feds victimize family to get trainer to talk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

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.

---

I don't see how you're getting that from it at all, but whatever. I'm not that interested in arguing it.

Quote:

---

I'd say other reasons are;

- to preserve the integrity of our laws and judicial system

- to maintain public confidence in our judicial system

---

Neither of those are reasons to prosecute somebody for a crime.

The laws exist to keep society in order. We prosecute for a crime in order to punish the person, an attempt to teach them a lesson, and/or prevent them from repeating the crime and/or deter others from committing the same crime. We don't prosecute people to preserve the integrity of our laws, or to maintain public confidence. Those are side effects of prosecution, I guess, but not reasons to prosecute.

Quote:

---

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.

---

From the author in the comments section:

Quote:

---

I don’t think you kind of try and quit. I think that you figure out a reasonable level of expense and force you’ll go to in order to make an effective deterrents case. If you can’t get the job done with that reasonable level of expense and force, you start to defeat the deterrent purpose in the first place.

How? Let’s say I have to testify before a grand jury tomorrow and I’m thinking about lying. If I have just seen Barry Bonds get convicted for lying in a swift and businesslike prosecution, I may think twice. If, on the other hand, I see that he was convicted, but only after five years, 60 million bucks, and the full weight of the federal law enforcement infrastructure brought down upon him and his cohorts, well, maybe I think that such prosecutions are exceptional, rare, and not likely to happen to a poor schmuck like me.

And if the deterrent effect is gone, what are the feds really doing here?

---

Quote:

---

I don’t think you kind of try and quit. I think that you figure out a reasonable level of expense and force you’ll go to in order to make an effective deterrents case. If you can’t get the job done with that reasonable level of expense and force, you start to defeat the deterrent purpose in the first place.

How? Let’s say I have to testify before a grand jury tomorrow and I’m thinking about lying. If I have just seen Barry Bonds get convicted for lying in a swift and businesslike prosecution, I may think twice. If, on the other hand, I see that he was convicted, but only after five years, 60 million bucks, and the full weight of the federal law enforcement infrastructure brought down upon him and his cohorts, well, maybe I think that such prosecutions are exceptional, rare, and not likely to happen to a poor schmuck like me.

---

And if I see that Bonds can blatantly lie while under oath, and AFTER 5 YEARS AND 60 MILLION OUR GOVT. STILL LETS HIM WALK......heck there's no way they're going to be able to prosecute me. I might as well lie.

Quote:

---

And if the deterrent effect is gone, what are the feds really doing here?

---

Again, subjectivity. Honestly, there's so many things about that article I dislike. I firmly disagree that you go into an investigation with a preset amount of resources you will use on it and when that amount is tapped, game over. You go into an investigation to get the facts....and as long as theres credible evidence to continue investigating...than thats what you do. Forget the fact you're pot committed...there is a duty to enforce the law and follow through until justice is served. The end point comes when the investigation proves you were wrong, or when all leads are dry.

So keep putting pressure on Anderson, no matter how much time it takes or how much money it costs, until the unlikely event that he complies and testifies. That's a good use of taxpayer money and government resources?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

So keep putting pressure on Anderson, no matter how much time it takes or how much money it costs, until the unlikely event that he complies and testifies. That's a good use of taxpayer money and government resources?

---

i somehow doubt they absolutely need him....and when the time comes he'll be put on the stand again. maybe take the 5th, maybe talk...who knows. but yes....if bonds lied and they can prosecute and convict him than it was good use of the resources.

of course there has to be an end game, or a time when the feds need to "sh!t or get off the pot". i don't know how much has been spent, but it needs to be justified. and if in fact they don't get a case together...than i do expect them to drop the case. I can't however speculate on whether or not they definetely need anderson, or whether or not they have enough to continue the investigation. I have no proof. You seem to be speculating that they have nothing....i'm just curious how you know as such?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

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.

---

Youre wrong because I used the bathroom one a couple days ago and got away with it. :D

I hated Bonds as much as the next guy...Although I think it's a shame no one is letting him play and this is just beyond what is necessary....let it go I say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

I hated Bonds as much as the next guy...Although I think it's a shame no one is letting him play and this is just beyond what is necessary....let it go I say.

---

why? if they have evidence shouldn't they continue?

I googled ...greg andersons mother in law, tax evasion...and found this;

http://www.thestate.com/sports-natio...ry/666577.html

Quote:

---

The New York Times, citing an anonymous source, reported Thursday that prosecutors have evidence that links Bonds to the use of performance-enhancing drugs other than the "cream" and the "clear" - the designer substances that have become synonymous with the Bonds case.

