While this is the case, it can be seen from my post history that I understand and (at least try to) enforce the forum rules and that I do not particularly like those that evade bans. It is more of a case that I didn't previously have the evidence for getting someone banned prior to someone else posting it.
If some of the specifics of the facts are changed, but the principal remains the same, then it would read as follows:
-Corrupt FBI agent A asks citizen X for money, or else he will bring up bogus charges against citizen Xs daughter [1]
-FBI agent A opens a grand jury investigation on citizen Xs daughter, starts to present bogus evidence against her and makes citizen X aware of this
-FBI agent B pulls over citizen Xs daughter for speeding, who also does not have a drivers license on her
-FBI agents A and B are peers, and neither has any authority over the other
-FBI agent B does not normally pull people over for speeding [2]
-citizen X, being aware of both the bogus grand jury investigation and the pending arrest of his daughter for driving without a license, asks FBI agent A to stop everything regarding his daughter so he can negotiate
-FBI agent B, at FBI agent As request, lets citizen Xs daughter go without a ticket [3]
-two days later, FBI agent B arrests citizen Xs daughter for driving without a license when he originally pulled her over (she was not driving at the time of the arrest) [4]
-What is FBI agent Bs involvement?
This also doesn't properly depict the situation.
[1] - The evidence that I brought up in my thread is absolutely factual, to which Zeroxal will (and has previously) agreed. By the fact that theymos has publicly said that any past rule-breaking has been cleared, it can be assumed that he also agrees (I'm not talking about any evidence brought up by anyone else as I haven't personally verified it).
[2] - This would make more sense if it were 'FBI agent B has always been against those who speed, however has never seen a case himself prior to another officer handling it'.
[3] - I didn't, and never have, said to Zeroxal or anyone else that I would let him go without approval of an admin. I have always been clear that I was going to pursue the case regardless of any other outcome, which I did.
[4] - This implies that Zeroxal wasn't ban evading when I reposted the thread, which is false. He was ban evading and there was no public evidence of an admin forgiving it, therefore the allegations were still legitimate.