Topic: Bangladesh will jail Bitcoin traders? - page 2. (Read 4063 times)
This is ridiculous, we need civilized people not these fucking morons runing countries.
Frankly, who cares about Bangladesh? Half of them are trying to cross into India, and the other half are fleeing to the Gulf.
Besides, they will never be able to sync their wallets anyway with their dial ups
Besides, they will never be able to sync their wallets anyway with their dial ups
The country is so poor and corrupt, anything goes. I believe VOIP is still considered illegal to try and help the national telephone subsidy, but everyone still uses Skype/Facetime/etc.
Whaaaat?!!!!!!?
well, what a stupid government 
This post doesn't have much to do with Bangladesh, but it is a start toward getting back to the common law of the people. Once US people see this, we can start to get our people out of prison, and start the Bangladesh people in America onto methods that they and their relatives still in Bangladesh can use in their home country. American common law is similar to English common law. Bangladesh is based on English common law.
The website for the US Courts has changed. A look at the way it used to be is here: http://www.broadmind.org/uploads/usdc_all_state_courts_are_common_law_courts_02._pdf.pdf
The way it is now is here: http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-informed/federal-court-basics.aspx . Notice that the common law parts have been removed, at least as far as being stated.
Google "United States common law." Use the DuckDuckGo search engine for some different results.
A reasonable link for finding the position of common law in America: http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/DallasMiniConf_Materials/Case%20Law%20on%20Elements%20of%20a%20Potential%20Preservation%20Rule.pdf .
Take a look at the Karl Lentz links in my previous posts on this thread and others.
The website for the US Courts has changed. A look at the way it used to be is here: http://www.broadmind.org/uploads/usdc_all_state_courts_are_common_law_courts_02._pdf.pdf
The way it is now is here: http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-informed/federal-court-basics.aspx . Notice that the common law parts have been removed, at least as far as being stated.
Google "United States common law." Use the DuckDuckGo search engine for some different results.
A reasonable link for finding the position of common law in America: http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/DallasMiniConf_Materials/Case%20Law%20on%20Elements%20of%20a%20Potential%20Preservation%20Rule.pdf .
Take a look at the Karl Lentz links in my previous posts on this thread and others.
4. If the United States, or one of the States is bringing the charge against you, then the United States better take the stand. A representative for the United States isn't allowed to take the stand, because you have a right to face your accuser, and you are doing it man to man.
5. You win because the United States or the State isn't able to walk up to the stand, place its hand on the Bible, swear or affirm, and answer any of your questions in cross examination, including signing an affidavit to the claim of wrongdoing made against you.
Rubbish. Simply untrue, as demonstrated by every criminal case in the US.5. You win because the United States or the State isn't able to walk up to the stand, place its hand on the Bible, swear or affirm, and answer any of your questions in cross examination, including signing an affidavit to the claim of wrongdoing made against you.
Quote
6. If, somehow, the United States or the State manages to take the stand, there has to be real harm or damage, or breaking of a contract, shown before they can rule against you. They can accuse you of doing all kinds of things against a statute, and they may be absolutely right, but if there is no harm or damage, and if your name isn't listed and you haven't signed as a party to the statute, you win, they lose.
Rubbish, as above.
You must have noticed that, in the real world, this simply isn't true.
There are thousands if not millions of people in prison in the US for drug crimes which don't fit any of your descriptions.
Do you really think that none of their lawyers spotted this obvious loophole you seem to think exists?
[...]
Your description of the law may well be wonderful idea.
But it does not reflect the law in this, the actual real world.
That's the problem. Folks simply love to be led like sheep to the slaughter in front of the judges, because they don't know that they can stand up in ways other than what is normally done.
So is the answer seriously yes?
You really think that you have found a wonderful loophole in the law that somehow every lawyer and defendant has missed, and there are millions of people in prison who could have simply walked free if only they knew what you did?
That's... pretty delusional.
Not a loophole. It's taken the legal system at least 70 or 80 years of NOT training their attorneys in this kind of common law, to get the legal system where it is today. It's a similar thing to the way the banking industry has turned the banking system into a debt system rather than a simple money system. Only it took the banking system a lot longer to set their whole thing up. For them, we have a $200 trillion more or less hidden world debt that corresponds to our $17 trillion in the US.