A person who has reviewed the prosecution's evidence said that authorities detected anabolic steroids in urine samples linked to Bonds, according to the Times.

---

I highly doubt the feds are letting all their evidence 'leak' but the NY times is a credible agency for the most part. If they are stating this, than they believe their source(s). The feds do have evidence, and if new evidence incriminates Anderson than they need to visit him and again use that to try and get him to talk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

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:

---

civil cases do not have to be beyond a reasonable doudt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

I hated Bonds as much as the next guy...Although I think it's a shame no one is letting him play and this is just beyond what is necessary....let it go I say.

---

btw Jeff25 you THomas Jefferson quote is incorrect, it was Gerald Ford who said that not Thomas Jefferson, Ford made the statement during his August 12th 1974 address to Congess.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

i somehow doubt they absolutely need him....and when the time comes he'll be put on the stand again. maybe take the 5th, maybe talk...who knows. but yes....if bonds lied and they can prosecute and convict him than it was good use of the resources.

---

It's 5 years after the grand jury testimony during which Bonds allegedly lied, and they're still doing whatever they can in a feeble attempt to get Anderson to testify. "When the times comes, he'll be put on the stand again"? Huh? That's what this is all about. Anderson is refusing to take the stand.

Quote:

---

You seem to be speculating that they have nothing....i'm just curious how you know as such?

---

I'm just drawing my conclusion from common sense. If they don't need Anderson, why are they still trying to get the guy to talk? The man has spent nearly a year in jail just to NOT talk.

Quote:

---

I highly doubt the feds are letting all their evidence 'leak' but the NY times is a credible agency for the most part. If they are stating this, than they believe their source(s).

---

I don't doubt that the Feds are letting their evidence leak. And if they are, it's a serious breach of ethics. But, at any rate, having evidence that he had non-cream/clear steroids in his system is still not close to enough to prove that he knew he was doing steroids. Furthermore, this evidence sounds incredibly sketchy. They apparently have his urine tests, which originally did not test positive, and now, are testing positive...according to the leak.

Quote:

---

The feds do have evidence, and if new evidence incriminates Anderson than they need to visit him and again use that to try and get him to talk.

---

The Feds aren't trying to nail Anderson for anything at this point. They're trying to get him to testify against Bonds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wassit3

civil cases do not have to be beyond a reasonable doudt.

---

correct, my bad. it was late...preponderence of evidence.

Quote:

---

It's 5 years after the grand jury testimony during which Bonds allegedly lied, and they're still doing whatever they can in a feeble attempt to get Anderson to testify. "When the times comes, he'll be put on the stand again"? Huh? That's what this is all about. Anderson is refusing to take the stand.

---

You can't refuse to take the stand, or he'll be in obstruction. If they subpeona him, he has to take the stand. He doesn't however have to testify.

Quote:

---

I'm just drawing my conclusion from common sense. If they don't need Anderson, why are they still trying to get the guy to talk? The man has spent nearly a year in jail just to NOT talk.

---

Why its taking so long. I don't know. Often federal investigations take many years, its nothing new. I however am not going to 'draw conclusions' or try to make common sense without any facts whatsoever. Maybe they're talking to him because new evidence surfaced? I don't know.

Quote:

---

I don't doubt that the Feds are letting their evidence leak. And if they are, it's a serious breach of ethics. But, at any rate, having evidence that he had non-cream/clear steroids in his system is still not close to enough to prove that he knew he was doing steroids. Furthermore, this evidence sounds incredibly sketchy. They apparently have his urine tests, which originally did not test positive, and now, are testing positive...according to the leak.

---

I'm not going to base an opinion on evidence that I know so little about. "A source through a source provided us with a tidbit...but i'm automatically going to disregard it, well because it doesn't sound credible even though I know little about it." That doesn't quite work for me.

Again....just because this takes a long time however is no reason to throw it out and give up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

You can't refuse to take the stand, or he'll be in obstruction. If they subpeona him, he has to take the stand. He doesn't however have to testify.



Why its taking so long. I don't know. Often federal investigations take many years, its nothing new. I however am not going to 'draw conclusions' or try to make common sense without any facts whatsoever. Maybe they're talking to him because new evidence surfaced? I don't know.


I'm not going to base an opinion on evidence that I know so little about. "A source through a source provided us with a tidbit...but i'm automatically going to disregard it, well because it doesn't sound credible even though I know little about it." That doesn't quite work for me.

Again....just because this takes a long time however is no reason to throw it out and give up.

