A Winston Shrout suggestion....

[netwrkranger]

The definition of jurisprudence is the theory and philosophy of law. The last time I checked, neither theory nor philosophy were corporeal.

As far as money goes, it even isn't backed by substance. It is backed by credit (Latin. credere - to believe).

Seems to me law and commerce are just as religious as religion is. Have faith?

- netwrkranger

[AdAstra]

You're making statements of opinions like they are facts.

Besides, you diverted from point (stay with me here): 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.

[netwrkranger]

Feel free to point out in my posts where I say, "What I am saying is fact." If you care to take it in as such, you are free to do so.

Also feel free to point out the statements of opinion I make that you are inferring as fact.

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.

The presumption you created is valid, however, that wasn't the presumption I intended to make. Therefore, it is your creation.

I believe the term is called a strawman in this context.

[netwrkranger]

Then feel free to apply that reasoning to post #9, Cody.

- netwrkranger

[netwrkranger]

I had asked you about post #9, not post #14.

I'll have to cite you for an inability to comprehend.

[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.