pwcc (part two)

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

That's why we have a judicial system, right?

That's a non-sequitur. Again, you're wrong.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

That's a non-sequitur. Again, you're wrong.

Now, I might not have a law degree, but I am pretty darn sure that the function of a trial court is to determine guilt vs. innocence.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Now, I might not have a law degree, but I am pretty darn sure that the function of a trial court is to determine guilt vs. innocence.

So if you shoot someone dead with a gun and get away with it, that means you're not a murderer. You're smarter than I thought.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

So if you shoot someone dead with a gun and get away with it, that means you're not a murderer. You're smarter than I thought.

You said he was guilty of fraud and ought to be prosecuted. If you are correct on all accounts, he will be convicted. Everything else you write is bullshit.

I'll be watching... gooooooooood luck!

[Peter_Spaeth]

It seems to be non sequitur night.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It seems to be non sequitur night.

Big surprise that fraud runs rampant in our hobby. Jamie Bone.parth is exhibit A.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Big surprise that fraud runs rampant in our hobby. Jamie Bon..eparth is exhibit A.

Jeff,

With all due respect, accusing Jamie of being a fraudster may possibly be outside of your purview. There may be members of Net54 who take exception to his methods of communicating; however, being confrontational does not make one a fraud.

Sincerely,

Eric

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

You said he was guilty of fraud and ought to be prosecuted. If you are correct on all accounts, he will be indicted. Everything else you write is bullshit.

I'll be watching... gooooooooood luck!

You said that unless he is indicted then he's not guilty of fraud -- that was wrong.

I said fraud occurred in his auctions and that whether or not he's indicted, fraud still occurred in his auctions -- that is correct. PS -- he can also be found liable for civil fraud.

As I'm not a prosecutor I don't control who gets indicted -- that is correct.

I understand these concepts are difficult for you because you're a clueless moron with no experience in these issues -- again, correct.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

You said that unless he is indicted then he's not guilty of fraud -- that was wrong.

I said fraud occurred in his auctions and that whether or not he's indicted, fraud still occurred in his auctions -- that is correct. PS -- he can also be found liable for civil fraud.

As I'm not a prosecutor I don't control who gets indicted -- that is correct.

I understand these concepts are difficult for you because you're a clueless moron with no experience in these issues -- again, correct.

I think that the final determinant of Brent's is innocence or guilt will be a matter decided by the court, not by you or I. As I've said before, you think he's guilty and ought to be prosecuted - if you are correct, then I'm sure we'll see him behind bars. Now goodnight.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

I think that the final determinant of Brent's is innocence or guilt will be a matter decided by the court, not by you or I. As I've said before, you think he's guilty and ought to be prosecuted - if you are correct, then I'm sure we'll see him behind bars. Now goodnight.

Not a single thing you wrote above is correct. LOL

[tschock]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

I think that the final determinant of Brent's is innocence or guilt will be a matter decided by the court, not by you or I. As I've said before, you think he's guilty and ought to be prosecuted - if you are correct, then I'm sure we'll see him behind bars. Now goodnight.

Jeez, I'm not a lawyer and even I know that one can't be found "innocent" in a court of law. Just "not guilty". There's a difference. Look it up.