---

what about a defendants consitutional right to a speedy trail?:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

You can't refuse to take the stand, or he'll be in obstruction. If they subpeona him, he has to take the stand. He doesn't however have to testify.

---

Okay, right. He's refusing to testify. If they had a case without him, why would they be trying so hard to get him to testify?

Quote:

---

Why its taking so long. I don't know. Often federal investigations take many years, its nothing new. I however am not going to 'draw conclusions' or try to make common sense without any facts whatsoever. Maybe they're talking to him because new evidence surfaced? I don't know.

---

They're not "talking to him." They're trying to get him to testify against Bonds.

Quote:

---

I'm not going to base an opinion on evidence that I know so little about. "A source through a source provided us with a tidbit...but i'm automatically going to disregard it, well because it doesn't sound credible even though I know little about it." That doesn't quite work for me.

---

I'm not disregarding it. I'm saying it sounds sketchy - because it does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wassit3

what about a defendants consitutional right to a speedy trail?:)

---

when the trial begins, it should be as speedy as possible.

Quote:

---

Okay, right. He's refusing to testify. If they had a case without him, why would they be trying so hard to get him to testify?

---

As i've said, i assume they're 'building' a case. They likely don't have a case they feel is strong enough to go to court yet. These type cases always take a long time because they want to make sure they can get a conviction before going to court. Just because they don't have 'enough' evidence yet doesn't mean they don't have any.

Quote:

---

They're not "talking to him." They're trying to get him to testify against Bonds.

---

lol...and how are they trying to obtain that? I'd bet somewhere along the line talking is involved. Again, if new evidence comes up...then yes they go back to others involved for additional questioning. :rolleyes: If that evidence in some way criminalizes anderson, maybe that will be enough to get him to talk?

Quote:

---

I'm not disregarding it. I'm saying it sounds sketchy - because it does.

---

Its also a tidbit. While one shouldn't accept it as fact, it also shouldn't be disregarded as false. I have no leaning one way or another on this 'evidence' because frankly I know nothing about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

when the trial begins, it should be as speedy as possible.

---

That's not how it works. It does differentiate from state to state and depending on what the case is (ie. murder cases generally don't have a limit to how long the prosecution has to get ready for a trial). Read a bit more about it here. For a federal perjury case, I haven't a clue what the rules are. But, at any rate, the amendment doesn't apply specifically to the in-court trial. It applies to the entire process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

As i've said, i assume they're 'building' a case. They likely don't have a case they feel is strong enough to go to court yet. These type cases always take a long time because they want to make sure they can get a conviction before going to court. Just because they don't have 'enough' evidence yet doesn't mean they don't have any.

---

They don't have nearly enough to come close to a conviction, which is why they're desperately going after Anderson... because if he testifies (against Bonds), it'll likely be an open and shut case.

Quote:

---

lol...and how are they trying to obtain that? I'd bet somewhere along the line talking is involved. Again, if new evidence comes up...then yes they go back to others involved for additional questioning. :rolleyes: If that evidence in some way criminalizes anderson, maybe that will be enough to get him to talk?

---

They're trying to obtain it by demanding it from him and then when he doesn't comply, threatening him and putting more pressure on him (ie. going after family members). At least that what happened in the past week or so.

There's been absolutely no discussion of criminalizing Anderson or whatever, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up. Anderson's already served time for refusing to testify against Bonds, which indicates quite clearly that...well...he's not going to testify. So, of course, the government is putting more and more pressure on Anderson, because they desperately want him to testify. Why do they want him to testify so badly? Because he gives them the case. It's not rocket science.

Quote:

---

Its also a tidbit. While one shouldn't accept it as fact, it also shouldn't be disregarded as false. I have no leaning one way or another on this 'evidence' because frankly I know nothing about it.

---

Mind pointing me towards where I "disregarded it as false"?

Quote:

---

That's not how it works. It does differentiate from state to state and depending on what the case is (ie. murder cases generally don't have a limit to how long the prosecution has to get ready for a trial). Read a bit more about it here. For a federal perjury case, I haven't a clue what the rules are. But, at any rate, the amendment doesn't apply specifically to the in-court trial. It applies to the entire process.

---

There's so many different issues being circled around. The first being statute of limitations to convict someone of a crime. With that, I also don't know what or if there is a limitation or repose on perjury. The issue regarding a speedy trial, begins however after the individual is charged with a crime. No charge has been given. There is no clock on their investigation, unless there is a statue of limitations they must be concerned with. So, the "entire process" of a speedy trial constitutional right does not involve the govts. investigation prior to charging someone.

