That's an interesting defense, but it is mostly based on appeal to reputation. It doesn't work that way against undeniable evidence (check the Commander62890 case for reference).
For instance, I'll give you 2 clear cut cases (in my view). And that is only considering 2011, your clan got a huge freebie with this abuse prescription of not really considering things from 2010, but I digress.
Game 9157574 - the point here is that account sitting parts from the premise that a player will not be able to take the turn for himself. There are 12 posts that can be used as evidence that Dako HAD access before his 24-hour deadline would expire and therefore your sitting was not in compliance to the strict CC sitting guidelines ("only sit if in danger of missing the turn").
Game 8687933 - same as above, but change "12 posts after the sitting took place" for "11 posts before the sitting took place".
As a reminder, you were pretty quick in condemning KoRT back in the Josko case.
Bones' case on KoRT basically had logs of forum posts and other played games showing that the players that Josko had sat for were online in the 24-hour span of the turn.
Here, Josko's case on TOFU basically has logs of forum posts and other played games showing that the players that CoF had sat for were online in the 24-hour span of the turn.
A different ruling would defy both logic and law.
