Typical ngupowered response. Avoiding any response to a challenge to actually provide proof to back up his claims.
But what can you expect from a person who actually equates two rangers investigating a possible bush fire on private property, (GLEW -v- WHITE [2012] WASC 100), to the SS rounding up the Jews.
Unless, of course one of the men believed his costume gave him super powers to "arrest" Mr. Glew with impunity. Kinda reminds me of the SS officers who thought their costume gave them the right to round up the jews in Hitler's Germany.
Andy, if it's a request, it's denied.
So now it's a question?
So now it's a question with a warning? Sounds like a threat to me.
Ok, I'm thinking about it. Done.
Remember the forum laws? Perhaps, erwalker can explain the relevancy of that comment in this forum about Gordon Hall? Or, is he simply out to "get" me?
"I'm calling your hand." - I don't see a bet.
If this was my last post, you'd know I was inappropriately banned
You know I'm right you're wrong I'm wrong you know I'm right ...
I consent to ban other users and moderate their posts.
ngupowered wrote:
Remember the forum laws? Perhaps, erwalker can explain the relevancy of that comment in this forum about Gordon Hall? Or, is he simply out to "get" me?
It's not meant to be relevant to Gordon Hall. It is relevant to how your mind works and the extent to which you will go in making outrageous statements.
AndyK wrote:Simple question -- to be answered "yes" or "no".
Are you aware of any facts (as in laws or court cases) which support your allegation that compliance with laws and/or appearance in court is strictly voluntary?
Third request.
Taxes are the price we pay for a free society and to cover the responsibilities of the evaders
I will answer this question in the negative:
Are you aware of any facts (as in laws or court cases) which support your allegation that compliance with laws and/or appearance in court is strictly non-voluntary?
Perhaps the board also wishes to answer it? And provide proof.
The forum law is applied to erwalker's latest answer.
If this was my last post, you'd know I was inappropriately banned
You know I'm right you're wrong I'm wrong you know I'm right ...
I consent to ban other users and moderate their posts.
ngupowered wrote:Andy, if it's a request, it's denied.
So now it's a question?
So now it's a question with a warning? Sounds like a threat to me.
Ok, I'm thinking about it. Done.
Remember the forum laws? Perhaps, erwalker can explain the relevancy of that comment in this forum about Gordon Hall? Or, is he simply out to "get" me?
"I'm calling your hand." - I don't see a bet.
Well, you're the one who went with the poker analogy. So, to humor you, let me repeat my request yet again, and I'll try not to use big words. Please tell us about ONE court decision which reviewed the verdict of a court where a criminal trial took place, and which says that a person must agree to the jurisdiction (which means that they can make you come there and can tell you to do things) of a court which holds criminal trials, or else the person doesn't have to show up or agree to what they tell him to do.
No evasions or obfuscations, Pal. Put up or shut up. Give us the appellate court citation, or stop wasting our time. In the meantime, you can peruse what you have been shown above, and also this:
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
I will answer this question in the negative:
Are you aware of any facts (as in laws or court cases) which support your allegation that compliance with laws and/or appearance in court is strictly non-voluntary?
Perhaps the board also wishes to answer it? And provide proof.
The forum law is applied to erwalker's latest answer.
You made a statement, the onus is on you. Forum rules state that if you make a statement or assert a point of view contrary to known and understood law or precedent you must prove that assertion correct by either non-overturned appellate court decisions or by statute. No one has to prove you wrong, you have to prove that you are correct. And you have already been proven wrong by statute and precedent and have ignored it. The forum is littered with people who try to play the same word games as you. You are not unique or special in any way. You're not even original.
So either put up or shut up.
And, once again, you do not make the rules here. They are already in place from past dealings of screwballs and nutjobs who did the same thing.
Disciple of the cross and champion in suffering
Immerse yourself into the kingdom of redemption
Pardon your mind through the chains of the divine
Make way, the shepherd of fire
I will answer this question in the negative:
Are you aware of any facts (as in laws or court cases) which support your allegation that compliance with laws and/or appearance in court is strictly non-voluntary?
NGU,
Are you saying ALL of these 6,937,600 people volunteered? Seems a bit unlikely.
1. There is a kind of law that I like, which are my own rules, which I call common law. It applies to me.
2. There are many other kinds of law but they don’t apply to me, because I say so."
LLAP
ngupowered wrote:""ngu", there is a discussion suggesting " - And? So I should end all my posts with "I just threw up a little in my mouth."?
Commenting on the attitude which you display in your posts is part of normal discussion. You sitting atop your high horse is also part of normal discussion provided you aren't just sitting there trying to get everyone here to bend over and kiss your butt. Which is all you seem to be doing. We aren't required to play your game, adhere to rules you're trying to impose upon us or tolerate your attitude.
