Dragon Family lawsuit against the United Nations - Page 38

SpitfireIX · 14th February 2012, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

In the case of Keenan, I doubt that he is trying to cheat the defendants of money in a mischievous way. He must have known beforehand that the lawsuit would be discussed a lot among alternative websites (the mainstream websites only if/when the lawsuit becomes a real court case). And he would hardly dare risking be labeled as a con man on the Internet. Not only would he lose credibility among the alternative websites; he would also risk having mainstream media publishing articles about him as a con man. Not good.

Anders Lindman · 14th February 2012, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

I don't get it. You mean that if Keenan can extort money from the defendants it will be so much money that he would have his entire future secured? I don't think so. Even with a billion dollars, he doesn't know the future. Hyperinflation or other things can render his fortune worthless in no time. And even if he would get enough money to last for a lifetime, he would still have to deal with having the social image of a shameful dog. That sounds incredibly stupid to me.

SpitfireIX · 14th February 2012, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

I don't get it. You mean that if Keenan can extort money from the defendants it will be so much money that he would have his entire future secured? I don't think so. Even with a billion dollars, he doesn't know the future. Hyperinflation or other things can render his fortune worthless in no time. And even if he would get enough money to last for a lifetime, he would still have to deal with having the social image of a shameful dog. That sounds incredibly stupid to me.

That's not what I mean at all. First, if the UN settles, he can claim to have won. Second, in such cases the parties generally agree not to disclose the amount or other terms of the settlement, so no one will know how much or how little he got. So how's he going to be labeled a con man?

ETA: Third, even con artists with reputations for being con artists still manage to find victims.

Anders Lindman · 14th February 2012, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

That's not what I mean at all. First, if the UN settles, he can claim to have won. Second, in such cases the parties generally agree not to disclose the amount or other terms of the settlement, so no one will know how much or how little he got. So how's he going to be labeled a con man?

ETA: Third, even con artists with reputations for being con artists still manage to find victims.

But if the UN settles, then it means that Keenan must have accepted the settlement, or? And if so, then it means that Keenan most likely was pulling off a fraud, and he will become socially like a shameful dog. So what kind of pitiful 'victory' is that? Only an insane person would call that a victory.

Secondly, if the lawsuit is settled, then the amount of money Keenan gets from it is irrelevant. He will still remain a shameful dog regardless of the amount. A big loser in the eyes of the world.

JayUtah · 14th February 2012, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

He must have known beforehand that the lawsuit would be discussed a lot among alternative websites...

No, Anders. You aren't that relevant.

Quote:

And he would hardly dare risking be labeled as a con man on the Internet.

I get called all kinds of nasty things on the Internet, and it doesn't seem to bother me. Don't worry, he'll still be able to find plenty of gullible people to con. Right, Anders?

JayUtah · 14th February 2012, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

I don't get it. You mean that if Keenan can extort money from the defendants it will be so much money that he would have his entire future secured?

No. He means that people who do this sort of thing -- and it's done all the time -- don't get "con man" reputations as a result of it. You're trying to set up some sort of shameful consequence that you imagine would happen if Keenan really did file a frivolous lawsuit, and then say that those consequences are too dire for him to attempt it.

In other words, you're still trying to find some farfetched way in which Keenan is sincere. Amen to your "open-mindedness." You're defending him at all costs, and trying very hard not to seem like you are.

Quote:

Even with a billion dollars....

Billions? He'd be lucky to get $100,000.

Quote:

...he would still have to deal with having the social image of a shameful dog. That sounds incredibly stupid to me.

Sounds like a typical conspiracy author to me. You don't seem to care what anyone thinks of you.

Anders Lindman · 14th February 2012, 03:14 PM

Not even a psychopath or a sociopath would risk his or her social status by trying to scam the United Nations and others out of a lot of money. UNLESS, they are protected by a system that in itself is functioning on similar sociopathic principles.

I have heard that many leaders of corporations are psychopaths. And many of the old power structures in society are perhaps still working on such principles.

But even then, such stunt would be incredible stupid since the Facebook crowdsourcing crowd spearheaded by David Wilcock in a blazing online crusade for justice will eat him for breakfast!

Complexity · 14th February 2012, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Not even a psychopath or a sociopath would risk his or her social status by trying to scam the United Nations and others out of a lot of money. UNLESS, they are protected by a system that in itself is functioning on similar sociopathic principles.

