Response from Dominick Crea to all of the previous. He's still waiting on approval:

"I don’t know, maybe it is the impact of the times, having restrictions based on quarantine, but I find myself having to address you yet again. It is extremely obvious you are trying to get a rise by making your backhanded sarcastic remarks. I must tell you, your actions are mute. As stated repeatedly I am not responding to convince you of anything and or gain “sympathy”. You are using the typical and predictable tactic of deflection to attempt to switch the momentum of logic in your favor. Your baseless rebuttals are irrelevant to say the least. As previously stated the purpose of my intrusion was to simply point out when this case is analyzed, facts understood, arguments weighed, testimony heard, no evidence existed tying my father to any of the charges. That is not an opinion that is a statement which is supported by fact as recorded in transcripts, minutes and motions. Again, before offering your “matter of fact” opinions you should educate yourself on a topic. I must say I find it quite Ironic that someone who apparently hates individuals who have the label “gangster” as reflected in the forum domain, your profile is confusing. You have an avatar of an actor, who plays gangsters, you have been a member since 2013, seven years serving as a groupie of a topic you have disdain for. Extremely puzzling. In addition you utilize this tag line “I invoke my right under the 5th amendment of the United States constitution and decline to answer the question.” To portray a stereotypical response from what one would guess an alleged member of a secret society would say in court. It truly makes one think what is your motive for the participation as a groupie? Something to ponder. You spit out lots of inaccuracies and “google” based information without any supportive fact and pass it off as gospel. Your agenda is clear, your reasoning to participate in this group is extremely transparent. I am sure I am not the only one who has it figured out. I also find it amusing you make a nonsensical statement “If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Such squirrelly attempts to avoid prison, and short enough sentences in the grand scheme of things, is unbecoming. What happened to doing your time like a man?” Few notations to that absurdity: 1. the exact point of the article is the fact that the crimes charged were not committed. It appears that elementary point is not being grasped by you. 2, again you try and use words to antagonize and goat, however one’s IQ must be subpar to fall for such an immature tactic. The reality is the scale of a man coming from someone of your caliber is not measurable. It is meaningless, holds no value and is a reflection of the person making the statement. Therefore, that gauge of assessment is substandard. My values and beliefs don’t allow for someone to “do the time” when they are innocent of the charges. My values suggest to fight for a person’s rights, show the truth and be judged based on evidence and factual basis. Not judged and punished based on being framed, set up, targeted, whichever term you wish to use to explain a wrongful conviction You continue to deflect and try and twist the debate to LE versus criminals when you are the only one who sees that as the argument or topic. The issue is Justice Versus Injustice. Truth versus Lies. Fact versus Fiction. However, to see it for what it is would be too logical for your comprehension so you wish to make it more of a personal conversation. If and when I get approval I will gladly finish my back and forth with you as you seem to relish in deflection, insults, irrelevant, and inaccurate statements. Predictably, you will rebut this with additional hostile remarks, comments to get a rise, whatever you can to deflect. I will no longer Burden this user by asking her to post my response so feel free to have a field day, hiding under a fictitious name so you need not stand by the words you spew. You know my name, my company, my information. I have nothing to hide and I stand behind all I speak, both in written word and in person. Now have at it and respond with the habitual argumentative, agenda filled remarks you repeatedly make."