Gordon Hall indicted

[ArthurWankspittle]

.... trial has been cancelled a number of times....

Either English isn't your first language or you have an odd understanding of the word "cancelled".

...Even more so with "Benton Hall"s sentencing on March 13th even though he supposedly PLEADED GUILTY......

What? So if you plead guilty you can't be sentenced? Quick, someone tell Oscar Pistorius.

[erwalkerca]

ngupowered is the person who first got me interested in Gordon Hall. As amazing as it may seem, English is apparently his first language.

He possesses some odd ideas such as vague references by Gordon Hall, during an internet call-in show, to someone in some court somewhere in the US having success with his "processes" is proof that they work. Those processes consisting mostly of foisted unilateral agreements, where a failure to respond supposedly signifies acceptance.

He also believes that there is a conspiracy by the authorities to hide any court successes by the likes of Hall and others to prevent the general public becoming aware how to "beat the system".

[Judge Roy Bean]

Hilarious how clueless people are as to the process employed by the Halls.
If consent wasn't needed and their filings were rubbish, how come trial has been cancelled a number of times by now?

Cancelled? By whom? I'd love to see that motion and especially the order granting it.

Even more so with "Benton Hall"s sentencing on March 13th even though he supposedly PLEADED GUILTY.

Supposedly? The record reflects that a plea of guilty was entered. While that may have a mitigating effect on the terms of the sentence imposed, sentencing will still happen.

The government sure is incompetent, or something else is going on.

The something else going on is ignorance on the part of "ngupowered."

[ngupowered]

Either English isn't your first language or you have an odd understanding of the word "cancelled".

Apparently you are one of those people I was referring to. Or you are simply here to argue semantics.

NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF HEARING: 2/24/14 - 2/28/14 jury trial as to Gordon L Hall. (jtho, ) (Entered: 02/18/2014

What? So if you plead guilty you can't be sentenced? Quick, someone tell Oscar Pistorius.

Please, don't make more of a fool of yourself than you already have.
His sentencing hearing was cancelled even though he has supposedly already pled guilty. How hard can it be to convict the man?

Law of the forum : Everything earwalkerca says about me is a lie. He is pathological.

[erwalkerca]

ngupowered, demonstrating your lack of reading comprehension and/or knowledge of court proceedings once again I see.

The cancellation of the jury trial as a result of Gordon Hall pleading guilty is NOT the cancellation of a sentencing hearing.

But feel free to enlighten the members of Quatloos with how successful Gordon Hall has been with his "processes" and how he has the the courts, including the SC District Federal Court, wrapped around his finger with his amazing legal mind.

Psst. You don't get to set the "laws of the forum"

[ArthurWankspittle]

Apparently you are one of those people I was referring to. Or you are simply here to argue semantics.

NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF HEARING: 2/24/14 - 2/28/14 jury trial as to Gordon L Hall. (jtho, ) (Entered: 02/18/2014

And the others? You did say "trial" and "a number of times" didn't you, or was that just semantics?

What? So if you plead guilty you can't be sentenced? Quick, someone tell Oscar Pistorius.

Please, don't make more of a fool of yourself than you already have.

Says the person who can't tell a hearing from a trial.

His sentencing hearing was cancelled even though he has supposedly already pled guilty. How hard can it be to convict the man?

From my time on here I have learned that this isn't uncommon especially when the court is waiting for reports. Also, it won't be difficult to convict him, that will be done in moments given his guilty plea, it is the sentencing and the associated considerations that will cause the hold ups and involve consideration.

[rogfulton]

From my time on here I have learned that this isn't uncommon especially when the court is waiting for reports. Also, it won't be difficult to convict him, that will be done in moments given his guilty plea, it is the sentencing and the associated considerations that will cause the hold ups and involve consideration.

Don't interrupt, ngupowered is on a roll!

[wserra]

Please, don't make more of a fool of yourself than you already have.
His sentencing hearing was cancelled even though he has supposedly already pled guilty.

Minute entry from February 4:

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable J Michelle Childs: JURY SELECTION as to Gordon L Hall held on 2/4/2014. Trial scheduled for 2/24/14 - 2/28/14. Court Reporter Karen Martin. (jtho, ) (Entered: 02/04/2014)

Minute entry from February 18:

NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF HEARING: 2/24/14 - 2/28/14 jury trial as to Gordon L Hall.

It is perfectly obvious to anyone with third-grade reading comprehension that it was the previously-scheduled jury trial that was cancelled.

Moreover, it was cancelled because Hall pleaded guilty (or nolo, which is the legal equivalent). Nothing "supposedly" about it:

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Honorable J Michelle Childs: Change of Plea Hearing as to Gordon L Hall held on 2/18/2014. Amendment to 20(d) and 42(a) of entry 219[RECAP] Petition to Plea. Gordon L Hall (1) entered a plea of Nolo Contendere to Count 2s

Hall is now playing stupid games, which the Court is absolutely correct in ignoring.

[JamesVincent]

Can you change from guilty to no contest without screwing up everything?

