jonny sunday's pearls of wisdom

[Dezcad]

johnny sunday wrote:

I know oral contract by counteroffer in open court in a criminal case or on the phone about a criminal case works 100% of the time. I've done it so many times and seen others so many times

Maybe that is how Jussie Smollett got his charges dropped!

[jonny sunday]

I never said oral/written counteroffers will get your case dismissed. They are just a tool to help us negotiate an agreement with the other party. I don't understand the Jussie Smolett case. How in the world can someone negotiate a plea deal, then walk out of the courthouse and proclaim innocence? I guess the prosecutor can do whatever they want with a case. Puzzling.

[lurker9000]

I guess the prosecutor can do whatever they want with a case. Puzzling.

It really is not that puzzling. A prosecutor has an ethical duty, in most jurisdictions, only to bring cases they believe they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. If they do not believe they can prove their case for whatever reason they might drop it or work out a plea deal or deferred prosecution agreement. Sometimes they drop the case without prejudice to allow the police to do more investigation and bring the charges again if they get more evidence.

I am puzzled why they did it because what I've heard. Which may only be a small part of the story.

[notorial dissent]

The impression I get from the news stories is that the State's Attorney involved in the case may have overstepped her bounds and that there may be an inquiry in to her behavior in the matter. Implication is Chicago politics.

[Gregg]

Now wait just a darn minute here. We got diverted there and I'm not willing to concede the point....

Our resident brain surgeon stated...

I know oral contract by counteroffer in open court in a criminal case or on the phone about a criminal case works 100% of the time. I've done it so many times and seen others so many times

Not a thing to do with Jesse Smollet and not something I'm willing to allow you to say without backing up at least 2 points.


"I know oral contract by counteroffer in open court in a criminal case or on the phone about a criminal case works 100% of the time." is just wrong. It might work, I guess, but if it did I'd say there is a problem with cause/effect of one on the other. I can make a counter offer with my boss that he should still pay me but I'm not going to bother to show up for work for the next 6 months, and he might go along with it. One didn't have to lead to the other. Maybe I have a medical condition and need to take some time off, and my company has a pretty generous leave of absence policy. So, if a Doctor says I need to take some time off, they will pay me to stay home for six months. But its not because I just thought I'd make them an offer and they had to accept. (In fact, in the last few years this has exactly happened to me, and not only is anyone who knows me well aware of this, I have receipts to prove it! From the motorcar company and the Doctor!)

So I'll concede that criminal cases do get dismissed and that you can babble counteroffers in open court, and both can happen in the same case, but I need to see more evidence that one caused the other.

Prove it...pictures or it didn't happen.

Second, "I've done it so many times and seen others so many times" is easier to reconcile if true. Post up a case citation.

This, little guy, is why your posts are moderated. Because you lie. More than a lot, but from what I can see, more often than not, you lie.

Okay, you can all return to figuring out why a celebrity is getting away with bad behavior, now.

I'll be waiting for Johnny to prove his ridiculous statements or retract them.

[noblepa]

I'll be waiting for Johnny to prove his ridiculous statements or retract them.

Let me know when hell has frozen over.

[Gregg]

Well, he sent me a paragraph of fan-fiction about how he had to utter something three times, but after he did the Beetlejuice "say it 3 times and its true" trick, they just let him go, or something.....
But until I get a case citation, well, like I told him,

"if you don't have proof, its just a cool story, bro"

My aunt, who grows prize tomatoes (and some surprisingly primo dope) on The Sea of Tranquility, says it sounds like its just a lie, and she would know....

[notorial dissent]

I'll be waiting for Johnny to prove his ridiculous statements or retract them.

Let me know when hell has frozen over.

Personally, I'm worrying about the flying pork, piggses is messy.

