Probably the 'shine.ngupowered wrote:So, back to Ernie Tertelgte: Can anyone spot why he consented?
ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There
Moderators: Prof, Judge Roy Bean
-
- Quatloosian Federal Witness
- Posts: 7568
- Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm
Re: ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
- David Hume
-
- Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
- Posts: 6113
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
- Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.
Re: ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There
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.ngupowered wrote: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?
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.
"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
-
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 2249
- Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 8:00 pm
- Location: Soho London
Re: ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There
Sure can. He's a paid government shill.ngupowered wrote:
So, back to Ernie Tertelgte: Can anyone spot why he consented?
BHF wrote:
It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
-
- Scalawag
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:26 am
Re: ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There
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.
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:
![Arrow :arrow:](./images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif)
Oh look, I found a law that says the US is no more.
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.
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.
-
- Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
- Posts: 6113
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
- Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.
Re: ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There
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.ngupowered wrote: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.
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.
"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
-
- Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
- Posts: 5233
- Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
- Location: Earth
Re: ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There
Believe it or not, you can change the subject line any time you want.ngupowered wrote:NOTICE: I did not pick the subject line. It should be renamed to "Rebut 'In Jail By Consent'".
The fact that you can, but don't know that you can, suggests that you're not as smart as you think you are.
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.
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.
-
- Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
- Posts: 5233
- Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
- Location: Earth
Re: ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There
No.ngupowered wrote:So, back to Ernie Tertelgte: Can anyone spot why he consented?
Now I have a riddle for you. What's the difference between a raven and a writing desk?
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.
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.
-
- Endangerer of Stupid Species
- Posts: 877
- Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:09 pm
- Location: Hovering overhead, scanning for prey
Re: ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There
Oh dear. Be prepared for a classic gnu-in-the-headlights blank stare.LPC wrote:Now I have a riddle for you. What's the difference between a raven and a writing desk?
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.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." - Robert Heinlein
-
- Scalawag
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:26 am
Re: ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There
LPC, pfft. Not a riddle but has a definitive answer: " 'cause folks at the Q can' tREBUTche the gnu" ![Cool 8)](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)
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.
![Cool 8)](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)
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.
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.
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.
-
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 2249
- Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 8:00 pm
- Location: Soho London
Re: ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There
What do you mean when you say "hard evidence"?ngupowered wrote:
Only hard evidence will do.
BHF wrote:
It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
-
- Illuminatian Revenue Supremo Emeritus
- Posts: 1591
- Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 8:13 pm
- Location: Maryland
Re: ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There
And you expecty a straight, comprehensible answer because ...rumpelstilzchen wrote:What do you mean when you say "hard evidence"?ngupowered wrote:
Only hard evidence will do.
![Question :?:](./images/smilies/icon_question.gif)
Taxes are the price we pay for a free society and to cover the responsibilities of the evaders
-
- Quatloosian Federal Witness
- Posts: 7568
- Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:39 pm
Re: ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There
Why?
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
- David Hume
-
- Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
- Posts: 6113
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
- Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.
Re: ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There
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.ngupowered wrote:
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 ...
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?
"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
-
- Further Moderator
- Posts: 7508
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
- Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith
Re: ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There
Because.wserra wrote:Why?
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff
"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
-
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 2249
- Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 8:00 pm
- Location: Soho London
Re: ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There
The last thing I expect is a straight, comprehensible answer.AndyK wrote: And you expecty a straight, comprehensible answer because ...
Watch the gnu prove me to be right.
BHF wrote:
It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
-
- Captain
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 10:32 pm
- Location: Somewhere South of Canada...
Re: ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There
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 wrote: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.ngupowered wrote:
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 ...
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?
-
- Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
- Posts: 6113
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:26 pm
- Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.
Re: ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There
Yeak, I left the shift key down on that one. Ngu -- see the correction in bold above.JennyD wrote: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 wrote: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.ngupowered wrote:
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 ...
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?
"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
-
- Scalawag
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:26 am
Re: ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There
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.
"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.
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.
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.
-
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 2249
- Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 8:00 pm
- Location: Soho London
Re: ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There
Once again you answer a question with a question.ngupowered wrote:
Rumpel, why don't you make me an offer?
Try again.
This was my question:
What do you mean when you say "hard evidence"?
Now answer it.
BHF wrote:
It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
-
- Scalawag
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:26 am
Re: ngupowered On How Everyone in Jail Consented to Be There
Rumpel, again, why don't you interpret it yourself and make an offer?
Example: "Would this & this constitute a rebuttal?"
Example: "Would this & this constitute a rebuttal?"
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.
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.