Btw CryptoGretzky you are so blind that you can't see through all these lies from Dan. Its a fact the he is the one who is buying all the BlockNet tokens. So who do you think is selling all these XC coins  ? Ask yourself this question. If he wants to sue other then we want to see transparency which what BTC and how many BlockNet he already bought. This is how legal stock works, if this is what you are talking about. I am not claiming if Dan is innocent or not you have to understand. I am just sick of seeing these claims with some super weak "evidence". Here you are... making another claim. How do you substantiate what you claimed... Please show me the transactions that you SAW that this is truth. Who is selling? I don't know and that's why I am not claiming if I know who is selling. That's the point. You are claiming that it's Dan that is selling, but what is the indisputable proof?!?! If you can show me, then at least I can also go HOLY SHIT, that's real! Until then, all I can say is I don't know who is selling. You see the difference? We can NEVER know how many coins someone has. Just like we don't even know how much Evan has in DRK still and we KNOW he instamined millions. Even claiming that he has any coins now can never be proved because well we really don't know if he does or does not have coins left. So, even any claims of Evan isn't really valid since there is no more proof. |
|
|
|
lol, obviously you're not a lawyer  Neither am I, although I did take several business and criminal law courses in undergrad. Just trying to clear up some misconceptions for you and others posting on this board who may be worried that what they post here could have legal repercussions. In my non-lawerly opinion, there is about a 0.00000001% chance that something you post on this message board would be considered by any court of law as libel. Just my two satoshi, take it for what you will. If you are not a lawyer, then your advice is worth just as much as mine, 2 satoshi like you said. Let the people that want to play with fire continue their ways. They just can no longer claim ignorance now. |
|
|
|
Calling someone a scammers and causing MILLIONS in XC market cap to evaporate is opinions to you? We will just have to see who's laughing at the end. I don't care what happens with XC, I'm just trying to tell you that this court case, if it ever happened, would not proceed. Here is some more info about libel from EFF: Is there a difference between reporting on public and private figures?
Yes. A private figure claiming defamation—your neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop—only has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a "reasonable person" would not have published the defamatory statement.
A public figure must show "actual malice"—that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet. Dan Metcalf is a public figure. There is a shitload of (possibly doctored) evidence floating around this message board indicating he might be a scammer. People speculating on this evidence, even calling him a scammer based on possibly bullshit evidence, does not meet the standard of "actual malice". Maybe instead of just telling everyone they're wrong you could provide some legal justification for your posts, or maybe you can't, because there is none. Shitload of FUDsters posting bullshit AS evidence. There's a huge difference here. I am not even saying who's right and who's wrong here. I am just saying that if you call a public business person a scammer and you don't have proof, then you are definitely slandering. Now, how sure those "proof" that you think you have are real and you are not joining the paid slandering campaign? Please do tell. You keep using that word ("slander"), I don't think you know what it means... From ( http://defamation.laws.com/defamation-laws/libel-vs-slander ): Slander involves the oral "publication" of a defamatory remark that is heard by another, which injures the subject's reputation or character. Slander can occur through the use of a hand gesture or verbal communication that is not recorded. Libel, on the other hand, is the written "publication" of a defamatory remark that has the tendency to injure another's reputation or character. Libel also includes a publication on radio, audio or video. Even though this would be considered oral, or verbal, communication to someone it is actually considered to be libel because it is published in a transfixed form. It's libel, not slander, and you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. I don't give a fuck about XC or Dan Metcalf, I'm just telling you that you're wrong, and that speculating about public figures based on however flimsy evidence or rumors does not constitute libel of a public figure. Hey, I am not a lawyer and not claiming to be. I am just telling you that people have been sued before for shit like this. Since you seems to be a lawyer or working to be one, are you giving us LEGAL OPINIONS/ADVICE now? Please state it in this thread. |
|
|
|
Are YOU that retarded? Read the link I posted.... those are REAL court precedence. They had to pay for online slandering and defamation.
You slanderers have cost XC MILLIONS in market cap. You are playing with fire.
