ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There

[ngupowered]

Thx Prof, "No playin', no jivin' - just business. "

What say yee' all? Did it rebut my statement?

[obadiah]

Thx Prof, "No playin', no jivin' - just business. "

What say yee' all? Did it rebut my statement?

What, exactly, will you accept as a rebuttal? I've read a goodly number of well thought out rebuttals but you seem to be insisting on something markedly different.
So: What, to you, is a proper rebuttal?

[davids]

Did it rebut my statement?

Yes.

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.

Anyone debating this fool is wasting their time as well. He's got nothing, no reason to think the way he does, but for a few Menard or Clifford videos (or if you're lucky, maybe a Druanna - she's at least not bad to look at and goes off into tangential new age nuttiness for extra entertainment factor).

[rumpelstilzchen]

What say yee' all? Did it rebut my statement?

That question is one for you to answer.
In your opinion did it rebut your statement?
Yes or No?
If "No" please explain exactly why it did not rebut your statement.

[ngupowered]

Obadiah, seems you believe that I believe it didn't rebut my statement?
"Anyone debating this fool is wasting their time as well" - Yet, here you are. Who then is the better fool?
"Menard or Clifford videos " - Eh? You are seriously confused.

rumpel, I asked you first.

[rumpelstilzchen]

rumpel, I asked you first.

Yes.
Now answer my question.

[davids]

"Anyone debating this fool is wasting their time as well" - Yet, here you are. Who then is the better fool?
"Menard or Clifford videos " - Eh? You are seriously confused.

NGU, while others have debated you, I haven't. There's no reason trying to debate someone who is not remotely qualified to hold a conversation on a subject, yet is for some reason opinionated and contrary about it. I don't know where you get your garbage - there are an unlimited amount of charlatans selling this crap all over the internut, and you're probably one of them.

[rumpelstilzchen]

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

You mean the Karl Lentz who tried to sue the government for $300,000,000?
How did that go for him?

[GlimDropper]

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

You mean the Karl Lentz who tried to sue the government for $300,000,000?
How did that go for him?

Didn't go so well in the real court, but he's still raking in one US dollar per second in Lentz Court.

[Pottapaug1938]

"Anyone debating this fool is wasting their time as well" - Yet, here you are. Who then is the better fool?
"Menard or Clifford videos " - Eh? You are seriously confused.

NGU, while others have debated you, I haven't. There's no reason trying to debate someone who is not remotely qualified to hold a conversation on a subject, yet is for some reason opinionated and contrary about it. I don't know where you get your garbage - there are an unlimited amount of charlatans selling this crap all over the internut, and you're probably one of them.

I have absolutely no doubt that, if a defendant in a criminal case had to consent to jurisdiction in order for that jurisdiction to attach, "upstanding citizens" like Whitey Bulger, Richard Reid (shoe bomber), Ed and Elaine Brown, and Bernie Madoff would all be free people today. Add to that a long list of wealthy people, accused of crimes and able to afford the best criminal defense lawyers available, who still got convicted and sentenced to prison; and you wonder why they didn't raise lack of consent as a bar to prosecution, while penny-ante schmucks like ngupowered seem to know all about it.

[erwalkerca]

They're all in on the conspiracy to deprive people of their rights. Everybody knows that.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Thx Prof, "No playin', no jivin' - just business. "

What say yee' all? Did it rebut my statement?

Why does anyone need to rebut jibberish?

It's time to stop feeding the troll.

[Pottapaug1938]

I'm done with him. He has been painted into a corner, but he still insists that he can dance to his heart's content and now get covered in paint.

[AndyK]

Quatshed has been invoked

[wserra]

"Anyone debating this fool is wasting their time as well" - Yet, here you are. Who then is the better fool?

My God, I agree with something gnupowered said.

Must go wash my brain out with soap.

[ngupowered]

Continuing on 'ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There'.
People there got aroused and excited, just like a couple of retards, convincing themselves to shut down the thread. Apparently they need fresh posts hourly to satiate their troll fix, giving me no time to respond.

ST1 = Courts require consent of the parties, expressed or implied in action, for adjudication.
ST2 = Prof's post rebutts ST1.

So, your silence shall constitute tacit acquiescence in the affirmative to ST2 - rebuttals within 48 hours.

[obadiah]

Continuing on 'ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There'.
People there got aroused and excited, just like a couple of retards, convincing themselves to shut down the thread. Apparently they need fresh posts hourly to satiate their troll fix, giving me no time to respond.

ST1 = Courts require consent of the parties, expressed or implied in action, for adjudication.
ST2 = Prof's post rebutts ST1.

So, your silence shall constitute tacit acquiescence in the affirmative to ST2 - rebuttals within 48 hours.

And once again, what will you accept as a proper rebuttal?

[AndyK]

Quatshed

[webhick]

Old thread unlocked and merged the two together.

[Pottapaug1938]

Continuing on 'ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There'.
People there got aroused and excited, just like a couple of retards, convincing themselves to shut down the thread. Apparently they need fresh posts hourly to satiate their troll fix, giving me no time to respond.

ST1 = Courts require consent of the parties, expressed or implied in action, for adjudication.
ST2 = Prof's post rebutts ST1.

So, your silence shall constitute tacit acquiescence in the affirmative to ST2 - rebuttals within 48 hours.

And once again, what will you accept as a proper rebuttal?

Nothing whatsoever. He's too busy playing unilateral word games for that. He has been repeatedly challenged to provide at least one case showing that the defendant's consent is necessary for jurisdiction to attach to him/her; but all we get from his is cowardly evasion. All he cares about is evading, ducking, weaving, shucking and jiving until we get tired of him; and then he, like so many of his type, will strut off to his own world of like-minded circle-jerkers and crow about how he challenged the Quatloosers for an answer to his question but they could never give him one.