http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-...rs-motherinlaw
Printable View
This nonsense is getting more ridiculous by the day. ShysterBall's take sums up my belief perfectly.
Much as I would love to see Bonds doing some time in prison, at this point there's been enough money wasted on the situation. Time to back off, I think--actually, well past time.
This is ridiculous. How much good is really going to come out of throwing Bonds in the slammer? He's not some menace to society. Just give him his trial already, and move the F on. I can't believe how sympathetic I've gotten towards Barry Bonds these days.
but do they, the government, even have a purery case even? there was an article posted on here that says that at the time of alleged use the cream nor the clear were not considered steroids by the federal government and in fact wasn't classified as such until 2005 or 2006! well after his testimony...Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I don't think they care if they have a case or not. It's a witch hunt, not a court proceeding, at this point.
If they had a case, I'm sure they wouldn't be squeezing Anderson's family to get him to talk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wassit3
if he lied under oath, he deserves jail time. if they believe he did and have evidence to prove it...i have no problem with them looking to solidify their case with more.
That's the thing...they don't have the evidence to prove it...which is why they're continuing to pour unnecessary amounts of money into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
do you have evidence of this? And while they may not have 'enough' evidence at this point, do they have any? If they do....than of course they need to continue investigating those leads to see if there is enough which will convince a jury.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Also...I for one believe he knowingly took steroids. You have stated in these forums that you believe the same at one point or another. We base our opinions on circumstantial evidence.
If that is true, than you to believe he lied while under oath when he said he didn't. I believe he may have lied about many more facts than just using roids however. I don't believe they should pursue perjury cases based upon hunches and/or gut feelings...but if they have anything which is more than that then I believe they should investigate it fully.
I'm sorry....but I view lying under oath as a very very serious crime that needs to be fully prosecuted. I'm not going to waver on that belief because i'm tired of reading about a lengthy public investigation. I also feel the initial link given in this thread is extremely biased. His tone during the article shows that his mind was made up before even beginning to pen it. Exactly why the govt. was at the mother in laws house apparently was not important to him.
these people are being charged with tax evasion....why are they being proclaimed to be victims?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Moral of the story is, if you're going to open yourself up to legal scrutiny by say....lying under oath....you had better have a clean closet. Of course the govt. is going to look in the underwear drawer, and if a CRIME was committed....even if it was unrelated, they have to act on it.
If I lied under oath about sticking a needle in my ass, they wouldn't be expending all their resources to try and nail me.
Its not only the little guy who can lie under oath and get away with it. "It depends on what the meaning of the word is, is."Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Anyway, if your lie was made during a a large scale grand jury investigation into the use/distribution of an illegal substance in sports, or something similar, I would hope they used whatever resources necessary to prosecute you for it.
Your point about them spending these resources because of the notoriety of Bonds is taken. However, I feel the govt. intentions are not so much with Bonds but with knowing the full extent of the distribution ring. Who he got it from, how they got it and who they gave it to. It's much bigger picture than Bonds. Bonds obstructed justice however. If he had simply come clean...the govt. would lay off.
So in short...if they believed you lied under oath about putting a needle in your a$$ and they had some type of evidence that led them to believe you not only lied but have knowledge of that bigger 'ring', then I believe they'd put quite a bit of resources into your pricked a$$ as well. ;)
Nailing Bonds on perjury charges doesn't get them any close to this "ring."
1) regardless, if he lied under oath. because they may not learn anything from it, they shouldn't pursue a prosecution? is that really what you're saying? that would be great for our judicial system. people getting away with lying under oath knowing that as long as they are consistent and effective in not talking, they won't be prosecuted. hmm...Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
2) if he decides to talk after realizing the evidence against him will put him in jail...then they will get closer wouldn't they?