[ngupowered]

FFS people how hard can it be.
Jury trial has been cancelled at least twice for Gordy and scheduled sentencing hearing for Benton. The GOV. has had almost a year to convict him. What's the hold up? Are they just going to let him play his "silly" game forever in custody? So every time he pleads conditionally, the GOV. is just gonna drop the scheduled jury trials and wait another couple of months? That could actually be abuse of due process if Gordon really believes in his methods - no mens rea.

[webhick]

Law of the forum : Everything earwalkerca says about me is a lie. He is pathological.

Nuh uh, sweetie, no. Check the management page. Your name is nowhere on that list so your ability to dictate forum law is limited to you just talking smack.

[AndyK]

Blah, blah, blah ...

It's no longer surprising that-- no matter what the topic; no matter how clear the posts; no matter how obvious the facts -- almost every day an uninformed, semiliterate troll pops up and attempts to alter the world to suit his reality.

Ngupowered (is that some form of a twisted wildebeest?): You have wandered into a group of highly educated, highly experienced people who thoroughly enoy refuting and debunking inane posts such as yours.

You really should take a time out and reassess your view of what happened -- and is happening -- in this case.

Absent your doing so, you will find yourself walking into a gunfight armed only with a broken water pistol. Although you might not at the time, or ever, realize it, you will become a mockery and another excellent example of what-not-to-do for casual readers.

[Judge Roy Bean]

FFS people how hard can it be. ...

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.

[ngupowered]

LOL, what a bunch of feeble responses. Instead of providing substantial rebuttal to my points, digression, to fuel puffed egos, ensues. No wonder the world is in such a sorrow state of affairs with clueless people roaming it.

I require rebuttal to:

1. Courts require consent of the parties, expressed or implied through actions, for adjudication

[rogfulton]

LOL, what a bunch of feeble responses. Instead of providing substantial rebuttal to my points, digression, to fuel puffed egos, ensues. No wonder the world is in such a sorrow state of affairs with clueless people roaming it.

I require rebuttal to:

1. Courts require consent of the parties, expressed or implied through actions, for adjudication

That's so easy, my eight year old granddaughter knows a court doesn't require consent for adjudication. A law gives a court jurisdiction or it doesn't. If you believe otherwise, perhaps you would be kind enough to provide a citation to a court decision (without posting an excerpt) or a law (again, without posting an excerpt) that says otherwise. Click the word 'excerpt' if you are not sure what the word means.

BTW, get a clue - you don't get to require anything on this board, as you have been told before. Don't like them apples? buh-bye.

[erwalkerca]

ngupowered believes that it is sufficient for him to make a statement with, at best, some vague allusions to a supposed case from some unnamed jurisdiction to prove his point. He feels no obligation to ever back up his statements with verifiable proof.

He then demands you rebut his statements but will move the goalposts when you do this. Provide a newspaper article and he will state that it is just hearsay rather than proof. Provide a link to a court decision and he will state that an electronic record is somehow suspect.

You are actually better off arguing "freemen" and the law with your dog.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I require rebuttal to:

It doesn't work like that. You are the one making the claim, that the court requires consent of the parties, the burden of proof lies with you. Reversing the burden of proof is a logical fallacy.

[JamesVincent]

LOL, what a bunch of feeble responses. Instead of providing substantial rebuttal to my points,What points? digression,Yes, you have digressed quite a bit to fuel puffed egosThe only "puffed up ego" I've seen has been yours., ensues. No wonder the world is in such a sorrow"sorrow"? state of affairs with clueless people roaming itThen get out, pretty simple fix..

I require rebuttal to:

1. Courts require consent of the parties, expressed or implied through actions, for adjudication

I think Web pretty much told you what you can "require", which is absolutely nothing. As far as your "point" any person capable of rational thought would understand that the whole "consent" argument is the true beating of a dead horse. Your "consent" is living somewhere that has rules or laws. You don't like them, move somewhere that doesn't have them. Gregg was good for suggesting Somolia though I would be leery of that place myself. A court requires absolutely nothing more then jurisdiction and a reason.

[ngupowered]

You are actually better off arguing "freemen" and the law with your dog.

Correct, a dog would make a worthy adversary for you.
The rest of your post is dismissed as a matter of law.

My claim is that there has been no rebuttal to my requirement which, so far, has not been rebutted.

[Famspear]

My claim is that there has been no rebuttal to my requirement which, so far, has not been rebutted.

You don't have any "requirements," Einstein. And the rest of the world is not subject to some imaginary requirement to "rebut" your gibberish.

Courts require consent of the parties, expressed or implied through actions, for adjudication

No.

In a federal criminal case in the United States, the power of a U.S. district court to adjudicate the case is conferred by statute (18 USC sec. 3231), not by the express or implied consent of the defendant. Indeed, a defendant found overseas could be arrested without his consent, brought forcibly to the United States, indicted, tried in a U.S. District Court, convicted, sentenced and incarcerated in a U.S. federal prison without his express or implied consent, and it could all be perfectly legal. Happens all the time.