https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/jill-biden-gets-bad-news/ar-AA1hmMkV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=ab17305cec654630908a58b36e52d779&ei=15
On 2023-09-28 18:02, Tommy wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/jill-biden-gets-bad-news/ar-AA1hmMkV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=ab17305cec654630908a58b36e52d779&ei=15
Riiiiiiiight, because a divorced spouse is always utterly unbiased.
LOL!
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:24:50 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-28 18:02, Tommy wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/jill-biden-gets-bad-news/ar-AA1hmMkV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=ab17305cec654630908a58b36e52d779&ei=15
Riiiiiiiight, because a divorced spouse is always utterly unbiased.
LOL!
A FELONY CHARGE on a simple late payment IS NOT "biased"
On 2023-09-28 20:40, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:24:50 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-28 18:02, Tommy wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/jill-biden-gets-bad-news/ar-AA1hmMkV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=ab17305cec654630908a58b36e52d779&ei=15
Riiiiiiiight, because a divorced spouse is always utterly unbiased.
LOL!
A FELONY CHARGE on a simple late payment IS NOT "biased"And you know ALL the details about that because you're read a few words
by one of the involved parties, do you?
I'll ask a simple question:
Can you show me a single other source of information on exactly what happened there?
Just one.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:21:54 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-28 20:40, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:24:50 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:And you know ALL the details about that because you're read a few words
On 2023-09-28 18:02, Tommy wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/jill-biden-gets-bad-news/ar-AA1hmMkV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=ab17305cec654630908a58b36e52d779&ei=15
Riiiiiiiight, because a divorced spouse is always utterly unbiased.
LOL!
A FELONY CHARGE on a simple late payment IS NOT "biased"
by one of the involved parties, do you?
I'll ask a simple question:
Can you show me a single other source of information on exactly what
happened there?
Just one.
I provided a SINGLE SOURCE - can you provide one?
On 2023-09-29 19:20, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:21:54 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-28 20:40, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:24:50 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:And you know ALL the details about that because you're read a few words >> by one of the involved parties, do you?
On 2023-09-28 18:02, Tommy wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/jill-biden-gets-bad-news/ar-AA1hmMkV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=ab17305cec654630908a58b36e52d779&ei=15
Riiiiiiiight, because a divorced spouse is always utterly unbiased. >>>>
LOL!
A FELONY CHARGE on a simple late payment IS NOT "biased"
I'll ask a simple question:
Can you show me a single other source of information on exactly what
happened there?
Just one.
I provided a SINGLE SOURCE - can you provide one?Are you familiar with the word "other"?
Some OTHER source than a jilted ex-husband.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 7:27:17 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-29 19:20, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:21:54 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Are you familiar with the word "other"?
On 2023-09-28 20:40, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:24:50 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:And you know ALL the details about that because you're read a few words >>>> by one of the involved parties, do you?
On 2023-09-28 18:02, Tommy wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/jill-biden-gets-bad-news/ar-AA1hmMkV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=ab17305cec654630908a58b36e52d779&ei=15
Riiiiiiiight, because a divorced spouse is always utterly unbiased. >>>>>>
LOL!
A FELONY CHARGE on a simple late payment IS NOT "biased"
I'll ask a simple question:
Can you show me a single other source of information on exactly what
happened there?
Just one.
I provided a SINGLE SOURCE - can you provide one?
Some OTHER source than a jilted ex-husband.
I provided his testimony - you have either the option of rebutting it or shutting up as you have NOTHING.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 7:27:17 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-29 19:20, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:21:54 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Are you familiar with the word "other"?
On 2023-09-28 20:40, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:24:50 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:And you know ALL the details about that because you're read a few words >>>> by one of the involved parties, do you?
On 2023-09-28 18:02, Tommy wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/jill-biden-gets-bad-news/ar-AA1hmMkV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=ab17305cec654630908a58b36e52d779&ei=15
Riiiiiiiight, because a divorced spouse is always utterly unbiased. >>>>>>
LOL!
A FELONY CHARGE on a simple late payment IS NOT "biased"
I'll ask a simple question:
Can you show me a single other source of information on exactly what
happened there?
Just one.
I provided a SINGLE SOURCE - can you provide one?
Some OTHER source than a jilted ex-husband.
I provided his testimony - you have either the option of rebutting it or shutting up as you have NOTHING.
On 2023-09-30 19:19, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 7:27:17 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-29 19:20, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:21:54 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Are you familiar with the word "other"?
On 2023-09-28 20:40, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:24:50 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>> On 2023-09-28 18:02, Tommy wrote:And you know ALL the details about that because you're read a few words >>>> by one of the involved parties, do you?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/jill-biden-gets-bad-news/ar-AA1hmMkV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=ab17305cec654630908a58b36e52d779&ei=15
Riiiiiiiight, because a divorced spouse is always utterly unbiased. >>>>>>
LOL!
A FELONY CHARGE on a simple late payment IS NOT "biased"
I'll ask a simple question:
Can you show me a single other source of information on exactly what >>>> happened there?
Just one.
I provided a SINGLE SOURCE - can you provide one?
Some OTHER source than a jilted ex-husband.
I provided his testimony - you have either the option of rebutting it or shutting up as you have NOTHING.1. It wasn't "testimony". It was an INTERVIEW. Testimony is given under
oath on penalty of perjury.
2. I already explained why he might be biased.
I'm simply going to take it that you have no corroboration whatsoever of anything he said of importance.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:39:03 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-30 19:19, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 7:27:17 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:1. It wasn't "testimony". It was an INTERVIEW. Testimony is given under
On 2023-09-29 19:20, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:21:54 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Are you familiar with the word "other"?
On 2023-09-28 20:40, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:24:50 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-09-28 18:02, Tommy wrote:And you know ALL the details about that because you're read a few words >>>>>> by one of the involved parties, do you?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/jill-biden-gets-bad-news/ar-AA1hmMkV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=ab17305cec654630908a58b36e52d779&ei=15
Riiiiiiiight, because a divorced spouse is always utterly unbiased. >>>>>>>>
LOL!
A FELONY CHARGE on a simple late payment IS NOT "biased"
I'll ask a simple question:
Can you show me a single other source of information on exactly what >>>>>> happened there?
Just one.
I provided a SINGLE SOURCE - can you provide one?
Some OTHER source than a jilted ex-husband.
I provided his testimony - you have either the option of rebutting it or shutting up as you have NOTHING.
oath on penalty of perjury.
2. I already explained why he might be biased.
I'm simply going to take it that you have no corroboration whatsoever of
anything he said of importance.
Translation: "I've got nuttin"
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:00:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-30 19:55, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:39:03 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:You've got an interview and a far-right site with an obviously biased
On 2023-09-30 19:19, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 7:27:17 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:1. It wasn't "testimony". It was an INTERVIEW. Testimony is given under >>>> oath on penalty of perjury.
On 2023-09-29 19:20, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:21:54 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-09-28 20:40, Tommy wrote:Are you familiar with the word "other"?
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:24:50 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-28 18:02, Tommy wrote:And you know ALL the details about that because you're read a few words
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/jill-biden-gets-bad-news/ar-AA1hmMkV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=ab17305cec654630908a58b36e52d779&ei=15
Riiiiiiiight, because a divorced spouse is always utterly unbiased. >>>>>>>>>>
LOL!
A FELONY CHARGE on a simple late payment IS NOT "biased"
by one of the involved parties, do you?
I'll ask a simple question:
Can you show me a single other source of information on exactly what >>>>>>>> happened there?
Just one.
I provided a SINGLE SOURCE - can you provide one?
Some OTHER source than a jilted ex-husband.
I provided his testimony - you have either the option of rebutting it or shutting up as you have NOTHING.
2. I already explained why he might be biased.
I'm simply going to take it that you have no corroboration whatsoever of >>>> anything he said of importance.
Translation: "I've got nuttin"
source, Sunshine.
When asked for more, you've said:
"I've got nothing"
:-)
No, Fool, it is YOU that has NOTHING.
