ACORN and Prostitution

[JuNii]

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11078409/Co ... Transcript
full transcript of the Baltimore tape.

Tonja: each month about how much you think you made
Kenya: four weeks in am month... 8
Tonja: about 800 dollars a month
Kenya: 8 grand a month
Tonja: 8 grand a month okay so that is gonna put you and about 8000, 9600 for the year. Nine thousand six hundred for the year so you would, that'll be good. But you gonna have to pay self employment taxes, and you had expenses that you had to meet the commodities so you should have a business loss so you really shouldn't have to have no self employment taxes to pay. So you can have a business loss. Okay
Kenya: so what?
Shira: shes the tax lady
James: shes the expert
Shira: shes the tax lady

so... advising a person that they will record a loss when they didn't is NOT fraud?

James: well I want to ask you a question there is another variable here that Kenya should we should talk to you about which may complicate our taxes is that we have a couple of girls overseas who are coming over and they are very young you know, what I mean. We don't wanna put them on the books
Kenya: they are kind of dependent
James: they are from El Salvador
Tonja: okay
James: there is like 13 of them and they are probably going to move into the house that we get
Kenya: just for like a year while they get on their feet
James: just to get them on their feet so they can do this type of thing
Tonja: so do you want to ...so why you all even wanna do taxes oh cause of the house
James: because we want a house and everyone else has been discriminatory but the point is that there is gonna be 13 El Salvadorian girls coming into the house and we don't want them to cause any trouble
Tonja: as far as
James: as far as anything as far as the feds coming in
Tonja: as far as feds coming in mum that’s as far as tax part to cover yourself on that part you can
issue them a sheet of 1099s
James: but they are not even legal citizens
Kenya: well I mean couldn't they like if I am a performing artists cant they be like
Tonja: if they don’t have Social Security numbers then you don’t have to worry about them
because they cant file taxes anyway.
James: we don’t have to worry about them
Tonja: you don’t have to worry about them if they gonna an ID, if they gonna get an Social Security number for anything even for working
James: but these girls are like 15
Tonja: oh then you don’t have to worry about it cause they not old enough
James: okay we don’t have to worry about that
Tonja: right
Kenya: I mean they would only be with me a year maybe two, depending on if I like some of them
James: just enough time to make some money, get their feet off the ground and they will prolly go back to El Salvador
Kenya: and by the time they are older they are not my problem
Tonja: ok, ok
James: but we are going to be putting a roof over these peoples a roof over their head in addition to Kenya
Tonja: well then you know what you can always claim them as dependents I mean you cant do all of them
Kenya: well then can we just claim some of them and still have the other ones there
Tonja: sure okay if you gonna do this, if you gonna start this business the name of the proprietor would be you the principle business would be performing arts the address would be what, for right now the boat?
James: the boats on the chesterfield
Tonja: alright then the amount of money that you make....right now you dont have any employees but when the girls come they are not really gonna be employees because you arent gonna issue them W2s at the end of the year
Kenya: I don’t even know what that is
Tonja: they under sixteen so you don't worry about that, but on the other part of the form you can use them as a dependents because they live in your house they are under 16 and they are living in your house. Well you live in a boat but because you are taking care of them so you can use them as a dependent
James: What if they are going to be making money because they are performing tricks too
Tonja: but if they making money and they are underage then you shouldn't be letting anybody know anyway
Kenya: well that’s true cause
Tonja: you shouldn't be letting anyone know anyway
James: well that’s what happen we told the bankers and they kicked us out
Tonja: right because its illegal. So I am not hearing this, I am not hearing this. You talk too much don't give up no information you are not asked
James: Kenya if I don't give the information and you guys discriminate against us for all this stuff, promise me that you wont discriminate against us
Tonja: we can only discriminate against something, if we don't have the information then how are we going to discriminate? You see what I am saying, if I don't know
James: and I have already given you the information
Tonja: well yea you given me, if they don't know what you brinin in or whatever nobody is tellin it then they wont know to come look for you
Kenya: that’s kind of true because when I was working when I was young I couldn't tell anybody
James: right, and she has been working since she was about 13
Tonja: so if they under sixteen, then they not legal to work here anyway
Kenya: so its like they don't even exists
Tonja: right like they don't exist
James: and they can be in the housing that we get
Tonja: right
James: we apply for it and they can be in the housing and we can use the house for them.
Tonja: you can use the house you can put them on your taxes as dependents to help lower your rate
Kenya: how many of them am I allowed to
Tonja: three
Kenya: three
James: 3 as dependents?
Tonja: 3 that you are gonna get credit for
James: So if we got 13 of them in the house we are going to have to just not exist 10 of them?
Tonja: I did not put 13 because that is gonna put a flag. Okay how she got 13 people, how she got
13 ppl living with her you know that’s gonna kinda look kinda funny. You file a tax return and you
put 13. u could put 13 dependents if she was a little older if she was like in her 40s or 50s I could do that like realtives or something like that
Kenya: dont scare me like that
Tonja: with only being 19 I cannot put 13 bc that is going to put a flag
James: who is it gonna flag, who will it flag, who are we gonna get in trouble with
Tonja: the federal govt.
James: really?
Tonja: if I put 13 ppl on there they are gonna say ―hold up, if she only 19 how is she gonna have
13 people livin off this 19 year old girl
Kenya: well what if I was a ya know kind hearted
Tonja: there are not that many kind-hearted 19 year olds okay trust me
James: so who we gotta be afraid like of from federal government
Tonja: because you are not gonna use all of them you are gonna use three of them they are gonna be under 16 so you is eligible to get child tax credit and additional child tax credit
Kenya: I am turning 20 soon so I will be a little older
Tonja: okay well I still wouldn't say more than three

