₦airaland Forum

Oasis007:


LOL!

Adeboye will stand infront of his church and tell them to vote against his pastor because her husband is a Muslim .

Hmmm.

iamoyindamola:
What is this

That the regularity and spates of attacks are different so what Wike had to deal with is way less than what say Soludo has to deal with.

izzou:
[color=royalblue]No sir.

But then, it becomes a different set of people to be tried. It makes room for accountability

Tinubu wins, and then we have Rauf, a failed minister of interior, holding another post again.

Larride, I understand if you want him to win. Na where person dey work, e dey chop.

I can also understand if Dayo and Andriod support APC too. They are typing from the comfort of their homes, 24/7 electricity, good roads, sane environment, blah blah blah. Their lives and future are secured, by the grace of God

What I don't understand is people who have nothing to gain, screaming for this party to come back. Na that one dey confuse me[/color]

I don't support APC. I predicted they will win. That is different.

Just like I was not defending BAT but I was showing that David Hundeyin was chatting wass.

Itsrm:
Except that Rauf and his likes will still decamp to Labour Party. Rinse and repeat. PO in no time will be surrounded by the same people you didn't want in power.

I understand why people are looking out for a change e dey affect me too.

I buy baby food of N6,000 every two weeks and pampers of N12,000 every 6 weeks. How much be the salary?

Unfortunately, whether its Obi or Tinubu or Atiku, nothing will change. I have made peace with that.

You are wise.

Remind me of the time that any govt came into power and as they were leaving the prices of everything went down? Not one person will answer that.

izzou:
[color=royalblue]Be Ruthless....

Wike has shown that it works. Have you heard IPOB killed a mosquito in Rivers again?

Rather this one was fighting for amnesty for them.

Wait make e become Vice president first..Our eyes go clear well well[/color]

IPOB in Rivers is not the same as IPOB in Anambra for e.g. same way Boko Haram in Abuja is not the same as Boko Haram in Borno.

For context.

chrisooblog:
Honestly I completely agree with most people's sentiments that the APC administration has failed in the most important sectors so it would be morally wrong to hand them the reins of the presidency next year.

The dilemma for me is the proposed people who want to take over don't exactly feel me with confidence.

Atiku is part of the old guard that caused our current situation.

Obi plenty talk less substance.

Don't ever the electorate next year cus however you pick is fraught with risk.

hmmm.

GloriousGbola:
deradicalisation is BS imho - MEND did not really stand for anything. all that happened was Asari and co cashed out

if deradicalisation actually worked, by now we would have some repentant boko haram snitching on their compadres.

it was just some nonsesne sold to GEJ, and everybody went along because it was an opportunity to chop

Jonathan was very easily bamboozled. I am reading some posts here and they just remind me of all the nonsense I had to read years back that even then I knew just made no sense.

afrodoc2:
E for Effort.

All those years on debating on Chelsea's thread have turned izzou into Amalinze the cat.

It was operation protect GEJ at all costs. So to people Boko Haram only became an issue from 2015-2022. As if we did not see them completely take over 13 LGAs in Borno and even hoist their nation's flag during that time.

homesteady:
Me, I’ve not even said Tinubu is guilty I was just telling you guys what I read in the court papers, which was clear.

I waded into your debate with Larride to say that his argument that it was for tax evasion holds up - regardless of if I truly believe BAT is guilty or not. I kept reminding you that I was talking from the position of the law.

homesteady:
Go directly to relate how tax evasion made the government to withhold $460k and advertise for anybody to come lay claim to money within 10 days.

I just showed you.

They are allowed to confiscate not more than 500K abi based on the US code cited abi? ✔

Them advertising is statutory. It is procedural. They asked the man to account for ~ 1.5M in his account. He could only account for 1M so they seized the other ~500K. By procedure, they have to now wait for 10 days (maybe the person or people who wired it into BATs account will come to explain why they did).

homesteady:
This argument is gradually coming to an end.

My argument since morning has been that the money was seized due to been associated with narcotics trafficking which you have been denying.

I have not described how Tinubu was involved at any point of this argument.

So see you now trying to tell me there is a probability that he was indirectly involved

Do you recall that I said on the face of the law he was not convicted as guilty of money laundering from narcotics but that his money was seized because of tax evasion?

homesteady:
This argument is gradually coming to an end.

My argument since morning has been that the money was seized due to been associated with narcotics trafficking which you have been denying.

