Bitcoin Forum
December 16, 2017, 07:01:59 PM *
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
*
Online Online

Activity: 1512


View Profile
October 07, 2014, 02:19:40 AM
 #81

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.

Quote
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.

Smiley
1513450919
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513450919

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513450919
Reply with quote  #2

1513450919
Report to moderator
Even if you use Bitcoin through Tor, the way transactions are handled by the network makes anonymity difficult to achieve. Do not expect your transactions to be anonymous unless you really know what you're doing.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513450919
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513450919

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513450919
Reply with quote  #2

1513450919
Report to moderator
1513450919
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513450919

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513450919
Reply with quote  #2

1513450919
Report to moderator
1513450919
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513450919

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513450919
Reply with quote  #2

1513450919
Report to moderator
murraypaul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
October 07, 2014, 09:10:48 AM
 #82

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.

Quote
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?

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

Activity: 854


View Profile
October 07, 2014, 12:30:14 PM
 #83

It is very telling when a nation bans Bitcoin. It's one thing to warn people about it using at their own discretion but when you ban Bitcoin it makes me wonder what the real reasoning behind that decision is. It's also telling that corruption is so high in Bangladesh and I can imagine a small amount of people would be threatened by the lack of financial control Bitcoin would bring if the people of Bangladesh decided to adopt Bitcoin.

       ▀
   ▄▄▄   ▄▀
   ███ ▄▄▄▄  ██
       ████
    ▄  ▀▀▀▀
▄▄
      ██    ▀▀
██▄█▄▄▄████████
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀███▀▀▀
██████████████████
████▄▀▄▀▄▀███▀▀▀▀▀
████▄▀▄▀▄▀███ ▀
████▄▀▄▀▄▀████████
▀█████████████████
]
,CoinPayments,
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
ApexEvo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 281


🌟 æternity🌟 blockchain🌟


View Profile
October 07, 2014, 12:37:33 PM
 #84

with SuperNET project Bangladesh officers can go fuck dem selfs...  Cheesy Cheesy








       ▄▄▄▄▄               ▄▄▄▄▄
   ▄▄█▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄        ▄▄█▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█▄
 ▄██▀        ▀██▄    ▄██▀         ▀█▄
██▀            ▀██▄  ▀▀             ██
██               ▀██        ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██
██                ▀██▄      ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
 ██▄          ▄██   ▀██▄          ▄▄▄
  ▀██▄      ▄██▀      ▀██▄▄     ▄██▀
    ▀▀██████▀▀          ▀▀██████▀▀


Unchained Smart Contracts
Decentralized Oracle
Infinitly Scalable
Blockchain Technology
Turing-Complete
State-Channels



                 ▄████▄▄    ▄
██             ████████████▀
████▄         █████████████▀
▀████████▄▄   █████████████
▄▄█████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
  ▀██████████████████████
   █████████████████████
    ▀█████████████████▀
      ▄█████████████▀
▄▄███████████████▀
   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.TWITTER.
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
TELEGRAM

             ▄██▄
     ▄      ▐████   ▄▄
   █████     ██████████
    █████████████████▀
 ▄████████████▀████▌
██████████     ▀████     
 ▀▀   █████     ██████████
      ▀████▌▄████████████▀
    ▄▄▄███████████████▌
   ██████████▀    ▐████
    ▀▀▀  ████▌     ▀▀▀
         ▀███▀
.SLACK.
██████████████████████████████████████████████████
REDDIT
f
.FACEBOOK.
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
LINKEDIN


BADecker
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1512


View Profile
October 07, 2014, 03:58:38 PM
 #85


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

This is a completely inaccurate summary of that quote.

Again, Bangladesh may be different, somewhat. Trinsey v. Pagliaro wouldn't apply, probably.

A common law court is based on what the claimants allow. An attorney CAN talk with effect in a common law court if the claimants allow him. The point of talking about T v. P is the idea that the claimant bringing the case in common law has stated in one way or another that attorneys may NOT talk. If it is put in the form of an order by that claimant, then whatever an attorney says is not admitted into the record. You do realize that common law courts are courts of record?

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.

