Well, it sure has been a while, hasn’t it? Thanks to everyone who’s kept coming back and commenting on the doings in the world of doping over the last few weeks. Me, I think I’ve got a bit of “doping fatigue” as it were. Sometimes I think about writing a post, and then it takes a bit longer than I’d planned. Not like the early days, when the posts flew fast and furious. Faster, anyway.
Test Them Once, Test Them Twice and Test Them Once Again
Seems there are a few rather interesting developments. Like the whole idea of, for lack of a better term, “after hours” drug testing during the Tour de France and other major events. The idea being to catch the cheats who use fast-acting and fast-clearing drugs by conducting unannounced tests at a time when most sane people (and a few not so sane people) are snoozing away. Quite the ruckus it’s raised, with some riders (like Mark Cavendish, for example) supporting the concept.
I understand the desire to beat the cheaters at their own game, but at the same time the idea that riders might be woken up during the middle of the night to pee into a cup seems to be a bit over the top. My concern about doing something like this isn’t just the inconvenience the riders will suffer. They’re already subject to a certain amount with the programs currently in place. The thing that concerns me is what might happen due to riders functioning on even less rest and recovery than they already get.
Bike racing is inherently dangerous. Even the most skilled riders can hit the pavement given the dynamics of the peloton. Sometimes, you can’t avoid crashing if someone falls right in front of you. You’ve got to be aware of everything going on around you while being simultaneously relaxed on the bike. It’s not an easy thing to do, even for the most experienced of riders. Factor in a lack of sleep, and you won’t be your sharpest self.
So it would be easy for a poorly rested rider to make a mistake and take himself down. If he’s lucky, no major harm done. But if lucky isn’t with our hapless cyclist, he and a number of others could be nursing injuries.
I understand that doping has health consequences and that those consequences aren’t worth the performance benefits. At the same time, testing in the middle of the night and causing a rider to run on less than optimal rest and recovery presents its own dangers. Seems to me that the gains in the anti-doping efforts might not be worth the risks. I hope I’m wrong about that, if the powers that be continue down this road.
The Long and Winding Hack
Seems that the hacking case against Floyd Landis and Arnie Baker, who are apparently suspected of having been behind the hacking attack on France’s anti-doping laboratory four years ago, has not quietly passed away. It’s back in the news again, with reports suggesting that Landis and Baker may be tried (or more likely tried in absentia) by a French court in Nanterre, which is located near Paris.
A recent update on the story with reporting by ESPN.com’s Bonnie D. Ford, along with the Associated Press, offers this comment from Landis:
“I have never received a summons from any French court or been contacted in any way by any French authority regarding this matter,” Landis told ESPN.com in an e-mail. “I have never hired someone to hack into any computer. I am unaware of any evidence to support the claim that I have done so and I hope that the Judge in this case is astute enough to understand that.”
It seems that even the French prosecutors aren’t convinced that the evidence was strong enough to charge Landis in the hacking case. The article goes on to say:
The prosecutor’s office had argued against sending Landis to trial, contending the inquiry failed to show he participated in the hacking or knowingly received internal lab documents that had been obtained fraudulently.
“It’s about his having somehow received some information that may have been obtained illegally from a computer in a laboratory in France and there’s been no substance to it,” Hudson said. “The prosecutor doesn’t want to push it but the judge disagreed. By making the decision the judge is keeping the case alive.”
Sure seems that way, doesn’t it? Of course, if Landis and Baker were to be tried in the French courts, it would be on them to prove their innocence, rather than on the prosecution to prove their guilt. If it’s true that the prosecutor doesn’t want to go forward with the case, that implies something about the quality of the evidence against him, wouldn’t you think?
It’s not clear to me what new information French authorities might have that implicates Arnie Baker in this. What I’ve seen and hear so far doesn’t sound very convincing. Things like server IP addresses, email headers and document properties are all relatively easy to manipulate. Want to make a Microsoft Office document that was created by “Arnie”? Just figure out where the author’s name is set. Then create a document. Want to forge an IP address to make it look like an email came from a certain server? Not too terribly difficult.
If you’re caught in a hacking case and want to pass off the blame to someone else? Easy enough. Especially if there is an easily identified patsy.
Last I heard from Arnie Baker, he denied having anything to do with hacking into the French lab. Baker strikes me as a straight arrow. I could be wrong, but unless there’s something much more compelling that what’s been reported, I’m skeptical that he was involved. He and Landis make easy scapegoats, though. Especially given how the hacker’s documents embarrassed the lab when they became public. Given Landis’ admissions earlier this year, it’s not as though Floyd enjoys the greatest credibility. Both men would be easy targets for someone trying to save his own skin. Hard to say what’s what.
Maybe we’ll find out if this case really does go to trial.
If I were either Floyd or Arnie, I’d make certain not to travel through French territory or to any countries with extradition treaties with France. Landis, who’s currently racing at the Tour of Southland in New Zealand (and last I heard, doing fairly well), may want to high-tail it home pretty quickly once the race is done, just to be on the safe side.
Slow and Steady?
One final note, it appears that the Federal investigation of Lance Armstrong and company is continuing to plod along, with Yaroslav Popovych recently testifying before the Los Angeles grand jury looking into allegations against Armstrong and the former U.S. Postal Service/Discovery cycling teams. And the case against Alberto Contador seems to be quietly chugging along.
I don’t expect either of those will be decided in the near future. If I were Alberto, I’d be making plans for where I might spend my summer vacation. Armstrong already has a base camp in a beautiful part of the Rockies, and he won’t be in France next July — at least not for racing. I’m guessing Alberto won’t be there either. Maybe the two could go riding over Independence Pass together. There’s a great view up at the top. And the ride down is a real scream. Who wants to bet which one would make it back to Aspen safe and sound and which one might simply vanish into thin air? 😉
Hey nice to see you back. Maybe we should make plans to go to France for the trial huh? LMAO!!!!!
Hi Rant,
About the hacking, we just have to follow the money or who had profited of the crimes to find the some probable suspects.
Outside Landis’ camp, who had interest to hack computers?
Maybe one of the craziest Landis’ fans of course. But why would he have used the IP of Landis’ friend, Arnie Baker?
As I said earlier, Arnie Baker used voluntary stolen documents without mentionning it. Some of them were forged by non-speaking french people.
Under french laws, he is at least accomplice of the hacking crime.
——–
About the night testing, it would be better to have only riders in specific hotel or controlled area, the rooms would be designed randomly, of course riders of same team together in the same room.
At the beginning of TDF, each rider would provide his night package, and it would be given to him every night. He cannot go inside his room or restricted with something else (or that should be checked).
So difficult to use blood tranfusion but pills can still be stored inside body for a use during night.
strbuk,
Never been to Paris. I hear it’s nice. I’d need an interpreter to understand what’s being said in the courtroom, though. The bit of French I learned 40-odd years ago (when I was in grammar school in the UK) has slipped out of my aging memory chips. 😉
It would make for a few good blog posts, I suspect. “The Audacity of Hack.” Or something like that.
Jean,
Follow the money, to be sure. That’s the most likely source. Of course, didn’t this all come about because of a much larger hacking case?
One thing, though. In all of Arnie’s presentations, he acknowledged that the documents from the hacker came from a mysterious source. If he got them in the mail, I don’t think he ever mentioned where they were postmarked from, and if it were email, I don’t recall that he mentioned the email address of the sender. But from his earliest use, he did say that they were documents sent by a hacker, and that the documents’ accuracy was uncertain.
Where Baker made most of his claims regarding the science and test results in Landis’ case, he was referring to information in the documentation sent by the lab, itself.
Landis’ lawyers may have used to hacker documents to create a narrative about general practices at the lab, but I don’t recall the documents being part of the arbitration cases. Might well have been, but I’d have to go back and check.
Interesting idea about how to house the riders. Makes more sense to me than waking them up at all hours for a random blood and urine test.
Before Floyd and/or Arnie subject themselves to a French court, Judge Cassuto needs to do more than conduct a media campaign to announce his desire for them to appear before him. I’d expect a sitting Judge would be educated enough to to know how, or learn how, to follow the procedures already in place to fulfill that goal. There are at least a couple of options. If Floyd and/or Arnie are physically in the United States, all options include assistance via diplomatic channels in order to formally and officially subpoena the pair, with France picking up the tab for service of the subpoena. That’s just for starters and I have not seen it reported anywhere that official service of subpoenas has been accomplished. If anyone has a credible cite supporting the contrary, please feel free to correct me.
Interesting ideas on how to house riders, indeed. Jean C’s suggestion would repeat not so distant TdF history. I’ve listened to Bob Roll tell stories that embellish his experiences as a TdF rider. While much of his material is exaggerated for comic effect, the portions of his narratives that speak about the riders being housed, en mass, in gymnasiums and assigned cots is true. I’m not sure we want to go back to those days? Besides, history shows that such an arrangement was ineffective as a means of stopping riders from doping.
In the 2011, and beyond, version of the TdF, housing the riders together is impractical from a logistical standpoint. There are 20+ teams containing 9 riders with a plethora of support staff. Good luck housing them in one or a few “controlled areas” (makeshift prisons or glorified holding cells). In addition, there are a multitude of additional problems. Media access is one issue where the organizers are going to object on promotional grounds. Finish line to overnight accommodation is another. It’s going to be impossible to set a time limit for the riders to get from the finish to their accommodations given variable distance and traffic considerations. Good luck also on rest days and long transfers. These are just a few of the pitfalls off the top of my head.
I find it both unintelligent and lazy to seek imposing rather draconian conditions on the riders to micro-manage their lives in an effort to stop doping. If the alphabet soup needs to impose middle of the night sample collection and 100% surveillance, then they are just plain ignorant because in that case they’ve metaphorically thrown up their hands, admitted their testing program is a sham, and the battle has already been lost. Surely, intelligent leadership can be found that will do better?