Quote:

---

They don't have nearly enough to come close to a conviction, which is why they're desperately going after Anderson... because if he testifies (against Bonds), it'll likely be an open and shut case.

---

Stop speculating. You have no idea what they have and don't have for evidence.

Quote:

---

They're trying to obtain it by demanding it from him and then when he doesn't comply, threatening him and putting more pressure on him (ie. going after family members). At least that what happened in the past week or so.

There's been absolutely no discussion of criminalizing Anderson or whatever, so I don't know why you keep bringing that up. Anderson's already served time for refusing to testify against Bonds, which indicates quite clearly that...well...he's not going to testify. So, of course, the government is putting more and more pressure on Anderson, because they desperately want him to testify. Why do they want him to testify so badly? Because he gives them the case. It's not rocket science.

---

They are going after the family because a crime surfaced throughout the course of the investigation that was unrelated to this one. Also, please educate yourself on the issue. Anderson never did time for refusing to testify against anyone. Refusing to testify is not a crime. He was granted some immunity against any crime he did (including those of which he served time for) if he talked, which he refused to do. As for why they want Anderson to testify, we don't disagree. It isn't rocket science. I don't know why you have such an issue with the govt. wanting him to testify.

Quote:

---

Mind pointing me towards where I "disregarded it as false"?

---

I never said you disregarded it as false...but you did however say it was sketchy which means you are giving pre-conceived notions on a piece of evidence you know nothing about based upon a small piece of information funnelled through a source of a source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

Stop speculating. You have no idea what they have and don't have for evidence.

---

We have a pretty good idea based on what's been reported and the fact that still, after 5 years, they're desperately trying to get Anderson to testify. I don't think it's a huge leap from that fact to speculate that they don't have close to a solid case without his testimony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

They are going after the family because a crime surfaced throughout the course of the investigation that was unrelated to this one.

---

They've been "threatening" his mother-in-law for roughly six months. Last week, they sent a letter to Anderson demanding him to tell them whether or not he was going to testify. He refused. 20 agents raided his mother-in-law's house. You're free to think there's no connection there, but I disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

Also, please educate yourself on the issue. Anderson never did time for refusing to testify against anyone. Refusing to testify is not a crime. He was granted some immunity against any crime he did (including those of which he served time for) if he talked, which he refused to do.

---

:confused: You're telling me to educate myself on the issue? I suggest YOU educate yourself.

Read:

Quote:

---

On July 5, 2006, Anderson was found in contempt of court by U.S. District Judge William Alsup for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury investigating perjury accusations against San Francisco Giants' player Barry Bonds...Anderson, denied bail, was immediately sent to the Federal Correctional Institution in Dublin, California. Anderson's attorney, Mark Geragos, said he would file an appeal based on his assertion that the subpoena to testify violated Anderson's plea bargain agreement in the BALCO case.

On July 20, 2006, Anderson was released when the grand jury's term expired without indicting Bonds. However, Anderson was immediately subpoenaed to testify before a new grand jury that took up the case.[6] Anderson's attorney, Mark Geragos, stated that Anderson would still refuse to testify, and on August 28, Anderson was again found in contempt of court and sentenced to prison.

On November 15, 2007, a federal judge ordered Anderson released from prison. This order came just hours after Bonds was indicted by a federal grand jury on 4 counts of perjury and 1 count of obstruction of justice.

---

Serving time in prison for refusing to testify is exactly what happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

As for why they want Anderson to testify, we don't disagree. It isn't rocket science. I don't know why you have such an issue with the govt. wanting him to testify.

---

I don't have an issue with the government wanting him to testify. I have an issue with the government spending millions of dollars and wasting a ton of time in feeble attempts to force him to testify.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

I never said you disregarded it as false...but you did however say it was sketchy which means you are giving pre-conceived notions on a piece of evidence you know nothing about based upon a small piece of information funnelled through a source of a source.

---

What was reported is sketchy. That's not "giving pre-conceived notions on a piece of evidence I know nothing about." It's giving my thoughts about what we do know. That evidence, based on what we know, seems sketchy.

Quote:

---

We have a pretty good idea based on what's been reported and the fact that still, after 5 years, they're desperately trying to get Anderson to testify. I don't think it's a huge leap from that fact to speculate that they don't have close to a solid case without his testimony.

---

"close to a solid case" again is subjective. What does that mean? Again, you have no idea what they have. All I've claimed, is that if they have evidence that he lied that they should continue to pursue it until they can gather enough to get a prosecution. Why its taking so long...I don't know. Subpeoning records and statements often takes alot of time, espeically when there are millions of dollars and lawyers in the way of obtaining that information. How close they are to the point of bringing this to trial, I don't know any more than you do. Nothing has changed from the beginning regarding Anderson. We all know him testifying likely would be very significant to the prosecutor. I don't see what the big deal is if nothings changed.