One would hope that there isn't that much disrespect in court that people would state it simply like this. But, a judge may have to, almost state it just like this, because some attorney doesn't understand that he can't speak, if the complaint/claim case that he is bringing on behalf of a client has been converted, on the spot, into a counterclaim by the opponent, which must be answered first.

A converted/flipped position produces/converts the original plaintiff/claimant into a counter defendant. And the defendant becomes the counter claimant when he answers the court with a counter claim.

The one making the claim that is before the court for the moment, if it is strictly a common law court of record, may absolutely require that the opposing attorney speak no more. IF the judge understands what is going on, the judge will order the opposing attorney (who is often the attorney originally bringing the case on behalf of his client) to, yes, shut up, if necessary.

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?

Yes, others know. As you seem to know, law isn't a simple easy thing in the court system... at least not most of the time. The reason I supplied the links that I formerly supplied is, there ARE some people that are doing the exact things that I am talking about.

All those people going to jail and paying fines that don't need to?

"All" is a very big word. Many, many, multitudes of people in the 3 major common law nations of the world are going to jail and paying fines that they don't have to, if they only knew how easy it was to back the state down. The state may not back down easily in ALL the cases, and in cases where there is harm or damage done the person may be convicted. But in the cases where there is no corpus delicti, the state loses, and so does any complainant who has hired an attorney when there is no corpus delicti. Standard basic law.

ALL cases where there is no corpus delicti can be made to be dismissed. Damages can start to be collected from the state by the defendant if the state continues in their frivolous prosecution. Standard common law. The reason that it isn't being done very often is that the sections of law that apply this way have been virtually ignored for a hundred years. The reason for this is that wealthy people who want to own the world are trying to convert all nations into civil law nations.

And not one person has thought of making bundles of money applying these wonderous facts to become the best defense lawyer in the world?

Why try to make money at something that might blow the lid off as to how easy it is to beat the state in most cases? Money might be made for a very short time. Then people would wake up to the fact that they don't NEED an attorney in a common law case - a case that has been converted through a counterclaim, and the state has no corpus delicti.

No, better to hide the process than attempt to make some money, and ultimately lose $billions.

Does that really sound likely? Are you that arrogant?
Isn't it far more likely that everyone else is right and you are wrong?

It's far more likely that the many are having the wool pulled over their eyes by the few, and THAT for the purpose of making money and enslaving them.

If it were only me and one or two others, it might sound like arrogance - even be arrogance. Yet the standard court system is using these things presently, at times, without the TRUE common law court of record being invoked.

It is beginning to sound like YOU are one of the crook attorneys that want to bring the whole world into slavery to the Power Elite. Or are you simply one of the flunkies?

Smiley
coinMiner8
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 13


View Profile
October 07, 2014, 04:27:55 PM
 #86

unreal

how some countries are trying to think bitcoin is an evil cult or something, just like N. Korea
iluvpie60
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658



View Profile
October 07, 2014, 07:00:51 PM
 #87

Places like this are so backwards and just want to control people's lives. The internet will eventually break all of the bs that governments spread. It is a good thing to have bitcoin so people can use it and find useful information on the internet to get out of these backwards practices. It might only be a small sample of people who use it but the fact that some people rebel and risk it shows we are continuing to grow as a human race.



                                         ▄
                 ▄▄████████▄▄         ▄▄██
 ▄▄           ▄██▀▀        ▀▀██▄    ▄███▀
 ▀███▄▄     ▄█▀                ▀█▄▄█████▀
  ▀██████▄▄█▀                ▄▄███████▀
   ▐█████████▄           ▄▄███████████
     ▀█████████▄▄      ▄█████████████
       ▀██████████    ███████████████
        ▐▀█████████  █████████████▀ ▐▌
        ▐▌ ▀▀██████ ▐███████████▀   ▐▌
        ▐▌      ▀██ ▐█████████▀     ▐▌
         █        ▀  ██████         █
         ▐█          ▐█████▄       █▌
          ▀█▄         ▀██████▄   ▄█▀
            ▀█▄         ▀█████▌▄█▀
              ▀██▄▄       ▀▄▄██▀
                ▀▀████████▀▀
T
....ANGEL TOKEN....