I have heard that many leaders of corporations are psychopaths. And many of the old power structures in society are perhaps still working on such principles.

But even then, such stunt would be incredible stupid since the Facebook crowdsourcing crowd spearheaded by David Wilcock in a blazing online crusade for justice will eat him for breakfast!

And yet you do this with every post for nothing.

Anders Lindman · 14th February 2012, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

No. He means that people who do this sort of thing -- and it's done all the time -- don't get "con man" reputations as a result of it.

Well, then they don't have David Wilcock and his army of online ethical lightworkers to mess with. Make no mistake about it: Keenan WILL get a con man reputation, if he really is guilty of that, faster than a rabbit gets, well gets spotted. So your logic falls flat here.

Anders Lindman · 14th February 2012, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by Complexity

And yet you do this with every post for nothing.

I have done some embarrassing mistakes, yes, but if I were to try to pull off a fraud like that I would REALLY be ashamed. Plus it would REALLY be a stupid thing to do.

JayUtah · 14th February 2012, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Not even a psychopath or a sociopath would risk his or her social status by trying to scam the United Nations and others out of a lot of money.

What part of "This happens all the time in the United States" was unclear, Anders? Your supposition is highly comical up against the cold hard facts that we Americans have to live with.

Quote:

UNLESS, they are protected by a system that in itself is functioning on similar sociopathic principles.

The U.S. tort system is considerably dysfunctional and in need of reform. But when you try to call it "sociopathic" it sounds so melodramatic.

Quote:

I have heard that many leaders of corporations are psychopaths.

Start a new thread for that one.

Quote:

And many of the old power structures in society are perhaps still working on such principles.

Start a new thread for that one.

Quote:

But even then, such stunt would be incredible stupid...

What part of "This happens all the time" was unclear?

JayUtah · 14th February 2012, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

I have done some embarrassing mistakes, yes...

And are entirely unashamed of them. Hence your moral compass is not true.

Quote:

...but if I were to try to pull off a fraud like that I would REALLY be ashamed.

You've given no one any reason to trust your moral compass.

Quote:

Plus it would REALLY be a stupid thing to do.

What part of "This is done all the time in the U.S." was unclear?

Anders Lindman · 14th February 2012, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

What part of "This happens all the time in the United States" was unclear, Anders? Your supposition is highly comical up against the cold hard facts that we Americans have to live with.

What part of sociopathy is unclear to you? Even sociopaths understand the principle of consequences.

Border Reiver · 14th February 2012, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

What part of sociopathy is unclear to you? Even sociopaths understand the principle of consequences.

Yes they do.

Lawsuits are expensive and at an early stage many corporations or governments do a cost benefit analysis.

If you get out of a lawsuit involving potentially high costs for document production and other associated costs can be settled early for a nominal amount then from a fiscal pov it makes sense to do so. Especially if it is unlikely to recover costs or to set a precedent

JayUtah · 14th February 2012, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

What part of sociopathy is unclear to you? Even sociopaths understand the principle of consequences.

You didn't address my point. Trying to make that behavior seem improbable by alarmistically labeling it "sociopathy" doesn't fix the problem that you're trying to suppose away something that is a fact of life for hundreds of millions of people. Try to grope your way toward reality every so often, please.

SpitfireIX · 14th February 2012, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

But if the UN settles, then it means that Keenan must have accepted the settlement, or? And if so, then it means that Keenan most likely was pulling off a fraud, and he will become socially like a shameful dog. So what kind of pitiful 'victory' is that? Only an insane person would call that a victory.

Secondly, if the lawsuit is settled, then the amount of money Keenan gets from it is irrelevant. He will still remain a shameful dog regardless of the amount. A big loser in the eyes of the world.

No. As I said the terms of a settlement are seldom disclosed; this is generally written into the settlement agreement. Who's to say that the UN didn't settle because their lawyers advised them that they were going to lose, and paid far more that the so-called "go-away" money that such meritless lawsuits usually garner?

tsig · 14th February 2012, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

I don't get it. You mean that if Keenan can extort money from the defendants it will be so much money that he would have his entire future secured? I don't think so. Even with a billion dollars, he doesn't know the future. Hyperinflation or other things can render his fortune worthless in no time. And even if he would get enough money to last for a lifetime, he would still have to deal with having the social image of a shameful dog. That sounds incredibly stupid to me.

That doesn't bother some people.

