VAT Nonsense = Non Renewing European

I'm well aware of that. But the UN did not pass this EU VAT decree, Brussels did. There is nothing in the UN treaty, or any other law source, that incorporates the decrees of the European Union into U.S. law. The EU's decrees are *not* a part of international law, they are the domestic law of the European Union. They do *not* apply in the US.



The EU's law is not enforceable against entities that are not present in the EU -- the EU has no jurisdiction to enforce its own domestic laws outside of its own borders.

As mentioned, the EU _have_ discussed how to enforce this. And a method they actually proposed would be this: if LL didn't collect VAT, then European users would be free to CopyBot anything they found in-world that was made by American users. If a US user tried to sue, the EU police and courts would tear the lawsuit up, saying "If you won't respect our laws, we won't respect yours." Now, as I said before this has never actually happened, but it was what they were planning to do according to the documentation on the E-business directive debate. (It was also considered that investing in such a business could be made a crime for EU investors, which given that the LSE is kinda big, could hurt.)

The US has not ratified the ICC, the UN has no authority over United States citizens. If they think they do, well blue helmets make good targets. Any attempt by the UN to control American citizens on US soil would lead to an insurgency that makes Iraq look like a tea party.

I think you are both totally missing the point.

We MUST abide by YOUR laws imposed on others. Get it? The UN makes sure of it. I'm not saying it's a UN law, I'm not saying the UN MADE the law. Read what I wrote, don't skim. I'm saying that if an American company doesn't abide by other countries laws and our government is made aware, we can't just say, "Oops, not our soil, not our problem!" Then the UN DOES get involved, with OUR government being brought into UN's courts. It would basically be stated that, this country agreed to X and now they aren't doing it.

No where did I saw that only Americans make the rules, nor did I imply it. I stated that from BOTH sides of the coin, we must BOTH be held accountable to other countries within the UN.



If that were the case, then extraditions from other countries wouldn't be possible. Extradition laws are generally arranged and put forth through the UN and enforced by the participants. If say the authorities in France refused to give up an American criminal caught there, then the UN could impose negative sanctions for not abiding by agreements made within.

That works in reverse for an American citizen, that committed a crime in France and is on US soil. It's happened a great many times.



That is simply wrong. If someone is found to be operating with/to/from inside those boundaries then they ARE held to EU law and the UN can, again, impose sanctions for not abiding by another countries law.

What you are missing here is the fact that YOU are the entity who would live inside the EU, and therefore as a business that provides to someone INSIDE the boundaries, they must abide by the law. In that sense, they ARE within the boundaries and have to adhere. This is why as Americans, WE shouldn't and don't have to pay for your tax. We are neither inside those boundaries, nor is the company we are dealing with. HOWEVER, the EU members/citizens ARE inside. That's the difference.

Nonsense. Cite one case of this.



Nonsense again. Extradition arrangements are covered by bilateral treaties, not the UN.



Nonsense again. The UN has no "jurisdiction". The extradition arrangements are bilateral. France routinely refuses to extradite criminals like Roman Polanski, for example, despite the existence of an extradition treaty. What does Washington do? Complain in the UN? Sue France in the ICC, to which the US is not subject?



Nope. The EU has no jurisdiction to regulate the activity of entities outside its borders. As for the UN, cite the example of the UN sanctioning the US for the failure of US businesses to comply with EU laws.

Let me put in a correction here, Seola, before someone else jumps on you and tries to invalidate you and the basic points you are making, which should not happen. Extradition agreements are drawn up bilaterally between countries (or maybe multilaterally in cases like the EU), as are tax treaties. Neither goes through the UN, which is a good thing, considering how incompetent, corrupt, and hostage to various nations' diplomatic agendas it is. (What a fine mess we would have if they did!) "International law," such as it is, does not apply, and is largely a fiction anyway (or maybe unfulfilled dream of the future), except when it serves the purposes of a sufficiently strong combination of the world's significant powers able to enforce what they deem valid international law and use it as cover for what they want to do anyway.

Nevertheless, bottom line, the result is the same as you describe it: EU citizens and companies are subject to EU law; US citizens and companies are subject to US law, and each is subject to the others' laws only to the extent they expose themselves to them (like, for instance, by opening offices in Brighton, or subscribing to a computer service in San Francisco), or their respective nations agree.

