A peculiar Response to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice

[Bitstar_coin]

 I cant stop laughing to the response given to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice when they ask a self-custodian wallet provider to freeze the btc of users and disclose their info, this Nonchuk guys are very bold i must say  .
see response below,



Source

[Bttzed03]

The last part sounds bizaare. While they (court) appear ignorant how non-custodial wallet works, I still think they (nunchuck) should have responded in a more polite manner. I won't be surprised if they will be in some sort of trouble in the future because of that. It's pretty cool for marketing though.

Anyway, this was part of the letter sent to them:
https://twitter.com/nunchuk_io/status/1494885897577271299

[dothebeats]

That last part tho, certainly something that's worth praising for.

The Canadian government's authoritarian stance has been unmasked by how they are ordering anything related to crypto to divulge information of its users and freeze their assets just to prevent a group of people receiving donations to them. Trudeau is a wanker, and should be replaced by someone competent that won't do stupid things just because their ego is stepped on.

[buwaytress]

Whoops, I just saw this, had posted something in Legal. This is almost as good as the US putting Bitcoin addresses on a sanctions list.

The last part sounds bizaare. While they (court) appear ignorant how non-custodial wallet, I still think they (nunchuck) should responded in a more polite manner. I won't be surprised if they will be in some sort of trouble in the future because of that. It's pretty cool for marketing though.

True, I think it's somewhat arrogant on their part, but this is definitely marketing. Definitely should have got a lawyer to respond but don't think it's nasty enough to warrant contempt (and maybe they already had legal eyes pass over this).

[DapanasFruit]

Though it is quite understandable why the court is not fully aware of what it means to be non-custodial, this just means that people in the judicial system needs to be educated on things related to the blockchain and cryptocurrency so they know how to respond on cases like this one. One of the points I am seeing here is that the court is categorizing this specific Nunchuk as an intermediary according to the traditionally definition we have - and we know this is not the case. Now, on the response, I agree that it would have better if they got a lawyer to make the communication a lot better and not appear to have done with some condescending attitude.

[franky1]

That last part tho, certainly something that's worth praising for.

The Canadian government's authoritarian stance has been unmasked by how they are ordering anything related to crypto to divulge information of its users and freeze their assets just to prevent a group of people receiving donations to them. Trudeau is a wanker, and should be replaced by someone competent that won't do stupid things just because their ego is stepped on.

the thing is.. trudeau didnt order this..
some coffee shop owner in ottowa did. he was pee'd off with the events affecting his business..

its not about nunchuk having access to keys. its about anyone or any business aiding the key holders in any way
things like

NOTICE
If you, the Defendant, disobey this order you may be held to be in contempt of
court and may be imprisoned, fined or have your assets seized. You are entitled
to apply on at least twenty-four (24) hours notice to the Plaintiff, for an order
granting you sufficient funds for ordinary living expenses and legal advice and
representation.
Any other person who knows of this order and does anything which helps or
permits the Defendant to breach the terms of this Order may also be held to be in
contempt of court and may be fined or imprisoned.

Mareva Injunction
2. THIS COURT ORDERS that the Mareva Respondents and their servants, employees, agents, assigns, officers, directors and anyone else acting on their behalf or in conjunction with any of them, and any and all persons with notice of this Order, are restrained from directly or
indirectly, by any means whatsoever:
  (a) selling, removing, dissipating, alienating, transferring, assigning, encumbering,
        or similarly dealing with the assets of the Mareva Respondents listed in Schedule “A”
   (b) instructing, requesting, counselling, demanding, or encouraging any other person
         to conduct themselves contrary to paragraph 2(a) above;
  and
  (c) facilitating, assisting in, aiding, abetting, or participating in any acts the effect of
        which is to contrary to paragraph 2(a) above, until final disposition of this action or further Order of this Court.

nunchuk foolishly admitted having their emails.. thus knowing about them. thus did aid them[probably knowing after the fact/in hindsight]. ..so now he is part of it even more then he wishes to be

luckily he is not a "Mareva Respondant" and just a "Intermediaries" because the mareva group need to make witnessed swarn statments before the end of the month. where as all the intermediaries need to do, is stop aiding the mareva group and disclose everything they know about the groups activities

11. THIS COURT ORDERS that the Intermediaries shall forthwith disclose and deliver up
to the Plaintiffs any and all records held by the Intermediary concerning the Mareva
Respondents’ assets, including the existence, nature, value and location of any monies or assets
or credit, wherever situate, held on behalf of the Mareva Respondent by the Intermediaries.

so because he knows they used his service he has to provide any and all info he knows about them. even if it is just an email address and a date he obtained the email.

