Okay? I won't argue, because I don't know how Bangladesh common law works. But, it is English common law, so it should be similar to the U.K. Here is the basic stuff about common law in the U.S. Sigh. So much rubbish. 1. It is common knowledge that if you are accused of something, you have the right to face your accuser.
2. You can look up Trinsey v. Pagliaro yourself I can, and have. I don't think you have. You just accepted what was said by someone else without checking it. , but among the things that it says is, "An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness". No, it doesn't. It says: ( http://www.leagle.com/decision/1964876229FSupp647_1743) The defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim unsupported by affidavits or depositions is incomplete because it requests this Court to consider facts outside the record which have not been presented in the form required by Rules 12(b) (6) and 56(c). Statements of counsel in their briefs or argument while enlightening to the Court are not sufficient for purposes of granting a motion to dismiss or summary judgment. They failed to formally present evidence to the court in the correct way to support their case, just saying that such evidence existed wasn't enough. Please try to find the words you have presented as a "quote" anywhere in the actual transcript of the case. this means that the attorney for your accuser can't even speak if you don't let him, unless he is going to be witness with firsthand knowledge of your case. Of course, then he is the accuser, and can't act as an attorney. No it doesn't. He cannot give evidence. That doesn't mean he can't speak. He can ask witnesses questions in order to examine and test their evidence. He can describe the evidence that has been given. He can sum up the evidence, and suggest what implications and conclusions should be drawn from it. Regarding Trinsey v. Pagliaro, the site you gave didn't have the whole case, at least not that I could see. In cases, there are often many "holdings" that have little to do with the particular case, yet they form precedence. The holding I listed above, is in the actual T. v. P. case judgment rendering by the judge. Find it and you will see. You find it. I've posted the actual case transcript. Here is another link to it: https://casetext.com/case/trinsey-v-pagliaro/And another: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_case?case=15281186693327493555It doesn't say what you thought it did. If you are so confident that it does say what you think, you must have actually read the full transcript? So post a link to it. Or haven't you actually read it yourself? You won't find one, because the judge didn't say what you think he did. That "quote" is commentary added by someone who either didn't understand what was said, or knew that most of their readers wouldn't actually check, so just made stuff up. |
|
|
|
Okay? I won't argue, because I don't know how Bangladesh common law works. But, it is English common law, so it should be similar to the U.K. Here is the basic stuff about common law in the U.S. Sigh. So much rubbish. 1. It is common knowledge that if you are accused of something, you have the right to face your accuser.
2. You can look up Trinsey v. Pagliaro yourself I can, and have. I don't think you have. You just accepted what was said by someone else without checking it. , but among the things that it says is, "An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness". No, it doesn't. It says: ( http://www.leagle.com/decision/1964876229FSupp647_1743) The defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim unsupported by affidavits or depositions is incomplete because it requests this Court to consider facts outside the record which have not been presented in the form required by Rules 12(b) (6) and 56(c). Statements of counsel in their briefs or argument while enlightening to the Court are not sufficient for purposes of granting a motion to dismiss or summary judgment. They failed to formally present evidence to the court in the correct way to support their case, just saying that such evidence existed wasn't enough. Please try to find the words you have presented as a "quote" anywhere in the actual transcript of the case. this means that the attorney for your accuser can't even speak if you don't let him, unless he is going to be witness with firsthand knowledge of your case. Of course, then he is the accuser, and can't act as an attorney. No it doesn't. He cannot give evidence. That doesn't mean he can't speak. He can ask witnesses questions in order to examine and test their evidence. He can describe the evidence that has been given. He can sum up the evidence, and suggest what implications and conclusions should be drawn from it. 3. Don't represent yourself. Don't let anyone represent you. Rather, be a man or woman and PRESENT yourself. This makes it so that you have to have a man or woman accuser face you with the accusation. This doesn't actually mean anything, so can't really be discussed. 4. If the United States, or one of the States is bringing the charge against you, then the United States better take the stand. A representative for the United States isn't allowed to take the stand, because you have a right to face your accuser, and you are doing it man to man.
5. You win because the United States or the State isn't able to walk up to the stand, place its hand on the Bible, swear or affirm, and answer any of your questions in cross examination, including signing an affidavit to the claim of wrongdoing made against you.