You can't scare me away, i know my rights and i know that you are just bluffing. Hey, I am not the one suing you. You can think of this as a game as much as you want. The fact is there for you to read. However you want to take it, it's up to you. I dealt with more resilient noobs like you, its just you think XC is so great, even XMR was better at defending their coin. Do you see BCX getting sued ? Get real. Do whatever you want, it's your life. Now, that you know that being sued for online slandering is not imaginary. Continue to do whatever. It will just help with the evidence more. Now, you no longer can say you "didn't know" when that day comes for you. How about we sue Dan for online scamming ? Like I said, if you have REAL PROOF (and not just "proof" from these fud campaign), go ahead and sue. Just ask yourself if you are joining these smear/slandering campaign without knowing what you are getting yourself into. Your life is yours and it's your right to do whatever you want, just don't join the lemmings in jumping off a cliff if your conviction isn't 100%. |
|
|
|
Calling someone a scammers and causing MILLIONS in XC market cap to evaporate is opinions to you? We will just have to see who's laughing at the end. I don't care what happens with XC, I'm just trying to tell you that this court case, if it ever happened, would not proceed. Here is some more info about libel from EFF: Is there a difference between reporting on public and private figures?
Yes. A private figure claiming defamation—your neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop—only has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a "reasonable person" would not have published the defamatory statement.
A public figure must show "actual malice"—that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet. Dan Metcalf is a public figure. There is a shitload of (possibly doctored) evidence floating around this message board indicating he might be a scammer. People speculating on this evidence, even calling him a scammer based on possibly bullshit evidence, does not meet the standard of "actual malice". Maybe instead of just telling everyone they're wrong you could provide some legal justification for your posts, or maybe you can't, because there is none. Shitload of FUDsters posting bullshit AS evidence. There's a huge difference here. I am not even saying who's right and who's wrong here. I am just saying that if you call a public business person a scammer and you don't have proof, then you are definitely slandering. Now, how sure those "proof" that you think you have are real and you are not joining the paid slandering campaign? Please do tell. |
|
|
|
Are YOU that retarded? Read the link I posted.... those are REAL court precedence. They had to pay for online slandering and defamation.
You slanderers have cost XC MILLIONS in market cap. You are playing with fire.
You can't scare me away, i know my rights and i know that you are just bluffing. Hey, I am not the one suing you. You can think of this as a game as much as you want. The fact is there for you to read. However you want to take it, it's up to you. I dealt with more resilient noobs like you, its just you think XC is so great, even XMR was better at defending their coin. Do you see BCX getting sued ? Get real. Do whatever you want, it's your life. Now, that you know that being sued for online slandering is not imaginary. Continue to do whatever. It will just help with the evidence more. Now, you no longer can say you "didn't know" when that day comes for you. |
|
|
|
over at the ann they just told me they couldn't be sued for buying their own ito because it's crypto. It's not even consistent. If you would try to sue me you'd had a lot of shit going for yourself too since the one issuing the ito admited to buy it himself. You're the one getting sued if anyone does. Buying crypto is kinda different than slandering and defamation of a public figure. If you work at a company, do you get sued if you buy their stock after it's public? Are you that dumb? i did not slander or defamate anyone. Please read this thread again and know it's the only one of me regarding this topic. No accusations, slander, defamation - not even names. You seem to confuse things. Wrong thread. Oh right, this is just another kind of fud. Calling something a scam is not accusations now? |
|
|
|
If your currency/project can't take a Spoetnik attack, and feels the need to take legal action against him......it's not a very good sign.
If S. is just trolling, then no worries, but he's not the only guy bringing up the red flags, and there is actually some evidence in the form of chatlogs.
This is no longer about the currency but about a legitimate businessman's reputation. but honestly is that something new here, i dont think so, i watched the fudstorm against syscoin, experienced the sharexcoin-exchange, moolah/mintpal, cryptorush i saw the war between the cryptonotes and so on, it's nothing new and nothing special, the only real option is to show that the accusations are not true. but if they are true i think we are going deeper into the rabbit hole then ever... don't know which will be the results after the waves calm down, but i bought my popcorn. cheers The difference is that Dan is not an anon dev. His real life business reputation is being slandered here and MILLIONS of XC marketcap evaporated due to these fudsters which causes real monetary damages that you can measure. |
|
|
|
Are YOU that retarded? Read the link I posted.... those are REAL court precedence. They had to pay for online slandering and defamation.