On 2023-09-30 19:55, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:39:03 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-30 19:19, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 7:27:17 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:1. It wasn't "testimony". It was an INTERVIEW. Testimony is given under >> oath on penalty of perjury.
On 2023-09-29 19:20, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:21:54 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>> On 2023-09-28 20:40, Tommy wrote:Are you familiar with the word "other"?
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:24:50 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-09-28 18:02, Tommy wrote:And you know ALL the details about that because you're read a few words
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/jill-biden-gets-bad-news/ar-AA1hmMkV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=ab17305cec654630908a58b36e52d779&ei=15
Riiiiiiiight, because a divorced spouse is always utterly unbiased. >>>>>>>>
LOL!
A FELONY CHARGE on a simple late payment IS NOT "biased"
by one of the involved parties, do you?
I'll ask a simple question:
Can you show me a single other source of information on exactly what >>>>>> happened there?
Just one.
I provided a SINGLE SOURCE - can you provide one?
Some OTHER source than a jilted ex-husband.
I provided his testimony - you have either the option of rebutting it or shutting up as you have NOTHING.
2. I already explained why he might be biased.
I'm simply going to take it that you have no corroboration whatsoever of >> anything he said of importance.
Translation: "I've got nuttin"You've got an interview and a far-right site with an obviously biased source, Sunshine.
When asked for more, you've said:
"I've got nothing"
:-)
On 2023-10-06 08:32, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:00:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-09-30 19:55, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:39:03 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:You've got an interview and a far-right site with an obviously biased
On 2023-09-30 19:19, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 7:27:17 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>> On 2023-09-29 19:20, Tommy wrote:1. It wasn't "testimony". It was an INTERVIEW. Testimony is given under >>>> oath on penalty of perjury.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:21:54 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-09-28 20:40, Tommy wrote:Are you familiar with the word "other"?
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:24:50 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-28 18:02, Tommy wrote:And you know ALL the details about that because you're read a few words
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/jill-biden-gets-bad-news/ar-AA1hmMkV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=ab17305cec654630908a58b36e52d779&ei=15
Riiiiiiiight, because a divorced spouse is always utterly unbiased.
LOL!
A FELONY CHARGE on a simple late payment IS NOT "biased"
by one of the involved parties, do you?
I'll ask a simple question:
Can you show me a single other source of information on exactly what
happened there?
Just one.
I provided a SINGLE SOURCE - can you provide one?
Some OTHER source than a jilted ex-husband.
I provided his testimony - you have either the option of rebutting it or shutting up as you have NOTHING.
2. I already explained why he might be biased.
I'm simply going to take it that you have no corroboration whatsoever of
anything he said of importance.
Translation: "I've got nuttin"
source, Sunshine.
When asked for more, you've said:
"I've got nothing"
:-)
No, Fool, it is YOU that has NOTHING.Nope.
You have nothing more than than the uncorroborated NON-testimony of a
jilted ex.
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:09:42 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-06 08:32, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:00:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Nope.
On 2023-09-30 19:55, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:39:03 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:You've got an interview and a far-right site with an obviously biased
On 2023-09-30 19:19, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 7:27:17 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-09-29 19:20, Tommy wrote:1. It wasn't "testimony". It was an INTERVIEW. Testimony is given under >>>>>> oath on penalty of perjury.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:21:54 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-28 20:40, Tommy wrote:Are you familiar with the word "other"?
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:24:50 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-28 18:02, Tommy wrote:And you know ALL the details about that because you're read a few words
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/jill-biden-gets-bad-news/ar-AA1hmMkV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=ab17305cec654630908a58b36e52d779&ei=15
Riiiiiiiight, because a divorced spouse is always utterly unbiased.
LOL!
A FELONY CHARGE on a simple late payment IS NOT "biased"
by one of the involved parties, do you?
I'll ask a simple question:
Can you show me a single other source of information on exactly what >>>>>>>>>> happened there?
Just one.
I provided a SINGLE SOURCE - can you provide one?
Some OTHER source than a jilted ex-husband.
I provided his testimony - you have either the option of rebutting it or shutting up as you have NOTHING.
2. I already explained why he might be biased.
I'm simply going to take it that you have no corroboration whatsoever of >>>>>> anything he said of importance.
Translation: "I've got nuttin"
source, Sunshine.
When asked for more, you've said:
"I've got nothing"
:-)
No, Fool, it is YOU that has NOTHING.
You have nothing more than than the uncorroborated NON-testimony of a
jilted ex.
Yup - prove him wrong or shut up.
On 2023-10-06 19:54, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:09:42 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-06 08:32, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:00:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Nope.
On 2023-09-30 19:55, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:39:03 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>> On 2023-09-30 19:19, Tommy wrote:You've got an interview and a far-right site with an obviously biased >>>> source, Sunshine.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 7:27:17 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-09-29 19:20, Tommy wrote:1. It wasn't "testimony". It was an INTERVIEW. Testimony is given under
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:21:54 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-28 20:40, Tommy wrote:Are you familiar with the word "other"?
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:24:50 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:by one of the involved parties, do you?
On 2023-09-28 18:02, Tommy wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/jill-biden-gets-bad-news/ar-AA1hmMkV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=ab17305cec654630908a58b36e52d779&ei=15
Riiiiiiiight, because a divorced spouse is always utterly unbiased.
LOL!
A FELONY CHARGE on a simple late payment IS NOT "biased" >>>>>>>>>> And you know ALL the details about that because you're read a few words
I'll ask a simple question:
Can you show me a single other source of information on exactly what
happened there?
Just one.
I provided a SINGLE SOURCE - can you provide one?
Some OTHER source than a jilted ex-husband.
I provided his testimony - you have either the option of rebutting it or shutting up as you have NOTHING.
oath on penalty of perjury.
2. I already explained why he might be biased.
I'm simply going to take it that you have no corroboration whatsoever of
anything he said of importance.
Translation: "I've got nuttin"
When asked for more, you've said:
"I've got nothing"
:-)
No, Fool, it is YOU that has NOTHING.
You have nothing more than than the uncorroborated NON-testimony of a
jilted ex.
Yup - prove him wrong or shut up.I've proved him essentially biased.
Show something...
ANYTHING
...that corroborates one thing he's claimed.
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 8:15:35 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-06 19:54, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:09:42 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:I've proved him essentially biased.
On 2023-10-06 08:32, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:00:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Nope.
On 2023-09-30 19:55, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:39:03 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-09-30 19:19, Tommy wrote:You've got an interview and a far-right site with an obviously biased >>>>>> source, Sunshine.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 7:27:17 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-29 19:20, Tommy wrote:1. It wasn't "testimony". It was an INTERVIEW. Testimony is given under
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:21:54 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-28 20:40, Tommy wrote:Are you familiar with the word "other"?
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:24:50 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:by one of the involved parties, do you?
On 2023-09-28 18:02, Tommy wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/jill-biden-gets-bad-news/ar-AA1hmMkV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=ab17305cec654630908a58b36e52d779&ei=15
Riiiiiiiight, because a divorced spouse is always utterly unbiased.
LOL!
A FELONY CHARGE on a simple late payment IS NOT "biased" >>>>>>>>>>>> And you know ALL the details about that because you're read a few words
I'll ask a simple question:
Can you show me a single other source of information on exactly what
happened there?
Just one.
I provided a SINGLE SOURCE - can you provide one?
Some OTHER source than a jilted ex-husband.
I provided his testimony - you have either the option of rebutting it or shutting up as you have NOTHING.
oath on penalty of perjury.
2. I already explained why he might be biased.
I'm simply going to take it that you have no corroboration whatsoever of
anything he said of importance.
Translation: "I've got nuttin"
When asked for more, you've said:
"I've got nothing"
:-)
No, Fool, it is YOU that has NOTHING.
You have nothing more than than the uncorroborated NON-testimony of a
jilted ex.
Yup - prove him wrong or shut up.
Show something...
ANYTHING
...that corroborates one thing he's claimed.
No, you HAVEN'T. You have proven NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING.
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 8:15:35 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-06 19:54, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:09:42 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:I've proved him essentially biased.
On 2023-10-06 08:32, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:00:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Nope.
