Jan 6 defendants have long argued that the initial entrants were peaceably escorted into the building by Capitol Police, and therefore had no reasonable expectation that their conduct was unlawful
This video, suppressed for almost 3 years, confirms it
Wow, a video that doesn't show angry mob fighting police and breaking into capital to try to stop congress from certifying the results of the election. I guess there's no reason to consider these images, case closed.    ^^^ FBI members and plants, and others basically hired by the Soros One-World-Government group. Basically NOT Trump supporters. Was this guy a FBI member, plant or hired by Soros?  Fitzsimons drove alone in his pickup truck to Washington to join thousands to protest Trump's defeat as a stolen election.
Bragging about the event in a phone call to a meeting of his town selectmen the next day, Fitzsimons said, "Trump was the lion leading an army of lambs to change the corrupt fraud that had been perpetuated." Defendant Assaulted Multiple Law Enforcement Officers, Including by Hurling a Spear, Throwing Punches, and Wrenching on One’s Body Armor, Causing Career-Ending Shoulder Injury
A Maine man was sentenced today on multiple felony and misdemeanor convictions for his actions during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach. His actions and the actions of others disrupted a joint session of the U.S. Congress convened to ascertain and count the electoral votes related to the presidential election.
Kyle Fitzsimons, 39, of Lebanon, Maine, was sentenced to 87 months in prison after he was convicted of 11 charges, including seven felonies, following a bench trial in the District of Columbia before the Honorable Rudolph Contreras. In addition to the prison term, Judge Contreras ordered 36 months of supervised release, restitution of $2,000.
According to the government’s evidence, on Jan. 6, 2021, between 3:45 and 4:30 p.m., Fitzsimons was illegally on the Capitol grounds and among a crowd of rioters brawling with law enforcement officers at the tunnel entrance of the lower west terrace of the Capitol building. Fitzsimons was wearing a white butcher’s jacket and a fur pelt and carrying an unstrung bow. While in that area, Fitzsimons committed five assaults against law enforcement officers over an approximately five-minute span.
First, Fitzsimons hurled an unstrung bow like a spear at the group of law enforcement officers. The object hit an officer with the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) in the ballistic helmet and bounced off. Fitzsimons then reached for and made forcible contact with an MPD detective immediately before another rioter sprayed him with a chemical agent, trapping the chemical under the detective’s mask and causing the detective to temporarily suffocate. Fitzsimons also tried to pull a fallen officer into the mob. A sergeant from the U.S. Capitol Police tried to protect the fallen officer, and Fitzsimons grappled with him, yanking on his shield and shoulder strap with all of his considerable weight, causing permanent injuries to the sergeant’s shoulder that necessitated surgery and ultimately ended the sergeant’s lengthy law enforcement career. Finally, Fitzsimons twice charged the group of officers, wildly swinging his fists. He eventually retreated, but only after being inadvertently bloodied by another rioter’s unsuccessful attack on those same officers. As Fitzsimons left the Capitol grounds, he encouraged others to “get in there” and fight the police like he had.
Fitzsimons was found guilty on Sept. 27, 2022, of seven felony charges, including: one count of obstruction of an official proceeding; four counts of assaulting, resisting, or impeding law enforcement officers, including two involving a dangerous weapon or bodily injury; one count of interfering with a law enforcement officer during a civil disorder, and one count of engaging in physical violence in a restricted building or grounds. He also was found guilty of four misdemeanor charges including: entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds; disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds; disorderly conduct in a Capitol Building or grounds; and committing an act of violence in the Capitol Building or grounds.
This case was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. Valuable assistance was provided by the Department of Justice National Security Division’s Counterterrorism Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maine, the Middle District of Florida, and the Northern District of Texas.
This case was investigated by the FBI’s Washington Field Office, which listed Fitzsimons as #139 on its seeking information photos. Valuable assistance was provided by the FBI’s Boston Field Office and its Portland Resident Agency, the U.S. Capitol Police, and the Metropolitan Police Department.
