Gordon Hall indicted

[Pottapaug1938]

You are actually better off arguing "freemen" and the law with your dog.

Correct, a dog would make a worthy adversary for you.
The rest of your post is dismissed as a matter of law.

My claim is that there has been no rebuttal to my requirement which, so far, has not been rebutted.

Please re-read what rumpelstilzchen said.

You claim that "[c]ourts require consent of the parties, expressed or implied through actions, for adjudication", yet you provide no evidence to support that contention; and you then make the absurd and unsupported statement that "[t}he rest of your post is dismissed as a matter of law." Oh, really? What law, praytell?

[rogfulton]

You claim that "[c]ourts require consent of the parties, expressed or implied through actions, for adjudication", yet you provide no evidence to support that contention; and you then make the absurd and unsupported statement that "[t}he rest of your post is dismissed as a matter of law." Oh, really? What law, praytell?

ngupowered's law: I'm the boss of you!

[webhick]

The rest of your post is dismissed as a matter of law.

Would this be ::removes sunglasses and turns head abruptly:: forum law?

[rumpelstilzchen]

My claim is that there has been no rebuttal to my requirement which, so far, has not been rebutted.

You really don't get it do you?
No one has to do anything.
You have made a claim. The onus is on you to prove your claim.
Please present your argument.

[notorial dissent]

More to the point, there is no requirement to rebut nonsense, which your claims most certainly are.

[Dr. Caligari]

Courts require consent of the parties, expressed or implied through actions, for adjudication

So if someone breaks into your house, kicks your wife, rapes your dog and steals your stuff, they can't be tried unless they consent? I don't think so.

[Demosthenes]

She and Gordon Hall are getting married in May.

They may need an order.

That's interesting. Gordon told the court that he was married when he filed his motion yesterday asking again to be released on bond.

[Famspear]

She and Gordon Hall are getting married in May.

They may need an order.

That's interesting. Gordon told the court that he was married when he filed his motion yesterday asking again to be released on bond.

Hey, let's face it: Married life can cause confusion, disorientation and befuddlement. I just didn't know that a person could succumb to these effects even months before the wedding ceremony.

[JamesVincent]

In a federal criminal case in the United States, the power of a U.S. district court to adjudicate the case is conferred by statute (18 USC sec. 3231), not by the express or implied consent of the defendant. Indeed, a defendant found overseas could be arrested without his consent, brought forcibly to the United States, indicted, tried in a U.S. District Court, convicted, sentenced and incarcerated in a U.S. federal prison without his express or implied consent, and it could all be perfectly legal. Happens all the time.

Not to put too fine a point on it but right now, depending on the alleged crime, you could be picked up anywhere in the world and detained without seeing a court at all. So no court would need your consent since no court was involved. Wonder how that works in his "theory"?

[ngupowered]

The forum dismisses all answers hitherto as frivolous, except parts of famspear's which is dismissed with leave to amend.

[It's not the job of this forum to educate on the law. Ignorance is no excuse. ]

[JamesVincent]

"The forum" does no such thing. The little hamsters in your head may. "The forum" is not and has not been controlled by you in any way. "The forum" was here long before you and will be here long after you are gone. As far as your laughable little tirades they only go to reinforce that you are pretty much clueless about anything. Or, as the great Dennis Leary once said, "You don't know shit about shit.... and pull up your pants!".

[AndyK]

Perhaps troll-du-jour is following in the footsteps of PAM.

He's declared himself to be an Internet Attorney General and is intervening in the forum to the extent that he can refer to himself as "the forum"

On the other hand, he might just be another English-, Law-, and Logic-challenged troglodyte.

[davids]

I love it when sovrun wackjobs come here to debate their "legal knowledge." They demonstrate loud and clear, as ngupowered does, that most sovruns are operating with a dangerously high level of stupid. But they are mostly dangerous to themselves. After his guru has been charged and has pleaded guilty, ngupowered is still here trying to maintain their mumbojumbo "works" or somehow is the law.

A few sovruns know that all they say is complete b.s., but do it anyway to drag out their court cases, or in deference to peer pressure from their fellow cultists. Some play sovrun online where they can populate conspiracy forums or sovrun forums and be right for once in their life, as a psychological counterbalance to what they normally experience. But others, like ngupowered, are true museum pieces.

A true believer, ngupowered is...

[grixit]

I nominate ngupowered for the title of Canute of the Laws.

[ngupowered]

[Yawn, retardness draws long and hard, especially from Bovine. The man is clearly Bellevue material.]

Summary:
My first post was designed to draw out the nutters -> Accomplished.
The word "forum" was never in reference to this discussion board -> Conceited presumptive nutters identified.
The board never rebutted my statements. -> Affirmed.

The forum dismisses the claim that consent is not needed.
ADJOURNED

[rumpelstilzchen]

The board never rebutted my statements. -> Affirmed.

First you have to provide proof that your statements are correct.
Tick tock tick tock.........

[erwalkerca]

It is ngupowered's belief that it is not up to him to prove his statements but rather for us to rebut them. Note that his standard for any rebuttal is not the same standard he has to meet should he be bothered to attempt to rebut any statement against his claims.

He is a firm believer in the foisted unilateral agreement and no evidence to the contrary of its efficacy will sway him.

[rumpelstilzchen]

It is ngupowered's belief that it is not up to him to prove his statements but rather for us to rebut them.

Well, we could always employ ngupowered's rules:

Hey, ngupowered! The court does not require your consent. Rebut that.

[JamesVincent]

Well, we could always employ ngupowered's rules:

Hey, ngupowered! The court does not require your consent. Rebut that.

Doesn't work that way. In the moron world, since he was the first moron to state the "theory", his has to be answered before anyone else is allowed a statement. And if he doesn't like the answers he can just keep stating that you haven't answered and, thus, victory is ensured.

[JamesVincent]