On 2023-09-30 19:55, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:39:03 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-09-30 19:19, Tommy wrote:You've got an interview and a far-right site with an obviously biased >>>>>> source, Sunshine.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 7:27:17 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-29 19:20, Tommy wrote:1. It wasn't "testimony". It was an INTERVIEW. Testimony is given under
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:21:54 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-28 20:40, Tommy wrote:Are you familiar with the word "other"?
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:24:50 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:by one of the involved parties, do you?
On 2023-09-28 18:02, Tommy wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/jill-biden-gets-bad-news/ar-AA1hmMkV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=ab17305cec654630908a58b36e52d779&ei=15
Riiiiiiiight, because a divorced spouse is always utterly unbiased.
LOL!
A FELONY CHARGE on a simple late payment IS NOT "biased" >>>>>>>>>>>> And you know ALL the details about that because you're read a few words
I'll ask a simple question:
Can you show me a single other source of information on exactly what
happened there?
Just one.
I provided a SINGLE SOURCE - can you provide one?
Some OTHER source than a jilted ex-husband.
I provided his testimony - you have either the option of rebutting it or shutting up as you have NOTHING.
oath on penalty of perjury.
2. I already explained why he might be biased.
I'm simply going to take it that you have no corroboration whatsoever of
anything he said of importance.
Translation: "I've got nuttin"
When asked for more, you've said:
"I've got nothing"
:-)
No, Fool, it is YOU that has NOTHING.
You have nothing more than than the uncorroborated NON-testimony of a
jilted ex.
Yup - prove him wrong or shut up.
Show something...
ANYTHING
...that corroborates one thing he's claimed.
No, you HAVEN'T. You have proven NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING.
On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 12:59:35 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-07 09:23, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 8:15:35 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Oh, and it wasn't a simple matter of failing to pay their OWN taxes:
On 2023-10-06 19:54, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:09:42 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:I've proved him essentially biased.
On 2023-10-06 08:32, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:00:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-09-30 19:55, Tommy wrote:Nope.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:39:03 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-30 19:19, Tommy wrote:You've got an interview and a far-right site with an obviously biased >>>>>>>> source, Sunshine.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 7:27:17 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-29 19:20, Tommy wrote:1. It wasn't "testimony". It was an INTERVIEW. Testimony is given under
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:21:54 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-28 20:40, Tommy wrote:Are you familiar with the word "other"?
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:24:50 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:by one of the involved parties, do you?
On 2023-09-28 18:02, Tommy wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/jill-biden-gets-bad-news/ar-AA1hmMkV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=ab17305cec654630908a58b36e52d779&ei=15
Riiiiiiiight, because a divorced spouse is always utterly unbiased.
LOL!
A FELONY CHARGE on a simple late payment IS NOT "biased" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you know ALL the details about that because you're read a few words
I'll ask a simple question:
Can you show me a single other source of information on exactly what
happened there?
Just one.
I provided a SINGLE SOURCE - can you provide one?
Some OTHER source than a jilted ex-husband.
I provided his testimony - you have either the option of rebutting it or shutting up as you have NOTHING.
oath on penalty of perjury.
2. I already explained why he might be biased.
I'm simply going to take it that you have no corroboration whatsoever of
anything he said of importance.
Translation: "I've got nuttin"
When asked for more, you've said:
"I've got nothing"
:-)
No, Fool, it is YOU that has NOTHING.
You have nothing more than than the uncorroborated NON-testimony of a >>>>>> jilted ex.
Yup - prove him wrong or shut up.
Show something...
ANYTHING
...that corroborates one thing he's claimed.
No, you HAVEN'T. You have proven NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING.
'In May, 1981, defendant William Stevenson received a Form 2481 from the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which requires the establishment of a
special bank account for depositing taxes withheld from employees. On
April 21, 1982, defendants were arraigned in this Court for failing to
make payments to the account for the first quarter of 1982.
<https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-stevenson-8>
'The Court does not believe that defendants have shown even a colorable
entitlement to the defense of selective prosecution.
...
The motions to dismiss the indictment and for discovery will be denied.'
LOL! You just CONFIRMED what Stevenson claimed that happened - thanks!!
On 2023-10-07 09:23, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 8:15:35 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-06 19:54, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:09:42 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:I've proved him essentially biased.
On 2023-10-06 08:32, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:00:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>> On 2023-09-30 19:55, Tommy wrote:Nope.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:39:03 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-09-30 19:19, Tommy wrote:You've got an interview and a far-right site with an obviously biased >>>>>> source, Sunshine.
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 7:27:17 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-29 19:20, Tommy wrote:1. It wasn't "testimony". It was an INTERVIEW. Testimony is given under
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:21:54 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Are you familiar with the word "other"?
On 2023-09-28 20:40, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:24:50 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:by one of the involved parties, do you?
On 2023-09-28 18:02, Tommy wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/jill-biden-gets-bad-news/ar-AA1hmMkV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=ab17305cec654630908a58b36e52d779&ei=15
Riiiiiiiight, because a divorced spouse is always utterly unbiased.
LOL!
A FELONY CHARGE on a simple late payment IS NOT "biased" >>>>>>>>>>>> And you know ALL the details about that because you're read a few words
I'll ask a simple question:
Can you show me a single other source of information on exactly what
happened there?
Just one.
I provided a SINGLE SOURCE - can you provide one?
Some OTHER source than a jilted ex-husband.
I provided his testimony - you have either the option of rebutting it or shutting up as you have NOTHING.
oath on penalty of perjury.
2. I already explained why he might be biased.
I'm simply going to take it that you have no corroboration whatsoever of
anything he said of importance.
Translation: "I've got nuttin"
When asked for more, you've said:
"I've got nothing"
:-)
No, Fool, it is YOU that has NOTHING.
You have nothing more than than the uncorroborated NON-testimony of a >>>> jilted ex.
Yup - prove him wrong or shut up.
Show something...
ANYTHING
...that corroborates one thing he's claimed.
No, you HAVEN'T. You have proven NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING.Oh, and it wasn't a simple matter of failing to pay their OWN taxes:
'In May, 1981, defendant William Stevenson received a Form 2481 from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which requires the establishment of a special bank account for depositing taxes withheld from employees. On
April 21, 1982, defendants were arraigned in this Court for failing to
make payments to the account for the first quarter of 1982.
<https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-stevenson-8>
'The Court does not believe that defendants have shown even a colorable entitlement to the defense of selective prosecution.
...
The motions to dismiss the indictment and for discovery will be denied.'
On 2023-10-07 15:32, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 12:59:35 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-07 09:23, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 8:15:35 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Oh, and it wasn't a simple matter of failing to pay their OWN taxes:
On 2023-10-06 19:54, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, October 6, 2023 at 9:09:42 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:I've proved him essentially biased.
On 2023-10-06 08:32, Tommy wrote:
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:00:33 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-09-30 19:55, Tommy wrote:Nope.
On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:39:03 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-30 19:19, Tommy wrote:You've got an interview and a far-right site with an obviously biased
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 7:27:17 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-29 19:20, Tommy wrote:1. It wasn't "testimony". It was an INTERVIEW. Testimony is given under
On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 10:21:54 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Are you familiar with the word "other"?
On 2023-09-28 20:40, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:24:50 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:by one of the involved parties, do you?
On 2023-09-28 18:02, Tommy wrote:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/jill-biden-gets-bad-news/ar-AA1hmMkV?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=ab17305cec654630908a58b36e52d779&ei=15
Riiiiiiiight, because a divorced spouse is always utterly unbiased.
LOL!
A FELONY CHARGE on a simple late payment IS NOT "biased" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you know ALL the details about that because you're read a few words
I'll ask a simple question:
Can you show me a single other source of information on exactly what
happened there?
Just one.
I provided a SINGLE SOURCE - can you provide one?
Some OTHER source than a jilted ex-husband.
I provided his testimony - you have either the option of rebutting it or shutting up as you have NOTHING.
oath on penalty of perjury.
2. I already explained why he might be biased.
I'm simply going to take it that you have no corroboration whatsoever of
anything he said of importance.
Translation: "I've got nuttin"
source, Sunshine.
