The Observer wrote:We don't consent.
rogfulton wrote: We don't consent.
Who's gonna be the third?
Motion carried.Pottapaug1938 wrote:
Me. I don't consent, either.
Moderators: Prof, Judge Roy Bean
The Observer wrote:We don't consent.
rogfulton wrote: We don't consent.
Who's gonna be the third?
Motion carried.Pottapaug1938 wrote:
Me. I don't consent, either.
Nor do I consent.Pottapaug1938 wrote:Me. I don't consent, either.rogfulton wrote:We don't consent.ngupowered wrote:Btw, I require that all options be restored & and all posts hereto, except #1, be deleted, all done as soon as possible.
Who's gonna be the third?
By the way, rumpel, how did this turn out?rumpelstilzchen wrote:Er, no. You've got to find three friends.ngupowered wrote: Also delete all the posts hitherto except of course the initial.
Eleven and a half hours to go.........
He failed to attract support.The Observer wrote:By the way, rumpel, how did this turn out?rumpelstilzchen wrote:Er, no. You've got to find three friends.ngupowered wrote: Also delete all the posts hitherto except of course the initial.
Eleven and a half hours to go.........
United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655, 661-662 (1992) (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); Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 522 (1952) (citation and footnote omitted; conviction and imprisonment in Michigan is constitutional even though defendant was forcibly and illegally abducted by Michigan police from Illinois). See also, Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 (1886) (conviction in Illinois upheld even though the defendant "was in fact kidnapped and brought to this country against his will").The Supreme Court wrote:"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."
Two of the posts are reminding him of the truth that stands unrebutted, and is therefore affirmed.The Observer wrote:Sigh - the preceding 3 posts go right back to feeding the troll.
They will probably think, "Why did gnupowered consent to that happening?"ngupowered wrote:What will an honest soul think of you "highly trained professionals" when you again & again fail to rebut presumptions, yet continue to deride, writing irrelevances, alter posts and take away my editing options.
Way back on a prior thread [edited to add: and now I see repeated on this thread] you were shown decisions of the United States Supreme Court saying that a court may exercise jurisdiction in a criminal case even over a defendant who was kidnapped and brought into the country by force. Since the question you asked was a legal one, there is no greater proof than a decision of SCOTUS. All you have done since then (and before then, too, if truth be told) is troll. Sorry, ngu, you've got nothing.ngupowered wrote:So, I'm just gonna sit back, enjoy your circus and wait until you come up with the proof Maybe Prof can help you out; he seems reasonable.
Well I am concerned you asked me if I was close to my kitchen and now I "will" an answer (using your terminology) as to why that was so important? And I'm also noticing you have some male superiority women are scum vibe going on, I certainly don't give my consent to be talked down at by you...ngupowered wrote:Yawn, thx for the confession Gregg but you people still haven't got anything.
Good thing you're confessing the standards of the forum though: "more common sense than a retarded monkey on crack".
Kestrel, not a woman in that picture; it throws fire. Btw, why is there not a kitchen in that picture?
Wouldn't that be a good place to have a hickup over where to lay your penny?
Jenny, I'm not concerned about that.
So, I'm just gonna sit back, enjoy your circus and wait until you come up with the proof Maybe Prof can help you out; he seems reasonable.
Btw, I require that all options be restored & and all posts hereto, except #1, be deleted, all done as soon as possible.
As I'm sure you'd agree, the answer to that question is usually "because that's what public servants, police officers, lawyers, and judges sometimes have to do as part of their job." What the answer is for us mad Quatloosians I don't know. Masochism?LaVidaRoja wrote:Why did these clearly educated and intelligent professionals put up with this driveling idiot for so long?
OK, so I posted what I hoped was a reasonably flattering portrait of Webhick, and the troll is saying, (1) the woman is not a woman, and (2) there should be a kitchen in the picture.ngupowered wrote:Kestrel, not a woman in that picture; it throws fire. Btw, why is there not a kitchen in that picture?
Yet again, do not concern yourself with that which lacks support in the facts.Dorothy Dix wrote: Confession is always weakness. The grave soul keeps its own secrets, and takes its own punishment in silence.
Sorry, can't do it without their consent.ngupowered wrote:Now, do your duty moderators. The public sees your ridiculousness. Remove all answers thus far, except the two by LPC & Pottapaug.
...
I don't consent having my posts altered by others
Not quite. Those three were just excuses. Gnu isn't asking or arguing anything.JennyD wrote:Decided to read back on all of the posts in this and the other thread this came from, so let me understand:
1) this is the old fallacy that you can't be arrested, tried and jailed if you do not consent
2) the OP (gnu) believes that a summons is an "invitation"
3) He is also asking by what authority anyone judges and jails him..
About right?
Just to affirm, I don't consent.wserra wrote:Sorry, can't do it without their consent.ngupowered wrote:Now, do your duty moderators. The public sees your ridiculousness. Remove all answers thus far, except the two by LPC & Pottapaug.
...
I don't consent having my posts altered by others