Interacting with fiat institutions [such as the SEC], a guide

[franky1]

well the emails and the PDF were just voluntary information requests,
not subpoena's or a court order to abide by a subpoena. so i guess until SEC spends some time to get a subpoena to get information properly, this drama will continue for a long while, where so far ignoring information requests is allowed.

and even then when they have the subpoena. you can decline to submit information as you are not Mr Vorheez, you cannot confirm any information about mr vorheez as being accurate, thus you dont want to purger yourself by providing any information that may not be true.

any information about MR vorheez has to be confirmed by Mr vorheez as being accurate and correct, after all anyone can hack a website and change data.

or mr voheez could have sold the service.. to himself(using a different pseudonym) for a variety of reasons. so if any little detail is incorrect. it better to hve Mr vorheez receive the subpoena and then request the information. and mr vorheez verify the information before sending it to SEC.

... speak to a lawyer about this technique ...

[1715031016]

1715031016

[1715031016]

1715031016

[1715031016]

1715031016

[snarlpill]

This sucks for you guys and all of us. Personally, I feel like because the SEC is onto them, that it will become a big story with a sensational Bitcoin-fear mongering headline here in the US mainstream media. I feel like this would lead to trying to get the majority of the public Against BTC and trying to pass more restrictions on it in the U.S.

[Nagle]

This has little to do with Bitcoin. It's just ordinary stuff that's illegal, whether you pay in dollars, Bitcoins, gold, or cabbages.

[Beliathon]

The SEC is doing what it's supposed to be doing - investigating stock trading of unregistered investments.

MPEx, "The Bitcoin Securities Exchange" is the problem. It doesn't matter what the stocks are denominated in. They're still investments. People have tried to get around this before. One scheme paid off in oranges. It was still a security.

Remember GBLSE? Any questions?

So are the 'SEC' in charge of all foreign economies now ?

QFT!!! They're way out of their jurisdiction.

People simply fail to grasp that Bitcoin - and cryptocurrencies generally - absolutely supercede the authority of any single nation state, as cryptocurrencies are the first DECENTRALIZED WORLDWIDE CURRENCIES to EVER EXIST! The financial industry doesn't know how to handle this because it is re-writing the rules!!

Bitcoin is sovereign, the world just hasn't figured it out yet.

All fiat currencies are zombies, waiting to implode and rot away. The world just hasn't figured it out yet.

And given the political shitstorms coming within the next two decades, this process may happen surprisingly and dangerously quickly.

Bitcoin having to "interact" with the SEC is tantamount to an age 18-24 internet user having to "interact" with a fax machine to get some document to their out-dated, irrelevant government.

In other words, a cringe-worthy, ritual charade.

P.S.
Stop thinking in terms of months and years, start thinking in terms of decades, and realize fiat is already dead, and by comparison crypto is relatively immortal.

[Ruthful]

The SEC is doing what it's supposed to be doing - investigating stock trading of unregistered investments.

MPEx, "The Bitcoin Securities Exchange" is the problem. It doesn't matter what the stocks are denominated in. They're still investments. People have tried to get around this before. One scheme paid off in oranges. It was still a security.

Remember GBLSE? Any questions?

So are the 'SEC' in charge of all foreign economies now ?

QFT!!! They're way out of their jurisdiction.

People simply fail to grasp that Bitcoin - and cryptocurrencies generally - absolutely supercede the authority of any single nation state, as cryptocurrencies are the first DECENTRALIZED WORLDWIDE CURRENCIES to EVER EXIST! The financial industry doesn't know how to handle this because it is re-writing the rules!!

Bitcoin is sovereign, the world just hasn't figured it out yet.

All fiat currencies are zombies, waiting to implode and rot away. The world just hasn't figured it out yet.

And given the political shitstorms coming within the next two decades, this process may happen surprisingly and dangerously quickly.

Bitcoin having to "interact" with the SEC is tantamount to an age 18-24 internet user having to "interact" with a fax machine to get some document to their out-dated, irrelevant government.

In other words, a cringe-worthy, ritual charade.

P.S.
Stop thinking in terms of months and years, start thinking in terms of decades, and realize fiat is already dead, and by comparison crypto is relatively immortal.

