In analyzing this story I attempted to remain true to my organizations public purpose, that being "To endeavor to provide clarity and support on legal issues related to cryptocurrencies to both existent and future cryptocurrencies, as well as to the legal community at large".
You've provided neither clarity nor support. You've muddied the waters with some ridiculous speculation that bears no relation to the facts.
In fact, your article is so spectacularly stupid, I'm just going to take five minutes here out of my busy day to point out some more stupidity contained therein:
Miners on the Bitcoin network would all be continually agreeing that the two Bitcoin addresses mentioned in the ransom notes were available to receive coins at in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy, fraud, etc.
This is not even how Bitcoin works. Miners don't verify addresses when coins are sent to them. There are 2^160 Bitcoin addresses. What you're suggesting isn't even theoretically possible.
Besides, this is like arguing that the postal service is "agreeing that an address is available to receive drugs from Silk Road in furtherance of drug trafficking." Is the USPS being investigated for conspiracy? It's so stupid, it makes my head hurt.
The invocation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 (racketeering) is also noteworthy in stating that it applies to "whoever…obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce." The definition of commerce in that section is not very helpful
You don't even know what commerce means. What kind of a law student are you? Don't you have a professor you can ask?
If Bitcoin affects commerce, then it is probably subject the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, U.S. Constitution).
The claim is not that Bitcoin affects commerce. The claim is that extortion affects commerce. You can't seem to keep separate, in your mind, the concepts of voluntary trade via Bitcoin and the crime of extortion which is purportedly the subject of this investigation.
Regardless, the basic assertion here, that anything which affects commerce is subject to Federal regulation, is patently absurd. Cows farting in Africa can affect commerce. The Constitution grants the power to regulate
actual interstate commerce, not everything on Earth.
For instance, the use of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371(conspiracy) is interesting because from the documents revealed, it is not apparent that Brown worked closely with anyone else.
Romney's 1040 tax returns were taken from the PWC office 8/25/2012 by gaining access to the third floor via a gentleman working on the 3rd floor of the building. Once on the 3rd floor, the team moved down the stairs to the 2nd floor and setup shop in an empty office room.
How do you claim to know anything at all about this case, and miss the completely obvious assertion
right there on Pastebin that the extortionist worked with others?
If I have failed on either of those fronts, no one is forcing you to support my organization.
Is that your real motive, here, to solicit "support" for your "organization"? As an aspiring lawyer, is your article just an attempt to drum up business?
If you really think that "advocating" for Bitcoin means advocating for Bitcoin to be regulated, why don't you just come out and admit that you are, in fact, an enemy of what Bitcoin stands for?
I am putting forth a genuine effort to legitimize Bitcoin
Bull Shit
Listen, I'm not pulling any punches here, because I've seen far too many jackasses show up on these forums pretending to want to help Bitcoin, only to turn out to be scammers. From Matthew Wright, to Pirate aka Trendon Shavers, they've all been obvious shysters from day one. And you're one of them.
So, from now on, you're all getting called out. And if your response to that is to abandon this forum, fantastic.
