Armstrong Court papers

The document is going to be posted shortly by a RBR'r.

"Philip W. Moore, Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've got a copy of what was filed last week by Mike Anderson's lawyer. If
somebody can post it on a webpage where everybody can read it, I'll email

it

Quoted message said:

to him/her. The server won't let me post it as an attachment, and it's in
.pdf format so I can't copy, cut and paste the text into an email.

http://www.printemp.net/images/Anderson.pdf

On 4/2/05 6:23 PM, in article [email hidden],

Philip W. Moore said:

The document is going to be posted shortly by a RBR'r.

"Philip W. Moore, Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've got a copy of what was filed last week by Mike Anderson's lawyer. If
somebody can post it on a webpage where everybody can read it, I'll email

it

Quoted message said:

to him/her. The server won't let me post it as an attachment, and it's in
.pdf format so I can't copy, cut and paste the text into an email.

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.printemp.net/images/Anderson.pdf

I looked this stuff over pretty carefully and I don't see that Anderson has
a leg to stand on. Moreover, confidentiality agreements are common enough
among companies and often when you're leaving and not when you join. I've
been asked to sign many of these when companies were offering large
settlements to make reductions in force. These things tend to keep people
from signing book deals and then blowing things out of proportion just as
appears to be the case here.

1) Anderson's statements doesn't say that Lance admitted that he uses drugs.
I suggest that even Lafferty would get a little huffy if he said the same
thing (which he often does) and the guy he was saying it to looked at him as
if he were confessing.

2) Funny that a box of pills that happens to be in Armstrong's house happens
to have about the same name as the sort of thing chicks use to emit
pheromones to turn guys on.

3) I should have realized that the people on RBR were full of [censored] when they
said that Anderson was a lawyer. As an anthropologist he ain't half the
brain of a really stupid lawyer - say Brian.

Also, note that this is an answer and a counterclaim, and are not evidence
except to the extent it is verified or supported by affidavit.

If it weren't for the fact I know Anderson's lawyer, Hal Gillespie, I would
have never given any of this the slightest credence.

"Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.printemp.net/images/Anderson.pdf

I looked this stuff over pretty carefully and I don't see that Anderson

has

Quoted message said:

a leg to stand on. Moreover, confidentiality agreements are common enough
among companies and often when you're leaving and not when you join. I've
been asked to sign many of these when companies were offering large
settlements to make reductions in force. These things tend to keep people
from signing book deals and then blowing things out of proportion just as
appears to be the case here.

1) Anderson's statements doesn't say that Lance admitted that he uses

drugs.

Quoted message said:

I suggest that even Lafferty would get a little huffy if he said the same
thing (which he often does) and the guy he was saying it to looked at him

as

Quoted message said:

if he were confessing.

2) Funny that a box of pills that happens to be in Armstrong's house

happens

Quoted message said:

to have about the same name as the sort of thing chicks use to emit
pheromones to turn guys on.

3) I should have realized that the people on RBR were full of [censored] when

they

Quoted message said:

said that Anderson was a lawyer. As an anthropologist he ain't half the
brain of a really stupid lawyer - say Brian.

Tom Kunich said:

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.printemp.net/images/Anderson.pdf

I looked this stuff over pretty carefully and I don't see that Anderson has
a leg to stand on.

I'm not a lawyer. My uneducated impression is that the drug accusation is
extremely weak. OTOH, Anderson seems to have a valid claim documented
in e-mail that LA offered to fund Anderson's future bike shop. I can't
imagine a jury not awarding that to him.

Tom Kunich said:

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.printemp.net/images/Anderson.pdf

Sounds like Anderson's suing for palimony.

Jr. said:

I've got a copy of what was filed last week by Mike Anderson's lawyer. If
somebody can post it on a webpage where everybody can read it, I'll email it
to him/her. The server won't let me post it as an attachment, and it's in
.pdf format so I can't copy, cut and paste the text into an email.

In Adobe Acrobat you can use Select all" to copy text.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

"PanFan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.printemp.net/images/Anderson.pdf

OTOH, Anderson seems to have a valid claim documented
in e-mail that LA offered to fund Anderson's future bike shop. I can't
imagine a jury not awarding that to him.

Not according to Tom Kunich, pseudo-Esq.

"PanFan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.printemp.net/images/Anderson.pdf

I looked this stuff over pretty carefully and I don't see that Anderson
has
a leg to stand on.

I'm not a lawyer. My uneducated impression is that the drug accusation is
extremely weak. OTOH, Anderson seems to have a valid claim documented
in e-mail that LA offered to fund Anderson's future bike shop. I can't
imagine a jury not awarding that to him.

