Professor McCann in SI on LA's Legal Woes

On 7 Jun 2010 06:27:32 +0200, "Francesco del Ponte"
wrote:


Interesting piece from Sports Law Professor
Mike McCann who says that LA has to worry
about several issues including a possible
RICO charge. Now that's a bold statement.

He thinks the USPS angle is a non-starter,
that Kristin is not protected from spousal
immunity since they're no longer married,
and that the real issue could be centered
on the accusations regarding illegal
distribution. Not sure about those but...

..Worth a read:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...nce.armstrong/

FdP

I've seen cites that spousal immunity does not apply to communications
between spouses before marriage or after divorce, but generally
continues to apply after divorces to communications made while
married. To do otherwise would pretty much work against the primary
purpose of the privilege. Sort of like allowing a lawyer to tell what
you said to him or her if you fire them and hire another lawyer.

I do understand that spousal privilege has always had a boatload of
exceptions and stipulations, just as I understand from a lawyer that
not paying him or her lets them off the hook from some lawyer-client
privilege made during the period for which they were not paid (and
apparently retroactively not subject to a period of employment as a
result - I guess the point is go ahead and **** your lawyer off, but
make sure you pay them).

The article does start with a lot of key caveats. What he really seems
to say is 1) that the feds have to investigate in order to determine
if there is enough to procede and 2) IF FL is supported by solid
evidence THEN LA has the followiong to worry about. He is hardly
screaming that he feels the IF clause is a certainty.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

I have to wonder if Kristin has any motivation to spill the beans,
considering that she apparently has a good relationship with Lance, he
seems involved and active with their kids, and she currently is in a
good situation. I also doubt that threatening her with prosecution is
a good strategy, as any supporting evidence seems either non-existent
or tenuous at best.

Brad Anders

On 6/7/2010 3:35 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote:
Brad Anders wrote:
I have to wonder if Kristin has any motivation to spill the beans,
considering that she apparently has a good relationship with Lance, he
seems involved and active with their kids, and she currently is in a
good situation. I also doubt that threatening her with prosecution is
a good strategy, as any supporting evidence seems either non-existent
or tenuous at best.

She has a fiscal motive to keep quiet.
Her separation agreement will not be compromised by her having to give
testimony under a criminal subpoena. The only thin Lance has going for
him there is that Kristen has apparently never stopped loving him.
She's also a good Catholic girl who won't lie under oath.

Brad Anders wrote:
I have to wonder if Kristin has any motivation to spill the beans,
considering that she apparently has a good relationship with Lance, he
seems involved and active with their kids, and she currently is in a
good situation. I also doubt that threatening her with prosecution is
a good strategy, as any supporting evidence seems either non-existent
or tenuous at best.

She has a fiscal motive to keep quiet.

On 6/7/2010 2:33 PM, B. Lafferty wrote:
The only thin Lance has going for
him there is that Kristen has apparently never stopped loving him. She's
also a good Catholic girl who won't lie under oath.

Fockstick,

You take stocking to a very disquieting level.

Fred Flintstein

On Jun 7, 1:00*pm, Fred Flintstein
wrote:
On 6/7/2010 2:33 PM, B. Lafferty wrote:

The only thin Lance has going for
him there is that Kristen has apparently never stopped loving him. She's
also a good Catholic girl who won't lie under oath.

Fockstick,

You take stocking to a very disquieting level.

Fred Flintstein

****tard,
He doesn't work in a grocery store.

stalk (v)
1. To pursue by tracking stealthily.
2. To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of
obsession or derangement.

And you don't need a modifier before 'disquieting'.

You're welcome,
DA74

On 6/7/2010 4:00 PM, Fred Flintstein wrote:
On 6/7/2010 2:33 PM, B. Lafferty wrote:
The only thin Lance has going for
him there is that Kristen has apparently never stopped loving him. She's
also a good Catholic girl who won't lie under oath.

Fockstick,

You take stocking to a very disquieting level.

Fred Flintstein

Fred, you've been living in the cave with Wilma for too long. You need
to get out more. Kristin has been on Oprah. She's written several
books, too. I haven't read any of them, but if YOU'RE interested (I'm
not) YOU can find them easily enough on Amazon.

You really need to develop more of a social life with Wilma. Find a
place for Sunday brunch and read the Times book review.

DA74 wrote:
On Jun 7, 1:00 pm, Fred Flintstein wrote:
You take stocking to a very disquieting level.

stalk (v)

Newbie,

It's an rbr thing. Meltdown Boy spelt it that way once and it stock.

On Jun 7, 12:33*pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
On 6/7/2010 3:35 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote: Brad Anders wrote:
I have to wonder if Kristin has any motivation to spill the beans,
considering that she apparently has a good relationship with Lance, he
seems involved and active with their kids, and she currently is in a
good situation. I also doubt that threatening her with prosecution is
a good strategy, as any supporting evidence seems either non-existent
or tenuous at best.

She has a fiscal motive to keep quiet.

Her separation agreement will not be compromised by her having to give
testimony under a criminal subpoena. *The only thin Lance has going for
him there is that Kristen has apparently never stopped loving him.
She's also a good Catholic girl who won't lie under oath.

Do you resent her for the former?
That would explain a few things.

Unless (and maybe even if) they find a fax to Kristen
with an itemized invoice for PED services, like the
Dr. Fuentes fax to Haven, then Kristen will be able to
answer a lot of questions with "I don't know" or
"I don't remember" or variations thereof. It will be
quite believable (possibly even quite true). And I really
doubt that the LANCE had his doctors sending faxes
to Kristen.

Fredmaster Ben

On 6/7/2010 8:50 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
On Jun 7, 12:33 pm, "B. wrote:
On 6/7/2010 3:35 PM, K. Fred Gauss wrote: Brad Anders wrote:
I have to wonder if Kristin has any motivation to spill the beans,
considering that she apparently has a good relationship with Lance, he
seems involved and active with their kids, and she currently is in a
good situation. I also doubt that threatening her with prosecution is
a good strategy, as any supporting evidence seems either non-existent
or tenuous at best.

She has a fiscal motive to keep quiet.

Her separation agreement will not be compromised by her having to give
testimony under a criminal subpoena. The only thin Lance has going for
him there is that Kristen has apparently never stopped loving him.
She's also a good Catholic girl who won't lie under oath.

Do you resent her for the former?
That would explain a few things.

Fred, you're really out there. Resent Kirstin? Are you off your meds
again?



Unless (and maybe even if) they find a fax to Kristen
with an itemized invoice for PED services, like the
Dr. Fuentes fax to Haven, then Kristen will be able to
answer a lot of questions with "I don't know" or
"I don't remember" or variations thereof. It will be
quite believable (possibly even quite true). And I really
doubt that the LANCE had his doctors sending faxes
to Kristen.

Wilma says there isn't much that goes on in your cave that she isn't
aware of.



Fredmaster Ben