Roland17:


We have gone from it does not exist to this?

Do you realize there is a difference between Premise and Logical Reasoning? There is a stark difference. That may help you understand this situation.

Oga, what is Deductive Reasoning? What do lawyers use in interrogating anyone standing trial? The best lawyers in the world use deductive reasoning. Infact, the whole idea behind court arguments is hinged on deductive reasoning.

What are we discussing, How lawyers practice law or how judges rule their judgement? I believe we are talking about how the evidence at hand will affect the judges decision...

Lawyers can use whatever they want to interrogate a suspect but what I am telling you is that, in a criminal proceedings, a judge will consider evidence presented. If evidence is proven to be authentic and sufficient, it then becomes a premise to draw reasonable conclusions which informs their judgement.

In a criminal case, evidence is the most important thing.

BlueRayDick:


So Kyari giving feedback to hush with picture evidence after Chibuzor Vincent's arrest is not a fact right?

Issokay

This doesn't prove that Kyari knows the nature of Hush's job

BlueRayDick:


The evidence is watery and a US judge signs his warrant of arrest.... .....You must have scored highest at the last New York bar exams to think this way.

Somebody pointed it out to u that Kyari’s statement was dumb as it comes and kept on arguing the obvious . He claims he was paid to escrow cloth to for hush but voice call had him talking about a job , the FBI record shows pictures of Chibuzor sent by Kyari to hush after he was arrested .... u are here talking about no proof........ smh

Guy just rest Abeg !

I even saw ur post talking about lying and getting away at ur previous work place because the lies can’t be proven to be lies..... . You probably think the US court room is ur work place and ur superiors are similar to the FBI agents that added kyari to the charge sheet....smh . You know nothing about cross examination

I'm with u at the bolded.

swiz123:


This doesn't prove that Kyari knows the nature of Hush's job

Issokay!

swiz123:


What are we discussing, How lawyers practice law or how judges rule their judgement? I believe we are talking about how the evidence at hand will affect the judges decision...

Lawyers can use whatever they want to interrogate a suspect but what I am telling you is that, in a criminal proceedings, a judge will consider evidence presented. If evidence is proven to be authentic and sufficient, it then becomes a premise to draw reasonable conclusions which informs their judgement.

In a criminal case, evidence is the most important thing.

Oga you are turning amala up and down. First, deductive reasoning does not exist in the court of law, to construing it with meaning making premises to now it does not impact a judge's decision. Worsestill, you are still using both interchangeably and confusing yourself even more.

The judge makes a decision based on the arguments of the lawyers...When lawyer shout "Objection!" and the Judge says "Objection sustained/ overruled!" What do you think is going on there? What do lawyers use in making their arguments? Do you think everything is already available before court hearing? It is the job of the lawyers to use the evidence available to them to make a convincing argument using deductive reasoning.

Based on the evidence available to the Department of Justice/ FBI they have a strong case to argue Kyari is an accomplice to this case and used his position as DCP to empower Abbas in carrying out the scam, protecting Abbas and more importantly, he benefited financially from the case.

BlueRayDick:


Issokay!

Lamb of God!!!!

User09:


I'm with u at the bolded.

What these people trying to put up weak defence for Kyari don't know is that if the judge in st convinced, the warrant of arrest wouldn't have seen the light of the day sef

Roland17:


Lamb of God!!!!

Roland17:


Oga you are turning amala up and down. First, deductive reasoning does not exist in the court of law, to construing it with meaning making premises to now it does not impact a judge's decision.

The judge makes a decision based on the arguments of the lawyers...When lawyer shout "Objection!" and the Judge says "Objection sustained/ overruled!" What do you think is going on there? What do lawyers use in making their arguments? Do you think everything is already available before court hearing? It is the job of the lawyers to use the evidence available to them to make a convincing argument using deductive reasoning.

Based on the evidence available to the Department of Justice/ FBI they have a strong case to argue Kyari is an accomplice to this case and used his position as DCP to empower Abbas in carrying out the scam and more importantly, he benefited financially from the case.

First, I said deductive reasoning has no place in a court room... I thought you would understand that I meant for the Judge to use it to make pass judgement. I am only guilty of not putting it that way.

Look at it this way, 2 lawyers are arguing but the Judge isn't arguing. All arguements are either inductive or deductive and lawyers use both. I am shocked that you think I didn't know this.