Unless you are the ruler of your own nation with Bitcoin as your currency this whole "sovereign " thing won't fly(even then it won't make you immune to international pressure) .They can still pressure cooperation from the governing agencies in your country and only the ones that are openly hostile with the US  won't usually comply.Even if that's the case there is still the risk that they(your countries own authorities) will take action on you themselves regardless of how friendly they are with the US.

The way SEC or any alphabet agencies from the US of A operates is=if you one of your clients/customers/victims are are citizens of the USA then they could and will pursue action against you for your violation, granted that they could spare that time and effort of course(they are only hampered by their lack of resources).Take Profitable Sunrise or Liberty Reserve for example.  There's a very good reason why unregistered securities and scams tend to avoid taking US customers(or refuse to acknowledge that they do).

[MPOE-PR]

The SEC is doing what it's supposed to be doing - investigating stock trading of unregistered investments.

MPEx, "The Bitcoin Securities Exchange" is the problem. It doesn't matter what the stocks are denominated in. They're still investments. People have tried to get around this before. One scheme paid off in oranges. It was still a security.

Remember GBLSE? Any questions?

Question 1: how did you get the idea you had anything worthwhile to add?

Question 2: remember who killed glbse?

MPEx was here before the SEC, MPEx will be here after the SEC. As MP points out what's in question here is whether the SEC ever becomes relevant in this space, not the reverse. Hopefully they have enough sense to not waste this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

This sucks for you guys and all of us. Personally, I feel like because the SEC is onto them, that it will become a big story with a sensational Bitcoin-fear mongering headline here in the US mainstream media. I feel like this would lead to trying to get the majority of the public Against BTC and trying to pass more restrictions on it in the U.S.

Nonsense. They're some people trying to do their job. The idea is to get them to do their job correctly, properly, legally, and well. Rather than lazily, ineffectually, and confusedly (as they have so far). And they will, basically because it's not up to them in any sense. It's the job.

[jbreher]

The idea is to get them to do their job correctly, properly, legally, and well.

Indeed. It is right and proper to request the chains of authority that might (or might not) show the SEC to have a legitimate authority to either request (option) or demand (mandate) MPEx provide them with such information.

Seems to me the record shows that MP responded in a perfectly appropriate manner. He didn't roll over. He didn't refuse outright. He seems to be trying to get them to demonstrate they have such authority - or perhaps more properly, get them to realize for themselves that they have no such authority.

[drrussellshane]

MP, dammit, you are starting to grow on me.

Oh to hell with it; I like the guy.

[Gives *internet nod* in MP's direction.]

[franky1]

and to make a summary of this topics discussions.

if dollar was involved in trades then the american government that owns the patent and copyright to the dollar, can control who or how the dollar is used.
but to control who and how, the individual employee's of the government have to prove that the requests the individuals make are that of government order, and not of the individuals opinion/choice.

EG a cashier of a retail store does not have the same power as the CEO of a retail store.
government employee's do not have the same power as government.
employees of both need permission from higher up the chain of command before doing anything that affects others.

now back to the first part of the summary.

if dollars were not involved then it is not in the governments jurisdiction because bitcoin does not belong to them.

the PDF and emails do not prove jurisdiction or an official order by government, which has to be authorized by the courts, as it goes against a human right to silence and freedom.

so the email responses to the requests in my eyes, are adequate

[jbreher]

employees of both need permission from higher up the chain of command before doing anything that affects others.

To put this in sharper relief, the "permission from higher up the chain of command" need be traceable all the way to Fundamental Law - i.e. either Common Law or the Constitution.

[jimmothy]

if dollars were not involved then it is not in the governments jurisdiction because bitcoin does not belong to them.

I have to fully disagree and so does the SEC.

Pirate40, charlie shrem, btct.co, bitfunder, and many more "companies" slammed by the SEC have made it clear that the excuse "I was using imaginary digital money so all existing laws don't apply to me" does not work out so well.

It's about time us bitcoiners learn that existing laws actually still apply to us

[Beliathon]

The idea is to get them to do their job correctly, properly, legally, and well. Rather than lazily, ineffectually, and confusedly (as they have so far). And they will, basically because it's not up to them in any sense. It's the job.

