective. His fraud was perpetrated no upon SCA, it was perpetrated upon ASO. Because of that fraud, he was presented the baubles and prize money of a winner. Only he isn't the winner nor legally was he ever the winner. You have to win legally. He didn't.

MarkvW seems only capable of myopic thought. He can only address the simplest legal theories because once you get past kindergarten law, he gets lost pretty quickly. Fortunately, there are other attorneys out there who are not so limited in their thinking. He read the complaint looking for where they would address his theory that the only theory they would proceed upon was fraud in the inducement. He didn't find it, so now he assumes that it is deficient because they didn't proceed upon the grounds he says they had to proceed upon. He missed some really important stuff in the process. His blindness might be related to his limited abilities as an attorney. Then again, it could also be that he has other motives for not addressing these things that don't conform to his theory of the case. Who knows? He has been deceptive about who he is and what he does from the beginning. He has also been deceptive about his motives for engaging here. You just can't trust the guy on anything really. It's probably best to start treating him like we would someone like BPC. When you can't trust someone to engage in honest discourse, there's no real reason to engage them.

I think I am going to take my advice here and stop addressing him.

Now hold it. MarkW is claiming he is an attorney?

Threads like these have become much less valuable because of this guy's duplicity. He cannot keep his story straight about whether he is an attorney, a paralegal putting on airs, or a Walter Mitty with Google skills.

 

[MarkvW]

Everyone needs to be clear here, the only relation the arbitration and settlement agreement play in SCA's complaint is that they were used to to help falsely obtain Tour de France titles.

The arbitration and settlement agreement were not used to help falsely obtain Tour de France titles. SCA sued after the races were over and Lance claimed victory. The arbitration and settlement were over one thing: SCA's obligations pursuant to the original contract between SCA and Lance. Lance asserted that he had already performed his promise (he won the TdF) and that SCA needed to pay him the money promised in the contract. SCA claimed that Lance did not perform as he promised to perform (he did not really win, he doped) and that SCA was not obligated to pay the money. The arbitration was about resolving a contractual dispute between SCA and Lance.

To be a Tour de France winner, you must not just arrive in Paris with the lowest accumulated time. Most people think if a win as simply that. However, contractually, there are many more hurdles over which one has to or may have to surmount to be legally the winner. One of those is that you may not procure those wins through fraudulent means, one of those fraudulent means being doping. Once Armstrong's doping was exposed, he was given a legal process to defend against. He didn't because he knew he couldn't. Now, at this point, everyone thought he was "stripped" of his TdF titles, but legally, that is not what happened. Legally what happened was a recognition that he never actually won those titles. He wasn't a legitimate winner who was dispossessed of his title; he was never legitimately the winner.

That was SCA's argument in 2006 when they were FIRST litigating against Lance. That argument wasn't very attractive to SCA at that time, and rather than pushing it SCA entered into a second contract with Lance Armstrong.

That second contract contains a lot of promises that bind both Lance and SCA:

--It forever binds Lance and SCA (3.1(d)).
--SCA isn't relying on any of Lance's representations. In other words, they're not being defrauded here. This second agreement is an arm's-length transaction. (3.1(e)). And this language isn't just meaningless boilerplate. It's part of the bargain. (3.1(g)).
--The Arbitration Panel has exclusive jurisdiction over CONTINGENT PRIZE CONTRACT 31122. This means no lawsuits over contingent prize contract 31122. If a party wants to raise an issue over contingent prize contract 31122, then it must be brought back before the arbitration panel.
--SCA and Lance agreed upon an arbitration award of 7.5 million. (3.1(f)). This is the arbitration award that SCA now wants to undo. In other words SCA is now trying to undo an arbitration award that it specifically agreed to and directed in a contract.
--SCA and Lance also agreed that neither SCA nor Lance may later challenge, appeal, or attempt to set aside the arbitration award. (3.1(g)).

That is what this complaint is recognizing. Why people keep glossing over that is a mystery to me. All the arbitration and settlement did was add to the layers of fraud and deceit that kept everyone from seeing the truth, that truth being that Lance never won the Tour de France. Read the complaint in full. It's all there in black and white as they say.

The complaint makes a very good argument as to why SCA was not obligated to pay money to Lance under the original contract. However, the complaint glosses over the second contract--the settlement agreement. Lance is going to have a very good argument that the first contract was superseded by the settlement agreement contract--and the arbitration agreement that resulted from that settlement agreement.

