Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (105727)	4/21/2014 5:59:22 AM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217671

In another vein I only wonder why this video did not receive even one recommendation Message 29497427 I do think it is extraordinary for those with keen interest in what is going on quasi totalitarian countries, mostly those from the former Soviet Union

To: TobagoJack who wrote (105727)	4/21/2014 2:20:06 PM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217671

TJ, sorry to disagree, there is a huge difference between private property and insurance and feud damage between countries, which is the case with the ships. Of course regular heirs of Chinese citizens that their property was confiscated stolen or destroyed only because they where ethnic Chinese deserve compensations. The cruelty of the Japanese experiments on ethnic Chinese should also not go without payment of damages to their heirs and families by the perpetrators. As to the insurance companies you mentioned, if my dad life was insured and he perished in war or whatever action or reason I am entitled to his life insurance that is why life insurance is done in first place. Second regarding Swiss bank accounts if my mom deposited money in trust with a Swiss bank not violating the law, then I as his legal first relative and survivor I am entitled to those funds if she in the meantime perished for whatever reason. The bank no matter what, cannot confiscate money and allocate it to itself for what ever reason. This is called embezzlement of fund punishable with up to 30 years in jail for the offender. 18 U.S. Code Chapter 31 - EMBEZZLEMENT AND THEFT law.cornell.edu In this same vein I want to mention that there where also some Israeli banks that tried to play this ugly game and at the end they where forced to reimburse the heirs, and also pay interest even that by law there was no legal binding contract, and therefore they paid a pittance in interest rates for 50 years.

To: TobagoJack who wrote (105727)	4/21/2014 2:20:07 PM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	Respond to of 217671

TJ, sorry to disagree, there is a huge difference between private property and insurance and feud damage between countries, which is the case with the ships. Of course regular heirs of Chinese citizens that their property was confiscated stolen or destroyed only because they where ethnic Chinese deserve compensations. The cruelty of the Japanese experiments on ethnic Chinese should also not go without payment of damages to their heirs and families by the perpetrators. As to the insurance companies you mentioned, if my dad life was insured and he perished in war or whatever action or reason I am entitled to his life insurance that is why life insurance is done in first place. Second regarding Swiss bank accounts if my mom deposited money in trust with a Swiss bank not violating the law, then I as his legal first relative and survivor I am entitled to those funds if she in the meantime perished for whatever reason. The bank no matter what, cannot confiscate money and allocate it to itself for what ever reason. This is called embezzlement of fund punishable with up to 30 years in jail for the offender. 18 U.S. Code Chapter 31 - EMBEZZLEMENT AND THEFT law.cornell.edu In this same vein I want to mention that there where also some Israeli banks that tried to play this ugly game and at the end they where forced to reimburse the heirs, and also pay interest even that by law there was no legal binding contract, and therefore they paid a pittance in interest rates for 50 years.