I haven't been here very long, but you are rapidly becoming my favorite posters on these forums. This indicates a high probability of you being (one of) the most intelligent person(s) on these forums, FYI.

[jbreher]

employees of both need permission from higher up the chain of command before doing anything that affects others.

To put this in sharper relief, the "permission from higher up the chain of command" need be traceable all the way to Fundamental Law - i.e. either Common Law or the Constitution.

jbreher, incorrect. franky1 was correct.

franky1 was literally correct, but incomplete. I disagree with your assertion that I am incorrect. I merely qualified franky1's assertion.

In the USA, the Supreme Court has consistently adopted that doctrine that any law or regulation not authorized to the federal government under the Constitution is null and void. End of story.

Sure, they'll twist case law in an incremental fashion to lead to conclusions that seem to violate the Constitution. But it must be traceable in some manner to be valid.

[Beliathon]

There's a very good reason why unregistered securities and scams tend to avoid taking US customers(or refuse to acknowledge that they do).

I'm assuming you mean scams OTHER than the federal reserve and the US banking industry, here?

[jbreher]

Agreed franky1's comment was not specific enough.

But yours is more incomplete, because the authority must have the power to indemnify against all laws and jurisdictions to which MPOE is subject to, not just the law and jurisdiction from which that authority derives.

That is why the rest of my post flew right over your illogical head.

What authority needs to 'indemnify against all laws and jurisdictions'? You are turning the entire legal structure since the Magna Carta upside down. The 'authority' must demonstrate proper jurisdiction and venue in order to be any 'authority' in the matter whatsoever.

Thanks for the childish insult, jerk.

[riekinho]

SEC let Bernie run a 50 billion $ Ponzi with 1 and a half employee for decades, but feels obliged to protect customers from an alleged Romanian con-artist trading in something that isn't even defined yet.

Hipocrisy of government institution can only be matched by religious hypocrisy of zaelots.

I admire your courage and articulate responses Mircea!

The US$ is entering its sunset. The idea that SEC could make someone half a globe away crap one's pants will seem very distant soon.

[karlmarxxx]

Seems like this is the equivalent of a LE officer asking to search your car or house looking for evidence. It's often a very effective technique to use your authority as a threat, most people will back down instantly and allow a search, thinking "Well I didn't do anything wrong, so I might as well let them, they're going to do it anyway, Right?"

Problem is if you go the "Hard Route" it's often a more effective strategy for your defense. If any case is brought against MP or EV, the legal team can try to over turn the evidence gathering techniques as unlawful.

Also one should point out that anything the prosecution says is not fact, until it has been reviewed by a judge, a jury, and the appellate courts. Until that happens, it isn't law. The prosecution can lie and create fiction in the media, then never bring charges on their claims, whilst smearing the reputation of the accused.

Case in point, Ross Ulbricht was never charged with the whole hitman thing, but it was, and continues to be given as a fact that they did. In the case of Charlie Shrem, a similar circumstance is happening. Just because someone says you did something and they have a position of authority doesn't mean that it is so. It also doesn't mean that the legal system has verified that the charges break any laws. All of these people could have the entire case thrown out of court if the judge rules that the case was an improper interpretation of the laws.

Lets also not forget that the SEC has a terrible record at actually prosecuting financial crimes. They had a mountain of evidence against SAC and couldn't get the job done. No one has gone to jail for the mortgage meltdown. Bernie Madoff ran a $50b ponzi scheme for over 20 years, and was in a position of power(Chairman of NASDAQ) that should have assured SEC scrutiny.

I would rather the SEC look at wall street for billion dollar crimes then look at a Romanian bitcoin exchange. Seriously how many people do they have on this case? For what a few million dollars in Bitcoin? Hardly seems worth the effort and manpower at this point. The SEC is already not very well staffed, and they are putting what percentage of the NY SEC resources into this case?

[seriouscoin]

Agreed franky1's comment was not specific enough.

But yours is more incomplete, because the authority must have the power to indemnify against all laws and jurisdictions to which MPOE is subject to, not just the law and jurisdiction from which that authority derives.

That is why the rest of my post flew right over your illogical head.

