Topic: Bangladesh says Bitcoin users could be jailed for up to 12 years - page 2. (Read 6656 times)

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.

unreal

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

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?


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.


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" 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.


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.


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?

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

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.


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?

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.

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.


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?

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

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

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?

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

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

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

you could ask your local police office.

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

yeah, why would you want to do that anyways?

Yay, another China.

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

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.

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.