BurtW arrested (update: charges dropped!)

[QuestionAuthority]

I again voice my support and continue to wonder how it ever became the norm in your country that "if you are the police, you can just take whatever belongs to others and keep it regardless of everything". It never got this bad before the American Revolution. Not even close.

It's the norm because America controls people through fear and, honestly, has a complete disregard for human rights or life. It's the same mentality that allows them to bomb anyone in the world that they don't like. It boils down to a complete disregard for the welfare of individuals. If Americans can drone attack women and children because they want to kill one guy in a house what makes you think they'll care about their citizens? A callous disregard for the welfare of individuals can be seen in every action the US military takes overseas. That attitude will not stay overseas.

"TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562 - 3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474 - 881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228 - 1,362 individuals," according to the Stanford/NYU study.

Based on interviews with witnesses, victims and experts, the report accuses the CIA of "double-striking" a target, moments after the initial hit, thereby killing first responders.

We blow up the ambulance drivers and medical help arriving on scene to save victims of our first bombings. We pay for the bombs by "confiscating" money from our citizens. Either your country cares about people or they don't. America doesn't care. That's why America continues to imprison so many of its citizens instead of finding out the reasons that they are jailing them. Example: Someone is poor so he steals food. Instead of finding out how he lives, helping him become fully employed and self sufficient they throw him in jail. The first reaction shows a level of care about the underprivileged citizen. The jail reaction shows a complete disregard for the life of the citizen. Understand?

[1713969362]

1713969362

[1713969362]

1713969362

[1713969362]

1713969362

[1713969362]

1713969362

[rpietila]

The American Revolution was a freemason conspiracy, yes I get it. The 20-100,000,000 locals that were massacred to allow the first colonization (of North America itself) was a good start in the infamous disregard of human life.

Perhaps it's been like that all the time, and the jews that moved in later, to visibly control the media and monetary system, are just tools and frontline sacrificial lambs just in case We The People some day realize the extent of deception.

[QuestionAuthority]

The American Revolution was a freemason conspiracy, yes I get it. The 20-100,000,000 locals that were massacred to allow the first colonization (of North America itself) was a good start in the infamous disregard of human life.

Perhaps it's been like that all the time, and the jews that moved in later, to visibly control the media and monetary system, are just tools and frontline sacrificial lambs just in case We The People some day realize the extent of deception.

Oh, yes you do completely understand. I doubt the great unwashed will ever really understand what's happening to them. They will just live on in ignorant bliss, occasionally self medicating by handing a dollar out the window of their car to a homeless begger that previously lived in their house and enjoyed their life.

[BurtW]

From the document, it doesn't look like this was from simple face to face transactions using localbitcoins... it looks like he was somehow involved with running an exchange.

Yes, I was charged for simply trading Bitcoins on localbitcoins.com.  It did not matter that it was face-to-face or that it was for cash.  They claimed my trading activity on localbitcoins.com was a business.  I claimed it was not a business.  After about $300,000 and several months of negotiations by my attorney we basically agreed to disagree on whether it was a business or not and they agreed to drop all the criminal charges against me and all the civil charges against all my stuff they had seized for a one time donation to their civil asset forfeiture slush fund.

BTW the cops have always been able to and motivated to ask you if you have any cash in the car when they stop you.  If you say yes and they think it is "too much" cash they can just take if from you without any charges being filed.  It is then up to you to prove that the cash they took from you is totally innocent of any criminal activity.  If you can prove that your cash is innocent then they might give it back to you.

I just saw that they now have a new weapon in their war on the people:  not only can they seize any cash you happen to have on you they can now take all the value off any type of pre-paid card you happen to have on you or in your car:

http://boingboing.net/2016/06/09/oklahoma-cops-can-use-scanners.html

Nice.

Now you have to prove your pre-paid Appplebee's or Amazon card is innocent of criminal activity in order to get your money back!

It won't be long before they can take your phone from you during a traffic stop and see if you have a Bitcoin wallet on your phone.  If you do they will then confiscate your phone and you will have to prove your Bitcoins are innocent (and your phone is innocent) before they will consider giving your phone and Bitcoin wallet back to you.

