ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There

[Pottapaug1938]

"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.

Yes, you were.

"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?

It's in the fact that the statutes in question makes it clear that jurisdiction attaches because a crime is committed within the jurisdiction of a given court. Again, just because the law doesn't use the specific words which you want to see doesn't mean that consent is required. You'd also better believe that people like Bernie Madoff and Kenneth Lay were able to afford the best in legal representation; yet the best criminal defense lawyers in American history (Clarence Darrow comes to mind) never suggested that their clients must consent to jurisdiction before a court may try them. Appellate court cases are the standard in interpreting a law; thus, if the law does not say that consent is required, and there are no appellate cases saying that consent is required, then consent is NOT required.

And again: where is your appellate court case which says that consent is required? In fact, where can you find any shred of proof that consent is required?

[rumpelstilzchen]

Rumpel, again, why don't you interpret it yourself

Again you answer a question with a question.
I am asking you what do you mean by "hard evidence"?
Try again.

[LPC]

It's often difficult to refute silly claims, and NG's assertions are certainly silly. However, it's just occurred to me that there is a fairly recent Supreme Court decision that is pretty clearly on point.

In United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992), the Supreme Court held that a citizen and resident of Mexico could be tried in a U.S. court for violations of U.S. law even though he had been kidnapped in Mexico and brought to the U.S. by force.

From the majority opinion, quoting from an earlier decision:

"This Court has never departed from the rule announced in Ker [v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 (1886),] that the power of a court to try a person for crime is not impaired by the fact that he had been brought within the court's jurisdiction by reason of a 'forcible abduction.' No persuasive reasons are now presented to justify overruling this line of cases. They rest on the sound basis that due process of law is satisfied when one present in court is convicted of crime after having been fairly apprized of the charges against him and after a fair trial in accordance with constitutional procedural safeguards. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a court to permit a guilty person rightfully convicted to escape justice because he was brought to trial against his will."

504 U.S. at 661-662, quoting Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 522 (1952) (citation and footnote omitted; emphasis added).

I think we can now say without qualification that ngu's claim that the consent of the criminal defendant to the court's jurisdiction is required in some way has been completely refuted.

[erwalkerca]

I'm sure that bounty hunters Timm Johnsen and Daniel Kear did not consent to their extradition to Canada when the Canadian government deemed them to have kidnapped Sidney Jaffe after the pair took him against his will from Ontario to Florida to faces charges there in 1981.

[Thule]

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

Stay classy, Bad Gnus.

[JamesVincent]

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

Probably because several posters have already wasted their time posting statute and law references to rebut your "theory" and you have ignored it. And, once again, you have to tried to turn the burden of proof around so that you can control the conversation flow. The burden is on you as the originator of this wreckage to prove that you are correct. I retract my earlier statement, you have gone beyond windowlicker.

Why in the world is this douchenozzle still allowed to post unmoderated? He has been provided ample time and space to bring up even one point of law and has refused. He has no original ideas, he relies on other, failed guru's for his rhetoric. We have moderated others who actually did provide their own, albeit twisted, interpretation of law and actually made an effort to engage in conversation. We might not have agreed with them but at least they made an effort.

[Quixote]

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

Ngupo, you're in a debate, not a negotiation. You don't get to decide what constitutes a rebuttal. That's up to your audience. Your current audience comprises literate, rational people. That audience has concluded that a defendant does not have to consent to jurisdiction. You have lost the debate. I have no doubt there are forums on the web in which your "it's right because you haven't said the magic words" argument would prevail. This is not one of them.

[ngupowered]

Thule, you want me to make it worse?
Analogy: seems folks here are confusing coming before the house with into/in the house.
Thx LPC, but it didn't do it. And I'll refute it, if within 24 hours I get three people saying it did.
Potta, you do realise the logical fallacies committed in your last post?
Rumpel, you're just gonna have to make an offer!
James, my only claim is that you haven't rebutted ST1. It stands.
Quixote, the only thing showing is the forum's ignorance of law. I have refuted all their arguments.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Rumpel, you're just gonna have to make an offer!

Note how the forum jester is incapable of answering the simplest of questions.
He made a post that included the words "hard evidence". Those words were of his own choosing. However he finds it impossible to explain what he meant when he used those words that he, himself chose to use. He does not understand his own posts.

