Armstrong & Exception to Statute of Limitations

For continuing the a conspiracy to coverup crimes beyond the 5 year s of l.

http://www.fanhouse.com/2010/10/28/l...y-prosecutors/

On Oct 29, 11:49*am, BLafferty wrote:
For continuing the a conspiracy to coverup crimes beyond the 5 year s of l.

http://www.fanhouse.com/2010/10/28/l...d-be-target-of...

Acid reflux...? You keep regurgitating the same ****.

R

On 10/29/2010 12:32 PM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 29, 11:49 am, wrote:
For continuing the a conspiracy to coverup crimes beyond the 5 year s of l.

http://www.fanhouse.com/2010/10/28/l...d-be-target-of...

Acid reflux...? You keep regurgitating the same ****.

R
Another non-substantive, personal attack. I'm counting them.

On 10/29/2010 12:09 PM, BLafferty wrote:

Another non-substantive, personal attack. I'm counting them.

When did you learn to count ?


Bill
--

William R. Mattil

http://www.celestial-images.com

"BLafferty" wrote in message
...
For continuing the a conspiracy to coverup crimes beyond the 5 year s of
l.

http://www.fanhouse.com/2010/10/28/l...y-prosecutors/

"A grand jury empaneled in Los Angeles to investigate whether Armstrong was
part of a conspiracy to purchase and use performance-enhancing drugs
typically could only consider crimes committed over the last five years. But
a person with knowledge of the investigation said prosecutors could claim
that Armstrong and others made overt acts to continue the conspiracy, a move
that could effectively reset the clock on the statute of limitations."

Would hiring an attorney constitute an "overt act?" Where do you draw the
line when someone has been accused of something and you deny it? Is the very
denial an "overt act" and if so, are we saying that the statute of
limitations is only relevant when someone hasn't been accused (or is accused
and remains silent)?

Or does "continuing the conspiracy" mean that the acts subject to the
statute of limitations are continuing, in which case it's moot?

I'm a cyclist and bicycle retailer dammit, not a lawyer!

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

On 10/29/2010 1:58 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
"BLafferty" wrote in message
...
For continuing the a conspiracy to coverup crimes beyond the 5 year s
of l.

http://www.fanhouse.com/2010/10/28/l...y-prosecutors/


"A grand jury empaneled in Los Angeles to investigate whether Armstrong
was part of a conspiracy to purchase and use performance-enhancing drugs
typically could only consider crimes committed over the last five years.
But a person with knowledge of the investigation said prosecutors could
claim that Armstrong and others made overt acts to continue the
conspiracy, a move that could effectively reset the clock on the statute
of limitations."

Would hiring an attorney constitute an "overt act?" Where do you draw
the line when someone has been accused of something and you deny it? Is
the very denial an "overt act" and if so, are we saying that the statute
of limitations is only relevant when someone hasn't been accused (or is
accused and remains silent)?

Or does "continuing the conspiracy" mean that the acts subject to the
statute of limitations are continuing, in which case it's moot?

I'm a cyclist and bicycle retailer dammit, not a lawyer!

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
I "discussed this with Henry a month or so ago. A conspiracy to commit
fraud can be continuing and effectively toll the running of the statute
of limitations. Taking active steps to keep the fraud concealed is going
to be argued to be a continuing conspiracy. All of Armstrong's
continuing public denials as well a those of others like Johan, will be
seen as a continuing conspiracy to cover up what they are accused of
doing.

"BLafferty" wrote in message
...
On 10/29/2010 1:58 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
"BLafferty" wrote in message
...
For continuing the a conspiracy to coverup crimes beyond the 5 year s
of l.

http://www.fanhouse.com/2010/10/28/l...y-prosecutors/


"A grand jury empaneled in Los Angeles to investigate whether Armstrong
was part of a conspiracy to purchase and use performance-enhancing drugs
typically could only consider crimes committed over the last five years.
But a person with knowledge of the investigation said prosecutors could
claim that Armstrong and others made overt acts to continue the
conspiracy, a move that could effectively reset the clock on the statute
of limitations."

Would hiring an attorney constitute an "overt act?" Where do you draw
the line when someone has been accused of something and you deny it? Is
the very denial an "overt act" and if so, are we saying that the statute
of limitations is only relevant when someone hasn't been accused (or is
accused and remains silent)?

