Bangladesh will jail Bitcoin traders?

[BADecker]

For a better understanding of how common law works, read Void Judgments at http://www.scribd.com/doc/75335955/Void-Judgment .

[murraypaul]

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=15281186693327493555
It 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.

[murraypaul]

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?

[...]
Your description of the law may well be wonderful idea.
But it does not reflect the law in this, the actual real world.

That's the problem. Folks simply love to be led like sheep to the slaughter in front of the judges, because they don't know that they can stand up in ways other than what is normally done.

So is the answer seriously yes?
You really think that you have found a wonderful loophole in the law that somehow every lawyer and defendant has missed, and there are millions of people in prison who could have simply walked free if only they knew what you did?
That's... pretty delusional.

[BADecker]

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?

[...]
Your description of the law may well be wonderful idea.
But it does not reflect the law in this, the actual real world.

That's the problem. Folks simply love to be led like sheep to the slaughter in front of the judges, because they don't know that they can stand up in ways other than what is normally done.

So is the answer seriously yes?
You really think that you have found a wonderful loophole in the law that somehow every lawyer and defendant has missed, and there are millions of people in prison who could have simply walked free if only they knew what you did?
That's... pretty delusional.

Not a loophole. It's taken the legal system at least 70 or 80 years of NOT training their attorneys in this kind of common law, to get the legal system where it is today. It's a similar thing to the way the banking industry has turned the banking system into a debt system rather than a simple money system. Only it took the banking system a lot longer to set their whole thing up. For them, we have a $200 trillion more or less hidden world debt that corresponds to our $17 trillion in the US.

The whole thing amounts to trust. Average people placed their trust in the legal system, and the banking system used it to screw them. As for the millions of people in prison, there are loads of them there who have done nothing deserving of it. There was no harm or damage done to anyone. Yet they are treated as though they are criminals of the worst kind. Consider all the people who have done time simply because they smoked a joint, even though they harmed nobody.

If you research it, you will find that the prison system in the US is the largest in the world by far. And if you research a little further, you will find loads of people who are making a lot of money off the people in prison, including something similar to using them for slave labor. All this is happening because the legal system has gradually hidden, over a bunch of decades, the method that the people used to use to protect themselves from government.

Common law is NOT something new. It goes back to the foundations of our country.

[BADecker]

This post doesn't have much to do with Bangladesh, but it is a start toward getting back to the common law of the people. Once US people see this, we can start to get our people out of prison, and start the Bangladesh people in America onto methods that they and their relatives still in Bangladesh can use in their home country. American common law is similar to English common law. Bangladesh is based on English common law.

The website for the US Courts has changed. A look at the way it used to be is here: http://www.broadmind.org/uploads/usdc_all_state_courts_are_common_law_courts_02._pdf.pdf

The way it is now is here: http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-informed/federal-court-basics.aspx .  Notice that the common law parts have been removed, at least as far as being stated.

Google "United States common law." Use the DuckDuckGo search engine for some different results.

A reasonable link for finding the position of common law in America: http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/DallasMiniConf_Materials/Case%20Law%20on%20Elements%20of%20a%20Potential%20Preservation%20Rule.pdf .

Take a look at the Karl Lentz links in my previous posts on this thread and others.

[kamudimana]

well, what a stupid government 

[Pala_00]

The country is so poor and corrupt, anything goes. I believe VOIP is still considered illegal to try and help the national telephone subsidy, but everyone still uses Skype/Facetime/etc.

Whaaaat?!!!!!!?

[sumantso]

Frankly, who cares about Bangladesh? Half of them are trying to cross into India, and the other half are fleeing to the Gulf.

Besides, they will never be able to sync their wallets anyway with their dial ups

[flyingcatt]

This is ridiculous, we need civilized people not these fucking morons runing countries.

[leannemckim46]

Frankly, who cares about Bangladesh? Half of them are trying to cross into India, and the other half are fleeing to the Gulf.

Besides, they will never be able to sync their wallets anyway with their dial ups

Bangalesh alone is really not a very big influence on the bitcoin economy. It does however set a potentially bad precedent that other countries could follow that would cause it to be very difficult to use bitcoin (or trade bitcoin) in places of the world that have governments with similar views.

[CoinHeavy]

Have there been any instances of this law being applied to individuals yet?

[AllYouCanDo]

Wow... Talk about stupidity from Bangladesh's government. One of the countries that could most gain with Bitcoin remittances, says it's ilegal to use it. I wonder if someone within Bangladesh's central bank has a high stake in the remittances businesses.

All central banks fear bitcoin because it has the potential to take all control away from them.

[FloodZone]

One of the countries that could most gain

When talking about "countries" you always have to distinguish between government/elite and population. Same in the US - doesn't matter what helps the majority. They're not making the decisions.

This is what convinces me that the ruling elite are particularly short-sighted.
Yes, you can be stinking rich by oppressing the masses and keeping them poor. On the other hand, you can not oppress them and be almost as stinking rich while being able to access the output of a much more productive workforce. And not have to worry about revolutions quite as much.

[nuff]

even without the Ban, people here in Bangladesh is pretty restricted in terms of using Bitcoin. Because we don't have any local trading system to accept bitcoin. So what the hell should I do with my bitcoin in Bangladesh.

Keep it. Use it online. Use it when you're out of country. But if you're really desperate and don't know what the hell you should do with your bitcoins, you can send them to my address below and you need not have to worry about it anymore

[jangandusta]

they don't really know if this is the future of transaction... let them grow up first 

[Bitcoinpro]

And then they didn't

[gonnafly]

One of the countries that could most gain

When talking about "countries" you always have to distinguish between government/elite and population. Same in the US - doesn't matter what helps the majority. They're not making the decisions.

This is what convinces me that the ruling elite are particularly short-sighted.
Yes, you can be stinking rich by oppressing the masses and keeping them poor. On the other hand, you can not oppress them and be almost as stinking rich while being able to access the output of a much more productive workforce. And not have to worry about revolutions quite as much.

FWIW, the west is the closest to what you described out of nearly any other bloc of civilizations in the history of the world.

[bambino]

One of the countries that could most gain

When talking about "countries" you always have to distinguish between government/elite and population. Same in the US - doesn't matter what helps the majority. They're not making the decisions.

This is what convinces me that the ruling elite are particularly short-sighted.
Yes, you can be stinking rich by oppressing the masses and keeping them poor. On the other hand, you can not oppress them and be almost as stinking rich while being able to access the output of a much more productive workforce. And not have to worry about revolutions quite as much.

FWIW, the west is the closest to what you described out of nearly any other bloc of civilizations in the history of the world.

I look at voter apathy (in the absence of things like 'one candidate per ballot' or 'vote

• or be dissapeared') as a measure of how good things are.

If you can't be bothered to get off your ass to vote, you don't really have any big societal issues to address.

[Robin_Good]

It's exactly this kind of bullshit that makes sure some poor countries will continue to stay poor.

[logger]

There is something perverse about the idea of "since bitcoin is not legal, then obviously it is illegal and we will ruin your life if you use it"
No punishment would ever make up for the sick ideas that the 20th century elite managed to impose on humanity.