so... we got Tonja, the 'tax person' advising the two that their 13 16-year old and under children who, they are bringing in from out of country, will be turning tricks, to call them their relatives, and only put three down, and the rest will "not exist" she said she will deny hearing of anything illegal, even tho she obviously heard them

Tonja: right we doing it this year for 09 every year we do a tax return it don't have to be a lot of money
Kenya: we can just like
Tonja: we can increase it a little
Kenya: its all cash so I can just decide what I want to
Tonja: right so increase it like 100 dollars each year you know what I am saying so you dont have a whole lot of income

sounds like Tonja is 'advising' the client to withhold reporting in the full amounts...

[Free Soviets]

so... we got Tonja, the 'tax person' advising the two that their 13 16-year old and under children who, they are bringing in from out of country, will be turning tricks, to call them their relatives, and only put three down, and the rest will "not exist" she said she will deny hearing of anything illegal, even tho she obviously heard them

or, we've got people bullshitting these clowns:


anyone they caught on tape saying anything should be assumed to have been fucking with the dumbass whiteboy until proven otherwise.

[JuNii]

so... we got Tonja, the 'tax person' advising the two that their 13 16-year old and under children who, they are bringing in from out of country, will be turning tricks, to call them their relatives, and only put three down, and the rest will "not exist" she said she will deny hearing of anything illegal, even tho she obviously heard them

or, we've got people bullshitting these clowns:


anyone they caught on tape saying anythingshould be assumed to have been fucking with the dumbass whiteboy until proven otherwise.

and to be "proven otherwise" requires what... an investigation?

[Jocabia]

I have to agree. If the ACORN staffer had then gotten out some tax forms and helped them fill them out fraudulently and they were then submitted to the IRS that way, yes, that's tax fraud. Heck, I could tell you "Junii, you should buy a dog, give it a human name like "Chardonnay" and include it on your tax form next year when you file." Am I committing a crime by doing that?

Are you giving this tax advice as a tax advisor or as a friend?

Remember, ACORN also helps people with setting up their taxes by giving advice. so it can be seen as their job.

Were they helping these people fill out tax forms? Is there evidence of this on the video tapes?

why are you afraid of an investigation being run?

Wow, that's just getting pathetic. Yes, we're supposed to let investigators into our homes and businesses or it's somehow evidence that something is wrong. Why won't you let me read your email? Are you afraid I'll figure out your a terrorist?

See, in this country, you're presumed innocent. You don't get investigated so they can search for a reason to launch an investigation. Entering into an investigation, by it's very nature, is violating my privacy. You have to have a verifiable reason to do so. It was so important to the founders of this nation, that they made it one of the ten explicit amendments called the bill of RIGHTS.

