Bitcoin Forum
December 16, 2017, 12:29:34 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Bangladesh says Bitcoin users could be jailed for up to 12 years  (Read 6340 times)
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


View Profile
October 16, 2014, 05:18:28 PM
 #101

I was right, it doesn't seem to matter how much evidence you are shown that what you have been told is wrong, you continue to believe it.
Present one reported decision of a court in either the US, UK or Canada where your theories have worked.
Where someone has denied that any courts have jurisdiction over them, or demanded that only common law applies to them, or that they can control the court proceedings.
Just one.
I've given you the Mears vs Mears decisions which lists dozens upon dozens of cases where these arguments have been found to be the complete rubbish that they actually are.
I've given you a decision from your beloved Queen's Bench, which you seem to think allows your odd version of common law, where a judge demolishes these ideas.
And does so forensically, analysing the various types of bullshit and listing exactly why they are wrong, and which cases have previously shown that.
And points out that the arguments are so absurd that not only shouldn't they be accepted, they shouldn't even receive court time, and are reason to subject anyone who raises them to cost penalties.
I've shown you that the  Trinsey v. Pagliaro decision simply doesn't saw what you've been told that it did.
I've shown you that your hero Karl is doing just the sort of scammy things that the 'gurus' referred to in the judgement do.
You can lead a horse to water ...


I appreciate that you are trying to do my homework for me.

The fact that any case or judge's decision seems to decide an issue, is also the reason why any case down the road can overturn a previous case or judges decision, depending on how the new case is brought.

We use precedent. But cases are NEVER exactly the same. So precedent can be made to be ineffective if handled properly in the present case.

I'm not here to do your homework for you any more than you are really here to do mine for me. But to help you with your homework, if you decide to do it, listen to the audio files listed here. There is even a California court case where a judge was removed from a case, to a lower court, because the common law plaintiff filed an order of contempt of court against the judge for disobeying the laws of his case. The laws were the ones that the plaintiff brought, in common law, because it was the plaintiff's court.

http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lectures/introduction/
http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lectures/sovereignty/
http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lectures/forms/
http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/lectures/motions/

I'm not saying doing things this way are any easier. But, at least people have a chance to throw the monkey of big government off their back. We don't need to be treated like we are in a civil law country. Every man and woman is king/queen under common law in America, Canada, and the UK. The people are waking up. Why are you attempting to push them back into slavery?

The map at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LegalSystemsOfTheWorldMap.png shows the basic forms of governments of the nations of the world. The thing that you are promoting is civil law. We are not a civil law nation at our core, even though the government and attorneys are trying to make us into one. We are common law. But if the people don't wake up and use their common law rights, the whole world just might become civil law. Is that what you really want?

Smiley
1513384174
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513384174

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513384174
Reply with quote  #2

1513384174
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
murraypaul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
October 16, 2014, 11:34:01 PM
 #102

I was right, it doesn't seem to matter how much evidence you are shown that what you have been told is wrong, you continue to believe it.
Present one reported decision of a court in either the US, UK or Canada where your theories have worked.
Where someone has denied that any courts have jurisdiction over them, or demanded that only common law applies to them, or that they can control the court proceedings.
Just one.
I've given you the Mears vs Mears decisions which lists dozens upon dozens of cases where these arguments have been found to be the complete rubbish that they actually are.
I've given you a decision from your beloved Queen's Bench, which you seem to think allows your odd version of common law, where a judge demolishes these ideas.
And does so forensically, analysing the various types of bullshit and listing exactly why they are wrong, and which cases have previously shown that.
And points out that the arguments are so absurd that not only shouldn't they be accepted, they shouldn't even receive court time, and are reason to subject anyone who raises them to cost penalties.
I've shown you that the  Trinsey v. Pagliaro decision simply doesn't saw what you've been told that it did.
I've shown you that your hero Karl is doing just the sort of scammy things that the 'gurus' referred to in the judgement do.
You can lead a horse to water ...


I appreciate that you are trying to do my homework for me.
[snip]

Quote
Present one reported decision of a court in either the US, UK or Canada where your theories have worked.
Where someone has denied that any courts have jurisdiction over them, or demanded that only common law applies to them, or that they can control the court proceedings.
Just one.

Shouldn't be that hard.
UK decisions are available at http://www.bailii.org/
Canandian ones at http://www.canlii.org/en/index.html
US ones at http://www.law.cornell.edu/

Until you can do that, I don't see you have any business repeating your claims.

Quote
There is even a California court case where a judge was removed from a case, to a lower court, because the common law plaintiff filed an order of contempt of court against the judge for disobeying the laws of his case. The laws were the ones that the plaintiff brought, in common law, because it was the plaintiff's court.

