Topic: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread - page 157. (Read 479475 times)

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?

9/11 Changed Everything.

Never Forget.

N_S

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: crumbs on August 11, 2013, 09:33:58 PM

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 Angry

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.

crumbs

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: N_S on August 11, 2013, 09:27:31 PM

Quote from: crumbs on August 11, 2013, 09:20:49 PM

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 Angry

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: N_S on August 11, 2013, 07:52:16 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 11, 2013, 07:39:28 PM

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.

N_S

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: crumbs on August 11, 2013, 09:20:49 PM

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.

crumbs

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: N_S on August 11, 2013, 09:17:16 PM

Quote from: crumbs on August 11, 2013, 09:10:57 PM

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

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: crumbs on August 11, 2013, 09:10:57 PM

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

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: N_S on August 11, 2013, 09:02:10 PM

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

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: Stuartuk on August 11, 2013, 08:54:41 PM

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

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

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 Cheesy

Stuartuk

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: Stuartuk on August 11, 2013, 08:47:00 PM

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

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: N_S on August 11, 2013, 08:37:15 PM

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.

crumbs

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

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.

Stuartuk

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

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.

ArcticWolf

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

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

N_S

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100