feds victimize family to get trainer to talk

[HoustonGM]

There's more than one way to prove that he knowingly took steroids. Other witnesses, documentation, this mystery calendar code, etc.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

[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?

The civil case had nothing to do with the prosecution.

And a murder case is not comparable to a perjury case. From the first article I linked to:

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.

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.

[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).

According to "the story", Andersons prosecutors are drawing conclusions to support their position.

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.

[HoustonGM]

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.

[dickay]

The civil case had nothing to do with the prosecution.

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.

So thats how our judicial system should be operated? Let me see if I understand it fully;

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.

[dickay]

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.

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.

[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:

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.

What other reasons are there to prosecute someone? Those three seem to be pretty all-encompassing to me.

[HoustonGM]

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.

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).

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.

[dickay]

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:

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.

What other reasons are there to prosecute someone? Those three seem to be pretty all-encompassing to me.

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 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.

[dickay]

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

[HoustonGM]

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.

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.

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:

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?

[dickay]

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.

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.

[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?

[dickay]

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?

[ragecage]

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.