Matthew Ellard · 14th February 2012, 05:54 PM

The New York Summons notification for this action appears to be fraudulent and not enforceable.

It includes as defendants the OITC as a "UN empowered bankers", whereas the directors Dam and Saroeun were arrested on Saturday 18 December, 2010in Cambodia running a small time scam. They have been charged with forgery BEFORE the summons was issued. (What an interesting timing error!)

The "Dragon Family" (Yamaguchi), according to the summons somehow had possession of KMT gold and silver and sold it to America. This is just silly. In 1948 the KMT backed its currency with gold and continued to do so when it moved to Taiwan. The Kuomintang took the entire gold reserve of China to Taiwan in 1949. It was in fact 1,998,000 Metric tons.

This whole scam "feels" like a clumsy Nigerian scam. Enough paperwork is flowing around the internet for a con artist, wearing a suit, to say to naive individuals "If you give me $10,000 to pay for and complete the court case you will share in the billion dollar windfall" . The KMT did make private ownership of gold illegal in the 1940s and my theory is that this is the con's main "push" from real history.

Here is the copy of the summons I found. If you rad it you can start seeing the errors and "odd" legal style.
http://www.slideshare.net/ernestraut...family-lawsuit

Anders Lindman · 14th February 2012, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

No. As I said the terms of a settlement are seldom disclosed; this is generally written into the settlement agreement. Who's to say that the UN didn't settle because their lawyers advised them that they were going to lose, and paid far more that the so-called "go-away" money that such meritless lawsuits usually garner?

So you admit that the lawsuit may be valid after all and the claims in it true?

Anders Lindman · 14th February 2012, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

In 1948 the KMT backed its currency with gold and continued to do so when it moved to Taiwan. The Kuomintang took the entire gold reserve of China to Taiwan in 1949. It was in fact 1,998,000 Metric tons.

"A total of 165,000 tonnes of gold have been mined in human history, as of 2009." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold

According to Wikipedia the amount of gold you mentioned doesn't exist.

Anders Lindman · 14th February 2012, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

That doesn't bother some people.

Maybe. I have heard that some psychopaths WANT to get caught having done a crime or something unethical. For some reason, lol.

yodaluver28 · 15th February 2012, 02:29 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

So you admit that the lawsuit may be valid after all and the claims in it true?

No, he's saying that if they settle, the terms will be undisclosed leaving Keenan enough wiggle room to continue pretending that his scam wasn't a scam.

SpitfireIX · 15th February 2012, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

So you admit that the lawsuit may be valid after all and the claims in it true?

I admit no such thing, at least not beyond a theoretical extremely remote possibility. Please stop trying to put words in my and other people's mouths. I'm only saying that a casual observer might well believe that, if the UN were to chose to settle out of court.

JayUtah · 15th February 2012, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Maybe. I have heard that some psychopaths WANT to get caught having done a crime or something unethical. For some reason, lol.

Or maybe some people engage in outrageous behavior just to attract any attention, even if most of that attention is negative.

JayUtah · 15th February 2012, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

So you admit that the lawsuit may be valid after all and the claims in it true?

It's very annoying when you try to put words in other people's mouths.

A settlement agreement for a court case almost never discusses the merit of the charges either way, precisely so that no party to the case can claim a moral victory that would otherwise have come from a public debate of the evidence.

This can be beneficial. For example, let say the U.S. Justice Dept. brings criminal charges against Boeing for violations of Fair Labor laws. Let's say the allegations are true. But if a settlement is reached without Boeing having to admit guilt, then Boeing is still punished (i.e., they would agree to pay a fine) but because there was no criminal conviction, Boeing isn't disqualified from bidding on government contracts. Since the government needs Boeing, this arrangement serves both the regulatory purpose and the sole-source purpose.

In this case, if the U.N. settles with Keenan, then no comment will be made regarding the merits of the case. Keenan can happily go on insinuating that the defendant may have settled because he knew he would lose at trial. A settlement is not an admission of guilt or a comment on the merits of the case.

There is often a fair amount of brinksmanship involved. I have been retained as an expert witness for trials and have literally been told moments before the trial was to begin that one of the parties had relented and had agreed to a settlement.

It's far more likely that Keenan and his ambulance-chaser are hoping for a quick settlement for some paultry sum of money that would cost the defendants far less than defending the suit. And since no guilt would be proven or admitted to by either party, the conspiracist insinuations may continue ad nauseam unabated.

