norrha nonnsense

[Tevildo]

Incidentally, the specific claim can be refuted. See Habeas corpus. Note that it's habeas corpus, not habeas personam.

[norrha]

... more blowing smoke.

Isn't it funny how numerous mods respond to my posts supposedly "not worthy of serious consideration", yet never seem to come up with anything refuting them. Fammy, for example, seems to resemble a pitbull, with the gnarly snarl and the occasional lashing out, but eventually whimpers, just like any good dog, and off to the nearest well-urinated pole.

But ok, here's the proof: the entire American jurisprudence is proof that there exists no statement, in said jurisprudence, saying that it is the man that is sentenced.

Now it's up to you to prove that that isn't proof!

[norrha]

Incidentally, the specific claim can be refuted. See Habeas corpus. Note that it's habeas corpus, not habeas personam.

Here's what Merriam-Webster dictionary has to say on habeas corpus: " the right of a citizen to obtain a writ of habeas corpus as a protection against illegal imprisonment", and "an order to bring a jailed person before a judge or court to find out if that person should really be in jail", my emphasis.

But thanks for playing! You're not gutless like the "mods" here on Quatloos.

[wserra]

Shrout has appealed the DC's denial of release pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit per FRAP 9, which also requires the Circuit to decide that application "promptly". The Rule doesn't define "promptly". Until that decision, the order directing Shrout to surrender is stayed.

Against my better judgment, a question for norrha: assume that the day comes when Shrout either surrenders or absconds and is arrested on the ensuing warrant. Either way, he is then jailed to serve his sentence. You claim that "Winston the man" - your phrase - remains at liberty. What part of him is "the man"? His penis? His appendix? His "soul"? What can the part of him that doesn't see the world through bars do without the part of him that does?

[Famspear]

... more blowing smoke.

Isn't it funny how numerous mods respond to my posts supposedly "not worthy of serious consideration", yet never seem to come up with anything refuting them. Fammy, for example, seems to resemble a pitbull, with the gnarly snarl and the occasional lashing out, but eventually whimpers, just like any good dog, and off to the nearest well-urinated pole.

But ok, here's the proof: the entire American jurisprudence is proof that there exists no statement, in said jurisprudence, saying that it is the man that is sentenced.

Now it's up to you to prove that that isn't proof!

No. We've been through this already. It is not up to me or anyone else to prove that this isn't proof.

No, it isn't "funny" that we respond to your posts to the effect that your efforts are not worthy of serious consideration. We don't need to come up with something "refuting" your posts. It's frustrating for you, yes. But this is your lot in life: You are not taken seriously.

And, no, I don't resemble a pitbull, etc., etc. You're not a player, norrha. You're just another two-bit troll on the internet. You're one in a series of know-nothings who come here to Quatloos, seeking validation and never finding it. Your fate is virtually pre-determined.

[Pottapaug1938]

Dear reader! Carefully and objectively examine the posts above. This is what's called "blowing smoke" - and some "hot air" - because nowhere did they actually provide a reference to any jurisprudence denying my statement. If they really knew what they were doing, they would have easily come up with such a reference. But they can't, because they are either ignorant or afraid.

When responding to claims like yours, we take the approach made famous by the case Crain v. Commissioner:

"We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit."

You are the one blowing smoke, norrha. You are demanding that we show you exact verbiage which matches your question, with the clear intention of later saying "see -- the legal experts on Quatloos were unable to refute my assertion!" Well, I could do the same -- claiming, for example, that Massachusetts law makes me Emperor of the Commonwealth, and demanding that you cite a phrase from an appellate decision which states that I'm not.

You are the one who is claiming that WINSTON SHROUT is legally different from Winston Shrout, and that the former will be the one going prison, while the latter will remain free. Show us proof as to why.

[Pottapaug1938]

Another, and often overlooked, quote from Crain is this:

"An appeal that lacks merit is not always — or often — frivolous. However, we are not obliged to suffer in silence the filing of baseless, insupportable appeals presenting no colorable claims of error and designed only to delay, obstruct, or incapacitate the operations of the courts or any other governmental authority. Crain's present appeal is of this sort. It is a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic gibberish. The government should not have been put to the trouble of responding to such spurious arguments, nor this court to the trouble of 'adjudicating' this meritless appeal."

norrha's assertions are also "of this sort".

[Tevildo]

Here's what Merriam-Webster dictionary has to say on habeas corpus: " the right of a citizen to obtain a writ of habeas corpus as a protection against illegal imprisonment", and "an order to bring a jailed person before a judge or court to find out if that person should really be in jail", my emphasis.

The question is not so much what the writ is used for, it's what the words mean. "Have there [before the court] his body." It's not "the person" or "the accused" or even "him" (or "his person", which would be an entertaining interpretation in English law), it's "his body". That's what the court has jurisdiction over - it doesn't depend on the legal definition of "person".

EDIT: Punctuation

[norrha]

Tevildo, it matters not what the actual words mean in latin, but their meaning in law. Here's what Wikipedia says: "(law) A writ to bring a person before a court or a judge, most frequently used to ensure that a person's imprisonment, detention, or commitment is legal."

Note that I'm not saying that a person has nothing do with the body or the man; it has.

[norrha]

"Shrout either surrenders or absconds"

Only a person can "abscond". As for the rest of the posts here: yawn, nothing worthwhile to consider!

[wserra]

Everyone here gets the benefit of the doubt. But once it becomes clear that a poster's only purpose is to troll, s/he is banned.

[Dark Optimist]

I know this is not a democracy, but I vote for banning. Enough time wasting.

[Resume]

Very soon, Winston Shrout, the person, the individual, the agent, and the settler, will be in the slams, there to probably perish.

Thus endeth the lesson.

[Chaos]

Very soon, Winston Shrout, the person, the individual, the agent, and the settler, will be in the slams, there to probably perish.

Thus endeth the lesson.

you mean.......banned from society? lmao!

[norrha]

This is just a "special appearance" to give notice:

This thread and its title were neither started nor authorized by me.

Needles to say I won't post here anymore.

[Pottapaug1938]

This is just a "special appearance" to give notice:

This thread and its title were neither started nor authorized by me.

Needles to say I won't post here anymore.

Given the drivel which you've posted up to this point, I won't miss the lack of your posts one bit. Also -- there is no rule that you personally must start or authorize threads using your name.

I rather suspect that, after having been sliced and diced, every time you post on Quatloos, you've decided to follow the example of many notorious Quatloos trolls and slink away, proclaiming victory as you exit; and no doubt, you will soon be crowing, on forums much more congenial to your philosophies -- if I can dignify them thus, that you asked the Quatloos questions and they couldn't answer them, thus you won.

[Juisarian]

No, the "twaddle" is that you can find nowhere in the jurisprudence that it is the man that is convicted.

United States v. Shrout (3:15-cr-00438) looks to have the information you're after.

[norrha]

No, the "twaddle" is that you can find nowhere in the jurisprudence that it is the man that is convicted.

United States v. Shrout (3:15-cr-00438) looks to have the information you're after.

Oh really? Where exactly?

[wserra]

Needles to say I won't post here anymore.

Well, that lasted all of two hours.

[Resume]

Needles to say I won't post here anymore.

Pins say you will.