How do we feel about the Chron guys now?

Here is quote from Williams / Fada - Oct 30, 2004. They clearly knew what Ellerman was trying to do .


Valente's lawyer, Troy Ellerman, disputed the account of his client's statement and called the federal prosecutors "unadulterated punks" for making the document public. It will be "Exhibit A to our argument to dismiss the case, " he said.

 

No, no, no, no, NO, NO.....
That quote had nothing -- NOTHING -- to do with the grand jury transcript, NOTHING to do with Ellerman's leaking, NOTHING to do with the reporters' work.
As I tried to explain two pages back (I'll bring it here if I can figure out the mechanics), what happened was that feds had made public their investigatory reports on Ellerman's client. It had NOTHING to do with testimony to the grand jury. That's my point, that Ellerman's move to dismiss was based on many many things even BEFORE the Bonds testimony was published.

 

These are the grafs I was talking about in the previous post.

 

Dave, why is that even a valid question? Does this kind of apple-oranges comparison have any connection with anything I've said? Maybe you were sleepy when you made the post? With that said, I'll play.

1) I have no problem with what was reported to the extent it was reported ethically. There are serious questions about that. Not really sure the Chronicle was doing Bonds a "favor" by printing that. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't view it that way.

2) Conte was perfectly within his rights to say anything he wanted to anyone he wanted. It was probably ill-advised but as I mentioned earlier he along with Novitzky had been the two loose cannons from the outset of the case, so there were no surprises there. Conte had no bond of confidentiality with Jones. He was a nutritionist with a side job as a drug peddler -- not a doctor or lawyer. The two had obviously fallen out. And Conte is sticking with his story. So what's your problem with someone directly involved in the case speaking up? If he was telling the truth, I have no problem with it.

(By the way, calling Conte "my man" is kind of a weak move on your part. Thought you would be above that sort of thing. Guess not. I've alternately described Conte as a "bad guy" and a "loose cannon.")

I simply don't agree with some of you who keep insisting the end justifies the means. It doesn't.

 

Dave "big picture" Kindred,

The following is an excerpt from a article called "Balco Founder Leaving Prison" published on March 30, 2006 in the Mercury News.

Conte continues to say he gave drugs to Marion Jones, winner of five medals at the Sydney Olympics in 2000. He first made the allegation in a nationally televised
interview in December 2004, after which the sprinter filed a $25 million defamation suit.

Although the suit was settled last month, Conte hasn't retreated from the claims.

''I have direct knowledge that she took performance-enhancing drugs before, during and after the 2000 Olympics,'' he said.

Thoughts?

Joe Louis once said, "they can run, but they can't hide." It's quite possible that your two boys are going to have a flame under their asses before this is all over.

creamora

 

The gutter? Have you read the personal attacks on the reporters' ethics and morality? That's the gutter.

These reporters handled sources by the dozens, some named, some unnamed, but the conversation here, sometimes civil, mostly not, usually comes down to one source on one subject, Ellerman on the Bonds testimony -- and no one has any real information on how that was done; we know that it came AFTER he had already asked for dismissal of the case, and we know what Ellerman told the feds about it in order to lighten his sentence.

Mostly, then, we have speculation about speculation by speculators who have their personal agendas.

 

Thanks for the citation. That's all I was asking for.

 

Ellerman had one count of obstruction of justice, for asking a judge to dismiss charges against his clients because of the leaks, which Ellerman blamed on the government.

It now turns out that Ellerman was the leaker.

I find it hard to believe that smart reporters who had already received sealed testimony from Ellerman would not have connected the dots and saw through exactly what Ellerman was trying to do.

It would be interesting to go back and look at some of Ellermans other cases to see if he followed the same pattern in trying to taint a case.