ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There

[ngupowered]

So, apparently the board considers my statements easy to rebut, but yet again and again fails to do so. Seems you rather let your brothers and sisters in the "freeman movement" wallow in ignorance.
[LPC, don't even bother; you're too clueless]

[rumpelstilzchen]

So, apparently the board considers my statements easy to rebut, but yet again and again fails to do so.

So, again you fail to provide proof that your statements are correct. Now, let me guess...you have no proof. Thought not.

Seems you rather let your brothers and sisters in the "freeman movement" wallow in ignorance.

It's the best place for them.

[LPC]

[LPC, don't even bother; you're too clueless]

I get a special shout-out? Isn't that sweet.

[LPC]

I require rebuttal to:

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

Well, that's just silly, and the "beating dead horse" icon is entirely appropriate. Why would a criminal (or civil) defendant ever consent to a court action against them?

Or, putting it differently, what is the point of having a court system to enforce claims if you can't enforce a claim against someone who refuses to consent to the court?

This kind of "consent" claim is often made in the tax context, and is ALWAYS rejected. E.g.:

“The notion that the federal income tax is contractual or otherwise consensual in nature is not only utterly without foundation but, despite McLaughlin’s protestations to the contrary, has been repeatedly rejected by the courts.” McLaughlin v. United States, 832 F2d 986 (7th Cir. 1987) (decision of Tax Court affirmed, including imposition of $5,000 in sanctions for frivolous arguments; additional sanctions of $1,500 imposed).

And:

"Mr. Keys also says that the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") may only gain jurisdiction over a "sovereign human being" by means of a "signed contract/agreement" to which the human being would presumably be a party. However, a District Court has personal jurisdiction over any person who appears before it." United States v. Keys, 991 F.2d 797 (6th Cir. 1993) (convictions for attempted tax evasion and filing false claims affirmed).

There. Refuted. Easy.

[notorial dissent]

If, as our most recent idiot du jour postulates, "Courts require consent of the parties, expressed or implied through actions, for adjudication", then how was Hall arrested, arraigned, and why has he remained as a guest of the gov't all this time, and has since plead guilty to the charges against him, and is now awaiting sentencing if all that requires his permission?

Simple answer, his permission, consent, or cooperation is neither needed nor required. Therefore, idiot's postulation stands refuted.

[wserra]

"ngupowdered" has its own definition of "rebut". Something to do with the Hand of God and skywriting.

[rogfulton]

"ngupowdered" has its own definition of "rebut". Something to do with the Hand of God and skywriting.

Or specific mention of her name.

[ngupowered]

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Too bad you can't do it with honour ["idiot de jour", "that's just silly"].

The notion that the federal income tax is contractual or otherwise consensual in nature is not only utterly without foundation but, despite McLaughlin’s protestations to the contrary, has been repeatedly rejected by the courts.” McLaughlin v. United States, 832 F2d 986 (7th Cir. 1987) (decision of Tax Court affirmed, including imposition of $5,000 in sanctions for frivolous arguments; additional sanctions of $1,500 imposed)

That only says McLaughlin failed to produce proof claim which obviously does not imply the negation of the hypothesis. Nice try though.

Mr. Keys also says that the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") may only gain jurisdiction over a "sovereign human being" by means of a "signed contract/agreement" to which the human being would presumably be a party.

Oral agreements are just as effective gaining jurisdiction; therefore, the argument fails.

However, a District Court has personal jurisdiction over any person who appears before it.

appearance.
The formal proceeding by which a defendant submits to the jurisdiction of the court. The VOLUNTARY submission to a court's jurisdiction

Notorial dissent, in law, are you saying GH hasn't consented? Where's the proof? Are you privy to all his interactions with the court?

[ND just assumed the cloak of cluelessness. Congrats LPC]

Refutations refuted -> Affirmed.

[Famspear]

That only says McLaughlin failed to produce proof claim which obviously does not imply the negation of the hypothesis. Nice try though.

That's gibberish. Nice try though.

Oral agreements are just as effective gaining jurisdiction; therefore, the argument fails.

That's more gibberish. Therefore, your argument fails.

Refutations refuted -> Affirmed.

You're batting 0.000.

[JamesVincent]

He was batting 0.000 before he even opened his mouth.

[Pottapaug1938]

However, a District Court has personal jurisdiction over any person who appears before it.

appearance.
The formal proceeding by which a defendant submits to the jurisdiction of the court. The VOLUNTARY submission to a court's jurisdiction

This is what you get when you use free, online legal dictionaries (which any first year law student knows is only a guide to finding the law, and not an exposition of what the law actually is) instead of on-point court citations. Here, you miss the distinction between an "appearance" in court (as in "I am physically present in the courtroom") with the "appearance" which is the formal notice, by an attorney, that he or she is acting, in court, on behalf of another party.

Again, I recommend to you the guides to civil and criminal procedure, and criminal law, which can be found in any law school bookstore.

[LPC]

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Too bad you can't do it with honour ["idiot de jour", "that's just silly"].

I don't think I used the phrase "idiot de jour," and I want to say that I wouldn't at this point describe you as an "idiot de jour." Perhaps "idiot du jour" because that would be more grammatical, but "idiot du village" might also be appropriate.

And "that's just silly" is completely honorable, because what you say *is* just silly. There is nothing dishonorable about calling a spade a spade, or calling an idiot and idiot.