When they arrested me they took my phone, all of my Bitcoins, all my computers, etc.  It was only after they dropped all the civil charges against my stuff - and I paid them the donation of cash and Bitcoins they squeezed out of me - that I got my phone and wallet back.

[iamnotback]

It won't be long before they can take your phone from you during a traffic stop and see if you have a Bitcoin wallet on your phone.  If you do they will then confiscate your phone and you will have to prove your Bitcoins are innocent (and your phone is innocent) before they will consider giving your phone and Bitcoin wallet back to you.

This is why we will keep only an operating balance in a phone wallet.

The main balance will be a colder storage at home in a vault, or in safety deposit box. You will periodically move funds between your hot mobile wallet and your cold storage.

Btw, it really sucks what happened to you. Charge it to experience!

[beastmodeBiscuitGravy]

It won't be long before they can take your phone from you during a traffic stop and see if you have a Bitcoin wallet on your phone.  If you do they will then confiscate your phone and you will have to prove your Bitcoins are innocent (and your phone is innocent) before they will consider giving your phone and Bitcoin wallet back to you.

This is why we will keep only an operating balance in a phone wallet.

The main balance will be a colder storage at home in a vault, or in safety deposit box. You will periodically move funds between your hot mobile wallet and your cold storage.

Btw, it really sucks what happened to you. Charge it to experience!

Dude got basically ass-raped by the Man for selling digital tokens, and you say... "Charge it to experience!"... lemme guess, spergers?

[unamis76]

From the document, it doesn't look like this was from simple face to face transactions using localbitcoins... it looks like he was somehow involved with running an exchange.

Yes, I was charged for simply trading Bitcoins on localbitcoins.com.  It did not matter that it was face-to-face or that it was for cash.  They claimed my trading activity on localbitcoins.com was a business.  I claimed it was not a business.  After about $300,000 and several months of negotiations by my attorney we basically agreed to disagree on whether it was a business or not and they agreed to drop all the criminal charges against me and all the civil charges against all my stuff they had seized for a one time donation to their civil asset forfeiture slush fund.

BTW the cops have always been able to and motivated to ask you if you have any cash in the car when they stop you.  If you say yes and they think it is "too much" cash they can just take if from you without any charges being filed.  It is then up to you to prove that the cash they took from you is totally innocent of any criminal activity.  If you can prove that your cash is innocent then they might give it back to you.

I just saw that they now have a new weapon in their war on the people:  not only can they seize any cash you happen to have on you they can now take all the value off any type of pre-paid card you happen to have on you or in your car:

http://boingboing.net/2016/06/09/oklahoma-cops-can-use-scanners.html

Nice.

Now you have to prove your pre-paid Appplebee's or Amazon card is innocent of criminal activity in order to get your money back!

It won't be long before they can take your phone from you during a traffic stop and see if you have a Bitcoin wallet on your phone.  If you do they will then confiscate your phone and you will have to prove your Bitcoins are innocent (and your phone is innocent) before they will consider giving your phone and Bitcoin wallet back to you.

When they arrested me they took my phone, all of my Bitcoins, all my computers, etc.  It was only after they dropped all the civil charges against my stuff - and I paid them the donation of cash and Bitcoins they squeezed out of me - that I got my phone and wallet back.

Read about that on zeroday's thread... My doubt is, how does that seize the funds from a card without needing a PIN?

I've also read that the company who makes these things gets a comission from seized funds, which I find rather "odd"...

As for the phone with Bitcoins, they risk ending up with a wallet without any funds when they eventually get to be able to spend them.

[franky1]

Read about that on zeroday's thread... My doubt is, how does that seize the funds from a card without needing a PIN?

they can take funds from prepaid debit cards because its not a registered account.

http://boingboing.net/2016/06/09/oklahoma-cops-can-use-scanners.html
But the scanners can only retrieve funds from “open loop” prepaid debit cards (Visa and American Express offer them, as do other providers). Any “debit cards attached to a valid checking account or valid credit cards cannot be processed”

remember prepaid card is different compared to bank account debit card

I've also read that the company who makes these things gets a commission from seized funds, which I find rather "odd"...

http://boingboing.net/2016/06/09/oklahoma-cops-can-use-scanners.html
ERAD Group will receive a 7.7 percent cut of all funds seized via the card readers.