Quote:

---

They've been "threatening" his mother-in-law for roughly six months. Last week, they sent a letter to Anderson demanding him to tell them whether or not he was going to testify. He refused. 20 agents raided his mother-in-law's house. You're free to think there's no connection there, but I disagree.

---

I've heard only from Andersons attorney on this issue. I think pretty confidently he has a bias in the matter. "Threatening" is a strong word. And telling Anderson they'll agree to drop the investigation into possible tax evasion on his mother in law if he talks to them is frankly something used in law enforcement daily. If he had talked they likely never would have found the crime. If she didn't do the crime they most certainly never would have found it. I don't like how she's being made a "victim" in all this. I seriously doubt the govt. is making up these allegations...though I however wouldn't be totally shocked. They've done stuff like that before (delorean comes to mind). If they are, then they deserve to be prosecuted as well. But we are far far from that and I've heard nobody make that claim.

Quote:

---

Serving time in prison for refusing to testify is exactly what happened.

---

Hmm...it was always my understanding that he was given a lesser sentence on his distribution charges because he agreed to talk, and then when he refused to talk he was jailed because of the distribution charge being re-instated because he didn't live up to his promise. If he was subpeona'd and refused to go, then thats contempt and I could see him being jailed for that as well. After reading the wiki, you may have me on that one. It appears the two (jail time for not talking, and distribution charges) may not be connected.

Quote:

---

I don't have an issue with the government wanting him to testify. I have an issue with the government spending millions of dollars and wasting a ton of time in feeble attempts to force him to testify.

---

I think you're over-exaggerating the govt. spending on just Anderson. And who cares, its part of their investigation. Again, at one point its dry, Anderson won't talk. Uh-oh...i've found new evidence, lets check again and maybe he'll crack. It happens all the time and is part of a good investigative process.

Quote:

---

What was reported is sketchy. That's not "giving pre-conceived notions on a piece of evidence I know nothing about." It's giving my thoughts about what we do know. That evidence, based on what we know, seems sketchy.

---

And again...round and round. As I've said, we know nothing about there evidence. I don't know if its sketchy, or solid...and I certainly don't know if they are close or miles from filing a perjury charge and going to trial. From what you have claimed, that "they don't have nearly enough to get a conviction", it appears again that you have inside information nobody else is privy to. I don't see how you can draw that conclusion otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

"close to a solid case" again is subjective. What does that mean?

---

It means not enough to get a conviction.

Quote:

---

Again, you have no idea what they have.

---

Which is why I'm obviously basing what I think on what we know they have.

Quote:

---

How close they are to the point of bringing this to trial, I don't know any more than you do.

---

We know exactly when the trial begins - March 2.

Quote:

---

Hmm...it was always my understanding that he was given a lesser sentence on his distribution charges because he agreed to talk, and then when he refused to talk he was jailed because of the distribution charge being re-instated because he didn't live up to his promise. If he was subpeona'd and refused to go, then thats contempt and I could see him being jailed for that as well. After reading the wiki, you may have me on that one. It appears the two (jail time for not talking, and distribution charges) may not be connected.

---

The two aren't connected. It's not a "maybe". Greg Anderson spent about a year in jail for refusing to testify.

Quote:

---

As I've said, we know nothing about there evidence.

---

This is not true unless you have not followed the case in the news.

Quote:

---

I don't know if its sketchy, or solid...

---

My "sketchy" comment was, quite obviously, specifically regarding the Bonds urine tests, evidence which was leaked recently. Let's go through that discussion again.

You linked to a news article from the New York Times saying that the prosecutors have evidence linking Bonds to the use of PEDs other than the cream and clear. I thenlinked to the full report on that evidence, which said that they have retested his urine, and I said, "Furthermore, this evidence sounds incredibly sketchy. They apparently have his urine tests, which originally did not test positive, and now, are testing positive...according to the leak."

Quote:

---

and I certainly don't know if they are close or miles from filing a perjury charge and going to trial.

---

Than you must have literally not followed the news about it at all, considering perjury charges were filed over a year ago and the trial begins in a month.

Quote:

---

From what you have claimed, that "they don't have nearly enough to get a conviction", it appears again that you have inside information nobody else is privy to. I don't see how you can draw that conclusion otherwise.

