Question for Sandy Re: Heras

Make that re: Simeoni. Need more coffee.

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

Quoted message said:

How is it that the defamation action Simeoni has got going to trial in
Italy this coming March carries a potential sentence of up to six years
for Armstrong? I thought this was in the nature of a civil (non-criminal)
action. Thanks.

B. Lafferty said:

Need more coffee.

But not too much. Don't want to come up positive.

Bob Schwartz

Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
B. Lafferty <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

How is it that the defamation action Simeoni has got going to trial
in Italy this coming March carries a potential sentence of up to six
years for Armstrong? I thought this was in the nature of a civil
(non-criminal) action. Thanks.

Changed the subject line - right ?

Well, not too familiar with defamation in Italy. However, in France, there
is a wide range of penalties for misconduct.

In extreme cases, I believe the maximum penal servitude imposable is six
months. There are fines which are penal (not going to the offended party).

Certainly, civil penalties are possibilities in private litigation.
In fact, Brian, I think you may want to see if you can obtain jurisdiction
in a French court for yourself, given all the flak you receive. You see, a
private insult, transmitted by e-mail or an equivalent internet mechanism,
is worth (max) 38 euros. Only 1000 such wins, and you can buy a small
apartment in Catalonia, but not shoreline.

I wonder if you harvested all the stuff aimed at you, whether you couldn't
make a handy sum. But it would have to be a personal insult, which hurt
your feelings, and as we both know, admission to the bar costs the deposit
of one's heart at the door.

Back to the subject (asleep yet ?) - I wonder if the Italian magistrates
have read the Velo News interview (referring to whining Italians). Perhaps
that plays a role. I am now waiting to hear Armstrong take aim at a
trifecta - making gross comments about Spaniards. PNG in three coutries of
the EU !! Four more, and he has a double record to defend.

BTW - does anyone still care ?
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
B. Lafferty <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

How is it that the defamation action Simeoni has got going to trial
in Italy this coming March carries a potential sentence of up to six
years for Armstrong? I thought this was in the nature of a civil
(non-criminal) action. Thanks.

Far from exhaustive or definitive, but handy for you, perhaps :

http://www.educnet.education.fr/juri/juriscol/fiche14.htm

--
Les faits relatés ici ne sont que pure fiction, et ne sauraient être
utilisés ou rapprochés d'une situation réelle existant ou ayant
existée

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

Quoted message said:

Dans le message de
news:[email hidden],
B. Lafferty <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

How is it that the defamation action Simeoni has got going to trial
in Italy this coming March carries a potential sentence of up to six
years for Armstrong? I thought this was in the nature of a civil
(non-criminal) action. Thanks.

Changed the subject line - right ?

Well, not too familiar with defamation in Italy. However, in France,
there is a wide range of penalties for misconduct.

In extreme cases, I believe the maximum penal servitude imposable is six
months. There are fines which are penal (not going to the offended
party).

Certainly, civil penalties are possibilities in private litigation.

Thank you for the information. I'd be curious to know the history of
imposing fines and penal time. From Roman law perhaps?

Quoted message said:

In fact, Brian, I think you may want to see if you can obtain jurisdiction
in a French court for yourself, given all the flak you receive. You see,
a private insult, transmitted by e-mail or an equivalent internet
mechanism, is worth (max) 38 euros. Only 1000 such wins, and you can buy
a small apartment in Catalonia, but not shoreline.

LOL. I could probably get more than that just from Kunich's insults. But
you're correct. If I can't take it seriously, it's just not actionable.

Quoted message said:

I wonder if you harvested all the stuff aimed at you, whether you couldn't
make a handy sum. But it would have to be a personal insult, which hurt
your feelings, and as we both know, admission to the bar costs the deposit
of one's heart at the door.

Back to the subject (asleep yet ?) - I wonder if the Italian magistrates
have read the Velo News interview (referring to whining Italians).
Perhaps that plays a role. I am now waiting to hear Armstrong take aim at
a trifecta - making gross comments about Spaniards. PNG in three coutries
of the EU !! Four more, and he has a double record to defend.

A friend and I were discussing this the other evening. Judges don't live in
an intellectual/emotional vaccume (except perhaps in England). I would not
be surprising if Armstrong has shot himself in the foot in more than one
country. The European conterpart to OWH's American Judicial Realism.

Quoted message said:

BTW - does anyone still care ?

Less and less every day.

Quoted message said:

--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

To add to what you noted:

"The law of defamation dates back to ancient times, and although it has
evolved dramatically, modern themes are apparent in its origins. The civil
law version developed from the Roman acto injuriarum, which focused on the
"intentional and unjustified hurting of another's feelings" more than damage
to public reputation.[9] Publication of the insult increased the injury, but
was not a required element of the offense."
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss13/docherty.shtml

And from that most accurate of all sources,

In most early systems of law verbal defamations were treated as a criminal
or quasi-criminal offence, its essence lying not in pecuniary loss, which
may be compensated by damages, but in the personal insult which must be
atoned for: a vindictive penalty coming in the place of personal revenge. By
the law of the Twelve Tables, the composition of scurrilous songs and gross
noisy public affronts were punished by death. Minor offences of the same
class seem to have found their place under the general conception of
injuria, which included ultimately every form of direct personal aggression
which involved abuse or insult.

