So you think your anonymous do you?

[MPOE-PR]

I don't see how explaining potential legal outcomes makes me a wolf in sheep's clothing. Responding to posts like this is a massive waste of time. I am putting forth a genuine effort to legitimize Bitcoin, only to defend myself against wholly baseless attacks.

It's dubious you're qualified to explain "potential legal outcomes", and it seems to me on the face you fail to do anything useful in that line. A quote to illustrate:

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. Conspiracy typically requires 1) an express or implied agreement and 2) an overt act. Is it possible that the entire Bitcoin network can now be implicated as co-conspirators?

That last question is plain stupid, on the face of it. For one, it is constructed on a mistaken presupposition of how the justice system works. Anything whatsoever can at any point be "implicated" into anything else. The question of whether something "can" be implicated is stupid on its face, akin to asking if it "can be sued". Yes, it can. Anything can be sued, and anything can be implicated.

Now, if you really meant to ask whether it is likely for it to be implicated, or whether it is reasonable for it to be implicated, you've done a piss poor job of it by replacing those words with the word "can", because words have specific meanings (as you may be aware).

You say "typically". This word implies that you are working with a large set, and are comparing the case at hand to that large set. Specifically, how many cases involving conspiracy have you been personally involved in, either as a litigant on the defense or prosecution side, as a judge, court clerk, paralegal or in any other direct capacity? How many cases involving conspiracy have you, as an unrelated third party, fully read and understood?

If indeed you used the word "typically" to mean "as I surmise from watching TV" then you have again done a piss-poor job.

It is in fact the case that conspiracy is almost always alleged by the government whether or not anything remotely like what the common usage of that word typically implies has in fact occurred, mostly as a means to circumvent due process, as this much more qualified individual rightly points out.

Prosecutors always like to charge conspiracy.  It’s a crime that is easy to prove, requiring only that jurors believe there is an agreement to commit another crime, and a step taken in furtherance of the conspiracy.  Conspiracy also allows ways around barriers to convictions, like the hearsay rule and the number of juror challenges allowed each side.  Testimony by a cooperating witness, “He told me he was going to take sports bets from the U.S.,” would normally not be allowed in as evidence.  But, “He asked me if I wanted to help him set up a site to take sports bets from the U.S., and I agreed” comes in under the conspiracy exception to the hearsay rule, to prove there was an agreement.

So, yes, you are in general doing a piss-poor job of it. This is because you are both ignorant and pretentious, and little shitfits like the above aren't helping you at all in overcoming these limitations.

[1715318150]

1715318150

[1715318150]

1715318150

[benjamindees]

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.

[monkee]

I think my anonymous what?

exactly, haha

[J-Norm]

Wonder if its true but only an idiot thinks they can hide behind a PC.

Only an idiot would fail at being anonymous on the internet. The damn fool must have send a previously used address or tied the address to his wallet somehow.

He should have sent the money to instawallet, then to a poker site, then to another online wallet, then to bitcoinfog.