No, you don't think that at all.jonny sunday wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 7:41 pm I think I'm banned from commenting because of a differing opinion.
You do know why you're in moderated status, though.
No, you don't think that at all.jonny sunday wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 7:41 pm I think I'm banned from commenting because of a differing opinion.
In the United States, even a non-criminal case with almost no non-frivolous issues to be resolved can drag out. Example: The latest Peter Hendrickson tax protester case (extensively covered in other threads in this forum), which was commenced in the U.S. Tax Court around March of 2014, was only just concluded in February of this year (Hendrickson v. Commissioner, case no. 006863-14). That took nearly five years -- with only one non-frivolous argument having been presented by the petitioners, Pete and Doreen Hendrickson. This nearly five year period doesn't even count the time to be spent in the appeals process, and I believe Hendrickson has said he intends to appeal.
Yes, it's unusual for a non-cooperating defendant. But Shrout is not the usual non-cooperating defendant. As I've written before, given that he is (1) elderly, (2) non-violent and (3) ill, the delay is understandable.
Not "hopefully" if you're Shrout.Hopefully they got everything resolved.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons web site still shows him as "not in custody" as of about 8:55 pm Central time on Wednesday, March 6, 2019. But, it's possible that he's already in custody and the web site has not been updated yet.
You are cru-u-u-el and unusual!
They banned Johnny Sundae with nuts from the site. Is that what Shrout went to prison for, writing fake bonds? Shrout did lots of stuff. Fake bonds is what got him?