Dragon Family lawsuit against the United Nations

[KDLarsen]

Jurisdiction in the case should be amusing though. We have an American living in Bulgaria, "doing business" with a Japanese gentleman representing a Taiwanese "family", supposedly holding US bonds issued to China, which are now held hostage by a Vatican banker with the aid of a company/website registred in Cambodia. And for some reason he's decided to sue a supra-national organisation and a South Korean national.

Edit: All the talk of Dal Bosco being a Vatican banker and a member of P2 is nonsense, given that P2 was ousted and shut down 30 years ago, and Del Bosco doesn't appear on the list of members (http://www.archivio900.it/it/documenti/doc.aspx?id=42). As has been stated time and again, this is a 419-type scam where they managed to find gullible target.

 

[Anders Lindman]

The US is not a corporation of course so this idea is nothing. Also, the lawsuit has only been filed. No action appears to have been taken. There's nothing to indicate the lawsuit was "accepted".

The lawsuit was accepted to be filed. If I sue Mickey Mouse then that lawsuit would not be accepted to be filed.

 

[Anders Lindman]

But you don't know that.

Not yet. I will have to wait and see what the experts say, unless the lawsuit is dismissed before that.

 

[Anders Lindman]

All the talk of Dal Bosco being a Vatican banker and a member of P2 is nonsense, given that P2 was ousted and shut down 30 years ago, and Del Bosco doesn't appear on the list of members (http://www.archivio900.it/it/documenti/doc.aspx?id=42). As has been stated time and again, this is a 419-type scam where they managed to find gullible target.

Even if Bosco turns out to be a fictional character the bonds could still be real!

 

[Mojo]

The lawsuit was accepted to be filed.

All that means is that someone has correctly submitted the paperwork. It doesn't mean that any of the fact alleged in it have been accepted.

 

[Anders Lindman]

"Bulgarian Link in USD 1 T Lawsuit against 'Global Financial Tyranny'

Bulgarian nationals have been involved in what has been touted as the unraveling of a shocking global scheme for stealing USD 1 trillion, a federal complaint filed in November last year shows.

The plaintiff Neil Keenan, who claims to shed light on the depth and breadth of control of the global economy by an elite and powerful group of people, mentions the names of a few Bulgarians and dedicates to them about ten pages in his complaint." -- Full story: http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=135379

 

[Mojo]

"Bulgarian Link in USD 1 T Lawsuit against 'Global Financial Tyranny'

Bulgarian nationals have been involved in what has been touted as the unraveling of a shocking global scheme for stealing USD 1 trillion, a federal complaint filed in November last year shows.

The plaintiff Neil Keenan, who claims to shed light on the depth and breadth of control of the global economy by an elite and powerful group of people, mentions the names of a few Bulgarians and dedicates to them about ten pages in his complaint." -- Full story: http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=135379

That is just another report of the same lawsuit being filed.

 

[Border Reiver]

One has to wonder which "Dragon Family" is the true owner of the bonds?

The Hong Kong Film?

The Bassarabian dynasty?

The muscians?

The crime family?

The semi-conductors?

 

[Craig4]

The lawsuit was accepted to be filed. If I sue Mickey Mouse then that lawsuit would not be accepted to be filed.

This statement is incorrect. The filing does not indicate anything other than the plaintiff file. You can draw no conclusions based on the fact the law suit was filed.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

In Other Words "I don't know"

get back to me on that when you find out, is it criminal or do the have civil law where you live?

 

[JayUtah]

The lawsuit was accepted to be filed. If I sue Mickey Mouse then that lawsuit would not be accepted to be filed.

No. "Accepted to be filed" is not any sort of status. I think you misunderstand the meaning of acceptance.

The clerk of the court is normally required to accept any submission of a lawsuit no matter how patently frivolous. Why? Because the clerk does not have adjudicatory powers, only administrative authority. If the complaint contains the required paperwork, it is received "to be filed." That is, it is given a case number and assigned to a judge. Even if it purports to sue Mickey Mouse.

Whether the case proceeds to a preliminary hearing depends on whether the judge determines it to be frivolous. He may or may not decide to talk to someone before making his decision. If the suit names only "Mickey Mouse," the clerk will reject the paperwork because it fails to clearly and properly identify the defendant. Is it Mickey Mouse, the famous cartoon character? Or is it Mickey Mouse, a local dry cleaner named in a trademark infringement suit? Or is it Mickey Mouse, son of Doris and Henry Mouse of Hoboken, New Jersey, who happened to have parents with a sense of humor? That is the sort of decision a clerk can make. He is not qualified or authorized to comment in the least upon the merit of the claim.

Once it has been ascertained that the defendant in the suit is Mickey Mouse, the famous cartoon character, the judge would need no further evidence in order to dismss the suit as frivolous before scheduling it for a preliminary hearing. There may arise other reasons to dismiss it before any of the merits of the claims are examined.

The key is that the decision to dismiss a suit as frivolous belongs to the judge, not to the hired help. There is no valid conclusion you can draw regarding the merits of a suit from the mere fact that the paperwork has been received and assigned a judge and case number.

 

[ngc6205]

The lawsuit was accepted to be filed. If I sue Mickey Mouse then that lawsuit would not be accepted to be filed.

Wrong. The federal and local courts accept filings all the time that are obviously frivolous. For example, a guy in Colorado once sued Jesus and listed his motor scooter as a co-plaintiff.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Except it is the burden of the plaintiff to make the case with their evidence. It is NOT the job of the court to investigate, it is the court's role to judge the evidence as presented.

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.

No but that is another issue, so are you talking about the law suit or the lack of evidence for this CT?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Wrong. The federal and local courts accept filings all the time that are obviously frivolous. For example, a guy in Colorado once sued Jesus and listed his motor scooter as a co-plaintiff.

But are those lawsuits listed on pacer.gov?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Except it is the burden of the plaintiff to make the case with their evidence. It is NOT the job of the court to investigate, it is the court's role to judge the evidence as presented.

Of course, but it's the legal system that is the framework within which the truth is attempted to be ascertained. The truth itself is not dependent on the legal framework. The truth is unshakeable.

 

[JayUtah]

Of course, but it's the legal system that is the framework within which the truth is attempted to be ascertained. The truth itself is not dependent on the legal framework. The truth is unshakeable.

So then why are you obsessing over a lawsuit? Are you interested in the truth, or in the likely outcome of the suit? Those two are not synonymous concepts.

 

[Anders Lindman]

So then why are you obsessing over a lawsuit? Are you interested in the truth, or in the likely outcome of the suit? Those two are not synonymous concepts.

Wrong. Interested in the truth is not the same as being interested in finding out the truth. Can you see the difference?

 

[Craig4]

Wrong. Interested in the truth is not the same as being interested in finding out the truth. Can you see the difference?

What I see is that this is your excuse to believe things either not in evidence or that have been falsified already.

 

[Anders Lindman]

What I see is that this is your excuse to believe things either not in evidence or that have been falsified already.

You are mixing truth and belief. Can you see the difference between truth and belief? Not to mention: On disinfo and disbelief, ...

 

[JayUtah]

Wrong. Interested in the truth is not the same as being interested in finding out the truth. Can you see the difference?

On what basis do you claim a lawsuit is about finding out the truth? A lawsuit is about placing blame.