[Bitstar_coin]

The last part sounds bizaare. While they (court) appear ignorant how non-custodial wallet, I still think they (nunchuck) should responded in a more polite manner. I won't be surprised if they will be in some sort of trouble in the future because of that. It's pretty cool for marketing though.

Anyway, this was part of the letter sent to them:
https://twitter.com/nunchuk_io/status/1494885897577271299

I also think there will be consequences moving forward,  there is no way they can give such a response and enjoy some peace, the court may not have a full understanding of how the non-custodian wallet works, it is the responsibility of the Nonchuk team to provide such info, well some of their Twitter followers seem to be enjoying the response, it has gained them more users for now. 

[franky1]

I also think there will be consequences moving forward,  there is no way they can give such a response and enjoy some peace, the court may not have a full understanding of how the non-custodian wallet works, it is the responsibility of the Nonchuk team to provide such info, well some of their Twitter followers seem to be enjoying the response, it has gained them more users for now.  

reading the whole document the court does seem to understand the difference between custodial wallets and private wallets and even multisig

EG

3. THIS COURT ORDERS that paragraph 2 applies to all of the assets listed in Schedule “A” to this Order, whether or not they are in the Mareva Respondents’ own names, whether or not they are solely or jointly owned, and whether or not the Mareva Respondents have exclusive control over the asset

so the court does know that the coins can be jointly held(multisig) and that coins may be either in custodian or private holding

it doesnt appear that the court doesnt know the tech. its more of the case that they dont know WHO has the keys and what relationship they have to the keys.

so they are just classifying all intermediaries that had some communication, involvement of any kind, to provide all records, info they have about their involvement. whether just service provider or key holder, both or none. they still want answers.

its more so the fault of the convoy fundraisers mentioning nunchuk as the option they used to make the multisig. thus getting nunchuk involved

here is the guy talking about nunchuk and how nunchuk has been in many communications with them and offered them extra technical support (because the organisers dont know bitcoin technically)
https://youtu.be/_FD9xfSI9PQ?t=275

i had to laugh at the rest of the video how many times he kept being unsure of what to spend the funds on even 2 weeks after the protests began. and how they wanted to keep 80% of it long term... rather than just pay out immediately

[cheezcarls]

The response was instant classic indeed! Made my day too!

Now I wonder what would be the next move of the court after receiving this response. For sure, either they would use some "force" to those wallet holders to hand over the "keys to the kingdom" to them and transfer it to a custodial wallet of the "government" or they would "insist" and instruct the "developers" of that wallet to re-program the system to enable certain accounts to be frozen. However, this isn't possible anymore especially reprogramming it. That's just my opinion of course.

But for me, I think Nunchuk would respond more politely though.

[franky1]

The response was instant classic indeed! Made my day too!

Now I wonder what would be the next move of the court after receiving this response. For sure, either they would use some "force" to those wallet holders to hand over the "keys to the kingdom" to them and transfer it to a custodial wallet of the "government" or they would "insist" and instruct the "developers" of that wallet to re-program the system to enable certain accounts to be frozen. However, this isn't possible anymore especially reprogramming it. That's just my opinion of course.

But for me, I think Nunchuk would respond more politely though.

the actual people that might have the keys (the mareva respondents list) have 7 days from being served to reply with a statement. and then within 7 days of replying need to submit to an examination(interview/questioning) under oath.

nunchuk is just an intermediary so does not need to do the second part. he just needed to make a statement and disclose all records, communication involving the mareva parties.
because the guy in video in my last post 'outed' nunchuk about lots of communications with the mareva group. nunchuk could get in trouble if he hides any info that is known to the public that nunchuk should have provided. as thats contempt of court.