The whole thing amounts to trust. Average people placed their trust in the legal system, and the banking system used it to screw them. As for the millions of people in prison, there are loads of them there who have done nothing deserving of it. There was no harm or damage done to anyone. Yet they are treated as though they are criminals of the worst kind. Consider all the people who have done time simply because they smoked a joint, even though they harmed nobody.
If you research it, you will find that the prison system in the US is the largest in the world by far. And if you research a little further, you will find loads of people who are making a lot of money off the people in prison, including something similar to using them for slave labor. All this is happening because the legal system has gradually hidden, over a bunch of decades, the method that the people used to use to protect themselves from government.
Common law is NOT something new. It goes back to the foundations of our country.
4. If the United States, or one of the States is bringing the charge against you, then the United States better take the stand. A representative for the United States isn't allowed to take the stand, because you have a right to face your accuser, and you are doing it man to man.
5. You win because the United States or the State isn't able to walk up to the stand, place its hand on the Bible, swear or affirm, and answer any of your questions in cross examination, including signing an affidavit to the claim of wrongdoing made against you.
Rubbish. Simply untrue, as demonstrated by every criminal case in the US.5. You win because the United States or the State isn't able to walk up to the stand, place its hand on the Bible, swear or affirm, and answer any of your questions in cross examination, including signing an affidavit to the claim of wrongdoing made against you.
Quote
6. If, somehow, the United States or the State manages to take the stand, there has to be real harm or damage, or breaking of a contract, shown before they can rule against you. They can accuse you of doing all kinds of things against a statute, and they may be absolutely right, but if there is no harm or damage, and if your name isn't listed and you haven't signed as a party to the statute, you win, they lose.
Rubbish, as above.
You must have noticed that, in the real world, this simply isn't true.
There are thousands if not millions of people in prison in the US for drug crimes which don't fit any of your descriptions.
Do you really think that none of their lawyers spotted this obvious loophole you seem to think exists?
[...]
Your description of the law may well be wonderful idea.
But it does not reflect the law in this, the actual real world.
That's the problem. Folks simply love to be led like sheep to the slaughter in front of the judges, because they don't know that they can stand up in ways other than what is normally done.
So is the answer seriously yes?
You really think that you have found a wonderful loophole in the law that somehow every lawyer and defendant has missed, and there are millions of people in prison who could have simply walked free if only they knew what you did?
That's... pretty delusional.
Okay? I won't argue, because I don't know how Bangladesh common law works. But, it is English common law, so it should be similar to the U.K. Here is the basic stuff about common law in the U.S.
Sigh. So much rubbish.
Quote
1. It is common knowledge that if you are accused of something, you have the right to face your accuser.
2. You can look up Trinsey v. Pagliaro yourself
2. You can look up Trinsey v. Pagliaro yourself
I can, and have. I don't think you have.
You just accepted what was said by someone else without checking it.
Quote
, but among the things that it says is, "An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness".
No, it doesn't.
It says: (http://www.leagle.com/decision/1964876229FSupp647_1743)
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.
They failed to formally present evidence to the court in the correct way to support their case, just saying that such evidence existed wasn't enough.
Please try to find the words you have presented as a "quote" anywhere in the actual transcript of the case.
Quote
this means that the attorney for your accuser can't even speak if you don't let him, unless he is going to be witness with firsthand knowledge of your case. Of course, then he is the accuser, and can't act as an attorney.
No it doesn't.
He cannot give evidence. That doesn't mean he can't speak.
He can ask witnesses questions in order to examine and test their evidence.
He can describe the evidence that has been given.
He can sum up the evidence, and suggest what implications and conclusions should be drawn from it.
Regarding Trinsey v. Pagliaro, the site you gave didn't have the whole case, at least not that I could see. In cases, there are often many "holdings" that have little to do with the particular case, yet they form precedence. The holding I listed above, is in the actual T. v. P. case judgment rendering by the judge. Find it and you will see.
You find it.
I've posted the actual case transcript.