---

I've already explained. I don't think it's a huge leap to assume that without Greg Anderson they don't have much of a case, considering how hard they're trying to get Anderson to testify. Do I know this? No, nor have I claimed to "know" it. It's simply what I think based on the facts that we know.

LOL...i did not know there was a trial date set already. Let me get this straight...they've been investigating this for years, indicted Bonds nearly two years ago, are less than one month away from trial and NOW you are saying they should simply drop the case? And you do this admitting you don't know what evidence they have???

Mind showing me where I said the government should "drop the case"?

Also, again, we DO know some of the evidence they have. Also, sometime this afternoon, all the evidence is going to be released. See here and here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Mind showing me where I said the government should "drop the case"?

Also, again, we DO know some of the evidence they have. Also, sometime this afternoon, all the evidence is going to be released. See here and here.

---

you can play semantics all you like. This thread highlights your many comments about the expenses of this not being in the "public good", its a "witch hunt" and the like. I'm not going to re-read all this.....and play semantics with you.

It'll be interesting to see what evidence they actually have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

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?

---

Prosecutors make that call all the time. It's just part of how the system works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

you can play semantics all you like. This thread highlights your many comments about the expenses of this not being in the "public good", its a "witch hunt" and the like. I'm not going to re-read all this.....and play semantics with you.

---

None of that remotely means they should drop the case. I have never said they should, nor have I implied it. It's not an issue of semantics. You're making a claim that just is not true, and utterly misrepresenting my position.

The evidence was released yesterday. Here's ShysterBall's quick take:

Quote:

---

For those interested -- especially fellow shysters with a PACER login and password -- here's the mother lode of US v. Barry Bonds documents, pleadings, etc. I haven't had a chance to really go over them in any detail, but my cursory review of it confirms what has been obvious for some time: the government is in deep doo-doo if it can't somehow compel Anderson to testify, because it needs Anderson to authenticate almost all of the documentary evidence that implicates Bonds. Without it, they are relying on considerable amounts of hearsay. The government has argued that the hearsay is admissible due to several exceptions in the rules, but for reasons that will be boring to anyone who isn't a lawyer (and most of us who are) I find their arguments to this effect to be less-than-compelling.

Obviously the judge may disagree, and however she comes down on the issue is going to, obviously, go a long way towards determining the outcome of the case. If I had to handicap it at this point, however, I still say: Advantage Bonds.

---

That concurs with several other people's (also lawyers) comments I've read at Baseball Think Factory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

The evidence was released yesterday. Here's ShysterBall's quick take:



That concurs with several other people's (also lawyers) comments I've read at Baseball Think Factory.

---

So a firm that has taken a stance against this investigation states that they haven't had a chance to review much of the information but regardless is making the claim that the information or lack thereof favors Bonds.

Convenient and Shocking. ;)

Like I said, he's not the only person to say this. In fact, I've yet to see anybody say anything good about the government's evidence against Bonds, but I've seen multiple people make the same claim - without Anderson to substantiate it, it's not a good case. The government can prove six ways to Sunday that Bonds used steroids, but that's not what's on trial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Like I said, he's not the only person to say this. In fact, I've yet to see anybody say anything good about the government's evidence against Bonds, but I've seen multiple people make the same claim - without Anderson to substantiate it, it's not a good case. The government can prove six ways to Sunday that Bonds used steroids, but that's not what's on trial.

---

That may be true. Honestly I haven't researched the information or opinions. I was just stating that your quote from the shyster was expected. Whats comical is they gave their synopsis while admitting to have not closely read the information.

While we know he perjured himself, and I hope they are in fact able to prove it.....I won't be surprised if in the end they cannot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

That may be true. Honestly I haven't researched the information or opinions. I was just stating that your quote from the shyster was expected. Whats comical is they gave their synopsis while admitting to have not closely read the information.

---

How is that comical? He gave his first impression. He did the same with the Mitchell Report, and then broke it down piece by piece after he had a chance to dig deep into it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

How is that comical? He gave his first impression. He did the same with the Mitchell Report, and then broke it down piece by piece after he had a chance to dig deep into it.

---

Because after reading their most recent piece you provided, I would have bet my house they'd have stated the govt. had no case after reading the information. Come to find out they made their opinion even without reading it, which just confirms what I thought all along, their mind is past made up.

I think the Govt. could have had a picture of Bonds taking a needle in the a$$ from Canseco, and this shyster would argue its inadmissible and the govt. has no case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

Because after reading their most recent piece you provided, I would have bet my house they'd have stated the govt. had no case after reading the information. Come to find out they made their opinion even without reading it, which just confirms what I thought all along, their mind is past made up.

