Replies

Leo’s writings are the basis of many of your arguments - true?

You accept without questions the legal ramblings of a professional poker player with absolutely no legal experience. You support the legal antics of a California dentist with an online law degree. And you are upset when others disagree with you.

You accept without questions the legal ramblings of a professional poker player with absolutely no legal experience.

Leo points to documents which we can read for ourselves. Documents like this:

Or This:

These documents do not rely on Leo for their legitimacy, but are self affirming.

It is an Alinskey tactic to attempt to discredit independent evidence by linking it to an ad hominem directed at an individual.

Leo’s writings are the basis of many of your arguments - true?
No, they aren't the basis. I looked at and read the original information of my own accord. I've gotten input from a wide variety of sources, not just Leo. I merely agree with some of his writings.
Good God, man, I publicly railed against the man for whining about the cover-up issue and was chastised thoroughly for doing so by a poster here. I also hinted at (not wanting to embarrass the man) the fact that others had come to realize that the holdings were relevant when he hadn't even come to that conclusion. His understanding came later than that of others.

You accept without questions the legal ramblings of a professional poker player with absolutely no legal experience.
No, you dotard, I read the necessary information and came to my own conclusions! Unlike you, I don't let others think for me.

And you are upset when others disagree with you.
You're really pathetic. Wipe the lies off of your homepage.