What authority needs to 'indemnify against all laws and jurisdictions'? You are turning the entire legal structure since the Magna Carta upside down. The 'authority' must demonstrate proper jurisdiction and venue in order to be any 'authority' in the matter whatsoever.

Thanks for the childish insult, jerk.

Can you stop quoting the troll for once? 90% members on this forum has ignored AnonyMint, but quoting him makes it useless.

[franky1]

if dollars were not involved then it is not in the governments jurisdiction because bitcoin does not belong to them.

I have to fully disagree and so does the SEC.

Pirate40, charlie shrem, btct.co, bitfunder, and many more "companies" slammed by the SEC have made it clear that the excuse "I was using imaginary digital money so all existing laws don't apply to me" does not work out so well.

It's about time us bitcoiners learn that existing laws actually still apply to us

lets reword my point.
if i, an english person were to sell a house in spain using euro's to a guy in australia... which authority would be involved.... i certainly know the UK government cannot just jump in without showing they have jurisdiction on spanish property..

[TakeTheSkyRoad]

Having had a dig this does seem to be pretty well covered in the agreement :
http://mpex.co/?mpsic=S.MPOE

2. INDEMNIFICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY ; REMEDIES.

2.1. Neither Mircea Popescu, MPOE or MPEx nor their respective Owners, Directors, Agents or Partners assume any liability for any losses suffered or alleged to have been suffered by any third party as a result of the execution of this Agreement. All third parties are to make their own determinations, satisfy their own due dilligence policies and assume for themselves any and all risks involved. In particular compliance with any laws, rules or regulations in effect in any jurisdiction where a third party may find itself is entirely the responsibility of that third party -- neither party to this Agreement makes any guarantees or representation as to the legal status of this Agreement in any third party's jurisdiction.

2.2. BUYER BEWARE. MPOE/MPEx shall be considered a high-risk speculative investment. Past performance of the site is no guarantee of future performance. Past profitability is no guarantee of future profitability. Value of S.MPOE shares may rise or fall over time and the entire venture may become worthless for any number of reasons. Neither Mircea Popescu nor any other person or entity shall be liable or responsible for compensating any shareholder for any value lost by a depreciation in the value of shares of MPOE/MPEx.

2.3 At no point shall the obligations Mircea Popescu arising from the execution of this contract exceed the value of his interest in MPOE/MPEx. The liability of any person or entity party to this contract, either direct, indirect, incidental, tortious, punitive, exemplary or otherwise shall in no case exceed such sums as may be proven that person or entity has in fact received through the working of this contract. Signatories and investors agree to indemnify and hold harmless any party from any claims that may exceed such sums.

While there I found this bit interesting :

4. MISCELLANEA

4.1. DISCUSSION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST. The named individual is in fact at the time of this agreement the sole proprietor and operator of both named corporations, and they were represented in this agreement by him. Consequently the dispositions of this agreement may be regarded as declaratory rather than contractual in their substance. Nevertheless, inasmuch as they are publicly made and verifiable their execution or breach can in fact be verified.

4.2. This contract is the sole and complete agreement between the parties and to the subject matter. This contract supersedes and replaces any other agreements, communicated in any other way at any point in time. This contract stands as it is, and may not be modified by third parties, irrespective if said parties should style themselves "court of law", "judge" or otherwise.

4.3. This contract is protected as copyrighted material. It may not be reused by different parties without the express permission of MPEx.

So is this contract (and "this contract" is used many times) is really a declaration ? I take from this that effectively if you involve yourself then you agree to the declaration and the obligations for MPOE/MPEX/MP are not contractually binding.

As for the wider SEC issue I expect that they might be looking to track BTC from the US.  At a guess they might be looking for BTC linked to the Silk Road or any other of the busts/scams that have gone down.  Also if they are increasingly treating BTC as money (a wider good thing) then BTC "leaving" the US might (in their view) be subject to the reporting regulations etc.

Finally I think they were doing their job in asking.... sending an email to ask costs nothing and you never know what people will do if you just ask nicely. They might give you more than you wanted or asked for. I'm not saying that's *right* though, legally or morally.
Of course now they need to go through channels so unless they prepared in advance then it'll be a week or few while lawyers are consulted.