[Jocabia]

so... we got Tonja, the 'tax person' advising the two that their 13 16-year old and under children who, they are bringing in from out of country, will be turning tricks, to call them their relatives, and only put three down, and the rest will "not exist" she said she will deny hearing of anything illegal, even tho she obviously heard them

or, we've got people bullshitting these clowns:


anyone they caught on tape saying anythingshould be assumed to have been fucking with the dumbass whiteboy until proven otherwise.

and to be "proven otherwise" requires what... an investigation?

Dude, seriously, you're being dishonest and it's apparent to everyone here. You said ACORN's offices had to be investigated. That's what you said.

No investigation is necessary. They should entirely ignore this unless they're given an unedited version of the tape. Anything else would be pretending Borat was a documentary.

[Jocabia]

^ then i have been corrected, i should then say heavily reported instead

it should be telling that the fact that you have proof that of tax evasion, as well as the illegal setting up of an underage brothel by several offices of an Organization that was a strong supporter of the current Administration gets this much coverage, yet a Republican who sleeps with a prostitute is plastered on every station for weeks on end.

Just a reminder of what JuNii is really claiming.

He's not calling for an investigation. He's claiming there is PROOF of tax evasion as well as the setting up of an underage brother.

When challenged he's pretending like he's not saying any such thing and his claims about what this is evidence of have changed by the page.

EDIT: He actually said an underage brothel. I don't believe he has any problem at all with underage brothers. Although, if he does, that explains a lot.

[JuNii]

^ then i have been corrected, i should then say heavily reported instead

it should be telling that the fact that you have proof that of tax evasion, as well as the illegal setting up of an underage brothel by several offices of an Organization that was a strong supporter of the current Administration gets this much coverage, yet a Republican who sleeps with a prostitute is plastered on every station for weeks on end.

Just a reminder of what JuNii is really claiming.

He's not calling for an investigation. He's claiming there is PROOF of tax evasion as well as the setting up of an underage brother.

When challenged he's pretending like he's not saying any such thing and his claims about what this is evidence of have changed by the page.

EDIT: He actually said an underage brothel. I don't believe he has any problem at all with underage brothers. Although, if he does, that explains a lot.

i never denied that when a group that is a big Obama Supporter gets accused of something, they get less coverage than when a Republican is caught with a prostitute.

now, about how

Investigations are necessary when there is evidence of a crime.

means there cannot be an investigation of alledged wrong doings. where is that proof I've asked for.

and note, I said in other posts, that those ACORN OFFICES need to be under investigation, not the GROUP as a WHOLE. I'm also happy that some are calling for the investigation of those individuals (ALL INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED).

BTW... I like how you slyly say Brothel then change it to brother. nice try to deflect.

[JuNii]

WHOA! WAIT... WHAT!!!

Wow, that's just getting pathetic. Yes, we're supposed to let investigators into our homes and businesses or it's somehow evidence that something is wrong. Why won't you let me read your email? Are you afraid I'll figure out your a terrorist?

See, in this country, you're presumed innocent. You don't get investigated so they can search for a reason to launch an investigation. Entering into an investigation, by it's very nature, is violating my privacy. You have to have a verifiable reason to do so. It was so important to the founders of this nation, that they made it one of the ten explicit amendments called the bill of RIGHTS.

no, someone made alligations, they have recordings to prove their alligations, so there cannot be an investigation to prove the validity of what the accusers have?

for some reason, you equate investigation with going to the person's home and conduction searches and seazures. that's not what an investigation is.

First, the tapes can be examined for tampering. then you can conduct voluntary interviews. VOLUNTARY... you know... willing. if they don't want to, then fine. but you can conduct an investigation without violating anyone's rights. if it's deemed that there is enough evidence to warrant further investigation or worse CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS, then the process continues. if it's deemed that those two 'investigators' are full of shit and broke several laws, GOOD. either way, the truth is revealed and undistorted by the sensationalism of either FOX news or anyone.

I know you're used to Bush's methods of investigation, but LEO's have been conducting non invasive investigations for decades before the Bush Administration.

[JuNii]

Dude, seriously, you're being dishonest and it's apparent to everyone here. You said ACORN's offices had to be investigated. That's what you said.

yes, their offices. not ACORN as a whole. but the three offices that were 'caught on tape'.

