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

[ChewbaccaD]

The case is in state court, so no 12(b)(6). Armstrong will file an MSJ and seek to quash any discovery unitil MSJ is ruled on (to prevent deposition).

It would have paid for me to read the header.

Here is my new avatar:

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The case is in state court, so no 12(b)(6). Armstrong will file an MSJ and seek to quash any discovery unitil MSJ is ruled on (to prevent deposition).

Texas has a motion to dismiss based on 12(b)(6): http://www.winston.com/siteFiles/Publications/Motions To Dismiss Come To Texas.pdf

Why would they not file a motion to dismiss before filing an MSJ?

EDIT: Never mind, upon further reading, they have not instituted the law yet: http://product-liability.weil.com/uncategorized/texas-finally-promulgates-its-version-of-frcp-12b6/

Strange, I thought every state had something similar as a motion to dismiss already in place.

 

[Kennf1]

Texas has a motion to dismiss based on 12(b)(6): http://www.winston.com/siteFiles/Publications/Motions To Dismiss Come To Texas.pdf

Why would they not file a motion to dismiss before filing an MSJ?

EDIT: Never mind, upon further reading, they have not instituted the law yet: http://product-liability.weil.com/uncategorized/texas-finally-promulgates-its-version-of-frcp-12b6/

Strange, I thought every state had something similar as a motion to dismiss already in place.

The new dismissal rule (TRCP 91(a)) actually became effective March 1, 2013, but I think that's for cases filed on or after that date.

 

[hiero2]

More lies...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/more/news/20130305/lance-armstrong-interview/


Armstrong also said that every top rider doped during the prime of his career and that his doping techniques were unexceptional, if not conservative. He stressed that while he lied more than other riders about doping, he was also asked about doping more than other riders, many of whom, according to Armstrong, were not prominent enough to attract media inquiry.

Although Armstrong faces a bevy of lawsuits -- including a $90 million whistle-blower suit brought by both the U.S. Department of Justice and his archrival Floyd Landis -- he looked fit and did not seem overwhelmed or stressed. He made repeated reference to fighting the lawsuits that threaten his fortune, reportedly worth about $125 million. Of course, it makes sense to show a combative spirit when it comes to litigation. The stronger he portrays himself, the more he hopes the other side will agree to settle the cases. Armstrong's history suggests he is nothing if not strategic (many would say manipulative), so his appearance may not match reality.

More lies, true, but in my experience, every rider I knew who was the doping type also had a deep-seated psychological justification. And it always started with some variant of "everybody does it" - when "everybody" didn't.

It's just like scofflaws, rulebreakers, and cheats in every form - almost all of them have similar internal justifications. Maybe some con artists don't, but they think everybody else is stupid, and they are the cleverest form of life in the universe, much like Wall Street. Another variant of self-delusion.

 

[hiero2]

It would have paid for me to read the header.

Here is my new avatar:

Along with the "Freds in a trolling echelon" this has got to be one of the best posts in ages. I like your new avatar - the ultimate facepalm!

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Along with the "Freds in a trolling echelon" this has got to be one of the best posts in ages. I like your new avatar - the ultimate facepalm!

Thanks, my pain is your gain...

 

[Race Radio]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/apr/06/lance-armstrong-court-bonus-claim

Lance tries to get the case dismissed.

This is it, if he fails it is time to get out the checkbook

 

[Pazuzu]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/apr/06/lance-armstrong-court-bonus-claim

Lance tries to get the case dismissed.

This is it, if he fails it is time to get out the checkbook

Can the judge simply dismiss a case without providing an explanation (i.e., pull a Birotte)? Or does he have to issue a decision citing legal precedents to justify such an action. Can a dismissal be challenged? If so, what's the mechanism for doing so? In other words, are there safegaurds in place to protect against judicial overeach?

 

[D-Queued]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/apr/06/lance-armstrong-court-bonus-claim

Lance tries to get the case dismissed.

This is it, if he fails it is time to get out the checkbook

What is the timeline?

Dave.

