|
Title: Anne Tompkins: Potential Adversary? Post by: Nick Carlson on May 22, 2011, 03:38:57 AM Quote Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism,” U.S. Attorney Tompkins said in announcing the verdict. “While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country,” she added. “We are determined to meet these threats through infiltration, disruption and dismantling of organizations which seek to challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of government. (emphasis mine) The article (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0311/US_Attorney_calls_currency_minting_terrorism.html?showall). Her wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Tompkins). Is there a consensus in this community that legal battles will be fought over the legality of Bitcoin and Bitcoin related activites? If so, maybe the creation of a new sub-forum related to legal issue is in order. Title: Re: Anne Tompkins: Potential Adversary? Post by: Astrohacker on May 22, 2011, 03:52:43 AM Maybe, but Liberty Dollars aren't much like bitcoins.
Title: Re: Anne Tompkins: Potential Adversary? Post by: bittrader on May 22, 2011, 03:57:19 AM If Bitcoin keeps getting bigger and bigger, then I think it's inevitable that some case involving Bitcoins will eventually come before a court of law.
On the other hand, I'm not entirely convinced that there would be much value in a group of amateur forum lawyers giving each other "legal advice". Title: Re: Anne Tompkins: Potential Adversary? Post by: nickwit on May 22, 2011, 04:06:12 AM Well to be fair, if anything is representing an insidiously clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country it's the fucking banks.
And their puppet politicians, and their attorney-mercenaries. There is NOTHING more dangerous to "our democratic form of government" than the corporate control of campaign finance. And legitimacy? Sorry - we (the people) are entirely disenfranchised, so "legitimacy" is little more than a piece of paper with "legitimate" written on it. Well 7 billion can play at that game. Title: Re: Anne Tompkins: Potential Adversary? Post by: Jaime Frontero on May 22, 2011, 04:47:53 AM "...unique form of domestic terrorism...", huh?
well, EFF takes Bitcoin donations. we probably oughtta get the ACLU on that bandwagon, too. we'll all be on the darknet, by 'n' by... Title: Re: Anne Tompkins: Potential Adversary? Post by: kiba on May 22, 2011, 06:45:20 AM There is NOTHING more dangerous to "our democratic form of government" than the corporate control of campaign finance. A democracy is dangerous for our health, yo! Quote And legitimacy? Sorry - we (the people) are entirely disenfranchised, so "legitimacy" is little more than a piece of paper with "legitimate" written on it. Well 7 billion can play at that game. Save your breath when it's the people that elect the politicans. Elite are inevitable in human societies, but it is how we select them that all it matters. Everything else is just a sideshow. The bitcoin development leadership were selected by merit, not by popular votes. They keep their power not through winning fair election but through complete voluntary consent. Politicans kiss babies to win elections. We bitcoiners don't give a diddy fuck about developers kissing babies as long they don't fuck with our money. Title: Re: Anne Tompkins: Potential Adversary? Post by: Basiley on May 22, 2011, 06:48:08 AM actually thats why majority of modern political scientist classify US state as "conservative tolitarism" ;)
Title: Re: Anne Tompkins: Potential Adversary? Post by: asdf on May 22, 2011, 06:51:15 AM Quote Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism,” U.S. Attorney Tompkins said in announcing the verdict. So arrest Bernanke. Title: Re: Anne Tompkins: Potential Adversary? Post by: eMansipater on May 22, 2011, 07:27:49 AM Something that nobody seems to ever mention here when bringing up the Liberty Dollar case is the fact that Von NotHaus called them "dollars" without always being careful to differentiate them from FRN's, sold them at different rates to different people in what was arguably a multi-level marketing scheme, encouraged people to "spend them at a profit" from the price they paid, and encouraged businesses to slip them in with unsuspecting customer's change (worth knowing if, like me, you are hearing about the Liberty Dollar case for the first time from these forums).
The terrorism phrase is totally ridiculous (just like most other places it gets tossed around) but bitcoins are a completely different situation from Liberty Dollars. There's no need to turn someone into an "adversary" for merely being a ridiculous politician. Title: Re: Anne Tompkins: Potential Adversary? Post by: em3rgentOrdr on May 22, 2011, 07:33:37 AM Something that nobody seems to ever mention here when bringing up the Liberty Dollar case is the fact that Von NotHaus called them "dollars" without always being careful to differentiate them from FRN's, sold them at different rates to different people in what was arguably a multi-level marketing scheme, encouraged people to "spend them at a profit" from the price they paid, and encouraged businesses to slip them in with unsuspecting customer's change (worth knowing if, like me, you are hearing about the Liberty Dollar case for the first time from these forums). We have mentioned this on the forums when NotHaus was arrested. Title: Re: Anne Tompkins: Potential Adversary? Post by: eMansipater on May 22, 2011, 07:47:56 AM Something that nobody seems to ever mention here when bringing up the Liberty Dollar case is the fact that Von NotHaus called them "dollars" without always being careful to differentiate them from FRN's, sold them at different rates to different people in what was arguably a multi-level marketing scheme, encouraged people to "spend them at a profit" from the price they paid, and encouraged businesses to slip them in with unsuspecting customer's change (worth knowing if, like me, you are hearing about the Liberty Dollar case for the first time from these forums). We have mentioned this on the forums when NotHaus was arrested. Title: Re: Anne Tompkins: Potential Adversary? Post by: Mike Hearn on May 22, 2011, 08:23:28 AM Yeah, eMansipater has it right.
Incidentally, the prosecutor in this case was interviewed by a law student writing a thesis on Bitcoin. Whilst the attorney general may have said some questionable things, the prosecutor denied the case was about creating alternative currencies. The prosecution was actually about counterfeiting and fraud. Apparently one way they got him was because there were videos on his website that showed him paying a regular merchant with Liberty Dollars, to the guys evident confusion! The chances of Bitcoin being confused with any of todays currencies is nil. Title: Re: Anne Tompkins: Potential Adversary? Post by: marcus_of_augustus on May 22, 2011, 11:19:14 AM It is the public that will be watching Anne Tompkins from here forward, not the other way around, and as it should be. That's some pretty dangerous, inflammatory rhetoric to be tossing around like candy, for a public, prosecuting official. Title: Re: Anne Tompkins: Potential Adversary? Post by: zby on May 22, 2011, 11:55:16 AM From http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1817857:
NotHaus tried to spend Liberty Dollars into regular circulation, encouraged other Liberty Dollar users to do the same, and encouraged businesses to give Liberty Dollars as change to unsuspecting customers. NotHaus and his organization profited from their fraud because the face value of Liberty Dollar metal currencies was set higher than the value of their metal content. Title: Re: Anne Tompkins: Potential Adversary? Post by: kwukduck on May 22, 2011, 01:39:59 PM I don't think she understands what terrorism means... oh well...
Title: Re: Anne Tompkins: Potential Adversary? Post by: Nick Carlson on May 22, 2011, 02:15:51 PM Quote The prosecution was actually about counterfeiting and fraud. Bingo. Her rhetoric doesn't match the charges that Mr. NotHaus was convicted on. Moreover, if Ms. Tompkins stands by her rhetoric, she has a moral obligation to prosecute those involved in BerkShares (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BerkShares). Also, this pdf (http://www.smallisbeautiful.org/local_currencies/Book.pdf) regarding the legality of local currencies is an interesting read. (Page |