you have made very FEW posts where you DONT do it, liar
Sean Hannity and Oliver North Head Military Charity Mired In Scandal
- Thread starter Madeline
- Start date
There are children of soldiers going to school NOW but the fund is paying very little towards their education. Only token payments are made to qualify as a charity. Each year the funds keep growing but the payments continue to lag. This phony charity is a scam based on North's Iran-Contra scam model.A perfect example of what passes for "logic" in the CON$ervative Brotherhood. No soldiers had any children of any age before they went to war, they only had babies after going to war, therefore there would be no need to pay out money for school for at least 17 years.
That was actually the point of the charity. To invest money for the kids NOW to help them in the future. That is conservative logic.
******* idiot.
Freedom Alliance knows it's a scam which is why they refuse to open its books to the better Business Bureau. Of course, DumbCon will accuse the BBB of being a Liberal hack organization.
Charity Review of Freedom Alliance
Charity Contact Information
Name: Freedom Alliance Address: 22570 Markey Court Dulles, VA 20166-6919 Phone: 703-444-7940 Web Address: www.freedomalliance.org
BBB Wise Giving Alliance Comment
Despite written BBB Wise Giving Alliance requests in the past year, this organization either has not responded to Alliance requests for information or has declined to be evaluated in relation to the Alliances Standards for Charity Accountability. While participation in the Alliances charity review efforts is voluntary, the Alliance believes that failure to participate may demonstrate a lack of commitment to transparency.
the fund is for college not primary school
A perfect example of what passes for "logic" in the CON$ervative Brotherhood. No soldiers had any children of any age before they went to war, they only had babies after going to war, therefore there would be no need to pay out money for school for at least 17 years.
the fund is for college not primary school
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,888
- 1,830
And why wouldn't the soldiers have college age children now?A perfect example of what passes for "logic" in the CON$ervative Brotherhood. No soldiers had any children of any age before they went to war, they only had babies after going to war, therefore there would be no need to pay out money for school for at least 17 years.
the fund is for college not primary school
The fact remains, the college age children at this time are not getting enough money to pay for college. They are getting an average of less than $3,000 per year while the "charity" takes in over $10 million each year. It's an obvious scam.
R
rdean
Guest
Depends on how you define "wrongdoing". One example is "breaking the law". Most Republicans, yourself included, feel that as long as you didn't break the law and you were able to scam as much money as possible, in any way possible, then it's "OK".
It's like John Boehner passing out bribes on the House Floor and being videotaped doing it. It's not illegal, but it's unethical. Republicans and others such as yourself stop at "It's not illegal". Screw ethics. The right winger doesn't know what that is, in fact, they don't even care. How do we know? You guys vote for him.
liar
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
You should have read more carefully:
"Debbie Schlussel is a reasonably well-known conservative commentator"
Liability
Locked Account.
A conviction reversed on appeal is a nullity. Exactly the same as though there had never been a conviction. Exactly. It returns the accused to the status he had before the trial. In short, it returned Col. North to the status of a person who is presumed in the eyes of the law to be innocent. His presumption of innocence is intact to this very day. And since there was never a re-trial (and no longer can be one), Ollie is innocent.
Too bad the government which you libbies cherish oh so very much prosecuted him in a manner that violated his Constitutional rights. Damn. You must just be pissed off at the Government you cherish beyond measure. And damn, but that whole Constitutional protections thing being applied even to guys like Ollie, whom you hate, must rankle your peevish little minds.
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,888
- 1,830
BULLSHIT!!!
Traitor North was found GUILTY of felonies. He is a CONVICTED felon. He was found by the Extreme Court to be IMMUNE from prosecution, not INNOCENT of the felonies he was convicted of. As a CONVICTED felon he no longer has the presumption of innocence. He is a convicted felon immune from prosecution.
Liability
Locked Account.
No. Your pissing, moaning, groaning, wailing, gnashing of teeth and foot stomping doesn't change anything. Dry your eyes and change your soiled panties.
A reversed conviction is no longer a conviction at all.
