The point was it is relatively easy to freeze some ones account, you thought not, it has happened, you do not deny but acknowledge that point. You do appear to minimize the fact of what has happened. A few quotes ago, you were full of sound and furry should any one touch your account at the bank, and how it would never happen if you were not there. QED on that.
It isn't "relatively easy" for a number of reasons as I stated. Again, this is the US Government here NOT a private individual so it really has no bearing on what we were actually talking about - lawsuits like coinlab's.
You really don't understand separation of powers,
Nether do you now deny your second error (quite large) that you though some how GOX's lawyers were in a court fighting this, yet GOX themselves knew nothing about it and they publicly said so. That's just basic research of the facts and understanding of what happened.
Huh? When word about the DHS thing first came out there wasn't much information. It wasn't clear whether this "court order" was obtained ex-parte or not. That's all I was saying. I never argued that gox did have lawyers in court before the order was made and if I had to guess I'd say they weren't.
you said
3) There is nothing saying Mt Gox didn't know about this as you claim. Just because it happened doesn't mean they didn't have lawyers in a courtroom in Maryland arguing against it.
It was crystal clear that Gox had no idea what was going on at the time you made this statement, Its called basic research, I did it, you just went oh GOX had lawyers there.
Further you don't appear to understand the separation of powers doctrine. The Govt is as private person or commercial entity in-front of the court when it comes to seizure of funds, freezing accounts.
Uhh, no they aren't. You actually link to the court order in a later post yet you obviously haven't even read it. If you had, you'd see the law under which the court order was made. 18 U.S.C. section 981 gives the government - yes the government only, not private citizens - the power to seize property that is involved in a transaction violating 18 U.S.C. sections 1956, 1957 or 1960. This was the case here and so the order was made. Coinlab can not do this in their lawsuit.
Thats got nothing to do with separation of powers. Ok at this point, you probally need to get a formal legal education, or refresher if you have had one. Separation of powers has nothing to do with the executive having more ways to bring an action vs a private person. It is to do with the judicial arm being separate to the the executive and parliament.
As I explained before Coin labs may face a hard time, due to normal trade considerations made before injuncnting them, and it could be sort of shooting themselves in the foot, but this may give another limb to go after funds, though they will have to consider that such an attack may lead to gov confiscation. CoinLabs also have to conisder would you rather let them trade so they have money to pay. However countering that is the question of who will get priority to any funds so should they leap in. This was not my point here, but you seem to be averting to it, as cover for your capitulation and error.
As I said above, coinlab could not do this in their lawsuit. Nor is there any question of "priority". If you read the law cited in the decision you will learn that those funds in question become property of the United States which is why the government can seize them. They do not become "recovered funds" that all creditors are allowed some share of. Even if coinlab won a lawsuit today they have no claim to any money in the dwolla accounts as they already belong to the US Government.
The govt has to stand in line for property like anyone else or compensate: check your Constitution
for example
the 5th
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]
see those last words
without just compensation.[1]My money held that is owed to anyone else eg your money held in say GOX's account and that bank and that account is seized by gov, for your part you are entitled to just compensation from the GOV for them taking your property.
Show Posts
? thus hidden...