Mojo · 15th February 2012, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

Maybe. I have heard that some psychopaths WANT to get caught having done a crime or something unethical. For some reason, lol.

Only someone under the influence of some sort of depersonalising mind control would find psychopaths funny.

Anders Lindman · 15th February 2012, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

Only someone under the influence of some sort of depersonalising mind control would find psychopaths funny.

He he.

Craig4 · 15th February 2012, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

What part of sociopathy is unclear to you? Even sociopaths understand the principle of consequences.

No, they really don't. That's a feature of the Anti Social Personality Disorder (sometimes called sociopathy). People with APD tend to not associate consequences with their actions.

Anders Lindman · 15th February 2012, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by Craig4

No, they really don't. That's a feature of the Anti Social Personality Disorder (sometimes called sociopathy). People with APD tend to not associate consequences with their actions.

A lot of CEOs of big corporations have that disorder. And they do know the consequences for their actions or they would not last long in their business.

SpitfireIX · 15th February 2012, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

A lot of CEOs of big corporations have that disorder. And they do know the consequences for their actions or they would not last long in their business.

What's your evidence for this?

Border Reiver · 15th February 2012, 10:12 AM

Don't ask Anders for "evidence" he only knows "belief".

On the other hand if a conspiratologist (if that's not a real word, it should be)says that it is true, Anders will accept that statement and make it his own.

Craig4 · 15th February 2012, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

A lot of CEOs of big corporations have that disorder. And they do know the consequences for their actions or they would not last long in their business.

Which diagnostic tests have you used to determine this? Feel free to use lots of big words. I'll understand.

JayUtah · 15th February 2012, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by Craig4

Which diagnostic tests have you used to determine this? Feel free to use lots of big words. I'll understand.

And feel free to identify the corporations and individual CEOs by name. We'll be sure to let their shareholders know.

JayUtah · 15th February 2012, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by Border Reiver

...conspiratologist (if that's not a real word, it should be)

In order of diminishing consensus and usage among writers including me, the terms are

conspiracy theorist
conspiracist
conspiratorialist

Anders Lindman · 15th February 2012, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

What's your evidence for this?

This is off topic, but just to answer that question:

"One in 25 business leaders may be a psychopath, study finds

The study, conducted by the New York psychologist Paul Babiak, suggests that they disguise the condition by hiding behind their high status, playing up their charm and by manipulating others." -- Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ace-jobs-study

Cl1mh4224rd · 15th February 2012, 11:12 AM

Also, this: Bad bosses: The Psycho-path to Success?

Quote:

"They are cunning and manipulative, and great at engineering situations. Although they don't have emotions themselves, they can create emotional situations," Boddy said. "The rest of us don't even realize we're being manipulated until it's too late."

[...]

Psychopaths "believe the rules don't apply to them," Babiak said.

Sounds a lot like a certain prominent troll around these parts, though, doesn't it?

LSSBB · 15th February 2012, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

In order of diminishing consensus and usage among writers including me, the terms are

conspiracy theorist
conspiracist
conspiratorialist

Conspiritationist?

ETA: Conspirathead!

SpitfireIX · 15th February 2012, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by JayUtah

In order of diminishing consensus and usage among writers including me, the terms are

conspiracy theorist
conspiracist
conspiratorialist

I like "conspiracist," but as you note it's not as popular as "conspiracy theorist," so I tend not to use it as much. I prefer "conspiracist" as an adjective, though.

Tomtomkent · 15th February 2012, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

This is off topic, but just to answer that question:

"One in 25 business leaders may be a psychopath, study finds

The study, conducted by the New York psychologist Paul Babiak, suggests that they disguise the condition by hiding behind their high status, playing up their charm and by manipulating others." -- Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ace-jobs-study

So by the blanket statement of "They are", you mean "A small minority could be".

And refering to a direct statement you made was off topic?

Craig4 · 15th February 2012, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman

This is off topic, but just to answer that question:

"One in 25 business leaders may be a psychopath, study finds

The study, conducted by the New York psychologist Paul Babiak, suggests that they disguise the condition by hiding behind their high status, playing up their charm and by manipulating others." -- Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ace-jobs-study

It's hard not to notice that when you're asked for evidence for your unimportant little ideas you claim it's off topic. Why is that? Wait. Don't bother to answer. I believe I've already correctly divined the reason.

