Thread: A Dinar Call, for anyone that wants to listen in.

For any body that is interested I first dealt with Darren Chabluk when I was still a few weeks away from becoming a True Dinarholic about 11 months ago. After dithering over the price of his E-book for a few days I bought it. I believe that he was no longer a dealer at that time. This was long before I learned of Dinar Forums. He did not strike me as being dishonest and the money I spent on his info was just another step on the path to the Dinar Rollercoaster!! The most entertaining investment I have ever made.

Originally Posted by terry853

For any body that is interested I first dealt with Darren Chabluk when I was still a few weeks away from becoming a True Dinarholic about 11 months ago. After dithering over the price of his E-book for a few days I bought it. I believe that he was no longer a dealer at that time. This was long before I learned of Dinar Forums. He did not strike me as being dishonest and the money I spent on his info was just another step on the path to the Dinar Rollercoaster!! The most entertaining investment I have ever made.

I don't understand, you "SPENT MONEY FOR HIS INFORMATION"?
Leann

I forgot to add this earlier:

The guy's sources were also saying that smaller denominations(coins) were currently being trucked from Banks in Baghdad to smaller banks outside of the city.

Originally Posted by lndmn_01

I forgot to add this earlier:

The guy's sources were also saying that smaller denominations(coins) were currently being trucked from Banks in Baghdad to smaller banks outside of the city.

well this rumor keeps getting better !!

Originally Posted by bambiebdgrl

I'm sure that this was an oversight on you part, but my name is Leann, not barbie.
Thank you.
LEANN

LMAO big time ............... gasp can not stop laughing ..sorry !

Guidance on Non-Binding Documents

Governments frequently wish to record in writing the terms of an understanding or arrangement between them without, by so doing, creating obligations that would be binding under international law. The language, titles, and techniques used for this purpose vary considerably. While not binding under international law, a non-binding instrument may carry significant moral or political weight. Such instruments are often used in our international relations to establish political commitments.
Ambiguity as to whether or not a document is legally binding should be avoided. When negotiating a nonbinding instrument, both/all sides should confirm their understanding that the instrument does not give rise to binding obligations under international law. In all cases, the draft text should be reviewed by legal counsel familiar with the matters dealt with in the instrument. Also, the Office of Treaty Affairs encourages agencies and offices to share the texts of proposed non-binding documents with this office, which is responsible by law for determining whether a particular document is a binding “international agreement” for purposes of reporting to Congress.

Certain formal, stylistic, and linguistic features tend to be associated with agreements binding under international law, while other features tend to reflect an intent on the part of the participants to produce an arrangement of a purely political nature.

For example, we generally advise that an intention to conclude a binding international agreement may be indicated by employing terminology such as “shall”, “agree,” “undertake”, “rights”, “obligations”, and “enter into force.” When negotiators seek to conclude a non-binding instrument, we generally advise them, for example, to avoid terms such as “shall”, “agree”, “undertake”, or “party”; and to express that the instrument “come into operation” or “come into effect” for the “participants.” Also, we recommend where possible that the “participants” include a disclaimer in the text of the document expressly providing that it is not legally binding under international law.

It should be noted that U.S. practice on non-binding documents may differ significantly from that of other countries. For example, for the United States, the use of the verb “will” in the text does not necessarily mean that the commitment at issue is not legally binding under international law. Because the use of the term “will”may lead to confusion as to the intention of the participants, the Office of Treaty Affairs generally recommends that this term be avoided in non-binding documents. Also, the use of a title such as “Memorandum of Understanding” for a document does not automatically denote that the document is non-binding under international law. The United States has entered into MOU’s that we consider to be binding international agreements.

In sum, the Office of Treaty Affairs reviews the status of international instruments on a case-by-case basis, and a determination whether a document constitutes an international agreement or is a non-binding instrument is made on the basis of a number of criteria, including the identity and mutual intention of those entities involved, rather than simply the form or title of the document.

thanks Goldraker, that's great!

Originally Posted by H2O_Lover

well this rumor keeps getting better !!

For sure!
Leann

Originally Posted by H2O_Lover

LMAO big time ............... gasp can not stop laughing ..sorry !

Its all good,we worked it out. (had to be true to me)
Leann

Goldraker, thanks for putting this in print! Common sense told me what nonbinding probably meant, but seeing it in print helps clear out the fog in my brain!!