You slanderers have cost XC MILLIONS in market cap. You are playing with fire.
You can't scare me away, i know my rights and i know that you are just bluffing. Hey, I am not the one suing you. You can think of this as a game as much as you want. The fact is there for you to read. However you want to take it, it's up to you. |
|
|
|
Some relevant facts from EFF ( https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation ): The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:
- a publication to one other than the person defamed;
- a false statement of fact;
that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice. The bolded portion may be especially difficult in light of the following quote also from EFF: No—but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole... Also look at the bolded portion above. There's no way that people on this forum speculating about evidence presented about other users is going to be treated by a court as libel. There is significant "evidence" floating around here that people are free to speculate whether or not anyone posting here is a scammer. I have to agree with other posters who say that any libel case centering around comments made on this forum would be laughed out of court. Calling someone a scammers and causing MILLIONS in XC market cap to evaporate is opinions to you? We will just have to see who's laughing at the end. |
|
|
|
Which part of precedent do you not understand? These are not internet rumors, it's been tried in court already. So the US have no free speech ? Oh my, are they that retarded ? Are YOU that retarded? Read the link I posted.... those are REAL court precedence. They had to pay for online slandering and defamation. You slanderers have cost XC MILLIONS in market cap. You are playing with fire. |
|
|
|
Uh wait, i though Cryptocurrency are not regulated ? So you can Pump&Dump / scam people with false/misinformation but you can't use your free speech ? So do we have facebook rules all over Internet nowadays ? Get real, the judges will laugh at you like this.  Slandering and defamation is free speech to you? You obviously have no idea how the legal system work. As I said above, if you have enough evidence that Dan is scamming, then why don't you sue him too? If not, then you are slandering, simple as that. Which part of the precedence I linked you do you not understand? It's happened before. It's reality. |
|
|
|
In the same light, if scammers think they can protect themselves by threatening libel, think again.
If you have strong evidence someone is a scammer, don't be afraid to present your evidence. And I mean evidence, not FUD.
Because any scammer threatening with libel would also have every nook and cranny of their crypto affairs scrutinised. Think about that for a second. Don't be afraid to oust scammers, but at the same time, don't discredit people with false libellous claims.
Hey, if you have enough evidence and it's a true scam, sure definitely sue away. So, why don't you? |
|
|
|
over at the ann they just told me they couldn't be sued for buying their own ito because it's crypto. It's not even consistent. If you would try to sue me you'd had a lot of shit going for yourself too since the one issuing the ito admited to buy it himself. You're the one getting sued if anyone does. Buying crypto is kinda different than slandering and defamation of a public figure. If you work at a company, do you get sued if you buy their stock after it's public? Are you that dumb? Which part of him saying he got up early to buy it (after it went public) do you not understand? |
|
|
|
Which part of precedent do you not understand? These are not internet rumors, it's been tried in court already. |
|
|
|
If you think you can hide anonymously, think again. Dan and XC, Inc. is US based. http://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/defamation-and-the-internet/sections/precedent/cases.htmlYou are playing with fire if you think slandering is something you can do to a public figure. FAQ: isn't crypto not regulated? A: Yes, but we are not talking about crypto. We are talking about Dan's business reputation. Damaging his reputation online is slandering IF it's NOT true. If you have absolutely 100% proof that he is, then of course it's not slandering. How sure you are of these proofs that is up to you. You can't claim ignorance that you didn't know you can get sued for online slander because you have just read this thread. |
|
|
|
Good luck trying to sue someone over their opinion, it makes it appear WAAYY more credible where people representing Blocknet troll with a secondary account because of allegations of severe market manipulation and insider trading.
good point ! and i am not worried he can come get me ..but he won't do anything. bottom line is guys ignore me or what i say ..just go read what Danny boy says on his own Self Mod'd topic and then tell me you trust 'em ? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=829576.msg9400461#msg9400461PS: Dan = Shakezulu ? hmm? You know since Dan is in USA and XC, Inc. is a US based entity that you can get sued for online slandering right? http://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/defamation-and-the-internet/sections/precedent/cases.htmlThere are more precedence if you want. Your location can be retrieved from BCT and you WILL get your ass sued. Can't wait till that day come for you. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
