[ edited out]
Yet again you simply flip the burden of proof on its head and just pretend you haven't, but if you have its ok because "burden of proof shifts" according to you.
Seems that you are purposefully attempting to skew the kinds of accepted practices in this burden of proof kind of area.
It does not matter at all what I think. I am merely attempting to describe what I understand to be the standards and practices, and if I don't understand or if I am not explaining well, then I have no problem being corrected. Your level of wanting to misunderstand or to divert into nonsense about what I think leads us into gobble-dee-gook landia, which seems to be your preferred stomping grounds. hahahahaha
Anyhow, it seems that I already stated what I mean by shifting burdens, and there is really no need for me to attempt to reiterate what I have already said.
It is not an overstatement at all. You nor anyone else have as any fucking clue whatsoever where those funds went. This is 100% a fact. Your speculation about what happened to it is not evidence, it is speculation.
There has been some compiling of facts that lend reasonable inferences regarding that the funds likely went into the pockets of OGNasty. Is that the only explanation? no. Is it 100%? no. But it seems to be the most probable based on the evidence so far presented. Is it enough evidence to convict in a criminal proceeding? Perhaps.... Is it enough evidence to get a prosecutor interested? Perhaps. Is there a statute of limitation problem or an amount in controversy (like
de minimus issue)? Could be. Does there need to be enough evidence in order to have a criminal conviction? no way José. Just like nutildah said, members can decide to remove trust from OGNasty or to refuse to trust him or to distrust him based on evidence already presented. Or they could decide that the evidence does not rise to a level that inspires them to take any actions in regards to whether or not to trust OGNasty.
You are right, I am being totally unreasonable expecting you to be able to prove your accusations of theft without relying completely upon speculation and using that to demand the burden of proof now be upon OGNasty.
You are being unreasonable by trying to personify every statement that is made. Who gives any shits what I say in terms of proving anything? I am not trying to prove anything. I am just describing various aspects of applicable standards to consider, and you seem to want to argue about basic foundational ideas.
You have fun with your twisted semantic gymnastics, just be careful you don't sprain your brain bending over backwards to try to make all your rambling gibberish seem like it makes logical sense.
Sure, sometimes there are better ways that I might be able to say the thing that I am trying to say. I am just a mere mortal with my communication limitations. On the other hand, it does not seem that you are doing much if any better than me in terms of exuding logical clarity, especially since you seem to get so easily distracted into irrelevancies regarding conspiracy theories or even trying to confuse what the facts and logic establish.... directly or indirectly, including lacking or refusing to consider various standards of proof and how burdens might shift under certain circumstances.