                                         ▄
                 ▄▄████████▄▄         ▄▄██
 ▄▄           ▄██▀▀        ▀▀██▄    ▄█▀█▀ 
 ▀█▀█▄▄     ▄█▀                ▀█▄▄█  ▄█▀ 
  ▀█  ▀▀█▄▄█▀                ▄▄██░   █▀   
   ▐▄▄  ░░░▀█▄           ▄▄█▀▀░░░   ▄█     
     ▀█▄ ░░░▒▒█▄▄      ▄██▒▒▒▒▒░    █     
       ▀▄▄ ░░▒▒▒▓█    ██▒▒▒▒▒▒░   ▄▄█     
        ▐▀█▄░░▒▒▓██  █▓▒▒▒▒▒▒░  ▄█▀ ▐▌     
        ▐▌ ▀▀█▒▓███░▐█▓▒▒▒▒░░ ▄█▀   ▐▌     
        ▐▌      ▀██ ▐█▓▓▒▒▄▄▄█▀     ▐▌     
         █        ▀  █▓█▀▀█         █     
         ▐█          ▐▄▓░ █▄       █▌     
          ▀█▄         ▀█▒░ ▀█▄   ▄█▀       
            ▀█▄         ▀█▄▄▄█▌▄█▀         
              ▀██▄▄       ▀▄▄██▀           
                 ▀▀████████▀▀             

BADecker
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1512


View Profile
October 08, 2014, 02:42:45 AM
 #88

Places like this are so backwards and just want to control people's lives. The internet will eventually break all of the bs that governments spread. It is a good thing to have bitcoin so people can use it and find useful information on the internet to get out of these backwards practices. It might only be a small sample of people who use it but the fact that some people rebel and risk it shows we are continuing to grow as a human race.

I just skimmed the topic at the Bitcoin Foundation Forum that is in their Bangladesh section - https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1107-the-case-for-bitcoin-in-bangladeshi-by-jon-matonis/ .

The feeling that I got was mixed. Perhaps some Bitcoin people are truly trying to change things for the better for the people. But I also see that they might simply be trying to switch who controls the Bangladesh government, not much, but just enough so that they can make a profit there.

The people/population is unlearned in the ways of the law that reside in their government. Anyone who really wants to help the people needs to educate them somehow. Once the people are educated, they will handle the government on their own. Being new to such education if it happens, they just might do a better job of handling their Bangladesh government than Americans do their U.S. government.

Educating the people might take a long time, although not as long as one might think - look at how many American doctors come from that area of the world (not Bangladesh, but India - next door).

Smiley
murraypaul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
October 08, 2014, 11:32:29 AM
 #89


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

This is a completely inaccurate summary of that quote.

Again, Bangladesh may be different, somewhat. Trinsey v. Pagliaro wouldn't apply, probably.

A common law court is based on what the claimants allow.

No it isn't. It is based on the rules of the court, as interpreted and enforced by the judge.

Quote
An attorney CAN talk with effect in a common law court if the claimants allow him.

No, that is not true. The claimants cannot prevent the defendant's attorney speaking on his behalf. The defendant has a right to be represented.

Quote
The point of talking about T v. P is the idea that the claimant bringing the case in common law has stated in one way or another that attorneys may NOT talk.

That isn't true. If you actually read the case, it says:
Quote
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.
It has nothing to do with the claimants saying that attorneys can't talk. That is just crap made up by wacky websites, that you have accepted without checking.
What it says is that defendants have to actually submit evidence of what they claim, they can't just claim it. That would be exactly the same if the defendants had represented themselves, without counsel.

Quote
If it is put in the form of an order by that claimant, then whatever an attorney says is not admitted into the record.

That isn't true.

Quote
You do realize that common law courts are courts of record?

What do you think that means?

I'm not going to bother with the rest, as the above shows that you simply have no understand of how courts work.

Please provide some evidence to back up anything you have said above.

BTC: 16TgAGdiTSsTWSsBDphebNJCFr1NT78xFW
SRC: scefi1XMhq91n3oF5FrE3HqddVvvCZP9KB
SW725
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 81


View Profile
October 08, 2014, 01:00:57 PM
 #90

WOw.. I will never go to Bangladesh then.. Smiley
BADecker
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1512


View Profile
October 08, 2014, 04:25:44 PM
 #91


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

This is a completely inaccurate summary of that quote.

