I'm considering it.  In order to meet my ethical standards of "competency" I still feel I have a ways to go as far as education on the whole cryptocurrency type of transactions.  So don't want to go public until I feel fully qualified to handle those types of matters. 

But I am very grateful for the tip   Thank you! 

And thanks to everyone else for the kind words. 

Ooooh.....Ahhhhh.... 

I'm happy to mediate the dispute.  I posted this thread in that thread.  But that's pretty much all I can do now.  I can't compel either side to do it.  They have to both agree and be willing to amicably settle the dispute.  Others affected by the dispute may want to suggest this as an alternative to the stalemate they find themselves in. 

I could handle your suggestion. 

Also, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest on those cases that involve a question of how many BTCs are in dispute, my fee is always handled in advance.  So this would be negotiated prior to mediation beginning.  Therefore, once the mediation began, I would have no stake in whether it settled for 1BTC or 1000BTC. 

My range of a fee is more a guide than a hard and fast rule.  And in every case both sides have to agree to the amount prior to mediation. 

Agreed.  That's just how it is in actual practice.  You don't get referrals from judges and other attorneys until you've proven yourself.  Start out slow and steady.  The tortoise always wins the race  

Did you bring your hammer?

Or you could just never come back.  I'm probably a member on hundreds of forums.  Every now and then I'll find what I think is a new one, try my username and password and bam.  I registered 5 years ago lol.  Kind of nice not having to reregister.  Maybe you'll come back here some day  

Agreed.  I think I said all of that.   

Bumpity bump bump bump 

Perhaps my Bitcoin Dispute Resolution Mediation Services are required?  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=110652.0

Throw in 2 nights at a hotel and a rental car, and you've got a deal. 

Sounds like an enjoyable experience to get a first hand look.  I don't have the experience with custom mining hardware though to be qualified to test it.  But I will be interested to see how the report goes, as I've been thinking about investing in a mining operation of my own. 

I'll be honestly harsh.  I believe it is very difficult to have a fair criminal trial without a jury.  That is such a fundamental principle of American justice, that I have an incredibly difficult time with the idea of not having one.  

I know nothing of the judicial system in the Philippines other than what you have just told me.  So I'll move on to your next couple of questions, self-defense, justifiable homicide, and the 2nd Amendment.  I believe that the 2nd Amendment is a civil liberty the drafters of the Bill of Rights found necessary.  But this doesn't mean that this right is inviolate, and cannot have restrictions placed on it.  Just as the 1st Amendment, has restrictions (the most frequently invoked example is "You can't yell fire in a crowded theater"), so does and can the 2nd Amendment.  Clearly the Drafters did not envision fully automatic assault weapons.  Is the government within its right to ban such weapons?  In my opinion, absolutely.  Can the government restrict ownership to those it deems fit to grant a license to?  In my opinion, absolutely.  Can the government ban all firearms?  In my opinion, absolutely not.  Not until the Constitution is amended anyway, and that isn't happening anytime soon.  Now on to justification defenses.    


Self-Defense
If a person has a reasonable belief that he is in imminent danger of unlawful bodily harm, he may use that amount of force which is reasonably necessary to prevent such harm, unless he is the aggressor.

An aggressor is one who strikes the first blow or commits a crime against the victim.  The aggressor can regain the right of self-defense in either of two ways:
1) upon complete withdrawal perceived by the other party; or
2) escalation of force by the victim of the initial aggression.

The majority view of the states is that there is no duty to retreat.  In jurisdictions that do follow a retreat rule, one need not retreat unless it can be done in complete safety, and retreat need not be made in one's home.

Defense of Others
A defendant is justified in defending another person with reasonable force only if he reasonably believes the victim had a right to use such force.  Some jurisdictions limit this defense to situations where a special relationship exists between the defendant and the victim, while other jurisdictions view the defendant as "standing in the shoes" of the person defended.

Defense of Property
Reasonable non-deadly force is justified in defending one's property from theft, destruction, or trespass where the defendant has a reasonable belief that hte property is in immeidate danger and no greater force than necessary is used.  Non-deadly force is also proper when used to re-enter real property or regain prossession of wrongfully taken personal property upon immediate pursuit.

Deadly force is that which threatens death or serious bodily harm.  Non-deadly force threatens only bodily harm.  

The use of non-deadly force is improper where a request to desist would suffice.  (Example:  "Put down my book now!"  If this would suffice, then the use of force is not allowed.  This is viewed from a reasonably prudent person standard.  What would a reasonable person believe under the circumstances?)

Deadly force may NEVER be used merely to defend property.  However, by virtue of other defenses (self-defense, defense of others), deadly force may be used where unlawful interference with property is accompanied by a threat of deadly force or where the defender reasonably believes an entry will be made or attempted in his home by one intending to commit a felony.  