Here is another link to it: https://casetext.com/case/trinsey-v-pagliaro/
And another: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_case?case=15281186693327493555
It doesn't say what you thought it did.
If you are so confident that it does say what you think, you must have actually read the full transcript? So post a link to it. Or haven't you actually read it yourself?
You won't find one, because the judge didn't say what you think he did. That "quote" is commentary added by someone who either didn't understand what was said, or knew that most of their readers wouldn't actually check, so just made stuff up.
For a better understanding of how common law works, read Void Judgments at http://www.scribd.com/doc/75335955/Void-Judgment .
Okay? I won't argue, because I don't know how Bangladesh common law works. But, it is English common law, so it should be similar to the U.K. Here is the basic stuff about common law in the U.S.
Sigh. So much rubbish.
Quote
1. It is common knowledge that if you are accused of something, you have the right to face your accuser.
2. You can look up Trinsey v. Pagliaro yourself
2. You can look up Trinsey v. Pagliaro yourself
I can, and have. I don't think you have.
You just accepted what was said by someone else without checking it.
Quote
, but among the things that it says is, "An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness".
No, it doesn't.
It says: (http://www.leagle.com/decision/1964876229FSupp647_1743)
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.
They failed to formally present evidence to the court in the correct way to support their case, just saying that such evidence existed wasn't enough.
Please try to find the words you have presented as a "quote" anywhere in the actual transcript of the case.
Quote
this means that the attorney for your accuser can't even speak if you don't let him, unless he is going to be witness with firsthand knowledge of your case. Of course, then he is the accuser, and can't act as an attorney.
No it doesn't.
He cannot give evidence. That doesn't mean he can't speak.
He can ask witnesses questions in order to examine and test their evidence.
He can describe the evidence that has been given.
He can sum up the evidence, and suggest what implications and conclusions should be drawn from it.
Quote
3. Don't represent yourself. Don't let anyone represent you. Rather, be a man or woman and PRESENT yourself. This makes it so that you have to have a man or woman accuser face you with the accusation.
This doesn't actually mean anything, so can't really be discussed.Quote
4. If the United States, or one of the States is bringing the charge against you, then the United States better take the stand. A representative for the United States isn't allowed to take the stand, because you have a right to face your accuser, and you are doing it man to man.
5. You win because the United States or the State isn't able to walk up to the stand, place its hand on the Bible, swear or affirm, and answer any of your questions in cross examination, including signing an affidavit to the claim of wrongdoing made against you.
Rubbish. Simply untrue, as demonstrated by every criminal case in the US.5. You win because the United States or the State isn't able to walk up to the stand, place its hand on the Bible, swear or affirm, and answer any of your questions in cross examination, including signing an affidavit to the claim of wrongdoing made against you.
Quote
6. If, somehow, the United States or the State manages to take the stand, there has to be real harm or damage, or breaking of a contract, shown before they can rule against you. They can accuse you of doing all kinds of things against a statute, and they may be absolutely right, but if there is no harm or damage, and if your name isn't listed and you haven't signed as a party to the statute, you win, they lose.
Rubbish, as above.
You must have noticed that, in the real world, this simply isn't true.
There are thousands if not millions of people in prison in the US for drug crimes which don't fit any of your descriptions.
Do you really think that none of their lawyers spotted this obvious loophole you seem to think exists?
Quote
This is American common law.
No it isn't.
Quote
It isn't English common law.
Possibly the only correct statement in your entire post.
Quote
English common law is a little more straight forward in some ways. It has Queen's Bench, which makes it more straight forward, even though there is an additional step.
I'm fascinated by what you think the Queen's Bench is?
Here is a hint: The original King's/Queen's Bench for England and Wales as abolished in 1875. The current Queen's Bench is a division of the High Court of Justice.
You can read transcripts of their cases here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/
Your description of the law may well be wonderful idea.
But it does not reflect the law in this, the actual real world.
Look, all it has to do with is, if someone wrongs you, and won't make it right, you go to court with a claim against that person. This is standard stuff that has been done since the USA started. And it was developed in Britain over hundreds of years.
