Armstrong & Exception to Statute of Limitations

In article ,
BLafferty wrote:

For continuing the a conspiracy to coverup crimes beyond the 5 year s of l.

http://www.fanhouse.com/2010/10/28/l...y-prosecutors/

Obviously he is covering up. He has not confessed.

--
Old Fritz

BLafferty wrote:
For continuing the a conspiracy to coverup crimes beyond the 5 year s
of l.
http://www.fanhouse.com/2010/10/28/l...y-prosecutors/

Do you need to keep out of my killfile so much that you keep changing
your email addy? Sad.

-S-

On 10/29/2010 2:57 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
"BLafferty" wrote in message
...
On 10/29/2010 1:58 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
"BLafferty" wrote in message
...
For continuing the a conspiracy to coverup crimes beyond the 5 year s
of l.

http://www.fanhouse.com/2010/10/28/l...y-prosecutors/



"A grand jury empaneled in Los Angeles to investigate whether Armstrong
was part of a conspiracy to purchase and use performance-enhancing drugs
typically could only consider crimes committed over the last five years.
But a person with knowledge of the investigation said prosecutors could
claim that Armstrong and others made overt acts to continue the
conspiracy, a move that could effectively reset the clock on the statute
of limitations."

Would hiring an attorney constitute an "overt act?" Where do you draw
the line when someone has been accused of something and you deny it? Is
the very denial an "overt act" and if so, are we saying that the statute
of limitations is only relevant when someone hasn't been accused (or is
accused and remains silent)?

Or does "continuing the conspiracy" mean that the acts subject to the
statute of limitations are continuing, in which case it's moot?

I'm a cyclist and bicycle retailer dammit, not a lawyer!

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
I "discussed this with Henry a month or so ago. A conspiracy to commit
fraud can be continuing and effectively toll the running of the
statute of limitations. Taking active steps to keep the fraud
concealed is going to be argued to be a continuing conspiracy. All of
Armstrong's continuing public denials as well a those of others like
Johan, will be seen as a continuing conspiracy to cover up what they
are accused of doing.

So you're saying there is no such thing as a statute of limitations if
someone has been accused of an allegation, whether it by in the press or
whatever, and has denied it? Wouldn't that throw out the statute of
limitations as a defense in the vast majority of cases (exceptions being
only those in which evidence and accusations didn't turn up until after
the time ran out)?

I understand what you're saying. It just seems unreasonable.
Unreasonable doesn't mean that's not the law of the land. It just seems
to beg for guidelines in application. Which you may have discussed with
Henry last month.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Unlike some crimes, like bank robbery, where there is a criminal act at
a specific time and place at which time the statute of limitations
begins to run, some crimes are of an ongoing nature and the concealment
of the crime can act to toll the statute of limitations because it is
considered a part of the crime.

The article linked makes reference to using the tolling of the statute
as it relates to doping and PED distribution, but that is not the charge
relating to the crime that the government is likely to assert tolling.

Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
Perhaps you could point us to a case

Dumbass,

On Oct 30, 3:59*am, "A. Dumas" wrote:
Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:

Perhaps you could point us to a case

Dumbass,

Well played.

On 10/29/2010 4:11 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
On Oct 29, 11:07 am, wrote:
On 10/29/2010 1:58 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

wrote in message
...
For continuing the a conspiracy to coverup crimes beyond the 5 year s
of l.

http://www.fanhouse.com/2010/10/28/l...d-be-target-of...

"A grand jury empaneled in Los Angeles to investigate whether Armstrong
was part of a conspiracy to purchase and use performance-enhancing drugs
typically could only consider crimes committed over the last five years.
But a person with knowledge of the investigation said prosecutors could
claim that Armstrong and others made overt acts to continue the
conspiracy, a move that could effectively reset the clock on the statute
of limitations."

Would hiring an attorney constitute an "overt act?" Where do you draw
the line when someone has been accused of something and you deny it? Is
the very denial an "overt act" and if so, are we saying that the statute
of limitations is only relevant when someone hasn't been accused (or is
accused and remains silent)?

Or does "continuing the conspiracy" mean that the acts subject to the
statute of limitations are continuing, in which case it's moot?

I'm a cyclist and bicycle retailer dammit, not a lawyer!

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City& Los Altos, CA USA

I "discussed this with Henry a month or so ago. A conspiracy to commit
fraud can be continuing and effectively toll the running of the statute
of limitations. Taking active steps to keep the fraud concealed is going
to be argued to be a continuing conspiracy. All of Armstrong's
continuing public denials as well a those of others like Johan, will be
seen as a continuing conspiracy to cover up what they are accused of
doing.

By you perhaps.

The very article quoted by yourself in the OP says:

Armstrong has continually denied that he used performance-
enhancing drugs. Such denials, however, likely wouldn't constitute
extending the conspiracy, although his interactions with the
managers and any new attempts to hide the presence of a doping
conspiracy would.

Although the reporter is no more of a legal authority
than you or me, this seems a more reasonable position.
I kind of doubt that a court would uphold using a public
protestation of innocence as a part of a conspiracy.
However, if for example the prosecution could uncover, say,
a text message from LA to Johan saying "Remember,
if anyone asks, those blue coolers were for your Orange
Fanta habit," that could be used as evidence of a
conspiracy that was continuous from 2000 or whenever
to now.

I don't have exhaustive knowledge of all the conspiracy
cases that have ever been brought. Perhaps you could
point us to a case where protestations of innocence
have been successfully prosecuted as conspiratorial
acts. The conspiracy laws are quite wide ranging, so it's
possible such a case exists somewhere.

Fredmaster Ben

I could as it's very basic law regarding the tolling of certain criminal
statutes, but it would be more meaningful for you if you did your own
legal research.

On 10/29/2010 4:11 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
On Oct 29, 11:07 am, wrote:
On 10/29/2010 1:58 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

wrote in message
...
For continuing the a conspiracy to coverup crimes beyond the 5 year s
of l.

http://www.fanhouse.com/2010/10/28/l...d-be-target-of...

"A grand jury empaneled in Los Angeles to investigate whether Armstrong
was part of a conspiracy to purchase and use performance-enhancing drugs
typically could only consider crimes committed over the last five years.
But a person with knowledge of the investigation said prosecutors could
claim that Armstrong and others made overt acts to continue the
conspiracy, a move that could effectively reset the clock on the statute
of limitations."

Would hiring an attorney constitute an "overt act?" Where do you draw
the line when someone has been accused of something and you deny it? Is
the very denial an "overt act" and if so, are we saying that the statute
of limitations is only relevant when someone hasn't been accused (or is
accused and remains silent)?

Or does "continuing the conspiracy" mean that the acts subject to the
statute of limitations are continuing, in which case it's moot?

I'm a cyclist and bicycle retailer dammit, not a lawyer!

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City& Los Altos, CA USA

I "discussed this with Henry a month or so ago. A conspiracy to commit
fraud can be continuing and effectively toll the running of the statute
of limitations. Taking active steps to keep the fraud concealed is going
to be argued to be a continuing conspiracy. All of Armstrong's
continuing public denials as well a those of others like Johan, will be
seen as a continuing conspiracy to cover up what they are accused of
doing.

By you perhaps.

The very article quoted by yourself in the OP says:

Armstrong has continually denied that he used performance-
enhancing drugs. Such denials, however, likely wouldn't constitute
extending the conspiracy, although his interactions with the
managers and any new attempts to hide the presence of a doping
conspiracy would.

Although the reporter is no more of a legal authority
than you or me, this seems a more reasonable position.
I kind of doubt that a court would uphold using a public
protestation of innocence as a part of a conspiracy.
However, if for example the prosecution could uncover, say,
a text message from LA to Johan saying "Remember,
if anyone asks, those blue coolers were for your Orange
Fanta habit," that could be used as evidence of a
conspiracy that was continuous from 2000 or whenever
to now.

I don't have exhaustive knowledge of all the conspiracy
cases that have ever been brought. Perhaps you could
point us to a case where protestations of innocence
have been successfully prosecuted as conspiratorial
acts. The conspiracy laws are quite wide ranging, so it's
possible such a case exists somewhere.

Fredmaster Ben

Out of concern for overusing your minimal mental abilities, look at this
which I came up with in less than 3 minutes.

The government routinely charges companies and individuals with conspiracy to violate the FCPA in place of or in addition to substantive FCPA charges. And, by charging a conspiracy offense, the government can effectively stretch the statute of limitations period well beyond five years. This is because with conspiracy offenses, the government only needs to prove that one act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred during the limitations period. See, e.g., United States v. Milstein, 401 F.3d 53, 71 (2d Cir. 2005). By charging conspiracy, the government was able to include in the recent charges against Siemens’ subsidiaries conduct that occurred as far back as 1997—some eleven years prior to the date that the criminal information was filed in late-2008. Similarly, in the recent KBR/Halliburton matter, the government was able to reach criminal conduct that occurred as far back as 1994, although the five-year period generally applicable to those acts would ordinarily have exp
ired in 1999.