In the 30 months since Jan. 6, 2021, more than 1,069 individuals have been arrested in nearly all 50 states for crimes related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol, including more than 350 individuals charged with assaulting or impeding law enforcement. The investigation remains ongoing. https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/maine-man-sentenced-assaulting-law-enforcement-officers-during-jan-6-capitol-breach |
|
|
|
Read about it tonight and I seems both those lawyers/prosecutors seeking to keep Trump out the ballot will try to appeal, so he will ended stay out the ballot in that State, during the election next year. On the other hand, I have also read Trump's legal team has tried to appeal to this ruling, in the base they do not want this judge to effectively setting a precedent of Trump being legally a participant in an insurrection within the United States, if they do an exception to the presidency, then it would be a very dangerous precedent to keep for the amendment. After all, those who rise to power are the one who try to stay in power by getting rid of democracy, there has been several instances of it happening through history. Ironically, I could foresee that excluding Trump from the ballot in states he did not have a chance of winning anyways, will only encourage his supporters to vote in flipping states and increase his popularity, in a similar way to what happened with indictments. I read about the several challenges that have been put forward in several states. Judges are trying to avoid anything that looks like interfering with politics. Some of the arguments are really funny on why Trump can stay in the ballot, really creative like "The president is not an official of the Goverment" or other semantics. However, what is possibly the most interesting and honest is the court that said: "He can be in the Primaries because that is internal to the party", however the court said that if he is the candidate chosen, then the case can be presented. All the cases have been appealed. Most judges tend to look at all these matters as a political matter. In my view it is not from the moment that several felonies are proven right - then is a matter of justice. I don't see how this case doesn't end up at the supreme court. |
|
|
|
Remember that Hitler was elected... he used democracy to destroy democracy.
Yes but not until after going to prison for a failed coup attempt. |
|
|
|
From the recent ruling where a federal judge found that Trump did participate in insurrection, but should not be removed from the ballot: TRUMP’S HISTORY WITH POLITICAL EXTREMISTS
61. As noted above, Petitioners called an expert in political extremism,
Professor Peter Simi. Professor Simi has a Ph.D. in Sociology, teaches at Chapman
University, and has spent his 27-year career focused on political violence and
extremism. 10/31/23 Tr. 11:15–12:12. He has written two books on political violence and
extremism—American Swastika and Out of Hiding—and published over sixty peerreviewed articles or book chapters on different facets of political violence and
extremism. 10/31/23 Tr. 21:15–23:2. He has provided training on political extremism
and violence to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Homeland Security,
27
the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Department of Justice, and several state and local law
enforcement agencies across the country. 10/31/23 Tr. 23:20–24:6.
62. Professor Simi reviewed Trump’s relationship with his supporters over the
years, identified a pattern of calls for violence that his supporters responded to, and
explained how that long experience allowed Trump to know how his supporters
responded to his calls for violence using a shared language that allowed him to maintain
plausible deniability with the wider public. 10/31/23 Tr. 56:23–59:17, 200:22–203:12.
63. Trump himself agrees that his supporters “listen to [him] like no one else.”
Ex. 134. Amy Kremer also testified that Trump’s supporters are “very reactive” to his
words. 11/02/2023 Tr. 49:4–6.
64. Professor Simi testified about the following examples of patterns of calland-response that Trump developed and used to incite violence by his supporters.
65. At an October 23, 2015 rally, Trump said to his supporters in response to
protestors disrupting the rally, “See, the first group, I was nice . . . The second group, I
was pretty nice. The third group, I’ll be a little more violent. And the fourth group I’ll
say, ‘Get the hell outta here!’” Ex. 127.
66. The next month, Trump used this very language, telling his supporters to
“get [a protester] the hell out of here” and the protester was then assaulted. When asked
about the attack the next day, Trump said “maybe [the protester] should have been
roughed up.” Ex. 50; 10/31/2023 Tr. 70:1–4, 71:13-72:1, 235:3–10.
28
67. At a February 2016 rally, Trump told his supporters to “knock the crap out
of” any protesters who threw tomatoes and promised to pay the legal fees of anyone
carrying out the assault. Ex. 51; 10/31/2023 Tr. 213:14–25.
68. At another February 2016 rally, Trump told his supporters that, in the “old
days” a protester would be “carried out on a stretcher,” and that he would like to “punch
him in the face.” Ex. 52; 10/31/2023 Tr. 214:6–25.
