[ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread

[Vbs]

That's true but US administrative courts are on longer confined by the rule of law.

Instead they are engaged in a naked asset grab, which will not abate until kinetic resistance is encountered en masse.

ACTM's property and principles are located in the USSA and may be easily seized by any judge unamused by cute shell companies and smart-ass asset structuring.

This is going to sound sarcastic, but I don't mean it to be.

Are you of the mindset that the US gov't can and will do whatever they want, on a world-wide scale, regardless of any law/restriction that is in place?

http://www.bosl.com/belize_court.html

http://www.bosl.com/trusts_assets_protection.html

[Stuartuk]

Are you of the mindset that the US gov't can and will do whatever they want, on a world-wide scale, regardless of any law/restriction that is in place?

They do. They think the world should bow down to US interests.

There are 3 CIA employee who have been convicted in absence in the Italian courts for kidnapping but the US gov has refused to extradite them to face justice. However if the US want's to extradite an EU citizen all they do is submit charges, no evidence required, and they almost always get their man sent over on the next plane - EU/US extradition law 2009. So the EU abides by this mutually agreed piece of international law but the US ignores it whenever they feel like they know better - which is most of the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Seldon_Lady

However what this means is that the SEC are more likely to go after an EU citizen over a US one!

Does anybody actually think the SEC would be interested in taking down a legitimate US btc mining business? I don't think they are acting on anything other than fraud and ponzi. Legitimate tech businesses are not the target.  

[N_S]

That's true but US administrative courts are on longer confined by the rule of law.

Instead they are engaged in a naked asset grab, which will not abate until kinetic resistance is encountered en masse.

ACTM's property and principles are located in the USSA and may be easily seized by any judge unamused by cute shell companies and smart-ass asset structuring.

This is going to sound sarcastic, but I don't mean it to be.

Are you of the mindset that the US gov't can and will do whatever they want, on a world-wide scale, regardless of any law/restriction that is in place?

http://www.bosl.com/belize_court.html

http://www.bosl.com/trusts_assets_protection.html

Thanks for those, Vbs!

[zumzero]

I'd suggest these organisations, American or not, will only go after the dodgey bitcoin companies.  I'm off for my afternoon kip..

[crumbs]

http://www.bosl.com/belize_court.html

http://www.bosl.com/trusts_assets_protection.html

Thanks for those, Vbs!

The case is from 1994, happened in the previous century.  >>it be different nao<<

[N_S]

http://www.bosl.com/belize_court.html

http://www.bosl.com/trusts_assets_protection.html

Thanks for those, Vbs!

The case is from 1994, happened in the previous century.  >>it be different nao<<

Can you explain why I'm supposed to take your word on this? What does it occurring in 1994 have to do with anything?

[ArcticWolf]

http://www.bosl.com/belize_court.html

http://www.bosl.com/trusts_assets_protection.html

Thanks for those, Vbs!

The case is from 1994, happened in the previous century.  >>it be different nao<<

Please present your evidence for peer review

[Stuartuk]

The case is from 1994, happened in the previous century.  >>it be different nao<<

That is such a shockingly stupid statement I'm tempted to make him my first ignore.

[crumbs]

http://www.bosl.com/belize_court.html

http://www.bosl.com/trusts_assets_protection.html

Thanks for those, Vbs!

The case is from 1994, happened in the previous century.  >>it be different nao<<

Can you explain why I'm supposed to take your word on this? What does it occurring in 1994 have to do with anything?

You'll have to be clearer as to why you're hesitant to accept the word i haven't offered.
Are you disputing the date in question?  I can assure you it is correct.  If you are doubting that 1994 was, indeed, at the tail end of the last century, i can confirm that also.  American colloquialism for such a time-span is "more than a coon's age."  That's long.

[crumbs]

The case is from 1994, happened in the previous century.  >>it be different nao<<

That is such a shockingly stupid statement I'm tempted to make him my first ignore.

I think it's the right thing to do.

[Stuartuk]

American colloquialism for such a time-span is "more than a coon's age."  That's long.

Is that racist? Sounds like it could be.

Your 'Constitution' is a lot older than 1994 - is it still valid?

[crumbs]

American colloquialism for such a time-span is "more than a coon's age."  That's long.

Is that racist? Sounds like it could be.

Your 'Constitution' is a lot older than 1994 - is it still valid?

If it was written in Belize it sure wouldn't be

[N_S]

You'll have to be clearer as to why you're hesitant to accept the word i haven't offered.
Are you disputing the date in question?  I can assure you it is correct.  If you are doubting that 1994 was, indeed, at the tail end of the last century, i can confirm that also.  American colloquialism for such a time-span is "more than a coon's age."  That's long.