When asked for more, you've said:
"I've got nothing"
:-)
No, Fool, it is YOU that has NOTHING.
You have nothing more than than the uncorroborated NON-testimony of a >>>>>> jilted ex.
Yup - prove him wrong or shut up.
Show something...
ANYTHING
...that corroborates one thing he's claimed.
No, you HAVEN'T. You have proven NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING.
'In May, 1981, defendant William Stevenson received a Form 2481 from the >> Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which requires the establishment of a
special bank account for depositing taxes withheld from employees. On
April 21, 1982, defendants were arraigned in this Court for failing to
make payments to the account for the first quarter of 1982.
<https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-stevenson-8>
'The Court does not believe that defendants have shown even a colorable >> entitlement to the defense of selective prosecution.
...
The motions to dismiss the indictment and for discovery will be denied.'
LOL! You just CONFIRMED what Stevenson claimed that happened - thanks!!Ummmmm...
I confirmed that there was a tax charge.
Not that he was persecuted in some way.
That court filing CONFIRMS all of the details of Stevenson's story,LOL! You just CONFIRMED what Stevenson claimed that happened -Ummmmm...
thanks!!
I confirmed that there was a tax charge.
Not that he was persecuted in some way.
Fool. He WAS FELONY indicted for an EIGHT DAY late payment of $8,200.
BooBoo, by comparison didn't pay MILLIONS in taxes for YEARS and was initially presented with two MISDEMEANORS!
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 6:34:09 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-08 13:57, Tommy wrote:
No, Sunshine.That court filing CONFIRMS all of the details of Stevenson's story, Fool. He WAS FELONY indicted for an EIGHT DAY late payment of $8,200. BooBoo, by comparison didn't pay MILLIONS in taxes for YEARS and was initially presented with two MISDEMEANORS!LOL! You just CONFIRMED what Stevenson claimed that happened -Ummmmm...
thanks!!
I confirmed that there was a tax charge.
Not that he was persecuted in some way.
It does not confirm "ALL the details".
It confirms that there was a tax prosecution.
Period.
Nothing it what was posted says anything about it being an "eight day
late payment". Quite the reverse:
'On April 21, 1982, defendants were arraigned in this Court for failing
to make payments to the account for the first quarter of 1982. '
Tell us all:
How many days were there in the first quarter of 1982?
Is it just 8 days, Sunshine?Hey Fool, you need to read the FULL text - it IS there. In any case, this indictment was handed down THREE WEEKS from the end of the quarter. Compare that to the YEARS that nothing was done to BooBoo.
On 2023-10-08 13:57, Tommy wrote:
No, Sunshine.That court filing CONFIRMS all of the details of Stevenson's story,LOL! You just CONFIRMED what Stevenson claimed that happened -Ummmmm...
thanks!!
I confirmed that there was a tax charge.
Not that he was persecuted in some way.
Fool. He WAS FELONY indicted for an EIGHT DAY late payment of $8,200. BooBoo, by comparison didn't pay MILLIONS in taxes for YEARS and was initially presented with two MISDEMEANORS!
It does not confirm "ALL the details".
It confirms that there was a tax prosecution.
Period.
Nothing it what was posted says anything about it being an "eight day
late payment". Quite the reverse:
'On April 21, 1982, defendants were arraigned in this Court for failing
to make payments to the account for the first quarter of 1982. '
Tell us all:
How many days were there in the first quarter of 1982?
Is it just 8 days, Sunshine?
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 6:34:09 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-08 13:57, Tommy wrote:
No, Sunshine.That court filing CONFIRMS all of the details of Stevenson's story,LOL! You just CONFIRMED what Stevenson claimed that happened -Ummmmm...
thanks!!
I confirmed that there was a tax charge.
Not that he was persecuted in some way.
Fool. He WAS FELONY indicted for an EIGHT DAY late payment of $8,200.
BooBoo, by comparison didn't pay MILLIONS in taxes for YEARS and was
initially presented with two MISDEMEANORS!
It does not confirm "ALL the details".
It confirms that there was a tax prosecution.
Period.
Nothing it what was posted says anything about it being an "eight day
late payment". Quite the reverse:
'On April 21, 1982, defendants were arraigned in this Court for failing
to make payments to the account for the first quarter of 1982. '
Tell us all:
How many days were there in the first quarter of 1982?
Is it just 8 days, Sunshine?
Hey Fool, you need to read the FULL text - it IS there. In any case, this indictment was handed down THREE WEEKS from the end of the quarter. Compare that to the YEARS that nothing was done to BooBoo.
On 2023-10-09 17:11, Tommy wrote:
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 6:34:09 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-08 13:57, Tommy wrote:
No, Sunshine.That court filing CONFIRMS all of the details of Stevenson's story,LOL! You just CONFIRMED what Stevenson claimed that happened -Ummmmm...
thanks!!
I confirmed that there was a tax charge.
Not that he was persecuted in some way.
Fool. He WAS FELONY indicted for an EIGHT DAY late payment of $8,200. >>> BooBoo, by comparison didn't pay MILLIONS in taxes for YEARS and was
initially presented with two MISDEMEANORS!
It does not confirm "ALL the details".
It confirms that there was a tax prosecution.
Period.
Nothing it what was posted says anything about it being an "eight day
late payment". Quite the reverse:
'On April 21, 1982, defendants were arraigned in this Court for failing >> to make payments to the account for the first quarter of 1982. '
Tell us all:
How many days were there in the first quarter of 1982?
Is it just 8 days, Sunshine?
Hey Fool, you need to read the FULL text - it IS there. In any case, this indictment was handed down THREE WEEKS from the end of the quarter. Compare that to the YEARS that nothing was done to BooBoo.So quote the part that proves your point.
The cases were DIFFERENT, Sunshine.
There is no relationship except in your addled brain.
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 10:29:49 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-09 17:11, Tommy wrote:
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 6:34:09 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So quote the part that proves your point.
On 2023-10-08 13:57, Tommy wrote:
No, Sunshine.That court filing CONFIRMS all of the details of Stevenson's story,LOL! You just CONFIRMED what Stevenson claimed that happened -Ummmmm...
thanks!!
I confirmed that there was a tax charge.
Not that he was persecuted in some way.
Fool. He WAS FELONY indicted for an EIGHT DAY late payment of $8,200. >>>>> BooBoo, by comparison didn't pay MILLIONS in taxes for YEARS and was >>>>> initially presented with two MISDEMEANORS!
It does not confirm "ALL the details".
It confirms that there was a tax prosecution.
Period.
Nothing it what was posted says anything about it being an "eight day
late payment". Quite the reverse:
'On April 21, 1982, defendants were arraigned in this Court for failing >>>> to make payments to the account for the first quarter of 1982. '
Tell us all:
How many days were there in the first quarter of 1982?
Is it just 8 days, Sunshine?
Hey Fool, you need to read the FULL text - it IS there. In any case, this indictment was handed down THREE WEEKS from the end of the quarter. Compare that to the YEARS that nothing was done to BooBoo.
The cases were DIFFERENT, Sunshine.
There is no relationship except in your addled brain.
It is there in BLACK AND WHITE - YOU are the one that posted it, YOU FIND IT!!!
On 2023-10-10 12:08, Tommy wrote:
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 10:29:49 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-09 17:11, Tommy wrote:
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 6:34:09 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So quote the part that proves your point.
On 2023-10-08 13:57, Tommy wrote:
No, Sunshine.That court filing CONFIRMS all of the details of Stevenson's story, >>>>> Fool. He WAS FELONY indicted for an EIGHT DAY late payment of $8,200. >>>>> BooBoo, by comparison didn't pay MILLIONS in taxes for YEARS and was >>>>> initially presented with two MISDEMEANORS!LOL! You just CONFIRMED what Stevenson claimed that happened - >>>>>>> thanks!!Ummmmm...
I confirmed that there was a tax charge.
Not that he was persecuted in some way.
It does not confirm "ALL the details".
It confirms that there was a tax prosecution.
Period.
