ACORN and Prostitution

[Hammurab]

So, we want an investigation on "aiding and abetting tax fraud", but not have it be a criminal investigation.

K.

[JuNii]

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.

oh really? YOU SAID 'criminal investigation' I said Investigation. so YOU are talking about criminal investigations, I'm talking about investigations in general. glad we got that cleared up.

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?

another Jocabia move. now that he's established that *he's* talking about *Criminal investigations* he's now going to show proof that criminal investigations require evidence of a crime. except *I* never mentioned Criminal Investigations. when I first asked for the proof, I stated NOT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS.

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?

see. HE admits that his only proof is posts concerning another sub topic.

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".

and does he remember his claim that the video "turned into fox" was edited? does he remember his claim that the 'transcript' is edited and not the full transcript? so he can makes such claims and not provide evidence?

now here's where Jocabia will ignore the fact that I concede that the video SHOWN by FoxNews is edited because ALL News Outlets edit videos for time and content.

then he will show that there are short videos put out that show graphic content, ignoring the time statement.

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.

see, he admits that posts I made about another sub topic, that being the media coverage of the incident, is somehow tied to the arguments I am making now. not realizing that the subject matter is different and the focus is different. now he's doing what he is accusing me of doing. twisting words to fit his argument.

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.

again, I said I conceded that the tape is edited for time and content, yet he's ignoring what was shown. even tho it's taken out of context, he ignores a transcript that fills in the blanks, and even tho that transcript shows the inane 'investigative skills' of the two, will still argue that it's not enough to start an investigation (not CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION but a general investigation) even tho LEO's have investigated incidends with MUCH LESS than a video.

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?

so... a person who claims to know soo much about law procedures wants evidence that is under examination to be released in full?

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.

again who's changing the subject? he ask what I thought would be the evidence, I stated it was only my opionion and now he's trying to present my opinion as facts. infact, the transcript shows that in Baltimore, setting up a Brothel is ILLEGAL. yet they were going ahead and telling the two... [let's call them idiots... I hate calling them investigators and they certainly were NOT journalists.] on how to avoid getting caught.

meanwhile, two states are launching investigations to determine if those ACORN offices did anything wrong so there must be something that they seen in those videos that we're not. a fact that Jocabia has ignored or is saying 'they are not investigating ACORN but the EMPLOYEES.

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?

ok, so FOX NEWS made that claim yet did I say the tapes on FoxNews were unedited? no. I Said they RECIEVED unedited tapes.

as for how evidence works? you're the one calling for airing the 'unedited' tape which is being reviewed AS evidence to see if there is enough to warrant further investigation.

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.

what video did *I* link to. I linked to a transcript of the unedited tape. a transcript you blew off as being edited without showing any proof. In this thread, I never linked to any video. Again, you are trying to mislead other readers here with 'arguments'.

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

I have NEVER claimed otherwise Jocabia.

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.

see, NOW he specifies that it's CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS that require evidence. yet if you look back at his posts, (and you can check out all the posts I quote him in) you'll notice a lack of the word 'CRIMINAL' infront of his claims that "investigations" require evidence of criminal activity. IF you, Jocabia, had stated Criminal Investigations from the onset, I would've said "I'm not talking Criminal Investigations." you know that.

My claims were only my Opinions Jocabia. You know I don't pass myself off as a law expert but I do look for clarification as well as increasing my knowledge. all you had to do was put forth the proof, yet it took you all this time to clarify 'Criminal Investigations' especially when I gave you that BIG hint pages back.

here's the post where I first mention criminal investigation. note the quote from Jocabia. bolding is my only edit of this post.

Investigations are necessary when there is evidence of a crime. I asked you what crime. You said aiding and abetting. You don't see the problem here. You prove with every post that you don't know what you're talking about. Every single post. WHO committed the crime they aided and abetted? Go on. Who did?

I'll give you a hint, there is actually an intelligent answer that somewhat supports your point. That you don't know what it is, is evidence that you started with a position (that ACORN must be investigated) and then just made shit up till you thought it sounded like an argument.

Ok, can you provide me with the legal definition that supports that an INVESTIGATION (not CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION) needs evidence of a crime.

see that? did he state Criminal Investigation? until that post, I never mentioned CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. yet Jocabia will continue to insist that is what I said.

[JuNii]

So, we want an investigation on "aiding and abetting tax fraud", but not have it be a criminal investigation.

K.

and I'm happy that some states are looking into seeing if further review is necessary.

[Jocabia]

So, we want an investigation on "aiding and abetting tax fraud", but not have it be a criminal investigation.