The fact of a reversal DOES return a person to the status quo ante, whether you like that absolutely correctly stated legal fact or not.
Your petulant but silly claim that Col North was a "traitor" is even more ridiculous.
He has no criminal record at all. And the fact that you cannot digest this truth is merely additional evidence that you don't know what you talk about and that your petty little hatreds are more important to you than facts.
I find that funny. You I find pathetic, of course. But your arrogant ignorance (loudly trumpeted as it tends to be) is a rip.
they were NOT "over turned" they were VACATED
and yes, there is a difference
these werent just reversed, they were vacated, maybe you can explain the difference to edthemoron in words he might understand
No. Your pissing, moaning, groaning, wailing, gnashing of teeth and foot stomping doesn't change anything. Dry your eyes and change your soiled panties.
A reversed conviction is no longer a conviction at all.
The fact of a reversal DOES return a person to the status quo ante, whether you like that absolutely correctly stated legal fact or not.
Your petulant but silly claim that Col North was a "traitor" is even more ridiculous.
He has no criminal record at all. And the fact that you cannot digest this truth is merely additional evidence that you don't know what you talk about and that your petty little hatreds are more important to you than facts.
I find that funny. You I find pathetic, of course. But your arrogant ignorance (loudly trumpeted as it tends to be) is a rip.
Liability
Locked Account.
these werent just reversed, they were vacated, maybe you can explain the difference to edthemoron in words he might understand
No. Your pissing, moaning, groaning, wailing, gnashing of teeth and foot stomping doesn't change anything. Dry your eyes and change your soiled panties.
A reversed conviction is no longer a conviction at all.
The fact of a reversal DOES return a person to the status quo ante, whether you like that absolutely correctly stated legal fact or not.
Your petulant but silly claim that Col North was a "traitor" is even more ridiculous.
He has no criminal record at all. And the fact that you cannot digest this truth is merely additional evidence that you don't know what you talk about and that your petty little hatreds are more important to you than facts.
I find that funny. You I find pathetic, of course. But your arrogant ignorance (loudly trumpeted as it tends to be) is a rip.
The legal effect of a reversal of a conviction is to vacate that conviction. It becomes void. A nullity. At the instant that happens, the person is restored to his status quo ante: i.e., he once again is presumed innocent in the eyes of the law.
This isn't a controversial notion, either. It is ancient stuff. Edthesickdick is simply too vastly ignorant to grasp it.
After a conviction, a person can often be sent back to the trial court for RE-trial. That wouldn't happen if he was already deemed "convicted." A conviction erases the presumption of innocence. But upon a re-trial, the accused once again HAS the presumption. Why? Because he has been RETURNED to the status he had prior to the previous trial.
Edthesickdick cannot be tracking this part of the discussion. It is wrecking his universe.
Of course, sometimes the case cannot be sent back for a retrial. Sometimes, the basis for the reversal was an error that had permitted invalidly obtained evidence to be used, for example. And if the government cannot prosecute the accused without that evidence, and it has just been ruled to be inadmissible, then the government will be unable to try the defendant. Oops. IF he has a presumption of innocence and cannot be tried ever again, then nothing can remove that presumption of innocence and that means -- he not only has no criminal conviction, but can never be convicted. His presumption of innocence in the eyes of the law will be inviolate forever.
Felons cannot run for office (although they can petition to have their rights restored in some cases) in Virginia. After his conviction got reversed, Ollie did run for the U.S. Senate. He lost the race. But he was legally allowed to run. Edthesickdick will be unable to appreciate the import of that historical fact.
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,888
- 1,830
Traitor North's conviction was DISMISSED not because he was innocent, but because he was IMMUNIZED. He could not be retried because he was IMMUNIZED. His conviction was DISMISSED, not reversed.these werent just reversed, they were vacated, maybe you can explain the difference to edthemoron in words he might understandNo. Your pissing, moaning, groaning, wailing, gnashing of teeth and foot stomping doesn't change anything. Dry your eyes and change your soiled panties.
A reversed conviction is no longer a conviction at all.