No investigation is necessary. They should entirely ignore this unless they're given an unedited version of the tape. Anything else would be pretending Borat was a documentary.

like the transcript of the complete tape I posted earlier?

here, incase you missed it.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11078409/Co ... Transcript

[Tekania]

no, someone made alligations, they have recordings to prove their alligations, so there cannot be an investigation to prove the validity of what the accusers have?

Depends on particular legal issues within those states... As to the admissibility of the videos...

[Jocabia]

^ then i have been corrected, i should then say heavily reported instead

it should be telling that the fact that you have proof that of tax evasion, as well as the illegal setting up of an underage brothel by several offices of an Organization that was a strong supporter of the current Administration gets this much coverage, yet a Republican who sleeps with a prostitute is plastered on every station for weeks on end.

Just a reminder of what JuNii is really claiming.

He's not calling for an investigation. He's claiming there is PROOF of tax evasion as well as the setting up of an underage brother.

When challenged he's pretending like he's not saying any such thing and his claims about what this is evidence of have changed by the page.

EDIT: He actually said an underage brothel. I don't believe he has any problem at all with underage brothers. Although, if he does, that explains a lot.

i never denied that when a group that is a big Obama Supporter gets accused of something, they get less coverage than when a Republican is caught with a prostitute.

now, about how

Investigations are necessary when there is evidence of a crime.

means there cannot be an investigation of alledged wrong doings. where is that proof I've asked for.

and note, I said in other posts, that those ACORN OFFICES need to be under investigation, not the GROUP as a WHOLE. I'm also happy that some are calling for the investigation of those individuals (ALL INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED).

Uh, you kind of ignored the important part of that quote. You started in this thread saying there was PROOF of a crime. That it was already proven. THEN you start pretending your just suggesting an investigation.

Come on, why is it so hard to simply admit what you're doing? Really, do you really have such a low opinion of your motives that you're not willing to simply air them out without squirming? You believe their guilty. You not only believe that, but you believe a doctored tape evidence a crime you can't even cite is PROOF. You think this ties back to Obama. You admitted all this. Pretending you don't at this point is beyond silly.

And your lack of understanding of what an investigation entails is tiresome. Evidence and proof are not the same thing. When a crime is alleged, that is evidence, to a small degree. They have very limited room to investigate that crime without further evidence. And so on. What you claimed is that they had PROOF of a crime. Backpedaling now is dishonest.

BTW... I like how you slyly say Brothel then change it to brother. nice try to deflect.

Uh, deflect. What the hell could I have possibly meant by "brother". It was a typo that I thought was funny so I left it and pointed it out.

[Jocabia]

no, someone made alligations, they have recordings to prove their alligations, so there cannot be an investigation to prove the validity of what the accusers have?

Depends on particular legal issues within those states... As to the admissibility of the videos...

Shhhhh... now, now, don't go getting all "legal" on him. This is evidence that they were aiding and abetting. I mean, the fact that they he can't say who committed the crime they aided and abetted isn't relevant at all.

Meanwhile, the video he mentions isn't even unedited. Claiming it's evidence is like claiming Borat is evidence that he's from Kazakhstan (or however you spell it). Without the original footage, all you have is evidence of someone playing a hoax on someone and very little way to tell who was the hoaxer and who was the hoaxee.

[Jocabia]

Dude, seriously, you're being dishonest and it's apparent to everyone here. You said ACORN's offices had to be investigated. That's what you said.

yes, their offices. not ACORN as a whole. but the three offices that were 'caught on tape'.

No investigation is necessary. They should entirely ignore this unless they're given an unedited version of the tape. Anything else would be pretending Borat was a documentary.

like the transcript of the complete tape I posted earlier?

here, incase you missed it.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11078409/Co ... Transcript

Why not just offer up the complete tape? As you say, what are they afraid of? They're ones claiming to have evidence. Why aren't they presenting it? They are the accusers. The burden is on them to give reasonable evidence of a crime. A doctored tape and then an unverifiable "transcript" of the original tape do not PROOF make.

I think it's funny that you think that it's evidence ACORN is in the wrong if they don't want to cooperate but you don't find it the least bit fishy that the original and undoctored footage is not being offered.

[Jocabia]

WHOA! WAIT... WHAT!!!