Finally, I don’t find the exercise at all worth the trouble if we are seriously suggesting implementing a structure that substantially and systematically strips the athletes of basic human rights and important aspects of human dignity. I’m talking about items most of us take for granted everyday. In summary, it’s currently being seriously contemplated that in addition to riders being required to make their whereabouts known 365 days a year and are on the hook for presenting themselves on any of those days between the hours of ~7am-11pm (local time) within an hour of notification, naked from chest to ankles in front of strangers to pee in a receptacle or have blood drawn, we’re now suggesting they also be available between ~11pm-7am as well. Additionally, some races (stage races and or classics) might have riders housed in makeshift prisons or glorified holding cells, euphemistically described as “Controlled Areas”. That’s 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Do they get a day off during leap year? The alphabet soup are nothing but a bunch of A$$hats if the suggested lunacy is actually implemented. No respect to the soup is intended.
Rant,
” Baker strikes me as a straight arrow. I could be wrong, but unless there’s something much more compelling that what’s been reported, I’m skeptical that he was involved.”
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“I could be wrong”!!!!
And I’m sure you are skeptical that Landis doped, and that Arnie Baker his closest advisor knew nothing about it when he went around campaigning for Landis and compiling his “scientific” evidence to support Landis’s “innocence”.
And of course I certainly believe that some security company that was paid money to spy on various French corporations, just for shits and giggles decided to hack into the French anti doping lab and steal documents pertinent to the Landis case and send them to Arnie Baker. Yeah.
I will concede that it may be hard to prove Landis personally knew and authorized this.
Just as it is problematical proving that Barry Bonds “knew” he was taking steroids and not just “flax oil” as he says he was told. But that isn’t stopping the Feds from trying to put him in jail for his story.
M,
LOL all you want.
Arnie’s “scientific evidence” was at least as compelling as LNDD’s/WADA’s/USADA’s. YMMV.
However, the point is moot. While late in the game, Floyd admitted to doping, but still disputes he used T at the 2006 TdF.
Given LNDD’s embarrassingly amateurish evidence package and the stacked deck adjudication process, it’s more than reasonable to consider Floyd might be telling the truth about T.
Floyd is not Barry and Barry is not Floyd. The sports aren’t even the same.
Any quips about “International Arrest Warrants”?
LOL.
Jeff,
re “subpoena”
I don’t see why France would need to subpoena a criminal suspect or defendant in order to arrest or seek extradition of him.
That is not the case in this country. You don’t subpoena a criminal defendant. You arrest him pursuant to a warrant issued by a competent magistrate.
Reportedly an arrest warrant has been issued by the French court. The only question is to what extent that warrant has been, or will be, transmitted internationally.
ps. I did respond to your cites about arrest warrants in the thread below.
Jeff,
While I thought Baker’s “scientific” evidence was mainly incoherent, that is not my point. Landis knew, and I think Baker knew, when they mounted their scorched earth campaign for innocence that, in fact, Landis was doping and cheating when he won the TDF, whether it was testosterone or blood doping and HGH.
They were not “straight arrows”. They were doing anything to win, including misrepresenting the basic truth of the matter. That’s why I think it’s laughable to think that Baker had nothing to do with the hacking. Whether it’s provable is another matter.
M,
Glad to give you a bit of amusement. Sorry to disappoint you, but I now believe Landis did dope in 2006. Whether he used testosterone during the Tour is something I’m not as certain about. But if he says he was doping using other methods, who am I to say otherwise?
The hacker documents are only incidental to what Arnie points out in his Wiki defense presentations — with the caveat that the information in those documents may not be accurate. Landis says Baker didn’t know about the doping. At the time it happened, Landis was not using Baker as his coach, as I recall. Whether you find Baker’s critiques convincing or not, he does point out flaws in the labs practices. Did those flaws rise to the level that the arbitration panels believed the results were tainted or incorrect? Partly, but mostly not.
If I were going to hazard a guess, a more reasonable source for hiring the folks at Kargus would be the Spanish attorney that Landis was working with in the early days after the story broke. Closer geographically, for one. And I suspect closer in other ways, too. Can’t prove it, though. My hunch is that this was done without Landis being directly consulted, as part of their efforts to develop information to help his case.
Remember that the documents were sent to a number of people and organizations. Any one of the recipients might have a reason for hiring a hacker to get the info, and some of those reasons would not have anything to do (directly) with Landis. The timing certainly suggests it was done for Landis’ benefit, I’ll grant you that.
Once caught, the hackers might well try to throw the authorities off as far as their sponsors go (especially if they hope for repeat business at some point in the future). Baker and Landis would be convenient in that regard, especially given the notoriety of the case.
One of my sources actually showed me part of the “evidence” implicating Arnie Baker. What I can tell you is this — the piece of “evidence” was something so easy to fabricate that anyone who reads this blog could probably do so. Heck, even the average 5-year-old could probably do so. If the rest of the evidence is just as “convincing” (and just as easily forged or fabricated), then Baker may well be telling the truth.
Perhaps they’ve got something more solid. If they do, then I’ll be willing to concede the point.
I didn’t say that Landis was a straight arrow in the post, by the way. Only that this happens to be my impression of Arnie Baker. YMMV.
My thought for nighttime testing is to hospitalize the riders after each stage. Set them all up on IVs and monitors, and catheterize them to boot. You can take all the samples you want while the athletes sleep. Well, they’ll sleep as well as anyone sleeps in a hospital.
When the riders wake up, they could remain hooked up to their IVs and monitors, and they’d ride exercise bicycles set up in their hospital rooms. I’d recommend using the exercise bikes that show an animated route on a TV screen attached to the bike. Fans around the world could watch each of these screens on their own TVs. In this way, we’d prevent the riders from microdosing with PEDs injected into their water bottles.
Jeff,
To continue the discussion of international arrest warrants. You say:
“I’m flabbergasted that intelligent people believe a Judge presiding over a court in Nanterre France could be empowered to unilaterally issue an “International Arrest Warrant” against citizens of the United States? ”
Why not? Just because he is an American?
A crime was committed in France against a French citizen/organization. All countries assert the power to arrest a defendant in such a case, even when the defendant resides or has fled abroad.
It is true that the laws of many countries require that the “international” arrest warrant issued by the local judge be sent through, or even approved by, some central judicial or legal authority before it is transmitted abroad for enforcement pursuant to whatever extradition treaties are in force.
But I don’t think the rules are different just because the defendant is an American. Perhaps I misunderstood your point here?
From M:
“I don’t see why France would need to subpoena a criminal suspect or defendant in order to arrest or seek extradition of him.”
* Then read the treaty or quit waisting our time: http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%202179/v2179.pdf (it starts on Page #341).
From M:
“Reportedly an arrest warrant has been issued by the French court. The only question is to what extent that warrant has been, or will be, transmitted internationally.”
* I don’t dispute an arrest warrant has been issued in France. Presumably, that warrant would cover France and French Territory. The cited treaty spells out how the warrant should be transmitted to the United States, in order to attempt to get a U.S. citizen and resident to respond. There are a number of requirements, including formal service of a subpoena.
From M:
To continue the discussion of international arrest warrants. You say:
“I’m flabbergasted that intelligent people believe a Judge presiding over a court in Nanterre France could be empowered to unilaterally issue an “International Arrest Warrant” against citizens of the United States? “
“Why not? Just because he is an American?”
* Because the Judge’s jurisdiction is limited to France. He has no legal standing in the United States. Just as a Federal Judge in California has no jurisdiction in France.
Again, read the treaty.
* I don’t understand why we’re still arguing this or how you can’t seem to understand. A Judge in Nanterre France is acting unprofessionally by waging a PR campaign against Landis/Baker. On it’s face, the motive(s) seem(s) to be self promoting publicity seeking. Additionally, extraordinary powers are being attributed to him, in the press, that he does not possess and have not been granted.
Jeff,
Read/skimmed the France US extradition treaty. No mention of subpoena that I found. I don’t know where you came up with that requirement. But then maybe I missed something.
Yes the request for extradition must be submitted through diplomatic channels (i.e. state department) based on the underlying arrest warrant, but a request for provisional arrest can be made directly to the U.S. Justice Department by the French Ministry of Justice. Of course, there may be different requirements with respect to other countries like New Zealand.
So to make sense of the stories about an “international” arrest warrant, it is possible that a French Investigating Judge (in the U.S. it would be the district attorney applying to the local judge) makes the initial decision about whether to transmit the arrest warrant to the central department of justice for enforcement overseas by transmission through international diplomatic channels. So in that sense one may say that an “international” arrest warrant has been issued by a local judge. But the arrest warrant does not become operative internationally until it is transmitted through diplomatic channels or through Interpol for provisional arrest.
There is no international arrest warrant for Floyd Landis or Arnie Baker.
There is no case being prosecuted in France against either man for computer hacking or anything else.
There is an arrest warrant issued by Thomas Cassuto. The purported basis of the warrant is the failure to respond to a judicial summons, also issued by Thomas Cassuto. As the judicial summonses were never served upon Landis or Baker, the warrant has no actual basis. Jeff discussed this exhaustively back in February on this site.
The only thing that makes this week different from last is that Thomas Cassuto, noticing that his self-issued warrants were about to run out, re-endorsed them for another 18-month period.
The Frederik-Karel Canoy quoted in wire services as authority for the erroneous statements is not a government official and has no involvement in the matter.
Thomas Cassuto is a publicity hound. To repeat:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1054036/Scooby-dog-makes-legal-history-appearing-court-witness-murder-case.html
And, finally; don’t argue with Jeff. You will lose every time.
Glad you’re back Rant !
…and the rest of you, as well. Always interesting discussions going on.
Liggett Junkie
“And finally; don’t argue with Jeff. You will lose every time.”
LOL!
1. Well Jeff seems to be wrong about his claim that the extradition treaty requires that a subpoena must first be served in the United States on the defendant in order to effectuate an “international” arrest warrant. There is no such requirement as far as I can tell. Perhaps you could read the treaty and confirm that.
2. You are mistaken about the French lawyer quoted. He himself was a victim of hacking by the same defendants in this case and no doubt is familiar with what has been going on.
3. You also appear to be wrong on your claim that there is no criminal proceeding against Baker and Landis. News stories seem to say that there is a criminal proceeding against Baker and Landis as DEFENDANTS for the hacking. The arrest warrants are being issued in connection with those underlying criminal charges, not for failing to appear as a witness in an investigation.
For example Reuters says:
“Disgraced cyclist Floyd Landis and his coach Arnie Baker will stand trial for alleged hacking into a French anti-doping lab computer system, a source involved in the case said on Wednesday. ”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/feedarticle/9342175
An AP story suggests that Baker is being charged with soliciting the hacking, and Landis with knowingly receiving stolen information.
“The Associated Press has seen judicial documents that say Baker is accused of having asked a consulting firm called Kargus Consultants to hack the lab’s computers in order to discredit the doping tests showing Landis doped during the 2006 Tour.
French judicial officials also said Landis “could not fail to be aware” that the internal lab documents he had access to had been obtained fraudulently through hacking.
Landis is to be tried for “receiving in the fraudulous intrusion.” A date for the trial has yet to be set.”
http://www.nbc29.com/story/13437037/landis-team-manager-says-french-trial-ridiculous
Were these documents supposed to be fakes, the French language used supposed to be so full of errors that no French man or woman could have produced them?
There is another question I have about all this. Assume for a minute that neither Landis or Baker solicited the hacking and received the documents in unbidden. If ao, have they committed any crime? There was no physical propery removed, as far as I know, so it doesn’t seem that they could be charged wit receiving stolen property. There possibly could be some copyright or other sort of intellectual property issue but somehow I don’t see that applying to these sorts of documents.
I did a little research into some other famous leaks: the Pentagon Papers and more recently, the Wikileaks. From what I found, most of the issues related to the receivers using these documents related to national security instead of the illegitimate nature of the original leak.
S if I were to hack into some organization’s computer system without your knowledge, and then sent you some of the documents I downloaded, and you made some use of them, have you committed a crime?
Thanks for the support Liggett Junkie.
However, I’m not close to infallible and erred when writing about a subpoena requirement related to the treaty between the United States and France that deals with Provisional Arrest and/or Extradition. M wins that point.
I mistakenly mixed up issues contained within the general subject.
This started with Judge Cassuto declaring he wanted Floyd/Arnie as a witnesses. It morphed into a Nationally (France) recognized Arrest Warrant when Floyd/Arnie failed to appear after they were indirectly notified via press reports rather than the legally required and “industry standard” service of an official subpoena.
Of course, a subpoena is a tool utilized by civilized courts to notify a witness that their presence is required/desired. Among other items, it details exactly when and where the witness is to appear. M has not provided a cite supporting Judge Cassuto has actually arranged for Floyd and/or Arnie to be subpoenaed as a witness, at any point.
Even the subsequent “Arrest Warrant” (good only in France) is ludicrous as it was prompted by Judge Cassuto’s feigned displeasure stemming from Floyd’s/Arnie’s failure to appear when they were never properly subpoenaed (invited), in the first place. (Can you say, “BLATANT SET-UP”?)
M has also failed to provide cites supporting Judge Cassuto’s supposed power to unilaterally issue an “International Arrest Warrant” against U.S. resident citizens. Further, M has failed to provide any evidence that Judge Cassuto has arranged in any way to comply with the cited treaty in order to have the pair provisionally arrested or extradited.
So far, M prevails on a relatively minor and technical point where I erred. To correct myself, subpoena is not required for Provisional Arrest or Extradition under the cited treaty. Official service of a subpoena is required to invite a foreign national to testify in your court. Liggett Junkie is absolutely correct in writing, “There is no International Arrest Warrant for Floyd Landis or Arnie Baker.”
Regarding M’s Guardian cite, it is unattributed and amounts to nothing more than rumor. M’s NBC29 cite indirectly supports that Floyd was never served a subpoena when Judge Cassuto reportedly wanted Floyd to serve as a witness. Further, the NBC29 cite supports the notion that the case is so weak, Cassuto has not been able to convince any Nation that Floyd has resided in, or traveled through, to arrest him for the alleged offense. Consider that in ~18 months, no police department has actually been reported to have attempted or succeeded in arresting Floyd for the alleged offense.
Liggett Junkie’s cite here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1054036/Scooby-dog-makes-legal-history-appearing-court-witness-murder-case.html
illustrates how Judge Thomas Cassuto has earned the “Dog Whisperer” nickname. If the story is correct, I think we can safely say Judge Cassuto is a bit eccentric, perhaps unbalanced, and possibly unfit to serve on the bench?
M looses on the bigger picture. M can laugh away. The laugh is on him/her. He/she just doesn’t seem to know it.
An American marathon champion, suspended six years ago from the sport for doping, finally reveals the truth behind the charges—and why he now hopes to redeem himself.
http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-243-521–13729-1-1X2X3X4X5X6X7X8-9,00.html
A very interesting read about one athlete’s doping in distance running. Omerta is more widespread than cycling it seems!
Jeff,
1. I took your outraged questioning that a French Judge could be “empowered” to “unilaterally” issue an arrest warrant against a “United States Citizen” to imply that some special requirement was required just because he was an American citizen.
I agree with you that a Judge’s personal jurisdiction, including the French Judge, typically only extends to persons present in his Country. Thus an arrest warrant would initially be limited only to France or it’s overseas territories.
2. I take an “international arrest warrant” to mean a national arrest warrant that has been transmitted internationally so that willing foreign countries with bilateral extradition treaties may or will act upon it and arrest the wanted criminal defendant.
This usually means placing a request through diplomatic channels. In the US, the prosecuting attorney usually starts this process, but often the governor of the state, the US Justice Department and of course the US State Department must sign off on this request before it is transmitted to the Foreign government.
France being a civil law country, it is likely that the investigating Magistrate or Judge would start this process, and it would probably require approval by the French Ministry of Justice although I’m not sure about that.
Not every domestic arrest warrant is turned into an international arrest warrant. Some authority, prosecuting attorney or judge must start the process, although it does not become fully operational until the receiving country agrees to act upon it. When is it proper for the news to refer to an international arrest warrant? At the end of the process or somewhere in between? Not clear.
3. The news stories say the French judge has now made the decision that the criminal case should go to trial. If true, Baker and Landis are now defendants in a criminal proceeding, and it is not the practice either in the US or France, to subpoena defendants. Defendants are arrested.
4. There are some news stories that suggest that the French judge has already initiated the extradition process (e.g. stories about an “international arrest warrant”). While I don’t know if this has in fact occurred or will occur in the near future, I don’t think it is inconceivable or against the law, as Jeff apparently does.
In case you haven’t heard, the UCI has determined that disciplinary proceedings should be brought against Contador by the Spanish cycling federation. The UCI statement is worded very carefully, they’ve said that Contador still deserves a presumption of innocence, but the ADA wheels are now grinding forward. http://bit.ly/aCoN5K and http://bit.ly/aZKP8f
1. Not outraged at all. Also not implying, “some special requirement was required just because he was an American citizen.” (sounds a bit redundant) I did intend to reinforce the obvious, that Floyd/Arnie are resident United States citizens and that they do not reside in France/are not French citizens, are not currently located in France, and as such, they are not directly subject to the Nanterre court’s jurisdiction. Special circumstances apply wrt service of an official subpoena or to facilitate an actual arrest.
I don’t disagree with your paragraph 2 of Item #1, except that it is the judge’s professional, not personal, jurisdiction. An important distinction I think. YMMV.
2. Show us an authoritative cite (from an entity with the authority to define the term) defining “International Arrest Warrant”. I understand lazy or inept members of the press are attempting to use the term as shorthand for what you describe in your Item #2. However, its use is incorrect and inflammatory. The term should properly be reserved for persons accused of the high crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, with their apprehension sought by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
I don’t dispute the majority of the rest of your post under Item #2, except that the term “International Arrest Warrant” is never, at any point, properly descriptive of what Cassuto is reported to be attempting. Failing to subpoena the pair as witnesses was causal to Floyd/Arnie not to even seriously consider appearing in Nanrterre some ~12-18 months ago. Cassuto has cherry picked portions of that part of the story to justify an arrest warrant for non-appearance, even though there was no reasonable expectation either would appear due to fatal deficiencies related to proper service of subpoenas for witnesses.
What Cassuto would now be seeking, if he’s serious about issues beyond self promoting publicity, is a “Request for Provisional Arrest” whereby Floyd and/or Arnie travel to Nanterre voluntarily or where Cassuto seeks “Extradition” following their Provisional Arrest. Words and language matter. As an example, “Facial Tissue” became “Kleenex” because proper care was not taken wrt the brand name.
3. Your own cite from NBC29 doesn’t fully support your Item #3. It reads in part, “Judge Thomas Cassuto, who sits in Nanterre, just west of Paris, decided Oct. 15 that Landis and Baker should face trial but no date was set.
‘If nothing was done, (the warrant) would have lapsed. The question was whether the warrant should stay open or not,’ Hudson said.”
Should stand trial does not equal shall stand trial. Additionally, Hudson opines this was a technical move on Cassuto’s part to keep the warrant open rather than lapsing at a set date, now past.
I would guess Landis/Baker are defendants in name only. Your own cite indicates no date has been set for a trail and there is an absence of news indicating Cassuto has done anything other than scream to the press that the pair should be judged before him.
Let’s say for argument’s sake that I accept your loose definition of “International Arrest Warrant”, which I don’t. Even under your definition, you’ve failed, repeatedly, to support your contention with cites. please cite how Cassuto has:
a) transmitted (his French National Arrest Warrant) internationally so that willing foreign countries with bilateral extradition treaties (United States) may or will act upon it and arrest the wanted criminal defendant.
b) placed a request (for assistance) through diplomatic channels.
4. It’s conceivable. I don’t think that it’s happened, nor do I think it will. This is an issue that seems to be unique to Cassuto. Show a solid cite that indicates Cassuto has taken steps toward Extradition or even Provisional Arrest. Show a solid cite that indicates Cassuto has engaged in anything more substantial than a campaign against the two by means other than the press.
Larry,
UCI punted to RFEC. UCI doesn’t want to mess with WADA on this. They’d prefer RFEC be saddled with the egg and face clean-up.
Jeff, UCI may want to make it sound like they punted. But the rules are clear.
UCI Anti-Doping Rules, Article 234: If upon conclusion of the results management process, the UCI makes an assertion that an anti-doping rule violation has taken place, it shall request the National Federation of the License-Holder to instigate disciplinary proceedings.
As best as I can tell, this is what the UCI has done: they’ve determined that Contador violated anti-doping rules. I don’t see any other way under the rules that the case gets to the RFEC. I agree with you, WADA forced the UCI’s hand, and it’s likely that WADA will challenge any decision by RFEC that lets AC off the hook.
At least at this moment, the case is purely a clenbuterol case.
No question. It follows the rules as they are set up. I guess my point is that UCI was anxious to punt to RFEC, but only after appearing to give the matter due consideration. My contention is that UCI is/was more interested in the appearance of consideration than actual consideration.
I think if RFEC does anything less than a 2 year ban while nullifying the 2010 TdF win (which AS does not want given to him BTW), then that triggers an automatic appeal to CAS from WADA.
As for Contador, he’s indicated any substantial suspension would result in his (premature) retirement. I think it’s well better than even money that he’s good for his word on that.
Jeff,
1. I’m not using the term “international arrest warrant” in any technical sense, just trying to make sense of the reporting. That’s why I put the term “international” in quotes.
If you want to limit that term to warrants issued by the International Court of Justice for crimes against humanity, then fine by me.
But clearly the press is not using the term in that sense.
It appears that the press uses that term to cover any possible transmittal of an arrest request to international authorities, including a request for provisional arrest to Interpol. I will use it in that sense, unless you can come up with a term you would prefer, because clearly we are not talking about crimes against humanity here.
2. As to whether an “international” arrest warrant has been issued by the French Judge, I have only said that this is certainly possible based on the news reports. I claim no special knowledge here.
You on the other hand have been claiming this is impossible or bullshit, based on some arguments that didn’t hold water after some examination.
a. “international” arrest warrants are never issued for computer hacking. False.
b. the judge must first obtain a subpoena first. false.
3. Moreover you are making the lazy accusation that the French Judge is some publicity hound out to get the poor American victim, without any proof of your own.
Personally, I’m hoping that the French Judge has not initiated an international arrest warrant. I think Landis has paid a big enough price for his misjudgments, and should be given some slack now that he has come clean.
But I can see, from the French point of view how they might believe they have a case that it is implausible that Landis and Baker had no idea that the data they received was stolen or obtained illegally.
I have the same feelings for Barry Bonds, who is my homie. I can see how the Feds might find it implausible to believe that he did not know that the “flax oil” he was taking, wasn’t some illegal substance, but I don’t think he should be persecuted for his maintaining his innocence.
4.
Jeff, you mean that ASO wants to take the 2010 title from AC? What makes you think so? I’d think that ASO is tired of having its signature event decided months after the race ends, but I don’t know how they’re actually reacting.
M,
International Arrest Warrants (ICC) are never issued for computer hacking. {actually TRUE} Options related to France and the USA include Request for Provisional Arrest or Extradition, but not International Arrest Warrant. (Facial Tissue vs. Kleenex)
I already admitted my mistake wrt subpoenas being associated with witnesses and arrests being associated with those accused or defendants. (I should not have posted that while at the disadvantage of suffering with a migraine) I’ve already conceded that point. Enjoy piling on much?
A) Cassuto (and/or his agents) failed to have a SUBPOENA FOR A WITNESS served to Landis and/or Baker.
B) Cassuto bases his (French National) Arrest Warrant on Landis and Baker’s FAILURE TO APPEAR.
C) CASSUTO’S INACTION and/or improper actions directly CAUSED THE PAIR’S NON-APPEARANCE.
D) I’ve seen no credible reports that Cassuto has attempted to secure the pair via Diplomatic channels in order for them to appear in his court as either witnesses or defendants.
E) Cassuto has arranged to casually notify the pair, only via the press, they were being sought as witnesses and are now being sought as defendants.
F) Press notification alone is improper notification.
G) Notice to appear as a witness requires service of a subpoena.
H) Forced appearance as a defendant in a Nanterre court requires the assistance of one or more officials of the United States government (not the State of California alone-States don’t have diplomatic relations with countries) in order to have Landis and/or Baker Arrested and transported (voluntarily or involuntarily) to France to stand trial.
Cites please if you disagree. You are plush on opinions and short on cites. A cite defining “International Arrest Warrant” would be good for starters. (UN, ICC, Interpol, Internationally recognized treaties are all reasonable sources. Newspapers, Television, Interweb news, cycling, and blog websites are unconvincing in the absence of more official sources) Good luck.
Larry,
I don’t think ASO wants to nullify the title. It’s not in their interests IMO. I think WADA code requires Contador’s 2010 TdF title to be voided if he is found to be liable and sanctioned in any way.
Jeff, agreed.
Jeff,
You are confusing American laws and French laws.
First, an American is equal to a French, so on french soil, he would be treated equaly, same laws.
There is no need to have delivered a subpoena to arrest a susspected criminal or to request the testimony of a witness.
Judge just send an invitation to testimony, if not delivered or people don’t have come to the invitation, then the Judge can order an arrest warrant, even for a witness.
So even for an American citizen living in California, there is no problem to arrest him the next time he put his feet on french soil.
An absent suspected criminal can be judged too.
So, as you can see there is no need to use absolutely the Treaty you mentionned.
In France, prosecutor investigates as defendant too, that is the main reason he proposed to “release” Floyd for the hacking. But I guess, the judge wants to hear him because he think he can be usefull in the whole process as witness.
An other point that you have missed to memorise despite I pointed it several time here already: it’s common in France to summon some suspected people as witness and then arrest them.
You are making assumption with your american experience that is not usefull in that case!
From Jean C with my comments *added:
(and I sincerely appreciate Jean C’s native French perspective & more local info)
Jeff,
You are confusing American laws and French laws.
* I don’t think so , but don’t claim to be an expert regarding either laws in the USA or France. Even lawyers and judges tend to specialize, due in part, to complexity.
First, an American is equal to a French, so on french soil, he would be treated equaly, same laws.
*Are you confused? I don’t believe Floyd has been on French soil since he was accused. Otherwise, I presume, he would have been arrested and we would not be having this conversation.
There is no need to have delivered a subpoena to arrest a susspected criminal or to request the testimony of a witness.
*Perhaps not in France (?-I’ll take your word for it), but necessary when requesting the appearance of aU.S. citizen, as a witness, physically located in the USA. A subpoena would detail the pertinent points of when, where, why, and under what authority.
Judge just send an invitation to testimony, if not delivered or people don’t have come to the invitation, then the Judge can order an arrest warrant, even for a witness.
*For the purposes of a resident citizen of the USA physically located in the USA, a subpoena is an invitation, just a bit more binding than an invitation to a party. It’s not much of an “invitation” if it does not get delivered to the addressee, now is it?
So even for an American citizen living in California, there is no problem to arrest him the next time he put his feet on french soil.
*Agreed.
An absent suspected criminal can be judged too.
*Agreed, I don’t doubt you. In the USA, I believe it is called “In Absentia”, and is generally used as a last resort when the defendant cannot be located or Extradition is refused (Roman Polanski) for instance.
So, as you can see there is no need to use absolutely the Treaty you mentionned.
* I don’t agree. Why do you think there is a treaty in the first place?
In France, prosecutor investigates as defendant too,
*Agreed.
that is the main reason he proposed to “release” Floyd for the hacking.
*Supposition.
But I guess, the judge wants to hear him because he think he can be usefull in the whole process as witness.
*Also supposition.
An other point that you have missed to memorise despite I pointed it several time here already: it’s common in France to summon some suspected people as witness and then arrest them.
*I don’t believe I’ve ever disputed that point.
You are making assumption with your american experience that is not usefull in that case!
I think you are incorrect. I believe I’ve researched the subject and have come to understand it better than you credit me.
*As of today, after ~18 months, Landis and Baker have not been arrested. If Judge Thomas Cassuto has the authority, then why not? I can’t comment specifically on Arnie, but Floyd’s whereabouts have been frequently and widely know in the past year and a half. He’s certainly not hiding out from the law.
Jeff,
You are right Cassuto, an experimented judge, is an idiot and you you are the most competent person on that case to take the right decision because you have the knowledge of the whole affair!
Cheers.
Jean C,
I was not being facetious when I wrote that I appreciate your French perspective and local information, so I’m somewhat taken aback that you’ve chosen to respond with apparent sarcasm instead of debating me on the issues.
Jeff and Jean,
According to Jean – French Law: French investigating judge in a criminal proceeding is empowered to issue an arrest warrant if a witness fails to appear for questioning under oath. This seems about right although I would ask him whether there is some sort of prior notice requirement, even a phone call. So an arrest warrant is issued for Landis and Baker, and is proper under French law.
Jeff – US law – in a (criminal) proceeding witness must first be subpoenaed, before an arrest warrant could be issued.
Jeff also claims that French Judge must first issue a subpoena, before a proper foreign arrest warrant can issue for a witness resident in the US, to fulfill some notice requirement.
Query1: Does the French Judge even have the power to issue a subpoena that would be recognized under US law? Presumably not in the absence of a treaty or some other authority. Not the extradition treaty. Is there some treaty governing criminal enforcement cooperation? So in the absence of such a treaty or authority, the French judge would appear to be powerless to compel a witness in the US to testify by way of subpoena.
Query2: Jeff seems to claim that prior service of a subpoena would fulfill some notice requirement that then might legitimize the French arrest warrant. Again there appears to be no treaty specifying this. So what authority might support this notice requirement and how could that authority legitimize a Foreign arrest warrant for a criminal witness.