No, I was just responding to this:Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
The article I linked to previously sums up my view perfectly, so there's really nothing more I can say beyond what that article said. As the author concluded, I think the effort and resources used so far on Bonds has exceeded the public good of a successful prosecution.Quote:
So in short...if they believed you lied under oath about putting a needle in your a$$ and they had some type of evidence that led them to believe you not only lied but have knowledge of that bigger 'ring', then I believe they'd put quite a bit of resources into your pricked a$$ as well."
Eh, dont care either way about this anymore.
I dunno...i just disagree with the authors conclusion then and feel its down right dangerous. So just because effort and resources are expensive, we should not pursue a prosecution? Who's to judge what the dollar amount is going to be to ensure "the public good" gets fair value?Quote:
The article I linked to previously sums up my view perfectly, so there's really nothing more I can say beyond what that article said. As the author concluded, I think the effort and resources used so far on Bonds has exceeded the public good of a successful prosecution.
What about the cases where "public good" is arguably at a loss even before the investigation? One could make the claim that watergate, the JFK investigations, and many others were costly and did little for the "public good" and even hurt the "public good" by weakening our perceptions of govt.
In the end....if someone commits a crime as serious as perjury, they should be fully investigated and prosecuted IMO. "The public good" comes out of protecting the integrity of our judicial system....and its hard to put a value on that.
If they end up not getting enough information to pursue a prosecution, then the investigation should be dropped. At that point however, those investigating have to account for the money they spent. For all they have spent, they had better have something.
i think thats the bigger issue. many are just tired of hearing of it and want it to go away. its easier for many just to let bonds walk to satisfy their desire not to hear of it any longer. thankfully...our judicial system can't just drop charges and investigations because they are lengthy and tiring.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
Letting him slide now also reinforces the already prevalent public perception that celebrities can buy their way out of anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I hope they stay on him until he's convicted or in his grave.
Let me just ask this question, why isn't Rafael Palmeiro being investigated for perjury?
They did investigate and then dropped it due to insufficient evidence. Your answer is here;Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111000852.html
We don't exactly know what the govt. believes they have as evidence against bonds, or what supposed lies they are pursuing. is it about never knowingly doing steroids, or is it about claiming he never received them from balco/anderson/ etc. I'm assuming there is evidence on Bonds that they didn't have on Palmeiro.
if you don't like that one, you can read this one;
http://community.foxsports.com/blogs...ro_Case_Peroid
It's that he never knowingly took steroids. They have to prove that he took steroids AND knew that it was steroids, and that's why they need Greg Anderson. Without him, they have no case.
They're sure as hell putting a lot more time, effort, and taxpayer money into Bonds than they did Palmeiro, though.
Read the second link. They put less time into Raffy because there was far less evidence. I also don't believe they "need" anderson but am not going to speculate and lead others to believe I know one way or another what evidence they have or need.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
They need to prove Bonds knew he took steroids. The only way to do that that I can think of, short of a confession from Bonds himself, is a confession from his trainer. That they're now going after Anderson's family to pressure him to testify indicates to me that they're desperate for his testimony. As Craig Calcaterra said in one of the above links I gave, "If the case against Barry Bonds was as good as everyone says it is, why are the feds scorching the Earth in order to try and get the testimony of someone they've know ain't talking for years?"
I lol at the fact that someone can say I didnt knowingly take something and its ok. How do you not know what is being injected in you? Its so funny. So next time you get in trouble for something, I have these full proof lines that will get you out of trouble.
When you get pulled over for speeding:
"Im sorry Officer, but I did not knowingly speed and went through that light."
You are late to work:
"Im sorry Boss, I did not knowingly slept in which caused me to be late."
You stink up the bathroom:
"Im sorry, I did not knowingly drop a stinky duece in the toilet which cause WW3 to occur in the bathroom."
Your wife catches you cheating:
"Im sorry honey, I did not knowingly have anal sex with that stripper."
With these great lines, you can be sure to avoid any sticky situation.