Yes. And it has nothing to do with the rubbish you started with:
Quote
In English common law, there are basically only 3 things that the government can get you for:
1. If you harm somebody;
2. If you damage his property;
3. Breach of contract.
The government can make all the statutes stick, if you don't fight them on common law grounds. But if you fight them common law, nothing sticks except the above 3.
That isn't the law. At least not in actual real world countries.1. If you harm somebody;
2. If you damage his property;
3. Breach of contract.
The government can make all the statutes stick, if you don't fight them on common law grounds. But if you fight them common law, nothing sticks except the above 3.
Quote
EDIT: It's called common law. watch Judge Judy.
Oh my god, did you just seriously say that?
Okay? I won't argue, because I don't know how Bangladesh common law works. But, it is English common law, so it should be similar to the U.K. Here is the basic stuff about common law in the U.S.
1. It is common knowledge that if you are accused of something, you have the right to face your accuser.
2. You can look up Trinsey v. Pagliaro yourself, but among the things that it says is, "An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness". This means that the attorney for your accuser can't even speak if you don't let him, unless he is going to be witness with firsthand knowledge of your case. Of course, then he is the accuser, and can't act as an attorney.
3. Don't represent yourself. Don't let anyone represent you. Rather, be a man or woman and PRESENT yourself. This makes it so that you have to have a man or woman accuser face you with the accusation.
4. If the United States, or one of the States is bringing the charge against you, then the United States better take the stand. A representative for the United States isn't allowed to take the stand, because you have a right to face your accuser, and you are doing it man to man.
5. You win because the United States or the State isn't able to walk up to the stand, place its hand on the Bible, swear or affirm, and answer any of your questions in cross examination, including signing an affidavit to the claim of wrongdoing made against you.
6. If, somehow, the United States or the State manages to take the stand, there has to be real harm or damage, or breaking of a contract, shown before they can rule against you. They can accuse you of doing all kinds of things against a statute, and they may be absolutely right, but if there is no harm or damage, and if your name isn't listed and you haven't signed as a party to the statute, you win, they lose.
7. Go after them for money for filing a false claim against you.
This is American common law. It isn't English common law. English common law is a little more straight forward in some ways. It has Queen's Bench, which makes it more straight forward, even though there is an additional step.
English common law for Bangladesh.
If any of you readers are having problems in Bangladesh, contact Karl. He has a heavy workload. So, keep on trying if he doesn't get back to you right away. His contact locations are listed at the websites I have already listed in this thread.
If you are American, British (whole British Isles), or Canadian, Karl is ready to go. If CPS (or the corresponding governmental agency in Canada or the U.K.) took your kids, Karl will help you get them back without charging you for it.
I'm not saying any of this to drum up business for Karl. I'm saying it to help anyone who needs help. I am also saying it because we need to strengthen all the common law nations out there - Bangladesh - so that Bitcoin can remain freely in the hands of ALL the people.
Look, all it has to do with is, if someone wrongs you, and won't make it right, you go to court with a claim against that person. This is standard stuff that has been done since the USA started. And it was developed in Britain over hundreds of years.
Yes. And it has nothing to do with the rubbish you started with:
Quote
In English common law, there are basically only 3 things that the government can get you for:
1. If you harm somebody;
2. If you damage his property;
3. Breach of contract.
The government can make all the statutes stick, if you don't fight them on common law grounds. But if you fight them common law, nothing sticks except the above 3.
That isn't the law. At least not in actual real world countries.1. If you harm somebody;
2. If you damage his property;
3. Breach of contract.
The government can make all the statutes stick, if you don't fight them on common law grounds. But if you fight them common law, nothing sticks except the above 3.
Quote
EDIT: It's called common law. watch Judge Judy.
Oh my god, did you just seriously say that?
maybe the price is declining because the bangladesh police hunts BTC dealers at the moment.
Pretty fucked-up news:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/currency/11097208/Why-Bangladesh-will-jail-Bitcoin-traders.html
And not very long time ago:
Bangladesh get its own Bitcoin Foundation
http://cointelegraph.com/news/112354/bangladesh-get-its-own-bitcoin-foundation
EDIT:
Found the link on reddit, one of the comments:
If the above is true, it's possible that it's just a standard Bangladeshi gov's response to every new technology...