69. When asked about his supporters’ violent acts in March 2016, Trump said
the violence was “very, very appropriate” and that “we need a little bit more of” it. Ex.
53; 10/31/2023 Tr. 67:6–25.
70. At an August 2016 rally, Trump noted “Second Amendment people” might
be able to prevent Hillary Clinton (if elected President) and judges appointed by her
from interpreting the Constitution in unfavorable ways. Ex. 159.
71. In August 2017, when asked about the white supremacist Unite the Right
rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, where a counter-protester was murdered, Trump stated
there “was blame on both sides . . . some very fine people on both sides.” Ex. 56;
10/31/2023 Tr. 68:12–20.
72. Far-right extremists, including David Duke, Richard Spencer, and Andrew
Anglin, thanked Trump for his comments and took them as an endorsement,
notwithstanding Trump’s condemnation of neo-Nazis and white supremacists in the
same speech. Professor Simi testified that the latter statement would be understood as
plausible deniability. 10/31/2023 Tr. 68:21–69:16, 74:18–75:9, 166:9–20, 226:11–
227:7.
29
73. At an October 2018 rally, Trump referred to a candidate who body
slammed a reporter as “my kind of guy.” Ex. 57; 10/31/2023 Tr. 215:22–216:5.
74. At a May 2019 rally, when one of his supporters suggested shooting
migrants, Trump stated: “That’s only in the panhandle you can get away with that
statement.” The crowd cheered. Ex. 58.
75. In a May 2020 tweet referring to an armed occupation of the Michigan
State Capitol by anti-government extremists, Trump tweeted that the attackers were
“very good people,” and that the Michigan Governor should respond by appeasing them.
Ex. 148, p. 3.
76. On May 29, 2020, President Trump threatened to deploy “the Military” to
Minneapolis to shoot “looters” amid protests over the police killing of George Floyd,
tweeting “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Ex. 148, p. 5.
77. During a presidential debate on September 29, 2020, Trump refused to
denounce white supremacists and violent extremists and instead told the Proud Boys to
“stand back and stand by,” later adding that “somebody’s got to do something about
Antifa and the left.” Ex. 1064. 13
78. Trump’s words “stand back and stand by” were well received and
considered an endorsement. In fact, the Proud Boys turned the phrase into a mantra
13 The Court acknowledges that the statement occurred during a debate, when the moderator
had asked Trump to ask white nationalists and militias to “stand down,” and further that
President Biden called on Trump to disavow the Proud Boys, specifically. Nevertheless, Trump’s
conduct is consistent with the pattern identified by Professor Simi in that an apparent disavowal
(though the Court notes that “stand back and stand by” does not carry the same meaning as
“stand down”) was immediately qualified by an apparent endorsement (i.e. that somebody has
“got to do something.”).
30
and put it on merchandise. 10/31/2023 Tr. 77:13–21. The Proud Boys and other
extremists understood this as a directive to be prepared for future violence. 10/31/2023
Tr. 78:21–23.
79. Trump also regularly endorsed and cultivated relationships with
incendiary figures connected with far-right extremists, including Alex Jones, Steve
Bannon, and Roger Stone. 10/31/2023 Tr. 57:8-10, 199:23-200:4, 222:21-225:2.
Katrina Pierson, a senior advisor to the Trump campaign who helped to organize the
Ellipse rally, testified that Trump “likes the crazies” (referring to individuals like
Alexander and Jones, whose speeches are often “incendiary” and “inflammatory”) “who
viciously defend him in public.” 11/01/23 Tr. 287:2–12, 299:4–16; see also 11/02/23 Tr.
57:15–58:3 (Amy Kremer calling Jones and Alexander “flamethrowers” and “agitators”
who “want to get everybody riled up”).
80. Trump retained Bannon and Stone as advisers, two individuals with very
close relationships with far-right extremists. 10/31/2023 Tr. 199:23–200:8, 222:21–23,
224:2–13. Though Trump did fire Bannon, he would eventually issue a presidential
pardon to him. 10/31/2023 Tr. 223:1–3. Regardless, the Court finds that Trump had
courted these fringe figures for many years through activities such as endorsing far-right
conspiracy theories like birtherism. 10/31/2023 Tr. 56:23–57:15.