EG just saying "we do not collect any information bar email addresses" aint good enough. the court would like to know not only the email addresses, but also copies of the email correspondence, and any names nunchuk may know associated with the email addresses and email correspondence.

[Accardo]

It's the perfect moment for Nonchuk to go viral since they are a new tech firm. They have the best strategy of getting people's attention on the internet through such mail with a funny reply trying to belittle the Government regarding such a request that sounds like they know nothing about private keys and blockchain protocols. Although, Nonchuk have been of good support to the truckers' movement.

They'll do the necessary things to see that protesters continue utilizing their platform to store their funds using multi-sig. The court only needs them to do what they requested before they can go free because they won't stop disturbing them until they find a way to confiscate the funds as requested. The citizens have the right to such a movement. But, the Government is the same everywhere. They deprive citizens of their fundamental human rights all the time. It'll be genuine to say that the Government can hold Nonchuk responsible for supporting the movement.

[SFR10]

The last part sounds bizaare. While they (court) appear ignorant how non-custodial wallet works, I still think they (nunchuck) should have responded in a more polite manner. I won't be surprised if they will be in some sort of trouble in the future because of that.

With that kind of response, the Nunchuck team proved how immature they are ^{[AFAICS, they're not even that popular and still have that kind of attitude (SMH)]}... Regardless of the last paragraph, I think the government or the court in question, would try their best to make things difficult for such providers ^{[I'm not implying they'll be successful, but still...]}.

[pooya87]

The last part sounds bizaare. While they (court) appear ignorant how non-custodial wallet works, I still think they (nunchuck) should have responded in a more polite manner. I won't be surprised if they will be in some sort of trouble in the future because of that. It's pretty cool for marketing though.

Nah, you should answer dictatorship exactly this way and I don't think they face any problems because it is an open source non-custodial wallet that doesn't really leave any room for problems. In addition to that, they may not be in a jurisdiction for them to cause any problems for them anyways

Anyway, how do we even know this is a response to the court. All I see is an email to someone called Monique.

[hatshepsut93]

With that kind of response, the Nunchuck team proved how immature they are ^{[AFAICS, they're not even that popular and still have that kind of attitude (SMH)]}... Regardless of the last paragraph, I think the government or the court in question, would try their best to make things difficult for such providers ^{[I'm not implying they'll be successful, but still...]}.

Nunchuck is not a company or a registered organization, it's just an open source software project. There's nothing wrong with a slight trolling of a government organization that didn't bother to train their employees with basic cryptocurrency literacy. I seriously doubt that government is going to do anything about this incident, the developers did absolutely nothing illegal, making Bitcoin wallets has not been outlawed.

[Upgrade00]

Anyway, how do we even know this is a response to the court. All I see is an email to someone called Monique.

Exactly this. It could all be a publicity stunt to trend on social media and build traffic. I have seen businesses do far more for an increase in follower-ship.
However, whether or not this was their response to the court, it passes a bold message to the public that;
• Storing your funds on non custodian platforms are the best alternative to escape heavy handed policies, and
• The government have no control over a decentralized platform.

[franky1]

im laughing at the last 4 posts..
dont they realise that it was a private individual(coffee shop owner) that requested the court to make an order.. not the "government"

in other situations where other private individuals get scammed or hoax 'hacked' by some exchange and the government does send a court order for all exchanges to freeze funds (like how the bitfinex funds got frozen) people dont scream "government shouldnt do that", they praise the government when the government got involved in grabbing the stolen bitfinex funds.

but this topic is about a private individual making the request not the government. yet the posts above have people screaming at the government.

its been a good laugh.

i see many problems with government. but i atleast see clearly when things do or dont involve the government and i pick my debates better

[PrimeNumber7]

The last part sounds bizaare. While they (court) appear ignorant how non-custodial wallet works, I still think they (nunchuck) should have responded in a more polite manner. I won't be surprised if they will be in some sort of trouble in the future because of that.

