ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There

[ngupowered]

Aschlynne, correct, I don't stand under that question and I've still got me' pearls.
"why he keeps responding with a bunch of gibberish " - Isn't that how one usually communicates with pigs?

Seems a couple of those faulty believe that I'm claiming that consent is needed.
Not so, I'm claiming that nobody has rebutted that; the record show as much.

pottapaug, it's up to you to show that such a claim would fall under appellate jurisdiction.

[JamesVincent]

You made a statement, the onus is on you. Forum rules state that if you make a statement or assert a point of view contrary to known and understood law or precedent you must prove that assertion correct by either non-overturned appellate court decisions or by statute. No one has to prove you wrong, you have to prove that you are correct. And you have already been proven wrong by statute and precedent and have ignored it. The forum is littered with people who try to play the same word games as you. You are not unique or special in any way. You're not even original.

So either put up or shut up.

And, once again, you do not make the rules here. They are already in place from past dealings of screwballs and nutjobs who did the same thing.

I think we already covered who has the obligation to answer.

[Pottapaug1938]

Aschlynne, correct, I don't stand under that question and I've still got me' pearls.
"why he keeps responding with a bunch of gibberish " - Isn't that how one usually communicates with pigs?

Seems a couple of those faulty believe that I'm claiming that consent is needed.
Not so, I'm claiming that nobody has rebutted that; the record show as much.

pottapaug, it's up to you to show that such a claim would fall under appellate jurisdiction.

More Ngu-gibberish.

There isn't a trial court in the country which would allow a defendant to successfully claim that he/she must consent to the court's jurisdiction before it can try, and possibly sentence, him/her. If the defendant wishes to get that decision reversed, he/she must appeal the case to the appellate court having jurisdiction over the trial court. Thus, the claim "would fall under appellate jurisdiction"; and the decision of the appellate court would have value as a legal precedent.

So, once again: where is your appellate court case which proves that consent is required? And, on what premise do you assert that there may be any issue, at all, about consent being necessary?

[ngupowered]

pottapaug, nice argument but where's the actual proof?

If consent was needed and the trial court proceeded without, there never was a case to be appealed. It was null and void from the start. The person subjected would have a claim at common law in a court of record for trespass upon property (rights included).

[AndyK]

Yawn. Good night Gracie.

[Arthur Rubin]

Suggestion: ngupowered's posts and replies should be separated from this thread (as they have nothing to do with Gordon Hall, and placed into a separate thread, so that those who wish to read and reply can do so, and those who want to talk about Gordon Hall can do so without undue ... interference. (I could do it, in theory, but I'm not good at that sort of thing.)

[wserra]

Agreed. Done.

[Pottapaug1938]

pottapaug, nice argument but where's the actual proof?

If consent was needed and the trial court proceeded without, there never was a case to be appealed. It was null and void from the start. The person subjected would have a claim at common law in a court of record for trespass upon property (rights included).

Here's a good place to start. There are some citations there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_jurisdiction


http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-la ... -case.html

http://defensewiki.ibj.org/index.php/La ... risdiction

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jurisdiction

There aren't many cases,because proving the idea of criminal jurisdiction attaching to someone regardless of their lack of consent is equivalent, in the law, to the mathematician's need to prove that 2+2+4. No one has yet to prove otherwise.

Now -- please offer us the same sort of information on the need for an accused to consent to the court's jurisdiction.

[davids]

Freemen and sovereign citizens are proof that a little bit of knowledge is dangerous. These types, ngu included, will vacillate between try to describe the law as they believe it exists (even though they're wrong) right up to the point you corner them, then they lapse into discussing their theories of how it SHOULD be. It usually seems they don't even realize the two are different positions.

One can think all day long that it SHOULD be impossible to require one to stand trial without consent to that specific trial, or that one SHOULD be able to drive without a drivers' license. It takes a special kind of stupid to think that because one thinks one SHOULD be able to do something, that the laws passed by the legislature agree with them.

Even funnier is that when they lapse into "should be" reasoning, that is when they think they're really being smart, witty, mind-blowing, etc. As if there has never been an attorney or judge who ever has the thought of "gee, the law should be different than it is." It's really amusing watching them self-applaud for miscalculating 2+2.

[ngupowered]

Even more amusing watching you guys think you have actually proven anything. You are way beyond clueless.

[JamesVincent]

Even more amusing watching you guys think you have actually proven anything. You are way beyond clueless.

Stop looking in the mirror.

[Pottapaug1938]

Even more amusing watching you guys think you have actually proven anything. You are way beyond clueless.

We have -- several times; but you are indulging in the written equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "la-la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you." And, how about that appellate court case which says that consent is needed for jurisdiction in criminal cases? Well?

[ngupowered]

James, I can comprehend why you'd see it that way.
http://weirdviking.com/cross-eyed-peopl ... people-11/

You guys are way beyond. Throwing a bunch of arguments without proof and showing losses in Tax Court (LOOL) is hardly proof, had you known anything about law.

You need to start listening to Karl Lentz on talkshoe to water that dried shrunken fig brain of yours.
Gordon Hall speaking might also be of interest: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/24616108

[Pottapaug1938]

James, I can comprehend why you'd see it that way.
http://weirdviking.com/cross-eyed-peopl ... people-11/

You guys are way beyond. Throwing a bunch of arguments without proof and showing losses in Tax Court (LOOL) is hardly proof, had you known anything about law.

We did offer proof to you. You are simply ignoring it, or brushing it off because it isn't phrased in the words which you want used.

You need to start listening to Karl Lentz on talkshoe to water that dried shrunken fig brain of yours.

I did. He's full of the same pseudo-legal gibberish as has been repeatedly rejected by every appellate court which has heard cases like this.