Again, Bangladesh may be different, somewhat. Trinsey v. Pagliaro wouldn't apply, probably.

A common law court is based on what the claimants allow.

No it isn't. It is based on the rules of the court, as interpreted and enforced by the judge.

Quote
An attorney CAN talk with effect in a common law court if the claimants allow him.

No, that is not true. The claimants cannot prevent the defendant's attorney speaking on his behalf. The defendant has a right to be represented.

Quote
The point of talking about T v. P is the idea that the claimant bringing the case in common law has stated in one way or another that attorneys may NOT talk.

That isn't true. If you actually read the case, it says:
Quote
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.
It has nothing to do with the claimants saying that attorneys can't talk. That is just crap made up by wacky websites, that you have accepted without checking.
What it says is that defendants have to actually submit evidence of what they claim, they can't just claim it. That would be exactly the same if the defendants had represented themselves, without counsel.

Quote
If it is put in the form of an order by that claimant, then whatever an attorney says is not admitted into the record.

That isn't true.

Quote
You do realize that common law courts are courts of record?

What do you think that means?

I'm not going to bother with the rest, as the above shows that you simply have no understand of how courts work.

Please provide some evidence to back up anything you have said above.

Okay. So, we don't agree.  Smiley
BrunesBTC45
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 103


View Profile
October 09, 2014, 01:25:40 AM
 #92

Good thing I am not in Bangladesh right now.
murraypaul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
October 09, 2014, 12:42:49 PM
 #93

Please provide some evidence to back up anything you have said above.

Okay. So, we don't agree.  Smiley

So you can't provide any evidence to back up your claims?

BTC: 16TgAGdiTSsTWSsBDphebNJCFr1NT78xFW
SRC: scefi1XMhq91n3oF5FrE3HqddVvvCZP9KB
murraypaul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
October 16, 2014, 12:56:08 PM
 #94

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.

Ah, I've found the correct name for the rubbish you seem to believe: "Freemen on the land"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land
Quote
None of the beliefs held by Freemen have ever been supported by any judgments or verdicts in any criminal or civil court cases.

The arguments don't work.
There is no recorded case where they have worked.
Examples where they have failed are given in the article.

You can read the full decision of Meads vs Meads, referred to in the Wikipedia article here: http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html
(By the way, this was a Queen's Bench hearing, so you should really like it?)

But this quote is all you really need:
Quote
The bluntly idiotic substance of Mr. Mead’s argument explains the unnecessarily complicated manner in which it was presented. OPCA arguments are never sold to their customers as simple ideas, but instead are byzantine schemes which more closely resemble the plot of a dark fantasy novel than anything else. Latin maxims and powerful sounding language are often used. Documents are often ornamented with many strange marking and seals. Litigants engage in peculiar, ritual‑like in court conduct. All these features appear necessary for gurus to market OPCA schemes to their often desperate, ill‑informed, mentally disturbed, or legally abusive customers. This is crucial to understand the non-substance of any OPCA concept or strategy. The story and process of a OPCA scheme is not intended to impress or convince the Courts, but rather to impress the guru’s customer. [emphasis in original]

It seems to have worked on you.

Read this bit again:
Quote
OPCA arguments are never sold to their customers as simple ideas, but instead are byzantine schemes which more closely resemble the plot of a dark fantasy novel than anything else. Latin maxims and powerful sounding language are often used.
And the go back to Karl's page, and read this:
Quote
Buy an Invoice Pad today, to BILL the next Public SERVANT that Orders thou [You] !
(thou = singular cf. Ye - Nominative / You - Objective which are Plurals... i will explain later)
Example:
When A[NY] Public SERVANT stops thou at the side of the road and Orders a PERFORMANCE of and/or from thou by way of the use of His (or Her) Voice, these  UTTERANCES are defined as HIS (or HER) Wishes AND Orders delivered upon thou (placing a Burden Upon thou!)
 Example(s) :
ORDERS thou as a [wo]man to get out of YOUR car !
ORDERS thou, as a [wo]man  to "GIVE-UP" up his or her  "GIVEN-name"!
ORDERS thou, as a [wo]man to perform ANY task (such as hand-over a Licence)!
et ceteras, et cetaras, et ceteras...
Deliever Upon HIM (or HER) a BILL (an INVOICE) !
(BILL / INVOICE: c. 1400; that of "order to pay" ( technically 'Bill of Exchange' is from 1570s)
Example:
When "HE" or "SHE" ( a Public Servant) makes their WISHES to perform known and ORDER(s) Upon thou ( a man or woman) make sure to require of Him or Her to remember "Fair-and-Just" COMPENSATION, is now due for carrying-out His or Her Wishes and ORDER(s)!