81. On October 30, 2020, a convoy of Trump supporters driving dozens of
trucks (calling themselves a “Trump Train”) surrounded a Biden-Harris campaign bus
on a Texas highway. On October 31st, Trump tweeted a stylized video of the Trump
Train confrontation and stated, “I LOVE TEXAS!” Exs. 71; 148, p. 8.
31
82. On November 1, 2020, in response to news that the FBI was investigating
the incident, Trump tweeted, “In my opinion, these patriots did nothing wrong” and
indicated they should not be investigated. Ex. 148, p. 9. Later that day at a rally in
Michigan, Trump again celebrated the incident boasting “they had hundreds of cars,
Trump, Trump. Trump and the American flag.” Ex. 67.
83. At no point did Trump ever credibly condemn violence by his supporters
but rather confirmed his supporters’ violent interpretations of his directives. Professor
Simi testified that through these repeated interactions, Trump developed and employed
a coded language based in doublespeak that was understood between himself and farright extremists, while maintaining a claim to ambiguity among a wider audience.
10/31/2023 Tr. 53:2–54:12, 65:20–66:20, 76:9–23, 211:13–218:24.
84. For example, violent far-right extremists understood that Trump’s calls to
“fight,” which most politicians would mean only symbolically, were, when spoken by
Trump, literal calls to violence by these groups, while Trump’s statements negating that
sentiment were insincere and existed to obfuscate and create plausible deniability.
10/31/2023 Tr. 49:14–21, 59:7–17, 101:20–102:6.
85. The Court finds that Trump knew his violent supporters understood his
statements this way, and Trump knew he could influence his supporters to act violently
on his behalf. 10/31/2023 Tr. 126:11–19, 221:10–21.
86. The Court notes that Trump did not put forth any credible evidence or
expert testimony to rebut Professor Simi’s conclusions or to rebut the argument that
Trump intended to incite violence. https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf(page 26 on) |
|
|
|
People are starting to realize that the maga movement is Facism for idiots. Lots of info in the article (it's a few months old). Click the links. Then click more links. Then go back and click again. Click click click. Trump Is an Extremely Dumb Fascist
https://newrepublic.com/post/174706/indictment-trump-complete-fascistThe latest criminal indictment highlights his idiocy—but also the threat he still poses to American democracy. In a democratic society, the law is the most efficient means by which to arrest fascism. This is why Trump faces indictments. It’s the surest way to stop him. Smart fascists know this, and they either stay within the law or, perhaps paradoxically, violate it so flagrantly that they end up redefining what “the law” even is. Fortunately for us, Trump is a dumb fascist, and his ignorance may prove to be his Achilles’ heel. We also—again fortunately—have a system and set of laws and traditions that are stronger than those of, say, Weimar Germany, so Trump hasn’t yet been able to pollute them, although if he is reelected, he certainly will. ...
All that Trump would do is make America more of a police state.
Or look at the sham Trump trials that he is resisting using some of the police state authority already.
Trump's use of his police state would be good.
Well, at least you're honest about the fact that you openly support Fascism. Too many of your ilk try to hide it. I appreciate your candour. It's refreshing to see people stand by what they believe in (even if what they believe in is reprehensible). Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W_U4ZqQH3QOh he's gone even further: Stalin and Hitler might have gone about it in the wrong way, but their idea to get rid of the Jewish bankers was the right idea.
|
|
|
|
People are starting to realize that Trump won't be convicted. Lots of info in the article. Turley: Don't Count On A Trump Conviction - None Of These Cases Are Slam-Dunks
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/turley-dont-count-trump-conviction-none-these-cases-are-slam-dunksBelow is a longer version of my column in the New York Post on the leaking of the interviews of former counsel to Donald Trump. The interviews could magnify the difficulties for both Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and Special Counsel Jack Smith in their respective prosecutions. These cases still represent a serious threat to Trump, but these prosecutors must first overcome a glaring potential contradiction. That does not mean that Christie and the other candidates will not get a "Spring Break" with a conviction, but it could prove more challenging even with highly favorable jury pools. Here is the column: This week, Chris Christie declared that "it's over" for Donald Trump and predicted that the former president would be a convicted felon "by the Spring." He was specifically referring to the prosecutions linked to the 2020 election denial in Atlanta and D.C. [...]
