In the real world it works like this:

If Game Protect violated a written contract, resulting in damages, around July 2019, then h4ns's brain would have substantiated that Game Protect is a scam / show around July 2019 and not September 3rd after I asked him if he can lend me BTC worth 10€ the second time!

I've already explained that I signed an NDA and part of the NDA (=Non Disclosure Agreement) is to not disclose the details of the settlement, do you want to see a bank transfer slip showing a payment was made? This I can show you but I cannot show the other things here. Nonetheless at least some other good members like the one quoted above does believe this, I have no intention of lying about it, none whatsoever.

They can be fired by their boss (e.g. by the President when applicable) but they can also be subject to impeachment - yes, a cabinet member can be impeached - so not sure how that analogy helps here. These are two different ways to remove someone from a job.

Extending this to the President's job basically means the he can be voted out by his "boss" (the people) or be impeached. Voters don't really engage in any due process, they can vote any way they want for any reason or no reason at all, so that's fine. But the House is not President's boss so they have to follow the constitutionally prescribed impeachment procedure, which to be fair is sufficiently vague for everyone to find something to complain about. But there is at least the "high crimes and misdemeanors" thing.

nullum crimen sine lege “There can be no crime, there can be no misdemeanor without a law.”

The principle of no crime without law has been described as one of the most “widely held value-judgments in the entire history of human thought.”

A high crime is one that can be done only by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," used together, was a common phrase when the U.S. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt but meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. Indeed the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute.

In the end, however, it doesn’t really matter how logical Benjamin Curtis’s argument may have been considering how often it has been ignored in practice. In the century-and-a-half since 1868, six federal judges have been convicted and removed from office for conduct that wasn’t necessarily a crime when they committed it — a clear violation of Curtis’s conclusion.

Due process is a very well understood concept and ingrained in culture, institutions, law, and common law.

Let me know if you want to continue arguing that the President of the United States is not entitled to due process. If you do, please present case history and similar facts. Otherwise I will ignore postings, I don't think your "opinion" matters in something like this.

Because you are just basically wrong in what you said. Due process is an integral part of many aspects of society. In administrative law, promulgated regulations are required to have extensive comment periods, and if one is assessed a penalty, there is an appeals process (WITH DUE PROCESS). The lack of due process is a valid defense in many matters, taking a simple example, when an individual pays rent.

Or when a civil servant is about to be terminated for cause. His contract most certainly requires due process.

The trust of who on this forum did I breach and how?

h4ns alleges: game-protect violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here.

The investor who invested 0.2btc to list the token requested for the identity of the developer. But the developer got angry and refuse. Then next thing he wants to swap. That’s a scam right?

h4ns has gotten into trouble here, not Game Protect!

They are at a high risk of getting mentally abused whenever they read the extremely mentally ill brain wash nonsense shit!!!

I did, but around July 2019 is not a day in the real world!

It also is not described how the violation of a non-existing contract happened

Asking to lend BTC worth 10€ is not a scam in the real world!


I am also not able to find the words trust and steal  

I try try to find out at what day and how it happened?

I did, but it does not contain the word steal

I clicked on the link you recommend, but it does not contain the word STEAL

h4ns alleges: game-protect violated a written contract, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here  <==============.

