Android17:
How am I still arguing with someone who still does not know what a court order is?

Okay so if the court finds BAT in possession of 460K narcodollars the only punishment by the law is forfeiture?

If Pablo Escobar sent a shoe seller money (even under the guise of truly buying shoes), and the seller cannot prove it with a genuine invoice, do you know the court is allowed to order that money to be confiscated as proceeds from narcotics?

If that is the case, does it mean the shoe seller is a drug baron or an accomplice of the drug baron? Does it mean the shoe seller was convicted of money laundering?

At least I can read what is explicitly stated in black and white.

I have never at any point of this argument said Tinubu is a drug baron neither have I said Tinubu was a corner boy selling drugs.

Oya when the money from the shoemaker is confiscated, will they not classify it as “money forfeited due to association with drug”? Or will they classify it as money forfeited due to tax evasion?

Lol...I know you go come up with another thing sha, but take. https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/nigeria-auditor-general-releases-pwc-forensic-audit-report-on-allegations-of-unremitted-revenue-by-nnpc/

Android17:
If I say President Obama did ABC in 2012 does it mean I lied that he is the current president?

PwC did not provide any report. Buhari threatened that he will sanction its release after winning the elections then all of a sudden the document "leaked" with caveats about how they know they did not do a thorough job.

Android17:
I should have added ceteris paribus so we won't go through this merry-go-round.

Abi can you point to how UK and USA etc are handling the same global issue today differently? The US is currently undergoing a 40-year high inflation rate. In Nigerian history, that is almost as old as the country.

In other words, you are basing your argument on the assumption that Buhari’s inflation would have been better than Jonathan’s inflation if the surrounding circumstances were perfect?

homesteady:


At least I can read what is explicitly stated in black and white.

I have never at any point of this argument said Tinubu is a drug baron neither have I said Tinubu was a corner boy selling drugs.

Oya when the money from the shoemaker is confiscated, will they not classify it as “money forfeited due to association with drug”? Or will they classify it as money forfeited due to tax evasion?

Good question. They'll classify it under (first pic) which encompasses (2nd and 3rd pic). Do you understand?

Android17:
Good question. They'll classify it under (first pic) which encompasses (2nd and 3rd pic). Do you understand?

So should they sack the person who did this classification in this screenshot you posted for not knowing his or her job?

Theflint1:
Lol...I know you go come up with another thing sha, but take. https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/nigeria-auditor-general-releases-pwc-forensic-audit-report-on-allegations-of-unremitted-revenue-by-nnpc/

Una no rate Nigerians.

homesteady:


So should they sack the person who did this classification in this screenshot you posted for not knowing his or her job?

The IRS guy flagged BATs account because of money movement. He said he had sufficient experience to know when something is wrong. They froze BATs asset and charged him what you have in that screenshot. But then used a technicality - more like technicalities (sub section of the US code I showed) to seize the 460K. The charge/lawsuit did not hold.

chrisooblog:
Abi all families of people that died from bomb blasts and BH attacks during GEJ time will remember him fondly.

And after this bomblast (eagle square or UN building I forget which one now) GEJ partied hard. The man was going to International conferences with half of Nigeria on his tab and was known to get so drunk that they'll hire a standby doctor to pump his belly of alcohol. Jonathan the Otuoke drunk. After elections, I'll go back to my archives of his atrocities.

This una argument dey meaningless, Tinubu is a drug lord is an established fact. He is a drug pusher and a money launderer. All these long yarns are not needed.

Even his most ardent supporters know that he is a criminal, that's why what they aim to do is try and bring Obi down to his criminal level to now say, "no one is a saint". Meanwhile they are trying to compare a violent armed robber who steals on the high way to a student who stole a pen .

Peter Obi is a SAINT when compared to escoBAT. From the mouth of his core supporters.

