Dragon Family lawsuit against the United Nations

[Craig4]

That's not what I wrote. You need to work on your reading comprehension. This is what I wrote:

"I would guess that if someone claims to have payed the rent or something like that, when not having done that is a crime. That would be like taking something from a shop without paying and then claim that the product has been paid."

Note the claim part. Not if someone can't pay the rent. When someone claims to have paid the rent when in fact not having done so.

No I got it, your legal idea is just incorrect. You should be familiar with being incorrect. It's sort of your natural state of being.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Sounds stupid. Why not just have all lawsuits only for criminal matters? Either a crime has been committed or not. Simple! A judge needed for a divorce? LMAO.

Erm... Because lawsuits are nothing to do with criminal cases. Ever. Those are prosecutions. A lawsuit is when one party sues another.

I hate to ask this, but do you even know what a lawsuit is?

Why do you ever assume they are involved in a criminal prosecution?

Edited by LashL: 

Removed breaches of Rule 0.

Now, if you take me to court and complain how unfair it is for me to slander you in such a way, will you be pressing criminal charges through a law enforcement aganecy, or applying for a civil lawsuit?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Erm... Because lawsuits are nothing to do with criminal cases. Ever. Those are prosecutions. A lawsuit is when one party sues another.

So does that mean that the defendants in the Dragon Family lawsuit are not accused of crimes? Then, yes, I have misunderstood it. I thought the defendants were accused of having committed crimes.

 

[ngc6205]

The civil law defines what actions by one constitutes a wrong against the party injured by the violation. In contrast, criminal law establishes acts or absence of acts which is a violation against the whole community.

In a civil action, an injured party (or a party who believes he/she were injured) sues to recover compensation for the damage and injury sustained. BTW, when I mention "injured", that doesn't necessarily mean physical injury. For example, a person hires a tree cutter to cut down a tree on his property. The tree cutter miscalculates or makes some other mistake and a part of the tree falls onto the person's house. The tree cutter and his insurance both decide not to pay for the damage for whatever reason. The home owner sues both the insurance company and the tree cutter for the damage. This is a CIVIL suit. In a civil suit, the plaintiff has to prove his case with a preponderance of the evidence.

A crime is any act forbidden by public law in the interest of protecting the public and made punishable by the government in a judicial proceeding prosecuted by the government. For example, a person decides to rob a convenience store. That act is prohibited by laws against robbery. The government prosecutes the robber in a CRIMINAL proceeding. In this instance, the government must prove criminal guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You may think that the robbery only affected the convenience store owner, but the law against robbery is meant to protect the community.

 

[ngc6205]

So does that mean that the defendants in the Dragon Family lawsuit are not accused of crimes? Then, yes, I have misunderstood it. I thought the defendants were accused of having committed crimes.

The plaintiff may accuse the defendants of committing a crime, but it is still a CIVIL suit. Only if or when the government decides to PROSECUTE will a criminal proceeding occur.

 

[Craig4]

So does that mean that the defendants in the Dragon Family lawsuit are not accused of crimes? Then, yes, I have misunderstood it. I thought the defendants were accused of having committed crimes.

The plaintiff needs to establish the Dragon Family exists. In all likelihood this is a variation on a 419 scam and the plaintiff, (hence forth referred to as idiot boy) got taken in by some hustlers.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So does that mean that the defendants in the Dragon Family lawsuit are not accused of crimes? Then, yes, I have misunderstood it. I thought the defendants were accused of having committed crimes.

Even if they had, it wouldn't matter. The matter is being brought s a lawsuit, a civil action, not a criminal prosecution.

Seriously, why would you continue down this road before checking how the system works in absolute basic terms? Why make yourself look such a fool for continuing with out understanding the most basic principles when your ignorance has been pointed out?

 

[Craig4]

What is your desired end state here? It can't be to convince a forum of skeptics of your beliefs. Your work is nowhere near good enough for that. Do you have some perverse reason for wanting people to think less of you? You must know that you're not taken seriously. Is this one of those, no attention is bad attention things?

What are you trying to accomplish?

 

[Anders Lindman]

The plaintiff may accuse the defendants of committing a crime, but it is still a CIVIL suit. Only if or when the government decides to PROSECUTE will a criminal proceeding occur.

Ok, yeah, I can understand that some cases involve several things. And the Dragon Family lawsuit is about several accusations, some of them about criminal activities it seems.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Ok, yeah, I can understand that some cases involve several things. And the Dragon Family lawsuit is about several accusations, some of them about criminal activities it seems.

What does that have to do with you quioted?

Even if ALL the accussations were criminal, a lawsuit, a CIVIL ACTION has been brought to court. Not a PROSECUTION.

Please explain the difference so we can be sure you do infact understand as you claim.

 

[Anders Lindman]

What is your desired end state here? It can't be to convince a forum of skeptics of your beliefs. Your work is nowhere near good enough for that. Do you have some perverse reason for wanting people to think less of you? You must know that you're not taken seriously. Is this one of those, no attention is bad attention things?