how deep do you want to climb out of the rabbit hole you fell down..	This line is possibly the point of it all. You might have knowledge of what you mean, but in general, it doesn't make sense. Same with the courts - legalease. So, simply maintain your own court by filing a claim (becoming prosecutor) right into their court, therby making it your court, every time they want to make a complaint against you (make you a defendent).
i could go on for hours busting the flaws of the 'freeman' stuff	Anybody could do the same. The freeman stuff isn't the route to go.
first of all, the basics of human vs civil. is if simplified down about 'illegal aliens' and 'tresspass' if your not a legal citizen(not member of public)(not under government rule) then you are tresspassing and will be deported.	Don't steer court into human vs. civil. Human is written right into the basics of the Constitution and Bill of Rights Articles. Drop the "vs.," and simply use the "human" side exactly as it is written. If they don't bring up the idea of public, and who is under government rule, why bring it up? That isn't what your case is about.
if you try using government services you will be denied. roads are a service. so without showing you have a licence(permit(permission)) to use their services then you should not be on the road.	Even government people write that if you use "right to travel" in the correct way, you have that right. There are people all over the place that do this.
legal acts of the road(government service) is that the public(citizens) should not walk on the road but use the pavement and crossings. roads are made for vehicles and laws of how those vehicles apply to how they should act on the roads	You sound like you were trying to change government somewhere along the line. This isn't the point of Karl or myself. Rather, we use government as it is meant to be used by people.
if you dont want to obide by those government legal acts. then become an illegal alien and hide off the grid.. or walk on land which you own or have permission to walk through.. but if you are found using government services accept to be charged for that service.	Government legal acts don't always apply to what you are doing, or to your life. Why try to make them apply when they don't? Are you trying to rebuild government to your own specifications? In the Jack McLamb site I listed in a previous post, we are shown that government has said things that are different than our regular thinking. Use the court cases correctly, and you can drive without licensing. (Using them correctly includes referring to them rather than using directly.)
ok its ben a few years. so lets dig in https://www.youarelaw.org/common-law-discussion-karl-lentz-billy-thornton/ mp3. #1 time0:00-15:00 guy goes to court and say he doesnt recognise the courts the case lasts 7 minutes and is ended. it clearly says in the mp3 the liability order was still active. after the case all that happened was just wasting the courts time. the liability order was no quashed the guy then went to say to those he was liable to that he went to court. but didnt say that those he was liable to just went away. what half of this freemason crap is about is not lawfully dismissing liability. but actually trying to waste everyones time soo much that they just give up after their accountant works out that its more expensive to keep trying and to just write it off as acceptable loss of revenue.	So what? The joker doesn't know what he is talking about. He isn't using the law. He is mostly doing what you were doing... using government legalease, and trying to run a government's case rather than filing your own case into theirs. That isn't what Karl does in point... remain a defendant in their case. However, the page you listed wasn't found. As an alternative, try https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGrobPy1orU. This is #10 of 10 interviews with Karl. Listen to the rest of them, as well. They aren't freeman. They are different.
things like this are done all the time. if you have a credit card/loan owing £500 but know it costs a credit card company £500 to pay to a financial omburdsmen to make a decision. and then £1000 to go to court, and court of appeals. the freemasons would try making credit card companies aware of the costs its costing them to keep fighting for their funds, and mentioning after that the person can just claim bankruptcy meaning the credit card company wont get anything back. thats not the person winning because of human rights. but just getting a company to make a loss and move on. but the fremasons hide all that tactic in lots of half truths and ploys to make it sound ik its about human rights mp3. #1 time15:00-30:00 ok this segment is about what authority a court has. basically anyone can choose any fair venue to argue their case. many contracts can b formed whereby if a person has a problem with thier telephone service. they can first go to their telephone regulator, then tribubal, mitigation, then court. people can form their own court. but if one party such as  government that feels you have tresspassed or broke one of the rules of the use of their property they can ask you to attend their court. if someone stands on your land then you can escort them to your barn and get them to defend their actions or suffer the consequences. EG at a drinking bar/pub, but customer dosnt have money for the drink. you can take them into the kitchen and mak them wash dishes/glasses as payment/punishment/reimbursment of lost costs but be careful.. your punishment may not be lawful or legal which means you could get in trouble for the punishment you give out. the whole going to court and saying you dont recognise their authority is not declaring your innocence its just wasting the courts time. if its related to a government service which you broke the rules of then the government courts have procedures for that. they simply add a warrent to get you to turn up later. you actually can end up getting in worse trouble than just admitting you as a human did make a mistake by driving unlicenced EG by claiming your not a citizen of government you could end up in a detention centre until they can identify a country you are a citizen of to deport you to. rather than just paying a fine for being unlicenced on the road	I agree. Doing things like these are silly if they are done just the way you say. The trick is that you don't do these things, but rather, use the part of the courts that get you your results. The formal reason for the licensing is so that government and everyone else easily recognize that you are a person who is a reasonably safe person to be traveling in an area. When you beat them in court, you can travel without licensing. But why go to all that trouble? Get a license. Karl never talks about citizenship except if the citizenship issue is the one being brought up by government. In fact, his point is that he is a man, and if they bring up citizenshp to move him away from his claim, Karl asks them what citizenship has to do with it? That's not what the case is about.

---

Here's the point. There is a side of government and law that is not the legal side. Rather, it is the lawful side. It works like this, very simply.

Whenever government takes you to court for something, they always file a complaint against you. If you file a claim (not a motion) inside their complaint, they are required by law to have a person on the stand accusing you of harm or damage... real harm or damage... not some simple thing like you damaged their law by not obeying it, or their feelings were hurt.

They can't do it because of the 4 legs of the table in court. They need an accuser who can take the oath and get on the stand and testify. They need the accuser to have been harmed or damaged in some way that he can show and prove is harm or damage. The other two are evidence and at least one witness that show that you did it.

The thing they will do is try to move you back into the complaint side of the court when you file your claim into their case. They do this because a claim trumps a complaint. When they can't do this because you are shrewd enough to not let them, you win.

To say it another way, the name on the indictment is your accuser. If the name is the State of XXXXX, vs. Jon Doe, and JD files a claim (not a motion) into their case requiring to face his accuser and question him/her on the stand (standard law), who does the indictment say the accuser is? How does the the State of XXXXX get on the stand? But even if he does, how is he going to testify? But even if he can testify, where is the harm or damage? But if there is harm or damage, hasn't JD been an honorable person and agreed to pay off the harm or damage on the private side? But if JD has already agreed to pay, where is the case? It was settled on the private side, right? But if they won't accept the conditions of JD's payment when JD says this is all that he can afford, UCC says that the debt is cancelled because they wouldn't accept his offer of payment. If there is no harm or damage in the first place, there can be no guilty verdict in a properly written claim case.

The reason the right to travel usage isn't popular is that people constantly let government run all over them in court.

All that you are saying is that sighting with transit, and then calculating the measurements, doesn't work. If in your mind it doesn't work, why are you so intent on the idea that the earth is flat. Since sight and sight measurement doesn't work, are you smelling that the earth is flat?

You rely on Youtube videos that you say show the earth is flat. Yet you want to disregard cellphone stuff that's in an article that I mentioned. Yet the cellphone stuff isn't really the important part of the measuring in the article.

The thing that you are really doing is to negate anything that you say by negating the things that I say? How are you doing this? We are both using similar measurement methods. If you negate my using of them, you negate your using of them.

Mine work. Yours don't. In addition, your picture doesn't illustrate what I said.

BitDice have some non provably fair games on their site while they still have seal of foundation

I hear you saying something you like to say, but I'm not interested any more than whether you like oranges or apples. You made a fairly crazy, illogical assertion and the result was that I refuted it.

If you want to produce a logical argument to support your belief, go do it, otherwise, don't waste peoples' time.