Rubbish. Simply untrue, as demonstrated by every criminal case in the US. 6. If, somehow, the United States or the State manages to take the stand, there has to be real harm or damage, or breaking of a contract, shown before they can rule against you. They can accuse you of doing all kinds of things against a statute, and they may be absolutely right, but if there is no harm or damage, and if your name isn't listed and you haven't signed as a party to the statute, you win, they lose. Rubbish, as above. You must have noticed that, in the real world, this simply isn't true. There are thousands if not millions of people in prison in the US for drug crimes which don't fit any of your descriptions. Do you really think that none of their lawyers spotted this obvious loophole you seem to think exists? This is American common law. No it isn't. It isn't English common law. Possibly the only correct statement in your entire post. English common law is a little more straight forward in some ways. It has Queen's Bench, which makes it more straight forward, even though there is an additional step. I'm fascinated by what you think the Queen's Bench is? Here is a hint: The original King's/Queen's Bench for England and Wales as abolished in 1875. The current Queen's Bench is a division of the High Court of Justice. You can read transcripts of their cases here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/Your description of the law may well be wonderful idea. But it does not reflect the law in this, the actual real world. |
|
|
|
|
No, there is zero chance of that happening.
|
|
|
|
Look, all it has to do with is, if someone wrongs you, and won't make it right, you go to court with a claim against that person. This is standard stuff that has been done since the USA started. And it was developed in Britain over hundreds of years. Yes. And it has nothing to do with the rubbish you started with: In English common law, there are basically only 3 things that the government can get you for:
1. If you harm somebody;
2. If you damage his property;
3. Breach of contract.
The government can make all the statutes stick, if you don't fight them on common law grounds. But if you fight them common law, nothing sticks except the above 3. That isn't the law. At least not in actual real world countries. EDIT: It's called common law. watch Judge Judy. Oh my god, did you just seriously say that? |
|
|
|
While it is true that not all common law countries are created equal, English common law is very powerful. There are two parts to it. There's the part that the Crown enjoys, having to do with past rulings, and there is the part that the people can enjoy, if they know about it. It is called Queen's Bench, and used properly, it makes use of the basic 3 parts listed in my first post above.
See what has taken place in England regarding this, within the last couple of years or so. Similar can happen in Bangladesh if the people start to wake up. These links are junk. What they are claiming (basically that you don't have to follow any law that doesn't directly damage a specific person or their property) is junk. He is just trying to sell his books/DVDs. An impressive 4 Add To Carts and 2 Donates just on the one page. And I'm going to go out on a wild limb and say that when people don't manage to avoid convictions for breaking the law, he will always say it is because they have implemented his ideas slightly wrong, rather than them being complete fantasy. For example, this rubbish: Sick of taking Orders and earning no money from complying with the Orders?
Buy an Invoice Pad today, to BILL the next Public SERVANT that Orders thou [You] !
(thou = singular cf. Ye - Nominative / You - Objective which are Plurals... i will explain later)
Example:
When A[NY] Public SERVANT stops thou at the side of the road and Orders a PERFORMANCE of and/or from thou by way of the use of His (or Her) Voice, these UTTERANCES are defined as HIS (or HER) Wishes AND Orders delivered upon thou (placing a Burden Upon thou!)
Example(s) :
ORDERS thou as a [wo]man to get out of YOUR car !
ORDERS thou, as a [wo]man to "GIVE-UP" up his or her "GIVEN-name"!
ORDERS thou, as a [wo]man to perform ANY task (such as hand-over a Licence)!
et ceteras, et cetaras, et ceteras...
Deliever Upon HIM (or HER) a BILL (an INVOICE) !
(BILL / INVOICE: c. 1400; that of "order to pay" ( technically 'Bill of Exchange' is from 1570s)
Example:
When "HE" or "SHE" ( a Public Servant) makes their WISHES to perform known and ORDER(s) Upon thou ( a man or woman) make sure to require of Him or Her to remember "Fair-and-Just" COMPENSATION, is now due for carrying-out His or Her Wishes and ORDER(s)! Written in Olde Worlde English to try to pretend it actually has some historic basis. What is it? Where is the legal basis for this rubbish? Some of his posts seem like stream-of-altered-consciousness: The start of a claim template but this is more of a strategy outline.
Identify and try to settle with prosecutor. Create evidence - record phone call, write a phone log (at this time I called the prosecutor at this number from this number). Any harm? Man does harm. No settle? If you take this to court I will file claim.
File claim. Look at the "debt template" and practice writing out a claim..
Reference My Private Audio Call March 17 2013 at the 53 minute mark.