Nothing it what was posted says anything about it being an "eight day >>>> late payment". Quite the reverse:
'On April 21, 1982, defendants were arraigned in this Court for failing >>>> to make payments to the account for the first quarter of 1982. '
Tell us all:
How many days were there in the first quarter of 1982?
Is it just 8 days, Sunshine?
Hey Fool, you need to read the FULL text - it IS there. In any case, this indictment was handed down THREE WEEKS from the end of the quarter. Compare that to the YEARS that nothing was done to BooBoo.
The cases were DIFFERENT, Sunshine.
There is no relationship except in your addled brain.
It is there in BLACK AND WHITE - YOU are the one that posted it, YOU FIND IT!!!Great.
So quote the part you think supports your claim.
Why won't you do that, Sunshine? Have you never figured out copy and paste?
:-)
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:17:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 12:08, Tommy wrote:
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 10:29:49 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Great.
On 2023-10-09 17:11, Tommy wrote:
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 6:34:09 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So quote the part that proves your point.
On 2023-10-08 13:57, Tommy wrote:
No, Sunshine.That court filing CONFIRMS all of the details of Stevenson's story, >>>>>>> Fool. He WAS FELONY indicted for an EIGHT DAY late payment of $8,200. >>>>>>> BooBoo, by comparison didn't pay MILLIONS in taxes for YEARS and was >>>>>>> initially presented with two MISDEMEANORS!LOL! You just CONFIRMED what Stevenson claimed that happened - >>>>>>>>> thanks!!Ummmmm...
I confirmed that there was a tax charge.
Not that he was persecuted in some way.
It does not confirm "ALL the details".
It confirms that there was a tax prosecution.
Period.
Nothing it what was posted says anything about it being an "eight day >>>>>> late payment". Quite the reverse:
'On April 21, 1982, defendants were arraigned in this Court for failing >>>>>> to make payments to the account for the first quarter of 1982. '
Tell us all:
How many days were there in the first quarter of 1982?
Is it just 8 days, Sunshine?
Hey Fool, you need to read the FULL text - it IS there. In any case, this indictment was handed down THREE WEEKS from the end of the quarter. Compare that to the YEARS that nothing was done to BooBoo.
The cases were DIFFERENT, Sunshine.
There is no relationship except in your addled brain.
It is there in BLACK AND WHITE - YOU are the one that posted it, YOU FIND IT!!!
So quote the part you think supports your claim.
Why won't you do that, Sunshine? Have you never figured out copy and paste? >>
:-)
LOL! So you can't read?
On 2023-10-11 07:58, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:17:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 12:08, Tommy wrote:
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 10:29:49 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Great.
On 2023-10-09 17:11, Tommy wrote:
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 6:34:09 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So quote the part that proves your point.
On 2023-10-08 13:57, Tommy wrote:
No, Sunshine.That court filing CONFIRMS all of the details of Stevenson's story, >>>>>>> Fool. He WAS FELONY indicted for an EIGHT DAY late payment of $8,200.LOL! You just CONFIRMED what Stevenson claimed that happened - >>>>>>>>> thanks!!Ummmmm...
I confirmed that there was a tax charge.
Not that he was persecuted in some way.
BooBoo, by comparison didn't pay MILLIONS in taxes for YEARS and was >>>>>>> initially presented with two MISDEMEANORS!
It does not confirm "ALL the details".
It confirms that there was a tax prosecution.
Period.
Nothing it what was posted says anything about it being an "eight day >>>>>> late payment". Quite the reverse:
'On April 21, 1982, defendants were arraigned in this Court for failing
to make payments to the account for the first quarter of 1982. ' >>>>>>
Tell us all:
How many days were there in the first quarter of 1982?
Is it just 8 days, Sunshine?
Hey Fool, you need to read the FULL text - it IS there. In any case, this indictment was handed down THREE WEEKS from the end of the quarter. Compare that to the YEARS that nothing was done to BooBoo.
The cases were DIFFERENT, Sunshine.
There is no relationship except in your addled brain.
It is there in BLACK AND WHITE - YOU are the one that posted it, YOU FIND IT!!!
So quote the part you think supports your claim.
Why won't you do that, Sunshine? Have you never figured out copy and paste?
:-)
LOL! So you can't read?So you can't copy and paste?
I say there's nothing there that proves your claim....
...and I did read it.
Now you can refute me by providing a QUOTE.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:49:16 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-11 07:58, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:17:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So you can't copy and paste?
On 2023-10-10 12:08, Tommy wrote:
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 10:29:49 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Great.
On 2023-10-09 17:11, Tommy wrote:
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 6:34:09 PM UTC-7, AlanSo quote the part that proves your point.
wrote:
On 2023-10-08 13:57, Tommy wrote:
No, Sunshine.That court filing CONFIRMS all of the details ofLOL! You just CONFIRMED what Stevenson claimedUmmmmm...
that happened - thanks!!
I confirmed that there was a tax charge.
Not that he was persecuted in some way.
Stevenson's story, Fool. He WAS FELONY indicted for
an EIGHT DAY late payment of $8,200. BooBoo, by
comparison didn't pay MILLIONS in taxes for YEARS and
was initially presented with two MISDEMEANORS!
It does not confirm "ALL the details".
It confirms that there was a tax prosecution.
Period.
Nothing it what was posted says anything about it being
an "eight day late payment". Quite the reverse:
'On April 21, 1982, defendants were arraigned in this
Court for failing to make payments to the account for
the first quarter of 1982. '
Tell us all:
How many days were there in the first quarter of 1982?
Is it just 8 days, Sunshine?
Hey Fool, you need to read the FULL text - it IS there.
In any case, this indictment was handed down THREE WEEKS
from the end of the quarter. Compare that to the YEARS
that nothing was done to BooBoo.
The cases were DIFFERENT, Sunshine.
There is no relationship except in your addled brain.
It is there in BLACK AND WHITE - YOU are the one that posted
it, YOU FIND IT!!!
So quote the part you think supports your claim.
Why won't you do that, Sunshine? Have you never figured out
copy and paste?
:-)
LOL! So you can't read?
I say there's nothing there that proves your claim....
...and I did read it.
Now you can refute me by providing a QUOTE.
Think about for a minute, Fool (I know this is tough for you): you
certainly don't think the taxes are due the DAY AFTER the quarter, do
you? So, WHAT is the period of time that the business has to make the payment. Remember, the IRS filed FELONY charges TWENTY ONE days after
the end of the quarter.
On 2023-10-11 18:11, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:49:16 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-11 07:58, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:17:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So you can't copy and paste?
On 2023-10-10 12:08, Tommy wrote:
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 10:29:49 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Great.
On 2023-10-09 17:11, Tommy wrote:
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 6:34:09 PM UTC-7, AlanSo quote the part that proves your point.
wrote:
On 2023-10-08 13:57, Tommy wrote:
No, Sunshine.That court filing CONFIRMS all of the details ofLOL! You just CONFIRMED what Stevenson claimedUmmmmm...
that happened - thanks!!
I confirmed that there was a tax charge.
Not that he was persecuted in some way.
Stevenson's story, Fool. He WAS FELONY indicted for
an EIGHT DAY late payment of $8,200. BooBoo, by
comparison didn't pay MILLIONS in taxes for YEARS and
was initially presented with two MISDEMEANORS!
It does not confirm "ALL the details".
It confirms that there was a tax prosecution.
Period.
Nothing it what was posted says anything about it being
an "eight day late payment". Quite the reverse:
'On April 21, 1982, defendants were arraigned in this
Court for failing to make payments to the account for
the first quarter of 1982. '
Tell us all:
How many days were there in the first quarter of 1982?
Is it just 8 days, Sunshine?
Hey Fool, you need to read the FULL text - it IS there.
In any case, this indictment was handed down THREE WEEKS
from the end of the quarter. Compare that to the YEARS
that nothing was done to BooBoo.
The cases were DIFFERENT, Sunshine.
There is no relationship except in your addled brain.
It is there in BLACK AND WHITE - YOU are the one that posted
it, YOU FIND IT!!!
So quote the part you think supports your claim.
Why won't you do that, Sunshine? Have you never figured out
copy and paste?