Premium times was either lying or they were late to the news. The report was made available since February of 2015.

https://www.vanguardngr.com/2015/02/pwcs-forensic-audit-report-on-nnpc-matters-arising/

You first said since 2015 till today, they refused to release the audit statement, now you're saying that no, they released it, but was later in 2015 after Buhari commented on it. Which one is it, and did you lie that PWC did failed to release the audit report since 2015 till today?

Android17:
Una no rate Nigerians.

Anyone who believe a Politicians wealth will be clean needs to buy that ocean view property in Katsina

I wont deceive myself and think anyone who has held public office in Nigeria their wealth will be clean. If you want to do so, you are free

Some of us are realists

Theflint1:
Premium times was either lying or they were late to the news. The report was made available since February of 2015.

https://www.vanguardngr.com/2015/02/pwcs-forensic-audit-report-on-nnpc-matters-arising/

You first said since 2015 till today, they refused to release the audit statement, now you're saying that no, they released it, but was later in 2015 after Buhari commented on it. Which one is it, and did you lie that PWC did failed to release the audit report since 2015 till today?

They initially released highlights and absolved FG and NNPC of any wrongdoing. Then everyone said release the whole darn report let us see it. They refused till April 25 2022 after Buhari had won the elections. Remember, they themselves now said don't take our report seriously.

Even if people are dealing with recency bias and nostalgia I am here to remind them.

Android17:
The IRS guy flagged BATs account because of money movement. He said he had sufficient experience to know when something is wrong. They froze BATs asset and charged him what you have in that screenshot. But then used a technicality - more like technicalities (sub section of the US code I showed) to seize the 460K. The charge/lawsuit did not hold.

Awoo Android17 for the love of God, please

I wonder what you were thinking when you posted that screenshot. Na own goal you score, because I did not even have it


It is ORDERED that the money be Forfeited… pursuant to 21 USC 881(a)(6). How did this order come about when it did not hold?

raumdeuter:
Anyone who believe a Politicians wealth will be clean needs to buy that ocean view property in Katsina

If someone wins SHOA elections and becomes rich we should all believe it was his salary that made him rich. Like Zelensky became 500M rich through comedy or Nancy Pelosi is worth 200M due to her 200K a year salary. Some people are just too simple and naive.

Android17:
If someone wins SHOA elections and becomes rich we should all believe it was his salary that made him rich. Like Zelensky became 500M rich through comedy or Nancy Pelosi is worth 200M due to her 200K a year salary. Some people are just too simple and naive.

Or Dick Cheney is worth about 200M from his salary. Or any Nigerian former governor, Senator only live on their salary that is why they need to have offshore accounts hidden in their kids and cronies name

OBJ was broke when released from prison but had enough to open a University from his 8yrs presidency salary.

Those are people who like hearing stories like I had no shoes, I have 150 cows, I ate garri everyday, I have only one wristwatch, My son doesn't own a car, I have no house outside Katsina

homesteady:


Awoo Android17 for the love of God, please

I wonder what you were thinking when you posted that screenshot. Na own goal you score, because I did not even have it


It is ORDERED that the money be Forfeited… pursuant to 21 USC 881(a)(6). How did this order come about when it did not hold?

lol you clearly don't know how the law works or what an order is.

They cited 2 US codes as the basis of the court order. I attached them. Look at the second citation. It makes reference to the 1956 US code I sent you under which IRS can get involved. It was the IRS that confiscated BATs money. Do you agree?

Stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

homesteady:


Awoo Android17 for the love of God, please

I wonder what you were thinking when you posted that screenshot. Na own goal you score, because I did not even have it


It is ORDERED that the money be Forfeited… pursuant to 21 USC 881(a)(6). How did this order come about when it did not hold?

Oh I think I know what you mean. When I say the charge/suit of drug related seizure did not hold I mean it did not hold in court. "Hold" here means that is not what they got him on.

Android17:
lol you clearly don't know how the law works or what an order is.

They cited 2 US codes as the basis of the court order. I attached them. Look at the second citation. It makes reference to the 1956 US code I sent you under which IRS can get involved. It was the IRS that confiscated BATs money. Do you agree?

Stop arguing for the sake of arguing.

