We need Kristen to come forward and speak.

crit PRO said:

She knows THE truth.

I hear that. But I think she's still too busy counting the $30 million
in hush money - I mean divorce settlement money.

Dans le message de
news:[email hidden],
DA74 <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

crit PRO said:

She knows THE truth.

I hear that. But I think she's still too busy counting the $30 million
in hush money - I mean divorce settlement money.

Just to add a small note of legal interest : she is unlikely to be able to
testify about matters she knows about while his wife - spousal privilege can
be claimed by Armstrong, should he choose to. Nothing to do with a
settlement.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

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

Quoted message said:

Dans le message de
news:[email hidden],
DA74 <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

crit PRO said:

She knows THE truth.

I hear that. But I think she's still too busy counting the $30 million
in hush money - I mean divorce settlement money.

Just to add a small note of legal interest : she is unlikely to be able to
testify about matters she knows about while his wife - spousal privilege
can be claimed by Armstrong, should he choose to. Nothing to do with a
settlement.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Sandy, IIRC, the privilege is held by the speaker of the words. A court
could not compel her to testify but she could of her own volition.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Dans le message de
news:[email hidden],
DA74 <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

crit PRO wrote:
> She knows THE truth.

I hear that. But I think she's still too busy counting the $30 million
in hush money - I mean divorce settlement money.

Just to add a small note of legal interest : she is unlikely to be able
to testify about matters she knows about while his wife - spousal
privilege can be claimed by Armstrong, should he choose to. Nothing to
do with a settlement.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Sandy, IIRC, the privilege is held by the speaker of the words. A court
could not compel her to testify but she could of her own volition.

There is, again IIRC, a spousal testimony privilege and a spousal
communication privilege. I think Kristen could speak with L'Equipe at her
pleasure. Since she already has the money (presumably) and her kids are
entitled to support regardless of her, she probably is under no duty to be
quiet unless there's a confidentiality agreement in the divorce settlement.
David Bowie's ex was under a ten year confidentiality clause and published
her book on their marriage a day or two after the ten years ran.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Dans le message de
news:[email hidden],
DA74 <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

crit PRO wrote:
> She knows THE truth.

I hear that. But I think she's still too busy counting the $30
million in hush money - I mean divorce settlement money.

Just to add a small note of legal interest : she is unlikely to be
able to testify about matters she knows about while his wife -
spousal privilege can be claimed by Armstrong, should he choose to.
Nothing to do with a settlement.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Sandy, IIRC, the privilege is held by the speaker of the words. A
court could not compel her to testify but she could of her own
volition.

Not quite - the witness is sitting, ready to answer. Either may invoke the
privilege, but it is usually the attorney for the party directly involved
who makes an objection. The privilege is not absolute, such as when words
or acts happen in the presence of a third party, or if they are testifying
against each other, and other small exceptions. The privilege is for all
words of both parties, spoken in their exclusive mutual company, or acts in
such a setting.

"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:

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

Quoted message said:

Dans le message de
news:[email hidden],
DA74 <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> crit PRO wrote:
>> She knows THE truth.
>
> I hear that. But I think she's still too busy counting the $30
> million in hush money - I mean divorce settlement money.

Just to add a small note of legal interest : she is unlikely to be
able to testify about matters she knows about while his wife -
spousal privilege can be claimed by Armstrong, should he choose to.
Nothing to do with a settlement.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Sandy, IIRC, the privilege is held by the speaker of the words. A
court could not compel her to testify but she could of her own
volition.

Not quite - the witness is sitting, ready to answer. Either may invoke
the privilege, but it is usually the attorney for the party directly
involved who makes an objection. The privilege is not absolute, such as
when words or acts happen in the presence of a third party, or if they are
testifying against each other, and other small exceptions. The privilege
is for all words of both parties, spoken in their exclusive mutual
company, or acts in such a setting.

Assuming that there are no exceptions that apply, she could testify about
the EPO in the fridge, the steroids in the medicine cabinet, etc.

Sandy said:

Not quite - the witness is sitting, ready to answer. Either may invoke the
privilege, but it is usually the attorney for the party directly involved
who makes an objection. The privilege is not absolute, such as when words
or acts happen in the presence of a third party, or if they are testifying
against each other, and other small exceptions. The privilege is for all
words of both parties, spoken in their exclusive mutual company, or acts in
such a setting.

And in the U.S. its nowhere that simple. In some states they make
exceptions in a varied set of crimes and especially when one spouse
use the privilige to quiet the spouse while making claims relying on
the quiet. So it wouldn't be a likely scenario, but if LA faced
criminal charges of drug use in the right state, and he made the
statement that he had never used drugs, knowing that Kristen knew
otherwise, AND it fell into one of those list of crimes (more likely
if he were using meth around the kids - endangering the kids is right
there at the top of the list), she could testify on her own volition.

If the above unlikely scenario (meth around the kids) played out, she
could be compelled to testify in some states in the U.S. There has
been some discussion about battered wife syndrome and a reluctance to
testify even when the crime is against the woman. The spousal
testimony privlege 'exception' is more like a 'compulsion'.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

But that's only the 'half of it. Now for the choice of law question.
Are you going to apply the law of the jurisdiction in which the
communication took place or that of the jurisdiction where the legal
proceeding takes place. And then there is the question whose choice
of law laws will be used to render the decision.

bon a petit

ray

Quoted message said:

But that's only the 'half of it. Now for the choice of law question.
Are you going to apply the law of the jurisdiction in which the
communication took place or that of the jurisdiction where the legal
proceeding takes place. And then there is the question whose choice
of law laws will be used to render the decision.

bon a petit

ray

'a small good'?

-jet

crit PRO said:

She knows THE truth.

On the other hand LA might discredit her by releasing the tapes of her
repeated "action" with "help" that led to their separation...

Keith said:

crit PRO said:

She knows THE truth.

On the other hand LA might discredit her by releasing the tapes of her
repeated "action" with "help" that led to their separation...

She wouldn't do anything overt because she knows it would affect the kids
to have their father discredited or harmed, regardless of what she (now)
thinks of L, istm.

-jet

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

Quoted message said:

But that's only the 'half of it. Now for the choice of law question.
Are you going to apply the law of the jurisdiction in which the
communication took place or that of the jurisdiction where the legal
proceeding takes place. And then there is the question whose choice
of law laws will be used to render the decision.

Simple - you wait until you know the jurisdiction the matter is presented
in, and refer to its choice of law and renvoi rules.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

But could you wait until then.

ray

See, supra,: "Just to add a small note of legal interest : she is
unlikely to be able to
testify about matters she knows about while his wife - spousal
privilege can
be claimed by Armstrong, should he choose to. Nothing to do with a
settlement.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR "

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

She knows THE truth.

It would be hard to believe anything she has to say. Especially after a
divorce.
--------------
Alex