The Judge had nailed it, hasn't he?

Some other nice bits from the decision:
Quote
[70]           These Reasons in many instances identify reported caselaw that comments on OPCA litigants, OPCA gurus, and their misconduct. It should be understood that the reported caselaw is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of encounters between this Court and OPCA litigants are not reported. These litigants and their schemes have been encountered in almost all areas of law. They appear in chambers, in criminal proceedings, initiate civil litigation based on illusionary OPCA rights, attempt to evade court and state authority with procedural and defence-based schemes, and interfere with unrelated matters.
 
[71]           OPCA strategies as brought before this Court have proven disruptive, inflict unnecessary expenses on other parties, and are ultimately harmful to the persons who appear in court and attempt to invoke these vexatious strategies. Because of the nonsense they argue, OPCA litigants are invariably unsuccessful and their positions dismissed, typically without written reasons. Nevertheless, their litigation abuse continues. The growing volume of this kind of vexatious litigation is a reason why these Reasons suggest a strong response to curb this misconduct.
 
[72]           Beyond that, these are little more than scams that abuse legal processes. As this Court now recognizes that these schemes are intended for that purpose, a strict approach is appropriate when the Court responds to persons who purposefully say they stand outside the rules and law, or who intend to abuse, disrupt, and ultimately break the legal processes that govern conduct in Canada. The persons who advance these schemes, and particularly those who market and sell these concepts as commercial products, are parasites that must be stopped.
 
[73]           A critical first point is an appreciation that the concepts discussed in these Reasons are frequently a commercial product, designed, promoted, and sold by a community of individuals, whom I refer to as “gurus”. Gurus claim that their techniques provide easy rewards – one does not have to pay tax, child and spousal support payments, or pay attention to traffic laws. There are allegedly secret but accessible bank accounts that contain nearly unlimited funds, if you know the trick to unlock their gates. You can transform a bill into a cheque with a stamp and some coloured writing. You are only subject to criminal sanction if you agree to be subject to criminal sanction. You can make yourself independent of any state obligation if you so desire, and unilaterally force and enforce demands on other persons, institutions, and the state. All this is a consequence of the fact gurus proclaim they know secret principles and law, hidden from the public, but binding on the state, courts, and individuals.
 
[74]           And all these “secrets” can be yours, for small payment to the guru.
 
[75]           These claims are, of course, pseudolegal nonsense. A judge who encounters and reviews OPCA concepts will find their errors are obvious and manifest, once one strips away the layers of peculiar language, irrelevant references, and deciphers the often bizarre documentation which accompanies an OPCA scheme. When reduced to their conceptual core, most OPCA concepts are contemptibly stupid. Mr. Meads, for example, has presented the Court with documents that appear to be a contract between himself, and himself. One Mr. Meads promises to pay for any liability of the other Mr. Meads. One owns all property, the other all debts. What is the difference between these entities? One spells his name with upper case letters. The other adds spurious and meaningless punctuation to his name. Mr. Meads (with punctuation) is the Mr. Meads who appeared in court. He says the Mr. Meads (all capitals) is the one who should pay child and spousal support.

That isn't just me saying it, is was the senior administrative judge of the Edmondton Queen's Bench.

Quote
[78]           Mediaeval alchemy is a helpful analogue. Alchemists sold their services based on the theatre of their activities, rather than demonstrated results, or any analytical or systematic methodology. OPCA gurus are modern legal alchemists. They promise gold, but their methods are principally intended to impress the gullible, or those who wish to use this drivel to abuse the court system. Any lack of legal success by the OPCA litigant is, of course, portrayed as a consequence of the customer’s failure to properly understand and apply the guru’s special knowledge.
 
