Work in progress
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
scott91575;2340802; said:The only reason you would go to court in order to determine identity theft is if your name is in an arrest warrant or criminal conviction.
If that guy truly used your name and that is why it is in a court record, the records would be changed to use his actual name but still include your name as an alias. If his name is not known, it would be changed to John Doe.
These records would not be sealed. The only thing that would happen is any thing like your social security number, bank statements, etc. would be redacted.
So, are you saying the stuff with John Strassini was due to identity theft. If so, why are the above not true? Also, if you have not noticed, if you do a request for Giovanni Strassini's court records in North Carolina, the alias "John D Strassini" is tied to your name (that is your alias, not the other way around). I would get to work on changing that if I were you. Well, unless it's true.
Oh, BTW, if you truly had this done you should have received a court document saying that you are indeed not the person who has been convicted or wanted on a warrant. This should not have any personal information other than what is already known here, and you could easily black out anything you don't want seen. You could easily provide this here, but as you have stated over and over again, you do refuse to do so. Just because one person didn't want it does not prove you actually have it.
scott91575;2340802; said:The only reason you would go to court in order to determine identity theft is if your name is in an arrest warrant or criminal conviction.
If that guy truly used your name and that is why it is in a court record, the records would be changed to use his actual name but still include your name as an alias. If his name is not known, it would be changed to John Doe.
These records would not be sealed. The only thing that would happen is any thing like your social security number, bank statements, etc. would be redacted.
So, are you saying the stuff with John Strassini was due to identity theft. If so, why are the above not true? Also, if you have not noticed, if you do a request for Giovanni Strassini's court records in North Carolina, the alias "John D Strassini" is tied to your name (that is your alias, not the other way around). I would get to work on changing that if I were you. Well, unless it's true.
Oh, BTW, if you truly had this done you should have received a court document saying that you are indeed not the person who has been convicted or wanted on a warrant. This should not have any personal information other than what is already known here, and you could easily black out anything you don't want seen. You could easily provide this here, but as you have stated over and over again, you do refuse to do so. Just because one person didn't want it does not prove you actually have it.
BIATCHabutuka;2340817; said:so when giovanni and paulie purebred hate bang each other who is the pitcher and who is the catcher or do they just glaze each other's faces like donuts?
onlymelol;2340814; said:PS- the person that did the acts, did get convicted and it was NOT me. After the fact, the same banks involved attempted to say that the fraud guy was me. Thus the ID theft claim made with the police and subsequent court action that was VOLUNTARILY dismissed by the banks, because it was proven to not be me, with the fingerprints etc. I sent these to Vince, wait for his reply. All that claimed the wrongful stuff was me, be ready, to admit you were wrong.
onlymelol;2340814; said:PS- the person that did the acts, did get convicted and it was NOT me. After the fact, the same banks involved attempted to say that the fraud guy was me. Thus the ID theft claim made with the police and subsequent court action that was VOLUNTARILY dismissed by the banks, because it was proven to not be me, with the fingerprints etc. I sent these to Vince, wait for his reply. All that claimed the wrongful stuff was me, be ready, to admit you were wrong.
scott91575;2340820; said:Was he or was he not the John D Strassini linked in the court cases here? From the court proceedings it certainly appears he was already in custody and tried for his crimes. Does this relate directly to that?
As for being ready to apologize, I stated all along that it might not be you, yet since you refused to provide evidence to the contrary it more than likely is. I may change my opinion due the fact you finally decided to provide what you have (to be seen if it's relevant), but I owe you no apology. I made a logical conclusion based on what you provided (or refused to provide for so long).
It also does not change the fact you are a lying, fraudulent scumbag that has made threats and insane accusations here. You sir are a POS, and I don't care if you provide documents claiming you are Jesus Christ himself, that will not change. Yet you already know that, and it eats you up. You can't stand that your little play life has been exposed, and all your other crazy lies have yet to be addressed by you.
BIATCHabutuka;2340824; said:there's something unhealthy about your obsession though paulie.
is Giovanni that sailor you met at TGIFriday's?
is Giovanni the reason you now have a lazy eye?
p.s. for the italian ped staters out there, we want our 1973 heisman trophy back also.
onlymelol;2340823; said:wrong again, if you left my name out of your lying mouth, you would be a non factor. you know nothing, and that your claims of me will be proven wrong and you say that means nothing is EXACTLY why i did not do it earlier. i did it now at others asking for this. carry on then
scott91575;2340831; said:I am pretty sure my claim that you are a lying, fraudulent scumbag have been proven to be true.
onlymelol;2340834; said:you are a silly laughable joke. back peddling now doesn't change what you said earlier
onlymelol;2340834; said:you are a silly laughable joke. back peddling now doesn't change what you said earlier