There's more than one way to prove that he knowingly took steroids. Other witnesses, documentation, this mystery calendar code, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
As for going after Andersons family, if they find another crime throughout the course of the investigation, are they supposed to ignore it? How can you so quickly exonnerate his family from any wrongdoing without knowing really anything about it? I'm not saying they're guilty or innocent, but i'm certainly not going to draw conclusions either way without any credible information.
As for your "scorching the earth" quote...they aren't quite going that far. I'm not sure what link you're referring to, but the first one in this thread was incredibly bias. And it doesn't matter if their case is solid now or not, its an investigation! IMO, as long as they have enough credible evidence to justify continuing, then they need to continue to investigate.
We'd all like these things to be cheap and open and shut in a week. Thats not real life.
Whether or not it's a ridiculous excuse is irrelevant to this case. The only example you gave which is really applicable is the speeding one (because the others have nothing to do with the law). Whether or not the driver knew he was speeding was irrelevant. He was speeding, and that's against the law, and thus he gets punished for it (with the proof being the radar gun of the cop). In the case of Bonds, the alleged breaking of the law was him lying under oath. Since what he said under oath was that he did not knowingly take steroids, in order to nail him for lying, they have to first prove that he took steroids, and then prove that he knew it was steroids. Yes, we all know that it's a stupid excuse and all, but in a court of law, it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragecage
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
While he wasn't convicted of murder, he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt in the civil case. Imagine if the prosecution just simply gave up because the case was long and difficult? :rolleyes:Quote:
I did not kill my wife. I don't know how those blood prints got into my car. If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit.
Other witnesses, yeah, but the only other possible witnesses would be people that know Bonds, and well, the testimony of those witnesses is a lot less likely to stand up to a jury than the testimony of the guy that provided him with the steroids. As for the documentation and the calendars and what not, it still seems to me that Anderson is needed for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
According to the story, prosecutors have been "threatening" to bring charges against his mother. Then, the government demands from Anderson whether or not he'll testify, he refuses to respond, and they storm his mom's house. Sounds pretty blatantly to me like they're using his mother's alleged tax-related offenses in an effort to pressure him to comply with their demands. (And, just to be clear, I have not stated anything about whether or not his mother is guilty or innocent so your comment about me "exonerating his family" is a strawman, nor have I said anything about them ignoring her alleged transgressions).Quote:
As for going after Andersons family, if they find another crime throughout the course of the investigation, are they supposed to ignore it? How can you so quickly exonnerate his family from any wrongdoing without knowing really anything about it? I'm not saying they're guilty or innocent, but i'm certainly not going to draw conclusions either way without any credible information.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/sh...cle/20-agents/ - that's the link. Nothing major there, just a quick comment and a link to the news article (which I also linked above in this post).Quote:
As for your "scorching the earth" quote...they aren't quite going that far. I'm not sure what link you're referring to, but the first one in this thread was incredibly bias. And it doesn't matter if their case is solid now or not, its an investigation! IMO, as long as they have enough credible evidence to justify continuing, then they need to continue to investigate.
The civil case had nothing to do with the prosecution.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
And a murder case is not comparable to a perjury case. From the first article I linked to:
Clearly, for a murder case, each of the incentive (punishment, incapacitation, deterrence) is through the roof, and not comparable to that of a perjury case.Quote:
So if we add that together, we have a mild to moderate punishment incentive, a zero incapacitation incentive, and I'd say a moderate deterrence incentive at work. It follows then, that the prosecutorial effort expended to achieve those goals should be commensurate with the value achieving those goals brings to society.
According to "the story", Andersons prosecutors are drawing conclusions to support their position.Quote:
According to the story, prosecutors have been "threatening" to bring charges against his mother. Then, the government demands from Anderson whether or not he'll testify, he refuses to respond, and they storm his mom's house. Sounds pretty blatantly to me like they're using his mother's alleged tax-related offenses in an effort to pressure him to comply with their demands. (And, just to be clear, I have not stated anything about whether or not his mother is guilty or innocent so your comment about me "exonerating his family" is a strawman, nor have I said anything about them ignoring her alleged transgressions).