K.

and I'm happy that some states are looking into seeing if further review is necessary.

Kind of missed the point there, my friend. How is an investigation into 'aiding and abetting tax fraud" not a criminal investigation? Do you not know what a criminal investigation is?

[Jocabia]

Let's put these all together so you can attempt to change the subject again...

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.

[Jocabia]

Just because he talking about PROSECUTION, GUILT, CRIMES, AIDING AND ABETTING, TAX FRAUD, PROSITUTION, BROTHELS, and CONVICTION doesn't mean he was talking about a criminal investigation.

I know, it might confusing to some that while talking about what they were being investigated for he listed crimes (or what he thinks are crimes) and he defended those claims, that doesn't mean that just because he's calling for them to investigate crimes that they are criminal investigations against people with rights. Nope.

Move along, people, nothing to see here.

[Hammurab]

So, we want an investigation on "aiding and abetting tax fraud", but not have it be a criminal investigation.

K.

and I'm happy that some states are looking into seeing if further review is necessary.

Of course. Aiding and abetting Federal Income Tax fraud is always best investigated by the States.

Hell, some States actually do use Federal AGI as a means of assessing taxable income for State income Tax, so its not even completely ridiculous.

And since it won't be a criminal investigation, they can take 3 ACORN Offices to civil court and sue them under tort law...for...conversion of chattel in the form of tax dollars.

[Hammurab]

Just because he talking about PROSECUTION, GUILT, CRIMES, AIDING AND ABETTING, TAX FRAUD, PROSITUTION, BROTHELS, and CONVICTION doesn't mean he was talking about a criminal investigation.

I know, it might confusing to some that while talking about what they were being investigated for he listed crimes (or what he thinks are crimes) and he defended those claims, that doesn't mean that just because he's calling for them to investigate crimes that they are criminal investigations against people with rights. Nope.

Move along, people, nothing to see here.

Seriously, I'm going to go to one of my law profs, and ask them how one investigates "aiding and abetting tax evasion", but not have it be a criminal investigation.

[Jocabia]

So, we want an investigation on "aiding and abetting tax fraud", but not have it be a criminal investigation.

K.

and I'm happy that some states are looking into seeing if further review is necessary.

Of course. Aiding and abetting Federal Income Tax fraud is always best investigated by the States.

Hell, some States actually do use Federal AGI as a means of assessing taxable income for State income Tax, so its not even completely ridiculous.

And since it won't be a criminal investigation, they can take 3 ACORN Offices to civil court and sue them under tort law...for...conversion of chattel in the form of tax dollars.

Unfortunately, giving that he doesn't know that aiding abetting a crime requires that crime to have been committed by someone, I'm not sure he's goit the appropriate background to give context to your response. Let's cross our fingers, though.

[Jocabia]

Just because he talking about PROSECUTION, GUILT, CRIMES, AIDING AND ABETTING, TAX FRAUD, PROSITUTION, BROTHELS, and CONVICTION doesn't mean he was talking about a criminal investigation.

I know, it might confusing to some that while talking about what they were being investigated for he listed crimes (or what he thinks are crimes) and he defended those claims, that doesn't mean that just because he's calling for them to investigate crimes that they are criminal investigations against people with rights. Nope.

Move along, people, nothing to see here.

Seriously, I'm going to go to one of my law profs, and ask them how one investigates "aiding and abetting tax evasion", but not have it be a criminal investigation.

And PROSTITUTION and TAX FRAUD. Also, ask him how one comes out as not guilty in a civil investigation. Also ask how you can be prosecuted without it being criminal or why a conviction or lack thereof would be relevant.

[Hammurab]

and how do you know there was no crime committed. how do you know some Joe got the same 'tax' advice and is following through with it because ACORN, a trusted organization, advised him to do so?

why are you afraid of an investigation being run on this matter?

(emphasis added)



Well, its good you aren't asking for an investigation into a crime.





Wait...

[JuNii]

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?

oh the use of creative editing...
let's look at the segment of that quote. after all, you don't want to be accused of 'cherry picking' arguments... right?

ah, so giving someone advice on how to doctor your tax returns when it's your job to assist people with taxes is not wrong? gotcha.

Wrong =/= illegal.

What exactly is the law you're claiming they should be investigated for breaking?

ah, so only when it's proven to be ILLEGAL will an investigation be instigated. Gotcha.

No, when there is some evidence of a crime. What crime are you saying this is evidence of?

again jocabia. "There has to be a crime before an investigation starts". so a person missing isn't a 'crime' yet arn't reports of missing persons investigated to determine if a crime is involved?