I have not described how Tinubu was involved at any point of this argument.

So see you now trying to tell me there is a probability that he was indirectly involved

I don't know what you have been reading but I am pretty sure I mentioned that even though I suspect BAT was an accomplice in laundering money for narcotics that is not what the 460K was confiscated for. Do you remember?

homesteady:
This argument is gradually coming to an end.

My argument since morning has been that the money was seized due to been associated with narcotics trafficking which you have been denying.

I have not described how Tinubu was involved at any point of this argument.

So see you now trying to tell me there is a probability that he was indirectly involved

Wait. I highlighted your screen shot for you. Did you see the OR?

homesteady:
I wanted to reply this, then I saw this.



Ok, so relate this to the tax evasion.

Good. So this is 18 USC 1956. Look at the sections and subsections. This shows that if the govt alleges that money in someone's account came from specified unlawful activity in a way that it proves that individual intended to conceal or refuse to report that money to the govt or fail to pay taxes on it, the government can seize it. Do you agree?

homesteady:
Aha, we are making progress.
So now you have clearly seen where it is written that it represents proceeds of narcotics trafficking abi? So was I the one making it up??

So if the FBI could prove that the 1.46M in his account were all direct or indirect proceeds from narcotics, they had the right to seize everything and then find BAT guilty via the court. That would have locked him away for 20 years. Rather, they bought his evidence for 1M, did not buy what he offered for the 460K part and therefore seized it. Do you understand it now?

homesteady:
Aha, we are making progress.
So now you have clearly seen where it is written that it represents proceeds of narcotics trafficking abi? So was I the one making it up??

And proceeds from specified unlawful activity can be both direct proceeds or indirect proceeds. The court is allowed to seize your money that a drug dealer paid you for genuine services. Do you know that? Take note of the US code being cited here. It is in the screenshot you attached from the court paper.

homesteady:
Aha, we are making progress.
So now you have clearly seen where it is written that it represents proceeds of narcotics trafficking abi? So was I the one making it up??

For e.g
If you travel internationally (like to the USA) and on flight you have on you more than 10K USD in cash, the court will be allowed to confiscate that money as proceeds from money laundering as long as you did not declare it before traveling. So if I have 11K USD confiscated from me by a court order because I could not explain why I did not declare it before traveling, it is not the same as saying I was CONVICTED for money laundering. How do I know? Because conviction for money laundering has a different penalty according to the law.

homesteady:
Aha, we are making progress.
So now you have clearly seen where it is written that it represents proceeds of narcotics trafficking abi? So was I the one making it up??

Bro, , you clearly don't know how the law works.

I showed you that those proceeds that can be seized can be done so under tax evasion reasons. Do you agree? How quickly you respond will help me to show you what you keep missing.

homesteady:
Android17 for the sake of brevity, in one sentence explain what is written here.

That 460K in USD was ordered by the court to be forfeited by BAT due to provisions in the US code 1956 & 1957.

I can explain more but let me keep it simple. Look at the attached.

homesteady:
Wait, so the two of you did not even read the court papers I posted?
Na wa oh. You people would have spared me all the energy I used in typing if you had simply read it.

I know that there is a saying that “The best way to hide something from Black people is to put it in a book”, in this case, a write up, but I know you guys are not like that, it should be a one off thing.

I feel it is too early in the game to switch to this method.

If you lose your receipt for an item that you need changed or you want a refund for is that proof that you stole said item?

izzou:
[color=royalblue]No sir, you're the emotional one here

You have labelled Obi "corrupt" because of the Pandora case (which I agree with you), but when it got to where you man should be questioned, you typed an essay of 150 words without calling him a thief for which he is.

But I understand. Someone needs to sell Integrity to the others[/color]

lol where is the post in which I labeled Obi as corrupt?

I only asked how using one's children as a front is different when they are used as directors to when they are used as owners.

I know many people on NL generally feel they are unemotional but the routine checks always prove otherwise.

izzou:
[color=royalblue]You are a man of FACTS, not stories. I expected you to point to a particular answer.

But it's fine. I'll accept your answer. It's not easy to explain the unexplainable.

Thank you very much sir[/color]

Ok. I take it you don't like the obvious answer because it is not emotive enough.

homesteady:
Like I said before, you are using assumptions to argue what is written in black and white. It is written there.
I was not there, neither were you there when it all happened. We can only argue based on presented FACTS.