The next big show is going to be Lance squirming to avoid his deposition. A lot of the settlement agreement arguments are going to be trotted out in that skirmish. That skirmish ought to be resolved fairly soon. If SCA loses on the deposition issue, then their lawsuit is doomed. If SCA wins, then things are looking good for them.

 

[Elagabalus]

Have you worked much in the better-than-average career position? It happens all the time. Birotte has his silo, some other agency has theirs and they don't share because it might be used to make someone like a Birotte look bad or whatever. No one would remember that Birotte's information was helpful. They'd remember the agency that might/might not get a conviction though.

It's not quite as Macchavellian(sp??) as it is made it out to be. Again, I agree there were darker motives to Birotte shutting his investigation down. That kind of influence is both brilliant and scary. Fabiani seems to have it and does very well by it.

I think you've got this bass ackwards. Generally speaking agencies don't share information readily because they don't trust the receiver of said information to try and use it against them. Better to hold the info and use it as a bargaining chip to form alliances, consolidate power and control the message--All part of the human condition.

 

[Elagabalus]

...and the last thing he is ever going to want to have to address is inter-office infighting. Any infighting reflects badly on the Office of the Attorney General.

...

Eh ... Are you sure about how the world works?

 

[MarkvW]

Eh ... Are you sure about how the world works?

I'm not particularly sure of anything. Elvis could be alive and manipulating everything, for all I know. But the idea that Birotte was "influenced" into a corrupt decision and that other Unites States attorneys are now trying to embarrass him is too far out for me to accept.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The arbitration and settlement agreement were not used to help falsely obtain Tour de France titles. SCA sued after the races were over and Lance claimed victory. The arbitration and settlement were over one thing: SCA's obligations pursuant to the original contract between SCA and Lance. Lance asserted that he had already performed his promise (he won the TdF) and that SCA needed to pay him the money promised in the contract. SCA claimed that Lance did not perform as he promised to perform (he did not really win, he doped) and that SCA was not obligated to pay the money. The arbitration was about resolving a contractual dispute between SCA and Lance.



That was SCA's argument in 2006 when they were FIRST litigating against Lance. That argument wasn't very attractive to SCA at that time, and rather than pushing it SCA entered into a second contract with Lance Armstrong.

That second contract contains a lot of promises that bind both Lance and SCA:

--It forever binds Lance and SCA (3.1(d)).
--SCA isn't relying on any of Lance's representations. In other words, they're not being defrauded here. This second agreement is an arm's-length transaction. (3.1(e)). And this language isn't just meaningless boilerplate. It's part of the bargain. (3.1(g)).
--The Arbitration Panel has exclusive jurisdiction over CONTINGENT PRIZE CONTRACT 31122. This means no lawsuits over contingent prize contract 31122. If a party wants to raise an issue over contingent prize contract 31122, then it must be brought back before the arbitration panel.
--SCA and Lance agreed upon an arbitration award of 7.5 million. (3.1(f)). This is the arbitration award that SCA now wants to undo. In other words SCA is now trying to undo an arbitration award that it specifically agreed to and directed in a contract.
--SCA and Lance also agreed that neither SCA nor Lance may later challenge, appeal, or attempt to set aside the arbitration award. (3.1(g)).




The complaint makes a very good argument as to why SCA was not obligated to pay money to Lance under the original contract. However, the complaint glosses over the second contract--the settlement agreement. Lance is going to have a very good argument that the first contract was superseded by the settlement agreement contract--and the arbitration agreement that resulted from that settlement agreement.

The next big show is going to be Lance squirming to avoid his deposition. A lot of the settlement agreement arguments are going to be trotted out in that skirmish. That skirmish ought to be resolved fairly soon. If SCA loses on the deposition issue, then their lawsuit is doomed. If SCA wins, then things are looking good for them.

You can't read.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Now hold it. MarkW is claiming he is an attorney?

Threads like these have become much less valuable because of this guy's duplicity. He cannot keep his story straight about whether he is an attorney, a paralegal putting on airs, or a Walter Mitty with Google skills.

He isn't claiming he is an attorney, but he's an attorney. Not a terribly competent one, but he's an attorney. He just likes to lie about it because he is playing some "I can't let them know because _____________" game. It's like his "I won't slander a US Attorney with my anonymous interwebs character because Birotte will see through my ruse and I will get in trouble.

Deluded.

Incompetent.

Dishonest.

MarkvW and Associates, LLC.