When chosen for jury duty, tell the judge "fortune cookie says guilty" - A fortune cookie
ngupowered wrote:""ngu", there is a discussion suggesting " - And? So I should end all my posts with "I just threw up a little in my mouth."?
Commenting on the attitude which you display in your posts is part of normal discussion. You sitting atop your high horse is also part of normal discussion provided you aren't just sitting there trying to get everyone here to bend over and kiss your butt. Which is all you seem to be doing. We aren't required to play your game, adhere to rules you're trying to impose upon us or tolerate your attitude.
I move for moderation of trollboy or, in the alternative, rerouting of his posts to the Hampster.
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor."
- President Theodore Roosevelt
ngupowered wrote:Unless, of course one of the men believed his costume gave him super powers to "arrest" Mr. Glew with impunity. Kinda reminds me of the SS officers who thought their costume gave them the right to round up the jews in Hitler's Germany.
Actually the authority behind the uniform gave them the authority. Whether or not we agree with what they did at the time, in the country they were in, and at the time they were in them, they did have that authority. First time I've seen Goodwin's Law invoked in such a manner. But the argument would fit right in with the rest of his nonsense, refusal to admit that authority can be raised over someone else without their approval.
Disciple of the cross and champion in suffering
Immerse yourself into the kingdom of redemption
Pardon your mind through the chains of the divine
Make way, the shepherd of fire
I will answer this question in the negative:
Are you aware of any facts (as in laws or court cases) which support your allegation that compliance with laws and/or appearance in court is strictly non-voluntary?
Perhaps the board also wishes to answer it? And provide proof.
The forum law is applied to erwalker's latest answer.
Where have you been for the past few weeks? It's obvious you haven't bothered to read many of the posts responding to your inane claim SPECIFICALLY citing court cases which stated that compliance with laws and/or appearance in court is NOT voluntary.
But, as a hypothetical, if compliance with laws were strictly voluntary, what recourse would you have if someone decided that they deserved your possessions more than you did and cleared all of your belongings out of your house? After all, they merely decided not to volunteer to comply with breaking and entering and burglary laws.
Taxes are the price we pay for a free society and to cover the responsibilities of the evaders
Apparently, I ought to adjust my attitude to something more like this:
You have wandered into a group of highly educated, highly experienced people who thoroughly enoy refuting and debunking inane posts such as yours
Dude, you're a soccer wannabe attempting to play chess and trying to make up the rules as you lose pieces.
My "don't care light" is getting brighter with every post
You are actually better off arguing "freemen" and the law with your dog.
On the other hand, he might just be another English-, Law-, and Logic-challenged troglodyte
...
I guess I have no other choice but to say that to the board...
And no, you haven't refuted anything, except of course your own sanity.
Last edited by ngupowered on Sun Mar 16, 2014 11:17 am, edited 2 times in total.
If this was my last post, you'd know I was inappropriately banned
You know I'm right you're wrong I'm wrong you know I'm right ...
I consent to ban other users and moderate their posts.
LOL, тийм болохоор одоо та холбогдох бичлэгүүдийг устгах байна. За, та тэнэг нь юу хүлээж болох юм.
If this was my last post, you'd know I was inappropriately banned
You know I'm right you're wrong I'm wrong you know I'm right ...
I consent to ban other users and moderate their posts.
Just irrelevant nonsense and foolish prattling, both of which you seem to wallow in. Зай хог хаягдлын
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
ngupowered wrote:Apparently, I ought to adjust my attitude to something more like this:
You have wandered into a group of highly educated, highly experienced people who thoroughly enoy refuting and debunking inane posts such as yours
Dude, you're a soccer wannabe attempting to play chess and trying to make up the rules as you lose pieces.
My "don't care light" is getting brighter with every post
You are actually better off arguing "freemen" and the law with your dog.
On the other hand, he might just be another English-, Law-, and Logic-challenged troglodyte
...
I guess I have no other choice but to say that to the board...
No. All you need to do is "adjust your attitude" so that you give us at least one unreversed appellate court case which supports your contention that consent of all parties is necessary before jurisdiction may attach to anyone involved. It's that simple.
Well?
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools
Ngu is clearly not going to respond. He seems to operate on his own level of crazy and in my opinion doesn't even understand the questions he's being asked, which is why he keeps responding with a bunch of gibberish that means nothing. At some point the concept of casting your pearls before swine (ngu - you are the swine) becomes relevant and it is no longer entertaining or amusing to deal with someone like this. I move for banning or at a minimum putting him/her on moderated status.
grixit wrote:Well i've gone ahead and given ng the amish death penalty. Good luck to those of you who are still trying to get some rationality from him.
That friend speaks my mind.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!