---

Why can't it be that the government's case just IS weak? Why do you have to accuse people of making up their minds without the information, and then refusing to change it when they see the information? That's completely NOT the case. There's been many leaks prior to the full release of evidence, which is what people have used to form their opinions. The full release has confirmed the leaks, according to the multiple people that have reviewed the evidence, cursory or otherwise.

Judging from what you've said in this thread, you've paid incredibly little attention to the Bonds proceedings. I'm surprised that you aren't deferring to those that have spent the past couple years following the case, and instead are accusing them of "pro-Bonds bias." Well, maybe it's not too surprising, considering you've demonstrated a good deal of anti-Bonds bias in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Why can't it be that the government's case just IS weak? Why do you have to accuse people of making up their minds without the information, and then refusing to change it when they see the information? That's completely NOT the case. There's been many leaks prior to the full release of evidence, which is what people have used to form their opinions. The full release has confirmed the leaks, according to the multiple people that have reviewed the evidence, cursory or otherwise.

Judging from what you've said in this thread, you've paid incredibly little attention to the Bonds proceedings. I'm surprised that you aren't deferring to those that have spent the past couple years following the case, and instead are accusing them of "pro-Bonds bias." Well, maybe it's not too surprising, considering you've demonstrated a good deal of anti-Bonds bias in the past.

---

I am actually more Pro-Bonds than most, and have always been. He gets a bad wrap for a ton of unfair reasons. You pay little attention.

Maybe you missed this;

Quote:

---

While we know he perjured himself, and I hope they are in fact able to prove it.....I won't be surprised if in the end they cannot.

---

I have no horse in the race. I don't care either way, but for some reason you and that shyster seemingly feel that the case is being investigated unfairly and at a loss of "public good". You've also stated or at least linked the site that claimed something to the effect that there should be a public good or there should be no additional money spent, thus no investigation on Bonds or anyone where no "public good" exists. Its that attitude that I've disagreed with.

As for shyster.....IT IS COMPLETELY THE CASE! The article you linked initially was incredibly biased, and then shockingly you link him again claiming to have not fully read everything but providing yet another anti-Govt. opinion.

I'd tell you to please link his opinion when he's actually fully read the information as only then does it really interest me........but IMO he's lost all credibility and I really don't care of his opinion anymore. Opinions of unbiased individuals who have fully reviewed the information, I would find interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

As for shyster.....IT IS COMPLETELY THE CASE! The article you linked initially was incredibly biased, and then shockingly you link him again claiming to have not fully read everything but providing yet another anti-Govt. opinion.

I'd tell you to please link his opinion when he's actually fully read the information as only then does it really interest me........but IMO he's lost all credibility and I really don't care of his opinion anymore. Opinions of unbiased individuals who have fully reviewed the information, I would find interesting.

---

No, it's not the case. He did not make up his mind before seeing any information, and he is not refusing to change his opinion in the face of new information. He formed his opinion based on his following of the case all along, and all the leaked evidence and statements (ie. not before seeing any information). If the new information contradicted all that, he wouldn't stick by his opinion which was based on previous information. Since the new information confirms the previous information, and does not contradict it, I don't see what the problem is with sticking to his original thoughts.

You seem to not care that a good deal of this evidence had already been known to us, and that he's been following the case since the beginning. He's not "pro-Bonds." He's just interpretting the facts of the case, and the facts of the case point to the government having a weak case without Greg Anderson's testimony. Furthermore, yes, this was a "first impression", prior to digging deep into the evidence. I'm not sure why that's such a bad thing. Knowing him, I'd be surprised if he doesn't post more of his thoughts once he reads over the evidence in more detail.

Just more information here:

From his comment section:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craig Calcaterra

They’re [the government] arguing admission [of hearsay] against interest, business records, and/or the residual exception, which basically says “we can’t get our witness to testify, but the testimony is important, he said it once, and when he did there was some indicia of credibility to it.”

They rely heavily on the residual exception. I’ve never litigated it, but it strikes me that courts have to be extremely careful in resorting to it lest the entirety of the hearsay rule be swallowed up. I know many states adopted it in the case of domestic abuse (i.e. the wife that won’t later testify even though she at one time provided a statement). I’m not sure that it applies here.

At some point, if the government can’t get a witness to testify, they have to kiss goodbye whatever evidence he would have testified to.

---

Here's another lawyer's opinion, from the Baseball Think Factory thread, just to show that there's multiple people interpretting the known facts in the exact same way (and, as I said previously, I've yet to see anybody express an opposite view):

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Nieporent

I've begun slogging through those documents. Bonds' attorneys did a terrible job in their initial motion to exclude, but presented a very strong reply brief. Don't have any idea what Illston will do; there's a lot of discretion vested in the trial judge.

