pwcc (part two)

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Why don't you stick to what you know -- nothing.

If Brent is indicted, you'll be proven correct indeed. Gooooood luck!

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

If Brent is indicted, you'll be proven correct indeed. Gooooood luck!

So now a person has to be indicted in order for it to be true that he committed fraud. Got it. Another pearl of wisdom.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by calvindog

So now a person has to be indicted in order for it to be true that he committed fraud. Got it. Another pearl of wisdom.

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

[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!