In Jail By Consent?

[rumpelstilzchen]

We don't consent.

We don't consent.

Who's gonna be the third?

Me. I don't consent, either.

Motion carried.

[Kestrel]

Btw, I require that all options be restored & and all posts hereto, except #1, be deleted, all done as soon as possible.

We don't consent.

Who's gonna be the third?

Me. I don't consent, either.

Nor do I consent.

Since time frame demanded is the very nonspecific "as soon as possible" I believe we are within our rights to define that term in our favor. I suggest "when hell freezes over."

I'll have another glass of Troll Ale, please.

[The Observer]

Also delete all the posts hitherto except of course the initial.

Er, no. You've got to find three friends.
Eleven and a half hours to go.........

By the way, rumpel, how did this turn out?

[rumpelstilzchen]

Also delete all the posts hitherto except of course the initial.

Er, no. You've got to find three friends.
Eleven and a half hours to go.........

By the way, rumpel, how did this turn out?

He failed to attract support.
I suggest he should be forced to wear the biggest pair of clown shoes that are available. Even better if he does not consent.

[LPC]

Just to veer wildly on-topic for a second:

"There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a court to permit a guilty person rightfully convicted to escape justice because he was brought to trial against his will."

United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655, 661-662 (1992) (citizen and resident of Mexico could be tried in a U.S. court for violations of U.S. law even though he had been kidnapped in Mexico and brought to the U.S. by force); Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 522 (1952) (citation and footnote omitted; conviction and imprisonment in Michigan is constitutional even though defendant was forcibly and illegally abducted by Michigan police from Illinois). See also, Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 (1886) (conviction in Illinois upheld even though the defendant "was in fact kidnapped and brought to this country against his will").

You're welcome.

[Pottapaug1938]

I note that U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain also says:

"Respondent moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming that his abduction constituted outrageous governmental conduct, and that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to try him because he was abducted in violation of the extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico. Extradition Treaty, May 4, 1978, 1979. United States-United Mexican States, 31 U.S.T. 5059, T.I.A.S. No. 9656 (Extradition Treaty or Treaty)."

In plain English: he did not consent to the trial court's jurisdiction.

[The Observer]

Sigh - the preceding 3 posts go right back to feeding the troll.

[ngupowered]

Observer, of course. Even they can see that you're are being ridiculous.
Members of the public read these topics. What will an honest soul think of you "highly trained professionals" when you again & again fail to rebut presumptions, yet continue to deride, writing irrelevances, alter posts and take away my editing options.

Duke, yours would have been deleted anyway.

[LPC]

Sigh - the preceding 3 posts go right back to feeding the troll.

Two of the posts are reminding him of the truth that stands unrebutted, and is therefore affirmed.

[The Observer]

What will an honest soul think of you "highly trained professionals" when you again & again fail to rebut presumptions, yet continue to deride, writing irrelevances, alter posts and take away my editing options.

They will probably think, "Why did gnupowered consent to that happening?"

[LaVidaRoja]

Why did these clearly educated and intelligent professionals put up with this driveling idiot for so long?

[Dr. Caligari]

So, I'm just gonna sit back, enjoy your circus and wait until you come up with the proof Maybe Prof can help you out; he seems reasonable.

Way back on a prior thread [edited to add: and now I see repeated on this thread] you were shown decisions of the United States Supreme Court saying that a court may exercise jurisdiction in a criminal case even over a defendant who was kidnapped and brought into the country by force. Since the question you asked was a legal one, there is no greater proof than a decision of SCOTUS. All you have done since then (and before then, too, if truth be told) is troll. Sorry, ngu, you've got nothing.

[JennyD]

Yawn, thx for the confession Gregg but you people still haven't got anything.
Good thing you're confessing the standards of the forum though: "more common sense than a retarded monkey on crack".

Kestrel, not a woman in that picture; it throws fire. Btw, why is there not a kitchen in that picture?
Wouldn't that be a good place to have a hickup over where to lay your penny?

Jenny, I'm not concerned about that.

So, I'm just gonna sit back, enjoy your circus and wait until you come up with the proof Maybe Prof can help you out; he seems reasonable.

Btw, I require that all options be restored & and all posts hereto, except #1, be deleted, all done as soon as possible.

Well I am concerned you asked me if I was close to my kitchen and now I "will" an answer (using your terminology) as to why that was so important? And I'm also noticing you have some male superiority women are scum vibe going on, I certainly don't give my consent to be talked down at by you...

[Fmotlgroupie]

Why did these clearly educated and intelligent professionals put up with this driveling idiot for so long?

As I'm sure you'd agree, the answer to that question is usually "because that's what public servants, police officers, lawyers, and judges sometimes have to do as part of their job." What the answer is for us mad Quatloosians I don't know. Masochism?

[Kestrel]

Kestrel, not a woman in that picture; it throws fire. Btw, why is there not a kitchen in that picture?

OK, so I posted what I hoped was a reasonably flattering portrait of Webhick, and the troll is saying, (1) the woman is not a woman, and (2) there should be a kitchen in the picture.

Hoooo boy. Andy, is there still a seat left in the nuclear-resistant bunker?

[ngupowered]

Kestrel, who'd want to see a woman throwing red hot lava and emerging unscathe from an erupting volcano? hence, not a woman - A man on the other hand ...

Jenny, you're such a sweetie, even when wearing your devil person. You're not suppose to inquire of that which is not expressed.

Confession is always weakness. The grave soul keeps its own secrets, and takes its own punishment in silence.

Yet again, do not concern yourself with that which lacks support in the facts.

Now, do your duty moderators. The public sees your ridiculousness. Remove all answers thus far, except the two by LPC & Pottapaug.

[wserra]

Now, do your duty moderators. The public sees your ridiculousness. Remove all answers thus far, except the two by LPC & Pottapaug.
...
I don't consent having my posts altered by others

Sorry, can't do it without their consent.

[JennyD]

Decided to read back on all of the posts in this and the other thread this came from, so let me understand:

1) this is the old fallacy that you can't be arrested, tried and jailed if you do not consent
2) the OP (gnu) believes that a summons is an "invitation"
3) He is also asking by what authority anyone judges and jails him..

About right?

OK let's start with the basic then Gnu: You agree that there is a government and as such that government does in fact make and pass laws, which you as a member of a civilized society must follow? Once you realize that, your question is answered. Even in Colonial times which Sovvies love to point out is where our government originated, they had arrests, courts and convictions, in fact a lot of the punishments they came up with make ours seem tame by comparison (oh baby give me Torquemada's playbook any day) so first you need to do away with the thought that noone but some God somewhere can judge and convict you, it's always been the way of a civilized society to be able to investigate, arrest, try, judge, and punish.. hopefully a trial by a jury of your peers but, a trial nonetheless.

[Kestrel]

Decided to read back on all of the posts in this and the other thread this came from, so let me understand:

1) this is the old fallacy that you can't be arrested, tried and jailed if you do not consent
2) the OP (gnu) believes that a summons is an "invitation"
3) He is also asking by what authority anyone judges and jails him..

About right?

Not quite. Those three were just excuses. Gnu isn't asking or arguing anything.

What both threads are really about is trolling. Nothing more. All he's saying is,
"Prove it - LALALALALA Can't Hear You LALALALA."

[The Observer]

Now, do your duty moderators. The public sees your ridiculousness. Remove all answers thus far, except the two by LPC & Pottapaug.
...
I don't consent having my posts altered by others

Sorry, can't do it without their consent.

Just to affirm, I don't consent.