What are you trying to accomplish?

I find it puzzling how you find the importance of my role of significance. I suggest you focus on the lawsuit in this case instead of on me, lol.

 

[Anders Lindman]

What does that have to do with you quioted?

Even if ALL the accussations were criminal, a lawsuit, a CIVIL ACTION has been brought to court. Not a PROSECUTION.

Please explain the difference so we can be sure you do infact understand as you claim.

The lawsuit may only be a first step that reveals other things, such as criminal activities, who in turn will lead to other legal cases. The Vatican and its subsidiary the UN are going to come crashing down!!!

 

[Tomtomkent]

The lawsuit may only be a first step that reveals other things, such as criminal activities, who in turn will lead to other legal cases. The Vatican and its subsidiary the UN are going to come crashing down!!!

You appear not to have understood what I said, and spouted some random gibberish unrelated scrapings from the butchers chod-bin into the conversation instead.

How about you just explain the difference between a prosecution and a civil suit so we can know you are in fact capable of the discussion you seem to want to have?

 

[Tomtomkent]

I find it puzzling how you find the importance of my role of significance. I suggest you focus on the lawsuit in this case instead of on me, lol.

Yes, why would anybody worry about the person they are conversing with?

The lawsuit is summed us thus: Little or no sign of supporting evidence.

As you are still here posting, it can be assumed you have an interest and wish to discuss it. However your understanding of the legal process is flawed. Perhaps, if you continue to bang the rocks together, you might work out how your understanding of the system might be of importance to a conversation about the legal process?

 

[ngc6205]

The lawsuit may only be a first step that reveals other things, such as criminal activities, who in turn will lead to other legal cases. The Vatican and its subsidiary the UN are going to come crashing down!!!

A lawsuit MAY include accusations of criminal activity. That doesn't mean any criminal activities actually occurred. IF criminal activity occurred, then that MAY lead to criminal prosecution. However, a criminal proceeding will NOT occur until the government decides to prosecute.

BTW, the law suit is complete nonsense. I predict that it will be dismissed shortly for either jurisdictional reasons or failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Yes, why would anybody worry about the person they are conversing with?

The lawsuit is summed us thus: Little or no sign of supporting evidence.

As you are still here posting, it can be assumed you have an interest and wish to discuss it. However your understanding of the legal process is flawed. Perhaps, if you continue to bang the rocks together, you might work out how your understanding of the system might be of importance to a conversation about the legal process?

The technical legal details I let others deal with. I trust that the messy legal system works as it should. The actual case on the other hand, is interesting to me. I'm curious about if there is any truth to the accusations in the lawsuit.

And it's not actually the Vatican or something like that I'm worried about, or want to blame or whatever. What I like to see is a change of our history books! He he. Without causing harm to anybody.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The technical legal details I let others deal with. I trust that the messy legal system works as it should. The actual case on the other hand, is interesting to me.

Ok, so you want to talk about the case but not:
1) The evidence that the case should consist of, it's not your job.
Or
2) The process of the case as you clearly have no idea how that works.

So you want to talk about the case, with out talking about the case?

Why did you start this thread? Was it so you could make lots of baseless assertions then have people "Right on!"? Because that is not a discussion.

If you wanted to talk about changing history books, go and start a thread on that subject. But be warned, history books actually like to include history. You know, facts, evidence, that sort of thing. So you wont like discussing that (it's not your job).

 

[Anders Lindman]

Ok, so you want to talk about the case but not:
1) The evidence that the case should consist of, it's not your job.
Or
2) The process of the case as you clearly have no idea how that works.

So you want to talk about the case, with out talking about the case?

Why did you start this thread? Was it so you could make lots of baseless assertions then have people "Right on!"? Because that is not a discussion.

If you wanted to talk about changing history books, go and start a thread on that subject. But be warned, history books actually like to include history. You know, facts, evidence, that sort of thing. So you wont like discussing that (it's not your job).

Look, the basic fact is very simple. Either one or more claims in the lawsuit are true or they are false. It's that simple!

And if the legal system isn't capable of finding out the truth of the matter it only shows that it isn't capable enough. I'm more interested in the truth than what the legal system THINKS is the truth, or HOW it struggles with trying to find the truth. As I have said before: Evidence doesn't change the truth.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Look, the basic fact is very simple. Either one or more claims in the lawsuit are true or they are false. It's that simple!

BZZZZZ The only way to ascertain this or opinions on this is discussing evidence that supports the claim or the lack there of. How else could we possibly decide if it is true or not with out the evidence?

And if the legal system isn't capable of finding out the truth of the matter it only shows that it isn't capable enough..

BZZZZ!
Discussion of the process and system in which you have no interest and do not wish to discuss!

 

[Mojo]

As I have said before: Evidence doesn't change the truth.

No, but it's kind of important when it comes to figuring out what the truth is.