3. Query: If there is no prior subpoena requirement for a foreign criminal witness, why can’t the foreign arrest warrant be executed under the extradition treaty? The witness could then move to quash the warrant in the extradition proceeding. Seems a little harsh granted.
ps. As I’ve stated previously, it appears to me that presently Baker and Landis are wanted as defendants, not witnesses, in a criminal prosecution, so a straight out arrest warrant is appropriate without any subpoena requirement. Such a warrant could be enforced under the extradition treaty or by request for provisional arrest (through interpol or directly).
From M, with *my comments:
ps. As I’ve stated previously, it appears to me that presently Baker and Landis are wanted as defendants, not witnesses, in a criminal prosecution,
*Agreed, not disputing this point.
so a straight out arrest warrant is appropriate without any subpoena requirement.
*Agreed. It is now that they are wanted as defendants, but not before, when they were being sought as witnesses.
Such a warrant could be enforced under the extradition treaty or by request for provisional arrest (through interpol or directly).
*Agreed.
*Although, in the absence of cites, I find it highly unlikely that Cassuto has actually initiated any such request, and less likely such a hypothetical request would be granted.
*As for the rest, I’m still waiting for your cites.
Jeff,
I really have no idea whether the French judge should have or even could have subpoenaed Landis and Baker in the US as witnesses, or more importantly whether that would have validated some French arrest warrant for international enforcement. Apparently under French law there is no such requirement.
You are the one that is claiming that.
I might bother to research that, if you could come up with even ONE cite yourself that actually said what you claim it says, unlike your cite to the extradition treaty which was totally bogus. That doesn’t give me much confidence in your legal claims.
My guess is you can’t come up even one citation regarding the subpoena requirement, other than the fact that under US law, a US court subpoena’s witnesses. We’re talking about the French court here.
I am sticking to my guns. I have no intention of being drawn into an argument about it. Listen, don’t listen, it makes no difference to me. Why not ask Charles Pelkey about it instead? He gets paid to put up with the aggravation. But don’t make him get off his bike.
http://bit.ly/d6FdBm
M,
Wow! Pot meet kettle, you’re black.
Here are your three weak a$$ cites from the last ~85+/- posts on this blog:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/feedarticle/9342175
*Rehashes old news (oxymoron?)
*Offers no new news, including a proposed court date or when such a date might be chosen.
http://www.nbc29.com/story/13437037/landis-team-manager-says-french-trial-ridiculous
*the title of your cite is: “Landis team manager says French trial ‘ridiculous’ “
*The Team Manager quoted, Wayne Hudson, is presumably the Orca Velo Merino Team Manager whom Floyd recently rode for in the Tour of Southland, New Zealand.
http://www.tmz.com/2010/06/10/usc-football-national-championship-reggie-bush-ncaa-investigation-postseason-ban/
*weak cite from gossip website TMZ that was substantially discredited by Nico F. See his post in the “Doing the Math” thread dated 10/26 @ 7:52am.
*In an effort to be fair, I’ll give you partial credit for posting some WADA Code, without benefit of a link, on 10/21 @ 12:07am in the “Doing the Math” thread.
M writes (on 11/4 @ 1:02pm in the “Doing the Math” thread:
“JUST GOOGLING, I find cases of international arrest warrants being issued for computer fraud and hacking, e.g. stealing credit card info and account info. So, WITHOUT DOING ANY RESEARCH MYSELF, I don’t see how you can categorically rule it out. DO YOU HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO POINT TO?”
*Caps are my emphasis.
*You provided ZERO CITES to the the cases you wrote you googled.
*Yet, you have the gaul to press me for authorities that you seem unable to reciprocate.
*Regardless, I provided on point cites (with one error).
*Even though you were/are not forthcoming with your own authorities, I provided you with on point cites from the United Nations, Interpol, Wikipedia, the International Criminal Court (ICC), and Vanderbilt Law School. In order to satisfy you, I even had to break the posting of the cites up into several posts because Rant’s blog software mis-identified my many cites as spam.
*I probably should not have been attempting that while suffering a migraine. As such, I mistakenly attributed a requirement for a witness subpoena to the cited UN derived Treaty between the USA and France.
*I’VE CORRECTED MYSELF AND POSTED A RETRACTION TWO (2) TIMES. ALSO HAVE GIVEN YOU FULL CREDIT FOR WINNING THAT POINT.
From my Nov 8th @ 7:34Pm post (~18 POSTS AGO)
“I’m not close to infallible and ERRED WHEN WRITING ABOUT A SUBPOENA requirement related to the treaty between the United States and France that deals with Provisional Arrest and/or Extradition. M WINS THE POINT.” (Caps are my emphasis)
From my Nov 8th @ 11:57am post (~9 POSTS AGO)
“I ALREADY ADMITTED MY MISTAKE WRT SUBPOENAS being associated with witnesses and arrests being associated with those accused or defendants. (I should not have posted that while at the disadvantage of suffering with a migraine) I’ve already conceded that point. ENJOY PILING ON MUCH?”
*WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT???
M Wrote:
“I really have no idea whether the French judge should have or even could have subpoenaed Landis and Baker in the US as witnesses, or more importantly whether that would have validated some French arrest warrant for international enforcement. Apparently under French law there is no such requirement.”
*Using your own words, it’s fairly obvious YOU “HAVE NO IDEA”. However, you take the liberty to argue against it anyway AND OFFER ZERO CITES.
*Jean C seems to disagree with your position. He calls it an “Invitation” rather than a Subpoena. (see Jean C’s 11/9 post @ 5:36am) Jean C writes: “Judge just send an invitation to testimony”
*Where Jean C and I disagree stems from his contention the “Invitation” to testify does not actually need to be delivered to the invited witness. Aside from being false, it does not make any logical sense.
M Wrote:
“I might bother to research that, if you could come up with even ONE cite yourself that actually said what you claim it says, unlike your cite to the extradition treaty which was totally bogus. That doesn’t give me much confidence in your legal claims.”
*The evidence indicates you are reluctant to bother to research much of anything beyond a perfunctory google.
*My recent cites say what I claim, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SUBPOENA/PROVISIONAL ARREST/EXTRADITION TREATY issue.
*NOW I’VE CORRECTED THAT ERROR THREE (3) TIMES.
*This is a blog, not a legal brief. In the process of discussion on Rant’s Blog, surely it’s fair that I get to own up to and correct an unintentional error without being berated or harassed for it? You should hold yourself to so high a standard.
M Wrote:
“My guess is you can’t come up even one citation regarding the subpoena requirement, other than the fact that under US law, a US court subpoena’s witnesses. We’re talking about the French court here. “
*Actually, I already have. Liggett Junkie remembers it from my February posts on this blog.
*You can look for it yourself, return some good will with cites of your own-not yet forthcoming after repeated cite requests, or put up something of the order of a mortgage payment for the link. Any of the three work for me.
*This post was probably an anomaly. I went to a fair amount of trouble and spent too much time fully documenting this post in response to your scatter gun tactics. In the future, I’ll return posts to you containing the same level of support/authority you provide to me in your posts. Your posts do not deserve such time or energy. Good day sir.
Jeff,
I don’t believe you have any cites to support your subpoena claims and rants against the French judge.
But if, as you claim, Ligett Junkie remembers, perhaps he could post it.
The last cite you posted was bogus. Maybe Ligett Junkie will do better.
M,
Nothing bogus on my part that has not been owned up to and corrected. You can’t claim the same. I supported my immediate previous post in detail. That’s all you have in response….. really?
I’m confident other readers of this blog are fully aware of who is being bogus and disingenuous here. BTW, Do you like apples?
Ignoring the above dispute between Jeff and M, with Jean C jumping in lately; are Arnie and Floyd being charged with the hacking or with failing to appear? Some of the above seems to indicate that the judge got POed when they didn’t show up and is wanting to try them for that; but there are other posts discussing potential evidence that they at least solicited the hacking. And there is a post or two which seem to suggest that any charges about the hacking have been dropped.
Whatever, I doubt that either of the two are in any danger until and unless they set foot on French soil. They’d do well to remember that there is French soil here in North America just off the Canadian coast.
French Riders’ Union objects to night time sample collection:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/french-riders-union-opposed-to-night-time-testing
“While reaffirming our agreement with anti-doping policy, we also ask you to leave us in peace a little, if only to sleep at night,” UNCP president Pascal Chanteur said
William Schart,
I assume the French territory, off of the North American coast, you are referring to is Saint-Pierre et Miquelon? According to this article, Floyd should not be concerned with blundering into this particular territorial collectivity of France:
http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-11-16/travel/17126640_1_saint-pierre-burin-peninsula-bastille-day
“It’s not a place you drop in on, like Las Vegas on the way to the Grand Canyon. You have to want to come here. Between the flight into St. John’s and a four-hour drive through moose-infested Newfoundland to catch the ferry, it literally took me longer to get to this French soil than if I had just flown to Paris.”
In any case, thanks for prompting me to do a search. It sounds like an interesting place well worth visiting. I should schedule a trip next summer.
As stated in France by many newspapers, Floyd and Baker are charged for LNDD hacking.
They will be in the same trial with the hackers and people who are the alleged commissioners.
Jeff,
II don’t know if cyclingnews had spoken directly with Chanteur, but in their official statement it’s said that french riders are just opposed to night testing for riders not under strong suspicions !
They don’t want to pay for the bad apples.
A bit different of cyclingnews report.
From my reading of the French press (and my french isn’t that good) supplemented by google translation, it appears that the security company is being charged with hacking into Greenpeace and the Antidoping lab. The defendants are the hackers, as well as officials of the French National Electricity Company, Landis and Baker who are fingered as soliciting the hacking. Charges of spying on the attorney Frédérik-Karel Canoy apparently were not pursued, and he is given as the confidential source for this information in the reuters story. He was apparently present at the court hearing.
http://fr.reuters.com/article/frEuroRpt/idFRLDE6A20G120101103?sp=true
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2010/11/02/97001-20101102FILWWW00715-landis-renvoye-en-correctionnelle.php
It appears that both Baker and Landis are charged with participating in the hacking, but since that will be hard to prove, they are also charged with receiving stolen goods.
http://www.liberation.fr/societe/01012300499-edf-et-floyd-landis-pirates-de-l-ere-informatique
This passage from Liberation is interesting:
“Le juge remonte également jusqu’à Floyd Landis, son renvoi en correctionnelle étant assorti d’un mandat d’arrêt international. ”
“The judge also remands Floyd Landis, his remand order was accompanied by an international arrest warrant.”