meaning whether innocent or guilty your 7.7% worse off the moment the card is swiped.
and if found guilty later in court. the police get to keep the other 92.3%

As for the phone with Bitcoins, they risk ending up with a wallet without any funds when they eventually get to be able to spend them.

yep store bitcoins on your phone with a phone keypad lock.
store your private keys at home in a way that they wont find it if they raided your house.
then when they are trying to bruteforce the phone hopefully you or a relative can move the funds making the old private keys useless

other advice if your using a online wallet app on your phone. set up 2 accounts.. if ever asked to log in to display balance. only log into the account with least funds, should you be in a threatened situation where they wont back off unless they move funds in your presence,making you unable to move funds secretly

[unamis76]

Read about that on zeroday's thread... My doubt is, how does that seize the funds from a card without needing a PIN?

they can take funds from prepaid debit cards because its not a registered account.

http://boingboing.net/2016/06/09/oklahoma-cops-can-use-scanners.html
But the scanners can only retrieve funds from “open loop” prepaid debit cards (Visa and American Express offer them, as do other providers). Any “debit cards attached to a valid checking account or valid credit cards cannot be processed”

remember prepaid card is different compared to bank account debit card

I thought these cards had a code too in order to be used, that's why I was questioning it. I've never used cards like these, honestly.

I've also read that the company who makes these things gets a commission from seized funds, which I find rather "odd"...

http://boingboing.net/2016/06/09/oklahoma-cops-can-use-scanners.html
ERAD Group will receive a 7.7 percent cut of all funds seized via the card readers.

meaning whether innocent or guilty your 7.7% worse off the moment the card is swiped.
and if found guilty later in court. the police get to keep the other 92.3%

I interpret that in a different way: 100% of your funds are swiped/seized, 7,7% goes to the company who made these readers, 92,3% goes to the police, and if eventually you manage to prove yourself not guilty you get those 92,3% returned. That's what I understood, at least.

yep store bitcoins on your phone with a phone keypad lock.
store your private keys at home in a way that they wont find it if they raided your house.
then when they are trying to bruteforce the phone hopefully you or a relative can move the funds making the old private keys useless

other advice if your using a online wallet app on your phone. set up 2 accounts.. if ever asked to log in to display balance. only log into the account with least funds, should you be in a threatened situation where they wont back off unless they move funds in your presence,making you unable to move funds secretly

The thing is, if you get your home raided, they will find everything, as we've seen with BurtW, but yes, best to try and store it safely at home, or somewhere else.

Your other advice is a pretty good one.

[BurtW]

I've also read that the company who makes these things gets a commission from seized funds, which I find rather "odd"...

http://boingboing.net/2016/06/09/oklahoma-cops-can-use-scanners.html
ERAD Group will receive a 7.7 percent cut of all funds seized via the card readers.

meaning whether innocent or guilty your 7.7% worse off the moment the card is swiped.
and if found guilty later in court. the police get to keep the other 92.3%

This sharing of the loot with the vendor is actually par for the course.  Remember that traffic light cameras are often operated with a cut going to the vendor and the rest going to the government.  Also here is another example, also from Oklahoma, of a vendor getting a cut of the loot:

In January last year, David hired himself and his top trainers out as a roving private interdiction unit for the district attorney’s office in rural Caddo County, Okla. Working with local police, Desert Snow contract employees took in more than $1 million over six months from drivers on the state’s highways, including Interstate 40 west of Oklahoma City. Under its contract, the firm was allowed to keep 25 percent of the cash.

The entire article is worth a read and is very chilling:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/07/police-intelligence-targets-cash/

ASIDE:  you can see if Desert Snow has recently or will soon be training the cops in your area here:

https://desertsnow.com/conferences

These trainings have drawn crowds of protesters in the past and it might be fun to organize a protest at one near you if that is your kind of thing.

As for the phone with Bitcoins, they risk ending up with a wallet without any funds when they eventually get to be able to spend them.

yep store bitcoins on your phone with a phone keypad lock.
store your private keys at home in a way that they wont find it if they raided your house.
then when they are trying to bruteforce the phone hopefully you or a relative can move the funds making the old private keys useless

other advice if your using a online wallet app on your phone. set up 2 accounts.. if ever asked to log in to display balance. only log into the account with least funds, should you be in a threatened situation where they wont back off unless they move funds in your presence,making you unable to move funds secretly

Some very good advice there.  However you need to keep in mind a second, most foul, area of law that comes in to play.  Together with the insane "civil asset forfeiture" laws the other insane area of law is the "contempt of court" laws.