14th February 2012, 01:48 PM	#1481
SpitfireIX Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 2,829	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman In the case of Keenan, I doubt that he is trying to cheat the defendants of money in a mischievous way. He must have known beforehand that the lawsuit would be discussed a lot among alternative websites (the mainstream websites only if/when the lawsuit becomes a real court case). And he would hardly dare risking be labeled as a con man on the Internet. Not only would he lose credibility among the alternative websites; he would also risk having mainstream media publishing articles about him as a con man. Not good.
	__________________ Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims: 1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage 2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli 3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya

14th February 2012, 02:37 PM	#1483
SpitfireIX Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 2,829	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman I don't get it. You mean that if Keenan can extort money from the defendants it will be so much money that he would have his entire future secured? I don't think so. Even with a billion dollars, he doesn't know the future. Hyperinflation or other things can render his fortune worthless in no time. And even if he would get enough money to last for a lifetime, he would still have to deal with having the social image of a shameful dog. That sounds incredibly stupid to me. That's not what I mean at all. First, if the UN settles, he can claim to have won. Second, in such cases the parties generally agree not to disclose the amount or other terms of the settlement, so no one will know how much or how little he got. So how's he going to be labeled a con man? ETA: Third, even con artists with reputations for being con artists still manage to find victims.
	__________________ Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims: 1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage 2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli 3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya Last edited by SpitfireIX; 14th February 2012 at 02:38 PM.

14th February 2012, 03:08 PM	#1485
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,151	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman He must have known beforehand that the lawsuit would be discussed a lot among alternative websites... No, Anders. You aren't that relevant. Quote: And he would hardly dare risking be labeled as a con man on the Internet. I get called all kinds of nasty things on the Internet, and it doesn't seem to bother me. Don't worry, he'll still be able to find plenty of gullible people to con. Right, Anders?
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,151

14th February 2012, 03:13 PM	#1486
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,151	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman I don't get it. You mean that if Keenan can extort money from the defendants it will be so much money that he would have his entire future secured? No. He means that people who do this sort of thing -- and it's done all the time -- don't get "con man" reputations as a result of it. You're trying to set up some sort of shameful consequence that you imagine would happen if Keenan really did file a frivolous lawsuit, and then say that those consequences are too dire for him to attempt it. In other words, you're still trying to find some farfetched way in which Keenan is sincere. Amen to your "open-mindedness." You're defending him at all costs, and trying very hard not to seem like you are. Quote: Even with a billion dollars.... Billions? He'd be lucky to get $100,000. Quote: ...he would still have to deal with having the social image of a shameful dog. That sounds incredibly stupid to me. Sounds like a typical conspiracy author to me. You don't seem to care what anyone thinks of you.
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,151

14th February 2012, 03:18 PM	#1488
Complexity The Woo Whisperer Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Minnesota, USA Posts: 9,263	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman Not even a psychopath or a sociopath would risk his or her social status by trying to scam the United Nations and others out of a lot of money. UNLESS, they are protected by a system that in itself is functioning on similar sociopathic principles. I have heard that many leaders of corporations are psychopaths. And many of the old power structures in society are perhaps still working on such principles. But even then, such stunt would be incredible stupid since the Facebook crowdsourcing crowd spearheaded by David Wilcock in a blazing online crusade for justice will eat him for breakfast! And yet you do this with every post for nothing.
	__________________ "It is a great nuisance that knowledge can only be acquired by hard work." - W. Somerset Maugham "Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible; thought is merciless to privilege, established intuititions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man." - Bertrand Russell

14th February 2012, 02:10 PM	#1482
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,289	Originally Posted by SpitfireIX I don't get it. You mean that if Keenan can extort money from the defendants it will be so much money that he would have his entire future secured? I don't think so. Even with a billion dollars, he doesn't know the future. Hyperinflation or other things can render his fortune worthless in no time. And even if he would get enough money to last for a lifetime, he would still have to deal with having the social image of a shameful dog. That sounds incredibly stupid to me.