M,
Show us an authority that defines “International Arrest Warrant” in a legal sense.
It would be enlightening if the Liberation, or any of the other news sources, would detail steps, or even summarize, how this mythical warrant is supposed to work.
Greenpeace? Why the hell would FL and AB want to hack into Greenpeace?
Schart,
Greenpeace.
It’s not just about our homie Floyd, but about corporate spying and dirty tricks by the government of France and its national electricity company in seeking dirt about Greenpeace. The common thread was a Corporate Security Company that was paid to hack into the French Anti-Doping Lab and Greenpeace.
This New York Times piece gives the background from last year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/business/global/01iht-spy.html
The French Press mentions one additional detail I hadn’t seen before. Apparently the hackers used Landis’s urine sample number in hacking into the Lab’s computer. This number was alleged to be known only by Floyd and his defense team.
Cyclingnews’ message board is claiming that Floyd says he will go to France to stand trial. I was hoping he wouldn’t have to do this, since he’s suffered enough, but if he does it’s a stand-up move by him. I doubt Baker will do the same.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/business/global/01iht-spy.html
Oops, that post should have been under M.
Jeff
“..would detail steps, or even summarize, how this mythical warrant is supposed to work.”
Damn, I searched about how the French Judge is first supposed to subpoena the witness/subject before issuing the international arrest warrant, but couldn’t find anything. Perhaps you or Liggett Junkie could find that for me. LOL!
M
I thought for a moment that someone was trying to assume my identity here, until I saw your followup post. Maybe, given the subject currently under discussion, I was primed for such a thought. But no harm done.
Thanks for the link to the NYT article. Somethings are clearer to me now.
Ragarding FL urine sample number and it confidentiality: presumably Armstrong’s sample number was supposed to be confidential too, but somehow L’Equipe found it out.
Okay M,
Tell us how someone living in the USA should be notified they are being requested as witnesses in France.
Anyway, the deal is you get cites when I get sites from you. Two way street and you’re behind.
I’m happy to give you plenty of rope. Keep LOLing.
It will be nice when DPF is back up and you can go back to your old playground. Tempted to send Vaughn whatever $ he needs so you’ll run along.
William,
Lance’s 1999 samples which had EPO inside, were identified by L’Equipe reporter, Ressiot, by the help of both UCI and Lance Armstrong !
So yes it’s possible, but that would have needed Landis and UCI agreement!
Mister M,
May you give us the french links for
“The French Press mentions one additional detail I hadn’t seen before. Apparently the hackers used Landis’s urine sample number in hacking into the Lab’s computer. This number was alleged to be known only by Floyd and his defense team.”
Thanks
Schart,
Some third party unconnected with Landis, got his urine sample number, and then paid a security company to hack into the Anti-doping lab’s computers, and then sent the results to Arnie Baker? Yeah that sounds really, really plausible.
Jean,
The info came from the Liberation article:
http://www.liberation.fr/societe/01012300499-edf-et-floyd-landis-pirates-de-l-ere-informatique
“>>>le juge relève que le piratage s’est effectué peu après sa déchéance du Tour 2006, à l’aide d’un numéro (995474) correspondant à son échantillon d’urine prélevé.
«Ce mot-clé constitue la signature de l’intrusion, souligne l’ordonnance de renvoi. Non public, il était à la disposition de Floyd Landis et de son équipe de défense.» Lequel diffusera ensuite des documents internes du labo sur son site internet, «assumant ainsi la diffusion d’informations d’origine “
Certainly as plausible as FL giving his number to a hacker. But my point is that these numbers are not necessarily as secure as we perhaps would like to think. Certainly anyone with the skills necessary to pull off this hacking could obtain this number from a number of sources, perhaps even by hacking into FL or AB’s computers.
Hey M,
If I give you the cite (subpoenaing a US Citizen, residing in the USA, to be a witness in a French court’s criminal trial), will you apologize profusely and then go away? I’d settle for a simple apology. Just querying what you might be willing to wager. LOL.
To be clear:
The issue of subpoenaing a USA witness for a French criminal trial is covered by a different treaty than the one that deals with provisional arrest or extradition.
In an effort to be fair I should disclose that, in addition to Liggett junkie, Rant and William Schart both commented on the cite when I provided it this past winter. Consider yourself forewarned.
M wrote:
“Damn, I searched about how the French Judge is first supposed to subpoena the witness/subject before issuing the international arrest warrant, but couldn’t find anything. Perhaps you or Liggett Junkie could find that for me. LOL!”
Thanks Mister M.
Williams,
Someone ordered the hacking and gave a real and clear target : Landis’ case.
Someone not connected with the case has not reason to hack Landis (or Arnie)’ computer and then paid a hacker to hack LNDD
Maybe an opponent of Landis wanted to destroy him… but the means suggest the contrary.
The most plausible commissioners are from Landis’ side : his camp or some sympathisers with big pockets like someone wanting a revenge against a lab.
Jeff,
Apologize profusely? For doubting your claims, when you fail to back them up? My aren’t we full of ourselves!
Perhaps, if you’ll apologize to Judge Cassuto for your claim that he is waging a self promoting unprofessional PR campaign against Landis and Baker.
You know, after some initial confusion, the press reported that only a national arrest warrant had been issued by Judge Cassuto for Landis and Baker as witnesses. There was no claim of an international arrest warrant. This appears to be appropriate under French law, and there was no unprofessional conduct on the judge’s part. Some of those news stories state that the arrest warrant was issued after they were summoned to testify but did not respond, e.g. Cyclingnews, ESPN. So it’s possible/probable they received some notice to testify before the arrest warrant was issued, despite Landis’s claims that he was never “FORMALLY” contacted, or “served” with the arrest warrant. Weasel words?
Btw:
Where a foreign tribunal elects to seek assistance under sections 1781 and 1782, and/or the mutual assistance treaty, it is up to the U.S. Court whether to grant the request, and whether to issue a subpoena (“order”) requiring the witness to appear, not the French Judge, and any arrest warrant for failing to appear would be from the US Court not the French Court, and not an international arrest warrant. And proceeding under Section 1782, and/or the Mutual Assistance Treaty, would not affect one way or another whether the French Judge could himself issue an “international” arrest warrant, e.g. a request for provisional arrest or extradition, or even a request for international arrest to Interpol (red notice).
LOL! Thanks for all your help though. NOT.
On 11/9 @ 2:09pm, M wrote:
“My guess is you can’t come up even one citation regarding the subpoena requirement, other than the fact that under US law, a US court subpoena’s witnesses. We’re talking about the French court here.”
* http://untreaty.un.org/unts/144078_158780/16/2/7131.pdf
On 11/9 @ 6:00pm, M wrote:
“Jeff, I don’t believe you have any cites to support your subpoena claims and rants against the French judge.
But if, as you claim, Ligett Junkie remembers, perhaps he could post it.
The last cite you posted was bogus. Maybe Ligett Junkie will do better.”
* http://untreaty.un.org/unts/144078_158780/16/2/7131.pdf
*Liggett junkie was 100% right and remembered correctly that it was discussed at length on this blog in February: http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2598#comments
M wrote today: “Apologize profusely? For doubting your claims, when you fail to back them up? My aren’t we full of ourselves!”
*Just responding in kind to your challenge.
*Liggett junkie tried to tell you.
*Liggett junkie even told you when and where.
*You were too lazy to search. Who’s fault is that?
*People tend to ignore your demands for cites when you demonstrate an unwillingness or inability to respond in kind.
*Also, you’re cherry picking. I backed off a bit and finished the paragraph with this: “I’d settle for a simple apology. Just querying what you might be willing to wager. LOL.”
*You didn’t wager anything. Not even a simple apology.
M wrote today: “Perhaps, if you’ll apologize to Judge Cassuto for your claim that he is waging a self promoting unprofessional PR campaign against Landis and Baker.”
*That’s getting off topic, but I’ll humor you. No, I won’t apologize to Cassuto. In the absence of information reporting Cassuto abided by the terms of the mutual assistance treaty or the treaty that deals with provisional arrest and extradition, coupled with news reports of Cassuto entertaining a dog (K-9) as a witness in his court during a murder trial, then I do seriously question his professionalism. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/2775597/Dog-appears-as-witness-in-murder-trial.html I also suspect he has engaged the press in the hacking matter as a means of self promotion. I stand behind those statements regardless of FL’s/AB’s guilt or innocence. If Cassuto would like to post here on this blog, I’d be happy to discuss the matter with him. (fully understand that wouldn’t be particularly professional of him, but in for a penny, in for a pound) Should a reliable authority show he did comply with the terms of the treaties, then I’ll post a retraction and an apology on this blog. As for the dog witness issue, the damage has been done to his reputation there an I can’t do anything about that.
M wrote today: “You know, after some initial confusion, the press reported that only a national arrest warrant had been issued by Judge Cassuto” *….blah, blah, no cite again, blah, blah …………..
*To quote you in response, “Weasel words?”
*Read the February thread.
*It looks like you’ve been thoroughly discredited. You won the point when my migraine addled brain combined the terms of the mutual assistance treaty with the treaty related to provisional arrest and extradition. I’ve manned up and admitted my mistake. It’s a pity you can’t man or women up to admit your mistake.
*At this point, I don’t care if you summon up the courage to apologize to me, or not. However, and at the very least, you owe Liggett junkie an apology.
*Have a good weekend.
* = Jeff’s comments
jeff,
You owe Judge Cassuto a profuse apology.
Cassuto never issued an international arrest warrant to obtain witness testimony.