Or does "continuing the conspiracy" mean that the acts subject to the
statute of limitations are continuing, in which case it's moot?

I'm a cyclist and bicycle retailer dammit, not a lawyer!

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
I "discussed this with Henry a month or so ago. A conspiracy to commit
fraud can be continuing and effectively toll the running of the statute of
limitations. Taking active steps to keep the fraud concealed is going to
be argued to be a continuing conspiracy. All of Armstrong's continuing
public denials as well a those of others like Johan, will be seen as a
continuing conspiracy to cover up what they are accused of doing.

So you're saying there is no such thing as a statute of limitations if
someone has been accused of an allegation, whether it by in the press or
whatever, and has denied it? Wouldn't that throw out the statute of
limitations as a defense in the vast majority of cases (exceptions being
only those in which evidence and accusations didn't turn up until after the
time ran out)?

I understand what you're saying. It just seems unreasonable. Unreasonable
doesn't mean that's not the law of the land. It just seems to beg for
guidelines in application. Which you may have discussed with Henry last
month.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

On Oct 29, 2:07*pm, BLafferty wrote:
On 10/29/2010 1:58 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

I "discussed this with Henry a month or so ago. *A conspiracy to commit
fraud can be continuing and effectively toll the running of the statute
of limitations.

Use your new-found counting ability to count the number of times you
have brought this up. You discussed it a month ago, which was a
regurgitation of several months ago, etc. You're a one trick pony
without a trick.

R

BLafferty wrote:
On 10/29/2010 12:32 PM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 29, 11:49 am, wrote:
For continuing the a conspiracy to coverup crimes beyond the 5 year
s of l.
http://www.fanhouse.com/2010/10/28/l...d-be-target-of...

Acid reflux...? You keep regurgitating the same ****.

R
Another non-substantive, personal attack. I'm counting them.

Why? I thought you were retired?

On Oct 29, 11:07*am, BLafferty wrote:
On 10/29/2010 1:58 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

"BLafferty" wrote in message
m...
For continuing the a conspiracy to coverup crimes beyond the 5 year s
of l.

http://www.fanhouse.com/2010/10/28/l...d-be-target-of....

"A grand jury empaneled in Los Angeles to investigate whether Armstrong
was part of a conspiracy to purchase and use performance-enhancing drugs
typically could only consider crimes committed over the last five years..
But a person with knowledge of the investigation said prosecutors could
claim that Armstrong and others made overt acts to continue the
conspiracy, a move that could effectively reset the clock on the statute
of limitations."

Would hiring an attorney constitute an "overt act?" Where do you draw
the line when someone has been accused of something and you deny it? Is
the very denial an "overt act" and if so, are we saying that the statute
of limitations is only relevant when someone hasn't been accused (or is
accused and remains silent)?

Or does "continuing the conspiracy" mean that the acts subject to the
statute of limitations are continuing, in which case it's moot?

I'm a cyclist and bicycle retailer dammit, not a lawyer!

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

I "discussed this with Henry a month or so ago. *A conspiracy to commit
fraud can be continuing and effectively toll the running of the statute
of limitations. Taking active steps to keep the fraud concealed is going
to be argued to be a continuing conspiracy. *All of Armstrong's
continuing public denials as well a those of others like Johan, will be
seen as a continuing conspiracy to cover up what they are accused of
doing.

By you perhaps.

The very article quoted by yourself in the OP says:

Armstrong has continually denied that he used performance-
enhancing drugs. Such denials, however, likely wouldn't constitute
extending the conspiracy, although his interactions with the
managers and any new attempts to hide the presence of a doping
conspiracy would.

Although the reporter is no more of a legal authority
than you or me, this seems a more reasonable position.
I kind of doubt that a court would uphold using a public
protestation of innocence as a part of a conspiracy.
However, if for example the prosecution could uncover, say,
a text message from LA to Johan saying "Remember,
if anyone asks, those blue coolers were for your Orange
Fanta habit," that could be used as evidence of a
conspiracy that was continuous from 2000 or whenever
to now.

I don't have exhaustive knowledge of all the conspiracy
cases that have ever been brought. Perhaps you could
point us to a case where protestations of innocence
have been successfully prosecuted as conspiratorial
acts. The conspiracy laws are quite wide ranging, so it's
possible such a case exists somewhere.

Fredmaster Ben