ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There

[wserra]

So, back to Ernie Tertelgte: Can anyone spot why he consented?

Probably the 'shine.

[Pottapaug1938]

NOTICE: I did not pick the subject line. It should be renamed to "Rebut 'In Jail By Consent'".

Andy, obviously there are people in jail & on death row that actually didn't commit the act. But the question remains: 'In Jail By Consent'?
Apparently, people here are not competent enough to refute it.

So, back to Ernie Tertelgte: Can anyone spot why he consented?

He didn't have to consent. Jurisdiction attaches merely by his physical presence within the jurisdiction, and by the fact that there is probable cause to believe that he committed the crimes in question.

You're very boring, ngupowered. You've been provided with the answers to your so-called questions, many times, but you are either too busy playing ostrich, or too intellectually dishonest, to acknowledge the fact. Now, if you truly wants answers, please re-read all of the posts, other than yours, in this thread.

[rumpelstilzchen]

So, back to Ernie Tertelgte: Can anyone spot why he consented?

Sure can. He's a paid government shill.

[ngupowered]

Potta, it tends to get very boring when you don't supply the proof and I keep asking for them.
Fact remains: If what you're saying is true, you should have no trouble procuring the evidence I ask for. Merely pointing the finger at a body of text by an unknown author hardly constitutes decisive proof. See how easy it is:
"Law 1: The entity 'United States' and all its derivatives are hereby dissolved. "
Oh look, I found a law that says the US is no more.

[Pottapaug1938]

Potta, it tends to get very boring when you don't supply the proof and I keep asking for them.

The proof has been provided. You just don't look very far when you see it. Plus, the proof you ask for is on the order of proving that 2+2=4. In other words, the concept of the need for consent to criminal jurisdiction is so idiotic that few people have had the chutzpah to try to raise it.

Fact remains: If what you're saying is true, you should have no trouble procuring the evidence I ask for. Merely pointing the finger at a body of text by an unknown author hardly constitutes decisive proof. See how easy it is:
"Law 1: The entity 'United States' and all its derivatives are hereby dissolved. "
Oh look, I found a law that says the US is no more.

No, you made that up. Again, follow the links which have been provided to you -- or simply Google words like "consent required for criminal jurisdiction", and you'll find plenty.

Now, unless you can come up with ONE unreversed appellate court case which proves that consent of a defendant is required for criminal jurisdiction over him/her, please don't waste our time any further. You know the rules of this forum.

[LPC]

NOTICE: I did not pick the subject line. It should be renamed to "Rebut 'In Jail By Consent'".

Believe it or not, you can change the subject line any time you want.

The fact that you can, but don't know that you can, suggests that you're not as smart as you think you are.

[LPC]

So, back to Ernie Tertelgte: Can anyone spot why he consented?

No.

Now I have a riddle for you. What's the difference between a raven and a writing desk?

[Kestrel]

Now I have a riddle for you. What's the difference between a raven and a writing desk?

Oh dear. Be prepared for a classic gnu-in-the-headlights blank stare.

Knowing the answer to that one requires a certain degree of literacy. Merely recognizing that one is commonly phrased in an alternate way requires a certain degree of literacy.

[ngupowered]

LPC, pfft. Not a riddle but has a definitive answer: " 'cause folks at the Q can' tREBUTche the gnu"
And please, for mankind, don't you laugh.

Potta, that phrase didn't turn up any of the evidence I was looking for. But if you want to argue why the concept of 'personal jurisdiction' is too vaguely defined ...

"No, you made that up" - And so did folks about the laws that you're referring to.

Only hard evidence will do. And so far, you ain't got 'em.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Only hard evidence will do.

What do you mean when you say "hard evidence"?

[AndyK]

Only hard evidence will do.

What do you mean when you say "hard evidence"?

And you expecty a straight, comprehensible answer because ...

[wserra]

Why?