:-)
LOL! So you can't read?
I say there's nothing there that proves your claim....
...and I did read it.
Now you can refute me by providing a QUOTE.
Think about for a minute, Fool (I know this is tough for you): you certainly don't think the taxes are due the DAY AFTER the quarter, doYou really didn't read the material, did you?
you? So, WHAT is the period of time that the business has to make the payment. Remember, the IRS filed FELONY charges TWENTY ONE days after
the end of the quarter.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:48:03 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-11 18:11, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:49:16 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:You really didn't read the material, did you?
On 2023-10-11 07:58, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:17:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:So you can't copy and paste?
On 2023-10-10 12:08, Tommy wrote:
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 10:29:49 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Great.
On 2023-10-09 17:11, Tommy wrote:
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 6:34:09 PM UTC-7, AlanSo quote the part that proves your point.
wrote:
On 2023-10-08 13:57, Tommy wrote:
No, Sunshine.That court filing CONFIRMS all of the details ofLOL! You just CONFIRMED what Stevenson claimedUmmmmm...
that happened - thanks!!
I confirmed that there was a tax charge.
Not that he was persecuted in some way.
Stevenson's story, Fool. He WAS FELONY indicted for
an EIGHT DAY late payment of $8,200. BooBoo, by
comparison didn't pay MILLIONS in taxes for YEARS and
was initially presented with two MISDEMEANORS!
It does not confirm "ALL the details".
It confirms that there was a tax prosecution.
Period.
Nothing it what was posted says anything about it being
an "eight day late payment". Quite the reverse:
'On April 21, 1982, defendants were arraigned in this
Court for failing to make payments to the account for
the first quarter of 1982. '
Tell us all:
How many days were there in the first quarter of 1982?
Is it just 8 days, Sunshine?
Hey Fool, you need to read the FULL text - it IS there.
In any case, this indictment was handed down THREE WEEKS
from the end of the quarter. Compare that to the YEARS
that nothing was done to BooBoo.
The cases were DIFFERENT, Sunshine.
There is no relationship except in your addled brain.
It is there in BLACK AND WHITE - YOU are the one that posted
it, YOU FIND IT!!!
So quote the part you think supports your claim.
Why won't you do that, Sunshine? Have you never figured out
copy and paste?
:-)
LOL! So you can't read?
I say there's nothing there that proves your claim....
...and I did read it.
Now you can refute me by providing a QUOTE.
Think about for a minute, Fool (I know this is tough for you): you
certainly don't think the taxes are due the DAY AFTER the quarter, do
you? So, WHAT is the period of time that the business has to make the
payment. Remember, the IRS filed FELONY charges TWENTY ONE days after
the end of the quarter.
I HAVE, but you HAVEN'T
On 2023-10-11 19:13, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:48:03 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-11 18:11, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:49:16 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:You really didn't read the material, did you?
On 2023-10-11 07:58, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:17:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>> On 2023-10-10 12:08, Tommy wrote:So you can't copy and paste?
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 10:29:49 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-10-09 17:11, Tommy wrote:Great.
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 6:34:09 PM UTC-7, AlanSo quote the part that proves your point.
wrote:
On 2023-10-08 13:57, Tommy wrote:
No, Sunshine.That court filing CONFIRMS all of the details ofLOL! You just CONFIRMED what Stevenson claimedUmmmmm...
that happened - thanks!!
I confirmed that there was a tax charge.
Not that he was persecuted in some way.
Stevenson's story, Fool. He WAS FELONY indicted for
an EIGHT DAY late payment of $8,200. BooBoo, by
comparison didn't pay MILLIONS in taxes for YEARS and >>>>>>>>>>> was initially presented with two MISDEMEANORS!
It does not confirm "ALL the details".
It confirms that there was a tax prosecution.
Period.
Nothing it what was posted says anything about it being >>>>>>>>>> an "eight day late payment". Quite the reverse:
'On April 21, 1982, defendants were arraigned in this
Court for failing to make payments to the account for
the first quarter of 1982. '
Tell us all:
How many days were there in the first quarter of 1982?
Is it just 8 days, Sunshine?
Hey Fool, you need to read the FULL text - it IS there.
In any case, this indictment was handed down THREE WEEKS
from the end of the quarter. Compare that to the YEARS
that nothing was done to BooBoo.
The cases were DIFFERENT, Sunshine.
There is no relationship except in your addled brain.
It is there in BLACK AND WHITE - YOU are the one that posted
it, YOU FIND IT!!!
So quote the part you think supports your claim.
Why won't you do that, Sunshine? Have you never figured out
copy and paste?
:-)
LOL! So you can't read?
I say there's nothing there that proves your claim....
...and I did read it.
Now you can refute me by providing a QUOTE.
Think about for a minute, Fool (I know this is tough for you): you
certainly don't think the taxes are due the DAY AFTER the quarter, do >>> you? So, WHAT is the period of time that the business has to make the >>> payment. Remember, the IRS filed FELONY charges TWENTY ONE days after >>> the end of the quarter.
I HAVE, but you HAVEN'TYes, I have.
And this wasn't about failure to PAY taxes.
Oops.
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:21:38 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-11 19:13, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:48:03 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Yes, I have.
On 2023-10-11 18:11, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:49:16 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:You really didn't read the material, did you?
On 2023-10-11 07:58, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:17:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-10-10 12:08, Tommy wrote:So you can't copy and paste?
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 10:29:49 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-10-09 17:11, Tommy wrote:Great.
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 6:34:09 PM UTC-7, AlanSo quote the part that proves your point.
wrote:
On 2023-10-08 13:57, Tommy wrote:
No, Sunshine.That court filing CONFIRMS all of the details ofLOL! You just CONFIRMED what Stevenson claimedUmmmmm...
that happened - thanks!!
I confirmed that there was a tax charge.
Not that he was persecuted in some way.
Stevenson's story, Fool. He WAS FELONY indicted for
an EIGHT DAY late payment of $8,200. BooBoo, by
comparison didn't pay MILLIONS in taxes for YEARS and >>>>>>>>>>>>> was initially presented with two MISDEMEANORS!
It does not confirm "ALL the details".
It confirms that there was a tax prosecution.
Period.
Nothing it what was posted says anything about it being >>>>>>>>>>>> an "eight day late payment". Quite the reverse:
'On April 21, 1982, defendants were arraigned in this
Court for failing to make payments to the account for
the first quarter of 1982. '
Tell us all:
How many days were there in the first quarter of 1982? >>>>>>>>>>>>
Is it just 8 days, Sunshine?
Hey Fool, you need to read the FULL text - it IS there.
In any case, this indictment was handed down THREE WEEKS >>>>>>>>>>> from the end of the quarter. Compare that to the YEARS
that nothing was done to BooBoo.
The cases were DIFFERENT, Sunshine.
There is no relationship except in your addled brain.
It is there in BLACK AND WHITE - YOU are the one that posted >>>>>>>>> it, YOU FIND IT!!!
So quote the part you think supports your claim.
Why won't you do that, Sunshine? Have you never figured out
copy and paste?
:-)
LOL! So you can't read?
I say there's nothing there that proves your claim....
...and I did read it.
Now you can refute me by providing a QUOTE.
Think about for a minute, Fool (I know this is tough for you): you
certainly don't think the taxes are due the DAY AFTER the quarter, do >>>>> you? So, WHAT is the period of time that the business has to make the >>>>> payment. Remember, the IRS filed FELONY charges TWENTY ONE days after >>>>> the end of the quarter.
I HAVE, but you HAVEN'T
And this wasn't about failure to PAY taxes.
Oops.
You're right: this was all about Lyin' Biden's RETRIBUTION against Stevenson.
On 2023-10-12 23:22, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:21:38 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-11 19:13, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:48:03 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Yes, I have.
On 2023-10-11 18:11, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:49:16 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>> On 2023-10-11 07:58, Tommy wrote:You really didn't read the material, did you?
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:17:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-10-10 12:08, Tommy wrote:So you can't copy and paste?
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 10:29:49 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-10-09 17:11, Tommy wrote:Great.