I've scanned the papers quickly. It seems to me he had a valid employment
contract and performed pursuant to that for two years. The bike shop offer
lacks specificity as to terms. How that will fly under Texas law.....?

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

In Adobe Acrobat you can use Select all" to copy text.

It's not text though.

I agree that the doping allegations are *extremely* weak. Museeuw and
Ferrari associated with steroids?! I guess it's a testament of how
commonplace steroid use has become in American society.

Disappointing to read so many, at least 3, Armstrong/Anderson name
switch errors in such a high profile (or is it) court filing.

Armstrong is painted as very childish I think, but Anderson not much
less of a dumbass. Fainting because of stress on the telephone, with "a
history of being hypoglycemic"..? Right. And trying to get credit for
the 6th Tour victory, for introducing Amstrong to cyclo-cross? LOL.

So now that we all know Armstrong's e-mail address, are we going to Cc
him on every rbr post?

E.

--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/

"Ewoud Dronkert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

In Adobe Acrobat you can use Select all" to copy text.

It's not text though.

I agree that the doping allegations are *extremely* weak. Museeuw and
Ferrari associated with steroids?! I guess it's a testament of how
commonplace steroid use has become in American society.

Disappointing to read so many, at least 3, Armstrong/Anderson name
switch errors in such a high profile (or is it) court filing.

Armstrong is painted as very childish I think, but Anderson not much
less of a dumbass. Fainting because of stress on the telephone, with "a
history of being hypoglycemic"..? Right. And trying to get credit for
the 6th Tour victory, for introducing Amstrong to cyclo-cross? LOL.

So now that we all know Armstrong's e-mail address, are we going to Cc
him on every rbr post?

E.

--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/

The defamation claim is interesting in light of the Simeoni defamation case.
Mr. Lance seems to have a habit of shooting off his mouth in the most
self-damaging way.

I'd bet that before the two laptops were turned back over to LA's attorneys,
backup copies of the hard drives were made by Anderson's attorney. It might
be interesting to learn what else might have been on those drives.
Anderson's attorney seems to be looking forward to doing LA"s deposition.
Also, I suspect Kristen might be called as a witness. That could be fun.

I'm going to predict that this case will be settled before trial with
Armstrong paying Anderson a six figure settlement subject to a
confidentiality agreement.

PanFan said:

Tom Kunich said:

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.printemp.net/images/Anderson.pdf

I looked this stuff over pretty carefully and I don't see that Anderson has
a leg to stand on.

I'm not a lawyer. My uneducated impression is that the drug accusation is
extremely weak. OTOH, Anderson seems to have a valid claim documented
in e-mail that LA offered to fund Anderson's future bike shop. I can't
imagine a jury not awarding that to him.

If somebody says "help you fund" a bike shop that can mean anything from
helping you find investors to putting up a meanial sum of money to
offering you the free services of an accountant. It's extremely vague
and Lance need not give him a dime to fulfill it.

In addition, Lance was free to walk away from that offer at will without
penalty.

Thanks,

Magilla

What little he does provide is rather curious. He states that, in the
course of cleaning Armstrong's apartment, he found a container of the
type prescription drugs come in which was not properly numbered.
Consider for a moment a maid cleaning your abode, would you expect him
to read the label on a medicine vile? Or go on the internet to
identify the substance it contained? I think not. These are the
actions of a sneak looking for damming information. I think there is
an undisclosed motive for him to be actively looking for dirt on his
employer. This is the action of someone who knows he is on the way
out.

One can also expect that in the course of his searching he entered the
most private areas a couple share and could have left disturbed the
most private possessions. The suspicion he was held in thereafter by
Armstrong -- and his significant other (?) -- could easily be due to
the employee's penetration of the couple's privacy. Of course this
would cause the couple to loose confidence in the employee's
trustworthiness and bring about the change in relation the employee
noted and attributed to his having found drugs.

To me, for his sleuthing to have turned up so little, constitutes
another "drug test(s)" that Armstrong has passed.

As always YMMV.

ray

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What little he does provide is rather curious. He states that, in the
course of cleaning Armstrong's apartment, he found a container of the
type prescription drugs come in which was not properly numbered.
Consider for a moment a maid cleaning your abode, would you expect him
to read the label on a medicine vile? Or go on the internet to
identify the substance it contained? I think not. These are the
actions of a sneak looking for damming information. I think there is
an undisclosed motive for him to be actively looking for dirt on his
employer. This is the action of someone who knows he is on the way
out.