 

[MarkvW]

Can the judge simply dismiss a case without providing an explanation (i.e., pull a Birotte)? Or does he have to issue a decision citing legal precedents to justify such an action. Can a dismissal be challenged? If so, what's the mechanism for doing so? In other words, are there safegaurds in place to protect against judicial overeach?

A judge can dismiss without providing an explanation. That's not good judging though, because the judge's decision-making should be transparent to the people he or she serves. If the decision is appealed, there usually will be written reasoning explaining the decision.

An order dismissing can be appealed. An order denying a motion to dismiss usually can't be appealed until after the case is over.

SCA now has to put its cards on the table and state just which facts establish that it was defrauded into the settlement agreement, and state facts that contradict the facts that Lance is alleging in support of his motion.

Right now, all the cards aren't on the table. But they will be.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

If the case gets past summary judgment, then it will probably be looking very good for SCA. If there are no factual disputes over the circumstances surrounding the execution of the settlement agreement (there's no sign of any yet), then a summary judgment motion ought to resolve the settlement agreement issue one way or the other.

My bet is that the summary judgment motion will happen fairly early on.

A judge can dismiss without providing an explanation. That's not good judging though, because the judge's decision-making should be transparent to the people he or she serves. If the decision is appealed, there usually will be written reasoning explaining the decision.

An order dismissing can be appealed. An order denying a motion to dismiss usually can't be appealed until after the case is over.

SCA now has to put its cards on the table and state just which facts establish that it was defrauded into the settlement agreement, and state facts that contradict the facts that Lance is alleging in support of his motion.

Right now, all the cards aren't on the table. But they will be.

Armstrong's motion better have addressed the fact that SCA IS NOT basing their suit on whether they were defrauded into signing the settlement agreement. They are claiming that there was extrinsic fraud. The two are not the same thing, and I keep hoping one day you will recognize that fact. But so far, you keep carrying on the way you always have...

 

[wirral]

Thanks, Race Radio. This thread had been awfully quiet for some time. I thought it had disappeared never to be seen again.

Cue legal bickering.

 

[sittingbison]

the funniest bit from that article:

Armstrong, 41, had tried to enter this weekend's US Masters Swimming regional championships in Austin but was barred from competition on Thursday by Fina, which said the meet must recognise the Usada's ban

Jeebus what a tosser. After everything that's gone down the past six months - including #doprah - he still doesn't get it.

For the love of god, just crawl away into your hole shrivel up and die. Its over. Finito.

 

[peterst6906]

If you want to pay my fee, I will drop the pejorative and extensively review the matters in a rhetorical manner that would suit your level of understanding. Mark doesn't need me to explain.

Secondly, my suggestion is, if you want to be able to comprehend the issues involved, do the heavy lifting yourself instead of snipping because you don't feel the level of banter suits your vaunted status. Should be pretty easy for you to figure out.

Thirdly, Chewie only makes noises discernible to Han Solo, and I didn't see him represented in your screenplay. Go all out or stay on the porch is my suggestion.

Lastly, read the SCA filing. It truly is not that hard to figure out. They are attempting to bypass the entire issue of the finality of the settlement agreement. Lance's attorneys will attempt to argue they cannot. Most likely, they will all settle. All the stuff in between is just legal posturing anyway, right?

Hmmm. Never addressed me in anyway. More BS. Do you even know how to lie straight in bed?

 

[iZnoGouD]

Why isn't Armstrong in jail?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Sorry my bad.

As a layman when it comes to legal issues, arguments around the law and its interpretation are interesting because the law has real meaning in the whole LA mess.

Unfortunately while this thread could be good, its become very laboured with the low level of debate going on.

I would have hoped to learn a lot from someone in final year of law school or practicing within the legal sphere and I was a little frustrated with the schoolyard level of the debate.

Was trying to lighten the tone a touch, but sorry for going off topic.

By the way, Eshnar would be a good name for a real character in GoT.

To wit I replied:

If you want to pay my fee, I will drop the pejorative and extensively review the matters in a rhetorical manner that would suit your level of understanding. Mark doesn't need me to explain.

