You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Who would win the Steemit Standoff in a Court of Law?
The Eth hack was a criminal act and consensus was made to freeze the stolen assets. There is a big difference here. Just because there is consensus on something does not mean it is legal.
There wasn't any crime, no funds or assets were stolen. Btw, the witnesses are no party to the "contract" you seem to think exists and the witnesses have absolutely zero contractual obligations, heck, the very reason that all of this technology exists is because contractual obligations are as obsolete and meaningless as you seem to think "promises" made by Stinc would be in a court of law. Finally, the maxim of law for you that blows the lid off the crook pot of nonsense you, steemit, and all other such insufferable moronic nonthoughts keep cooking:
I don't think a contract exists. That's the whole point of the piece. In a court of law. Justin would win. And the 50million Eth was stolen. It was exploitation of the chain but in essence it was theft. Save the name calling . It only brings your argument down to a degenerate level. 😉
What are you talking about:
Win what judgement exactly for exactly what crime? You seem to think that there's ANY obligations that the witnesses have to do anything but NOBODY, you twat, agreed to anything. In Writing OR otherwise. At the same time, you seem to think that SunFag is entitled to anything, even to suggest that "he has a contract", so which is it, do such explicit contracts mean ANYTHING and can the witnesses EVER be held accountable for any contract that they are not a party to? Ultimately, no crime. No contract. No JURISDICTION. Que Judgement.