But can you imagine going to jail for 12 years for sending bitcoins? Madness.
One Word describes it all "CONSERVATIVE" madafakaz http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/currency/11097208/Why-Bangladesh-will-jail-Bitcoin-traders.html
Quote
Bangladesh's central bank has 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 on Monday.
Bank officials told AFP separately that anyone found guilty in Bangladesh of using Bitcoin could be sentenced to up to 12 years in jail.
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 on Monday.
Bank officials told AFP separately that anyone found guilty in Bangladesh of using Bitcoin could be sentenced to up to 12 years in jail.
And not very long time ago:
Bangladesh get its own Bitcoin Foundation
http://cointelegraph.com/news/112354/bangladesh-get-its-own-bitcoin-foundation
EDIT:
Found the link on reddit, one of the comments:
Quote
[–]rizzledizzle 30 points 4 hours ago
As a Bangladeshi, this is stupid but expected from the government. It's also not going to be enforced.
The country is so poor and corrupt, anything goes. I believe VOIP is still considered illegal to try and help the national telephone subsidy, but everyone still uses Skype/Facetime/etc.
As a Bangladeshi, this is stupid but expected from the government. It's also not going to be enforced.
The country is so poor and corrupt, anything goes. I believe VOIP is still considered illegal to try and help the national telephone subsidy, but everyone still uses Skype/Facetime/etc.
If the above is true, it's possible that it's just a standard Bangladeshi gov's response to every new technology...
But can you imagine going to jail for 12 years for sending bitcoins? Madness.
Look, all it has to do with is, if someone wrongs you, and won't make it right, you go to court with a claim against that person. This is standard stuff that has been done since the USA started. And it was developed in Britain over hundreds of years.
If the other party doesn't attempt to refute the claim, but if he could have attempted, or if he could have refuted, but doesn't, you win. This is the thing that the banks are doing to people with outstanding debts all the time. The difference is that a bank can only file a complaint, whereas people can file claims, if they have a vested interest in what they are claiming.
EDIT: It's called common law. watch Judge Judy. When she gets a couple of people into court who are a little more organized, she doesn't say much. all she does is make a judgment based on the sworn testimony of the people involved, and the evidence they bring forth.
It can be done in Bangladesh, because Bangladesh is a common law country that uses English common law. The biggest problem is that the people are poor and ignorant much of the time. But if a wealthier person who knew how to read and write helped them out, there would be no stopping them. Either the government would have to become a civil law government, or they would win.
If the other party doesn't attempt to refute the claim, but if he could have attempted, or if he could have refuted, but doesn't, you win. This is the thing that the banks are doing to people with outstanding debts all the time. The difference is that a bank can only file a complaint, whereas people can file claims, if they have a vested interest in what they are claiming.
EDIT: It's called common law. watch Judge Judy. When she gets a couple of people into court who are a little more organized, she doesn't say much. all she does is make a judgment based on the sworn testimony of the people involved, and the evidence they bring forth.
It can be done in Bangladesh, because Bangladesh is a common law country that uses English common law. The biggest problem is that the people are poor and ignorant much of the time. But if a wealthier person who knew how to read and write helped them out, there would be no stopping them. Either the government would have to become a civil law government, or they would win.
Do you really want to take legal advice from this man?
Well, he said it works.
While it is true that not all common law countries are created equal, English common law is very powerful. There are two parts to it. There's the part that the Crown enjoys, having to do with past rulings, and there is the part that the people can enjoy, if they know about it. It is called Queen's Bench, and used properly, it makes use of the basic 3 parts listed in my first post above.
See what has taken place in England regarding this, within the last couple of years or so. Similar can happen in Bangladesh if the people start to wake up.
See what has taken place in England regarding this, within the last couple of years or so. Similar can happen in Bangladesh if the people start to wake up.
These links are junk.
What they are claiming (basically that you don't have to follow any law that doesn't directly damage a specific person or their property) is junk.
He is just trying to sell his books/DVDs. An impressive 4 Add To Carts and 2 Donates just on the one page.
