norrha nonnsense

[norrha]

Needles to say I won't post here anymore.

Well, that lasted all of two hours.

You mean lasted two hours before you moved that post from the Winston-Shrout thread. But keep enjoy playing your adolescent games. Surely you couldn't be so stupid to believe that by "here" I meant the entire forum, and not just that particular thread? But then again, I'm pretty sure you could!

[wserra]

Twice I've moved norrha's Shrout-free posts out of the Winston Shrout thread, twice he has quoted them back into the Shrout thread. If norrha believes that he should be able to post whatever he wishes wherever he wishes, he should start his own board. On this board, norrha is now moderated.

[noblepa]

... more smoke blowing.

You can tell the mods here aren't used to logical argumentation, because my denying the existence of something, shifts the burden of proof to the other party. The reason for this is of course very simple: one cannot (generally) prove the non-existence of something that doesn't exist. In this case, my proof would be totally meaningless, because the whole body of jurisprudence is the proof.

Yawn, you really are making things way too easy!

Ah, but you ARE claiming that something DOES exist: the legal distinction between a "person" and a "MAN". The lawyers here have tried patiently to explain that this doesn't exist and have given cases in which a defendant tried to argue this distinction and LOST. The courts have ruled many times that such a distinction is a figment of someone's fevered imagination.

[Gregg]

... 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!

The few hundred thousand ''the man that is sentenced'' currently in prisons in all 50 states sounds like a pretty loud statement to me. If we were only sentencing some intangible straw man, it seems like we could save quite a bit on the cost of housing and feeding them. Consider all those sentencing orders proof, they in writing, they're easily researched and they do have the advantage of appearance of something applying to persons, people, and all manner of living flesh and blood men. Wait a bit and Wild Winnie will be one of them.

Seeing as you are an especially stupid person who demands unusual things....take the whole 12 minutes and change to let this Judge in an actual courtroom explain it to someone who was asking questions along the same lines you are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnSd-E3Hb3Y

[RSVPini]

I'm not quite clear exactly who is requesting proof of something that requires none. Is norrha appearing in this thread as the person, the man, the woman, the private individual, settlor, or the secured party to norrha?

Clarification is needed.

[Lambkin]

Prominent tax dodger Winston Shrout, sentenced in the fall to 10 years in federal prison for failing to file tax returns and issuing fake financial documents, likely won’t have to report to prison Monday as ordered.

Shrout has filed an appeal of his sentence to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and has requested to remain out of custody pending the outcome.

https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2019/0 ... tence.html

[wserra]

TBL - we have a lengthy thread on Shrout, that contains this info and much more. I moved your post there. This thread exists due to the presence of a troll that called itself "norrha", who persisted in posting the above nonsense to a serious thread.

Welcome to Q.