What would that be like if one were to actually abuse anything they can get their hands on?

Someone hands you a Mickey Mantle rookie card and you immediately draw a smiley face on it with a magic marker.

You pick up a pair of chopsticks and shove them up your nostrils.

You walk into a crowded elevator and press the fire alarm button.

God forbid you should come in contact with a family member's pet, suchmoon.

While I understand your point, there's nothing secret about it and it certainly isn't a new thing. It's a question of being able to provide a wide selection of games while still offering provably fair options. We don't believe giving an option harms anyone.

He did use a lawyer with my case but the case did not take too long to be settled. Nonetheless, I did try SBR, CasinoMeister, AskGamblers and no one helped me with the case - in the AskGamblers website I even spoke directly to the bookmaker who just ignored my claims - so GameProtect was helpful in getting this resolved ... prior to it I've also contacted some lawyers in Curacao myself and no one was willing to help or was but with a high cost - so GP's resolution was cost effective and it was effective as well.

Now - moving forward - I have no idea how this thread turned into something else, something that if I had to see this thread now - I would probably avoid dealing with GP because of all the warnings and negativity here, and I see him fighting the claims that you're raising against him ... I also think that he should settle the issue with h4ns in some way - just reach a settlement, I am huge believer in compromise and in doing the right thing.

I don't know where this is all going from here, I feel bad for all sides - I think GameProtect is genuinely trying to offer a genuine service, but on the same time he cannot have an open dispute with another user and leave it like that - besides h4ns' case there is the only other case of Jenni here, but she hasn't given any update here and I'm not sure if she would feel comfortable doing so because she is not looking to be attacked. Asking questions is fine, attacking isn't.

He never used me as a reference for other users for direct contact, everything was posted here so he could point whoever he wants to the thread here, I didn't know Jenni in advance, it was the latter option you described just without an introduction initially - I chose to invest in her case but it looks like her case is more complicated than mine - she used a casino website where the owners have simply left the company and cannot be reached, I don't know what will happen from here, the only thing I can say is that h4ns in my opinion should be paid or at least GP and him should agree on something, and in regards to Jenni's case - I have no idea what will happen with it ... If you're asking if I would go ahead and invest in another case - probably not, because the investment hasn't proven itself - but I took it as an investment with some risks involved and known in advance, so I don't accuse GP of any wrongdoing .... in fact I think all the red flags and the huge amount of negativity that he gets - is in some way unfair - I still gave him a positive feedback and I haven't changed it because I stand behind what I had experienced in general - however if the h4ns' case won't get resolved I'd get upset - why? it's not even my case, but as I said I believe in justice and in doing the right thing. That's why I also called GP to settle this with h4ns. Just get it settled, the amount is not huge neither.

In regards to Jenni - I am happy with whatever happens, I still won't accuse GP for any wrongdoing here - but those who do so with a click of a button should really bring some more credible evidence into the table - otherwise why is he getting so much negativity if the only 2 "pending" cases are h4ns and Jenni's? It doesn't make any sense, by all means this is equal to so many red flags - UNLESS - the issue with h4ns won't get resolved, and I do agree this MUST be resolved, it cannot stay like this. If GP doesn't understand he needs to SETTLE things with h4ns then I'd truy ly feel sorry for his business - and this is a case I am not even involved with, but for the sake of your business, GP, you must SETTLE with h4ns - otherwise you're just shooting yourself here in the leg.

I refunded the 210€ after h4ns requested it September 3rd:

h4ns to GP 20,000€ current compensation demand for damages caused by his defamation campaign - GP to h4ns 210€ = h4ns to GP 19,790€

The case is not closed for you and the consequences will be serious!

You can lie about and attack Game Protect anonymously, but if I have your identity you will pay the price for your illegal activity!  

He did use a lawyer with my case but the case did not take too long to be settled.

I didn't know Jenni in advance, it was the latter option you described just without an introduction initially - I chose to invest in her case but it looks like her case is more complicated than mine -

If you didn't care if people disagreed with you, you wouldn't feel the need to be a massive dick to them. That's what it comes down to.

Good work, man. But if you look at the case closely, the judge was being sued in his judicial capacity... not his private man capacity. As you see, the defendant was appointed an attorney. He was not allowed to stand as a man. The case doesn't go into enough detail to tell us if he even tried to stand present, un-represent. The case doesn't match what I was saying.

The next step if a judge acts wrongly, is to sue the judge in his private capacity. People are usually so disheveled, when they lose a case, that they can't do much of anything.

Cop:  license and registration please.
Driver: Hey man, is that an order?
Cop: Yes.
Driver: And since you gave an order as a man, here's your invoice for $500 (or State max that the cop would have charge) for stopping me from going from point A to point B. See you in court.
Cop: Oh sure. But sign here (the ticket).
Driver: By: Signature, agent, man.

---

IN COURT ANSWERING THE DA'S INDICTMENT:

Driver: I, man, am present. I require to face my accuser (first call).
Driver: I, man, am present. I require to face my accuser (second call).
Driver: I, man, am present. I require to face my accuser (third call).
(STATE-OF-XXXXX/CITY-OF-XXXXX doesn't come forward.)
Driver: I require State/City $max for wasting my time, etc.
Judge: Case dismissed.
(Driver sues the State/City for false complaint.)

---

DRIVER SUES COP IN HIS CAPACITY AS A MAN FOR STOPPING HIM FOR NOTHING:

Jon Doe (cop) is on the stand.
Driver: When you stopped me, had I done any damage or harm to anyone.
Cop: No.
Driver: Pay me the $max for false stop.
Judge: John Doe, guilty as charged. Pay the man.

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!