[79]           Caselaw that relates to Gurus, reviewed below, explains how gurus present these ideas in seminars, books, websites, and instructional DVDs and other recordings. They provide pre‑prepared documents, which sometimes are government forms, and instruct how to fill in the necessary information that then produces the desired effects. Gurus write scripts to follow in court. Some will attempt to act as your representative, and argue your case.
 
[80]           When gurus do appear in court their schemes uniformly fail, which is why most leave court appearances to their customers. That explains why it is not unusual to find that an OPCA litigant cannot even explain their own materials. They did not write them. They do not (fully) understand them. OPCA litigants appear, engage in a court drama that is more akin to a magic spell ritual than an actual legal proceeding, and wait to see if the court is entranced and compliant. If not, the litigant returns home to scrutinize at what point the wrong incantation was uttered, an incorrectly prepared artifact waved or submitted.

Doesn't that sound an awful lot like Karl?

BTC: 16TgAGdiTSsTWSsBDphebNJCFr1NT78xFW
SRC: scefi1XMhq91n3oF5FrE3HqddVvvCZP9KB
Monkeynutz
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 30


View Profile
October 16, 2014, 01:24:13 PM
 #95

Dhaka: Bangladesh's central bank warned against dealing in bitcoin, saying anybody caught using the virtual currency could be jailed under the country's strict anti-money laundering laws.
The Bangladesh Bank, which regulates the impoverished country's banking industry, said it issued the order after reports in local media of Bitcoin transactions through various online exchange platforms.
"Bitcoin is not a legal tender of any country. Any transaction through Bitcoin or any other crypto currency is a punishable offence," the bank said in a statement

Bank officials told AFP separately that anyone found guilty in Bangladesh of using Bitcoin could be sentenced to up to 12 years in jail.
Launched in 2009, Bitcoin is a virtual payment system launched in 2009 that can be used to pay for goods from a computer or mobile device.
Backers say virtual currencies allow for an efficient and anonymous way to store and transfer funds online.
But virtual currencies, most famously Bitcoin, have come under increasing scrutiny by financial regulators as their popularity has grown.
Several countries have warned users of the risks associated with Bitcoin, such as their susceptibility to fraud because of the difficulty of tracing transactions.
Last Friday, Europe's top banking regulator called on the region's banks not to deal in virtual currencies until rules are developed to stop them being abused.

SOURCE "http://ibnlive.in.com/news/bangladesh-says-bitcoin-users-could-be-jailed-for-up-to-12-years/499445-11.html"

WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM
murraypaul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
October 16, 2014, 02:12:11 PM
 #96

More good stuff from Mears vs Mears, which is directly on point:
Quote
[325]      Another ‘immunity’ ‘magic hat’ is an argument that the litigant is only subject to a different form of law than that which would otherwise apply to the present action. This category is arguably a facet of the ‘restricted court authority’ immunity group.
 
[326]      It is helpful at this point to make a few comments on the manner in which OPCA litigants often use the term “common law”. OPCA litigants often draw an arbitrary line between “statutes” and “common law”, and say they are subject to “common law”, but not legislation. Of course, the opposite is in fact true, the “common law” is law developed incrementally by courts, and which is subordinate to legislation: statutes and regulations passed by the national and provincial governments. The Constitution Act provides the rules and principles that restrict the scope and nature of legislation, both by jurisdiction and on the basis of rights (ie. the Charter).
 
[327]      Persons who claim to only be subject to the “common law” also do not appear to mean the current common law, but typically instead reference some historic, typically medieval, form of English law, quite often the Magna Carta, which, as I have previously observed, is generally irrelevant.
 
[328]      Alberta Treasury Branches v. Klassen, 2004 ABQB 463 (CanLII) at para. 25, 364 A.R. 230 provides an example of how this ‘mutant’ common law may be expressed:
 
Quote
The above pose the fundamental reasons why I asked for a Court where this case could be tried under Natural law, for the Natural human person, an Anglo‑Saxon Common Law Court. A Court without pretension, on a level floor without tiers, where the Judge is not in an Administrative capacity, but that of a Minister ‑ not unlike the clergy. It's a court where jurisdiction is declared with a flying Canadian flag on the building or within the designated Courtroom.
 