Responding in that way can result in the Judge looking unfavorably towards you and ruling against you in the future. Even if these rulings are overruled, this can be expensive. If they will never be subjected to the jurisdiction of the court, they don't have anything to worry about.

Whoops, I just saw this, had posted something in Legal. This is almost as good as the US putting Bitcoin addresses on a sanctions list.

I am not aware of the US sanctioning any bitcoin addresses. Do you have a link to this happening?

I know that Canada has (tried) to sanction bitcoin addresses/wallets associated with people donating to the peaceful protestors, but I have serious doubts that Canada will be able to enforce any sanctions they levy. They simply don't have the moral authority to prevent the money from being spent. There is no serious evidence the money is being used for criminal activity.

[franky1]

I know that Canada has (tried) to sanction bitcoin addresses/wallets associated with people donating to the peaceful protestors, but I have serious doubts that Canada will be able to enforce any sanctions they levy. They simply don't have the moral authority to prevent the money from being spent. There is no serious evidence the money is being used for criminal activity.

the point of this court order is not that it proves any criminal act. its that its a court order to halt any movement of funds whilst the private individual that instigated the court order gathers statements and 'examinations under oath' from different groups to find evidence as to if the funds are criminally related. (you know innocent until proven guilty, doesnt mean no court involvement unless first proven guilty. it means courts job is to hold someone to account to prevent destruction/removal/relate assets/evidence under question.., and then later, judge on innocence/guilt)

this court order is phase 1. we shall see how things develop on the 28th. if the private individual gets enough evidence from the statements/examinations to request funds be given to court, or if he extends to 'gather more evidence' (basically keep funds in limbo), or if he just lets the court order lapse at its expiry.

if funds do move while court order is active. then the fundraising group can be fined or imprisoned. so its not a silly court order with no repercussions

[PrimeNumber7]

I know that Canada has (tried) to sanction bitcoin addresses/wallets associated with people donating to the peaceful protestors, but I have serious doubts that Canada will be able to enforce any sanctions they levy. They simply don't have the moral authority to prevent the money from being spent. There is no serious evidence the money is being used for criminal activity.

the point of this court order is not that it proves any criminal act. its that its a court order to halt any movement of funds whilst the private individual that instigated the court order gathers statements and 'examinations under oath' from different groups to find evidence as to if the funds should be released or further extensions, or ordered to be handed to the courts.

this court order is phase 1. we shall see how things develop on the 28th. if the private individual gets enough evidence from the statements/examinations to request funds be given to court, or if he extends to 'gather more evidence' (basically keep funds in limbo, or if he just lets the court order lapse at its expiry.

if funds do move while court order is active. then the fundraising group can be fined or imprisoned. so its not a silly court order with no repercussions

I don't think any country is going to comply with sanctions against people that are being investigated. That is not how Western jurisprudence works.

[franky1]

I know that Canada has (tried) to sanction bitcoin addresses/wallets associated with people donating to the peaceful protestors, but I have serious doubts that Canada will be able to enforce any sanctions they levy. They simply don't have the moral authority to prevent the money from being spent. There is no serious evidence the money is being used for criminal activity.

the point of this court order is not that it proves any criminal act. its that its a court order to halt any movement of funds whilst the private individual that instigated the court order gathers statements and 'examinations under oath' from different groups to find evidence as to if the funds should be released or further extensions, or ordered to be handed to the courts.

this court order is phase 1. we shall see how things develop on the 28th. if the private individual gets enough evidence from the statements/examinations to request funds be given to court, or if he extends to 'gather more evidence' (basically keep funds in limbo, or if he just lets the court order lapse at its expiry.

if funds do move while court order is active. then the fundraising group can be fined or imprisoned. so its not a silly court order with no repercussions

I don't think any country is going to comply with sanctions against people that are being investigated. That is not how Western jurisprudence works.

maybe. instead of filling your head with "government government government"
try reading the actual court order.
its actually limited to certain exchanges/individuals that operate in canada.. its not sanctioning whole countries

canadian government is not sanctioning addresses against american government

canadian private citizen is sanctioning bitcoin addresses against private business, via the courts