14th February 2012, 02:43 PM	#1484
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,289	Originally Posted by SpitfireIX That's not what I mean at all. First, if the UN settles, he can claim to have won. Second, in such cases the parties generally agree not to disclose the amount or other terms of the settlement, so no one will know how much or how little he got. So how's he going to be labeled a con man? ETA: Third, even con artists with reputations for being con artists still manage to find victims. But if the UN settles, then it means that Keenan must have accepted the settlement, or? And if so, then it means that Keenan most likely was pulling off a fraud, and he will become socially like a shameful dog. So what kind of pitiful 'victory' is that? Only an insane person would call that a victory. Secondly, if the lawsuit is settled, then the amount of money Keenan gets from it is irrelevant. He will still remain a shameful dog regardless of the amount. A big loser in the eyes of the world.

14th February 2012, 03:14 PM	#1487
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,289	Not even a psychopath or a sociopath would risk his or her social status by trying to scam the United Nations and others out of a lot of money. UNLESS, they are protected by a system that in itself is functioning on similar sociopathic principles. I have heard that many leaders of corporations are psychopaths. And many of the old power structures in society are perhaps still working on such principles. But even then, such stunt would be incredible stupid since the Facebook crowdsourcing crowd spearheaded by David Wilcock in a blazing online crusade for justice will eat him for breakfast!

14th February 2012, 03:21 PM	#1489
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,289	Originally Posted by JayUtah No. He means that people who do this sort of thing -- and it's done all the time -- don't get "con man" reputations as a result of it. Well, then they don't have David Wilcock and his army of online ethical lightworkers to mess with. Make no mistake about it: Keenan WILL get a con man reputation, if he really is guilty of that, faster than a rabbit gets, well gets spotted. So your logic falls flat here.

14th February 2012, 03:24 PM	#1490
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,289	Originally Posted by Complexity And yet you do this with every post for nothing. I have done some embarrassing mistakes, yes, but if I were to try to pull off a fraud like that I would REALLY be ashamed. Plus it would REALLY be a stupid thing to do.

14th February 2012, 03:37 PM	#1491
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,151	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman Not even a psychopath or a sociopath would risk his or her social status by trying to scam the United Nations and others out of a lot of money. What part of "This happens all the time in the United States" was unclear, Anders? Your supposition is highly comical up against the cold hard facts that we Americans have to live with. Quote: UNLESS, they are protected by a system that in itself is functioning on similar sociopathic principles. The U.S. tort system is considerably dysfunctional and in need of reform. But when you try to call it "sociopathic" it sounds so melodramatic. Quote: I have heard that many leaders of corporations are psychopaths. Start a new thread for that one. Quote: And many of the old power structures in society are perhaps still working on such principles. Start a new thread for that one. Quote: But even then, such stunt would be incredible stupid... What part of "This happens all the time" was unclear?
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,151

14th February 2012, 03:39 PM	#1492
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,151	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman I have done some embarrassing mistakes, yes... And are entirely unashamed of them. Hence your moral compass is not true. Quote: ...but if I were to try to pull off a fraud like that I would REALLY be ashamed. You've given no one any reason to trust your moral compass. Quote: Plus it would REALLY be a stupid thing to do. What part of "This is done all the time in the U.S." was unclear?
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,151

14th February 2012, 03:41 PM	#1493
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,289	Originally Posted by JayUtah What part of "This happens all the time in the United States" was unclear, Anders? Your supposition is highly comical up against the cold hard facts that we Americans have to live with. What part of sociopathy is unclear to you? Even sociopaths understand the principle of consequences.

14th February 2012, 04:29 PM	#1494
Border Reiver Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Ottawa, ON Posts: 2,188	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman What part of sociopathy is unclear to you? Even sociopaths understand the principle of consequences. Yes they do. Lawsuits are expensive and at an early stage many corporations or governments do a cost benefit analysis. If you get out of a lawsuit involving potentially high costs for document production and other associated costs can be settled early for a nominal amount then from a fiscal pov it makes sense to do so. Especially if it is unlikely to recover costs or to set a precedent
	__________________ Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?

14th February 2012, 04:31 PM	#1495
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,151	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman What part of sociopathy is unclear to you? Even sociopaths understand the principle of consequences. You didn't address my point. Trying to make that behavior seem improbable by alarmistically labeling it "sociopathy" doesn't fix the problem that you're trying to suppose away something that is a fact of life for hundreds of millions of people. Try to grope your way toward reality every so often, please.
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,151