If Alberta does not have such a Court, it is incumbent to be provided. Otherwise it is contravening justice being served or seeming to be served, because the Court is operating under the colour of law.

[329]       Another example of the peculiar OPCA definition of common law is that certain litigants will claim to not require motor vehicle registrations, licenses, or license plates, because when they operate a motor vehicle they are exercising their common law “right to travel”: R. v. Peddle, 1999 ABCA 284 (CanLII) at para. 7, 244 A.R. 184.
 
[330]      The Courts have consistently rejected OPCA arguments that the common law trumps legislation: R. v. Sargent, 2004 ONCJ 356 (CanLII) at paras. 42-43, [2005] 1 C.T.C. 448. OPCA litigants also sometimes advance an ill-defined “natural law” which is the sole authority over “flesh and blood” or “natural human persons”: Alberta Treasury Branches v. Klassen, 2004 ABQB 463 (CanLII) at paras. 25, 32, 364 A.R. 230, see also R. v. Warman, 2001 BCCA 510 (CanLII) at paras. 9-10, 15. This language also appears in Mr. Meads’ ‘fee schedule’.

Quote
[624]      In that sense the debate on the validity of OPCA concepts, such as there ever was, is over. The provincial and federal courts of appeal have uniformly upheld trial decisions to reject OPCA concepts. By my count at least nine of these cases sought leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada. None were granted. Legally, there is no dispute or issue outstanding.

Quote
[636]      It is my hope that these Reasons will provide a foundation for court response, but also act to educate potential OPCA litigants. It may be helpful to refer persons who appear to have adopted OPCA concepts to these Reasons. If nothing else, the parade of failures will refute OPCA gurus’ all too frequent claims that the techniques they sell are universally effective.

Quote
[663]      As I suspect these Reasons will come to the attention of present and potential OPCA litigants, and other members in the OPCA movements, I wish to make some comments directly to these readers that I hope will prove of some assistance.
[...]
[668]      Last, I have some questions you may wish to direct to those gurus who provide you advice:
 
1.         Why do these gurus seem to have little, if any, wealth, when they say they hold the proverbial keys to untold riches?
 
2.         Why do those gurus not go to court themselves, if they are so certain of their knowledge? If they say they have been to court, ask them for the proceeding file number, and see if their account is accurate. Those are public records.
 
3.         Can that guru identify even one reported court decision where their techniques proved successful? If not, why then are all successes a tale of an unnamed person, who knew someone who saw that kind of event occur?
 
4.         How are their ideas different and distinct from those surveyed and rejected in these Reasons?
 
5.         How are these advisors different from the OPCA gurus who have been unsuccessful and found themselves in jail? What did Porisky, Warman, and Lindsay do wrong?
 
6.         Will your advisors promise to indemnify you, when you apply the techniques they claim are foolproof? If not, why?
 
7.         If they cannot explain these points, then why should you pay them for their legal nonsense?
I doubt any of this will change your mind though.

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

Activity: 1512


View Profile
October 16, 2014, 04:19:31 PM
 #97

Court cases and their holdings only apply in areas where they apply.

If you want to see how, where and why the common law can be made to apply to human beings in America to do exactly the things that I have been saying, look at the free info at http://1215.org/, and particularly http://1215.org/changes.htm.

Again. Bangladesh may be or is different in some ways. Simply because they use English common law, they will probably have Queens Bench.

It is true that once the people are again made aware of how the common law works for them, attorneys will lose a lot of business. Who will want an attorney when you aren't represented by an attorney in court, don't represent yourself in court, but rather, you are present, and it is YOUR court because you are the one making the claim/bringing your suit?

Smiley
murraypaul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
October 16, 2014, 04:36:49 PM
 #98

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 ...


Quote
If you want to see how, where and why the common law can be made to apply to human beings in America to do exactly the things that I have been saying, look at the free info at http://1215.org/, and particularly http://1215.org/changes.htm.

I can't find any examples there of cases where your theories have been used successfully.