Wow, that's just getting pathetic. Yes, we're supposed to let investigators into our homes and businesses or it's somehow evidence that something is wrong. Why won't you let me read your email? Are you afraid I'll figure out your a terrorist?

See, in this country, you're presumed innocent. You don't get investigated so they can search for a reason to launch an investigation. Entering into an investigation, by it's very nature, is violating my privacy. You have to have a verifiable reason to do so. It was so important to the founders of this nation, that they made it one of the ten explicit amendments called the bill of RIGHTS.

no, someone made alligations, they have recordings to prove their alligations, so there cannot be an investigation to prove the validity of what the accusers have?

for some reason, you equate investigation with going to the person's home and conduction searches and seazures. that's not what an investigation is.

First, the tapes can be examined for tampering. then you can conduct voluntary interviews. VOLUNTARY... you know... willing. if they don't want to, then fine. but you can conduct an investigation without violating anyone's rights. if it's deemed that there is enough evidence to warrant further investigation or worse CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS, then the process continues. if it's deemed that those two 'investigators' are full of shit and broke several laws, GOOD. either way, the truth is revealed and undistorted by the sensationalism of either FOX news or anyone.

I know you're used to Bush's methods of investigation, but LEO's have been conducting non invasive investigations for decades before the Bush Administration.

Uh, no. They don't have recordings that prove their allegations. Not that any of us have seen. Your claim is false and it's been repeated rendered so. If they actually "proved" their allegations, then they're already guilty (though you can't seem to actually name the crime they're guilty of).

As for the rest, I'm well aware of how an investigation could go. However, you've not established the first part but you already jumped to the end. You didn't suggest they investigate the tapes. That was something you agreed to after we suggested it. You've repeatedly claimed the tapes prove that there was a crime.

"the fact that you have proof of tax evasion, as well as the illegal setting up of an underage brothel"

Or perhaps you don't know the difference between proof and evidence. You claimed they had proof. You closed your investigation without an actual bit of undoctored evidence. It's pretty clear why. "an Organization that was a strong supporter of the current Administration"

I know you have your bias. I know it's coloring your thinking. But the flaw in your logic is glaring. At least have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

[Jocabia]

By the by, I just check the claimed "unedited" videos as they were given to Fox News. They are not unedited. They are edited to format like documentaries. They are not offering up the original footage.

[Straughn]

Fox News calls it ambush journalism and declares it to be a valid tactic.

.. but "ambush journalism" is reprehensible when it's applied to Caribou Barbie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZCFna15xSI

[Straughn]

By the by, I just check the claimed "unedited" videos as they were given to Fox News. They are not unedited. They are edited to format like documentaries. They are not offering up the original footage.

What's really great is that psycho hare-brain Gretchen was so keen on finding some way to instigate an investigation of some sort into some nebulous fraud issue with the 2008 election, deadpan and only serious in the sense that she's seriously nugatory in the mental, psychological, and emotional sense.

[Non Aligned States]

Uh, no. They don't have recordings that prove their allegations. Not that any of us have seen. Your claim is false and it's been repeated rendered so. If they actually "proved" their allegations, then they're already guilty (though you can't seem to actually name the crime they're guilty of).

Jocabia, Junii isn't talking about criminal investigations. That is if I understand it correctly. That would be sufficient evidence to indicate a crime has taken place. That hasn't happened. He's talking about an investigation to determine the validity of the allegations and the apparent video used to make this allegation with. It's a bit of a difference.

[Jocabia]

Uh, no. They don't have recordings that prove their allegations. Not that any of us have seen. Your claim is false and it's been repeated rendered so. If they actually "proved" their allegations, then they're already guilty (though you can't seem to actually name the crime they're guilty of).

Jocabia, Junii isn't talking about criminal investigations. That is if I understand it correctly. That would be sufficient evidence to indicate a crime has taken place. That hasn't happened. He's talking about an investigation to determine the validity of the allegations and the apparent video used to make this allegation with. It's a bit of a difference.

Yes, except this requires me to ignore that he already claimed that proof of a crime exists. You have to read the whole thread, not just the part where he shifted his argument after he was made to look silly. He repeatedly claimed they committed a crime and defended that for several pages, even claiming what crime they'd committed before we explained to him that you can't aide and abet a crime unless there was a crime and asked him to tell us whose crime they aided and abetted.

