LA/Feds

Feds respond to LA's leak complaints

http://news.yahoo.com/feds-reply-arm...141903038.html

Not a bright move by the feds to leak what they did, my guess is they
won't be sanctioned. Sure is taking a long time for the feds to file
charges.

On Aug 23, 11:41*am, Fred Flintstein
wrote:

Go ahead, click on the link and see who he's referencing.

I wasn't surprised. I sure haven't heard much about this incident
since it happened, if there really were some solid, incontrovertible
evidence, you'd think the feds would have filed charges by now (2
months).

Brad Anders wrote:

Feds respond to LA's leak complaints

http://news.yahoo.com/feds-reply-arm...141903038.html

Not a bright move by the feds to leak what they did, my guess is they
won't be sanctioned. Sure is taking a long time for the feds to file
charges.

I think I'm missing something. Do we know the feds were the source of the leaks?
Sure, prosecutors are often leaky. But think back to BALCO, specifically to US v
Victor Conte et al. In that case, many thought Novitzky and/or the prosecutors
were leaking grand jury transcripts. But it turns out, a key leaker was defense
lawyer Troy Ellerman...who then wanted a mistrial because someone of the leaks.
Could be there were other sources for those transcripts, such as the feds;
didn't really establish that one way or the other.

In the Armstrong case, I'd guess potential leakers include prosecutors, Novitzky
and some other FDA investigators, members of the defense team, and grand jury
members.

As for the timeline, think how long it took to finally charge Barry Bonds. Don't
really know if that's common or not, but the I don't know if we can read too
much into the pace of the proceedings.

Do we know the feds were the source of the leaks?

Jim


--
Jim
Jim Feeley
POV Media

On Aug 23, 4:35*pm, Jim Feeley wrote:
Brad Anders wrote:
Feds respond to LA's leak complaints

http://news.yahoo.com/feds-reply-arm...-filing-141903...

Not a bright move by the feds to leak what they did, my guess is they
won't be sanctioned. Sure is taking a long time for the feds to file
charges.

I think I'm missing something. Do we know the feds were the source of the leaks?
Sure, prosecutors are often leaky. But think back to BALCO, specifically to US v
Victor Conte et al. In that case, many thought Novitzky and/or the prosecutors
were leaking grand jury transcripts. But it turns out, a key leaker was defense
lawyer Troy Ellerman...who then wanted a mistrial because someone of the leaks.
Could be there were other sources for those transcripts, such as the feds;
didn't really establish that one way or the other.

In the Armstrong case, I'd guess potential leakers include prosecutors, Novitzky
and some other FDA investigators, members of the defense team, and grand jury
members.

As for the timeline, think how long it took to finally charge Barry Bonds.. Don't
really know if that's common or not, but the I don't know if we can read too
much into the pace of the proceedings.

Do we know the feds were the source of the leaks?


Troy Ellerman was a defense lawyer for the BALCO
principals, and he leaked the grand jury transcripts after
the BALCOns were indicted. I assume that he received
the transcripts because the prosecutors were required to
disclose them to the defense after the indictments
were brought.

Prior to the indictment, I don't think a defense lawyer
would have had access to the GJ testimony. Armstrong's
lawyer would know what Armstrong testified to, but not
the contents of others' testimony.

There is no literal "defense team" in this investigation yet
because there is no defense, as there are no indictments.
Obviously we all know that the investigation is looking at
certain people, but those people's lawyers don't have a
privileged status giving them access to grand jury testimony,
I don't think.

GJ members are unlikely to have leaked the information as
they would have a lot to lose and little to gain.

Fredmaster Ben
is not a lawyer

On 8/23/2011 2:03 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
Feds respond to LA's leak complaints

http://news.yahoo.com/feds-reply-arm...141903038.html

Not a bright move by the feds to leak what they did, my guess is they
won't be sanctioned. Sure is taking a long time for the feds to file
charges.
What did they just leak? That they filed a reply under seal? Anyone
with access to the PACER system should be able to look at a docket entry
noting the filing of the reply under seal.

On 8/23/2011 2:03 PM, Brad Anders wrote:
Feds respond to LA's leak complaints

http://news.yahoo.com/feds-reply-arm...141903038.html

Not a bright move by the feds to leak what they did, my guess is they
won't be sanctioned. Sure is taking a long time for the feds to file
charges.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/it...k_at_feds.html

And what would they learn from a redacted version? Next to nothing.
They are protesting about a fairly straight forward process for the
court to handle such a motion. One has to suspect that the Armstrong
camp it getting very nervous. It has been quiet lately as Fabio notes.
Dear Fabio, it's the lull before the Cat 5 hurricane hits.

Brad Anders wrote:
Feds respond to LA's leak complaints

http://news.yahoo.com/feds-reply-arm...141903038.html

Not a bright move by the feds to leak what they did ...

Since when is being bright a qualification for government work?

-S-

On 8/23/2011 11:03 AM, Brad Anders wrote:
Feds respond to LA's leak complaints

http://news.yahoo.com/feds-reply-arm...141903038.html

Not a bright move by the feds to leak what they did, my guess is they
won't be sanctioned. Sure is taking a long time for the feds to file
charges.

Nice job of trolling Brian! You ROCK!

"Brad Anders" wrote in message
...
On Aug 23, 11:41 am, Fred Flintstein
wrote:

Go ahead, click on the link and see who he's referencing.

==========
I wasn't surprised. I sure haven't heard much about this incident
since it happened, if there really were some solid, incontrovertible
evidence, you'd think the feds would have filed charges by now (2
months).
==========

These things take time. Remember, "The word is out: It's over."

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t/18273...-out-it-s-over

10/15/04

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

On 8/24/2011 8:40 PM, Jimmy July wrote:
On 8/23/2011 11:03 AM, Brad Anders wrote:
Feds respond to LA's leak complaints

http://news.yahoo.com/feds-reply-arm...141903038.html


Not a bright move by the feds to leak what they did, my guess is they
won't be sanctioned. Sure is taking a long time for the feds to file
charges.

Nice job of trolling Brian! You ROCK!
Moron. Who did you think you were replying to?