I require rebuttal to: The Gnu is a blithering idiot.

[Pottapaug1938]

Rumpel, you're just gonna have to make an offer!

Note how the forum jester is incapable of answering the simplest of questions.
He made a post that included the words "hard evidence". Those words were of his own choosing. However he finds it impossible to explain what he meant when he used those words that he, himself chose to use. He does not understand his own posts.

I require rebuttal to: The Gnu is a blithering idiot.

And to the fact that he is incapable of serious, rational debate.

Title: Delusional, Evasive Mover of Goalposts?

[webhick]

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

Lay off the sexist insults (and by extension racist or homophobic insults, should you want to get nitpicky) or I'm tapping you with the ban hammer for an as-yet undecided amount of time.

[Burnaby49]

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

Lay off the sexist insults (and by extension racist or homophobic insults, should you want to get nitpicky) or I'm tapping you with the ban hammer for an as-yet undecided amount of time.

Please, please, just do it. Put this whole discussion thread out of its misery. It would be an act of mercy.

[Lambkin]

He's had plenty of time to produce whatever ideas or evidence he can come up with, and all he's got is trolling, trolling, trolling. Waste of perfectly good electrons.

[Dai Kiwi]

"Bored now", to quote someone or other.

Ne cibos de troglodytae

[ngupowered]

So yet again people arouse and stir up trouble for no good reason, enticing to eject me.
Webhick even issues threat while misconstruing my post; his mind is obviously elsewhere.
Truth is, I come here to get answers and as of lately LPC and Potta shows the right spirit by trying. But most people here simply lie, argue, post nonsense, or misconstrue my position. Fact is, people, by their own will, choose to post here, on this topic. If they don't have the rebutting evidence or are not willing to make an offer, they should remain silent.

Now, my offer to refute LPC's last post stands, if 3 people publicly understand the same. For now, it didn't do the job. You have 12 hours.

[LPC]

Thx LPC, but it didn't do it. And I'll refute it, if within 24 hours I get three people saying it did.

You're wrong. I've proved it.

If you had anything to refute the Ker-Frisbie line of cases, you could have posted it immediately. The reality is that you've got nothing, and you're trolling for a diversion.

All you're doing (and all you can do) is prove you're too stupid to know when you're wrong.

And you are wrong.

You lose. Get over it.

[Pottapaug1938]

So yet again people arouse and stir up trouble for no good reason, enticing to eject me.
Webhick even issues threat while misconstruing my post; his mind is obviously elsewhere.
Truth is, I come here to get answers and as of lately LPC and Potta shows the right spirit by trying. But most people here simply lie, argue, post nonsense, or misconstrue my position. Fact is, people, by their own will, choose to post here, on this topic. If they don't have the rebutting evidence or are not willing to make an offer, they should remain silent.

Now, my offer to refute LPC's last post stands, if 3 people publicly understand the same. For now, it didn't do the job. You have 12 hours.

You don't have ANYTHING with which to refute LPC's post. If you did, you would have posted it long ago. He gave you a Supreme Court decision (that's the highest court in the land) which makes clear to everyone but you that consent is not required for criminal jurisdiction to attach; and unless you can provide us with a subsequent Supreme Court decision saying otherwise, you've got nothing worthwhile to say on this point.

[LPC]

All you're doing (and all you can do) is prove you're too stupid to know when you're wrong.

I also should have allowed for too dishonest, or too delusional.

Or what should be known as the "sovereign trifecta."

[ngupowered]

See what I mean? They instantly revert into the mind of an ignorant child, arguing, spouting irrelevances, throwing fits. Not the sign of supposedly highly professional mature people.
Truth is, LPC post is easily refuted, yet apparently finds not 3 people in support.

[Pottapaug1938]

See what I mean? They instantly revert into the mind of an ignorant child, arguing, spouting irrelevances, throwing fits. Not the sign of supposedly highly professional mature people.
Truth is, LPC post is easily refuted, yet apparently finds not 3 people in support.

If it's so easily refuted, then do it. Otherwise, you're just making excuses for the fact that YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT. Put up, or shut up.