[53:00] [traffic ticket] who is going to try to interfer with my right travel?
Be cool with cop and ask cop who will prosecute?
within three days ask prosecutor to stop ticket prosecution
(To lawyer: I am better than a attorney yep I am a man and I have standing. If attorney lose get him for barratry and filing false claims against man.)
This officer wrote this error before he gets in trouble I am giving fair warning.
officer believes I have a privilege to drive and I believe I have a right to travel
[58:00] If case not dropped file a claim against prosecutor of ticket not cop moving a false claim through court. no injured party.
i am prosecutor (going against ticket prosecutor) vs respondent or wrongdoer who caused me an injury
within 3 day try to settle
day 4 file claim
interfering with my right to travel,
For some reason the cop believes I did injury or harm or operating under my driver license at that time which i was not.
i wish order and demanded prosecutor to desist frivolous claim against me and he refused to
and he is going to pursue in 30 days and i wish to be compensated for my time for answering a claim.
prosecutor: you better prove i interfered with someone's rights. If you want to believe I was operating
under a license under that point in time you are mistaken. Well you gave driver's license. It is true I gave your cop the license he has a gun. I was under coercion.
Is someone called the state of california going to come forward and make a claim I was operating their vehicle because of a title?
Is someone going to come forward named called the state of california that he owns a portion of the car and he can tell me what to do?
Is man called the state of california going to come forward a makes a claim that because of legal title and he is going register and inspect the car? Is a man going to come forward yes or no? Do you really want to take legal advice from this man? |
|
|
|
It's not a revenge thing - it's more a visceral fear/distrust thing. How can I ever trust Amazon given how they handled this?
How else do you think they would have handled it? Serious question. On the assumption we are all making so far: Someone has tried to launder stolen money through them, buying cash equivalents with stolen credit cards. Unless they think the scammers are sending random people gift cards out of the goodness of their hearts, they much assume that there is some relationship between the scammer and the recipient. (As indeed there was). Amazon are out the purchase price. They have the ability to 'recall' the goods purchased with the stolen cards. You think they should just shrug, and accept being scammed out of thousand of dollars, and the value being sent to people they have a reasonable cause to suspect is working with the scammer? You knew you were entering into a risky transaction, and were paid a premium for this. They didn't. Amazon have not reneged on any transaction with you, because you never entered into a transaction with them. You keep ignoring this, but it is a basic fact. Your transaction was with the scammer, their transaction was with Amazon. Your only relationship with Amazon is being the recipient of fraudulent obtained goods. What obligations do they owe you? Your complain is against the scammer, not Amazon, who were used as a patsy by you and the scammer. The result you seem to want is that the scammer gets their BTC, you get your cash + 25% profit, and Amazon pays for everything. How do you think that is fair? Here is one of my posts to you from month ago: I hadn't gotten the delivery and asked for tracking info, etc., but did not get a response. This morning was the 1 week mark since the bidder claimed it was delivered, so I was planning to open a dispute with Purse to try to resolve it (since my funds are tied up in escrow indefinitely otherwise), but I found Purse had proactively created a dispute last night, reporting that Amazon had canceled the order. I'm still awaiting final resolution on this bid but I appreciate Purse being on the ball and hope to be able to get the transaction canceled out so I can relist again shortly. Having a bidder claim to have paid for an item and not getting it on my end is obviously a worst case scenario, but even in this case it appears to be getting handled well. It just struck me that another very good use of this service (and perhaps a reason for orders being cancelled by Amazon when it doesn't work) is for people trying to drain money from stolen credit cards or hacked Amazon accounts. Normally the problem with buying online with a stolen card is that you have to actually receive the goods, which means being tied to an address. Here you can send the goods to someone else's address, and get (reasonably) untraceable bitcoin in return. Purse risk becoming (not necessarily through any fault of their own) a high tech online fence. And Amazon may get fed up of being drawn in to that. Seems like Amazon did get fed up of being drawn into this scam, and have cancelled orders. |
|
|
|
