Bangladesh says Bitcoin users could be jailed for up to 12 years

[Death]

We should pay anonymous to DDOS them for a year.

Shame we can't use old miners to do this, ban BTC we attack you.

LMAO. you are joking right?

[murraypaul]

Bangladesh is an English common law nation. This means that they have Queen's Bench. Queen's Bench means that a man's or a woman's private property rules over all other laws. If the people only understood this, the whole face of government over there would change. I hear that Karl Lentz is going to India.

No it doesn't.
Please stop repeating this rubbish, people might actually act on it.

Look at what Karl did in England using English common law.

What has he done? Seriously.
Apart from a badly designed website selling his books and talks, what has he done?
He claims to have a magic way of avoiding almost all laws, why isn't he acting as defence lawyer and changing the face of the legal system?
The most obvious conclusion would be that he is talking rubbish. What is your conclusion?

[murraypaul]

The first part has to do with all kinds of laws that the government makes.

The second part has to do with the customs of the people. It's called Queen's Bench.

If a person can get into Queen's Bench in the courts, the laws often don't apply.

This is simply nonsense.
Here is a link to the posted 2014 decisions of the England and Wales Queen's Bench. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/
Please read some, and try to find any connection to what you think it seems to be.
(I don't actually think it is true that Bangladesh does have a Queen's Bench division.)

[bobcaticus]

Bangladesh follows India very closely.  You will see some new developments out of India in the next month, and hopefully Bangladesh will follow suit.

[BADecker]

Bangladesh is an English common law nation. This means that they have Queen's Bench. Queen's Bench means that a man's or a woman's private property rules over all other laws. If the people only understood this, the whole face of government over there would change. I hear that Karl Lentz is going to India.

No it doesn't.
Please stop repeating this rubbish, people might actually act on it.

Look at what Karl did in England using English common law.

What has he done? Seriously.
Apart from a badly designed website selling his books and talks, what has he done?
He claims to have a magic way of avoiding almost all laws, why isn't he acting as defence lawyer and changing the face of the legal system?
The most obvious conclusion would be that he is talking rubbish. What is your conclusion?

Well, thank you. Lot of words in that website. I bookmarked it. Thank you for taking the time.

Karl lives by a personal code. How much can a person charge for writing 2 to 6 sentences on a piece of paper? At times, a lot, I would guess. So, since he doesn't want to be a lawyer (attorney), he mostly doesn't charge much.

In a common law nation, common law is basic. There are parallel systems of law running right in the same court. A magistrate may attempt to draw a person over into statute law by using certain words in court. If the person bringing the claim is careful, he will block the judge's use of words that would otherwise remove him from common law over into statute law. Most people aren't experienced enough to realize what is happening.

Did you find the rest of the holdings for Trinsey v. Pagliaro? If you did, you will see how in a man to man claim in court, attorneys can be made to remain silent unless they are actual witnesses to the case. But if they are witnesses, they can't act as attorneys.

Queen's Bench in India or Bangladesh? Don't know. But Karl's good friend, Bali Maan, is from India. And Karl has said that he is going over there. Probably Karl has seen that there is hope for winning using common law in India.

Let me say one important thing. Don't do what Karl is doing without knowing what you are doing. Karl has tons of experience in court. Don't go in unprepared. Do as Karl says. Settle on the private side if at all possible.



EDIT: Just because the way Karl uses common law isn't frequently used, doesn't mean that it doesn't work. Check his free audio recordings that are on the Internet to see. There is way more free stuff from Karl than there is of what he is selling.

[BADecker]

At the bottom of the Karl Lentz website, http://www.broadmind.org/, are pictures of a family. This picture...



...is of a family, including a husband and wife, and their kids. It is taken in the snow, in what looks like a woods, with the car in the background.

These are the Canadian people Karl helped get their kids back using common law.

In some of the other pictures, Karl is standing in the picture in place of the husband, who is taking those pictures. The kids call him "Uncle Karl," for getting them back home to their parents.

[newyorker91]

I'm so scared. Just don't go to Bangladesh

[CrackedLogic]

Yay, another China.

[Micky25]

I'm so scared. Just don't go to Bangladesh

yeah, why would you want to do that anyways?

[borna_121136]

can I plz get a clear statement whether this is true or not, can anyone help me on that?

[Micky25]

you could ask your local police office.

[polynesia]

Bangladesh follows India very closely.  You will see some new developments out of India in the next month, and hopefully Bangladesh will follow suit.

