Questioning the ruling on BigBoiBets

You should google the types of subpoenas

I did it for you though

Screenshot - 6fc8f9b26f226689c0c19d32406a0899 - Gyazo

 

Subpoenas aren't just for getting people to appear before the court.

Read the entire definition you posted
Screenshot - cdcc39b047ebfe69e27de1391ac3b65b - Gyazo

EDIT: Damn it he beat me to it by a few seconds. Ggwp @Apith

 

Which a subpoena can be refused on the basis of the 5th amendment if it requests evidence that may lead to self incrimination. Only a US entity in the form of a corporation or other business or a public defender(such as a police officer) can not refuse to produce documents on the basis of self incrimination.

Case reference:
Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)

Quote:
Credit: Above referenced case in its entirety
"

A witness who cannot avail himself of the Fifth Amendment as to oral testimony, because of a statute granting him immunity from prosecution, cannot set it up as against the production of books and papers, as the same statute would equally grant him immunity in respect to matters proved thereby.

The search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment was not intended to interfere with the power of courts to compel the production upon a trial of documentary evidence through a subpoena duces tecum.

While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute, a corporation is a creature of the State, and there is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers.

There is a clear distinction between an individual and a corporation, and the latter, being a creature of the State, has not the constitutional right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the State; and an officer of a corporation which is charged with criminal violation of a statute cannot plead the criminality of the corporation as a refusal to produce its books.
"

Key phrase; "There is a clear distinction between an individual and a corporation" - A corporation is a state entity while a individual is clearly not - A state entity may not refuse a subpoena for its documents/testimony/written things - An individual can on the basis of the 4th & 5th amendment.

Champ questioned individuals and their company is not bound by US law as it is not registered within the USA(As BBB showed in the report).

Thus there is no legal reason for their company to be forced to comply with filing a police report - The company is not bound to answer any of staffs questions and if staff try to loophole(as they did) and ask the individuals questions - They are protected by the 4th and 5th amendment.

Thus my statement that BBB is not required by Sythe rules or any other legal body to answer staffs questions - Nor is anyone else on this site. Which is why I assume Sythe never formed a rule requiring anyone to do so.

BBB doesn't have to file a police report - They don't have to answer any of staffs questions - They have no obligation in any form to do what staff have told them to do or told them to answer.

BBB retained $7000 that Probemas willing gave up on what is in BBB's own words "a significant amount of evidence to prove to him beyond a shadow of a doubt that his own agents were responsible" However it's my opinion BBB's lack of proper security and Probemas's foolishness in this partnership knowing about their lack of security - both parties are liable which again I will say;

"$7359 was taken - @Probemas retained $1009 than reported BBB so 7359 x 0.5 = $3679.50 of liability would be born by both parties - $3679.50 - $1009= $2670.50 is owed back to Probemas. Upon return of that sum BBB would be unbanned and life goes on. That's how a responsible business partnership would of sorted this out without potentially ruining their business relationship.

Its really unfair to screw BBB or to screw Probemas TBH - You cant justify screwing one when the other is partnered with the company aswell - a 50/50 liability split seems completely reasonable to me with the knowledge provided.

It seems that a 50/50 liability split could of potentially saved their business relationship to - Probemas was willing to cough up 100% of the damages - It seems to me that instead of burning their relationship to the ground they probably could of reached some form of splitting the damages agreement with the requirement BBB adds 2FA login requirements for each agents cashier account."

 

Wait, so you're essentially saying BBB is technically trying to plead the 5th? So it's fine for him not to answer them and help with the report, right?

 

You seem to have gotten lost in the argument... the entire point was that the courts have the ability to subpoena evidence and Sythe staff does not because they have no way to enforce it. This conversation wasn't about whether or not an accused party has the right to refuse to produce evidence, we just took a second to make fun of you for missing half the definition of subpoena.

Now, we're past my (and your) understanding of the law at this point. While I have no fucking clue, I'd be willing to bet that things have changed since 1906 when that case took place. Either way, we're both just pretending at this point and should probably stop spamming this fella's thread

 

BBB has a clever loophole here actually - Their COMPANY is not based in the USA but the individuals may be(I wont confirm or deny this) - The company(BBB) can refuse to produce any documents or evidence because its not registered in the USA and is not bound by the law in that case. The individuals CAN be questioned/asked to produce documentation but can plead the 4th & 5th which is the right to unreasonable search and seizure and the right to not self incriminate yourself.

It's really a clever loophole in terms of trying to apply IRL to Sythe - But Sythe also doesn't have any rules about refusing to answer or produce evidence for staff.

That essentially leaves no grounds for staff to stand on to force them to ask their questions - Both in real life and on Sythe.

I have yet to see a single argument that remotely supports the fact that Sythe staff have the right to force individuals in any form to answer their questions or produce documents or evidence that may incriminate themselves - certainly not by enforcing a punishment upon a user to force them to do so.