[Pottapaug1938]

Potta, that phrase didn't turn up any of the evidence I was looking for. But if you want to argue why the concept of 'personal jurisdiction' is too vaguely defined ...

That's because you are looking for an explicit declaration that consent of a defendant is not required for personal jurisdiction to attach to him/her in criminal matters, and assuming that because you don't see the exact phrases which will satisfy you then there is a requirement for consent. Looking for that sort of a declaration is like looking for scientific proof that two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen make one molecule of water, or mathematical proof that 2+2+4 and nothing else.

If consent WAS required for criminal jurisdiction to attach to a defendant, then there would be at least one appellate court case affirming that, despite what the laws say, such consent is required. Now, how about that case. You MUST know of one....

Well?

[The Observer]

Why?

Because.

[rumpelstilzchen]

And you expecty a straight, comprehensible answer because ...

The last thing I expect is a straight, comprehensible answer.
Watch the gnu prove me to be right.

[JennyD]

Potta, that phrase didn't turn up any of the evidence I was looking for. But if you want to argue why the concept of 'personal jurisdiction' is too vaguely defined ...

That's because you are looking for an explicit declaration that consent of a defendant is not required for personal jurisdiction to attach to him/her in criminal matters, and assuming that because you don't see the exact phrases which will satisfy you then there is a requirement for consent. Looking for that sort of a declaration is like looking for scientific proof that two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen make one molecule of water, or mathematical proof that 2+2+4 and nothing else.

If consent WAS required for criminal jurisdiction to attach to a defendant, then there would be at least one appellate court case affirming that, despite what the laws say, such consent is required. Now, how about that case. You MUST know of one....

Well?

I know I'm missing a lot of this but I thought I would point out one little weensie error that the person you are "arguing" with may call you out on, 2+2+4 = 8 it's just the sort of detail that someone like "gnu" would look at as proof of something or another, like maybe that A4V works or something like that..

[Pottapaug1938]

Potta, that phrase didn't turn up any of the evidence I was looking for. But if you want to argue why the concept of 'personal jurisdiction' is too vaguely defined ...

That's because you are looking for an explicit declaration that consent of a defendant is not required for personal jurisdiction to attach to him/her in criminal matters, and assuming that because you don't see the exact phrases which will satisfy you then there is a requirement for consent. Looking for that sort of a declaration is like looking for scientific proof that two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen make one molecule of water, or mathematical proof that 2+2=4 and nothing else.

If consent WAS required for criminal jurisdiction to attach to a defendant, then there would be at least one appellate court case affirming that, despite what the laws say, such consent is required. Now, how about that case. You MUST know of one....

Well?

I know I'm missing a lot of this but I thought I would point out one little weensie error that the person you are "arguing" with may call you out on, 2+2+4 = 8 it's just the sort of detail that someone like "gnu" would look at as proof of something or another, like maybe that A4V works or something like that..

Yeak, I left the shift key down on that one. Ngu -- see the correction in bold above.

[ngupowered]

Jenny, you were doing just fine with your mouth closed. Btw, are you close to a kitchen?

"That's because you are looking for an explicit declaration that consent of a defendant is not required for personal jurisdiction"
- No I wasn't.
"If consent WAS required for criminal jurisdiction to attach to a defendant, then there would be at least one appellate court case affirming that"
- And your proof of this is where?

Rumpel, why don't you make me an offer?
You already heard sufficient conditions for a rebuttal.

There's no escaping it Q-losers: You can argue code/law & interpretation until your hair fall off or any of you has something intelligent to say. Yet, the actual implementation in the courts may still be eschewed.
So, get me some hard evidence of in -court, jail & arrest behaviour.

Class Dismissed.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Rumpel, why don't you make me an offer?

Once again you answer a question with a question.
Try again.
This was my question:
What do you mean when you say "hard evidence"?
Now answer it.

[ngupowered]

Rumpel, again, why don't you interpret it yourself and make an offer?
Example: "Would this & this constitute a rebuttal?"