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

Here, you are asking me specifically what law they should be investigated for.

and notice. I never said 'Criminal Investigation' and untill recently, neither did you.

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.

and JUST so we're clear. the post was saying to examine the video and *IF* the Video was doctored...

and I also stated in other posts (that you ignored) that an investigation showing those ACORN OFFICES were not doing anything wrong would greatly help them get funding back.

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.

yep, because a search warrant (as suggested by yet, another poster) will absolutely NOT include those accounts that the four touched and not put those people that they helped in the spotlight.

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

ah... note now the use of UNDOCTED video tape. I never said the tapes were or were not undocted. but I did say they were edited. which means the statements were said by those workers.

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.

because as jocabia ignored, once again, the post I was responding to...

Two things:

1. The investigators were clearly trolling in a process that our legal system calls "entrapment." They went so far as to edit out the people who refused to deal with them, or otherwise portrayed ACORN in a positive light.

2. When brought to their attention, ACORN promptly fired the people who engaged in this behavior whether or not it was meant in jest.

So, why exactly should ACORN be held responsible for these people?

two replies.
1) As I said, individual offices. not ACORN as a whole. the three offices should be investigated, but until evidence points to ACORN as a whole organization is doing something hinky... those three offices should be investigated for improper/illegal activities. I've never called for an investigation on ACORN as a whole.

2) ACORN assists people in setting up businesses as well as securing Housing. the fact that they would give tips on how to evade taxes ON TAPE, even in jest, should spark an investigation for those offices.

Remember, Investigation =|= conviction.

the point of that was to show that just because a group is under investigation, it does not indicate that they were involved.

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.

yep. because no one here was blaming anyone. no the two idiots, not fox news, not acorn. right.

granted my use of innocent/not guilty was wrong, but again, the post was to show that an investigation is needed to determine if all parties involved did anything wrong.

My "excuse" is that when I posted those posts, I did that at work where time is not a luxury. several long time posters, including YOU Jocabia, know I do most of my postings at work.

[JuNii]

and how do you know there was no crime committed. how do you know some Joe got the same 'tax' advice and is following through with it because ACORN, a trusted organization, advised him to do so?

why are you afraid of an investigation being run on this matter?

(emphasis added)



Well, its good you aren't asking for an investigation into a crime.





Wait...

that's right. I was asking how they [the posters] know that no crime was committed since no investigation was done at that point.

and why they were afraid of an investigation (not criminal).

[Hammurab]

And PROSTITUTION and TAX FRAUD. Also, ask him how one comes out as not guilty in a civil investigation. Also ask how you can be prosecuted without it being criminal or why a conviction or lack thereof would be relevant.

Prostitution isn't a criminal matter, Jocabia. It falls under regulatory law. Its a kind of agriculture.

[JuNii]

Of course. Aiding and abetting Federal Income Tax fraud is always best investigated by the States.

Hell, some States actually do use Federal AGI as a means of assessing taxable income for State income Tax, so its not even completely ridiculous.

And since it won't be a criminal investigation, they can take 3 ACORN Offices to civil court and sue them under tort law...for...conversion of chattel in the form of tax dollars.

what about state taxes? do Federal entities investigate State Tax Fraud? or did we forget about state taxes?

and don't forget, people in the captial are also calling for an investigation.

[Hammurab]

1) As I said, individual offices. not ACORN as a whole. the three offices should be investigated, but until evidence points to ACORN as a whole organization is doing something hinky... those three offices should be investigated for improper/illegal activities. I've never called for an investigation on ACORN as a whole.

So, they should be investigated for ILLEGAL activities, but not have it be a criminal investigation.

Seriously, may I show this thread, in its entirety, to my classmates in Law School? They will shit kittens who will in turn piss themselves.

[JuNii]

Just because he talking about PROSECUTION, GUILT, CRIMES, AIDING AND ABETTING, TAX FRAUD, PROSITUTION, BROTHELS, and CONVICTION doesn't mean he was talking about a criminal investigation.

I know, it might confusing to some that while talking about what they were being investigated for he listed crimes (or what he thinks are crimes) and he defended those claims, that doesn't mean that just because he's calling for them to investigate crimes that they are criminal investigations against people with rights. Nope.