First off, the presence of a Bitcoin wallet on a phone can probably be claimed to be evidence of possibly criminally obtained funds.  This means that in a traffic stop if they get your phone from you and see a wallet on the phone with a password they can just seize the phone.

Second, having seized a wallet with a password they can just keep it until you prove it is innocent.  Yes, you can move your funds off the phone and let them have the phone and just walk away with your Bitcoins and replace your phone.

However there are two scenarios in which this is not the case:

1) if you are arrested at the time of the seizure

2) if they manage to find out you moved their new funds off their new phone after they seized the phone

If you refuse to give them the password or the moved funds you can be charged with contempt of court and be placed in jail until you give them the password or the funds.  This is a pretty big hassle for them and a lot more work than just taking cash, pre-paid cards, unprotected Bitcoins, etc. so they would have to think the possible profit worth the effort so the amount of, or their perception of, the amount comes in to play.

The "good" news is that this would involve having to arrest and charge you with something so you start to have some rights in the process, can hire an attorney, go to court, etc.

The bad news is that contempt of court charges can not be appealed.  Also for all practical purposes there is no time limit for a contempt of court charge.  They can give you 30 days, bring you back to court, if you refuse again - another 30 days, rinse and repeat as long as they want.

[BurtW]

I've also read that the company who makes these things gets a commission from seized funds, which I find rather "odd"...

http://boingboing.net/2016/06/09/oklahoma-cops-can-use-scanners.html
ERAD Group will receive a 7.7 percent cut of all funds seized via the card readers.

meaning whether innocent or guilty you're 7.7% worse off the moment the card is swiped
and if found guilty later in court. the police get to keep the other 92.3% unless you can prove the funds not guilty.

I interpret that in a different way: 100% of your funds are swiped/seized, 7,7% goes to the company who made these readers, 92,3% goes to the police, and if eventually you manage to prove yourself your money not guilty you get those 92,3% returned. That's what I understood, at least.

You are both saying basically the same thing.  Fixed typos there.

However, I actually believe that if you do manage to prove your funds are innocent you will get them all back and the government would take the 7.7 loss or get it back from the vendor.

Once they do finally decide to give you back what they decide to give you back you do get it back.

The real loss to you would be the $50,000 in attorney's fees it will cost you to get it back.

[franky1]

at first i thought the contempt of court was just about disobeying the judge or officers of the court... not police officers on a road.

but seeing as how ERAD works by filing a court document in miliseconds to allow the officer to then mess around with people "funds", i can see what you mean that not handing funds over would technically be seen as a contempt of court.

this is why i said
have 2 wallet accounts. only give them the wallet password with least funds in if you feel threatened and have no opportunity to secretly move your main funds.

[unamis76]

That piece on Desert Snow is pretty interesting, just finished reading it... It's odd that a system like Black Asphalt runs freely online.

As for the phone, let's imagine that the phone is seized and you manage to get the funds there moved after the phone being seized, is it valid in the eyes of the law comparing the transaction timestamp on the blockchain to the time when the seize occurred?

As for giving them the password or the moved funds... Shouldn't it be "and" instead of "or"? Because you can give them the password after the funds have already been swept.

The "good" news end up being the fact that you can eventually get out of this (if your money is innocent, of course, and you have funds for an attorney...)

I've also read that the company who makes these things gets a commission from seized funds, which I find rather "odd"...

http://boingboing.net/2016/06/09/oklahoma-cops-can-use-scanners.html
ERAD Group will receive a 7.7 percent cut of all funds seized via the card readers.

meaning whether innocent or guilty you're 7.7% worse off the moment the card is swiped
and if found guilty later in court. the police get to keep the other 92.3% unless you can prove the funds not guilty.

I interpret that in a different way: 100% of your funds are swiped/seized, 7,7% goes to the company who made these readers, 92,3% goes to the police, and if eventually you manage to prove yourself your money not guilty you get those 92,3% returned. That's what I understood, at least.

You are both saying basically the same thing.  Fixed typos there.