On 10/29/2010 4:11 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
On Oct 29, 11:07 am, wrote:
On 10/29/2010 1:58 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

wrote in message
...
For continuing the a conspiracy to coverup crimes beyond the 5 year s
of l.

http://www.fanhouse.com/2010/10/28/l...d-be-target-of...

"A grand jury empaneled in Los Angeles to investigate whether Armstrong
was part of a conspiracy to purchase and use performance-enhancing drugs
typically could only consider crimes committed over the last five years.
But a person with knowledge of the investigation said prosecutors could
claim that Armstrong and others made overt acts to continue the
conspiracy, a move that could effectively reset the clock on the statute
of limitations."

Would hiring an attorney constitute an "overt act?" Where do you draw
the line when someone has been accused of something and you deny it? Is
the very denial an "overt act" and if so, are we saying that the statute
of limitations is only relevant when someone hasn't been accused (or is
accused and remains silent)?

Or does "continuing the conspiracy" mean that the acts subject to the
statute of limitations are continuing, in which case it's moot?

I'm a cyclist and bicycle retailer dammit, not a lawyer!

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City& Los Altos, CA USA

I "discussed this with Henry a month or so ago. A conspiracy to commit
fraud can be continuing and effectively toll the running of the statute
of limitations. Taking active steps to keep the fraud concealed is going
to be argued to be a continuing conspiracy. All of Armstrong's
continuing public denials as well a those of others like Johan, will be
seen as a continuing conspiracy to cover up what they are accused of
doing.

By you perhaps.

The very article quoted by yourself in the OP says:

Armstrong has continually denied that he used performance-
enhancing drugs. Such denials, however, likely wouldn't constitute
extending the conspiracy, although his interactions with the
managers and any new attempts to hide the presence of a doping
conspiracy would.

Although the reporter is no more of a legal authority
than you or me, this seems a more reasonable position.
I kind of doubt that a court would uphold using a public
protestation of innocence as a part of a conspiracy.
However, if for example the prosecution could uncover, say,
a text message from LA to Johan saying "Remember,
if anyone asks, those blue coolers were for your Orange
Fanta habit," that could be used as evidence of a
conspiracy that was continuous from 2000 or whenever
to now.

I don't have exhaustive knowledge of all the conspiracy
cases that have ever been brought. Perhaps you could
point us to a case where protestations of innocence
have been successfully prosecuted as conspiratorial
acts. The conspiracy laws are quite wide ranging, so it's
possible such a case exists somewhere.

Fredmaster Ben

For a start, look at the following which I came up with in less than 3
minutes.

The government routinely charges companies and individuals with
conspiracy to violate the FCPA in place of or in addition to substantive
FCPA charges. And, by charging a conspiracy offense, the government can
effectively stretch the statute of limitations period well beyond five
years. This is because with conspiracy offenses, the government only
needs to prove that one act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred
during the limitations period. See, e.g., United States v. Milstein, 401
F.3d 53, 71 (2d Cir. 2005). By charging conspiracy, the government was
able to include in the recent charges against Siemens’ subsidiaries
conduct that occurred as far back as 1997—some eleven years prior to the
date that the criminal information was filed in late-2008. Similarly, in
the recent KBR/Halliburton matter, the government was able to reach
criminal conduct that occurred as far back as 1994, although the
five-year period generally applicable to those acts would ordinarily
have expired in 1999.

On 11/1/2010 9:53 AM, BLafferty wrote:
On 10/29/2010 4:11 PM, Fredmaster of Brainerd wrote:
On Oct 29, 11:07 am, wrote:
On 10/29/2010 1:58 PM, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

wrote in message
...
For continuing the a conspiracy to coverup crimes beyond the 5 year s
of l.

http://www.fanhouse.com/2010/10/28/l...d-be-target-of...


"A grand jury empaneled in Los Angeles to investigate whether Armstrong
was part of a conspiracy to purchase and use performance-enhancing
drugs
typically could only consider crimes committed over the last five
years.
But a person with knowledge of the investigation said prosecutors could
claim that Armstrong and others made overt acts to continue the
conspiracy, a move that could effectively reset the clock on the
statute
of limitations."

Would hiring an attorney constitute an "overt act?" Where do you draw
the line when someone has been accused of something and you deny it? Is
the very denial an "overt act" and if so, are we saying that the
statute
of limitations is only relevant when someone hasn't been accused (or is
accused and remains silent)?

Or does "continuing the conspiracy" mean that the acts subject to the
statute of limitations are continuing, in which case it's moot?

I'm a cyclist and bicycle retailer dammit, not a lawyer!