[wserra]

PM from groyse chochem:

It is obvious you are just censoring people to drive your own narratives. You let everyone else who kisses your ass to say whatever they want to people you don't agree with. You are a coward. Afraid of other ideas. Cowards like you, with mentalities like you, are the exact reason slavery is so popular in the USA. Enjoy your slavery. Don't forget to pay your taxes. Enjoy hanging out with the DoucheLosers who echo your ideas. What a fucking coward. You have to make your own forum and search for pieces of shit to hang out with in your chamber of NPC.

We love you too, jonny.

[Famspear]

It is obvious you are just censoring people to drive your own narratives. You let everyone else who kisses your ass to say whatever they want to people you don't agree with. You are a coward. Afraid of other ideas. Cowards like you, with mentalities like you, are the exact reason slavery is so popular in the USA. Enjoy your slavery. Don't forget to pay your taxes. Enjoy hanging out with the DoucheLosers who echo your ideas. What a fucking coward. You have to make your own forum and search for pieces of shit to hang out with in your chamber of NPC.

No, we are not censoring people. You have not been censored. You were put on moderated status because you didn't follow the rules.

And, no, we're not "driving a narrative" -- other than exposing scams.

No, we are not cowards or losers.

You feel that YOU are a "coward" and a "loser", and you, jonny, don't like that feeling. Indeed, the feeling causes you anxiety, and induces you to become enraged, as evidenced by the language of your posts. You are using a defense mechanism to combat your feeling of discomfort -- a process called "projection." You are projecting your own self-image as a coward and a loser onto other people, in an attempt to alleviate your own feeling of discomfort.

You are engaged in another psychological process, too. The process is called transference. For a long time, you have subconsciously thought of Winston Shrout as your father figure. You are enraged, subconsciously, because you believe that "daddy" has been exposed as a crook. You are enraged because, subconsciously, you see that "daddy" was convicted of Federal crimes. You are enraged because "daddy" ran is hiding somewhere. Your "daddy" is not being the right kind of manly, father figure for you. You are enraged when you see the regular posters here making fun of your "daddy." You are enraged because "daddy" has been humiliated -- and because you feel YOU have thereby been humiliated.

No, jonny, Winston Shrout is not your daddy. Get some self-awareness, jonny. Grow up.

No, jonny, paying taxes is not "slavery." Not even close. You are frustrated, you are enraged, and you're not thinking clearly.

[Chaos]

so......still no proof of his 'victories' I guess?

[rumpelstilzchen]

jonnysunday wrote:

It is obvious you are just censoring people to drive your own narratives. You let everyone else who kisses your ass to say whatever they want to people you don't agree with. You are a coward. Afraid of other ideas. Cowards like you, with mentalities like you, are the exact reason slavery is so popular in the USA. Enjoy your slavery. Don't forget to pay your taxes. Enjoy hanging out with the DoucheLosers who echo your ideas. What a fucking coward. You have to make your own forum and search for pieces of shit to hang out with in your chamber of NPC.

jonny, you appear to be arguing that the enforcement of tax law is morally wrong. Whether or not taxation is morally right or wrong is irrelevant in this discussion. My understanding is that Shrout's argument is that the law of the land supports Shrout's position, please correct me if I am wrong about this. This has got nothing to do with morals, it is a question about law. I would say that members of this forum who you would describe as "slaves" are not arguing about morals. Members of this forum are arguing about the position of the law. Having checked with the position of the law I would suggest that Shrout is wrong and "the slaves" are right. I would also draw to your attention the court has come to the same conclusion. It is possible that morally Shrout is right but it has to be said that legally, Shrout is talking out of his rectum. You too.

[jonny sunday]

I never said Winston Shrout was correct in his usage of bonds or his method of using bonds for his taxes. Never said it. Not once.