Everything I am saying is as regards to the judges decision simple. Prior to Kyari putting up that weak defence, that evidence was in no way conclusive. He can easily deny knowing the kind of Job Hush was talking about. This would effectively end his involvement in the scam deal which is the original offence FBI is suing for.

The aspect of the wrong policing he did is another case on its own..

BlueRayDick:


What these people trying to put up weak defence for Kyari don't know is that if the judge in st convinced, the warrant of arrest wouldn't have seen the light of the day sef

Nawaoooo... I am not defending Kyari, just stating facts. If you ask me if I think he knows hush is a scammer, of course he knows. But that's just my opinion. In court, only the fact matters. Facts are conclusive evidences

swiz123:


Nawaoooo... I am not defending Kyari, just stating facts. If you ask me if I think he knows hush is a scammer, of course he knows. But that's just my opinion. In court, only the fact matters. Facts are conclusive evidences

Same thing I have been shouting but these guys are just blockheads.

I am also of the opinion that he must have known. Everyone knew Hush was a fraudster before his arrest and Kyari could not have claimed not to be aware.

Unfortunately, it can't be proven based on available evidence.

If the case goes to trial, it will be thrown out.

swiz123:


First, I said deductive reasoning has no place in a court room... I thought you would understand that I meant for the Judge to use it to make pass judgement. I am only guilty of not putting it that way.

Look at it this way, 2 lawyers are arguing but the Judge isn't arguing. All arguements are either inductive or deductive and lawyers use both. I am shocked that you think I didn't know this.

Everything I am saying is as regards to the judges decision simple. Prior to Kyari putting up that weak defence, that evidence was in no way conclusive. He can easily deny knowing the kind of Job Hush was talking about. This would effectively end his involvement in the scam deal which is the original offence FBI is suing for.

The aspect of the wrong policing he did is another case on its own..

I love the fact that you are making a case for logic, I honestly do love it. However, you must be careful in how you analyze logic. Logic in it self does not exist independently. Logic is a product of many factors and sometimes it takes a process before a fact is established and presented as logical.

The evidence is not conclusive but it is admissible and that is why the judge signed his warrant of arrest. Why is it admissible in court? After evaluating the evidence, the judge uses deductive reasoning to determine there is a probable cause linking Abbas to Kyari in terms of the crimes committed.

The Onus is now on the prosecutors to use the evidence available to make an argument that can convince the judge that Kyari is an accomplice. Bare in mind that the prosecutors do not necessarily have to tell the world all the affidavit (evidences) that they are going to use. Do you notice sometimes lawyers are left in shock when lawyers from the opposing side present an evidence that shocks everyone? THE FBI EXPECT KYARI TO DENY! They are prepared for that.

Itsrm:


See what FBI themselves had to say.

Trust the herd, they won't see this.

KYARI did not
request other information or evidence relating to CHIBUZO’s role in the scheme,
ask questions about the nature of the transaction, or ask about why CHIBUZO told
the Victim Businessperson that ABBAS was “fake.”

Ooh, maybe he didn't ask because he already knew.

That's where it ends, a game of "maybes" and "must have"

Nothing conclusive.

The guy you are arguing with is incapable of making rational arguments. I will discuss with other people if in your shoes. I don't even read his emotional rants anymore. How can anyone be appealing to the FBI's authority as proof? lol

Ibime:



He is not a major player in the organisation but by providing henchmen services for a fee related to the international flow of money, Yankee have several laws to hook his neck. A lot of guys got done under Joint Enterprise and RICO laws for less.

I agree. I am not saying Kyari has no case. He is clearly a henchman. I am just saying he was not involved in the scam itself like - he did not know how they deceived the business man, how much was even really being made, Chibuzo's real role in the scam etc. All Kyari knew was Hush needed him to hush Chibuzo because Chibuzo was trying to take money out of his mouth. For his services, Kyari was to get paid handsomely by Hushpuppi. Notice how Hush claimed it was $575k but now he too (Kyari) will be realizing it was $1.1M

Roland17:


I love the fact that you are making a case for logic, I honestly do love it. However, you must be careful in how you analyze logic. Logic in it self does not exist independently. Logic is a product of many factors and sometimes it takes a process before a fact is established and presented as logical.