Move along, people, nothing to see here.

exactly. I'm asking to see if they did do any of that. if they did, then your criminal investigation can begin. but if no evidence of any wrong doing is found then that will vindicate those ACORN offices.

yet you think the only way to investigate those is through criminal procedings. of which you need evidence of those crimes being done... which could be obtained through... what... normal investigations on a tip by a concerned citizen perhaps?

but no. you insist that the only way to have those types of investigations done is if the Evidence of such crimes magically appears infront of them. so a person who reports a brothel being run in their neighborhood will just get dismissed because they can't do anything unless someone takes a camera in there and tapes what happens... never mind that person would be guilty also...

[Hammurab]

and how do you know there was no crime committed. how do you know some Joe got the same 'tax' advice and is following through with it because ACORN, a trusted organization, advised him to do so?

why are you afraid of an investigation being run on this matter?

(emphasis added)



Well, its good you aren't asking for an investigation into a crime.

Wait...

that's right. I was asking how they [the posters] know that no crime was committed since no investigation was done at that point.

and why they were afraid of an investigation (not criminal).

I normally don't like deeply embedded quotes, but what you're saying needs to be shown here.

You said, right above there, that there was an issue with whether a crime was committed. You then called for an investigation on that matter. You then say the investigation would be "not criminal".

I have very rarely seen somebody bury themselves as badly as you are, in nationstates or real life.

[Jocabia]

Now, see, we're supposed to ignore his use of "prosecution" and "not guilty" and "conviction". His claims of proof of a crime were just "exaggerations". His mention of the crimes they would be investigating does not indicate it would be a criminal investigation. And because I did not explicitly say "criminal investigation" when I asked what crime they were investigating, then I wasn't talking about criminal investigations. I was just talking about investigating crimes which isn't a criminal investigation. Is this absurd to anyone else?

BUt let's assume for a moment that that's all true. He asked where I get the idea that for an investigation you need evidence. Keep in mind, during this investigation he has asked that the offices be investigated along with auditing any offices that were set up. But here's the real kicker...

"yep, because a search warrant (as suggested by yet, another poster) will absolutely NOT include those accounts that the four touched and not put those people that they helped in the spotlight."

Should we also ignore your use of the term "search warrant" or do you not know what those are for either? See if you can tell me what's required for a search warrant?

[JuNii]

1) As I said, individual offices. not ACORN as a whole. the three offices should be investigated, but until evidence points to ACORN as a whole organization is doing something hinky... those three offices should be investigated for improper/illegal activities. I've never called for an investigation on ACORN as a whole.

So, they should be investigated for ILLEGAL activities, but not have it be a criminal investigation.

Seriously, may I show this thread, in its entirety, to my classmates in Law School? They will shit kittens who will in turn piss themselves.

sure, if you want. after all, you also let them know that of the two posting here, I never claimed to be a student of law while Jocabia has claimed to have taken classes.

so be sure to point out his revelation that investigations in general cannot be done without evidence of a crime and it took the non-law student to point out the difference between an investigation and a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.

I'm off to bed now. nite.

[Hammurab]

Of course. Aiding and abetting Federal Income Tax fraud is always best investigated by the States.

Hell, some States actually do use Federal AGI as a means of assessing taxable income for State income Tax, so its not even completely ridiculous.

And since it won't be a criminal investigation, they can take 3 ACORN Offices to civil court and sue them under tort law...for...conversion of chattel in the form of tax dollars.

what about state taxes? do Federal entities investigate State Tax Fraud? or did we forget about state taxes?

and don't forget, people in the captial are also calling for an investigation.

Holy shit, are you kidding me? Did you not read the second line of my post which specifically addresses State taxes?

My God, its right there in the very post you were quoting. Seriously, just look.

You've honestly gotta be kidding me.

[Jocabia]

Just because he talking about PROSECUTION, GUILT, CRIMES, AIDING AND ABETTING, TAX FRAUD, PROSITUTION, BROTHELS, and CONVICTION doesn't mean he was talking about a criminal investigation.

I know, it might confusing to some that while talking about what they were being investigated for he listed crimes (or what he thinks are crimes) and he defended those claims, that doesn't mean that just because he's calling for them to investigate crimes that they are criminal investigations against people with rights. Nope.

Move along, people, nothing to see here.

exactly. I'm asking to see if they did do any of that. if they did, then your criminal investigation can begin. but if no evidence of any wrong doing is found then that will vindicate those ACORN offices.

yet you think the only way to investigate those is through criminal procedings. of which you need evidence of those crimes being done... which could be obtained through... what... normal investigations on a tip by a concerned citizen perhaps?

but no. you insist that the only way to have those types of investigations done is if the Evidence of such crimes magically appears infront of them. so a person who reports a brothel being run in their neighborhood will just get dismissed because they can't do anything unless someone takes a camera in there and tapes what happens... never mind that person would be guilty also...