One can also expect that in the course of his searching he entered the
most private areas a couple share and could have left disturbed the
most private possessions. The suspicion he was held in thereafter by
Armstrong -- and his significant other (?) -- could easily be due to
the employee's penetration of the couple's privacy. Of course this
would cause the couple to loose confidence in the employee's
trustworthiness and bring about the change in relation the employee
noted and attributed to his having found drugs.

If he was cleaning the bathroom, it's doubtful that there was the level of
privacy that you impute. Could it be that he was putting Lance's toothbrush
or caffeine suppositories away in the medicine cabinet when he spotted the
box?

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

What little he does provide is rather curious. He states that, in the
course of cleaning Armstrong's apartment, he found a container of the
type prescription drugs come in which was not properly numbered.
Consider for a moment a maid cleaning your abode, would you expect him
to read the label on a medicine vile? Or go on the internet to
identify the substance it contained? I think not. These are the
actions of a sneak looking for damming information. I think there is
an undisclosed motive for him to be actively looking for dirt on his
employer. This is the action of someone who knows he is on the way
out.

One can also expect that in the course of his searching he entered the
most private areas a couple share and could have left disturbed the
most private possessions. The suspicion he was held in thereafter
by
Armstrong -- and his significant other (?) -- could easily be due to
the employee's penetration of the couple's privacy. Of course this
would cause the couple to loose confidence in the employee's
trustworthiness and bring about the change in relation the employee
noted and attributed to his having found drugs.

To me, for his sleuthing to have turned up so little, constitutes
another "drug test(s)" that Armstrong has passed.

I question Anderson's ethics. He makes himself out to be squeaky clean
and more or less accuses Lance of being a doper and a cheat, yet this
does not prevent him from demanding a cut of the spoils of Lance's
allegedly ill-gotten gains.

Ethics versus personal gain; I wonder what the price tag is on
Anderson's ethics. For any settlement, the amount will probably not be
disclosed.

As a name for Anderson's bike shop, how about the "Sneaky Wheel".

Phil H

"Philip W. Moore, Jr." <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le
message de :
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Also, note that this is an answer and a counterclaim, and are not evidence
except to the extent it is verified or supported by affidavit.

If it weren't for the fact I know Anderson's lawyer, Hal Gillespie, I
would
have never given any of this the slightest credence.

I am not admitted to the Texas bar. Any comments I make should be read with
that in mind. However, I have never, ever seen such a pleading, which
amounts to proffers of testimony, which, in the other several jurisdictions
where I have appeared, are to be excluded from any pleading that may
eventually be submitted to a jury.

I am reticent to criticize a member of a bar where I have no business
intruding, but the rules in Texas must be other-planetary for this
submission to survive a demand by the other side to revise it to the
essentials of claim and defense.

One thing I would have liked to see would be the pleadings from the other
side, just to get an idea of what is permissible. And I have NEVER found it
sane - seldom permitted by the presiding judge - for a party to offer a
total denial of all statements of claim. It's likely that there is an
uncontrovertible jurisdiction statement, which if denied, terminates all
claims by Anderson, too. Careful with shotguns.

Perhaps this was an April Fool's joke ? In any event, if it were real, no
matter where the jurisdiction, I would have (as client or supervising
attorney) terminated the author of this tract and burned the proposed
filing.

Very, very mild comments from me, really.
--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Texas will fill in the terms provided there is a bona fide agreement to
agree. Who knows?

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"PanFan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> http://www.printemp.net/images/Anderson.pdf

I looked this stuff over pretty carefully and I don't see that Anderson
has
a leg to stand on.

I'm not a lawyer. My uneducated impression is that the drug accusation

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

extremely weak. OTOH, Anderson seems to have a valid claim documented
in e-mail that LA offered to fund Anderson's future bike shop. I can't
imagine a jury not awarding that to him.

I've scanned the papers quickly. It seems to me he had a valid employment
contract and performed pursuant to that for two years. The bike shop

offer

Quoted message said:

lacks specificity as to terms. How that will fly under Texas law.....?

"Philip W. Moore, Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Texas will fill in the terms provided there is a bona fide agreement to
agree. Who knows?

Parole Evidence Rule?

Parole evidence rule does not apply when there is some evidence of an
agreement, at least in Texas. The parole evidence rule is supposed to
prevent fraud, not to further it by allowing a party to deny the existence
of an agreement when the evidence is to the contrary. But yes, a judge
could apply the parole evidence rule and let an appellate court sort that
out.

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Philip W. Moore, Jr." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Texas will fill in the terms provided there is a bona fide agreement to
agree. Who knows?

Parole Evidence Rule?