feds victimize family to get trainer to talk

[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.

[dickay]

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

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.

[Wassit3]

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?

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

[Wassit3]

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.

[HoustonGM]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[dickay]

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

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

[dickay]

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.

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.

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.

[Wassit3]

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?

[HoustonGM]

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?

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.

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.

[dickay]

what about a defendants consitutional right to a speedy trail?

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

[dickay]

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.

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. If that evidence in some way criminalizes anderson, maybe that will be enough to get him to talk?

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.

[HoustonGM]

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.

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.

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. 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.

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"?

[dickay]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[HoustonGM]

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.

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.

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.

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

Read:

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.

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.

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.

[dickay]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.