And I'm going to go out on a wild limb and say that when people don't manage to avoid convictions for breaking the law, he will always say it is because they have implemented his ideas slightly wrong, rather than them being complete fantasy.
For example, this rubbish:
Quote
Sick of taking Orders and earning no money from complying with the Orders?
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)!
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)!
Written in Olde Worlde English to try to pretend it actually has some historic basis.
What is it?
Where is the legal basis for this rubbish?
Some of his posts seem like stream-of-altered-consciousness:
Quote
The start of a claim template but this is more of a strategy outline.
Identify and try to settle with prosecutor. Create evidence - record phone call, write a phone log (at this time I called the prosecutor at this number from this number). Any harm? Man does harm. No settle? If you take this to court I will file claim.
File claim. Look at the "debt template" and practice writing out a claim..
Reference My Private Audio Call March 17 2013 at the 53 minute mark.
[53:00] [traffic ticket] who is going to try to interfer with my right travel?
Be cool with cop and ask cop who will prosecute?
within three days ask prosecutor to stop ticket prosecution
(To lawyer: I am better than a attorney yep I am a man and I have standing. If attorney lose get him for barratry and filing false claims against man.)
This officer wrote this error before he gets in trouble I am giving fair warning.
officer believes I have a privilege to drive and I believe I have a right to travel
[58:00] If case not dropped file a claim against prosecutor of ticket not cop moving a false claim through court. no injured party.
i am prosecutor (going against ticket prosecutor) vs respondent or wrongdoer who caused me an injury
within 3 day try to settle
day 4 file claim
interfering with my right to travel,
For some reason the cop believes I did injury or harm or operating under my driver license at that time which i was not.
i wish order and demanded prosecutor to desist frivolous claim against me and he refused to
and he is going to pursue in 30 days and i wish to be compensated for my time for answering a claim.
prosecutor: you better prove i interfered with someone's rights. If you want to believe I was operating
under a license under that point in time you are mistaken. Well you gave driver's license. It is true I gave your cop the license he has a gun. I was under coercion.
Is someone called the state of california going to come forward and make a claim I was operating their vehicle because of a title?
Is someone going to come forward named called the state of california that he owns a portion of the car and he can tell me what to do?
Is man called the state of california going to come forward a makes a claim that because of legal title and he is going register and inspect the car? Is a man going to come forward yes or no?
Identify and try to settle with prosecutor. Create evidence - record phone call, write a phone log (at this time I called the prosecutor at this number from this number). Any harm? Man does harm. No settle? If you take this to court I will file claim.
File claim. Look at the "debt template" and practice writing out a claim..
Reference My Private Audio Call March 17 2013 at the 53 minute mark.
[53:00] [traffic ticket] who is going to try to interfer with my right travel?
Be cool with cop and ask cop who will prosecute?
within three days ask prosecutor to stop ticket prosecution
(To lawyer: I am better than a attorney yep I am a man and I have standing. If attorney lose get him for barratry and filing false claims against man.)
This officer wrote this error before he gets in trouble I am giving fair warning.
officer believes I have a privilege to drive and I believe I have a right to travel
[58:00] If case not dropped file a claim against prosecutor of ticket not cop moving a false claim through court. no injured party.
i am prosecutor (going against ticket prosecutor) vs respondent or wrongdoer who caused me an injury
within 3 day try to settle
day 4 file claim
interfering with my right to travel,
For some reason the cop believes I did injury or harm or operating under my driver license at that time which i was not.
i wish order and demanded prosecutor to desist frivolous claim against me and he refused to
and he is going to pursue in 30 days and i wish to be compensated for my time for answering a claim.
prosecutor: you better prove i interfered with someone's rights. If you want to believe I was operating
under a license under that point in time you are mistaken. Well you gave driver's license. It is true I gave your cop the license he has a gun. I was under coercion.
Is someone called the state of california going to come forward and make a claim I was operating their vehicle because of a title?
Is someone going to come forward named called the state of california that he owns a portion of the car and he can tell me what to do?
Is man called the state of california going to come forward a makes a claim that because of legal title and he is going register and inspect the car? Is a man going to come forward yes or no?
Do you really want to take legal advice from this man?
Jump to: