How do we feel about the Chron guys now?

I vote for 'Not Nude.'

 

This thread would be disgusting with pictures.

 

OK, now the thread's taken a turn that I'm afraid JDV might be picking up on the frequencies only he can hear.

 

Holy cow! I go away a couple hours and suddenly everybody's making sense.

 

We're all on HGH now.

 

I prefer ZMA

 

How about getting back on task in this discussion?

Simon_Cowbell,

By the way, I love your new title for the two Chronicle reporter's book, "Game of Assholes."

Kindred,

I think your timeline suggesting that the Bonds transcript leaks were possibly leaked to Fainaru-Wada by Ellerman before the Montgomery leaks were published in the Chronicle is way off base. If that were the case, there would have been no reason for Fainaru-Wada to go back to Ellerman's Sacramento office and shoot the bull with Larry McCormack another half dozen times between June and December 2004. Nice try, but your theory simply doesn't make much sense. I know you did a lot of homework in order to present that theory, but you still get an F grade in my opinion. Just kidding.

I'd also like to put a few things into context regarding Ellerman credentials at this point. This guy came from the State Superior Court system in Sacramento. He had never been in a federal court in his entire life before the BALCO case. For those who may not know this, the laws and rules of state courts are much different than the laws and the rules of federal courts. In general, a lawyer who routinely practices in state courts cannot just jump into the representation of a client in federal courts and vice versa. Before the BALCO case, Ellerman was a rather poorly paid state attorney who, in addition to money, used to take pink slips to old beat up cars as well as wrist watches and rings in exchange for his legal services. Did any of you reporters out there ever bother to check out Ellerman credentials?

creamora

 

Yes, sir, agreed. I did that timeline as an exercise in homework -- and I admitted in the process that the timeline was "far-fetched." I'm off it now.

But I'm not getting off my insistence that the grand-jury leaks were almost an afterthought in the defense motion for dismissal. Much has been made of those leaks, much made of Ellerman "duping" the reporters into publishing leaks so that he could get a dismissal based on the leaks. The fact is, the leaks meant nothing and the defense team knew it. The defense team of lawyers prepared a 281-page motion for dismissal. The entirey of the defense's attention to the leaks came to TWO SENTENCES.

Yes, TWO SENTENCES in 281 pages. That's because even the defense knew the leaks were all but inconsequential. For one thing, the information was verifiably true; for another, even a poor attorney knew that the leaks of truthful information certain to be made public in any trial would never be cause for dismissal of a case in the grand jury stage. That's why the 281 pages had almost zero to do with those leaks; instead, 99.9 percent of the motion tried to build a case based on the feds' alleged violations in the arrests, interrogations, and leaks of information that had nothing to do with the grand jury testimony.

TWO SENTENCES in maybe 10,000 words.

The idea that the reporters were duped is a red herring of a contemptible kind.

As for checking out Ellerman's credentials, maybe reporters did, maybe not. But it wasn't a reporter who hired him. It was Conte's man Valente.

 

If that is your translation of "LOL", I would hate to see you on a copy desk.

 

Me? I go for PBR.

 

Since Ellerman was charged with obstruction of justice obviously the judge felt those "2 sentences" were important. Perhaps Ellerman was vague because he did not want to draw direct attention to that leak. Certainly the judge was aware of it even if it was not included in brief.