In the later Roman jurisprudence, from which many of our modern laws
descend, verbal defamations are dealt with in the edict under two heads. The
first comprehended defamatory and injurious statements made in a public
manner (convicium contra bonos mores). In this case the essence of the
offence lay in the unwarrantable public proclamation. In such a case the
truth of the statements was no justification for the unnecessarily public
and insulting manner in which they had been made. The second head included
defamatory statements made in private, and in this case the offence lay in
the imputation itself, not in the manner of its publication. The truth was
therefore a sufficient defence, for no man had a right to demand legal
protection for a false reputation. Even belief in the truth was enough,
because it took away the intention which was essential to the notion of
injuria.

The law thus aimed at giving sufficient scope for the discussion of a man's
character, while it protected him from needless insult and pain. The remedy
for verbal defamation was long confined to a civil action for a monetary
penalty, which was estimated according to the significance of the case, and
which, although vindictive in its character, doubtless included practically
the element of compensation. But a new remedy was introduced with the
extension of the criminal law, under which many kinds of defamation were
punished with great severity. At the same time increased importance attached
to the publication of defamatory books and writings, the libri or libelli
famosi, from which we derive our modern use of the word libel; and under the
later emperors the latter term came to be specially applied to anonymous
accusations or pasquils, the dissemination of which was regarded as
particularly dangerous, and visited with very severe punishment, whether the
matter contained in them were true or false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel

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

Quoted message said:

Dans le message de
news:[email hidden],
B. Lafferty <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

How is it that the defamation action Simeoni has got going to trial
in Italy this coming March carries a potential sentence of up to six
years for Armstrong? I thought this was in the nature of a civil
(non-criminal) action. Thanks.

Changed the subject line - right ?

Well, not too familiar with defamation in Italy. However, in France,
there is a wide range of penalties for misconduct.

In extreme cases, I believe the maximum penal servitude imposable is six
months. There are fines which are penal (not going to the offended
party).

Certainly, civil penalties are possibilities in private litigation.
In fact, Brian, I think you may want to see if you can obtain jurisdiction
in a French court for yourself, given all the flak you receive. You see,
a private insult, transmitted by e-mail or an equivalent internet
mechanism, is worth (max) 38 euros. Only 1000 such wins, and you can buy
a small apartment in Catalonia, but not shoreline.

I wonder if you harvested all the stuff aimed at you, whether you couldn't
make a handy sum. But it would have to be a personal insult, which hurt
your feelings, and as we both know, admission to the bar costs the deposit
of one's heart at the door.

Back to the subject (asleep yet ?) - I wonder if the Italian magistrates
have read the Velo News interview (referring to whining Italians).
Perhaps that plays a role. I am now waiting to hear Armstrong take aim at
a trifecta - making gross comments about Spaniards. PNG in three coutries
of the EU !! Four more, and he has a double record to defend.

BTW - does anyone still care ?
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

In article <[email hidden]>,

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In fact, Brian, I think you may want to see if you can obtain jurisdiction
in a French court for yourself, given all the flak you receive. You see,
a private insult, transmitted by e-mail or an equivalent internet
mechanism, is worth (max) 38 euros. Only 1000 such wins, and you can buy
a small apartment in Catalonia, but not shoreline.

LOL. I could probably get more than that just from Kunich's insults.

Awww Brian, he just wants your attention. Surely you remember how it was back
in junior high?

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

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

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > How is it that the
defamation action Simeoni has got going to trial in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Italy this coming March carries a potential sentence of up to six years
for Armstrong? I thought this was in the nature of a civil

(non-criminal)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

action. Thanks.

Laff,

My understanding is one thing is a crime in one part of the country and is
not a crime in the other. And we're talking about the same level of
government here. So you get a prosecutor who things anytime you say
something bad about an Italian in a magazine or in a situation where the
news will reach Italy, you've committed a crime. Like I am doing right
now
by saying that Simeoni is a [censored]. The chase-down situation is different,
however, because it's arguable that you can intimidate a witness in a case
outside of the jurisdiction in which the case is to be tried.

Your understanding is, once again, incorrect. Take a look at the prior post
on this thread from Sandy as well as the exegesis on Roman law.

The chase down situation has nothing to do with the defamation action that
we have been discussing.

Oh, like you know the ins and outs of regional Italian law... J. F. C. !!!

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > How is it that the
defamation action Simeoni has got going to trial in

Quoted message said:

>Italy this coming March carries a potential sentence of up to six years
>for Armstrong? I thought this was in the nature of a civil

(non-criminal)

Quoted message said:

>action. Thanks.

Laff,

My understanding is one thing is a crime in one part of the country and is
not a crime in the other. And we're talking about the same level of
government here. So you get a prosecutor who things anytime you say
something bad about an Italian in a magazine or in a situation where the
news will reach Italy, you've committed a crime. Like I am doing right
now
by saying that Simeoni is a [censored]. The chase-down situation is different,
however, because it's arguable that you can intimidate a witness in a case
outside of the jurisdiction in which the case is to be tried.

Your understanding is, once again, incorrect. Take a look at the prior post
on this thread from Sandy as well as the exegesis on Roman law.

The chase down situation has nothing to do with the defamation action that
we have been discussing.

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

Quoted message said:

Oh, like you know the ins and outs of regional Italian law... J. F. C.
!!!

I don't,which is why I posed the question to Sandy who replied:

"Well, not too familiar with defamation in Italy. However, in France,
there is a wide range of penalties for misconduct.
In extreme cases, I believe the maximum penal servitude imposable is six
months. There are fines which are penal (not going to the offended
party).
Certainly, civil penalties are possibilities in private litigation."

It seems that in countries which derive their legal systems more directly
from Roman Law than the English Common Law countries do, there is less of a
distinction in defamation actions between civil and criminal penalties.

I don't know that this varies between regions in Italy. Do you have any
pertinant information to contribute? If you do, please share it with us. :-)

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

Oh, like you know the ins and outs of regional Italian law... J. F. C.
!!!

I don't,which is why I posed the question to Sandy who replied:

"Well, not too familiar with defamation in Italy. However, in France,
there is a wide range of penalties for misconduct.
In extreme cases, I believe the maximum penal servitude imposable is six
months. There are fines which are penal (not going to the offended
party).
Certainly, civil penalties are possibilities in private litigation."

Hey, Sandy on Euro Law is just as unreliable as Benjo on cycling
history!
Bill C

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

Quoted message said:

B. Lafferty said:

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

Quoted message said:

Oh, like you know the ins and outs of regional Italian law... J. F. C.
!!!

I don't,which is why I posed the question to Sandy who replied:

"Well, not too familiar with defamation in Italy. However, in France,
there is a wide range of penalties for misconduct.
In extreme cases, I believe the maximum penal servitude imposable is
six
months. There are fines which are penal (not going to the offended
party).
Certainly, civil penalties are possibilities in private litigation."

Hey, Sandy on Euro Law is just as unreliable as Benjo on cycling
history!
Bill C

Damn Bill, I shoulda known that.

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

Quoted message said:

The chase down situation has nothing to do with the defamation action that

we have been discussing.

Quoted message said:

Actually, it does Brian. The prosecutor wanted to investigate the
chase-down as witness intimidation in the lawsuit Simeoni filed in Italy.
They are hopelessly intertwined.

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

You tell me that I am misinformed, but quote to me some [censored] Sandy said
about French law when we are talking about a lawsuit in Italy? No wonder
Kunich can't stand you.

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

Quoted message said:

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

You tell me that I am misinformed, but quote to me some [censored] Sandy said
about French law when we are talking about a lawsuit in Italy? No wonder
Kunich can't stand you.

It isn't that I can't stand him. I don't believe anyone can stand to be
around him for very long. For awhile in the late 90's I used to take his
side a great deal of the time. But of course that's when he had something
else to say except harping on drug use.

I only object to his constant focus on anyone that wins in professional
bicycling being dopers.

So, I suppose we all now know that Michael Rogers is the king of dopers.
Well, at least if we are willing to take Lafferty's word for it.

One thing Lafferty HAS taught me is that those who are willing to put all
justice aside to punish dopers are no better than the dopers themselves.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

The chase down situation has nothing to do with the defamation action
that

we have been discussing.

Quoted message said:

Actually, it does Brian. The prosecutor wanted to investigate the
chase-down as witness intimidation

True, except that it was a police investigation that did not go before an
investigating magistrate.

Quoted message said:

in the lawsuit Simeoni filed in Italy.
They are hopelessly intertwined.

Incorrect. They are two completely different matters. The defamation
action involves statements made by Armstrong in an interview with LeMonde in
2003. That action was commenced prior to the road incident at the Tour.
The defamation action goes to trial in March, 2006. The witness
intimidation case was dropped for lack of evidence to conclude/prove there
was intimidation.

This Reuters article sets it out plainly.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=sportsNews&storyID=2005-12-14T203646Z_01_ROB474007_RTRUKOC_0_US-CYCLING-ARMSTRONG.xml

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Lafferty,

I don't know how to say it any differently. The Italians wouldn't have give
a [censored] or a smile about the chase-down if the defamation suit had not been
on file first. I know the chase-down was dismissed. Next time I'll just
say you're right. It's faster that way.

-Philip