The fact of a reversal DOES return a person to the status quo ante, whether you like that absolutely correctly stated legal fact or not.
Your petulant but silly claim that Col North was a "traitor" is even more ridiculous.
He has no criminal record at all. And the fact that you cannot digest this truth is merely additional evidence that you don't know what you talk about and that your petty little hatreds are more important to you than facts.
I find that funny. You I find pathetic, of course. But your arrogant ignorance (loudly trumpeted as it tends to be) is a rip.
The legal effect of a reversal of a conviction is to vacate that conviction. It becomes void. A nullity. At the instant that happens, the person is restored to his status quo ante: i.e., he once again is presumed innocent in the eyes of the law.
This isn't a controversial notion, either. It is ancient stuff. Edthesickdick is simply too vastly ignorant to grasp it.
After a conviction, a person can often be sent back to the trial court for RE-trial. That wouldn't happen if he was already deemed "convicted." A conviction erases the presumption of innocence. But upon a re-trial, the accused once again HAS the presumption. Why? Because he has been RETURNED to the status he had prior to the previous trial.
Edthesickdick cannot be tracking this part of the discussion. It is wrecking his universe.
Of course, sometimes the case cannot be sent back for a retrial. Sometimes, the basis for the reversal was an error that had permitted invalidly obtained evidence to be used, for example. And if the government cannot prosecute the accused without that evidence, and it has just been ruled to be inadmissible, then the government will be unable to try the defendant. Oops. IF he has a presumption of innocence and cannot be tried ever again, then nothing can remove that presumption of innocence and that means -- he not only has no criminal conviction, but can never be convicted. His presumption of innocence in the eyes of the law will be inviolate forever.
Felons cannot run for office (although they can petition to have their rights restored in some cases) in Virginia. After his conviction got reversed, Ollie did run for the U.S. Senate. He lost the race. But he was legally allowed to run. Edthesickdick will be unable to appreciate the import of that historical fact.
If Traitor North gave up his IMMUNITY he could have been tried and convicted yet again.
wrong dipshitTraitor North's conviction was DISMISSED not because he was innocent, but because he was IMMUNIZED. He could not be retried because he was IMMUNIZED. His conviction was DISMISSED, not reversed.these werent just reversed, they were vacated, maybe you can explain the difference to edthemoron in words he might understand
The legal effect of a reversal of a conviction is to vacate that conviction. It becomes void. A nullity. At the instant that happens, the person is restored to his status quo ante: i.e., he once again is presumed innocent in the eyes of the law.
This isn't a controversial notion, either. It is ancient stuff. Edthesickdick is simply too vastly ignorant to grasp it.
After a conviction, a person can often be sent back to the trial court for RE-trial. That wouldn't happen if he was already deemed "convicted." A conviction erases the presumption of innocence. But upon a re-trial, the accused once again HAS the presumption. Why? Because he has been RETURNED to the status he had prior to the previous trial.
Edthesickdick cannot be tracking this part of the discussion. It is wrecking his universe.
Of course, sometimes the case cannot be sent back for a retrial. Sometimes, the basis for the reversal was an error that had permitted invalidly obtained evidence to be used, for example. And if the government cannot prosecute the accused without that evidence, and it has just been ruled to be inadmissible, then the government will be unable to try the defendant. Oops. IF he has a presumption of innocence and cannot be tried ever again, then nothing can remove that presumption of innocence and that means -- he not only has no criminal conviction, but can never be convicted. His presumption of innocence in the eyes of the law will be inviolate forever.
Felons cannot run for office (although they can petition to have their rights restored in some cases) in Virginia. After his conviction got reversed, Ollie did run for the U.S. Senate. He lost the race. But he was legally allowed to run. Edthesickdick will be unable to appreciate the import of that historical fact.
If Traitor North gave up his IMMUNITY he could have been tried and convicted yet again.
it was VACATED
look it up you ******* idiot
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Democratic candidate for governor — pulled a mirror off the wall, “shattering the glass” when she “became upset”- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 5
-
-
-
