LA/Feds

On 8/25/2011 1:18 AM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
"Brad 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


It will likely be included in an indictment as an underlying felony
supporting a RICO charge. Duh.........Moron.

Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:

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 prosec
utors
were leaking grand jury transcripts. But it turns out, a key leaker was d
efense
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, N
ovitzky
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

Doh! I'm clearly timeline challenged. You're right about the indictment thing.
But aren't witnesses at GJ's allowed, when faced with a tricky question from a
prosecutor, to step outside the room and get advice from their lawyer (who isn't
allowed into the room)?

And though I've never spoken with a grand jury member (I don't usually cover
courts...as is obvious from my previous post), I know some reporters who have.
And witnesses can be chatty.

Anyway, there are still sources of grand jury testimony other than prosecutors.
Though prosecutors are a likely source.

This article in yesterday's NY Daily News was kinda interesting:

Lance Armstrong's attorneys say government response to cyclist's leak accusation
shouldn't be sealed

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/iteam/
2011/08/24/2011-08-24_lance_fires_back_at_feds.html

Same link shorter:
http://nydn.us/nognrd

Of course with laywers, sometimes where there's smoke there's smoke.

Jim
--
Jim
Jim Feeley
POV Media

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.

The brief filed Wednesday states that Armstrong's attorneys would gain
access to information that they have no right to see at this point if
the motion is unsealed or redacted. The motion "describes an ongoing,
active, pre-indictment investigation for which secrecy is necessary to
preserve its quality and integrity."
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201....ap/index.html
Looks like Lance is firmly in the Feds cross-hairs.

"BL" wrote in message
...
On 8/25/2011 1:18 AM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
"Brad 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


It will likely be included in an indictment as an underlying felony
supporting a RICO charge. Duh.........Moron.

Brian: The point is that we're coming up on SEVEN YEARS since "it's
over." Or, to put it another way, over 350 Tuesdays. That's enough time
to question the effectiveness of the long arm of justice. That's enough
time to claim that justice delayed is justice denied. That's enough time
to wonder if they were ever that serious about it in the first place, or
intentionally delayed until the effect of any sort of "justice" was of
little consequence to Lance.

C'mon guy, why aren't you upset about this? If I felt the way you do
about Lance, or anything else for that matter, and things were dragging
out like this, I'd be a basket case. I'd be calling up my congressmen,
writing letters, kicking the dog. This whole thing borders on the
absurd.

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

On 8/25/2011 12:57 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 8/25/2011 1:18 AM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
"Brad 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


It will likely be included in an indictment as an underlying felony
supporting a RICO charge. Duh.........Moron.

Brian: The point is that we're coming up on SEVEN YEARS since "it's
over." Or, to put it another way, over 350 Tuesdays. That's enough time
to question the effectiveness of the long arm of justice. That's enough
time to claim that justice delayed is justice denied. That's enough time
to wonder if they were ever that serious about it in the first place, or
intentionally delayed until the effect of any sort of "justice" was of
little consequence to Lance.

No. The fraud and conspiracy continue to the present and not include
probable witness intimidation. The cycling events are seven years old,
most of them anyway, but the criminal conspiracy continues. There isn't
anything close to justice delayed here, except to the extent that it's
been delayed by Armstrong and friends conspiracy and coverup.


C'mon guy, why aren't you upset about this? If I felt the way you do
about Lance, or anything else for that matter, and things were dragging
out like this, I'd be a basket case. I'd be calling up my congressmen,
writing letters, kicking the dog. This whole thing borders on the
absurd.

As complex federal investigations go, this one seems to be proceeding
nicely. You won't have to wait much longer to read the indictment.


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

On 8/24/2011 7:40 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!

Dumbass,

Trolling Laff isn't that hard. Mr OCD responds to everything.
He can't help himself.

F

On 8/25/2011 1:30 PM, BL wrote:


As complex federal investigations go, this one seems to be proceeding
nicely. You won't have to wait much longer to read the indictment.



You don't have a clue about how the "indictment" is proceeding. Not hard
to imagine this mind you. How would you know ? or is this simply more of
your endless flag waving on your Anti-Lance diatribe ?

Give us details on your sources for this ..... Or better yet, shut the
**** up.

Like pretty much everyone else here I've grown tired of your rhetoric.


Bill


--

William R. Mattil

http://www.celestial-images.com

Fred Flintstein wrote:
Trolling Laff isn't that hard. Mr OCD responds to everything.
He can't help himself.

Dumbass,
That feature was in the spec.

On 8/25/2011 7:06 AM, BL wrote:
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?

Punctuation causes you difficulty, doesn't it?

On Aug 25, 9:45*am, BL wrote:

Looks like Lance is firmly in the Feds cross-hairs.

Putting it in the cross-hairs is one thing, taking the shot is
another. You don't want your bow to start shaking.