... And here's another example of your selective reading. I agree, the guy is likely to be a convict by spring and regardless of the opinion that the cases are not slam dunks, which they should never be, I also agree that they pose a strong threat to Trump, Trump's assets and Trumps empire of media. It is not going to be challenging to convict him, the prosecution has been preparing for a long time, they have been meticulous in how the have put this case forward - of special interest how they have used the RICO. BADecker can embed garbage links three times per post, 5 times a day, but can't be bothered to read more than the headline...all about the seo. |
|
|
|
I see the fake news media finally stopped rigging the polls, now if Biden wins you'll be able to point to this poll as proof the election was rigged, nice! |
|
|
|
Jan 6 defendants have long argued that the initial entrants were peaceably escorted into the building by Capitol Police, and therefore had no reasonable expectation that their conduct was unlawful
This video, suppressed for almost 3 years, confirms it
Wow, a video that doesn't show angry mob fighting police and breaking into capital to try to stop congress from certifying the results of the election. I guess there's no reason to consider these images, case closed. |
|
|
|
@ Bijan, Edward and Mladen
Please tell me who is the owner and operator of the websites / domains Stake.ac , Stake.bet , Stake.bz , Stake.ceo , Staketr.com , Stake.games , Stake.jp , Stake.krd , Stake.mba and Stake.pink ?
Please show me the crypto currency online casino licenses for the websites / domains Stake.ac , Stake.bet , Stake.bz , Staketr.com , Stake.games ?
You weren't cheated and even if they didn't have a license ( they do) it was still your decision to gamble with that money. If they do have licenses, show the licenses for the websites / domains Stake.ac , Stake.bet , Stake.bz , Stake.ceo , Staketr.com , Stake.games , Stake.jp , Stake.krd , Stake.mba and Stake.pink ? Show me who is the owner and operator of the websites / domains Stake.ac , Stake.bet , Stake.bz , Stake.ceo , Staketr.com , Stake.games , Stake.jp , Stake.krd , Stake.mba and Stake.pink ? It's at the bottom of Stake.com, go look for yourself. Stake.com website bottom: "Stake is owned and operated by Medium Rare N.V., registration number: 145353, registered address: Korporaalweg 10, Willemstad, Curaçao. Contact us at support@stake.com. Payment agent company is Medium Rare Limited with address 7-9 Riga Feraiou, LIZANTIA COURT, Office 310, Agioi Omologites, 1087 Nicosia, Cyprus and Registration number: HE 410775" Not one word about who owns and operates the websites / domains Stake.ac , Stake.bet , Stake.bz , Stake.ceo , Staketr.com , Stake.games , Stake.jp , Stake.krd , Stake.mba and Stake.pink! They even do not state who owns and operates the website Stake.com! What's your point. Do you think because the owner of the company isn't named at the bottom of the site means that you shouldn't be down 30k after wagering almost 10 million? What's 0.5% of 10 million? Is Jeff bezos name at the bottom of amazon.com? How about Elon musk at the bottom of Twitter? You lost. Accept it and quit embarrassing yourself. |
|
|
|
I would have expected Trump to select Karry Lake or MTG as running mate, but picking Tucker it makes sense to his plans. I guess.
I knew that Tucker getting directly involved in politics was just matter of time, but I would have betted he would had waited for Trump to expire politically before stepping ahead as a candidate for the Senate or the presidency, beginning his political career in this way and this early will of course translate into a boost to his future and will completely frighten the opposition, because the kind of political ideas Carlson has shown he holds.
To me Trump is trying to appeal each day more to a radical and far right wing of the voting base and is neglecting those who in the moderate right or in the center. Let us see how this goes, one cannot deny that both Tucker and Trump know one or two things about populism and propaganda, they are a good duo. Let us see if that translate to votes beyond the diehard Trump base.