14th February 2012, 04:42 PM	#1496
SpitfireIX Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 2,829	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman But if the UN settles, then it means that Keenan must have accepted the settlement, or? And if so, then it means that Keenan most likely was pulling off a fraud, and he will become socially like a shameful dog. So what kind of pitiful 'victory' is that? Only an insane person would call that a victory. Secondly, if the lawsuit is settled, then the amount of money Keenan gets from it is irrelevant. He will still remain a shameful dog regardless of the amount. A big loser in the eyes of the world. No. As I said the terms of a settlement are seldom disclosed; this is generally written into the settlement agreement. Who's to say that the UN didn't settle because their lawyers advised them that they were going to lose, and paid far more that the so-called "go-away" money that such meritless lawsuits usually garner?
	__________________ Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims: 1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage 2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli 3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya

14th February 2012, 04:50 PM	#1497
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,791	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman I don't get it. You mean that if Keenan can extort money from the defendants it will be so much money that he would have his entire future secured? I don't think so. Even with a billion dollars, he doesn't know the future. Hyperinflation or other things can render his fortune worthless in no time. And even if he would get enough money to last for a lifetime, he would still have to deal with having the social image of a shameful dog. That sounds incredibly stupid to me. That doesn't bother some people.

14th February 2012, 05:54 PM	#1498
Matthew Ellard Muse Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 916	The New York Summons notification for this action appears to be fraudulent and not enforceable. It includes as defendants the OITC as a "UN empowered bankers", whereas the directors Dam and Saroeun were arrested on Saturday 18 December, 2010in Cambodia running a small time scam. They have been charged with forgery BEFORE the summons was issued. (What an interesting timing error!) The "Dragon Family" (Yamaguchi), according to the summons somehow had possession of KMT gold and silver and sold it to America. This is just silly. In 1948 the KMT backed its currency with gold and continued to do so when it moved to Taiwan. The Kuomintang took the entire gold reserve of China to Taiwan in 1949. It was in fact 1,998,000 Metric tons. This whole scam "feels" like a clumsy Nigerian scam. Enough paperwork is flowing around the internet for a con artist, wearing a suit, to say to naive individuals "If you give me $10,000 to pay for and complete the court case you will share in the billion dollar windfall" . The KMT did make private ownership of gold illegal in the 1940s and my theory is that this is the con's main "push" from real history. Here is the copy of the summons I found. If you rad it you can start seeing the errors and "odd" legal style. http://www.slideshare.net/ernestraut...family-lawsuit
Matthew Ellard Muse Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 916

14th February 2012, 09:36 PM	#1499
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,289	Originally Posted by SpitfireIX No. As I said the terms of a settlement are seldom disclosed; this is generally written into the settlement agreement. Who's to say that the UN didn't settle because their lawyers advised them that they were going to lose, and paid far more that the so-called "go-away" money that such meritless lawsuits usually garner? So you admit that the lawsuit may be valid after all and the claims in it true?

14th February 2012, 09:44 PM	#1500
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,289	Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard In 1948 the KMT backed its currency with gold and continued to do so when it moved to Taiwan. The Kuomintang took the entire gold reserve of China to Taiwan in 1949. It was in fact 1,998,000 Metric tons. "A total of 165,000 tonnes of gold have been mined in human history, as of 2009." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold According to Wikipedia the amount of gold you mentioned doesn't exist.

14th February 2012, 09:46 PM	#1501
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,289	Originally Posted by tsig That doesn't bother some people. Maybe. I have heard that some psychopaths WANT to get caught having done a crime or something unethical. For some reason, lol.

15th February 2012, 02:29 AM	#1502
yodaluver28 Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 323	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman So you admit that the lawsuit may be valid after all and the claims in it true? No, he's saying that if they settle, the terms will be undisclosed leaving Keenan enough wiggle room to continue pretending that his scam wasn't a scam.
	__________________ Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. We must have the deepest commitment, the most serious mind-Jedi Master Yoda.

15th February 2012, 05:32 AM	#1503
SpitfireIX Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 2,829	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman So you admit that the lawsuit may be valid after all and the claims in it true? I admit no such thing, at least not beyond a theoretical extremely remote possibility. Please stop trying to put words in my and other people's mouths. I'm only saying that a casual observer might well believe that, if the UN were to chose to settle out of court.
	__________________ Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims: 1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage 2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli 3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya

15th February 2012, 06:39 AM	#1504
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,151	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman Maybe. I have heard that some psychopaths WANT to get caught having done a crime or something unethical. For some reason, lol. Or maybe some people engage in outrageous behavior just to attract any attention, even if most of that attention is negative.
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,151

