ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There

[Judge Roy Bean]

FS needs to stop fertilize his weed garden with his own shit; it just grows too strong.
First answer the question, rumpel. They are closely related.

Question: How does the photo demonstrate consent?

He's not gagged and restrained to a wheel chair.

Apparently you've never seen a violent nutcase brought to trial.

[Kestrel]

He's not gagged and restrained to a wheel chair.

Apparently you've never seen a violent nutcase brought to trial.

This one can't be a complete violent nutcase. His shoes still have laces.

[Dezcad]

FS needs to stop fertilize his weed garden with his own shit; it just grows too strong.
First answer the question, rumpel. They are closely related.

Question: How does the photo demonstrate consent?

He's not gagged and restrained to a wheel chair.

Apparently you've never seen a violent nutcase brought to trial.

[Famspear]

Wait, I wonder if the guy in the red shirt resembles our trollster, "ngupowered."



ave troglodytam! You're not a legal scholar, but you definitely shovel your share of fertilizer!

[ngupowered]

Too bad I've got another Ace to play, involving a video of one of your favourite sovruns. Can't wait? I would too if I were an ignoramus mofolus in/at law.
So, the Q. will remain open for another 24h. Unless you want to look like schmucks [oh, wait], you'd better get down and "pull KP, the grease pit". Hoorah.
Rumpel, the Q. was implied in fact at my initial challenge; it takes precedence.
Adjourned.

[AndyK]

Too bad I've got another Ace to play, involving a video of one of your favourite sovruns. Can't wait? I would too if I were an ignoramus mofolus in/at law.
So, the Q. will remain open for another 24h. Unless you want to look like schmucks [oh, wait], you'd better get down and "pull KP, the grease pit". Hoorah.
Rumpel, the Q. was implied in fact at my initial challenge; it takes precedence.
Adjourned.

Hot Damn A fresh collection of genuine I-Am-Not-A-Lawyer gibberish.

It appears that Trog is not reading, comprehending, or caring qbout qny of the responses to his posts or case law citations which refute his theory.

Eventually, Trog will strut away to his forum of choice and -- like many others before him -- boast how he bested us. Of course, he'll edit anything he posts there to preclude fact checking.

Before that happens, it seems to be time to invoke flying cows and bad French accents. If all else fails -- THE COMFY CHAIR

Since rational responses to his Gabby Hayes imitations are useless,m we may as well have fun taunting him in a manner which he won't comprehend.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Rumpel, the Q. was implied in fact at my initial challenge; it takes precedence.
Adjourned.

Sorry, son but that won't wash.
You did not ask a question, you made a statement. You do know the difference between the two don't you? So no, my friend, I asked you a question first. So far all you have done is to answer my question with another question. In my experience when somebody does that it is normally an indication that they don't like their own answer. Or of course there is the possibility that they have no answer at all. I suspect the latter in your case.
Why are you doing your best to avoid answering my question? Do you require help?

[erwalkerca]

Oh for f**k sake ngu-powered. You already had an answer regarding what you think constitutes the consent in the picture.

The man appears to have entered the court room under his own power without the officers touching him as he crossed the threshold of the door. That, in your delusional mindset, creates consent since he does not appear to have been dragged kicking and screaming into the court room.

[Pottapaug1938]

Even better, ngu-baby: can you cite at least ONE appellate court case to support your assertion that consent is necessary to obtain jurisdiction?

I don't mean a quote mined, out of context, from an appellate case; I don't mean a citation from an out-of-date legal dictionary; I don't mean a quote from the writings of some political thinker. I mean an appellate court case, not later overturned on appeal, which explicitly supports your contention. The appellate court case should also involve a criminal matter, since the standards are different for civil and criminal cases.

Good luck -- you'll need it.

[grixit]

ave troglodytam!

Ah, that should be "troglodyte", vocative case, you know. Also, wouldn't you rather say "vale".

[ngupowered]

Come now children, maybe FS can help you out with some weed to calm those twitchy nerves.
The forum denies respectively erwalker's and rumpel's motions for reconsideration.
Adjourned.

[rumpelstilzchen]

The forum denies respectively erwalker's and rumpel's motions for reconsideration.

Sorry, but you don't speak for the forum. What you are in fact saying is that you cannot answer my question.
You lose.

[Famspear]

ave troglodytam!

Ah, that should be "troglodyte", vocative case, you know. Also, wouldn't you rather say "vale".

Maybe I should actually take a course in Latin......

[Famspear]

Come now children, maybe FS can help you out with some weed to calm those twitchy nerves.
The forum denies respectively erwalker's and rumpel's motions for reconsideration.
Adjourned.

Hey trollster, come up with something that shows you know something about the subject of this thread. If you can't manage "knowledgeable," then try for "coherent." If you can't manage "coherent," at least be entertaining!

[Pottapaug1938]

The forum denies respectively erwalker's and rumpel's motions for reconsideration.

Sorry, but you don't speak for the forum. What you are in fact saying is that you cannot answer my question.
You lose.

He CAN'T answer your question. If he did, he'd have to admit that he is flat-out wrong, and he fears that like the Kardashian sisters fear the "where are they now" columns. Instead, he demands that we spend our time proving the obvious to him (on a par with proving that 2 and 2 equals 4), and pretending that nothing we tell him has any validity.

The only way that he can ever claim "victory" in a debate like this is to dodge, weave, evade, obfuscate, bluster and move the goalposts until the rest of us get tired of him. Then, he can go back to his circle-jerk of friends and proclaim that he gave us all What For and that we could not overcome him in what he will call "debate".

[Famspear]

Sentencing for Benton T. Hall (formerly set for today, March 13) has been re-set for March 31, 2014.

Gordon Hall's motion for bond was denied by the Court on March 4. Another motion for bond for Gordon Hall was denied, on March 11.

[webhick]

The forum denies respectively erwalker's and rumpel's motions for reconsideration.

Sorry, but you don't speak for the forum. What you are in fact saying is that you cannot answer my question.
You lose.

ngu is using "forum" to refer to himself in third person. And like most people who refer to themselves in third person, he's got a superiority complex bad enough to make people want to punch him in the face.

[LPC]

Even better, ngu-baby: can you cite at least ONE appellate court case to support your assertion that consent is necessary to obtain jurisdiction?

I don't mean a quote mined, out of context, from an appellate case; I don't mean a citation from an out-of-date legal dictionary; I don't mean a quote from the writings of some political thinker.

Actually, any of those things would be a step forward. At least it would be *something* for which he claims support, instead of the continuing asinine posturing and vapid hand-waving.

And, the worthlessness of his "support" would help to show how lame he is.

So don't discourage him from quoting something out of context. Quotes out of context would be an improvement.

Unfortunately, I doubt he can produce even that. His beliefs are pure fantasies; he doesn't even have any garbage to rely on.

[JamesVincent]

ngu is using "forum" to refer to himself in third person. And like most people who refer to themselves in third person, he's got a superiority complex bad enough to make people want to punch him in the face.

Hulk often refers to Hulk's self in third person but Hulk has a much cooler third person name.

[JamesVincent]

Sentencing for Benton T. Hall (formerly set for today, March 13) has been re-set for March 31, 2014.

Gordon Hall's motion for bond was denied by the Court on March 4. Another motion for bond for Gordon Hall was denied, on March 11.

But did he consent to having his bail denied? Huh? Did he?????