He'll never pick Tucker. He's too much of a threat. Plus he's on the record bad mouthing Trump in all sorts of ways and worse, he's on the record admitting Trump lost the 2020 election and the Kraken team is "batshit crazy". He also wouldn't go to prison for Trump. Kerry Lake and Elise Stefanik seem like front runners at this point. Trump may be very aware of the things Tucker has said in private about it, but is this not how western politics work nowadays? There is a lot of hypocrisy for the sake of power, so if Trump for some reason could guarantee some advantage over Joe Biden, I believe he would not mind to go and choose Tucker as running mate. At this point though, It is unlikely Tucker will have the chance not because the things he has privately said about Trump, but because Tucker is a charismatic character like Trump and Trump does not like to get the spotlight stolen from him. Pence was not the most charismatic people at all and Trump chose him last time. You're right, I could see Trump getting over the shit talking if he thought it served him. But aside from that, Tucker is a threat. He has his own following. He has a powerful voice. He has very defined political views. There could easily be media cycles where VP Tucker has more attention than President Trump - and that would make Trump lose his mind. That's why he picked Pence last time, the guy is a boring bland conservative that would do ( almost) anything the President tells him to do. Any alpha male has 0 chance at VP. |
|
|
|
@ Bijan, Edward and Mladen
Please tell me who is the owner and operator of the websites / domains Stake.ac , Stake.bet , Stake.bz , Stake.ceo , Staketr.com , Stake.games , Stake.jp , Stake.krd , Stake.mba and Stake.pink ?
Please show me the crypto currency online casino licenses for the websites / domains Stake.ac , Stake.bet , Stake.bz , Staketr.com , Stake.games ?
You weren't cheated and even if they didn't have a license ( they do) it was still your decision to gamble with that money. If they do have licenses, show the licenses for the websites / domains Stake.ac , Stake.bet , Stake.bz , Stake.ceo , Staketr.com , Stake.games , Stake.jp , Stake.krd , Stake.mba and Stake.pink ? Show me who is the owner and operator of the websites / domains Stake.ac , Stake.bet , Stake.bz , Stake.ceo , Staketr.com , Stake.games , Stake.jp , Stake.krd , Stake.mba and Stake.pink ? It's at the bottom of Stake.com, go look for yourself. You are lying again! At the bottom of Stake.com is neither a crypto currency online casino license for the websites / domains Stake.ac , Stake.bet , Stake.bz , Stake.ceo , Staketr.com , Stake.games , Stake.jp , Stake.krd , Stake.mba and Stake.pink stated nor who owns and operate them. lol It's at the bottom of Stake.com, go look for yourself.
No, it's not a "crypto online casino license", and it doesn't have to be. As you already know, curacao is in the process of creating a crypto specific license that's supposed to be roll out soon and they have explicitly said until then their current license covers crypto currencies.
And you already know the owner/operator of stake, you've literally mentioned them by name dozens of times already.
And you also already know those are all stake mirrors.
So far the only thing you've convinced anyone of is what an idiot you are. Seriously, has even a single person taken you seriously since you started spamming this thread?
Where's the crypto license and the name of the owner on game-protect.com ? |
|
|
|
I posted full proof and explanation why the Stake in-house Black Jack system is rigged! More info HEREThe screenshot is original and I can also upload my Black Jack betting history on Wetransfer and post the link. Ok but you just keep ignoring the fact that in blackjack you can win more than even money. Lets say you play 120 $10 hands of black jack and push 20, win 45 and lose 55. With your logic, this would be enough information to conclude that you lost $100. But of those 45 hands you won, you hit blackjack 5 times. So for 40 of the hands you profited $400 and 5 of the hands you profited $75. In total you won $475, and lost $500 so you ended up down $25 instead of the $100 that you calculated. Ignoring the fact that a blackjack pays 1.5x your bet profit instead of just 1x is just one of several flaws in your logic. Are you done pretending to be too dumb to understand this yet? |
|
|
|
@ Bijan, Edward and Mladen
Please tell me who is the owner and operator of the websites / domains Stake.ac , Stake.bet , Stake.bz , Stake.ceo , Staketr.com , Stake.games , Stake.jp , Stake.krd , Stake.mba and Stake.pink ?
Please show me the crypto currency online casino licenses for the websites / domains Stake.ac , Stake.bet , Stake.bz , Staketr.com , Stake.games ?