15th February 2012, 06:58 AM	#1505
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,151	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman So you admit that the lawsuit may be valid after all and the claims in it true? It's very annoying when you try to put words in other people's mouths. A settlement agreement for a court case almost never discusses the merit of the charges either way, precisely so that no party to the case can claim a moral victory that would otherwise have come from a public debate of the evidence. This can be beneficial. For example, let say the U.S. Justice Dept. brings criminal charges against Boeing for violations of Fair Labor laws. Let's say the allegations are true. But if a settlement is reached without Boeing having to admit guilt, then Boeing is still punished (i.e., they would agree to pay a fine) but because there was no criminal conviction, Boeing isn't disqualified from bidding on government contracts. Since the government needs Boeing, this arrangement serves both the regulatory purpose and the sole-source purpose. In this case, if the U.N. settles with Keenan, then no comment will be made regarding the merits of the case. Keenan can happily go on insinuating that the defendant may have settled because he knew he would lose at trial. A settlement is not an admission of guilt or a comment on the merits of the case. There is often a fair amount of brinksmanship involved. I have been retained as an expert witness for trials and have literally been told moments before the trial was to begin that one of the parties had relented and had agreed to a settlement. It's far more likely that Keenan and his ambulance-chaser are hoping for a quick settlement for some paultry sum of money that would cost the defendants far less than defending the suit. And since no guilt would be proven or admitted to by either party, the conspiracist insinuations may continue ad nauseam unabated.
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,151

15th February 2012, 07:56 AM	#1506
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,097	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman Maybe. I have heard that some psychopaths WANT to get caught having done a crime or something unethical. For some reason, lol. Only someone under the influence of some sort of depersonalising mind control would find psychopaths funny.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

15th February 2012, 09:51 AM	#1507
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,289	Originally Posted by Mojo Only someone under the influence of some sort of depersonalising mind control would find psychopaths funny. He he.

15th February 2012, 09:54 AM	#1508
Craig4 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 5,363	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman What part of sociopathy is unclear to you? Even sociopaths understand the principle of consequences. No, they really don't. That's a feature of the Anti Social Personality Disorder (sometimes called sociopathy). People with APD tend to not associate consequences with their actions.
Craig4 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 5,363

15th February 2012, 10:03 AM	#1509
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,289	Originally Posted by Craig4 No, they really don't. That's a feature of the Anti Social Personality Disorder (sometimes called sociopathy). People with APD tend to not associate consequences with their actions. A lot of CEOs of big corporations have that disorder. And they do know the consequences for their actions or they would not last long in their business.

15th February 2012, 10:08 AM	#1510
SpitfireIX Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 2,829	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman A lot of CEOs of big corporations have that disorder. And they do know the consequences for their actions or they would not last long in their business. What's your evidence for this?
	__________________ Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims: 1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage 2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli 3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya

15th February 2012, 10:12 AM	#1511
Border Reiver Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Ottawa, ON Posts: 2,188	Don't ask Anders for "evidence" he only knows "belief". On the other hand if a conspiratologist (if that's not a real word, it should be)says that it is true, Anders will accept that statement and make it his own.
	__________________ Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?

15th February 2012, 10:14 AM	#1512
Craig4 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 5,363	Originally Posted by Anders Lindman A lot of CEOs of big corporations have that disorder. And they do know the consequences for their actions or they would not last long in their business. Which diagnostic tests have you used to determine this? Feel free to use lots of big words. I'll understand.
Craig4 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 5,363

15th February 2012, 10:41 AM	#1513
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,151	Originally Posted by Craig4 Which diagnostic tests have you used to determine this? Feel free to use lots of big words. I'll understand. And feel free to identify the corporations and individual CEOs by name. We'll be sure to let their shareholders know.
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,151

15th February 2012, 10:44 AM	#1514
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,151	Originally Posted by Border Reiver ...conspiratologist (if that's not a real word, it should be) In order of diminishing consensus and usage among writers including me, the terms are conspiracy theorist conspiracist conspiratorialist
JayUtah Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,151

15th February 2012, 10:52 AM	#1515
Anders Lindman Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 9,289	Originally Posted by SpitfireIX What's your evidence for this? This is off topic, but just to answer that question: "One in 25 business leaders may be a psychopath, study finds The study, conducted by the New York psychologist Paul Babiak, suggests that they disguise the condition by hiding behind their high status, playing up their charm and by manipulating others." -- Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ace-jobs-study