He even went so far as to say he was disappointed the media wasn't exploiting the tie to Obama since they know a crime was committed.

If you'll notice below, he points to a criminal investigation and admits that it was what he was asking for. Unless, an attorney general investigating for wrongdoing someone means something different to you? See, I was under the impression they were part of the executive branch. Am I wrong?

---------------
From JuNii a couple pages ago....

THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN ASKING FOR.

"The attorney general's office will review the videos and investigate or refer the matter to the local district attorney if it is believed there is any wrongdoing, Brown spokesman Scott Gerber said."

[JuNii]

Uh, no. They don't have recordings that prove their allegations. Not that any of us have seen. Your claim is false and it's been repeated rendered so. If they actually "proved" their allegations, then they're already guilty (though you can't seem to actually name the crime they're guilty of).

Jocabia, Junii isn't talking about criminal investigations. That is if I understand it correctly. That would be sufficient evidence to indicate a crime has taken place. That hasn't happened. He's talking about an investigation to determine the validity of the allegations and the apparent video used to make this allegation with. It's a bit of a difference.

Yes, except this requires me to ignore that he already claimed that proof exists. You have to read the whole thread, not just the part where he shifted his argument after he was made to look silly.

He plainly stated that the allegations have already been proven. You can see him say that explicitly in the quoted text. It was several pages later when he started claiming it wasn't a criminal investigation, despite mentioning the Attorney General and desperately grasping at a crime to claim they committed.

You see, this is a classic Jocabia move. he made the claim that all investigations NEED EVIDENCE OF A CRIME BEFORE THEY CAN BEGIN.

yet, he cannot show where in any law book, where that is stated.

so he goes back and pulls a, read SINGULAR, post taking about the media coverage and is presenting that as proof that I said there is rock solid evidence.

I show the full transcript of the video, and now he claims it's not, but again, where's the proof.

so now, he's going back to that post, ignoring all other posts that state I'm only asking for an investigation (and the ones that state I'm satisfied that investigations are starting) and he's going to gnaw at that post like a starving dog with it's favorite bone because he knows he can't show evidence to either of his stances.

ignoring that he's the one making the claim that investigations NEED EVIDENCE OF A CRIME BEFORE STARTING, and the fact that he has yet, to pull any evidence that the tapes were tampered with.

did I say the tapes shown by Fox News were NOT edited. nope, i said they would be edited for at least time and content. the transcrips depicts conversations that was never shown on Fox News (or any other news service, but he's ignoring those as well) and Jocabia can only say, without any source, that the transcrips are false.

yep. a classic Jocabia move. drop the arguments and concentrate on any flaw and try to present it as a blanket statement.

[Allbeama]

ACORN, and it's scandels are just a small glimpse into the future of our healthcare under these powerful, well connected, corrupt organizations that have come into power as the federal government grows. These videos are a sickening look into the morals of a decaying society and the apathy of it's ardent supporters. I guess to certain progressives; the end justifies the means.

What about Bushevik meth parties? Or is this being ignored because it doesn't reflect badly on Obama?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11royalty.html

[JuNii]

Here it is. the proof of the classic Jocabia move.

Yes, except this requires me to ignore that he already claimed that proof of a crime exists. You have to read the whole thread, not just the part where he shifted his argument after he was made to look silly. He repeatedly claimed they committed a crime and defended that for several pages, even claiming what crime they'd committed before we explained to him that you can't aide and abet a crime unless there was a crime and asked him to tell us whose crime they aided and abetted.

He even went so far as to say he was disappointed the media wasn't exploiting the tie to Obama since they know a crime was committed.

please quote where I said *I* was disappointed in reguards to an investigation and NOT rambling about the media coverage.

you see, what jocabia will now try to do is take my posts about the media coverage and try to twist them to show that it's actually about the call for an investigation.

If you'll notice below, he points to a criminal investigation and admits that it was what he was asking for. Unless, an attorney general investigating for wrongdoing someone means something different to you? See, I was under the impression they were part of the executive branch. Am I wrong?

see, he can look back but won't find me asking for a criminal investigation, but just for an investigation. so what he's saying is I'm asking for a sandwich and because I am happy I got PB&J that is somehow wrong.