How on God's green earth can an investigation into a crime not be considered a criminal investigation? Do you know what the words "criminal" and "investigation" mean?

Short of pulling out an English book and teaching you about how they form words (which you should really know considering your claims about your backgroug) I'm not sure how I can do anymore to point to a criminal investigation than get you to admit your calling for the investigation into crimes. I mean, if anyone can tell me what could be a clearer indication of a criminal investigation than criminal activity being investigated, please let me know.

[Hammurab]

1) As I said, individual offices. not ACORN as a whole. the three offices should be investigated, but until evidence points to ACORN as a whole organization is doing something hinky... those three offices should be investigated for improper/illegal activities. I've never called for an investigation on ACORN as a whole.

So, they should be investigated for ILLEGAL activities, but not have it be a criminal investigation.

Seriously, may I show this thread, in its entirety, to my classmates in Law School? They will shit kittens who will in turn piss themselves.

sure, if you want. after all, you also let them know that of the two posting here, I never claimed to be a student of law while Jocabia has claimed to have taken classes.

so be sure to point out his revelation that investigations in general cannot be done without evidence of a crime and it took the non-law student to point out the difference between an investigation and a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.

I'm off to bed now. nite.

Jocabia's comments indicate he may have taken some classes, whereas yours indicate a near terrifying lack of rudimentary understanding of several basic legal doctrines.

And since, by your own quotes, you were calling for an investigation into "aiding and abetting tax fraud" (which it shouldn't take a Juris Doctorate to know is a crime) as well as several other crimes (prostitution, etc), such investigations, by definition are criminal investigations.

Because, JuNii, they are investigations into crimes. Hence, investigating them is criminal investigation.

[Jocabia]

1) As I said, individual offices. not ACORN as a whole. the three offices should be investigated, but until evidence points to ACORN as a whole organization is doing something hinky... those three offices should be investigated for improper/illegal activities. I've never called for an investigation on ACORN as a whole.

So, they should be investigated for ILLEGAL activities, but not have it be a criminal investigation.

Seriously, may I show this thread, in its entirety, to my classmates in Law School? They will shit kittens who will in turn piss themselves.

sure, if you want. after all, you also let them know that of the two posting here, I never claimed to be a student of law while Jocabia has claimed to have taken classes.

so be sure to point out his revelation that investigations in general cannot be done without evidence of a crime and it took the non-law student to point out the difference between an investigation and a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.

I'm off to bed now. nite.

Uh, actually, I claimed to have written classes. For a company called University.com in the late 90's. I'm not sure how pointing out you're the one with the least understanding of the subject in this topic helps you. It's been ten years so I'm probably a bit rusty, but not so much that I don't recognize the link between investigating a crime and a criminal investigation.

The non-law student you're referencingg, you, claimed the difference is that unless you explicitly say "criminal investigation" it's not a criminal investigation even if you are in an official capacity investigating criminal activities. See, you should probably just quit when you're ahead, my friend. This was astonishing. Seriously, I know you don't recognize it, but this is straight out, jaw-dropping stuff.

[Jocabia]

1) As I said, individual offices. not ACORN as a whole. the three offices should be investigated, but until evidence points to ACORN as a whole organization is doing something hinky... those three offices should be investigated for improper/illegal activities. I've never called for an investigation on ACORN as a whole.

So, they should be investigated for ILLEGAL activities, but not have it be a criminal investigation.

Seriously, may I show this thread, in its entirety, to my classmates in Law School? They will shit kittens who will in turn piss themselves.

sure, if you want. after all, you also let them know that of the two posting here, I never claimed to be a student of law while Jocabia has claimed to have taken classes.

so be sure to point out his revelation that investigations in general cannot be done without evidence of a crime and it took the non-law student to point out the difference between an investigation and a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.

I'm off to bed now. nite.

Jocabia's comments indicate he may have taken some classes, whereas yours indicate a near terrifying lack of rudimentary understanding of several basic legal doctrines.

And since, by your own quotes, you were calling for an investigation into "aiding and abetting tax fraud" (which it shouldn't take a Juris Doctorate to know is a crime) as well as several other crimes (prostitution, etc), such investigations, by definition are criminal investigations.

Because, JuNii, they are investigations into crimes. Hence, investigating them is criminal investigation.

Dude, his problem isn't with law. It's with the English language.

And I didn't say I was eating a cheeseburger. You said I was eating a cheeseburger. I said I was eating a burger with three kinds of cheese on it. It's a burger, not a cheeseburger. Seriously, man, pay attention and stop putting words in my mouth.