So your “subpoena” claim that Judge Cassuto acted unprofessionally because he failed to seek a subpoena before authorizing an international arrest warrant was totally bogus and moot. No international arrest warrant was ever sought or issued.
Plus you have still failed to cite any authority that Cassuto was required to issue a subpoena before authorizing an international arrest warrant. Maybe such an authority exists, perhaps something under French law, but you sure as hell didn’t cite it.
The treaty you cited refers only to a subpoena issued at the discretion of a US judge, not a French judge. The treaty and section 1782 (which you didn’t cite) only provides an OPTIONAL procedure for obtaining witness testimony by applying to a US court. Cassuto or the prosecutors were not obligated to avail themselves of this remedy. He or they chose not to, probably because the cost would exceed any possible benefit, since Landis and Baker likely would have refused to testify on 5th Amendment grounds.
There was no lack of professionalism here.
Cassuto did not need that witness testimony to make his decision to prosecute Landis and Baker.
So, a Mexican synchronized swimmer (doncha LUV it!) just got banned a year for… wait for it….CLENBUTERAL. Who knew synchro swimmers & pro-cyclists had so much in common?!
You would think with all the drug trafficking in that country, that SOME of it would have gotten into the cows… 😉 😉
And I’m curious – a show of hands, er, clicks, for how many here believe Contador really got Clenbuteral into his system by eating ‘tainted beef’. Don’t need to elaborate – just : YES or NO. Or if Rant could set up one of those nifty poll things, that would be even better. And BTW, where IS Rant?
Major Rant – you’re needed back at your post! Puhleeeeze.
Sorry there, Susie … er SMTML,
Been distracted by a thing called “work” for a while now. Something one can’t take for granted when working the “glamorous” life of a so-called consultant. I’ll be back at my post shortly, with a new post.
And, now that you’ve mentioned it, I will go looking for a polling plugin for WordPress to add that feature. I’m not sure they’ll be as amusing as racejunkie’s polls, but it’ll be good for a few chuckles, I hope.
About that synchronized swimmer (is there such a thing as unsynchronized swimming? if so, what would that look like? 😉 ). Interesting she didn’t use the same argument about contaminated beef and receive the same non-sanction as another athlete recently. Wasn’t there an Italian cyclist who just escaped a sanction because of the presence of tainted meat south of the border?
Updated at 4:45 CST: So, SMTML, take a look in the right-hand column and cast your vote. (Everyone else is free to vote, too.) If enough people use the feature, I’ll move it up in the sidebar. Or, if people prefer, I’ll include polls directly in the posts.
No citations from M again.
Without cites, what we have is more…..blah, blah, blah….blah, blah, blah…..
Sometimes a person just doesn’t know when it’s a good idea for them to stay down.
M is a case on point.
M’s version of events is unsupported and rather fluid as they regard the facts.
Without citation they don’t hold water wrt key, fact changing, details.
William Schart summed up the situation in brief and eloquently on this thread, 11/9 @ 7:24pm. M might read, and attempt to understand, his post?
M wrote: “You owe Judge Cassuto a profuse apology.”
Jeff writes: That’s not going to happen unless it is proven Cassuto utilized and followed the terms of the two applicable treaties, which I have previously cited and will cite again in this post. If Cassuto utilized an authority superseding both treaties (I doubt one exists), the same holds true. In the unlikely event that actually happens, I will issue a retraction and heartfelt apology here on Rant’s blog. I am willing to bet a mortgage payment that proof the dog whispering judge utilized the applicable treaties and followed their requirements will not be forthcoming, especially from you. Now that you are aware of the terms for me issuing an apology, provide the required cites to make it happen.
M wrote: “Cassuto never issued an international arrest warrant to obtain witness testimony.”
Jeff writes: Agreed, on at least two levels, as it applies to Landis/Baker.
When Landis/Baker were being sought as witnesses, the TREATY ON MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS BETWEEN FRANCE AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA applied. Now that Landis/Baker are wanted by Cassuto to appear before his court on criminal charges related to the alleged hacking, the EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN FRANCE AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA applies. That is my position. I hope it is clear to you.
I DON’T WRITE THE FOLLOWING FOR M’S BENEFIT.
I WRITE THE FOLLOWING FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY OTHER INTERESTED READERS HERE ON RANT:
Cassuto was originally reported to have sought Landis/Baker as witnesses.
As a French Judge, and if he was serious about securing Landis/Baker as witnesses in his court, then he could either hope they might rush right off to Nanterre based upon various news agencies reporting they were being sought as witnesses (highly unlikely a sane person would do this). Or Cassuto could do something more professional, like utilize the TREATY ON MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS BETWEEN FRANCE AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: http://untreaty.un.org/unts/144078_158780/16/2/7131.pdf
There is nothing unilateral about the treaty. There are multiple steps/layers. For the process to to be completed, cooperation between French/USA officials is required. I’m not going to note each step, but will summarize the process. If Cassuto were to utilize the treaty he would have to make a written request. That request would go up the food chain in the French government. The request may be approved or denied at any step along the way. Assuming the request was approved up to, and by, the French Central Authority, it would then be passed on to the Central Authority in the USA. Should the Central Authority in the USA approve the request, then the request would be expected to be executed. The treaty states: “Requests shall be executed in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty and the laws of the Requested State.” In this case the “requested state” is the USA. As such USA federal law applies. In the USA, a witness would be expected to be subpoenaed or summoned. In any case, PROOF OF SERVICE IS REQUIRED (Article 15). News reports would not meet the requirement.
The TREATY ON MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS BETWEEN FRANCE AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA also provides certain protections for witnesses. On 11/9 @ 5:36am, Jean C wrote: “There is no need to have delivered a subpoena to arrest a susspected criminal or to request the testimony of a witness. Judge just send an invitation to testimony, if not delivered or people don’t have come to the invitation, then the Judge can order an arrest warrant, even for a witness.” I agree with Jean C that no subpoena is necessary for an arrest. However, the terms of the treaty indicate Jean C is wrong about the subpoena issue as it related to Landis/Baker WHEN THEY WERE BEING SOUGHT AS WITNESSES. However, Jean C implies that in France, it is common for witnesses to be arrested. I bow to his local knowledge on that point. However, the terms of the treaty don’t allow for witnesses (Landis/Baker) to be arrested, unless they fail to comply with the request twice (Article 16, #3) or overstay their welcome in France (Article 17). MY OPINION is that CASSUTO DID NOT UTILIZE THE TREATY IN ORDER TO HAVE THE PAIR SUMMONED TO HIS NANTERRE COURT. I suspect Cassuto purposefully avoided use of the treaty. I don’t think the treaty’s protections preventing the arrest of Landis/Baker was acceptable to Cassuto. YMMV.
HAVE LANDIS/BAKER BEEN SERVED? Under Article 14 – Confidentiality, the Requesting State (France) can keep the request confidential, or not, at their option. The requested state (USA) is required to make every effort to work in concert with with the Requesting State’s (France’s) wishes wrt the issue of confidentiality. Therefore, if Cassuto wants to state/claim Landis/Baker were served under the provisions of the treaty, then he is free to do so. Landis/Baker have both denied being served. Rant has Landis on video denying service in the February thread: http://rant-your-head-off.com/WordPress/?p=2598#comments. In the absence of reports that Cassuto arranged to have legal service executed, I believe Landis/Baker’s claims that they have not. Again, YMMV.
I am not disputing that Cassuto originally sought Landis/Baker as witnesses.
I do not believe Cassuto had any reasonable expectation Landis/Baker would appear, in large part, due to Cassuto’s failure to utilize the governing treaty. YMMV.
William Schart thinks Cassuto was PO’ed by the non-appearance of Landis/Baker as witnesses and therefore issued and arrest warrant: 11/9 @ 7:24pm.
I find William Schart’s assumption to be entirely plausible, however, there are other plausible assumptions to consider.
I think that Cassuto being PO’ed by Landis/Baker’s non-appearance as witness is feigned annoyance. That’s my opinion. However, it could be genuine annoyance if, Cassuto had a subpoena/summons served under the terms of the treaty. I doubt it, but again, YMMV.
I stipulate that Cassuto has subsequently issued an arrest warrant (good in France) for Landis/Baker after their non-appearance.
THE EXECUTION OF REQUESTS FOR PROVISIONAL ARREST AND EXTRADITION DO NOT APPLY TO THE TREATY ON MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS BETWEEN FRANCE AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Article 1)
REQUEST FOR PROVISIONAL ARREST AND EXTRADITION BETWEEN FRANCE AND THE USA IS GOVERNED BY THE “EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN FRANCE AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”: http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%202179/v2179.pdf
HAS CASSUTO UTILIZED AND ABIDED BY THE TERMS OF THE EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN FRANCE AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO HAVE LANDIS/BAKER STAND TRIAL AT HIS COURT IN NANTERRE?
I DON’T BELIEVE HE HAS UTILIZED AND ABIDED BY THE TERMS OF EITHER TREATY.
CITATIONS (not prognostications) DISPROVING MY BELIEF THAT CASSUTO HAS NOT UTILIZED AND ABIDED BY EITEHR TREATY ARE WELCOME.
Thanks, Rant! I was so, so tempted to vote the Age of Aquarius answer. 🙂
“When the mooooooon is in the 7th houuuuuuuse & Juuuuuptier aligns wiTH Mars…then peeeeeace will guide the pla-a-nets & lo-ove will steer the stars!” (Can you tell I sang this song for 4 years back in high school chorus? 😉
And yes, I THOUGHT someone had recently gotten off or a lighter sentence because of tainted beef in Mexico! Which is where I thought AC had gotten his defense in the 1st place.
Anyway, so glad you were able to take time away from work to comment. (BTW, understand completely!) You are SORELY missed when you are away!
Jeff,
There is no dispute about the facts or the law. So I don’t know what specific citation you would like. Specify it and I will do my best to supply it.
1. Judge Cassuto wanted to question Landis and Baker, so he issued a national arrest warrant operative in France, but not internationally. No international arrest warrant was ever sought or issued by Cassuto and/or the prosecutors for Landis and Baker as witnesses. No factual dispute about that.