So, if you don't want to be subject to a European VAT, don't live or operate in Europe. If you want to gamble on-line, don't do so using an entity subject to US law. If you don't want to be extradited, move to Brazil.

Don't like it? I don't either, and gambling and the VAT have no practical effect on me. It's a bummer; it's unfair to the folks from the EU. Yes. I sympathise. But life is unfair (and the guy who first said that was handed what would today be about US$6 million on his 21st birthday by his father, got to have sex with Marilyn Monroe, and is today remembered with near-adulation by millions, which should prove he knew what he was talking about).

Victorria and Har are dead on with their comments above. I must have missed the Memo that declared the UN was important all of a sudden.
Some light reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_international_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition

She said if someone is found to be operating with/to/from inside those boundaries...

I think that clearly means activities within the EU's boundaries/borders, not outside.

Selective reading for the win.

This is a silly argument.

Bottom line: When in another country, one must abide by that countries rule of law. LL is in the EU, LL must abide by EU rule of law as it applies to their citizens/residents.

The only people who may be able to avoid this simple concept of rule of law are consular dignitiaries, and tbh they can't even avoid paying taxes. They are simply imune from prosecution if charged.

I'd rather trust the official's sites, instead of Wiki. Sorry, but that's my personal opinion, I could go change that right now to fit my argument. I've watched people change wiki's then cite them. So here from the official UN site.

http://www.un.org/sc/committees/ (The official UN site)



All of the above entails financial transactions (including but not limited to taxation), security (including but not limited to extradition procedures), and can impose negative sanctions in the event that people do not abide by what they agreed to.

Want more proof?

http://www.uncjin.org/Laws/extradit/extindx.htm
That's the UN's court site regarding extradition. Now tell me, if the UN didn't have anything to do with extradition, why in the world would they have treaties for it? *gasp*

You can also keep up with the news, ya know? They imposed financial sanctions against other countries RECENTLY, because of non compliance in other areas.

Still don't believe that we must comply? Here's America's IRS site.

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=160653,00.html


Odd, certainly sounds to me, like we and about 29 other countries are in agreements to work on tax evasion and going after those who don't do right....

In fact, if you ask a well informed Italian, there was an issue a bit back (though dealing with security), that detailed that they were having issues within the EU and the UN stepped in and spoke of imposing sanctions (they didn't like it).

I'm not going to continue to post links. I tell you what, why don't YOU prove me wrong. I'm not the one spouting false or misguided (or simply lying for sensationalism) "facts". I'm an informed person. As I've said, you can't fight against something without knowing first what you are fighting.

If you want to take a look, try starting here: http://www.unpan.org/egovkb/

ETA: And even if ALLLLLL this were not true (which it is, I've obviously provided more than enough to get you started), the fact STILL remains, that YOU are living inside the borders that charges taxes. Therefore, YOU are subjected to YOUR own tax laws, even if no one else in the world had anything to do with it.

You might want to read what you quote a little closer there darlin... lol. It actually states my case more than yours. The P.I.L. link only has a blurb about the UN and most of that page is in the history of international law BEFORE the UN came to be.

On the extradition one, it actually states my side again, more than yours.

You might want to read past the first two lines.

Nah I'll take your word for it. I've already exceeded my seriousness limits for the forum for today.

lol, I feel ya, but I'm starting to get spam in world from people all over the place, and I'm doing my part to educate people.

I actually got spam from a certain person that said "LL is breaking over 15 countries laws!!!" I thought, what? Then I just wonder how many people read that and come here and see others that have no idea what's going on either. I don't mind that people are ticked, I would be too, but it's like going after something or other, edited it out because it made sense in my head but didn't when I typed it out.

I'm all about anger, as long as it goes to the right place with the right info.

If one reads the wording of the EU-directive (http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2002/6/article5.en.html), taxation only applies if the seller is a business



To me this suggests that if there is a transaction between two private parties this transaction is free of tax. If a landlord is doing the landlord business as a registered business, tax is to be deducted by the landlord.

On the other hand lindex transactions may have to be taxed if Lindex is viewed as a service which I assume the taxmen will.