Secondly, my suggestion is, if you want to be able to comprehend the issues involved, do the heavy lifting yourself instead of snipping because you don't feel the level of banter suits your vaunted status. Should be pretty easy for you to figure out.

Thirdly, Chewie only makes noises discernible to Han Solo, and I didn't see him represented in your screenplay. Go all out or stay on the porch is my suggestion.

Lastly, read the SCA filing. It truly is not that hard to figure out. They are attempting to bypass the entire issue of the finality of the settlement agreement. Lance's attorneys will attempt to argue they cannot. Most likely, they will all settle. All the stuff in between is just legal posturing anyway, right?

Hmmm. Never addressed me in anyway. More BS. Do you even know how to lie straight in bed?

Again, notice your original post that is specifically directed at me. Now, go find a post where I addressed you prior to you attacking me in your original post and you will have a point.

As it stands, thanks for proving my point!

But thanks for making clear the grudge you have. I will just put you on ignore as I don't really care who you are or what you have to say anyway. Toodles!

 

[ChewbaccaD]

FORUM WARS

A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away

(Key Music, opening scene a small ship flying through space being pursued and shot at by a larger vessel. Cut to the small ship).

Mark Hamill: Chewy, I'm right (ducks a shot from a lazer gun)
Chewbacca (speaking Wookie): No I'm right

Mark Hamill: No, I'm right for this reason
Chewbacca: No, I'm right for this reason. You're just wrong (also ducks a lazer)

Mark Hamill: You just aren't open minded. I'm right.
Chewbacca: Mark, you're demented. I'm right I tell you.

Mark Hamill: You're wrong. I'm right
Chewbacca: You're wrong. I'm right

Mark Hamill: You are wrong.
Chewbacca: No. You are wrong.

ad infinitum....

(Cut to the other ship where Cersei Lannister sits on the throne to the right of Joffrey)

Cersei: Joffrey what is all this rot going on in that other ship. Don't they know we've now playing Game of Thrones in this story
Joffrey: I don't know mother, but luckily neither of them hold any sway in my royal court.

Cersei: We need to do somethin about them
Joffrey: OK, I'll have them sent to the Night's Watch. Their celibacy will be good for the future of the human race.

Cersei: Very good. I'm sure the people will appreciate your kindness.
Joffrey: I'll have Eshnar take care of it immediately.

(key, next scene).

Oh wait, it all started with this. Yet another example of you coming in and taking a shot at me unprovoked.

Now to ignore.

 

[peterst6906]

Oh wait, it all started with this. Yet another example of you coming in and taking a shot at me unprovoked.

Now to ignore.

My original post wasn't a shot at you. That you took it that way was unfortunate. There was a lot in the discussion between you and Mark that would have been useful for others. Unfortunately it got lost in the arguing that you two constantly engage in.

The comment was at the useless arguing, not at either person.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

My original post wasn't a shot at you. That you took it that way was unfortunate. There was a lot in the discussion between you and Mark that would have been useful for others. Unfortunately it got lost in the arguing that you two constantly engage in.

The comment was at the arguing, not at either person.

Tell you what-> Olive branch. I don't have any reason to continue taking shots at you. Water under the bridge?

 

[peterst6906]

Tell you what-> Olive branch. I don't have any reason to continue taking shots at you. Water under the bridge?

Ditto for my part. All water under the bridge and forgotten.

 

[BroDeal]

Ditto for my part. All water under the bridge and forgotten.

Sweet. Now we can move on to peace in the Middle East.

 

[peterst6906]

Sweet. Now we can move on to peace in the Middle East.

If we can sort this place out, the Middle East will be a piece of cake.

 

[wirral]

Any updates on this interesting case. Couldn't find anything on the net.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Any updates on this interesting case. Couldn't find anything on the net.

The judge still has not ruled on the motion to dismiss, so it's still in a holding pattern.

 

[thehog]

The judge still has not ruled on the motion to dismiss, so it's still in a holding pattern.

Does a judge hear submissions from each side on reasons to dismiss/not dismiss at this time?