However, I actually believe that if you do manage to prove your funds are innocent you will get them all back and the government would take the 7.7 loss or get it back from the vendor.

Once they do finally decide to give you back what they decide to give you back you do get it back.

The real loss to you would be the $50,000 in attorney's fees it will cost you to get it back.

Well, thanks for fixing the typos, English isn't my native language, so I guess I was a bit "lost in translation" there

I don't see any government taking a loss. They would just take it back from the company, for sure. Those cases are probably contemplated on their contracts. And giving back 100% of funds if they're not guilty is the right thing to do in the middle of this mess.

[BurtW]

Agree with the two previous posts.

When I was arrested the prosecution asked that I be incarcerated without a bond hearing for the maximum time allowed under the Patriot act, six days.  One of the reasons for this pre-bond hearing incarceration was to make sure I did not move my funds before they had a chance to find them.  They were very concerned that I might move my Bitcoins out of seized wallets on seized computers before they had a chance to find them all and move the Bitcoins to their own wallet.

ASSIDE:  I found out later that their wallet was a Trezor that they had seized in another case.

The judge initially granted the prosecution's request for a six day hold before the bond hearing.  My attorney, after getting his mandatory $50,000 cash retainer, did successfully argue this and I was given a bond hearing and got out on bond after only four days and three nights in jail.  I assume I would have survived another few days being bored to death in solitary confinement but it would have totally sucked.

By the time I was released on bond they had found and had moved most of my Bitcoins, the Bitcoins I was holding for my non-tech savvy parents, and some other Bitcoins that were not mine (was holding for a friend until he got his own Trezor.

[BurtW]

That piece on Desert Snow is pretty interesting, just finished reading it... It's odd that a system like Black Asphalt runs freely online.

Not only that but they give out awards to their students and LEO will use these awards on their resumes.

https://www.desertsnow.com/pages/view/6

Now most of the stuff they have to do and seize to get the award could be argued as "a good thing" but this requirement:

*QUALIFIED INCIDENTS / SEIZURES:
US Currency – Successful forfeiture of more than $5,000

is a little bit shady.

As for the phone, let's imagine that the phone is seized and you manage to get the funds there moved after the phone being seized, is it valid in the eyes of the law comparing the transaction timestamp on the blockchain to the time when the seize occurred?

As for giving them the password or the moved funds... Shouldn't it be "and" instead of "or"? Because you can give them the password after the funds have already been swept.

Yes, they will look at the time of the move relative to the seizure.

They (Homeland Security) are not as bright as they are made out to be on TV but not quite as stupid as you might want them to be.

[BurtW]

I knew I had found one of the Royal Knights at one point.  Found him again, Royal Knight #13:

Inducted as Royal Knight #13 of the Black Asphalt (2009)

It is a major accomplishment, not easy to do, and I am sure he is very proud of it.

http://www.bernalillocountysheriff.com/cmdstaff.html

[unamis76]

Agree with the two previous posts.

When I was arrested the prosecution asked that I be incarcerated without a bond hearing for the maximum time allowed under the Patriot act, six days.  One of the reasons for this pre-bond hearing incarceration was to make sure I did not move my funds before they had a chance to find them.  They were very concerned that I might move my Bitcoins out of seized wallets on seized computers before they had a chance to find them all and move the Bitcoins to their own wallet.

ASSIDE:  I found out later that their wallet was a Trezor that they had seized in another case.

The judge initially granted the prosecution's request for a six day hold before the bond hearing.  My attorney, after getting his mandatory $50,000 cash retainer, did successfully argue this and I was given a bond hearing and got out on bond after only four days and three nights in jail.  I assume I would have survived another few days being bored to death in solitary confinement but it would have totally sucked.

By the time I was released on bond they had found and had moved most of my Bitcoins, the Bitcoins I was holding for my non-tech savvy parents, and some other Bitcoins that were not mine (was holding for a friend until he got his own Trezor).

The question remains on whatever happened for them to still have that seized Trezor device.

Using fund movements as evidence was to be expected. After all, those who don't owe anything to anyone supposedly have nothing to fear... But I think that should be contemplated in the law. After all, the funds are at risk, so it's comprehensible to move them.