Law Enforcement Defenses
Police:  A police officer may use that amount of non-deadly force that he reasonably believes necessary to effect a lawful arrest or prevent the escape of the arrestee.  Deadly force may not be used to arrest or prevent the escape of a misdemeanor offender.  A police officer may use deadly force to prevent the commission of a dangerous felony or to effectuate an arrest where it is reasoanbly believed the person has committed a felony and the force is reasonably necessary to effectuate the arrest.  

Private Citizen: A private citizen is privileged to use that amount of non-deadly force that reasonably appears necessary to prevent the commission of a felony or a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace.  A private citizen may use non-deadly force to make an arrest if the crime was in fact committed and he reaosnably believes the person against whom he uses the force committed the crime.  A private citizen may use the same amount of deadly force as a police officer only if a dangerous felony is involved and the person against whom he used the force is actually guilty of the crime.  (In other words, really bad idea to try this.  Let the police do their job.  If you do it, and you make a mistake, you're going to jail.)

Resisting Unlawful Arrest
A defendant may use reasonable non-deadly force to resist an unlawful arrest.  An individual may only resist a lawful arrest by a police officer where the individual does not know that the other person is a police officer.  (Once again, just don't do it if you know it is a cop)

Necessity
Even deadly force is justified to avoid imminent injury resulting from natural forces or where an individual reasonably believes that his criminal conduct is necessary to avoid a "greater harm".  (For example, Mark kills Sam to save Jane and Jill.)  There is no defense of necessity where the defendant is at fault in creating the perilous situation.  


If this summary of the law of justification has been helpful for you, please feel free to contribute to: 15vdQBqJ3FrVWAnkPTAUERVaco2ozsn3Ss
I do quite a bit of pro bono work, and any extra I can earn online providing legal advice, allows me to spend more time during the day assisting and providing high quality legal services to the indigent and those that simply can't afford high priced attorneys.

I'm just messing with you.  I appreciate your honesty.  All you have as a lawyer is your reputation.  Pretty much the same way online. 

Lol if I had a BTC for every time a client has told me the check is in the mail 

Well as of right now, I see nothing illegal about the existence and use of bitcoins.  (It goes without saying that illegal acts can be engaged in with them, such as buying/selling on silkroad, using it as a way to launder other currencies, or failing to pay taxes on gains.  It is after all an asset.)  

The federal government may disagree with my analysis that I do not view anything illegal with the existence and use of bitcoins.  They clearly did with Liberty Dollars and would almost certainly attempt to make the same arguments against bitcoins if they chose to do so.  The problem is, that a bitcoin's very existence is so different in nature from that of a Liberty Dollar (which was usually an actual coin or printed paper currency).  Plus it was a whole lot easier for the feds to get to liberty dollars as they were primarily locally used and not as "virtual" as bitcoins.  The feds would not be able to disrupt bitcoins without substantial investment and effort.  

The more complicated question is could the US deem it illegal to use?  This goes into serious question of Constitutional Law.  Sure, the Congress could pass a bill that makes it illegal to trade something of value for bitcoins.  The President could then sign this bill, thus atleast temporarily making bitcoins illegal.  But, this law would (hopefully) be challenged in the courts.  This is when the real constitutional challenge would come into play.  Unfortunately, I just don't have the expertise in this area to give a full analysis of what the courts might do.  (And I'm not sure anyone does, to be honest since there is just so little precedent on the issue.)

The Securities and Exchange Commission already has a little bit of authority to make the transfer of bitcoins illegal, but as of yet, have failed to do so.  They could merely classify bitcoins as a security rather than a currency, and it would then fall squarely within their jurisdiction to regulate.  For example, they may require that only those with proper licenses could sell them.  This would almost certainly be challenged as well.

So the bottom line is: Are they illegal?  I don't think so, but the fed might.  If they are currently legal, then the government could make it illegal.  Would they?  I don't know.  Probably not until they consider it a competitive threat to the US Dollar.  If they did, would it survive a constitutional challenge?  I don't know and I don't think anyone fully does.    

True.  I might be dealing with a slightly more intelligent crowd then I'm used to in my practice as well lol.  Typically the criminal questions I get are along the lines of "Yeah I did it, but what legal grounds can I use to get off."  That's mostly what I do in criminal cases.  Just poke holes in the prosecution's argument. 

The law surrounding bitcoin usage is definitely intriguing though.  It basically requires the application of hundred(s) year old law to cutting edge modern technological and security issues.  And you nailed it.  There is about 0 actual case law on the subject.  So I can't wait until someone actually brings some of these issues to trial. 

Well it was meant to be offensive apparently, but I didn't really understand it either lol.  No harm no foul I guess.

Been a few days...just bumping the thread.  I'm kind of surprised all of my questions have been serious security law / civil law type questions.  I really thought most of them would be of a criminal nature around here  

I third it.  And here's how we do it.  Just send:


all of your BTCs and


will secure them for you free of charge.  That way you will always be able to keep your membership in this exclusive club!   

But I'm still fairly new. Give me time