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City& Los Altos, CA USA

I "discussed this with Henry a month or so ago. A conspiracy to commit
fraud can be continuing and effectively toll the running of the statute
of limitations. Taking active steps to keep the fraud concealed is going
to be argued to be a continuing conspiracy. All of Armstrong's
continuing public denials as well a those of others like Johan, will be
seen as a continuing conspiracy to cover up what they are accused of
doing.

By you perhaps.

The very article quoted by yourself in the OP says:

Armstrong has continually denied that he used performance-
enhancing drugs. Such denials, however, likely wouldn't constitute
extending the conspiracy, although his interactions with the
managers and any new attempts to hide the presence of a doping
conspiracy would.

Although the reporter is no more of a legal authority
than you or me, this seems a more reasonable position.
I kind of doubt that a court would uphold using a public
protestation of innocence as a part of a conspiracy.
However, if for example the prosecution could uncover, say,
a text message from LA to Johan saying "Remember,
if anyone asks, those blue coolers were for your Orange
Fanta habit," that could be used as evidence of a
conspiracy that was continuous from 2000 or whenever
to now.

I don't have exhaustive knowledge of all the conspiracy
cases that have ever been brought. Perhaps you could
point us to a case where protestations of innocence
have been successfully prosecuted as conspiratorial
acts. The conspiracy laws are quite wide ranging, so it's
possible such a case exists somewhere.

Fredmaster Ben

For a start, look at the following which I came up with in less than 3
minutes.

The government routinely charges companies and individuals with
conspiracy to violate the FCPA in place of or in addition to substantive
FCPA charges. And, by charging a conspiracy offense, the government can
effectively stretch the statute of limitations period well beyond five
years. This is because with conspiracy offenses, the government only
needs to prove that one act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred
during the limitations period. See, e.g., United States v. Milstein, 401
F.3d 53, 71 (2d Cir. 2005). By charging conspiracy, the government was
able to include in the recent charges against Siemens’ subsidiaries
conduct that occurred as far back as 1997—some eleven years prior to the
date that the criminal information was filed in late-2008. Similarly, in
the recent KBR/Halliburton matter, the government was able to reach
criminal conduct that occurred as far back as 1994, although the
five-year period generally applicable to those acts would ordinarily
have expired in 1999.
The statute of limitations for mail fraud and wire fraud prosecutions is
five years (18 U.S.C. § 3282), except for mail and wire fraud schemes
that affect a financial institution, in which case the statute is ten
years (18 U.S.C. § 3293).
COMMENT: Consider that a scheme may extend back beyond the limitations
period; the gist of the offense is the use of the mails, and if the
prohibited use of the mails was within the period, the prosecution is
timely. See O. Obermaier and R. Morvillo, White Collar Crime: Business
and Regulatory Offenses, § 9.04[5], at 9-67 (Rel. 2, 1991) (citing
cases); cf. United States v. Garfinkel, 29 F.3d 1253, 1259 (8th Cir.
1994) (mail fraud scheme may continue after mailing). That a scheme may
extend back beyond the limitation period does not preclude prosecution
of an offense committed in furtherance of the scheme within the period.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/fo...le9/43mcrm.htm

Lulling:

In United States v. Maze, 414 U.S. 395 (1974), mailings which occurred
after the scheme ended fell outside the prohibitions of the statute. See
also United States v. West, 549 F.2d 545, 556 (8th Cir. 1977), cert.
denied, 430 U.S. 956 (1977) and Battaglia v. United States, 349 F.2d
556, 561 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 955 (1965) (wire used after
the scheme has come to an end is not within the statute); cf. United
States v. Pollack, 534 F.2d 964, 971 (D.C. Cir.)(Maze has no adverse
impact on fraud prosecutions where the scheme has not reached
fruition.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 924 (1976).
It is a well-established principle of mail fraud law, however, that use
of the mails after money is obtained may nevertheless be "for the
purpose of executing" the fraud. This proposition was considered by the
Supreme Court in United States v. Sampson, 371 U.S. 75 (1962), where
salesmen fraudulently obtained applications and advance payments from
businessmen and then mailed acceptances to the defrauded victims to lull
them into believing the services would be performed. The Court held that
such a "lulling" use of the mails was for the purpose of executing the
fraudulent scheme. *Thus, post-purchase mailings or wire transmissions
that are designed to lull the victim into a false sense of security,
postpone inquiries or complaints, or make the transaction less suspect
can be in furtherance of the scheme. United States v. Rogers, 9 F.3d
1025 (2d Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 95 (1994).*