I've updated the first post below the OP with the results of my contacts with Amazon (and Purse so far as that's gone). In a nutshell, Amazon NOW tells me they revoked every gift card I purchased through Purse, but won't tell me why or when or any details about the revocation. Because (again), you didn't purchase them from Amazon, someone else did. They won't give you details about someone else's transactions. So Amazon's report today that they revoked 100% of my cards raises the question - were Purse transactions really so overwhelmingly fraudulent, Almost certainly. It is a setup perfectly designed to launder stolen money, converting it into anonymous BTC. That is why you are being paid a 25-30% markup, to help them launder the money. As you were warned by several people. or is Amazon just punitively or avariciously canceling any and every gift card it thinks it can get away with, whether they've been paid or not? I'm going to be pretty comfortable guessing that it isn't this one. Amazon have been pulled into a laundering scheme against their wishes. They are out the value of anything bought that they haven't managed to cancel. The real owners of the credit cards are going to see lots of fraudulent Amazon transactions, and it will lower their opinion of Amazon. |
|
|
|
Bangladesh is a common law nation, based on British common law. If the people understood how powerful this is, they could almost outlaw the government. In the event you are interested in how common law can be used over there, look at how Karl Lentz is teaching people to use it in the United Kingdom. http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=127469&cmd=tcMany of the Talkshoe recordings are hosted by Bali, from the U.K. I don't know where his family is originally from, but with a name like Bali, might even be Bangladesh.  It is, in theory possible to overthrow any government regardless if "the law" allows for this to happen. I would however doubt that they would attempt to overthrow the government of Bangladesh in an attempt to be able to use bitcoin, the benefits are simply not there for the people to try to do that. The idea isn't to overthrow the government. The idea is to protect yourself from the government. In English common law, there are basically only 3 things that the government can get you for: 1. If you harm somebody; 2. If you damage his property; 3. Breach of contract. The government can make all the statutes stick, if you don't fight them on common law grounds. But if you fight them common law, nothing sticks except the above 3. As a warning to anyone reading this, it is complete nonsense, and has nothing to do with the definition of a common law country. |
|
|
|
Also, the NO camp is mobilizing the immigrants and ethnic minorities all around Scotland.
You do like to get the racist angle in whenever you can, don't you? I could just as well say that the YES camp are mobilizing the zenophobes and racists all around Scotland. And neither statement would give a true picture of what is happening. |
|
|
|
Anyone want to place some bets on this? The No side has better odds right now than betfair. Seems like people that are actually willing to put coin down are expecting 'No'. I'd expect the No vote to be somewhat higher than the No opinion polls, as I think the No demographic is more likely to actually vote. It is be close either way though, which could be problematic in itself. If the result is within a % or two either way, the losing side will claim that the winning side has no real mandate. |
|
|
|
Anyone knows why the threads are locked? Because the scammer has run away with your money. Yes I do advertise for them, wanna know why? because I think they can make it if they don't run away with the money. I could fly if it wasn't for gravity. Scammers run away with the money, that is what they do. As you all saw they made a 130% plan for 5 days and it started on 14 September and they said it will last for 5 days This was the death knoll of the scam. You start slow, and give back small returns, to build up confidence and get a large crowd of the gullible or amoral to pump your scam for you. Then you sell the big lie to clear as much as possible before vanishing. why they would not give 4.5% or 5% when they will make ten times more? Why would they not just keep all of your money? |
|
|
|
The Whois lookup claims their registrar may be contacted at abuse@enom.com is just a domain reseller, they won't have any useful information about the scammer. They supply the WHOIS-Guard, they hold the information! What information? A throwaway email address and a false name and address? |
|
|
|
The Whois lookup claims their registrar may be contacted at abuse@enom.com is just a domain reseller, they won't have any useful information about the scammer. |
|
|
|
TL;DR - Bitcoin tips have been unable to overtake advertisements as the main source of revenue for content creators due to the fact that not many people are willing to make donations. This problem can be solved with unique schemes that give audiences incentives to tip content creators. One option involves having audience members vote on upcoming content with their bitcoins. This model can be applied to movies, music, books, news organizations, free software development, and much more. It would also solve the “problem” of Internet piracy. Content could be freely available everywhere after the creator’s initial donation goals are met. New videos, songs, albums, blog posts, and more could be posted by content creators directly to a Reddit-like platform. This would allow the best content to gain more exposure. None of that requires Bitcoin. You could simply replace 'bitcoins' with 'money' in the quote above. |
|
|
|
I guess it really boils down to whether I am a business or a consumer. It seems to be a grey area apparently.
Do you know where I could read and find out more about this?
