9/11 Changed Everything.
Never Forget.
Dick Cheney/George Bush changed everything. ftfy
Topic: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread - page 157. (Read 479317 times)
9/11 Changed Everything.
Never Forget.
Dick Cheney/George Bush changed everything. ftfy
...
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.
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.
What God=forsaken backwater are you from, iCEBRAKER? I feel your need for freedom & democracy, i hear you crying for justice and human rights. You won't suffer much longer, brother! Brave
None of your business but rest assured it is very remote, if not especially God forsaken.
Satoshi shall lead us into to promised land.
You mean "virtual investments," don't you? On the virtual exchange where you trade virtual shares in a virtual identity? Have i missed any "virtuals"?
Do you know what you're doing?
Obviously.
And, no. I haven't a clue...
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 
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.
You mean "virtual investments," don't you? On the virtual exchange where you trade virtual shares in a virtual identity? Have i missed any "virtuals"?
Do you know what you're doing?
...
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.
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.
What God=forsaken backwater are you from, iCEBRAKER? I feel your need for freedom & democracy, i hear you crying for justice and human rights. You won't suffer much longer, brother! Brave American boys are coming to liberate your ass!
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
Jump to: