I think it was a couple months ago in discussion with Hiro White on Agorist Radio that I stated that I'm looking forward to my indictment.

No, never, and that's one of the reasons you shouldn't use it, besides that it's fattening and immoral.

Wait, I meant to say.... yes.... YES! Yes, I do. No... well, only sometimes.

Give me wording and I still might go for it. I'm also amending my wager proposition above to include an exception whereby I don't lose if BenWhatever loses the case by default absent appearance or otherwise by default. There must be a contest.

I am that guy, yes, but no, I have never considered open-sourcing the extremely complex and massively valuable intellectual property that bitcoinlaundry.com represents, what with how all these suitcases of cocaine keep arriving at my front door every week.

I appreciate the spirit, but still...

If that wager can be defined as:

---
I will pay you 100 BTC,
 if and when any Oregon court issues a judgment stipulating that
  BenDavis (whoever that is, legally in Oregon) is ordered to return the amount of Bitcoins received (call it 511 +/- 5%), or
  BenDavis is ordered pay plaintiff the market value (+/- 5%) at any given point in time of the Bitcoins received, or
  BenDavis is ordered to restore or otherwise facilitate the recovery of the "right of access" you mention here;
 provided such judgment is posted or referenced here, and
 the period of leave to file an appeal against the judgment has expired; BUT

On the other side, you will pay me 100 BTC,
 if and when there is a final disposition of an Oregon cause of legal action brought against BenDavis in this matter, and
 if that disposition does not include any of the three substantive orders specified above; BUT

That a transfer of this case to a US Federal court or other court outside of Oregon shall null the wager, AND
That the only monetary or performance sums considered for purposes of determining the winner of the wager shall be the Bitcoins in question or their equivalent in other currency and not any sums related to service of process, court fees, fines, trial costs, legal fees, etc.
---

Then I'll take that wager.

Ummm, dude, seriously. So, that's why we ALWAYS go flying off to file suit in defendant's jurisdiction, right?

Doesn't matter, I'm putting you down in my "irredemably dense" file until you can find yourself bothered to examine your request above that I not think.

Nemáš za čo.
Law is a business like any other. The corruption we face is a society telling us constantly that only old men in fancy costumes with particular pieces of paper to their name can do it. (Little secret: in most English common law jurisdictions, being a lawyer is -not- a requirement for being a judge!)
Definitely, and you point up a dual value for the service. Dispute resolution on the one hand, public discouragement of bad behavior on the other. This is the kind of thing that can build infrastructure for a real community. And, despite people saying "the bitcoin community" a lot of times lately, we are really not yet a community. I'd like that to change, and I'll bet you and a bunch of others on this thread would like that to change as well.
I'll catch you offline. Meanwhile, "justice" is already a for-profit operation all over the world, whether it be in terms of massive judge salaries or in terms of bribes to various court officials. It seems clear to me (despite my ecumenicalism above) that specialists are needed, but that the systems we have today tend more toward self-enrichment than toward really serving their communities.
Yep. And I've been in that seat before, though not in the UK. People fat-finger stuff on keyboards and issue transfers for #million when they meant #thousand. Or #thousand when they meant #hundred. Or 512 when they meant 1. Whatever. It's definitely not okay to profit massively off the error, and I'm definitely not going to invite people who dash off, cackling, with their ill-gotten loot to my dinner party.

Hey, Buddy... are you seriously asking me to not think here? And then asking me in the next breath to think about some law code from (where?) Oregon?

Oh, geez, well, you got me there. Except:

- state law isn't clear at all, ever, anywhere
- state courts are typically shit, approaching justice when they do as likely by accident as by intent
- jurisdiction issues in this case, particularly since the sum involved is only ~US$5k would be more difficult to navigate than they're worth
- evil illuminati lawyers would skim 30% off this easy
- oh, right, and... we always have the opportunity to work our own law

But hey, who am I to argue with someone who might think that the reasoning a bunch of dead, wizened fucks who had fancy offices in Helsinki is pure gold?

Have I mentioned, lately, how much I love you, SIR?

No, and that isn't what we're talking about here. See you on YOSPOS.

Vlado, I like your style in this thread. A lot.

On a technical basis here, there is no case: phantomcircuit's system was simply in error. I would find that in terms of pure possession law, the situation is analogous to this. You're a manager for a (very honest, very fair, completely unlike all that exist today) bank with a bunch of gold in the vault and a moldy basement. You issue a clean-up order to the janitorial service, but you make a typo. What you meant to say was "get the mold out and throw it out back", but you typed "g" instead of "m", so all those nice bars and krugers ended up next to the bin in the parking lot. Passersby who scoop up the sparkly should -not- be assaulted, kidnapped and caged for doing so.

On the other hand, those identified as having loaded their pockets due to a simple error -do- have an ethical obligation to return the property if promptly called upon it. I do not want to live in a society where after setting my bag down for a few minutes some guy runs off with it screaming "FINDERS KEEPERS!" and everyone else defends that kind of behavior.

Additionally, I don't want to live in a society where assaulting, kidnapping and caging people is viewed as a reasonable course in matters such as this.

In this -particular- case, I think it's right that BenDavis repay phantomcircuit. If the USD/BTC rate went up or stayed the same since the bogus transactions, BenDavis's debt should be no more than 98% of the value at time of transfer, with any transaction/conversion fees in BenDavis's favor. If the rate went down, BenDavis's debt should be no more than 98% of the current value at time of judgment, conversion/transaction fees disposed the same.

BenDavis has certainly expressed bad faith in his sale of property coming into his hands with questionable title, especially given his response to phantomcircuit's claim. phantomcircuit's speech in trying to exact a legitimate claim may be questionable, but that is a completely separate cause of action not to be considered here.

Should BenDavis fail to abide by such a reasonably-argued order (and I am NOT claiming that the above is), his sanction should be a detailed, public excommunication of the BenDavis nym, at a minimum, combined with an invitation to parties to the court to participate in an investigation into his true identity, so that he might be more efficiently shunned at least until such time as he makes restitution.

Vladimir: I just registered bitcoincourt.com. Would you like to be a Justice and partner in building something like that?

The story is only loosely tied right now, but I think it's going to go something like this:

Late 2002: Bruce and Ed quit Columbus, OH after a string of really bad luck which includes Ed losing his license to practice as a chiropractor, both of them getting evicted repeatedly, Bruce's "IT Proactive" business going in the crapper after losing contract disputes with clients, etc. They move to the suburbs of Detroit.

2003: Our boys hook up with Ronnie Edward Duke and pals, who teach them the ins and outs of the mortgage scam business, which they've been at for a few years already. Ronnie goes a bit psycho, though, starts stalking our heroes, and has to have a restraining order filed against him.

Start of 2004: Bruce is ready for action, exercises contacts in Chicago to get them settled there and incorporates Bold Funding in Nevada. Bruce/Bold try to get ads on the air/printed and get themselves listed in various business directories and are partly thwarted because Bold Funding Inc. (Nevada corporation) isn't yet registered to do business as a foreign corp in Illinois.

May 2004: Bruce finally gets Bold Funding registered for trade in Illinois. Large-scale ad campaign begins. Who knows where the money to pay for -that- comes from?

Spring-Summer 2004: Bruce perfects the patter necessary to make shmooze calls and send soothing letters to mortgage scam marks. "Non-refundable non-guarantee finders fees" roll in to the tune of at least $115k, likely far more. What's the "John Buck Company" connection?

October 2004: Teh heat is on. Bold Funding is a known scam operation, despite Bruce's sockpuppet astroturfing to the contrary. Bruce and Ed enjoy some holidays in Pattaya, Palm Beach, Lake Tahoe, Barcelona, etc.

November 2004: Bold Funding and Bruce Wagner indicted. Are all prospective plaintiffs represented by the Illinois State's Attorney, or just the Illinois ones? Unknown.

2005: First attorney quits or is fired. Bruce and Ed fuck off to the Big Apple.

2006: Second attorney for Bold Funding quits representing Bruce/Bold just before judgment. Judgment against Bruce/Bold for ~$365k. Bruce and Ed go into "media" business. Bruce and Ed get involved in some kind of dodgy illegal sub-lease to a Manhattan apartment. Before year-end, Bruce has time to describe his "THREE-PRONGED attack" for picking up "boys" for sex in Thailand as well as sketching the outlines of his misogynistic rape apology online.

Late 2007: Deal with dodgy landlord blows up, our heroes sued for over half a million USD in NYC. Landlord is certifiable, but who knows what went on?

Early 2010: Bruce's mortgage fraud mentor in Michigan, Ronnie Edward Duke, indicted along with six others in $100M fraud case.

Mid-2010: The "Bruce Wagner" helping pump a HYIP scam called "goldcollarinvest" is completely unrelated to our boy.

Late 2010: Bruce gets a Bitcoin.

... (fill in the blanks)

Late summer 2011: somethingawful.com hauls Bruce up on charges. Bruce denies everything, blatantly lies about the "three-pronged attack" and utterly misrepresents his Bold Funding fraud. Bruce goes to Tokyo, smooth-talks Mark Karpeles a bit, who's too busy to care anyway.

Today: Full-spectrum fail unfurls.

We offer Bitcoin ATM/Payphone conversions at Burning Man for 35% off! (Now only $92.97!). Also, free hoodies.

Amen, ill pony-thing.

I stand corrected and chastened. You made no grammar error, and the sentence makes perfect sense. Curse my ignorance... curse yoooouuu!

I suppose it would be something like "to be without care or cleverness is pointless", but, meh... whatever.

That'll be one "bez... šikovnosti..." extra on your bill, sir.

Oh, that.

onesalt is an anagram for "Let SA on".

Case dismissed.