EDIT: Basically, there's a lot of stuff there, but it seems like -- as we suspected all along -- so much of it hinges on Greg Anderson. Without his testimony, the government's case is fragmentary at best.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Nieporent

The prosecution falsely writes in its motion papers that Bonds admitted using the cream and the clear.

They also argue that people don't brag or lie in locker rooms.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Nieporent

Bonds' attorneys are really trying to go for the home run here; they're asking for the court to throw out virtually everything the prosecution wants to introduce. Little chance that she does that (if she did, she'd pretty much be looking at a motion to dismiss) but she can still cripple the prosecution's case if she gives Bonds even part of what he's asking for. And when the prosecution is relying on the residual exception, you know (well, you do if you're a lawyer) how worried they are.

---

Quote:

---

He did not make up his mind before seeing any information

---

I read that and stopped there. Thats nowheres close to anything I said....and I'm pretty much done with this.:rolleyes:

There is no reason that Greg Anderson should not be compelled to testify. The law states that he can refuse to testify if it will incriminate him - but he has immunity so that doesn't hold. Overall, there is a large public interest in requiring that people tell the truth in court proceedings - and that people testify to what they know when asked by the court. These two things are critical to the justice system.

As to the cost, and whether the case is worth it - did the government think the case would cost this much when it started? Probably not. But they have already spent that money, it is gone and essentially irrelevant. How much more will it cost to convict Bonds? Who knows - I wouldn't be upset if they tossed Anderson back in jail for refusing to testify as that seems to be the only barrier. There is no reason that Anderson should get to protect his friend - that isn't the way the justice system works, and it would set a bad precedent to allow it to happen in such a public case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

I read that and stopped there. Thats nowheres close to anything I said....and I'm pretty much done with this.:rolleyes:

---

Maybe it's not what you meant to say, but it's exactly what you DID say:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Why can't it be that the government's case just IS weak? Why do you have to accuse people of making up their minds without the information, and then refusing to change it when they see the information? That's completely NOT the case.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

As for shyster.....IT IS COMPLETELY THE CASE!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kenny1234

There is no reason that Greg Anderson should not be compelled to testify. The law states that he can refuse to testify if it will incriminate him - but he has immunity so that doesn't hold. Overall, there is a large public interest in requiring that people tell the truth in court proceedings - and that people testify to what they know when asked by the court. These two things are critical to the justice system.

As to the cost, and whether the case is worth it - did the government think the case would cost this much when it started? Probably not. But they have already spent that money, it is gone and essentially irrelevant. How much more will it cost to convict Bonds? Who knows - I wouldn't be upset if they tossed Anderson back in jail for refusing to testify as that seems to be the only barrier. There is no reason that Anderson should get to protect his friend - that isn't the way the justice system works, and it would set a bad precedent to allow it to happen in such a public case.

---

Agreed for the most part, but there simply is no way for the government to FORCE him to testify. If he doesn't talk, then he doesn't talk, and there's nothing they can do to make him talk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Agreed for the most part, but there simply is no way for the government to FORCE him to testify. If he doesn't talk, then he doesn't talk, and there's nothing they can do to make him talk.

---

Except throw him back in jail or fine him a significant amount of money. No, they can't force him to talk - they can make it awfully expensive to choose not to. He has no legal reason to not testify - therefore he can easily be held in contempt of court if he chooses not to. I think this is actually a compelling reason to continue with the case. The legal system is on precarious ground if it allows people to choose when they wish to obey the law. There is no freedom of the press issue, no doctor-patient privilege, basically nothing that allows Anderson a legal reason to not talk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kenny1234

Except throw him back in jail or fine him a significant amount of money. No, they can't force him to talk - they can make it awfully expensive to choose not to. He has no legal reason to not testify - therefore he can easily be held in contempt of court if he chooses not to. I think this is actually a compelling reason to continue with the case. The legal system is on precarious ground if it allows people to choose when they wish to obey the law. There is no freedom of the press issue, no doctor-patient privilege, basically nothing that allows Anderson a legal reason to not talk.

---

He's proven before that he's willing to go to jail in order to not testify, though. So, yeah, they can do that, but that won't make him testify. As for a fine, that might have a better chance, although I'm not sure if they're able to, as I'm not sure just what the law says about punishment for being in contempt of court. Considering how badly they want him to testify, though, if they're able to fine him, why haven't they?