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 6:34:09 PM UTC-7, Alan >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:So quote the part that proves your point.
On 2023-10-08 13:57, Tommy wrote:
No, Sunshine.That court filing CONFIRMS all of the details ofLOL! You just CONFIRMED what Stevenson claimed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that happened - thanks!!Ummmmm...
I confirmed that there was a tax charge.
Not that he was persecuted in some way.
Stevenson's story, Fool. He WAS FELONY indicted for >>>>>>>>>>>>> an EIGHT DAY late payment of $8,200. BooBoo, by
comparison didn't pay MILLIONS in taxes for YEARS and >>>>>>>>>>>>> was initially presented with two MISDEMEANORS!
It does not confirm "ALL the details".
It confirms that there was a tax prosecution.
Period.
Nothing it what was posted says anything about it being >>>>>>>>>>>> an "eight day late payment". Quite the reverse:
'On April 21, 1982, defendants were arraigned in this >>>>>>>>>>>> Court for failing to make payments to the account for >>>>>>>>>>>> the first quarter of 1982. '
Tell us all:
How many days were there in the first quarter of 1982? >>>>>>>>>>>>
Is it just 8 days, Sunshine?
Hey Fool, you need to read the FULL text - it IS there. >>>>>>>>>>> In any case, this indictment was handed down THREE WEEKS >>>>>>>>>>> from the end of the quarter. Compare that to the YEARS >>>>>>>>>>> that nothing was done to BooBoo.
The cases were DIFFERENT, Sunshine.
There is no relationship except in your addled brain.
It is there in BLACK AND WHITE - YOU are the one that posted >>>>>>>>> it, YOU FIND IT!!!
So quote the part you think supports your claim.
Why won't you do that, Sunshine? Have you never figured out >>>>>>>> copy and paste?
:-)
LOL! So you can't read?
I say there's nothing there that proves your claim....
...and I did read it.
Now you can refute me by providing a QUOTE.
Think about for a minute, Fool (I know this is tough for you): you >>>>> certainly don't think the taxes are due the DAY AFTER the quarter, do >>>>> you? So, WHAT is the period of time that the business has to make the >>>>> payment. Remember, the IRS filed FELONY charges TWENTY ONE days after >>>>> the end of the quarter.
I HAVE, but you HAVEN'T
And this wasn't about failure to PAY taxes.
Oops.
You're right: this was all about Lyin' Biden's RETRIBUTION against Stevenson.Sorry, but no.
You have NOTHING.
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 11:24:06 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:special fund in trust for the United States. See 26 U.S.C. § 7512(b).
On 2023-10-12 23:22, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:21:38 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-11 19:13, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:48:03 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:Yes, I have.
On 2023-10-11 18:11, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:49:16 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>> On 2023-10-11 07:58, Tommy wrote:You really didn't read the material, did you?
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:17:18 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2023-10-10 12:08, Tommy wrote:So you can't copy and paste?
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 10:29:49 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2023-10-09 17:11, Tommy wrote:Great.
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 6:34:09 PM UTC-7, Alan >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:So quote the part that proves your point.
On 2023-10-08 13:57, Tommy wrote:
No, Sunshine.That court filing CONFIRMS all of the details of >>>>>>>>>>>>> Stevenson's story, Fool. He WAS FELONY indicted for >>>>>>>>>>>>> an EIGHT DAY late payment of $8,200. BooBoo, by >>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison didn't pay MILLIONS in taxes for YEARS and >>>>>>>>>>>>> was initially presented with two MISDEMEANORS!LOL! You just CONFIRMED what Stevenson claimed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that happened - thanks!!Ummmmm...
I confirmed that there was a tax charge.
Not that he was persecuted in some way.
It does not confirm "ALL the details".
It confirms that there was a tax prosecution.
Period.
Nothing it what was posted says anything about it being >>>>>>>>>>>> an "eight day late payment". Quite the reverse:
'On April 21, 1982, defendants were arraigned in this >>>>>>>>>>>> Court for failing to make payments to the account for >>>>>>>>>>>> the first quarter of 1982. '
Tell us all:
How many days were there in the first quarter of 1982? >>>>>>>>>>>>
Is it just 8 days, Sunshine?
Hey Fool, you need to read the FULL text - it IS there. >>>>>>>>>>> In any case, this indictment was handed down THREE WEEKS >>>>>>>>>>> from the end of the quarter. Compare that to the YEARS >>>>>>>>>>> that nothing was done to BooBoo.
The cases were DIFFERENT, Sunshine.
There is no relationship except in your addled brain.
It is there in BLACK AND WHITE - YOU are the one that posted >>>>>>>>> it, YOU FIND IT!!!
So quote the part you think supports your claim.
Why won't you do that, Sunshine? Have you never figured out >>>>>>>> copy and paste?
:-)
LOL! So you can't read?
I say there's nothing there that proves your claim....
...and I did read it.
Now you can refute me by providing a QUOTE.
Think about for a minute, Fool (I know this is tough for you): you >>>>> certainly don't think the taxes are due the DAY AFTER the quarter, do
you? So, WHAT is the period of time that the business has to make the
payment. Remember, the IRS filed FELONY charges TWENTY ONE days after
the end of the quarter.
I HAVE, but you HAVEN'T
And this wasn't about failure to PAY taxes.
Oops.
You're right: this was all about Lyin' Biden's RETRIBUTION against Stevenson.Sorry, but no.
You have NOTHING.You NEVER read it, did you? Well, here it is, Fool"
26 U.S.C. § 7512(a). Subsection (b) of section 7512 sets forth the procedures which must be followed the taxes withheld must be deposited no later than the end of the second banking day after which collected in a separate bank account, designated as a
Furthermore, that USC code requires:in hand to such corporation, partnership, or trust and to all officers, partners, trustees, and employees thereof.
(2)is notified, by notice delivered in hand to such person, of any such failure,
then all the requirements of subsection (b) shall be complied with. In the case of a corporation, partnership, or trust, notice delivered in hand to an officer, partner, or trustee, shall, for purposes of this section, be deemed to be notice delivered
The penalty options are also detailed:IRS may require compliance with accounting requirements;1 it may employ the full range of collection methods available to collect taxes held in trust;2 it may assess penalties against the delinquent employer;3 or it may hold officers or employees of the
26 U.S.C. § 7501(a). As the Supreme Court noted in Slodov v. United States, 436 U.S. 238, 98 S.Ct. 1778, 56 L.Ed.2d 251 (1978), "The IRS has several means at its disposal to effect payment of the taxes so withheld." Id. at 243, 98 S.Ct. at 1783. The
Clearly, this wasn't a "willful delinquency" as they paid the taxes owed, so the filing of felony charges is TOTALLY UNWARRANTED. Yet the IRS immediately went to the nuclear option.
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 12:42:10 PM UTC-7, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 11:24:06 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-12 23:22, Tommy wrote:You NEVER read it, did you? Well, here it is, Fool"
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:21:38 PM UTC-7, AlanSorry, but no.
wrote:
On 2023-10-11 19:13, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:48:03 PM UTC-7, AlanYes, I have.
wrote:
On 2023-10-11 18:11, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:49:16 AM UTC-7,You really didn't read the material, did you?
Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-11 07:58, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:17:18 PM UTC-7,So you can't copy and paste?
Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 12:08, Tommy wrote:
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 10:29:49 PMGreat.
UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-09 17:11, Tommy wrote:
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 6:34:09 PMSo quote the part that proves your point.
UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-08 13:57, Tommy wrote:
No, Sunshine.That court filing CONFIRMS all of theLOL! You just CONFIRMED whatUmmmmm...
Stevenson claimed that happened -
thanks!!
I confirmed that there was a tax
charge.
Not that he was persecuted in some
way.
details of Stevenson's story, Fool. He
WAS FELONY indicted for an EIGHT DAY
late payment of $8,200. BooBoo, by
comparison didn't pay MILLIONS in taxes
for YEARS and was initially presented
with two MISDEMEANORS!
It does not confirm "ALL the details".
It confirms that there was a tax
prosecution.
Period.
