ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There

[Arthur Rubin]

"ngu", this is our forum, and our rules. Silence does not imply consent, here.

And you consented to our rules by posting here (you could see the consent on the signup screen). Our rules are that a statement needs evidence to be worthy of consideration. You have not supplied any evidence, and we have provided evidence that consent is not required for a criminal prosecution.

On the other hand, if your reasoning were at all correct, we could hunt you down and.... take your computer. You've consented, right?

Let's see a rebuttal, not that it's technically needed, under our rules. However, under your rules....

[rumpelstilzchen]

Here is an excellent example of a young lady not consenting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxpRlv6USlI

A very effective method I'm sure you will agree.

[grixit]

Hey, bring her hat too, people! it really completes her outfit.

I watched parts of some related videos. I did not know there was such a thing as 60's re-enactors.

[ngupowered]

Hmm, I might add pottapaug to the forum laws. He proves himself worthy.
Rumpel, did you see a court in that video? And she obviously did consent, had you learnt anything.

[Pottapaug1938]

One other thing, about this forum, is that we don't have to prove that which is well settled in law. We don't have to prove, for example, that the Constitution is in force; that there are 50 states in the Union, that murder is a crime... or that criminal jurisdiction attaches, by force of law, with or without the consent of the accused, if a crime is committed within the jurisdiction of the relevant court.

Anyone wishing to contend otherwise must present proof in the form of unreversed appellate court decisions -- not treatises, not quotes from this or that person, not YouTube videos, and not quotes taken out of context from laws or appellate decisions.

[AndyK]

Facts, Facts, Facts: BOOOORING

[Jeffrey]

Let's reframe the argument then. Why would politicians write laws that require them to trick you into consenting to being put in jail instead of simply writing laws that say "we can put you in jail even if you disagree"?

[wserra]

I have a better question: why are folks going 'round and 'round with this guy?

[rumpelstilzchen]

Rumpel, did you see a court in that video?

I saw the result of a court decision
What do you think you saw?

And she obviously did consent, had you learnt anything.

Yeah. If only she'd chosen a hat in Robin Egg blue and worn it at a forty-five degree slant those cops would have been powerless.

You must admit though, watching these freemen in action shouting "Admiralty law!" and getting their arses kicked every time is as good as watching a Monty Python sketch.
It's hilarious.
When will these idiots ever learn? They will lose every time.

How's things going, h.h. ?

[Kestrel]

I have a better question: why are folks going 'round and 'round with this guy?

I'm wondering the same. I put the idjut on Ignore a couple of weeks ago, and Q has been a lot more pleasant ever since.

[ngupowered]

Yeah. If only she'd chosen a hat in Robin Egg blue and worn it at a forty-five degree slant those cops would have been powerless.

Pfft, where have you been? Brim should have "Accepted for value" in flashing red neon. Still debating the 45 degrees though.
Matters not had she yelled "I don't consent". Would still kick her out for being annoying.

Pottapaug, good, now you only have to prove that you are not wrong.

So it seems people are tacitly acquiescing to ST2.

[Pottapaug1938]

Yeah. If only she'd chosen a hat in Robin Egg blue and worn it at a forty-five degree slant those cops would have been powerless.

Pfft, where have you been? Brim should have "Accepted for value" in flashing red neon. Still debating the 45 degrees though.
Matters not had she yelled "I don't consent". Would still kick her out for being annoying.

Pottapaug, good, now you only have to prove that you are not wrong.

I already did, as did others. You have the legal citations available to you. You just refuse to look at them.

So it seems people are tacitly acquiescing to ST2.

No. "Most people" have simply gotten sick and tired of responding to you and getting nothing but evasions and excuses in return. Now, unless you can come up with a valid legal citation showing that consent of a defendant IS needed for criminal jurisdiction to attach, please stop bothering us.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Pottapaug, good, now you only have to prove that you are not wrong.

This response shows why this idiot is a waste of time. He has made a claim that consent is required but offers absolutely no evidence to support it. He has reversed the burden of proof. "Prove me wrong!" he cries. But when he is offered evidence that does rebut his claim, he is incapable of challenging it. Instead he demands that you must prove that you are not wrong. The boy has nothing.

So it seems people are tacitly acquiescing to ST2.

Haven't you learned anything?
Acceptance must be communicated.

[ngupowered]

LOL, amusing how you people manage to confound yourself regarding my claims. No wonder you don't know law. Or maybe you're just scheisters.
Potta, you got to be insane [hypothesis only for show] believing you have actually proven anything by referencing some guy, voluntarily appearing in Tax court, arguing his case with respect to tax laws in some jurisdiction.

Maybe this guy is right.

[Judge Roy Bean]

... Maybe this guy is right.

But seriously ... the guy is welcome to his belief system, but that doesn't mean anyone else has to believe he's anything but a bloviating ignoramus.

[Pottapaug1938]

I find myself barely bothering to read his posts anymore. Instead, I find myself trying to come up with his title.

Truth Evader (inspired by Harvester's Truth Worrier, since Ngu is cut from the same bolt of thin cloth as Harvey)?

[Thule]

I find myself barely bothering to read his posts anymore. Instead, I find myself trying to come up with his title.

Truth Evader (inspired by Harvester's Truth Worrier, since Ngu is cut from the same bolt of thin cloth as Harvey)?

Unconscious Consenter?

[Kestrel]

I find myself barely bothering to read his posts anymore. Instead, I find myself trying to come up with his title.

Truth Evader (inspired by Harvester's Truth Worrier, since Ngu is cut from the same bolt of thin cloth as Harvey)?

I'm trying to put this image into words. Ngu, aka Gnu, the bloviating ignoramusis, confronts the Q Crocodile. He can gnu-power all he likes but the outcome is inevitable.

[Gregg]

An idiot by any other name is still...an idiot

[The Observer]

The boy has nothing.

Many years ago I was at a large party with lots of people, noise, distractions, etc. In one corner a group of people had set up an impromptu poker game and were having a good, loud time. At some point I noticed that the people at the table were getting more animated, more vocal, and seemingly upset by one player who was a newcomer at the table. He was loud, proud and not a bit modest in claiming that he was the best poker player present. He was also not adverse to putting down the other players in terms of their apparent skill and the current hand they were holding. He had gone at great lengths about how great his hand was and how the rest of the table had no chance at beating this hand. This had the rest of the field stirred up and the conversation, such as it was, had pretty much gone astray in terms of the game in favor of more personal insults being exchanged.

Finally, one of the non-players watching all of this finally noted during a brief lull, that the hand that had been dealt was 20 minutes old and that nothing had occurred in getting the game moving. A few more observations were made in that the play seemed have to stopped once the raise had moved to our braggart and that he had failed to raise, call or drop out. Another person pointed out that the ante seemed to be short by one person. and the general recollection by most was that this self-proclaimed poker champ had somehow forgotten to ante up when the cards were dealt. Others realized that this was also the first hand he had been dealt and that it wasn't a coincidence that his posturing had derailed the game at that point. The players at the table at that point confronted him and of course he blustered, pointed fingers at other people, made many excuses and refused to abide by the rules of the game. So the players at that point ignored his hand, bypassed him on the betting and refused to acknowledge his hand at the end of the play. This went on for a few more rounds, and he finally got up and left, realizing that he was no longer fooling anyone - everyone realized that since he wasn't putting up money to back his bragging, he wasn't really playing. And that he had nothing.