If you didn't read the Wikipedia page, here are some other examples from Common Law countries where your ideas didn't work:
Quote
Other[edit]
Elizabeth Watson came to public attention in 2011 as a self-styled legal adviser for Victoria Haigh in a child custody case, was given a nine-month prison sentence for contempt of court (suspended later when she purged her contempt).[9] She had written "no contract" on court documents, denied the lawful authority of the proceedings, and used the "of the ..... family" format when referring to Ms Haigh and herself. (The custody case had concerned false allegations that the child's father was a paedophile.)[10]

Mark Bond, of Norfolk, England was arrested in 2010 for non-payment of tax, despite handing police a "notice of intent" stating that he was no longer a UK citizen. He told police that the notice had already been delivered to the Queen and the prime minister. He told the local paper: "Today I asked the judge to walk into the court under common law and not commercial law. If I had entered under commercial law it would prove that I accepted its law. I was denied my rights to go in there." He was sentenced to three months custody, suspended on condition that he pay off the debt at £20 a week.[11]

Bobby Sludds, appeared in court in County Wexford in Ireland charged with various motoring offences including two counts of no insurance. Before the police began to give evidence, the accused handed in a letter stating he was not Mr Sludds but Bobby of the family Sludds and questioning the use of the word 'person' in the charge. He was given two suspended sentences and a fine of €670. (He had 24 previous convictions for motoring offences.)[12]

Wilfred Keith Thompson and two others were arrested by police in Guelph, Ontario (Canada), charged with break, enter and theft as well as firearms offences. Thompson had previously made headlines for informing City Hall, local police, Guelph MP Frank Valeriote, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other officials he is "an autonomous being not controlled by others". One of his co-defendants, Trevor “Red” De Block, refused to identify himself to the court, though it was said that his criminal mug shot, computer records, tattoos and other information confirmed his identity. "I object," De Block said, adding that he was not the "rightful owner" of his name, but refusing to clarify or participate in legal proceedings. "I don’t bow down to bail [sic] . . . to false gods," he said, and rejected assistance from the appointed lawyer. Thompson and De Block were denied bail.[13]

Dean Marshall, of Preston, East Riding of Yorkshire, England, was taken to court after he was found to be growing 26 cannabis plants in his garden shed. Claiming he was a Freeman on the Land and therefore not guilty, he then attempted to call up Queen Elizabeth II and David Cameron as his witnesses, although he was told that neither was available to attend. A jury at Hull Crown Court dismissed his claims and convicted him of conspiracy to produce cannabis for which he was given a 12-month prison sentence, suspended for two years, and was ordered to carry out 150 hours of unpaid work. [14]

Doug Jones, of Pembroke Dock, Wales, spent 22 days in prison after refusing to take a breath test. Jones questioned the authority and jurisdiction of the court, asking to see the judge's 'Oath of Office' which resulted in a sentence of fourteen days for contempt of court. He was sentenced to a further seven days after failing to attend a second hearing, but pleaded guilty to the original charges, receiving an endorsement on his driving license. His interest in the Freemen on the Land movement started after watching documentaries on conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11 attacks and London bombings. His solicitor, Phillipa Ashworth, stated “On this occasion, in hindsight he appreciates it was not the time to test out philosophical theories behind this approach to life, and in hindsight it isn’t something he would do again.”[15]

Gavin Kaylhem, of Grimsby, England, wilfully refused to pay his council tax debts of £1,268.54 accrued between 2001 and 2008 and was sentenced to 30 days imprisonment. He had claimed that he was a "Freeman" and thus had no contractual duty under Common Law to pay. He refused to co-operate with magistrates' questions.[16]

BTC: 16TgAGdiTSsTWSsBDphebNJCFr1NT78xFW
SRC: scefi1XMhq91n3oF5FrE3HqddVvvCZP9KB
vvv8
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 114


View Profile
October 16, 2014, 04:45:04 PM
 #99

SMALL SONS THAT DON'T UNDERSTAND ~~~~~

Bangladesh is a poor country. The GDP per capita is messed up LOW.

Therefore, just like Africa, Bitcoin would be HUGE THERE.

Corruption realizes the threat that bitcoin will have ,, so these banks pay people to make anti-bitcoin laws to protect themselves from the beauty of bitcoin.



Pure & Simple.
thejaytiesto
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
October 16, 2014, 05:16:09 PM
 #100

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.

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!