Gordon Hall speaking might also be of interest: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/24616108

That doesn't look like the decision of an appellate court to me.

[Pottapaug1938]

pottapaug, nice argument but where's the actual proof?

If consent was needed and the trial court proceeded without, there never was a case to be appealed. It was null and void from the start. The person subjected would have a claim at common law in a court of record for trespass upon property (rights included).

Wrong again. The "person subjected" would need to raise the lack of consent at trial; and if the court convicted the defendant anyway, he/she couldn't simply ignore the verdict and unilaterally declare that there never was a case to be appealed and that his/her conviction was null and void, because he/she would soon wind up as a guest of the state in a gated community. As long as the trial court's decision stands, it is, indeed, a case, whether you like it or not.

He/she would have to file an appeal with the appellate court of that jurisdiction (NOT with some mock "common law" court set up by some self-appointed "legal scholars"), and raise the lack of consent as a point which requires the reversal of the trial court's verdict.

The appellate court would then have to rule that there was indeed "never a case", and that the trial court's verdict was null and void as a matter of law, in order for your contention to be proved correct. AND THAT, MY FRIEND, IS THE THING FOR WHICH i HAVE BEEN ASKING REPEATEDLY. Duck, bob, weave, evade, obfuscate and distract to your heart's content; but until and unless you show us an unreversed appellate court case supporting your contentions, you will be wasting your time with us.

[ngupowered]

Funny, all I require to do is quote properly to respond the same.

"pottapaug, nice argument but where's the actual proof?"

"Duck, bob, weave, evade, obfuscate and distract to your heart's content; but until and unless you show us an unreversed appellate court case supporting your contentions, you will be wasting your time with us"

or in the words of Gordon in Hall vs Lentz http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksxoIWgTYOw

"we're gonna have trouble with this one, cause he don't listen"

[rumpelstilzchen]

Even more amusing watching you guys think you have actually proven anything.

Even more hilarious is watching you think that you have actually proven anything.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Wrong again. The "person subjected" would need to raise the lack of consent at trial; and if the court convicted the defendant anyway, he/she couldn't simply ignore the verdict and unilaterally declare that there never was a case to be appealed and that his/her conviction was null and void, because he/she would soon wind up as a guest of the state in a gated community. As long as the trial court's decision stands, it is, indeed, a case, whether you like it or not.

He/she would have to file an appeal with the appellate court of that jurisdiction (NOT with some mock "common law" court set up by some self-appointed "legal scholars"), and raise the lack of consent as a point which requires the reversal of the trial court's verdict.

The appellate court would then have to rule that there was indeed "never a case", and that the trial court's verdict was null and void as a matter of law, in order for your contention to be proved correct. AND THAT, MY FRIEND, IS THE THING FOR WHICH i HAVE BEEN ASKING REPEATEDLY.

Methinks that is much too difficult for troll boy to comprehend.

[Pottapaug1938]

Funny, all I require to do is quote properly to respond the same.

"pottapaug, nice argument but where's the actual proof?"

"Duck, bob, weave, evade, obfuscate and distract to your heart's content; but until and unless you show us an unreversed appellate court case supporting your contentions, you will be wasting your time with us"

or in the words of Gordon in Hall vs Lentz http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksxoIWgTYOw

"we're gonna have trouble with this one, cause he don't listen"

We've given you the proof, but you always find some excuse to ignore it. All you give us are a bunch of unsupported statements, and some self-serving rants by some self-appointed legal scholar.

You are wasting your time doing this. The only thing that we need or want from you is an unreversed appellate court case supporting the proposition that consent to jurisdiction is necessary in criminal cases. Do you have such a case?

You can answer in one of two ways: yes or no. After that, we'll talk.

[Prof]

Although I rarely weigh in, and visit infrequently (press of business, so to speak), perhaps the best "evidence" that jurisdiction is irrelevant to the concept of consent is found in the circuit-level cases interpretingStern v.Marshall, ___ U.S. ____, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011). Stern, as some or even many of you know, limited the jurisdiction of U.S.Bankruptcy Courts -- and by implication, all Art. I federal courts-- somewhat dramatically. Read, e.g., J. Scalia's concurring opinion, which was necessary to generate a majority.

Now, the federal Circuit Courts of Appeal are applying Stern, which on its facts and face could appear to be a very limited ruling. Since Stern, many courts have struggled with whether a bankruptcy judge can enter a judgement in a matter that is a final judgment, irrespective of questions about jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court to issue a final or appealable judgment, if the parties consent. Such a judgment is reviewable on appeal to the U.S.District Court. The clearly constitutional option is for the bankruptcy judge to issue a report and recommendation, subject to de novo review by a U.S.District Judge.

Consent comes in because many parties would be better served by a judgment and not a de novo review, because an appeal is easier, quicker and cheaper (just take my word for it).

But, the Circuit Courts are now making it very clear that "consent" or "waiver" cannot generate jurisdiction. See, e.g., Frazin v. Haynes & Boone, L.L.P (In re Frazin), 732 F.3d 313(5th Cir. 2013). A number of other circuits have joined in this refrain.

In other words, as the U.S.Supreme Court has clearly stated, in the context of courts in the United States system of courts, that jurisdiction is governed by the provisions of title 28 U.S.C. (which contains the statutes setting out the jurisdiction of the various federal courts) which is in turn limited by the provisions of the Constitution at Art.'s I and III.

IN OTHER WORDS, CONSENT IS IRRELEVANT AS A MECHANISM TO CREATE JURISDICTION.

By the way, Stern, and a predecessor case, Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982), both result in finding a Congressional grant of jurisdiction to a bankruptcy court to be unconstitutional under Article I; each imposes limits on granting jurisdiction to Art. I courts which can only be exercised by Article III courts (which are courts on which the judges serve for life without diminution in compensation).