The evidence is not conclusive but it is admissible and that is why the judge signed his warrant of arrest. Why is it admissible in court? After evaluating the evidence, the judge uses deductive reasoning to determine there is a probable cause linking Abbas to Kyari in terms of the crimes committed.

The Onus is now on the prosecutors to use the evidence available to make an argument that can convince the judge that Kyari is an accomplice. Bare in mind that the prosecutors do not necessarily have to tell the world all the affidavit (evidences) that they are going to use. Do you notice sometimes lawyers are left in shock when lawyers from the opposing side present an evidence that shocks everyone? THE FBI EXPECT KYARI TO DENY! They are prepared for that.

Ummm....prosecutors are warranted to produce all evidence to the defense before arraignment

CAPdan21:

Ummm....prosecutors are warranted to produce all evidence to the defense before arraignment

You are right. Every evidence is vetted and entered as an affidavit but neither side have to tell you and me what they have.

OJURONGBE1:
Fellas, i just added another year , today.
Say a prayer for me & thank "The Most High' on my behalf.
The past 2years have been really really testing but somehow, i recently found favour in the hands of men.
Even when hope was lost, Almighty God has shown me he hasn't forgotten his own.

Happy birthday bro.

Obioma abba kyari

Android17:


I agree. I am not saying Kyari has no case. He is clearly a henchman. I am just saying he was not involved in the scam itself like - he did not know how they deceived the business man, how much was even really being made, Chibuzo's real role in the scam etc. All Kyari knew was Hush needed him to hush Chibuzo because Chibuzo was trying to take money out of his mouth. For his services, Kyari was to get paid handsomely by Hushpuppi. Notice how Hush claimed it was $575k but now he too (Kyari) will be realizing it was $1.1M

When you enter Yankee court, you go surprise. FBI will paint him as an enforcer for an International fraud cartel. They will paint his ONE MONTH detention of Chibizo as a kidnap, citing Nigeria's rules of no detention past 24 hours without charge. If Kyari argue, they will ask Nigeria Police to provide their policy on detention which will confirm that suspects cannot be held more than 24 hours. Kyari is now a major enforcer and kidnapper for the cartel. The argument on whether Kyari knew the cartel was into fraud is now not a major cornerstone of the case. They will reduce that one to deductive reasoning. On the henchmen and kidnap services, they've already got him for 10 years, proving the knowledge that he was acting on behalf of a fraud cartel is just to add icing of another 10 years on the cake.

Before Kyaris case come up, Hushpuppi and the rest have already been hung, drawn and quartered, Judge will be in a hurry to focus on other business. That's if Hushpuppi has not reached a plea deal to remove 3 years from his sentence by testifying that Kyari had full knowledge of what "the job" means

Kyari is a cop, he knows these methods. Nothing will take him to Yankee again. Infact na Niger and Chad he go dey holiday from now on because Interpol is everywhere.

swiz123:


There is no place for assumptions or deductive reasoning in a court room. My post was according to what I saw word for word which is the fact at hand for now.

The only thing that can nail Kyari in this is his foolish response

Many convictions are based on this actually
Most offenders never admit guilt, in many cases there are no eye witnesses

E.g this scenario
John threatened to kill Andrew, John was seen chasing Andrew with a cutlass into a dark alley, 10mins later John was seen with a cutlass soaked in blood. Later Andrew was found dead in the alley matcheted to death

Do you think deductive reasoning won't convict John of the murder even though no one saw him committing the murder?

raumdeuter:


Many convictions are based on this actually
Most offenders never admit guilt, in many cases there are no eye witnesses

E.g this scenario
John threatened to kill Andrew, John was seen chasing Andrew with a cutlass into a dark alley, 10mins later John was seen with a cutlass soaked in blood. Later Andrew was found dead in the alley matcheted to death

Do you think deductive reasoning won't convict John of the murder even though no one saw him committing the murder?

Dayo, this is what I have been trying to help him see. This is why I asked him in the first place if he knew what deductive reasoning was, it’s application and how it differed from premise.

Roland17:


Dayo, this is what I have been trying to help him see. This is why I asked him in the first place if he knew what deductive reasoning was, it’s application and how it differed from premise.

Most convictions are based on deductive reasoning. In my example John's lawyer can get to court and argue that someone else already butchered Andrew or even want to claim that no one saw John butcher him but that will not fly.

