Ioane testified, and then a jury unanimously convicted him on all counts after deliberations that lasted only a couple of hours. While Ioane does get bail pending appeal, the points on which he appeals have nothing to do with his guilt. He is defended here by someone cuts and pastes a rant, and then deletes his own post.SaintAlbans1 wrote:Again, bring proof. Or shut it.
True. But far, far more are obviously guilty.SaintAlbans1 wrote:people convicted of major crimes, some of whom are even executed, are found later to have been wholly innocent.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Cuddles. You're just another drive-by self-appointed legal expert who thinks that he can baffle us with bulldada, and then runs away bawling like a baby when we ask him to prove that there is anything to his fantasies.SaintAlbans1 wrote:I was going to start posting the docs here. But it is clear that this is a flame group dedicated to, not listening to the truth, but flaming anyone who goes against the IRS. Sorry. I've fought the IRS for years. They are worse than the mob. And I am also now done with this site. As all I am getting is lies, flames and a lot of heat for writing something in reference to a man everyone here hates simply because the reportage on him was negative. As if everything the courts and government does it right and just. When we all know it is not.Pottapaug1938 wrote:SaintAlbans1: first, welcome to Quatloos.
Second, please understand that mere assertions of government malfeasance and imputations of evil motives to the IRS, prosecutors and judges don't cut much ice here (if any) unless they are supported by appellate case law which indicates either that the assertions have been upheld as good law in previous cases, or based on holdings in similar cases they are likely to prevail in this one. Be careful not to simply lift quotations out of court opinions without saying more, because often these quotations do not involve the holding -- or the core decision of the court in question; they are merely "dicta", or explanations of the holding in the case.
Farewell, goodfellows.
That was quick. Quitting after only eight posts. Usually the scammers have more stamina. Van Pelt would still be doing his pre-exercise warmups at this point.Pottapaug1938 wrote:Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Cuddles. You're just another drive-by self-appointed legal expert who thinks that he can baffle us with bulldada, and then runs away bawling like a baby when we ask him to prove that there is anything to his fantasies.SaintAlbans1 wrote:I was going to start posting the docs here. But it is clear that this is a flame group dedicated to, not listening to the truth, but flaming anyone who goes against the IRS. Sorry. I've fought the IRS for years. They are worse than the mob. And I am also now done with this site. As all I am getting is lies, flames and a lot of heat for writing something in reference to a man everyone here hates simply because the reportage on him was negative. As if everything the courts and government does it right and just. When we all know it is not.Pottapaug1938 wrote:SaintAlbans1: first, welcome to Quatloos.
Second, please understand that mere assertions of government malfeasance and imputations of evil motives to the IRS, prosecutors and judges don't cut much ice here (if any) unless they are supported by appellate case law which indicates either that the assertions have been upheld as good law in previous cases, or based on holdings in similar cases they are likely to prevail in this one. Be careful not to simply lift quotations out of court opinions without saying more, because often these quotations do not involve the holding -- or the core decision of the court in question; they are merely "dicta", or explanations of the holding in the case.
Farewell, goodfellows.
Not only runs away (thus garnering a nomination for the Sir Robin of The Month Award), but takes his original post with him, which can only mean that he recognized that it was so pitiful and stupid it was causing him deep embarrassment.Cathulhu wrote:Astonished by our unwillingness to leap up to his soapbox, he then fires off a few admittedly weak insults, and runs away.
Out of curiousity, did he delete the post before or after Demo's post identifying him as "Dave?"wserra wrote:He is defended here by someone cuts and pastes a rant, and then deletes his own post.
Before. Before she posted it, anyway.The Observer wrote:Out of curiousity, did he delete the post before or after Demo's post identifying him as "Dave?"wserra wrote:He is defended here by someone cuts and pastes a rant, and then deletes his own post.
I get a chuckle out of the fact that he entitled the thread "IRS: The Federal Mafia?" and posted what was obviously the most outrageous flame material, and then had the audacity to pretend that he believed that the responses by the Quatloos regulars were somehow "flame" material.notorial dissent wrote:What irritates me is that the little twit jumped ship before I got a chance to finish reading his twaddle, and I was so looking forward to it if just for the amusement value. What puzzles me is why he posted it here in the first place considering the short shrift Mikey has gotten here before, and what would possibly have made him think that sort of thing would get anything but the derision it so rightly deserved?
Not a problem. Our man Burnaby caught the twit's website for you. You can read what he originally posted here, and much more. The little twit seems to like seeing himself in print.notorial dissent wrote:What irritates me is that the little twit jumped ship before I got a chance to finish reading his twaddle, and I was so looking forward to it if just for the amusement value. What puzzles me is why he posted it here in the first place considering the short shrift Mikey has gotten here before, and what would possibly have made him think that sort of thing would get anything but the derision it so rightly deserved?