Barry Bonds indicted

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah start holding your breath for that apology please. lol.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I know. Its just so silly to expect a moderator on a forum to refrain from insinuating that I have racist motives driving my opinions when no evidence of such exists. I suppose I should not be offended and that you should be allowed to bask in your ignorance.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
and what is even more stupid than that is anyone who claims that it is a worthwhile expenditure of government resources to prosecute someone for trying to evade a farcical legal proceeding convened with the specific purpose of illegitimately harassing and entrapping him.

i don't need a law degree to tell you this is the dumbest [censored] thing i've ever seen.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am quite sure you are right. By all means, I am sure this is the dumbest thing you've ever seen.

[NT!]

i no more called you a racist than you 'asked' me to change your title, mr fancy lawyer

of course you are in favor of these ridiculous proceedings, it's extraneous and unnecessary crap like this that pays your bills. letting lawyers argue for the sanctity of the legal process is like listening to prostitutes argue about the virtues of extramarital affairs.

[bottomset]

haha oski's title is hilarious

though isn't ldo a bbv thing?

[RedBean]

Christ almighty, just finished reading the thread, and there is a lot to digest here, and I obviously can't respond to it all....so here are some random bullets on the thread so far:

1. Indictment != conviction.

2. Yes, Bonds was indicted, on the third try. Third time is a charm....but they only get one shot at trial. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

3. This will definately go to trial, unless the government dismisses beforehand.

4. Despite what many of you may think, I actually see this a good thing and much awaited progress.....as finally Bonds will have a chance to present his defense, and those of us on the outside may be able to form an opinion based on all of the facts presented, rather than relying on rampant speculation and the selectively leaked allegations from anonymous sources.

Remember, as I've said before, I am a big proponent of "innocent until proven guilty", and have refrained from speculation until both sides had a chance to present their side. Bonds will now get his chance.

5. Obviously, the timing wasn't the best for Bonds, considering his chances of signing with anyone now is effectively nil.....but seeing that the government was working against the clock on the statute of limitations, you can't really blame them....they waited 4 years trying to crack Greg, and they couldn't go much further as the GJ term was ending this month, and it would've required a 4th GJ term next year if not now.

6. Greg didn't talk. He was released since the GJ ended, there was no legal reason to hold him.

7. I agree that while the complaints regarding the resources expended are problematic from a taxpayer perspective, they have no relevance to Bonds' innocence or guilt.

8. I think real problem with the DOJ is they went back on their word on Greg's plea deal, put him in jail for over a year and justified it by pleading in court that he was essential to their case, and then after imprisoning him under that claim, eventually release him and indict without his cooperation. For those worried about judicial dishonesty, you may want to apply that consistently to the prosecutors in their dealings with Greg, and his imprisonment for over a year on obvious false pretenses.

9. The Federal conviction rate is being vastly overstated in this thread, as it is artificially inflated due to pleas.....the conviction rate for perjury charges that go to trial was 34% for cases conclded in 2004, the last year the numbers were compiled and published.

10. The alleged test is not an MLB one, it is from Nov 2000, and is based on documentation the government alleges indicates Bonds failed an internal Balco test, although they have yet to prove it is credible or linked to Bonds. Bonds, Greg, and Conte have denied it....the government disgrees, obviously, hence the outcome determined at trial.

11. To the guy who said "this didn't start out about Bonds"...enjoy the naivety of youth....when you get older, you'll miss those days.

12. To the guy who said "this indictment is a homerun"....please tell me you've never served on a jury, and that you don't believe everything the government has ever told you.

13. For the guys talking about the leaked testimony, the lawyer who leaked it was disbarred and sentenced to 2.5 years in federal prison.

14. Greg served 3 months for his BALCO conviction, and over 1 year for refusing to testify against Bonds.

15. The abscence of tax evasion and money laundering from the indictment, and the inclusion of only 4 shaky counts that rely heavily on an uncooperative witness was suprising....but understood considering the government was painted into a corner.....they could either leave 4+ years investigation and millions wasted, or go with what they had.

16. As for the media coverage, the most troubling thing I caught on TV so far was this comment from Steve Phillips:

"he was indicted, and whether or not he is found guilty or innocent doesn't matter...."

Sadly, he is right. In the minds of most folks, an indictment is just as good as a conviction, and they don't care to wait for both sides to present their case. And that should scare the hell out of everyone.

That's what the fallout from the leaked GJ testimony has caused....rather than this indictment being the beginning of the story, to many, they cheer and excite over it as if it were the end.

But, in reality, it's just getting started. The testimony is unsealed....Bonds is no longer bound by law from discussing it....and he finally gets a chance to present his case.

And for those who missed Bonds' lawyers statement:

[ QUOTE ]
All you need to know about the governments case is that it leaked an official indictment to every media outlet in the nation and witheld it from Barry and his lawyer and from everyone else who could read it and defend him.

Now that their biased allegations must finally be presented in open court, they won't be able to hide from their unethical misconduct any longer.

You won't read about those facts in this indictment. But now, the public is going to get the whole truth, not just selectively leaked fabrications from anonymous sources.

Will the media and government will spend as much time repairing Barry's reputation as it has spent destroying him AFTER he is proven innocent by a fair and impartial jury?


[/ QUOTE ]

In short, Barry Bonds played a child's game of pitch and catch for a living, and he became the best in the world at it.

And people hate him for it.

Now, he's in a whole different battle, and it'll be interesting to see the outcome and the revelations as it proceeds, on an even and fair "playing field"... inside the courtroom.....rather than in the opinion columns and courtesy of illegally leaked testimony and reckless speculation that Bonds is prevented by law from addressing.

United States of America vs Barry Lamar Bonds

Play ball....

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
In short, Barry Bonds played a child's game of pitch and catch for a living, and he became the best in the world at it.

And people hate him for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

People hate him for it? No, that's not why people hate him.

[tuq]

Sup RedBean. Nice to have you around, just don't let your trip be adversely affected because of THIS. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

This thread is proof that at least a couple of you should have some sort of breathalyzer attached to your computer that won't let you post when you're this wasted. Jesus. The worst part is you're not even going to remember these posts in the morning.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
i no more called you a racist than you 'asked' me to change your title, mr fancy lawyer

of course you are in favor of these ridiculous proceedings, it's extraneous and unnecessary crap like this that pays your bills. letting lawyers argue for the sanctity of the legal process is like listening to prostitutes argue about the virtues of extramarital affairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never decided one way or another. If you read my posts, I merely explain how perjury proceedings become a necessary, collateral matter to the main case. I specifically said that if you rail against the perjury aspect of the case, you have to disagree with the entire case. I even (effectively) stated that it would be reasonable to disagree with the entire BALCO inquiry.

Personally, I am in no position to know whether it did any good, or not. I don't really care if professional atheletes take PED's, or not. I do care about the fundamental values of our justice system (as I pointed out ad naseum) and not lying to a grand jury is one of them.

As far as your additional ad hominem attack on me and how I make a living: I am the first to admit that other people's misfortune (or miss deeds) pays most of my bills. Before you stoke your fire with that admission, please understand that I am quite up front with my clients about this. I always try to steer them away from expensive proceedings and try to get them to negotiate with the other side so that they can make a business decision about their case. Failing that, I let them know that it cost a lot of money to fight, and if they fight, I make sure that its either their choice, or that its completely necessary to protect their rights and/or property.

Anything else you need to know?

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
I suggest you do a bit of research on the DOJ's conviction rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lemme save you both some time:

The conviction rate for "public order other" offenses (includes perjury, contempt, and intimidation) that go to trial was 34% for cases concluded in 2004, the last year the numbers were compiled and published by the DOJ.

[offTopic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I suggest you do a bit of research on the DOJ's conviction rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lemme save you both some time:

The conviction rate for "public order other" offenses (includes perjury, contempt, and intimidation) that go to trial was 34% for cases concluded in 2004, the last year the numbers were compiled and published by the DOJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody knows if the case is going to trial. What percent of the time does the defendant serve jail time, either via plea or conviction?