---------------
From JuNii a couple pages ago....

THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN ASKING FOR.

"The attorney general's office will review the videos and investigate or refer the matter to the local district attorney if it is believed there is any wrongdoing, Brown spokesman Scott Gerber said."

now, is this an INVESTIGATION Jocabia? yes or no, is this an INVESTIGATION?

see, Jocabia is trying to twist my words around to prove his point. no where did I specify a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, and he's trying to make it seem that I am. his proof? a post that exaggerates the situation to point out the inconsistancy of Media coverage.

oops... oh noes! I admitted that ONE post was an exaggeration.... guess now the next move in the Jocabia Debate Manual is to show that now ALL my posts were Exaggerations.

Meanwhile, I'm still awaiting your claim that all investigations REQUIRE EVIDENCE of CRIMINAL ACTIVITY before being started.

or can I conclude by the fact that you changed your focus that you admit that you were wrong on this point.

[Jocabia]

Uh, no. They don't have recordings that prove their allegations. Not that any of us have seen. Your claim is false and it's been repeated rendered so. If they actually "proved" their allegations, then they're already guilty (though you can't seem to actually name the crime they're guilty of).

Jocabia, Junii isn't talking about criminal investigations. That is if I understand it correctly. That would be sufficient evidence to indicate a crime has taken place. That hasn't happened. He's talking about an investigation to determine the validity of the allegations and the apparent video used to make this allegation with. It's a bit of a difference.

Yes, except this requires me to ignore that he already claimed that proof exists. You have to read the whole thread, not just the part where he shifted his argument after he was made to look silly.

He plainly stated that the allegations have already been proven. You can see him say that explicitly in the quoted text. It was several pages later when he started claiming it wasn't a criminal investigation, despite mentioning the Attorney General and desperately grasping at a crime to claim they committed.

You see, this is a classic Jocabia move. he made the claim that all investigations NEED EVIDENCE OF A CRIME BEFORE THEY CAN BEGIN.

I said that before they do a criminal investigation they have to have evidence of a crime. I know it's crazy. They don't just willy-nilly run around investigating random people.

yet, he cannot show where in any law book, where that is stated.

Uh, what? Seriously. I"ll tell you what. I'll make a deal with you. If I can show you where this is stated. If I can provide evidence, you donate $1000 to the Obama campaign of 2012. Deal?

so he goes back and pulls a, read SINGULAR, post taking about the media coverage and is presenting that as proof that I said there is rock solid evidence.

You said there is proof. Perhaps you don't know what proof means?

I show the full transcript of the video, and now he claims it's not, but again, where's the proof.

You showed what they claim is the full transcript of the video. The only way to demonstrate whether it is or isn't it to have the actual undoctored video. Given what they call "unedited" is a documentary that is obviously edited with sound and cutting they've not been shown to be a reliable source. You don't get to decry the lack of evidence as evidence for you claim. You're making the positive claim. This is the second time you shifted the burden. The first time you claimed that if they were innocent they'd "have nothing to hide".

so now, he's going back to that post, ignoring all other posts that state I'm only asking for an investigation (and the ones that state I'm satisfied that investigations are starting) and he's going to gnaw at that post like a starving dog with it's favorite bone because he knows he can't show evidence to either of his stances.

Yes, I'm going back to your original argument before you started slowly altering as you failed on claim after claim. See, that's what you do. You find out your argument sucks so you pretend you said something. Go ahead, why don't you explain the post I quoted instead of trying to shift the blame on me for putting it out there for all to see. Did you mean what you said in that post? Do you still agree with it? Has your position changed? Quit squirming.

It's hilarious how you're complaining that I'm point to the things you said as evidence of you saying them, but at the same time arguing that an obviously edited tape is evidence of anything without seeing what was cut out.

ignoring that he's the one making the claim that investigations NEED EVIDENCE OF A CRIME BEFORE STARTING, and the fact that he has yet, to pull any evidence that the tapes were tampered with.

Dude, link to a tape that doesn't have cutting. You really don't know what "unedited" means, do you?