[Chaos]

I'm under attack!!!!11!1!1!!!!1!

thanks
Sent: Tue Apr 02, 2019 2:09 pm
From: jonny sunday
Recipient: Chaos

How fucking stupid are yall? I'm moderated. Did you forget already DoucheLoser? Every time I try and respond, after you cowardly fucking pieces of shit copy my private messages into the forum, I get censored. Regardless of whether or not I call you candy ass cowards pusillanimous pieces of shit. And that is exactly what all yall are. Fucking cowards. Get your fucking jollies off trying to impress your fudge packing boyfriends in the forum. I'm moderated. I guess you don't understand that because you suffer from aphasia and vagisitus.

have you guys been preventing the sunday shake from posting his court victory transcripts because I'm not sure what being moderated has to do with providing evidence of his alleged 'victories'.

[wserra]

I never said Winston Shrout was correct in his usage of bonds or his method of using bonds for his taxes. Never said it. Not once.

I'm not going to waste my time parsing exactly what jonny said about Shrout. What follows is what he said about himself:

I am 100% sure the knowledge I have learned and ascertained have made me into a man who feels comfortable dealing with officers of the court, in and out of the courtroom.

Proof? Nope.

I have saved money in attorney fees, and negotiated better settlements with prosecutors.

Proof? Nope.

I have helped people move contracts through administrative process.

Proof? Nope.

I have helped people enforce their claims on people who owed them.

Proof? Nope.

I've negotiated deals for people on the phone with the other party's attorney.

Proof? Nope.

I've made mistakes in court and been arrested.

Those I believe. Wow.

I've written to the judge from jail, corrected the mistake and released from jail.

Proof? Nope.

I've had judges in my court cases shake my hand, invite me in chambers, admonished me for my conduct, and I've gone back to those courts to visit.

Proof? Nope.

I've had judges and prosecutors apologize to me.

Proof? Nope.

The probation case attorney who sat in the court and saw me in one of the court rooms walked up to me with his wife, friend, friends wife and introduced them to me. Told stories about me in the court. He told me "Judge ... Loves you. Do you remember when him and the prosecutor told you they never wanted you to go to jail that day?"

Proof? Nope.

I play golf in local charity events and bump into some of these judges, clerks, bailiffs, attorneys and we have a nice chat.

I guess they'll talk to anyone.

Even an internet Rambo.

[AndyK]

Being moderated means all posts are reviewed for adherence to the (very loose) forum rules and appropriateness to the thread in which they appear.

If (don't hold your breath) JS were to post the slightest verifiable crumb substantiating ANY of his claims and/or allegations, we moderators would be tripping over each other in a rush to release the information.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I play golf in local charity events and bump into some of these judges, clerks, bailiffs, attorneys and we have a nice chat.

I guess they'll talk to anyone.

And the name of that judge? Dear reader. It was Albert Einstein.

[apefarms]

Haha, you gotta love all the losers here asking Jonny for court cases proving his theory when what he's claiming really takes place outside the jurisdiction. Surely you all can't be that stoopid ... well?

Well?

[obadiah]

Haha, you gotta love all the losers here asking Jonny for court cases proving his theory when what he's claiming really takes place outside the jurisdiction. Surely you all can't be that stoopid ... well?

Well?

Really?

[Pottapaug1938]

Haha, you gotta love all the losers here asking Jonny for court cases proving his theory when what he's claiming really takes place outside the jurisdiction. Surely you all can't be that stoopid ... well?

Well?

We ask jonny for "court cases proving his theory" because THAT IS THE ONLY FORM OF PROOF WHICH COUNTS. We aren't interested in some Fisher-Price Common Law Play Court, with chambers in the back room of the local Denny's, in some church seeking rental income for their parish hall, or in a corner of a disused industrial park warehouse. Unless Shrout's activities took place outside the borders of the United States, and had no nexus with anything within those borders, our courts have jurisdiction; thus, any claim by jonny that what Shrout has done "really takes place outside the jurisdiction" is delusional. That is especially true, given the fact that any competent lawyer could successfully argue a lack of jurisdiction, in court, IF THERE TRULY WAS A LACK OF JURISDICTION, and WIN.