The word you've offered is that ">>it be different nao<<". You've made a statement that what was contained in the links provided by Vbs is in some way out-of-date or irrelevant.

Please explain why someone should believe your statement as you've provided no evidence to substantiate it.

I'm not saying you're wrong, btw.

[crumbs]

You'll have to be clearer as to why you're hesitant to accept the word i haven't offered.
Are you disputing the date in question?  I can assure you it is correct.  If you are doubting that 1994 was, indeed, at the tail end of the last century, i can confirm that also.  American colloquialism for such a time-span is "more than a coon's age."  That's long.

The word you've offered is that ">>it be different nao<<". You've made a statement that what was contained in the links provided by Vbs is in some way out-of-date or irrelevant.

Please explain why someone should believe your statement as you've provided no evidence to substantiate it.

I'm not saying you're wrong, btw.

You may have read in more meaning than was intended -- i wished to shed some light that the case sited happened a long time ago.
If one has to reach back into the last millennium for an example of US not getting its way, perhaps that in itself should be indicative of your folly?

[N_S]

You may have read in more meaning than was intended -- i wished to shed some light that the case sited happened a long time ago.
If one has to reach back into the last millennium for an example of US not getting its way, perhaps that in itself should be indicative of your folly?

It's obvious you use the word millennium to attempt to instill a level of ridiculousness that isn't really warranted. It's like someone saying: "oh man, I won't see you till next year!" on New Years Eve - it's pedantic verbiage.

That case was 20yrs ago (but yes, technically last millennium). There are plenty of laws and legal precedence set within the past 20yrs that are still very relevant.

[crumbs]

You may have read in more meaning than was intended -- i wished to shed some light that the case sited happened a long time ago.
If one has to reach back into the last millennium for an example of US not getting its way, perhaps that in itself should be indicative of your folly?

It's obvious you use the word millennium to attempt to instill a level of ridiculousness that isn't really warranted. It's like someone saying: "oh man, I won't see you till next year!" on New Years Eve - it's pedantic verbiage.

That case was 20yrs ago (but yes, technically last millennium). There are plenty of laws and legal precedence set within the past 20yrs that are still very relevant.

And plenty that aren't.  If my money is at stake, i'd want more than a blurb from an abandoned website with dead links that once belonged to *another* Belize-registered money launderer.  See what i mean?

[N_S]

And plenty that aren't.  If my money is at stake, i'd want more than a blurb from an abandoned website with dead links that once belonged to *another* Belize-registered money launderer.  See what i mean?

Yes - I see how and why that would perk someone's attention. Or at least raise their desire to look further into the matter.

That said, a desire to look into the matter is, arguably, warranted. Making the positive claim that things are different now with no substantiation, isn't.

[iCEBREAKER]

That's true but US administrative courts are on longer confined by the rule of law.

Instead they are engaged in a naked asset grab, which will not abate until kinetic resistance is encountered en masse.

ACTM's property and principles are located in the USSA and may be easily seized by any judge unamused by cute shell companies and smart-ass asset structuring.

This is going to sound sarcastic, but I don't mean it to be.

Are you of the mindset that the US gov't can and will do whatever they want, on a world-wide scale, regardless of any law/restriction that is in place?

http://www.bosl.com/belize_court.html

http://www.bosl.com/trusts_assets_protection.html

Again, ACTM principals and assets are not (yet) located in Belize.

How many divisions does the Belize court have?

It's ridiculous that corporations must flee the rapacious USSA and seek asylum in the few remote locations still friendly to productive capital and entrepreneurs.

[crumbs]

And plenty that aren't.  If my money is at stake, i'd want more than a blurb from an abandoned website with dead links that once belonged to *another* Belize-registered money launderer.  See what i mean?

Yes - I see how and why that would perk someone's attention. Or at least raise their desire to look further into the matter.

That said, a desire to look into the matter is, arguably, warranted. Making the positive claim that things are different now with no substantiation, isn't.

If you wish to bicker like a pedantic formalist, i'll have to insist that things are, in fact, "different nao."  If by nothing else, at least by being in a new millennium.  Time is flux.  Jeepers

[N_S]

If you wish to bicker like a pedantic formalist, i'll have to insist that things are, in fact, "different nao."  If by nothing else, at least by being in a new millennium.  Time is flux.  Jeepers

Man, I know. How fucking absurd is it that someone ask for evidence regarding statements made about legal precedence surrounding their investments. That's taking things too far.