No worries. I treat wikis about the same as you actually, I just threw them out there for the heck of it. Actually I don't think I read even as much as you gave me credit for.

Well, hey, put it this way, at least you came off as an overachiever and that's what matters! It's all about perception darlin!

On more important matters, I do praise you for your taste in comedians.

Ah yes, the classic MH. Too tragic, but I do wonder if without the cause of tragedy, he would have been so ingenious at delivery.

Ranks right up there with Carlin for me.

Yes he died in a Hotel not far from where I am right now. Like Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor and so many others, their pain is a major inspiration.

1. The UN is not a Court
2. Yes, it imposes sanctions but for political not economic reasons almost invariably.
3. The USA has a veto, so the UN is hardly likely to be able to impose any sanction on the US. The US declined to pay it's dues for several years and the UN just had to put up woth it.

No-one surpasses The Great Man.

W.C. Fields

And I quote:

"Never give a Dan Linden an even break."

"How do I like dan Lindens? Parboiled."

'Nuff said.

Not only the US, but Britain, France, Russia, and China. Anything any ONE of them doesn't like - doesn't happen.

And that's not even considering the General Assembly.

And THAT'S not even considering the bureaucratic, inept, bungling and fundamentally corrupt UN bureaucracy.

The UN has its uses - its World Health Organization essentially eradicated smallpox - but if it comes to a dispute involving powers on the scale of the US and the EU, the UN is not even a bug-spot on their windshields. Hell, it can't even do anything about Darfur! And that involves only that incredible superpower the M-----F---ing Sudan! God help them if they ever have to atttack something serious, like Costa Rica, which doesn't have an army but would send out their police to arrest them.

As a real power in the world, forget the UN. In a century or two the world may have evolved to the point where a successor to today's castrato UN can really do something. But not in our lifetimes - unless medical science finds a way to confer immortality.

Of course, this is the reality.

A while back I remember a post were LL said they were planing to open up a server farm in the UK and other places in the world and were setting up offices in those laces. Maybe why they got the new office there. LL plans to be a world wide company and is trying to cover the legality in all these places. Not an easy job I imagine while keeping customers happy.

I am not sure what commitments or contracts that have been broken as some suggest? Any proof of such? What were the terms? I can't remember anything saying they couldn't change prices to reflect the laws nor do I know of any law preventing them changing prices instantly to be up to date with the laws (if it is the law they have to do it immediately in order to stop breaking the law). They gave notices through e-mail and made blog posts. Sure some people didn't get the e-mails thanks to spam filters and old e-mail addresses and other reasons but they tried.

So if you guys think there is a some legal case here provide the details and links to the information backing your position. Otherwise you just look like a bunch of disgruntled players that no one is going to listen to except other disgruntled players. You guys are acting like kids that got their candy taken away.

You're not Robin Linden in disguise are you? For a start prices that don't include VAT should explicitly state so.

The changes were made before emails were sent and there has been one blog post that didn't say a fat lot.

They did not do it immediately, they planned it. They were probably paying the VAT themselves and taking a hit and didn't want to do that anymore, which is perfectly understandable but that does not excuse them from not stating that from September 27th VAT would be charged. This was not an overnight decision, this was not a case of LL saying "Shit we're supposed to pay VAT, we better add it now".

For them to not mention the charges were coming is quite probably not illegal, but it is most certainly verging on being immoral. They knew on September 26th that these charges were going to be applied and yet happily let people continue to believe that the price they saw was the price they'd pay.

No residents were breaking the law here. This wasn't like gambling.

Jesus, Chris. Will you stop threatening to shoot people? We are not going to be invaded by the UN. That's silly. Plus, Kentucky is one of those states in the middle. Un forces would have to make it through 5 or six other states at a minimum before you got a shot at them. Don't you think that maybe we would be able to repel them at some point earlier than that? Like, oh, I don't know, 30 seconds after they entered US territorial water? All this threatening to shoot people and 235 grains of justice nonsense doesn't help our reputation.

I own guns, too, but you don't hear me threatening to take out Canadian fishermen just because they get in disputes over salmon treaty rights with Washington State every once in a while. (Dang ol' Canadians might fight back and then I'd be screwed)