The notion that the federal income tax is contractual or otherwise consensual in nature is not only utterly without foundation but, despite McLaughlin’s protestations to the contrary, has been repeatedly rejected by the courts.” McLaughlin v. United States, 832 F2d 986 (7th Cir. 1987) (decision of Tax Court affirmed, including imposition of $5,000 in sanctions for frivolous arguments; additional sanctions of $1,500 imposed)

That only says McLaughlin failed to produce proof claim which obviously does not imply the negation of the hypothesis. Nice try though.

No. Read the words.

The court didn't say that McLaughlin "failed to produce proof," the court said that the very "notion" that the federal income tax was "consensual" was "utterly without foundation." It wasn't that it lacked "proof"; it lacked "foundation."

In other words it was WRONG.

Like your own "notions" are WRONG.

Mr. Keys also says that the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") may only gain jurisdiction over a "sovereign human being" by means of a "signed contract/agreement" to which the human being would presumably be a party.

Oral agreements are just as effective gaining jurisdiction; therefore, the argument fails.

That's typical tax protester/sovereign citizen nonsense. You focus on one word to try to deny the sense of what the court was saying.

Here's the point: I've quoted from two court decisions that refute what you claim. You can try to distinguish them if you want, but on their face they refute what you claim.

Now, you need to find at least one authority, a statute, a court opinion, and legal treatise, *something*, that supports what you claim.

Otherwise, you're just a troll.

[grixit]

Well done. Giving someone the option to be a troll or not is perfectly honorable.

[ngupowered]

In that case, you're a blabbering fool who think he knows law. Now that we're being truthful.

Truth is, the man tried his arguments in the wrong court since a Tax court only judges according to tax laws. Hence, it lacked foundation in those laws -> lack of proof. Nevertheless, the man chose his forum.

One of Mr. Keys arguments was: "The appellant argues that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over his person and over the case brought by the United States, since neither is he a citizen of the District of Columbia, the only jurisdiction to which he concedes the Federal tax laws apply, nor is his labor connected with "a trade or business within the Federal United States," nor is he a "taxpayer" as defined by Federal law".

District Courts also acquire jurisdiction by [voluntary] appearance. Hence, the argument fails.

Courts do not educate, they try arguments according to the law which is before it.
Don't appear in court unless there's agreement to the law which gives it jurisdiction.

My statements stand unrebutted.

[AndyK]

In that case, you're a blabbering fool who think he knows law. Now that we're being truthful.
No; you're being obtuse and stupid.

Truth is, the man tried his arguments in the wrong court since a Tax court only judges according to tax laws. Hence, it lacked foundation in those laws -> lack of proof. Nevertheless, the man chose his forum.
"Lacked foundation" That's meaningless. The Tax Court was established bu statute (LAW) to handle tax disputes. Thus, it HAS the appropriate foundation to adjudge income tax disputes.

One of Mr. Keys arguments was: "The appellant argues that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over his person and over the case brought by the United States, since neither is he a citizen of the District of Columbia, the only jurisdiction to which he concedes the Federal tax laws apply, nor is his labor connected with "a trade or business within the Federal United States," nor is he a "taxpayer" as defined by Federal law".
Keys argument was incorrect. His decision as to in which jurisdiction federal laws apply was totally incorrect. His argument regarding 'trade or business' was incorrect. He lost. The court's decision clearly states the errors in his reasoning.

District Courts also acquire jurisdiction by [voluntary] appearance. Hence, the argument fails.
Wrong again. District courts gain jurisdiction by statute. Appearance (at least in criminal cases) is mandatory -- not voluntary -- and can be enforced if need be.

Courts do not educate, they try arguments according to the law which is before it.
Don't appear in court unless there's agreement to the law which gives it jurisdiction.
It is not the job of a court to educate anyone. Jurisdiction can be challenged, but the challenge must operate within the laws of the country -- not one pweson's unique interpretation of those laws.

My statements stand unrebutted.

Your statements habe been rebutted -- with specific proof -- multiple times. Your persistance in clinging to them merely evinces your lack of knowledge.

[Famspear]

In that case, you're a blabbering fool who think he knows law. Now that we're being truthful.

ave troglodytam!



You're a blabbering fool who falsely CLAIMS that you know the law. And, no, you're not being truthful. And you're in no position to evalute other people's knowledge of the law.

My statements stand unrebutted.

You seem to have a fascination with the word "rebut" and some of its inflected, variant forms. What you're writing is gibberish. Your statements have been rebutted by others -- over and over.

You're a phony.

[Famspear]

A clueless protester called "gnu,"
Quacking nonsense (what else can he do?),
Is demanding "rebut";
He's a dimwitted nut
In a dish of nonsensical stew.

With his clueless arrangements of words --
Pseudo-logic that's just for the birds --
Now the "gnu-ster" is leaning
On thoughts without meaning;
He's just one of our Internet Nerds.

Oh, wait. There's more.

If you crow and you prance like a rooster
When you're really not more than a "gnu-ster",
No one feels any awe:
You lack knowledge of law;
We can see you're a dumb wackadooster.

[JamesVincent]

If an appearance is "voluntary", why do judges issue bench warrants for people who don't show up? I've seen a couple issue show cause orders but not very many. And what happened to answering ny statement earlier about not needing a court to detain someone? How does that fit into the whole "consent" thing?

[grixit]

Everyone has a butt. NG also has a rebutt, right where his head should be.

[The Observer]

Everyone has a butt. NG also has a rebutt, right where his head should be.

I have to object at this point on behalf of NG's butt, since it cannot speak for itself. It is obvious that NG's butt is smarter than NG, just based on the things that NG has been posting in this forum.