Do you have a EU tax number? If YES, then it´s possible for KnC to say that it was a B2B sale. If NO and you paid EU tax on the sale from KnC, it´s B2C sale. It´s that simple to be honest No it isn't. What you've said is frankly rubbish. It´s not. http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Dokument-Lagar/Lagar/Svenskforfattningssamling/Distans--och-hemforsaljningsla_sfs-2005-59/If you don´t know Swedish law or can add anything of value, please don´t post. Your cite defines the rights that consumers have in distance contracts. It does not define what a consumer is, or in any way back up your original claim. |
|
|
|
I guess it really boils down to whether I am a business or a consumer. It seems to be a grey area apparently.
Do you know where I could read and find out more about this?
Do you have a EU tax number? If YES, then it´s possible for KnC to say that it was a B2B sale. If NO and you paid EU tax on the sale from KnC, it´s B2C sale. It´s that simple to be honest No it isn't. What you've said is frankly rubbish. |
|
|
|
Keep in mind that Amazon has not actually told me what the issue is that has led to revocation of my own gift cards. I don't know if they have actual bad charge(s), or were cancelling en masse due to one bad charge, or what. This is still very much an open investigation, at least for me. How comfortable are you with the idea of a company unliaterally revoking gift cards you've paid for, without warning and without even the bother of notifying you? And then refusing to tell you why despite repeated inquiries? Does that seem right? I don't mean to sound distrustful, much less paranoid, but companies can make mistakes, not to mention outright corruption, and if there is no accountability things will tend to get worse. Again, you didn't pay for them. You anonymous counterpart did, and then transferred them to you. As I understand it, the following transactions occurred: You transferred BTC to AnonBuyer. AnonBuyer purchased a gift card from Amazon. AnonBuyer transferred that card to you. Amazon probably can't tell you anything about whether a credit card was stolen, or whether a chargeback took place, because it wasn't your card, and you weren't their customer. |
|
|
|
In summary, when you’re using a debit card:
Choosing “Credit” makes it an offline transaction
Choosing “Debit” makes it an online transaction
Who Cares?
So far, you may be unimpressed. Who cares how each transaction is processed? You might not, but banks and retailers do. When you do an offline transaction and simply sign a charge slip, the retailer has to pay a small percentage of your total purchase – perhaps 2%. This fee goes to the bank that issued your debit (or credit) card as an interchange fee.
What about online transactions? Retailers can get those done for a lot less. They might only pay 10 cents or so per transaction.
As you might imagine, 2% of every purchase adds up to a lot of money. The banks and credit card companies would love for you to choose credit because they get 2% of every dollar you spend. Retailers, on the other hand, beg to differ. They’d prefer that you choose debit so that they don’t have to pay a hefty interchange fee (but in some states they can add credit card surcharges that pass that fee back to you). As I said, merchant fees for debit cards are lower than for credit cards. |
|
|
|
The costs are often hidden because they are paid by the merchant. I think in the USA it is customary to pay a small fixed fee, say .29 USD plus a percentage, say 2% of the transaction amount. As you can see, for many transactions, bitcoin at .0001 btc or .05 USD, is a great deal. Debit cards are less expensive.
Debit cards are actually more expensive as they use a smaller, less efficient network. Also more data needs to be transmitted when a debit card is used (the customer entering the PIN which is transmitted to the bank in encrypted format, who will reply if it is valid or not). It has been reported that debit card transactions usually cost much more credit card transactions. Debit cards merchant fees are lower because: - the bank is not exposed to the customer's credit risk. (Not paying their bill) - the bank is not exposed to the merchant's credit risk. (Not liable if the merchant fails to deliver the goods, or goes bust) - the bank is not providing extra services such as insurance If the merchant changes the incorrect amount or if the card was stolen then the bank would need to recover the money from the merchant. As they would with credit cards. The bank charges interest from the customer to account for their credit risk, this is not reflected in the merchant's cost of accepting a credit card. It reflects increased risk for the card issuers, therefore they will attempt to pass that cost on to merchants. Debit card networks are much smaller then credit card networks so they are unable to reach an economy of scale. Both Visa and MasterCard process both debit and credit cards. Can you find any evidence for this claim: It has been reported that debit card transactions usually cost much more credit card transactions. If you mean cost to merchants, that is the opposite of what everybody else says. |
|
|
|
Apple Pay user base: iPhone6 owners in US.
Bitcoin user base: computer/tablet/smartphone owners of any type/brand in the whole world.
In say 3-6 months time, do you think there will be more retail sales using Apple Pay, or using Bitcoin? I'm betting on the former. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