That piece on Desert Snow is pretty interesting, just finished reading it... It's odd that a system like Black Asphalt runs freely online.

Not only that but they give out awards to their students and LEO will use these awards on their resumes.

https://www.desertsnow.com/pages/view/6

Now most of the stuff they have to do and seize to get the award could be argued as "a good thing" but this requirement:

*QUALIFIED INCIDENTS / SEIZURES:
US Currency – Successful forfeiture of more than $5,000

is a little bit shady.

As for the phone, let's imagine that the phone is seized and you manage to get the funds there moved after the phone being seized, is it valid in the eyes of the law comparing the transaction timestamp on the blockchain to the time when the seize occurred?

As for giving them the password or the moved funds... Shouldn't it be "and" instead of "or"? Because you can give them the password after the funds have already been swept.

Yes, they will look at the time of the move relative to the seizure.

They (Homeland Security) are not as bright as they are made out to be on TV but not quite as stupid as you might want them to be.

Yeah, I've read about these awards on the article, it looks like they give bragging rights to those who have it. Setting a goal on seized funds is indeed a bit odd. Goals should be set on seized funds that were proven to come from illicit activities.

So... Having no regulation on Bitcoin "is bad", but the blockchain is a good source for information regarding transactions? How good is blockchain evidence in court?

Maybe someone should stop thinking about things like BitLicense and start thinking on how to properly seize and punish those who use cryptocurrencies for illegal activities and a way to protect those who are wrongly arrested and/or investigated.

As we all know, everyone eventually ends up with "tainted" coins on their wallets, just like we all end up having fiat coins and bills that were used in illegal activities. With the current mindset, if authorities somehow find someone with "tainted" coins on an address they control, they'll immediately have their heads at stake and their property seized...

As a legit Bitcoin user, this worries me a lot. I don't have to pay for the mistakes others make... But that looks like the future we're heading towards to.

[Carlton Banks]

With the current mindset, if authorities somehow find someone with "tainted" coins on an address they control, they'll immediately have their heads at stake and their property seized...

As a legit Bitcoin user, this worries me a lot. I don't have to pay for the mistakes others make... But that looks like the future we're heading towards to.

But what Burt did was illegal, and yet I find myself sympathising with him, and not with self-proclaimed "legit" users. Why is it that otherwise intelligent people do not understand the difference between "illegal" and "immoral"? How can people who have understood and used Bitcoin for years not recognise that Bitcoin's very existence cuts right to the heart of that issue? I'm sorry unamis, I like your posts, but I have to say this. Where does the assumption come from that all laws are moral?

[unamis76]

With the current mindset, if authorities somehow find someone with "tainted" coins on an address they control, they'll immediately have their heads at stake and their property seized...

As a legit Bitcoin user, this worries me a lot. I don't have to pay for the mistakes others make... But that looks like the future we're heading towards to.

But what Burt did was illegal, and yet I find myself sympathising with him, and not with self-proclaimed "legit" users. Why is it that otherwise intelligent people do not understand the difference between "illegal" and "immoral"? How can people who have understood and used Bitcoin for years not recognise that Bitcoin's very existence cuts right to the heart of that issue? I'm sorry unamis, I like your posts, but I have to say this. Where does the assumption come from that all laws are moral?

I think what Burt did would be illegal if we were talking about fiat currency. But since my knowledge on American law is pretty low, I might be wrong. If what Burt did was illegal, then they probably wouldn't "agree on disagreeing" that it wasn't a business. Or at least, they shouldn't.

Maybe I have a too optimistic vision on laws and justice around the world.

You have a valid point in saying that Bitcoin cuts to the heart of the issue, but I think Bitcoin is far from legal, or illegal. It is also far from immoral. It is a bit above rules and laws.

I guess I have no extra arguments and don't really have anything else to add to this thread at this moment... Your post got me thinking a bit

[Carlton Banks]

I'm pleased you can see where I'm coming from. I won't pretend I know how to solve all these problems, because they are difficult; better solutions would already be apparent if it was so easy.

But half of the battle is the perception of others; if some critical number of people simply did not accept that confiscating money is ever legitimate, then maybe a change in culture could be established (and I expect this will happen eventually: the poor are well incentivised to use Bitcoin to protect their assets, and they have the requisite numbers for a critical-mass ).