Judgments are not science they can be wrong but it's usually on the premise of likelihood and probability

raumdeuter:


Many convictions are based on this actually
Most offenders never admit guilt, in many cases there are no eye witnesses

E.g this scenario
John threatened to kill Andrew, John was seen chasing Andrew with a cutlass into a dark alley, 10mins later John was seen with a cutlass soaked in blood. Later Andrew was found dead in the alley matcheted to death

Do you think deductive reasoning won't convict John of the murder even though no one saw him committing the murder?

Even if Andrew's dead body was never found John can still be convicted of the murder. There is a reason they say reasonable doubt.

Anybody doubting the claim that Obioma Kyari was part of the criminal deal is being unreasonable.

afrodoc2:


Even if Andrew's dead body was never found John can still be convicted of the murder. There is a reason they say reasonable doubt.

Anybody doubting the claim that Obioma Kyari was part of the criminal deal is being unreasonable.

What if John pleads that by the time he got to Andrew, Ogun the god of Iron already matcheted Andrew and no be him kill Andrew?
Wont that work?

It’s preseason already and niggas welcoming VVD back from layoff with the home invasion special like “Nigga kiss the fvcking floor!”

DeadPresidents:
It’s preseason already and niggas welcoming VVD back from layoff with the home invasion special like “Nigga kiss the fvcking floor!”

So they don't claim you are lying or that Jovetic hit him with juju

raumdeuter:

SO they dont claim you are lying or that Jovetic hit him with juju

Gawd have mercy! Were they playing on ice?

Beans never peel àkàrà Don dey smell ....The banters here this season will be mad

afrodoc2:


Even if Andrew's dead body was never found John can still be convicted of the murder. There is a reason they say reasonable doubt.

Anybody doubting the claim that Obioma Kyari was part of the criminal deal is being unreasonable.

This is exactly what I feel. It is just the height of being unreasonable to start yapping , putting a weak defence that Kyari doesn’t know what “the job “ is ...... Something that won’t take the prosecutor 5 minutes to quash under cross examination. I believe most of them have no idea of what cross examination does to people in a law court. Under cross examination sef a defence witness can switch and become a prosecuting witness without his own knowledge ...... well I don’t blame some of them, they think it’s all about winning arguments.

DeadPresidents:
It’s preseason already and niggas welcoming VVD back from layoff with the home invasion special like “Nigga kiss the fvcking floor!”

They no even let our traffic warden rest
Oga, won't klopp buy that guy like this

Ibime:


When you enter Yankee court, you go surprise. FBI will paint him as an enforcer for an International fraud cartel. They will paint his ONE MONTH detention of Chibizo as a kidnap, citing Nigeria's rules of no detention past 24 hours without charge. If Kyari argue, they will ask Nigeria Police to provide their policy on detention which will confirm that suspects cannot be held more than 24 hours. Kyari is now a major enforcer and kidnapper for the cartel. The argument on whether Kyari knew the cartel was into fraud is now not a major cornerstone of the case. They will reduce that one to deductive reasoning. On the henchmen and kidnap services, they've already got him for 10 years, proving the knowledge that he was acting on behalf of a fraud cartel is just to add icing of another 10 years on the cake.

Before Kyaris case come up, Hushpuppi and the rest have already been hung, drawn and quartered, Judge will be in a hurry to focus on other business. That's if Hushpuppi has not reached a plea deal to remove 3 years from his sentence by testifying that Kyari had full knowledge of what "the job" means

Kyari is a cop, he knows these methods. Nothing will take him to Yankee again. Infact na Niger and Chad he go dey holiday from now on because Interpol is everywhere.

You are making a more convincing argument than most but I can play the opposition for a second. Kyari cannot be tried in US for a crime committed by a non-american not committed in the US and which does not directly impact americans. Next, the fact that we know why he arrested Chibuzo does not mean we know how he did it. What I mean is, if he actually used something he had on Chibuzo as reason for arresting him, it is immaterial that he was solicited by hush to do it. The Nigerian judiciary and police service commission can extend punitive measures to him, but it hardly plays any role in the US. Kyari has probably burnt his chances of ever becoming an IGP in future but if he was in the know concerning the scam, Hush would not have needed to explain why he wanted Chibuzo nailed. And if per adventure Hush explained the intricacies of the deal (which would then make Kyari complicit and an assessory to the crime) the FBI will need to provide evidence of this - which they did not do and do not even claim to have.