They cited 2 US codes abi?
1)The first one was specific to the dot: 21 USC 881(a)(6), which states that

All moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance or listed chemical in violation of this subchapter, all proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and all moneys, negotiable instruments, and securities used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of this subchapter.
Note - Controlled substance, which is the drugs.

2) The 2nd code was not specific to the dot, it just said 18 USC 981, which has a part that makes reference to 3 other wide sections.

Before I go ahead with my point 2, why are you totally ignoring the very specific one and going on a goose chase with the 2nd code?

homesteady:

They cited 2 US codes abi?
1)The first one was specific to the dot: 21 USC 881(a)(6), which states that

All moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance or listed chemical in violation of this subchapter, all proceeds traceable to such an exchange, and all moneys, negotiable instruments, and securities used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of this subchapter.
Note - Controlled substance, which is the drugs.

2) The 2nd code was not specific to the dot, it just said 18 USC 981, which has a part that makes reference to 3 other wide sections.

Before I go ahead with my point 2, why are you totally ignoring the very specific one and going on a goose chase with the 2nd code?

Do you know what AND in the English language signifies? I am not trying to be condescending but I have to ask.

Android17:
Do you know what AND in the English language signifies? I am not trying to be condescending but I have to ask.

I should be asking you if you know the meaning of AND.
By Virtue of that AND present there, it means 21 USC 881(a)(6) happened abi? So why are you ignoring it?

homesteady:


I should be asking you if you know the meaning of AND.
By Virtue of that AND present there, it means 21 USC 881(a)(6) happened abi? So why are you ignoring it?

AND is a strong conjunction. It connects factors that are to be taken jointly .

This means the court needed 21USC 881(a)(6) AND 18USC 981 to confiscate the money. They could not confiscate the money without both of them being together.

21 USC 881(a)(6) has to do with forfeiture of money, securities or anything that can be used as a legal tender/monetary instrument. Then 18 USC 981 covers amongst others the 1956 code - which encompasses how IRS can be delegated to do the seizing.

I now went to the 1956 code to show you IRS gets involved in 2 ways. They are attached with red highlights.

Look at what you posted here this time it says either X OR Y. The OR Y part mentions the very same things I am telling you. Either drug trafficking (X) or violation of financial transactions (Y). OR is not AND. Or links alternatives.

Which of them (X or Y) will the IRS be involved in? Recall, if it was X, the DEA should have been involved not the IRS. If you don't get it, ask a competent lawyer to explain it to you. #NightNight

Android17:
Yes worse not better in comparison.

For e.g I don't expect the "greatest economy in Africa" to be borrowing to pay salaries. Do you remember?

This is "myopism" of the highest order .


Buhari borrowed hell outa Nigeria n couldn't pay d agreed fees with ASUU but was busy buying flashiy cars....


i think ur defence of Buhari vs Jonathan isn't just only emotional but blind

Android17:
AND is a strong conjunction. It connects factors that are to be taken jointly .

This means the court needed 21USC 881(a)(6) AND 18USC 981 to confiscate the money. They could not confiscate the money without both of them being together.

21 USC 881(a)(6) has to do with forfeiture of money, securities or anything that can be used as a legal tender/monetary instrument. Then 18 USC 981 covers amongst others the 1956 code - which encompasses how IRS can be delegated to do the seizing.

I now went to the 1956 code to show you IRS gets involved in 2 ways. They are attached with red highlights.

Look at what you posted here this time it says either X OR Y. The OR Y part mentions the very same things I am telling you. Either drug trafficking (X) or violation of financial transactions (Y). OR is not AND. Or links alternatives.

Which of them (X or Y) will the IRS be involved in? Recall, if it was X, the DEA should have been involved not the IRS. If you don't get it, ask a competent lawyer to explain it to you. #NightNight

Since you were in Chicago in 1993 when the case happened and you know the exact part of Code 1956 that was used, I was also there and I know the exact part of Code 1956 that was used.
You chose A(ii), I choose A(i). How do you see it?