Bangladesh seems to have gone further than India.
In India, all the central bank has done is issue a warning.

[UsernameBitcoin]

Who cares about the politics of a completely under-developed and fucked up country regarding economy, human rights, science, and so on.

[gonnafly]

TOR and BTC enabling the citizens of the world, screw these arbitrary laws !!!

[bambino]

How is this anything but bad news for Bitcoin? Or do you seriously believe the majority of normal law abiding citizens would be willing to risk 12 years in jail under money laundering charges just so they could use Bitcoin?

[Micky25]

and now tell me, what do you think how many people from Bangladesh have ever heard of or used bitcoin?

[Superhitech]

I'm not taking vacations to Bangladesh anymore. I'm scared. 

[murraypaul]

In a common law nation, common law is basic. There are parallel systems of law running right in the same court. A magistrate may attempt to draw a person over into statute law by using certain words in court. If the person bringing the claim is careful, he will block the judge's use of words that would otherwise remove him from common law over into statute law. Most people aren't experienced enough to realize what is happening.

Sigh. This just isn't true.
If a specific statue has been passed criminalising a specific act, you cannot 'block' being punished under that statue by using magic words.

Did you find the rest of the holdings for Trinsey v. Pagliaro? If you did, you will see how in a man to man claim in court, attorneys can be made to remain silent unless they are actual witnesses to the case. But if they are witnesses, they can't act as attorneys.

There are no more holdings.
I have shown you the full trial transcript for the case.
I have shown you that it just doesn't say what you have been told it says.
You can read it yourself and see that.
Why do you still believe the rubbish you have been told, even when it is proved to be wrong?

[BADecker]

In a common law nation, common law is basic. There are parallel systems of law running right in the same court. A magistrate may attempt to draw a person over into statute law by using certain words in court. If the person bringing the claim is careful, he will block the judge's use of words that would otherwise remove him from common law over into statute law. Most people aren't experienced enough to realize what is happening.

Sigh. This just isn't true.
If a specific statue has been passed criminalising a specific act, you cannot 'block' being punished under that statue by using magic words.

Did you find the rest of the holdings for Trinsey v. Pagliaro? If you did, you will see how in a man to man claim in court, attorneys can be made to remain silent unless they are actual witnesses to the case. But if they are witnesses, they can't act as attorneys.

There are no more holdings.
I have shown you the full trial transcript for the case.
I have shown you that it just doesn't say what you have been told it says.
You can read it yourself and see that.
Why do you still believe the rubbish you have been told, even when it is proved to be wrong?

You can't block being punished under a statute if you are under it. The Japanese government can pass all the statutes it wants. Americans in America aren't under any of them.

If you are a human being in America, you are one of the people. The people set up the government in America. As long as you don't become a 14th Amendment person, or stand up in that capacity, you are one of the people, not a citizen. If you know the ins and outs of common law, you know how to keep yourself from being dragged into statute law. You can remain one of the people, over the government, over the statute laws. The exception is when you harm someone else or damage his property.

Trinsey v Pagliaro, D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F.Supp. 647. "Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not facts before the court and are therefore insufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment." In other words, attorney talk in a common law court does nothing.

"Where there are no depositions, admissions, or affidavits the court has no facts to rely on for a summary determination." Trinsey v. Pagliaro, D.C. Pa. 1964, 229 F. Supp. 647.

[murraypaul]

Trinsey v Pagliaro, D.C.Pa. 1964, 229 F.Supp. 647. "Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are not facts before the court and are therefore insufficient for a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment."

Yes, this is an accurate quote from the link I gave you.
You still haven't been able to find the 'missing' part of the transcript, have you? Because it doesn't exist.

In other words, attorney talk in a common law court does nothing.

This is a completely inaccurate summary of that quote.

An attorney cannot simply say something, and have the court accept it as a fact. Obviously, I don't think anyone would have thought that they could.
That doesn't mean, as you have claimed previously, that they aren't allowed to talk at all, and you can simply tell them to shut up.

Again, I have to ask.
There are these wonderous facts that you know and noone else does, that completely change the way the law works.
And yet noone else has thought of them before?
All those people going to jail and paying fines that don't need to?
And not one person has thought of making bundles of money applying these wonderous facts to become the best defense lawyer in the world?
Does that really sound likely? Are you that arrogant?
Isn't it far more likely that everyone else is right and you are wrong?