Bro, only 1 person is assuming anything and that person is you. Or else, is your argument not that BAT is guilty because he did not try to prove that the 460K was genuine?

That is not the way the law works. It is the FBI to prove that the money confiscated was indeed from narcotics. If they had proven their case why let him keep 1M USD?

izzou:
[color=royalblue]Relax, Oga

Answer this one first. Believe me, I will personally drag Obi when you raise it up. I have always dragged him on the Pandora case. I am on your side on this.

So, how did Tinubu's daughter save 2 million plus dollars to buy a house?

No deflect oh....Just help us understand[/color]

I knew a girl whose father stole at least 100M USD when he headed one top position in Nigeria. He needed surgery like 7 years back to the tune of half a million dollars (he did not have medical coverage in the USA) so her mother foot the bill. Her mother never got a diploma beyond secondary school and does not run any noticeable business that could amass such. But somehow this girl is convinced her mother is the real deal because most of the property her parent's own are in her name. Do you see a connection? Meanwhile, the same girl has property in Baltimore and London in her name. When I point it to her, she still does not see that the same could apply to her mum. Did I answer the question?

donjazet:
Why would you as an individual care about the full legality of the entire procedings when you can already deduce that the person is guilty?
It's just like when I tell you ikpeazu of abia state is a corrupt thief and you start telling asking me for proof of his criminal indictment when we can already deduce with some facts on ground that he is indeed corrupt.

Some this gaslighting. TINUBU WAS A DRUG BARON AND MONEY LAUNDERER.

Stop falling heads over hills over a very dirty and shady character who just wants to continue to steal our children's future.

Because I am not emotional. I have an unfettered commitment to logic and like to be convinced by hard facts rather than how or what I should feel.

izzou:
[color=royalblue]Is this the answer to the question?

How could both daughters afford houses that sum up to 4 million dollars, Larride?

We know say our politicians dey buy properties. But we are talking about the best of them all.

Was it his savings? Or Deloitte paid gratuity again? [/color]

Is this any different than Pandora box and children of politicians being directors of non existent companies?

larride:
Na today politician dey buy properties for their children?

Is this what you guys want to use to campaign?

Every election since 2011 is about islamization, drug baron, age cheat and no certificate by the same group. And since 2015 it has been back to back Ls but guess what, let me try it again in 2023, it might work this time.

homesteady:
Why will Tinubu forfeit his $460k if there was no skeletons in his cupboard?

Fortunately, David gave a good reason backed with receipts on why they may have let him go.

If they wanted to fully investigate the issue, they probably would have had to come down to Nigeria to investigate his mother which will be an expensive adventure that would have yielded no result.

At the end of the day, it is still on record that the money was forfeited for narcotics trafficking.

I keep telling you how the law works. Tinubu does not have to explain why he forfeited it. The person making the allegation has to prove the allegations.

You may be right but it was not proven. Therefore it reverts to what it was ab initio, which is that he is innocent.

Segedinho:
did you read his link

check it out b4 assuming...Thanks


you are among d reasons he updated this

Before assuming what?

chrisooblog:
Yes you're right BAT no doubt had links to the drug cartels during his time in the US.

Unfortunately Hundeyin didn't bring anything new in his supposed 'expose' just a case of throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Don't really expect that report to change people's minds really.

At this point almost everyone has made their choice it will just a matter of how many of your people can you mobilize to deliver votes and in that regard Tinubu is already ahead not wasting time speaking grammar and bellyaching on twitter.

Hundeyin believes in his own hype and his horde of worshippers believe same nonetheless. Judgement day cannot come soon enough in 2023.

And you right that the voting public already have their minds made. I believe this is what necessitated the move to ditch the religious balance some people were angling for on here.

homesteady:
You are literally using assumptions to argue against hard facts. It is boldly written in black and white.

Assuming it is for evading taxes, why did they have to advertise for someone to come forward to claim the money? Is that how they treat tax defaulters?

Remember you said facts are stubborn oh.

Absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence. In other words, if something does not exist, I don't have to show evidence that it does not exist.

It is not the accused's duty to prove that he is not guilty. He is already assumed not guilty until it is proven by the prosecutor that he is. So even if he could not explain away the entire 1.46M USD, the FBI could not prove that it was proceeds from money laundering. The proof is they let him off on 1M but seized the rest. If they could prove that he laundered money, the entire 1.46M would have been confiscated abi?

So even if me and you suspect and presume that he in fact was guilty, the prosecutor did not prove it.