Special Kevin Moss of the IRS owns the investigation and his aim was those laundering money gotten from narcotics trafficking. Which was the case against Tinubu.

Theflint1:
You live in Anambra?

Yeah

Segedinho:

This is "myopism" of the highest order .


Buhari borrowed hell outa Nigeria n couldn't pay d agreed fees with ASUU but was busy buying flashiy cars....


i think ur defence of Buhari vs Jonathan isn't just only emotional but blind

Notice I have been patient with you because you are not exactly flash upstairs. You are literally talking like someone who is not educated. No offense.

Every nation borrows. The issue is not borrowing. The issue is borrowing to pay salaries and during a time you are bragging you have the best economy in the Africa.

Now review your screenshot, delete it and look for something better. Meanwhile, the issue with ASUU is not money Buhari personally owes them. Just read up before replying. I am not here to educate people for free. I don't even think Buhari is worth it.

Android17:
Notice I have been patient with you because you are not exactly flash upstairs. You are literally talking like someone who is not educated. No offense.

Every nation borrows. The issue is not borrowing. The issue is borrowing to pay salaries and during a time you are bragging you have the best economy in the Africa.

Now review your screenshot, delete it and look for something better. Meanwhile, the issue with ASUU is not money Buhari personally owes them. Just read up before replying. I am not here to educate people for free. I don't even think Buhari is worth it.

Like i said earlier...you are blind not emotional.

wch is better bw borrowing to pay workers and borrowing with nothing to show for..


your defence is wack and lack substances...

both are failure but buhari is worse..

....

homesteady:


In other words, you are basing your argument on the assumption that Buhari’s inflation would have been better than Jonathan’s inflation if the surrounding circumstances were perfect?

Android17 did you miss this?

This is your 2nd argument based on assumption.

homesteady:


Since you were in Chicago in 1993 when the case happened and you know the exact part of Code 1956 that was used, I was also there and I know the exact part of Code 1956 that was used.
You chose A(ii), I choose A(i). How do you see it?

Special Kevin Moss of the IRS owns the investigation and his aim was those laundering money gotten from narcotics trafficking. Which was the case against Tinubu.

Chai o. My hands don fall.

So you don't know the difference between EFCC and NDLEA? So by reading those codes you cannot tell which part involves DEA and which will involve IRS (IRS in the US also has FIRS + EFCC functions) by the way.

Chai. I am sad.

Segedinho:

Like i said earlier...you are blind not emotional.

wch is better bw borrowing to pay workers and borrowing with nothing to show for..


your defence is wack and lack substances...

both are failure but buhari is worse..

....

lol you are simple. Stop throwing words around that you don't understand. Did you read the article you posted or just ran with the headline?

If a country claims they have revenue shortfall and then borrow to make up for that shortfall is it the same as borrowing when you are bragging you have the best economy?

Between both borrowers which of them had a greater percentage earmarked for infrastructure or salaries and which of the govts did better with the infrastructure?

If you have nothing intelligent to say. Find someone else to debate. I am not doing bonanza to reply stupid posts abeg.

I hate that I am defending Buhari.

homesteady:


Android17 did you miss this?

This is your 2nd argument based on assumption.

Even the topic you don't understand you are still doing stronghead in, don't worry. I am not going to put up a defence for Buhari. But the Jonathan nonsense won't fly.

Android17:
lol you are simple. Stop throwing words around that you don't understand. Did you read the article you posted or just ran with the headline?

If a country claims they have revenue shortfall and then borrow to make up for that shortfall is it the same as borrowing when you are bragging you have the best economy?

Between both borrowers which of them had a greater percentage earmarked for infrastructure or salaries and which of the govts did better with the infrastructure?

If you have nothing intelligent to say. Find someone else to debate. I am not doing bonanza to reply stupid posts abeg.

I hate that I am defending Buhari.

it is not about borrowing to pay salary anymore??


Baba you win.

i give up......Buhari is d best Nigeria president ever.......

peace be unto you