Which case? What is the citation? Where is the decision?
I don't want repeated second/third/fourth hand nonsense, I want actual information.
The fact that someone one one of these psuedo-law websites has said it, does not make it believable without verification.
(I suspect what we will find is that if a judge was removed, it was after following the normal proceedures for such, for a valid reason, not because The laws were the ones that the plaintiff brought, in common law, because it was the plaintiff's court, which is nonsense. You can read the correct proceedures for challenging or removing a California judge here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=ccp&group=00001-01000&file=170-170.9)

BTC: 16TgAGdiTSsTWSsBDphebNJCFr1NT78xFW
SRC: scefi1XMhq91n3oF5FrE3HqddVvvCZP9KB
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


View Profile
October 17, 2014, 12:34:46 AM
 #103

I was right, it doesn't seem to matter how much evidence you are shown that what you have been told is wrong, you continue to believe it.
Present one reported decision of a court in either the US, UK or Canada where your theories have worked.
Where someone has denied that any courts have jurisdiction over them, or demanded that only common law applies to them, or that they can control the court proceedings.
Just one.
I've given you the Mears vs Mears decisions which lists dozens upon dozens of cases where these arguments have been found to be the complete rubbish that they actually are.
I've given you a decision from your beloved Queen's Bench, which you seem to think allows your odd version of common law, where a judge demolishes these ideas.
And does so forensically, analysing the various types of bullshit and listing exactly why they are wrong, and which cases have previously shown that.
And points out that the arguments are so absurd that not only shouldn't they be accepted, they shouldn't even receive court time, and are reason to subject anyone who raises them to cost penalties.
I've shown you that the  Trinsey v. Pagliaro decision simply doesn't saw what you've been told that it did.
I've shown you that your hero Karl is doing just the sort of scammy things that the 'gurus' referred to in the judgement do.
You can lead a horse to water ...


I appreciate that you are trying to do my homework for me.
[snip]

Quote
Present one reported decision of a court in either the US, UK or Canada where your theories have worked.
Where someone has denied that any courts have jurisdiction over them, or demanded that only common law applies to them, or that they can control the court proceedings.
Just one.

Shouldn't be that hard.
UK decisions are available at http://www.bailii.org/
Canandian ones at http://www.canlii.org/en/index.html
US ones at http://www.law.cornell.edu/

Until you can do that, I don't see you have any business repeating your claims.

Quote
There is even a California court case where a judge was removed from a case, to a lower court, because the common law plaintiff filed an order of contempt of court against the judge for disobeying the laws of his case. The laws were the ones that the plaintiff brought, in common law, because it was the plaintiff's court.

Which case? What is the citation? Where is the decision?
I don't want repeated second/third/fourth hand nonsense, I want actual information.
The fact that someone one one of these psuedo-law websites has said it, does not make it believable without verification.
(I suspect what we will find is that if a judge was removed, it was after following the normal proceedures for such, for a valid reason, not because The laws were the ones that the plaintiff brought, in common law, because it was the plaintiff's court, which is nonsense. You can read the correct proceedures for challenging or removing a California judge here: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=ccp&group=00001-01000&file=170-170.9)

The case is somewhere in the 4 websites that are listed in a "bunch" in my previous post. I'd have to listen to them again to find it. You are welcome to do it on your own. Actually, you should, so that you learn something about law that you obviously have been missing all this time.

Smiley
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


View Profile
October 17, 2014, 01:36:05 AM
 #104


Quote
Present one reported decision of a court in either the US, UK or Canada where your theories have worked.
Where someone has denied that any courts have jurisdiction over them, or demanded that only common law applies to them, or that they can control the court proceedings.
Just one.

Shouldn't be that hard.
UK decisions are available at http://www.bailii.org/
Canandian ones at http://www.canlii.org/en/index.html
US ones at http://www.law.cornell.edu/

Until you can do that, I don't see you have any business repeating your claims.

Now, relax, before you bust a blood vessel. Everybody knows that most judgments are void on their face. See: http://voidjudgments.com/.

And as for the "I don't see ..." part, try looking for an eye doctor online. There's gotta be a good one listed in your area, don't you think?

 Kiss
murraypaul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
October 17, 2014, 10:20:09 AM
 #105

And as for the "I don't see ..." part, try looking for an eye doctor online. There's gotta be a good one listed in your area, don't you think?

So you are abandoning any attempt to rebut the evidence I've given you that your views are simply incorrect?

BTC: 16TgAGdiTSsTWSsBDphebNJCFr1NT78xFW
SRC: scefi1XMhq91n3oF5FrE3HqddVvvCZP9KB
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


View Profile
October 17, 2014, 11:13:29 AM
 #106

And as for the "I don't see ..." part, try looking for an eye doctor online. There's gotta be a good one listed in your area, don't you think?

So you are abandoning any attempt to rebut the evidence I've given you that your views are simply incorrect?

My rebuttal is in the form I have listed.  Smiley
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


View Profile
October 17, 2014, 11:26:08 AM
 #107

By the way, thanks for all the interesting info you have posted. I would have dropped the Bangladesh matter long ago if you hadn't questioned me on it. Now, at least, a whole lot of people can see the chance that they have for protecting their lives from big government and big corporations. Bangladesh people are getting a chance to look at ways they never thought of for protecting themselves legally. Thanks for your pestering and pushing.

Smiley
El Emperador
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602



View Profile WWW
November 09, 2014, 11:47:09 AM
 #108

How is the situation in Bangladesh now? Any news?

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!