Nothing it what was posted says anything
about it being an "eight day late
payment". Quite the reverse:
'On April 21, 1982, defendants were
arraigned in this Court for failing to
make payments to the account for the
first quarter of 1982. '
Tell us all:
How many days were there in the first
quarter of 1982?
Is it just 8 days, Sunshine?
Hey Fool, you need to read the FULL text -
it IS there. In any case, this indictment
was handed down THREE WEEKS from the end of
the quarter. Compare that to the YEARS that
nothing was done to BooBoo.
The cases were DIFFERENT, Sunshine.
There is no relationship except in your
addled brain.
It is there in BLACK AND WHITE - YOU are the
one that posted it, YOU FIND IT!!!
So quote the part you think supports your claim.
Why won't you do that, Sunshine? Have you never
figured out copy and paste?
:-)
LOL! So you can't read?
I say there's nothing there that proves your
claim....
...and I did read it.
Now you can refute me by providing a QUOTE.
Think about for a minute, Fool (I know this is tough
for you): you certainly don't think the taxes are due
the DAY AFTER the quarter, do you? So, WHAT is the
period of time that the business has to make the
payment. Remember, the IRS filed FELONY charges TWENTY
ONE days after the end of the quarter.
I HAVE, but you HAVEN'T
And this wasn't about failure to PAY taxes.
Oops.
You're right: this was all about Lyin' Biden's RETRIBUTION
against Stevenson.
You have NOTHING.
26 U.S.C. § 7512(a). Subsection (b) of section 7512 sets forth the
procedures which must be followed the taxes withheld must be
deposited no later than the end of the second banking day after
which collected in a separate bank account, designated as a special
fund in trust for the United States. See 26 U.S.C. § 7512(b).
Furthermore, that USC code requires:
(2)is notified, by notice delivered in hand to such person, of any
such failure, then all the requirements of subsection (b) shall be
complied with. In the case of a corporation, partnership, or trust,
notice delivered in hand to an officer, partner, or trustee, shall,
for purposes of this section, be deemed to be notice delivered in
hand to such corporation, partnership, or trust and to all
officers, partners, trustees, and employees thereof.
The penalty options are also detailed:
26 U.S.C. § 7501(a). As the Supreme Court noted in Slodov v. United
States, 436 U.S. 238, 98 S.Ct. 1778, 56 L.Ed.2d 251 (1978), "The
IRS has several means at its disposal to effect payment of the
taxes so withheld." Id. at 243, 98 S.Ct. at 1783. The IRS may
require compliance with accounting requirements;1 it may employ the
full range of collection methods available to collect taxes held in
trust;2 it may assess penalties against the delinquent employer;3
or it may hold officers or employees of the employer responsible
for a willful delinquency subject to a civil penalty and felony
conviction.4 Id. at 244-45, 98 S.Ct. at 1783-84.
Clearly, this wasn't a "willful delinquency" as they paid the taxes
owed, so the filing of felony charges is TOTALLY UNWARRANTED. Yet
the IRS immediately went to the nuclear option.
What is "clear" here is a extraordinarily MALICIOUS PROSECUTION! I am
glad that Stevenson is going public with how the Lyin' Biden Crime
Family has been abusing the justice system.
On 2023-10-18 21:48, Tommy wrote:
On Friday, October 13, 2023 at 12:42:10 PM UTC-7, Tommy wrote:
On Thursday, October 12, 2023 at 11:24:06 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-12 23:22, Tommy wrote:You NEVER read it, did you? Well, here it is, Fool"
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 7:21:38 PM UTC-7, AlanSorry, but no.
wrote:
On 2023-10-11 19:13, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 6:48:03 PM UTC-7, AlanYes, I have.
wrote:
On 2023-10-11 18:11, Tommy wrote:
On Wednesday, October 11, 2023 at 8:49:16 AM UTC-7,You really didn't read the material, did you?
Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-11 07:58, Tommy wrote:
On Tuesday, October 10, 2023 at 12:17:18 PM UTC-7,So you can't copy and paste?
Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-10 12:08, Tommy wrote:
On Monday, October 9, 2023 at 10:29:49 PMGreat.
UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-09 17:11, Tommy wrote:
On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 6:34:09 PMSo quote the part that proves your point.
UTC-7, Alan wrote:
On 2023-10-08 13:57, Tommy wrote:
No, Sunshine.That court filing CONFIRMS all of theLOL! You just CONFIRMED whatUmmmmm...
Stevenson claimed that happened -
thanks!!
I confirmed that there was a tax
charge.
Not that he was persecuted in some
way.
details of Stevenson's story, Fool. He
WAS FELONY indicted for an EIGHT DAY
late payment of $8,200. BooBoo, by
comparison didn't pay MILLIONS in taxes
for YEARS and was initially presented
with two MISDEMEANORS!
It does not confirm "ALL the details".
It confirms that there was a tax
prosecution.
Period.
Nothing it what was posted says anything
about it being an "eight day late
payment". Quite the reverse:
'On April 21, 1982, defendants were
arraigned in this Court for failing to
make payments to the account for the
first quarter of 1982. '
Tell us all:
How many days were there in the first
quarter of 1982?
Is it just 8 days, Sunshine?
Hey Fool, you need to read the FULL text -
it IS there. In any case, this indictment
was handed down THREE WEEKS from the end of
the quarter. Compare that to the YEARS that
nothing was done to BooBoo.
The cases were DIFFERENT, Sunshine.
There is no relationship except in your
addled brain.
It is there in BLACK AND WHITE - YOU are the
one that posted it, YOU FIND IT!!!
So quote the part you think supports your claim.
Why won't you do that, Sunshine? Have you never
figured out copy and paste?
:-)
LOL! So you can't read?
I say there's nothing there that proves your
claim....
...and I did read it.
Now you can refute me by providing a QUOTE.
Think about for a minute, Fool (I know this is tough
for you): you certainly don't think the taxes are due
the DAY AFTER the quarter, do you? So, WHAT is the
period of time that the business has to make the
payment. Remember, the IRS filed FELONY charges TWENTY
ONE days after the end of the quarter.
I HAVE, but you HAVEN'T
And this wasn't about failure to PAY taxes.
Oops.
You're right: this was all about Lyin' Biden's RETRIBUTION
against Stevenson.
You have NOTHING.
26 U.S.C. § 7512(a). Subsection (b) of section 7512 sets forth the
procedures which must be followed the taxes withheld must be
deposited no later than the end of the second banking day after
which collected in a separate bank account, designated as a special
fund in trust for the United States. See 26 U.S.C. § 7512(b).
Furthermore, that USC code requires:
(2)is notified, by notice delivered in hand to such person, of any
such failure, then all the requirements of subsection (b) shall be
complied with. In the case of a corporation, partnership, or trust,
notice delivered in hand to an officer, partner, or trustee, shall,
for purposes of this section, be deemed to be notice delivered in
hand to such corporation, partnership, or trust and to all
officers, partners, trustees, and employees thereof.
The penalty options are also detailed:
26 U.S.C. § 7501(a). As the Supreme Court noted in Slodov v. United
States, 436 U.S. 238, 98 S.Ct. 1778, 56 L.Ed.2d 251 (1978), "The
IRS has several means at its disposal to effect payment of the
taxes so withheld." Id. at 243, 98 S.Ct. at 1783. The IRS may
require compliance with accounting requirements;1 it may employ the
full range of collection methods available to collect taxes held in
trust;2 it may assess penalties against the delinquent employer;3
or it may hold officers or employees of the employer responsible
for a willful delinquency subject to a civil penalty and felony
conviction.4 Id. at 244-45, 98 S.Ct. at 1783-84.
Clearly, this wasn't a "willful delinquency" as they paid the taxes
owed, so the filing of felony charges is TOTALLY UNWARRANTED. Yet
the IRS immediately went to the nuclear option.
What is "clear" here is a extraordinarily MALICIOUS PROSECUTION! I amHow is that clear, Sunshine?
glad that Stevenson is going public with how the Lyin' Biden Crime
Family has been abusing the justice system.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 44:06:21 |
| Calls: | 10,392 |
| Files: | 14,066 |
| Messages: | 6,417,242 |