A Winston Shrout suggestion....

[netwrkranger]

As a recap, these are merely questions with NO POSITION ARGUED OR PROPOSED.

- How valid is Winston Shrout's information? Percentage will do?
- Has he ever been party to a suit brought under criminal action?
- Has he ever been jailed for the usage of his information?

Regards,
netwrkranger

[mrg]

Originally Posted by AdAstra

Turning money and laws into religion - will only lead to disaster.

Hasn't it?

[soniktemple]

Originally Posted by AdAstra

It's not logical to assume and/or state that because someone is not in jail, that it is definitive evidence that they are acting in accordance with the law. Further, the first law of scientific logic and reasoning is that the burden of proof is upon the presenter of an argument. In other words, it is incumbent upon anyone making a claim to prove that claim. After all, we're talking about money and laws - not religion. Turning money and laws into religion - will only lead to disaster.

Thank you! That is exactly my point only I wish I had said it as eloquently as you had.
I do find the DVDs and lectures very fascinating starting with Cracking the Code books (Ken Lee, Vic Vabjedian) all the way up to Winston Shrout. Putting those into practice is another story. I don't know if Winston has come across any trouble but I do believe he filed his UCC-1 before 9/11 when most of the Pay-triots were doing so. He is very careful not to say he is telling you to do ANYTHING and he can't give legal advice so he calls it "commercial" advice or "remedies".

So far nobody has coughed up any real life proof that this actually works in the post 9/11 "patriot act" era.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by AdAstra

...just because someone

is not

in jail,

does not

mean

they are

innocent

of breaking

the "theory and philosophy"

that

has been

codified

into

law.



If this is true, then prove it to all of us.

Interesting string of words.

How does one "break" "theory?" and philosophy?

How does one "break" "philosophy?"

How does one "break" "theory" AND "philosophy?"

How does one "break" "theory and philosophy?"

What does "codified into law" mean?

How does "theory and philosophy" get "codified?"

And, further, "codified" "into" "law?"

What do YOU mean by "law?"

What is YOUR definition of "law?"

What is YOUR definition of "codified?"

What is YOUR definition of "codified INTO law?"

What are the precise mechanics of this codification INTO "law?"

How may theory methodically be re-lated (in)to law?




No sooner does one leave than another appears?

[mrg]

Pssst Cody!

What?

You know what.

[AdAstra]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

I had asked the question in the manner in which I did, because the authorities aren't shy about going after those who they feel are against their interests.

If you're trying to convey the above as "opinion" then I suggest adding "I believe the authorities..." instead of emphatically stating, "because the authorities..." See the difference? In addition, if you want to later argue that your quote above is a really a question - then use one of these: "?" <-----they're quite handy.

But enough fun - in a later post in this thread, you contradict the above quote with, "these are merely questions with NO POSITION ARGUED OR PROPOSED." Yawn.

Here's what I think: your questions are a poor attempt at using the Socratic method to prove a point: that what Winston is teaching must be legal because "the authorities" haven't taken action against him.

How long does it take a Grand Jury to change a light bulb?

For the record, Winston seems like an honest guy to me. But hey, I've been wrong before about people - and maybe what he is - is really just a guy trying to make a few Federal Reserve notes...

[Right to the Castle]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

As a recap, these are merely questions with NO POSITION ARGUED OR PROPOSED.

- How valid is Winston Shrout's information? Extremely invalid


Percentage will do? I don't know, will it?

You really do need to work on your "?" placements.