2. The treaty you cited, and section 1782 which you didn’t, provides an OPTIONAL method to seek foreign testimony should a prosecutor so desire. There is nothing in its provisions which REQUIRE it to be used. Just because a court or prosecutor wants to question a foreign witness doesn’t mean they have to foot the expense the burden, and the complications of using the treaty process. They can choose not question the witness at all, unless he is caught traveling in France or its overseas possessions. That is what was done here. Nothing inappropriate about it. And no dispute about the facts or the law.
3. As to utilizing the extradition treaty we will have to wait and see on that. It’s only been a few weeks since the date of the closed hearing at which it was reportedly decided to charge Landis and Baker. How many years was it before the U.S. prosecutors finally attempted to extradite Roman Polanski, 30 years? But again there is no requirement that a prosecutor MUST attempt to extradite each and every criminal defendant who is thought to be abroad. They have to weigh the cost and likelihood of success.
Nothing inappropriate about this at all.
So your SEEMING point (I can’t believe that you are genuinely arguing this) that just because a treaty remedy exists, it MUST be utilized by a prosecutor is totally BOGUS.
You owe Judge Cassuto an apology.
M,
I was quite clear in specifying requested cites from you.
You can also cite the relevant text and location of the treaty’s Section 1782.
The greater point is that Cassuto has not utilized any prescribed legal remedy, considering the subjects of his attention are foreign nationals from the USA residing in the state of California. He has waged a reasonably well publicized PR campaign that has effectively notified Landis/Baker that they are, for all practical purposes, barred from French territory..
Jeff,
Not only can you not come up with one citation that says what you claim it does, ( I’m still waiting for that citation that says the French Judge has the power and obligation to subpoena a foreign witness. The treaty sure doesn’t.)
You can’t even be specific enough to ask me to supply you with a relevant cite. LOL! What a breath of hot air!
As to section 1782. I was wondering whether you had the legal research skills to figure that one out. Apparently not. 28 U.S.C. Section 1782.
And you and your claim of a “well publicized PR campaign” against Landis and Baker by Judge Cassuto. Perhaps you can show even one public statement by the Judge discussing this matter. I sure haven’t found one, and I doubt you can either.
You owe Judge Cassuto an apology.
LOVE the poll! But if you’re looking for song lyrics you might try this one from the blues classic “Born Under A Bad Sign” — “if it wasn’t for bad luck, I wouldn’t have no luck at all.”
How about a Jeff versus M poll? (a) Landis will be taken to France against his will, tried like Dreyfuss and banished to Devil’s Island, (b) Landis and Arnie will set up a computer hacking business that will rake in so much money, SMTML will finally be shown the money, or (c) c’mon Jeff and M, take it outside why don’t ya? ;^)
In the meantime, there’s the little noticed and lightly commented finding by UCI that AC violated the anti-doping rules. Justice delayed equals justice denied, but in this case justice delayed a really long time equals “YAWN”.
M,
I am beginning to get the impression I’d get more genuine responses debating a stone.
My cites say exactly what I claim they do. I’ve provided unpaid public access sources. I’ve also provided page numbers, Article numbers, and blog time stamps (as appropriate) to make it easy for readers to check cites containing more specific points. In addition, I’ve occasionally cut and pasted relevant text, again to make it easy for the readers to follow.
I couldn’t be more blunt or clear in identifying the cites I requested of you. Why are you dancing around the subject? LOL right back at you. The temp of the air you expel could sear a steak.
A French judge does have the power to request a subpoena for foreign national witnesses residing in California, USA. My post from toady @ 8:53 am summarizes how he could facilitate such a request.
As to obligation, he had no obligation if his goal was self promotion, rather than actually securing Landis/Baker as witnesses in his court. In other words, considering the nationality of the subjects, if Cassuto truly desired Landis/Baker as witnesses, he was professionally obligated to do something more proactive than simply issue a (French) national arrest warrant after their non-appearance without benefit of subpoena. If he really wanted Landis/Baker to appear as witnesses, reading press reports they were wanted in Nanterre as witnesses and no subpoena containing pertinent details, coupled with Baker inquiring about relevant treaties, was a reverse incentive for Landis/Baker to appear. It did create a plethora of Google Hits and news stories with Judge Thomas Cassuto as the subject. Publicity job well done, indeed.
As for 28 U.S.C. Section 1782, it’s not my task to make your citations clear so that other Rant readers can follow along and fact check you if they’d like. I ‘m just a regular guy, but, have an attorney in my immediate family and count several others as good friends. No particular trouble for me to track down your incomplete cite, but it was a dishonest tactic to use on other readers here. Sorry to have stolen a “gottcha” moment from you. LOL. If you continue to fail to provide a direct cite, I can cite several public access sources that will help interested readers familiarize themselves with Section 1782, and they won’t have to search. The ball is in your court for the 1782 cites, for now.
For the record, Section 1782 of Title 28 of the US Code involves Discovery. It is an optional method. However, it is doubtful it is the preferred or better method. First, it’s unsettled law. Discovery is also an expensive process. The Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance between France and the USA: http://untreaty.un.org/unts/144078_158780/16/2/7131.pdf provides for an arguably less expensive alternative, whereby our theoretical California resident witnesses could have been deposed at little cost to the French court. (Article 9, Specific Procedures and Article 23, Costs)
As for a PR campaign, the results speak for themselves. Cassuto got his name in the news far and wide. The average reader believes Landis/Baker are international fugitives. No apology to Cassuto. However, you are overdue in apologizing to Liggett junkie.
Finally, I’m not arguing that Cassuto is required to make use of any international treaty. However, the three options we’ve touched upon would seem to be valuable tools that could have been used toward achieving Cassuto’s stated goals (witness or arrest), depending upon which time frame we are referencing. Did Cassuto utilize any effective tools to have hosted Landis/Baker as witnesses earlier in the story, or to secure them as defendants more recently?
Jeff,
From your postings I tooki it that you were an attorney.
My bad.
My apologies to the forum.
Enough said. I’m not going to argue law with a non attorney anymore.
I like the poll. But I think (and write-in voted for) “The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind”.
M,
Still no cites.
I’ve never represented myself as an attorney.
What is it they say about attorneys and assumptions?
I sincerely hope you are not a practicing attorney or involved in legal education.
With M’s cites not forthcoming, these are the cites I promised that should help non-attorneys check to see if either of us represented our posts honestly. Only if you’re interested. Otherwise, I’m done:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_1782_Discovery
http://vlex.com/vid/tribunals-litigants-such-19212083
Spam issues again. Had to break cites up into two posts:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00001782—-000-.html
http://www.blankrome.com/index.cfm?contentID=37&itemID=1139
(Hague Convention, mentioned in the beginning is not applicable to criminal charges, btw)
Jeff,
Yeah, it’s taking me a while to get a permanent fix in place. One that won’t need to be repeated whenever an upgrade to the offending plugin occurs.
Probably a good idea to let this line of discussion go for a while. Besides, there’s a whole new post to riff on now. 😉
William,
Glad you like the poll. Wish I’d thought of that answer. I would have included it in the list.
I’ll post a new poll in a few days time. Cheers!
Jeff,
That is funny that you said Cassuto wanted his fame and were unprofessional.
Clearly, you understand nothing or so few.
For exemple, Cassuto is getting and will get incommensurably much more exposure with the EDF-Greenspace spying aspect than with the Landis case. How could you have failed to notice that?
As I pointed, Cassuto knows what to do, he has the files, and his decisions are done according his perception.
Cassuto has no PROFESSIONAL interest to have Landis and Baker as witness under that treaty!
He just wanted to verify some points with them before arresting one or both of them. The treaty you refer don’t allow arrestation, so it would be a lack of time… and totaly UNPROFESSIONAL to use it.
Should I recall you that you often are wrong in your interpretations:
– you were wrong with Landis’s doping
– you were wrong about his blood doping
– you were wrong about doping in cycling
– you were wrong about the investigation of the hacking, you were one of those saying that it was to keep Landis out of France,
– and you are still wrong.
It seems that you have a long record of big failures here. You should be more cautious.
As they say in ads for certain financial services companies, “Past results are no guarantee of future performance.”
Jean C,
*If Cassuto’s professional conduct is measured by being direct and truthful in reporting his intentions toward Landis/Baker, then he gets failing marks.
*If Cassuto’s professional conduct gives high marks for actions, such as an attempt to lure witnesses under false pretenses, then he get passing grades for effort, though he failed to deliver.
*We agree that Cassuto had no professional interest to have Landis and Baker as witnesses under the treaty. However, you were wrong when asserting Cassuto need only issue an “invitation” to Landis/Baker for them to have appeared as witnesses.
*Wrong about Landis doping? Regrettable and agreed.
*Wrong about his blood doping? I think our dispute about Landis blood doping was timeframe specific? However, he has admitted to blood doping.
*Wrong about doping in cycling? Doubtful. I’m not blind to the history of doping in sport in general, and cycling in particular.
*Wrong about the hacking investigation keeping Landis out of France? It may or may not have been the goal, but it’s been quite effective at dissuading Landis from visiting France. YMMV.
*Still wrong. ??? About everything ??? Really ???
I am right about WADA’s Code being IoC backside (butt) cover and the adjudication process being a farcical joke.
Jeff,
There is no need to trash someone when you don’t even know his job and french laws.
Cassuto follows laws… to be heard as witness doesn’t mean that you can go free or whitout charge at the end of the talk. That is not his job to explain it, even to stangers.
Is it so difficult to understand that laws elsewhere are not like yours?
Jean C wrote:
“Cassuto follows laws… to be heard as witness doesn’t mean that you can go free or whitout charge at the end of the talk. That is not his job to explain it, even to stangers.
Is it so difficult to understand that laws elsewhere are not like yours?”
It is not difficult to understand that laws vary between nations.
I appreciate you summarizing why Landis/Baker were not inclined to to travel to Nanterre to serve as witnesses without the protections afforded by the treaty. Thanks.