Topic: Bangladesh says Bitcoin users could be jailed for up to 12 years (Read 6656 times)

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

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?

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.

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.


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)

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

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.

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 ...

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.

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]

[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:
 

[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’.

[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.

[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.

[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?

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"

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.

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]

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.

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)!

[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.

[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.

Okay. So, we don't agree. 

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


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.


That isn't true. If you actually read the case, it says:
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.


That isn't true.


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.

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.

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.

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?

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.