You weren't cheated and even if they didn't have a license ( they do) it was still your decision to gamble with that money. If they do have licenses, show the licenses for the websites / domains Stake.ac , Stake.bet , Stake.bz , Stake.ceo , Staketr.com , Stake.games , Stake.jp , Stake.krd , Stake.mba and Stake.pink ? Show me who is the owner and operator of the websites / domains Stake.ac , Stake.bet , Stake.bz , Stake.ceo , Staketr.com , Stake.games , Stake.jp , Stake.krd , Stake.mba and Stake.pink ? It's at the bottom of Stake.com, go look for yourself. No, it's not a "crypto online casino license", and it doesn't have to be. As you already know, curacao is in the process of creating a crypto specific license that's supposed to be roll out soon and they have explicitly said until then their current license covers crypto currencies. And you already know the owner/operator of stake, you've literally mentioned them by name dozens of times already. And you also already know those are all stake mirrors. So far the only thing you've convinced anyone of is what an idiot you are. Seriously, has even a single person taken you seriously since you started spamming this thread? |
|
|
|
how do you know that these websites are operated by the brand Stake?
mirror list: playstake.io Unfortunately, a name can not be the operator of a website / domain, only companies or natural persons can. These websites neither state who owns them nor who operates them
Yes they do. Scroll all the way to the bottom. No they do not! At the bottom these websites state that the name Stake is owned and operated by Medium Rare N.V. They do not state who owns and operates the website / domain. Now you see what scam artists Bijan, Edward and Mladen are! For example, I am logged in and deposited and play at stake.bet, but instead of stating who owns and operates the website / domain stake.bet, they state who owns and operates the name Stake.  What is the sense of posting a screenshot from the website / domain playstake.io while I said that at the bottom of the websites / domains Stake.ac , Stake.bet , Stake.bz , Stake.ceo , Staketr.com , Stake.games , Stake.jp , Stake.krd , Stake.mba and Stake.pink the owner and operator is not stated? Read the words. Use your brain. You figured out how to use the internet and find this forum so you can't be as stupid as you're acting. LOL, this is really funny! So Bijan, Edward and Mladen publicly say they operate the crypto currency online casino websites / domains Stake.ac , Stake.bet , Stake.bz , Stake.ceo , Staketr.com , Stake.games , Stake.jp , Stake.krd , Stake.mba and Stake.pink, but they do not have a crypto currency online casino license for it!!! LMAO 
@ Bijan, Edward and Mladen Please tell me who is the owner and operator of the websites / domains Stake.ac , Stake.bet , Stake.bz , Stake.ceo , Staketr.com , Stake.games , Stake.jp , Stake.krd , Stake.mba and Stake.pink ? Please show me the crypto currency online casino licenses for the websites / domains Stake.ac , Stake.bet , Stake.bz , Staketr.com , Stake.games ? You really need to look yourself in the mirror and accept responsibility for deciding to gamble away $30k. It wasn't stolen from you. It's not Eddie or Stunnas fault. You weren't cheated and even if they didn't have a license (they do) it was still your decision to gamble with that money. You can keep looking for some excuse to avoid this, but they will only make any sense in your own little fantasy world. Accept you lost and quit acting like such a baby. |
|
|
|
42,5% of dealer hands are won, 8,5% of dealer hands are push and 49% of dealer hands are lost.
If we reduce the 42,5% of dealer hands won from the 49% of dealer hands lost, that means a player loses 6,5% of the dealer hands.
Nope. You didn't lose the same amount in each of the hands you lost. You didn't win the same amount in each of the hands you won. You're making calculations as if there are only three potential outcomes in blackjack: lose your entire wager, push, or profit the amount you wagered (win even money). This is not the case. There are many more possible outcomes than these 3. Other factors: You did not wager the exact same amount every single time. You played games other than blackjack. You did not play perfect strategy. |
|
|
|
You know how I went on about Stake changing the RTP on some games and how this makes the calculation of the advertised house edge almost impossible. (Millions of bets are necessary to verify it and by that time it might be slightly adjusted)  If the mechanics of the game are transparent (like any of the stake house games or any card game), then you can actually figure out the house edge without making a single bet. You just add up the payout of every possible out come and find the difference of the total wager and total payout. |
|
|
|
Is there any chance you can answer the questions I have asked in the previous post. I think they are fair questions and you really should not have any objections answering. I hope you do not ignore the post and also hope you do not state you will not answer because I was not an investor in the betking ICO.
I think he's worried about being caught lying. And telling the truth would have the same result. Only option is to deflect and, if that doesn't work, ignore. |
|
|
|
1) When the advertised house edge is 0,5% and you made 180,900 bets, then you will statistically lose 900 bets.
Stop using bets. It's wrong. When the advertised house edge is 0.5%, you will statistically lose 0.5% of the total wagered. Not total 'bets'. Total 'wagered'. "Bets" is ambiguous. It doesn't make sense to attempt to make the calculations you're trying to make using "bets". Very simple math for you here. Take the house edge and multiply it by the total wagered. That's how much, on average, you will theoretically lose. If you wager $50,000 your expected losses would be $250 If you wager $200,000 your expected losses would be $1,000 If you wager $8,019,299.22 (in crypto at todays value), your expected losses would be $40,096.50  Obviously you are doing it wrong since you think you should be in profit over 100k playing a game with a 0.5% house edge. You can keep pretending like you shouldn't be losing money, but that won't change reality. When you play a game with a 0.5% house edge, you can expect to 0.5% of however much you wager. Every single semi intelligent person will agree with me here. This isn't rocket science, it's very basic math. |
|
|
|
TwitchySeal loves to show that he is too stupid to understand basic math! If you take a look at my statistics here https://ibb.co/Hxf8NpR you can see the following total numbers: Bets: 180,904 Wins: 78,285 Losses: 86,612 If we reduce the number of wins from the number of losses, then we can see that I lost 8,327 bets (86,612 minus 78,285) 8,327 bets lost out of 180,904 bets placed = 4,6% of the bets lost. 4,6% of the bets lost while the advertised house edge says that I lose only 0,5% of all bets = 4,1% too much lost! You placed 180,904 bets. You lost 86,612 bets. You lost 47.88% of your bets. In black jack, there is a ~49% chance that you will lose each round, a ~41% chance to win, and a ~9% chance to push. You only lost 47.88% of your bets, that's almost 2% less than the average, which is probably because you played some other games. If each bet were the exact same size, and each time you won you were paid even money, and each time you lost you lost your entire bet, then you could say that your roi was -4.6% using your method. (But saying "I lost 4.6% of my bets" would not be accurate, however that would be a debate on the English language) But that's not how blackjack works. Each win/loss is based on a full round. If you hit a bj you win 2-1. If you split once and push 1 hand and win the other, you will win 1.5-1. You could split 3 times, lose two and win 1 and you would win one third of your total wager, for an over all loss. I'm not explaining this because I think you will understand it and thank me for helping you. I know you aren't capable of that. I"m doing it so that everyone else can see how stubborn and ignorant you are. |
|
|
|
They're ignoring you because you are a lunatic. If you were to take the same math test as a 12 year old with a mild learning disability, it would be close, but I'd bet on the 12 year old getting a higher score. I'm dead serious. It's like someone thought it would be funny when you were a kid to teach you a completely wrong way to do math. My math is perfect and Stake did not disprove it! https://ibb.co/Hxf8NpR4.6% of the bets lost after 180,000 bets while the advertised house edge is 0,5%! While there is a deviation from the expected outcome, it can not be 9 times higher after 180,000 bets. Standard deviation for 180,000 coin flips = 212 coin flips = 0,12% (covers 68% of all deviations) 3 times standard deviation = 0,36% (covers 99,7% of all deviations) I lost 4,6% of the bets while the house edge is 0,5%, means my experienced deviation is 4,1% 4,1% : 0,12% = 34 times higher than the standard deviation which covers 68% of all deviations 4,1% : 0,36% = 11 times higher than the 3 times standard deviation which covers 99,7% of all deviations Your math isn't perfect. It's wrong. You didn't lose 4.6% of the bets. 86,612 is 47.88% of 180,904 So, you lost 47.88% of your "bets". But that's irrelevant. You can't use these numbers to calculate your roi, we don't have the stats required. You don't win even money every time you win. Black jack is not the same as flipping a coin. Sometimes your bet is raised, sometimes you win less than even money, sometimes you win more than even money. It's not a coin flip. You also have to play perfect strategy, which you clearly don't have the mental capacity to do. I'm wasting my time now. Seek help. If you want to know your return, as in the % of the wager that you won or lost, which is what the house edge represents, the only numbers you need are total wagered and total won. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
