What lie Vod? Please quote.

How about you just start with not using me doing the right thing as another vector of attack?

He makes up of lots of stories. The single negative rating I have left for him now, is the first and only negative rating I have ever left for Vod, ever.

And back to defaulting to the "Mike Pompeo says" argument. When are you going to produce those subpoenas you swear exist Nutilduuuuuuuuh? Oh right, you can't because they never existed, now you have to run away so you never have to admit you were wrong.

End The Federal Reserve. It is the most heinous criminal organization that has caused more human suffering, loss of life, and wasted toiling and effort than any organization that has ever existed in human history.

Too bad you can't make it past orange.

Called it:


"WHO Urges People To Go 'Cashless' Because 'Dirty Banknotes Can Spread The Virus'"

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-warns-dirty-banknotes-may-be-spreading-virus-worldwide


Next on the globalist wish list after economic collapse, global mandatory vaccinations.

I at no point said he shouldn't be able to leave the rating, so your straw man argument is moot. The point was that even when things are done right, it is turned into another excuse to attack. This is why I will perpetually be as obstinate as possible with people like you and the rest of the clown car, because nothing is ever good enough. I am attacked just the same either way, so why comply with any of your demands?

It is because certain users are digging through years of old posts looking for things to report as a form of censorship and gas-lighting, and the mods are either complicit or mindlessly rewarding this abuse of the reporting system by giving them the results they are after.

Shocking that the Democrats can't mobilize voters when they actively conspire to disenfranchise them.

You don't need a FOIA to get access to public records such as subpoenas. This is just an excuse to deflect from the fact that you can not, and will never be able to produce those subpoenas, because they never existed.

A subpoena is an act of legal compulsion. If there is no ability for legal compulsion, the subpoena is invalid because it holds no force. You said it in your quote "no statutory authority". That means it is the legal equivalent of a request for information.

You know why they ruled it was not within their jurisdiction? Because, as I said from the beginning, the legislative and the executive branches have equal authority under The Constitution, and for one to order the other one into compliance unilaterally violates the separation of powers. The office of the president has the authority to use executive privilege to deny subpoenas issued under the legislative branch.

The legislative branch does not have the power to issue a subpoena, unilaterally declare it valid, then use it as a claim of obstruction. The president is well within his rights to use this executive privilege, meaning the subpoena is invalid, and obstruction charges are invalid, and thus that article of impeachment was proven invalid.

The staff don't really get involved in trust related matters unless it is a link to malware, direct threats, spam or anything obviously illegal. I have excluded the user from my trust list, and this is you best bet to negate their rating.

I take exception to this. I would be more than happy to discuss this in an appropriate thread.

There is no consensus about practically anything here. Haven't you learned yet? It is only a big deal when it serves the motives of people looking for excuses to retaliate for critical speech of them and their friends. When it is them and their friends doing it, it is perfectly excusable.

Thanks for another wonderful demonstration of how you break your back bending over backwards to try to set up straw man arguments that not only deflect from the topic of conversation, but are reinterpreted in a way to serve your own goals, not what was actually said. I would report this as off topic, but moderators are only interested in enforcing rules against me, not allowing me to enjoy the protection of them.

Suddenly anything critical of Vod's behavior in this thread is off topic. Bringing up the fact that this thread is just a pathetic attempt at eliciting sympathy to distract from his illegal and abusive behavior is apparently off topic.




Of course no one is allowed to bring up the fact that he does this every time pressure is put on him as a result of his inexcusable abusive behavior...


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1074434.0;all

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5144112.0

This is becoming a regular occurrence now. People who are upset that there are posts made critical of their behavior, critical of their friends, or harboring other personal vendettas are mass reporting posts trying to get legitimate criticism removed on a regular basis. Whether complicit or not, the moderators are enabling this abusive behavior. This is just from today:











Of course when I occasionally report one post here or there for being off topic, it almost universally remains unhandled. I really don't care if the moderators are acting with complicity or not, this issue needs to be addressed, because the more they allow it to happen, the more these people are incentivized to spam reports knowing that a certain percentage of them will be removed as moderators move through large queues.

Michael Robinson?

It should also be noted that what Vod did also qualifies as harassment under Canadian law.

"The Criminal Harassment section of the Criminal Code of Canada states:

264. (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.

Prohibited conduct

(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of

(a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;

(b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;

(c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or

(d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.

Punishment

(3) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

As can be seen, sub-sections 2 (a), (c) and (d) describe rather obvious forms of prohibited conduct—stalking and threatening behaviour. However, the vast majority of charges laid under this section of the Criminal Code are under 2 (b) and deal with a much more subtle issue–persistent communication with another individual. Cary Grant and Christian Grey beware.

In our age of the internet and ubiquitous smartphones, instant and whimsical communication is easy. But take heed; one too many emails, texts, or facebook messages can land a jilted lover or persistent suitor in criminal trouble.

So when does unwanted communication become criminal? In fact, section 264 (2) (b) of the Code has quite precise requirements before proof can be found. Based on the legislation and its interpretation by the courts, the following must be shown to establish the elements of criminal harassment by communication:

The communication must be repetitive (however, this has been interpreted by the courts to mean simply more than one occasion of communication).

The target of the communication must be harassed (a definition of harassment often quoted with approval by Canadian courts is “The complainant must be more than vexed, disquieted or annoyed by the prohibited conduct. The Crown must demonstrate that the complainant was tormented, troubled, worried continually or chronically, plagued, bedeviled and badgered”—note the use of the disjunctive “or”).

The defendant must know that the complainant is harassed (on the other hand, keep in mind that such knowledge need not be proven by direct evidence; the necessary knowledge on the part of the defendant may be inferred from the circumstances of the communication and may include reference to the nature of the relationship prior to the conduct that forms the basis of the charge).

The conduct complained of must cause the complainant to fear for his or her safety or the safety of anyone known to him or her (once again, the caveat in point 3 above also applies here—the necessary fear may be inferred from the context in which the communication takes place including the history of the relationship between the parties)."

https://davidgbayliss.com/criminal-harassment-canada/

It seems like a pretty simple attempt to find out what your reasoning was. Under your definitions, anyone who doesn't simply agree with you without question is attempting to "manipulate the trust system".