I am again going to make an assumption here and say that is why there is no rule requiring cooperation with staff - Sythe is far smarter than I ever will be but I can imagine my reasoning is the basis as to why the rule is not there.

As far as I can tell you can tell sythe staff to go fuck themselves and refuse to say a word and if the initial evidence provided by the other party(prosecution in this case) isn't enough to warrant a punishment - Your absolutely fine. You have no obligation to answer or produce anything for staff what so ever.

 

If I remember correctly, Sythe mentioned something about the rules being loose and a lot can come down to staff discretion. Viou was banned for something that isn't in the Sythe rules for example. Spyike was banned for something not in the Sythe rules either. Finn banned several people for things that aren't in the rule that were for far more ridiculous reasons. Like @ShipTheFlip said, it's loosely basedd on the court system after all.

 

Right I mean I am speaking about very specific things - You could ruin any argument by saying "well its at staff discretion".

You have to keep in mind though that when a case comes up Sythe gets involved in he draws off the law and other IRL references to make a judgement - It's expected that Sythe staff do not abuse that "at staff discretion" and follow Sythes example.

When you start using "At staffs discretion" to justify an argument or case Apith than staff have probably gone to far is my stance. Using "at staffs discretion" is essentially walking the line of being a dictatorship not a court - If you toss out all the rules and past rulings to just say "well its at staffs discretion" you leave yourself wide open to power abuse and heading towards a dictatorship.

It's my opinion that anytime staff invoke the "at staffs discretion" - They have probably gone to far - Whether that's punishing someone for a time outside the prescribed time in the rules - Voting a certain way in SL discussions - Whatever.

 

Screenshot - 7030f69ff9857c8dd1548c25699e21c6 - Gyazo
@malakadang has spoken lets stop spamming the fifth amendment thing now bc it was a non-sequitur to begin with

 

He called me Butta.

Do I look like a fucking Butta to you???

Anyway I'm not a law expert but it stands to reason that one of the most significant pieces of law ever put into existence might just have a *tad* bit of influence in terms of when Sythe goes to pull examples of real life vs Sythe. Seems a reasonable thought no ^.^?

 

Not to mention Divine brought it up as a reason why BBB didn't have to answer then he also quotes him

Anything to help his argument.

 

Screenshot - c94d6b3a2d6d62335f953888ce3c0fa2 - Gyazo

 

That's what buying $15,000 in advertising gets you .

:White flag:

Still think this case could of been handled in a way all parties have equal liability and everyone walks away with a business partnership intact or at least not hostile and the debt is split. Could easily of been a fair ruling versus this where there's 2 hostile business's - one party is out $7400 and one party is banned. Nobody wins as it stands. Staff are suppose to reach fair resolutions with all parties not screw them all lmao. Have some damn flexibility.

 

Yes and I'm sure a new user who claimed they were scammed by a well known business and only provided word of mouth would automatically result in Sythe admins believing their claim/assumptions. I could have sworn you said you were going to stop replying to this.

 

baman

bye

 

Thank you for pointing me to that thread, I wasn't aware that I was being accused of being a banned user. If you want to discuss that with me in PM or in a different thread feel free to do so. Otherwise, for the second time, I'm asking you not post about anything not remotely related to the thread's topic.

I'm still waiting for another admin to look over the case against BBB once again and handle it in a fair and competent manner towards both parties. I'm also curious if anyone in this thread has read over my original statement and see how much it implicates Probemas for being the one behind this or is this seen as some type of conspiracy theory.

 

Sorry for my part in the derailment of your thread.

I think BBB's participation would've gone a long way in having the report work out in his favor. In my opinion the entire report came down to one thing (as I mentioned above): Can one side produce evidence that the $7.4k repayment was contingent upon BBB filing the police report to find the responsible party? If yes, BBB would be responsible for finding the hacker and retrieving the stolen funds. If no...

Here's what I'd ask both parties:

1. Are we in agreement that a compromised Helper was receiving the "cash-ins" from sugaray?
2. Are we in agreement that an uncompromised Helper was handling the cash-outs to sugaray?

Presumably the answer to the first question will be yes. If the answer to the 2nd is also yes, then we'd need to know more about how the cash-outs work. Does the livechat agent have access to Sugaray's balance and do they routinely check it each time he requests a cash-out? If for example Sugaray requests a cash-out of 4.2b RS3 and the livechat worker checks his balance to see exactly 4.2b RS3, then he should probably notice something's wrong when Sugaray requests another cash-out for 6b RS3 an hour later (assuming it's the same worker clocked in for both cash-outs). Missing that multiple times for a total of 100b RS3 would absolutely be the worker's, and ultimately Probemas' fault... however we never really got that far because BBB couldn't get past Champ being rude to him in his replies.

 

BBB was always known for pulling sketchy shit, i kind of understand mods for looking at it this way, but it was their fault for not cooperating

 

Closed, OP banned.

 

OP was banned in error but I think this thread has run its course and if BBB wants to make a dispute they are welcome to do so