Quit changing the subject. You claimed there was proof of a crime. You claimed it was proof they were setting up a brothel and tax evasion and later aiding and abetting tax fraud (without actually being able to point to anyone who actually did commit tax fraud, tax evasion or set up a brothel). You are desperately trying to make this about me, but you were in this thread when I arrived losing an argument. I jumped in. I didn't start it. It's not my claim you showed up to address. You were here claiming that you had proof of a crime. Where's the proof? Go ahead. In your next reply, provide a link to a video you believe "proves" a crime was committed. Go ahead. Or admit you were wrong when you said. This should be a hoot.

did I say the tapes shown by Fox News were NOT edited. nope, i said they would be edited for at least time and content. the transcrips depicts conversations that was never shown on Fox News (or any other news service, but he's ignoring those as well) and Jocabia can only say, without any source, that the transcrips are false.

yep. a classic Jocabia move. drop the arguments and concentrate on any flaw and try to present it as a blanket statement.

Fox News said the tapes on their site are "unedited". They are however edited. There has never been released an actual unedited version. Again, you don't really know how evidence works, do you?

See, you don't get to link to a doctored version of the tape, one you admit has been edited and then tell me that I'm responsible for finding the unedited version. Either it exists and they've made it available and you can make a reasonable argument. Or your grasping at straws and claiming an obviously doctored tape is "proof" of a crime.

Now, are you honestly claiming that any version of the tape that has ever been presented in this thread is unedited?

For those looking on, notice how he wants to focus on my informing him that criminal investigations are founded on evidence of a crime that they aren't just random fishing expeditions like he learned from Law & Order. He doesn't want to actually defend a direct quote from his own post. He doesn't want to address his own claims. He doesn't want to provide evidence of the crime he claims was committed or even actually explain what the crime was. Squirming is not an argument, but it's damn good evidence of not having one.

[Jocabia]

This is Stuart Smiley with my newest expose on the Criminal accusations of JuNii against Jocabia.
Here we have him accusing Jocabia of a crime.

Here it is ... the proof of ... the crime exists. You have to ... claim ... jocabia will now ...try to ... prove his point... all investigations into ... Jocabia are ... criminal.

If that's not proof I don't know what is. Don't worry about what was in the elipses. We were just editing for time. This is clear proof of slander. You don't need to see the original post or posts.

[Jocabia]

or again, jobcabia, are you saying aiding and abetting tax fraud as well as an illegal business not evidence of a crime?

Yup, you weren't talking about criminal investigations. Nope. Where would anyone get that from?

and for that, an investigation is needed... not only on the video but those offices as well.

And just so we're clear, he wasn't saying to just start with the video, like he's now claiming. That was suggested by another poster and JuNii's response was that investigating the video alone wasn't good enough.

I absolutely cannot believe this. I'm surprised nobody has a search warrant on their offices.

They also need to audit all businesses and residents ACORN has helped set up. the bad thing about this whole affair is the people caught in the crossfire.

And more about the kinds of investigation he is calling for. Yes, now, he's trying to make it sound all innocent, but he was calling for a full investigation into ACORN while the only evidence was a doctored video by videographers that as of yet have not provided the original footage. Because, as you know, without an actually evidence of a crime being committed you can just investigate the offices, audit all the business they've set up and various other things on a fishing expedition for fraud. Yup.

you have proof that of tax evasion, as well as the illegal setting up of an underage brothel by several offices of an Organization that was a strong supporter of the current Administration

So, now that's four posts all of which counter your claims and reveal your attempt to skewer them as guilty of a crime before we've even seen an undocted videotape.

Remember, Investigation =|= conviction.

If it's not a criminal investigation, then why even mention convictions? You don't convicted on civil matters. You convicted in criminal matters. You explicitly pointed out that you were only recommending that they first be investigated for a crime but not convicted.

But let's keep 'investigating' the posts of JuNii...

It's been going on for too long already. It's about time Fox got a slap in the face for their lack of standards. A big one.

agreed.

however, that slap better be after the investigation finds that Fox News did break the law*.

*Same with those two 'journalists', and ACORN. do the investigation and make the findings public if innocent/not guilty or begin prosecution if not.

So wait, they are going to be shown innocent/not guilty or they are going to be prosecuted, but it's not a criminal investigation. Are the going to be civilly prosecuted and found guilty?

By the by, that's six posts. So much for that bullshit about how it was only one post where you contradicted your new claims.