About BTC only, it seems to me that if Tom never sold the bitcoins, AND if bitcoins are referred to it as simply "property", then it might be no different than saying Tom has accepted any kind of property, and that he would have to return the property. But you might be right, and the point is noted.
No. The products were priced in USD, BTC was simply used as way of transferring funds. Tom owes us USD, although it can be repaid with BTC.
This is correct.
Also Damages awarded in Court are always in $ not property... eg I if i stole your car, i am not awarded by the court a car, I am awarded funds in the value of the car.
RE: EFF, If someone wanted to draft a letter to them I have a friend that was defended by them. After explaining BTC to him, and the situation, he is more than willing to pass the letter to the group he knows with in EFF.
So, sending this letter can help a lot.
Spoke to about 14 lawyers.
1 said he is interested and would be willing to sit down with me for a consult, but before the sit down; Who are ALL of the members of this lawsuit, (eg need a comprehensive list of people defrauded by Tom, and his LLC, with address, emails, phone numbers, amount in USD of the fraud, and also If we win, if they will allow BTC in lieu of USD if possible), Where is Tom's residence? Where is the LLC located? All relative conversations to promises, and so on.
Do we know anything about Tom's bank or financial institution? If we wired funds to him this under US Law may of constituted wire fraud, and is a criminal charge. Do we desire to get the Feds involved? If we allow the Feds to go after him, this isn't going to get us any $$$ but this could make our day in court easier.
As for paying for lawyers.... We either pay based on hourly rates (somewhere between $100-250/hr) or we offer the lawyer a % of the total funds recooped.
Is anyone
BTC Savey can can look at total BTC received by Tom? Can we look at this and estimate how many orders were placed?
Bit we ought to make some Google Surveys to start collecting the information.
BTW: As of right now the thread that gives me hope we can get this into a US or International court is:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2094887/Dutch-teen-brutally-beaten-online-game-possessions.htmlA Dutch teenager was beaten up and threatened with a knife after a row about virtual possessions in the popular online fantasy game RuneScape.
The 13-year-old boy was attacked because he 'picked up' an amulet and mask while playing, which two other teenagers wanted as well.
They kicked him and brandished a knife, while forcing him to log onto RuneScape and relinquish the objects.
Although the assault happened in 2007, and the two attackers were convicted in 2009, one of them appealed to the Dutch Supreme Court.
But the Netherlands' highest court upheld the theft conviction.
The suspect's lawyer had argued the amulet and mask 'were neither tangible nor material and, unlike for example electricity, had no economic value.'
But the Court said the virtual objects had an intrinsic value to the 13-year-old gamer because of
'the time and energy he invested' in winning them while playing the game.
Poll