Anyhow, i'm betting that there are some type of tax related offenses, and is there really a problem if the govt. used that as leverage? That happens all the time. Before this even began, Bonds was granted immunity to any criminal prosecution IF he told the truth about the situation during the grand jury. Its no different here. If the govt. is using this tax crime as leverage, it is no different.
I see a difference. To each his own.
I'm pretty sure there's a reason this investigation has been going on for five years now. Greg Anderson won't talk. They have little else, and certainly not enough for a conviction. They won't give up. It's a witch hunt. To each his own though.
So thats how our judicial system should be operated? Let me see if I understand it fully;Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
1. A panel (or maybe you and the writer of that article) decides whether or not the CRIME committed is worth the money needed to prosecute based upon opinion and subjectivity?
2. If the "public good" obtained from a prosecution is less valuable than the money spent, then the crime is exonnerated.
Forget the fact that "public good" is also subjective, and your incentives "punishment, incapacitation, and deterrence" are short sighted....this system you wish to develop would be incredibly wreckless.
whats the difference? assuming there is a tax violation, its still a crime. they've offered anderson immunity if he'd talk....immunity from crime is granted all the time in judicial hearings. The govt. doesn't want to incarcerate the small fish....they want to expose the ring and break it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
First of all, I'm not laying out any "system" that I "wish to develop." I've never mentioned anything about a panel, or whatever.
From the same article:
What other reasons are there to prosecute someone? Those three seem to be pretty all-encompassing to me.Quote:
There are three primary reasons to prosecute someone for a crime: (1) to punish someone for violating a law; (2) to incapacitate that person via incarceration or execution from committing further crimes; or (3) to deter others from violating the same law. Actually, there shouldn't be an "or" in there, because these aren't mutually-exclusive categories. Indeed, most criminal prosecutions aim to do all three of these things to greater or lesser degrees, though certainly not always.
There's no ring here. They want to convict Barry Bonds of perjury. They're not using Bonds to get to some huge steroid ring. They already got that (BALCO).Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
There's a difference between offering immunity and going after family members to put pressure on somebody to comply with your demands. I don't know how else to put it into any other words.
As far as "they system", it appears that the writer is trying to develop a reasoning behind letting bonds walk and is using tons of subjectivity in the process. That is rewriting our judicial system.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I'd say other reasons are;Quote:
What other reasons are there to prosecute someone? Those three seem to be pretty all-encompassing to me.
- to preserve the integrity of our laws and judicial system
- to maintain public confidence in our judicial system
Neither of those however is what I meant by short-sighted. By that, I meant the writers views on why a Bonds prosecution wasn't worth the value of the process fails to take into account from what I read the public perception that another person with money can walk, and the precedence it sets as it tells others its OK to lie under oath providing an investigation into it will be costly.
Then why did they initially offer bonds immunity if they wanted to indict him? They want(ed) to know the whole story, how this was done, and who else was involved.Quote:
There's no ring here. They want to convict Barry Bonds of perjury. They're not using Bonds to get to some huge steroid ring. They already got that (BALCO).
So if this wasn't his family, but his accountant would it be different? Or what if it was another Anderson client, would it be different? Fact is, throughout the investigation, they found another crime...one they feel is less important. They are offering immunity to that person if they provide information. In addition, they are telling Anderson he can spare this person prosecution by talking. This is in no way any different because its a family member. I don't see how it can be seen as different.Quote:
There's a difference between offering immunity and going after family members to put pressure on somebody to comply with your demands. I don't know how else to put it into any other words.
Does it suck being his mother-in-law? Yeah...nobody likes to see someones family drawn in...but supposedly she committed a crime. She'd have never been found likely if not for Anderson and this situation. If she's a "victim" at all, its because of Anderson, not the Govt.