BurtW arrested (update: charges dropped!)

[gweedo]

Based on his arrest, does it mean that it is illegal to trade bitcoins using USD, face to face?

I don't think so.

No, it is illegal to trade large amounts of bitcoins for USD without proper licenses. Money Transmitter license for that state. Which if you are doing in your state, then it is worth it to protect yourself with one license from your state. If you want all 50 states then it becomes costly and that is for big websites.

[1713584741]

1713584741

[1713584741]

1713584741

[1713584741]

1713584741

[jbreher]

what matters most is how the custodians of his life view him, their belief will determine in large part their actions.  

I took the liberty of bolding "the custodians of his life" in your quote above. It is such a curious turn of phrase. What exactly do you mean by this? Who are the custodian's of any person's life?

[CoinCidental]

what matters most is how the custodians of his life view him, their belief will determine in large part their actions.  

I took the liberty of bolding "the custodians of his life" in your quote above. It is such a curious turn of phrase. What exactly do you mean by this? Who are the custodian's of any person's life?

the people with the keys to his jail cell ,or the people who decide whether he ever sees daylight again ............those people kinda rule us all whether you like it or not

[kevinlarr]

It's important to have the correct mindset when going into this.  Don't ever believe that there really are rational rules out there somewhere and that it is possible to follow them and avoid all harassment.  You can do everything perfectly, and still encounter a lot of bullshit.

Regardless, you have an absolute right to trade.  Full stop.  Everything else, the regulations, the taxes, the restrictions, is voluntary.

Further, the US government has zero jurisdiction over trade.  They can only regulate commerce.  It's right in the Constitution.

So what they will try to do, in these instances, is try to trick you into turning your trade into commerce.  That can happen in dozens of ways.  But it always involves the introduction of a third party and some kind of conditional binding agreement that you voluntarily agree to.

If you put your Bitcoins on your taxes, guess what?  You've voluntarily introduced a third party.

If you register a Bitcoin business or sign up for a bit-license, guess what?  You've voluntarily introduced a third party.

If you have an agreement with a Bitcoin ATM manufacturer that you will "operate" the ATM using his exchange services, guess what?  You've voluntarily introduced a third party.

So, here's what you need to do in order to trade Bitcoins.  You hand over x Bitcoins;  you get y of whatever (Paypal-bux, Federal Reserve Notes, etc) in return.

That's it.

The moment that the other party starts talking about "I'm going to do this" or "I'm going to do that" with whatever you trade him, that's an attempt to turn voluntary trade into a binding commercial agreement.  The government will argue that, by continuing, you entered a commercial agreement with the other party and are therefore responsible for whatever idiotic things they told you they were going to do.

Yes, it's ridiculous.  But that's what they really think.

That's the basis of their jurisdiction.  It's the reason that every one of these actions includes the phrase "affecting inter-state commerce."

It all stems from an idiotic Supreme Court case, Wickard v. Filburn.  Filburn was a farmer who voluntarily signed up to receive government subsidies on his wheat crop.  From that point onward, the government argued that all of the wheat he produced, even for his own consumption, was bound by commercial agreement and subject to whatever regulations it wanted to impose on them.  And, incredibly, a bought-off Supreme Court agreed.

So, the way to avoid problems with trading on LocalBitcoins is that, whenever the other party starts saying "I'm going to do this" or "I'm going to do that" with whatever you trade them, just cancel the trade and walk away.  At the very least, if you have to continue, make it clear in no uncertain terms that whatever they do is their business, and that you are just engaged in trade.  You aren't their "partner".  You aren't a "corporation".  You aren't a "dealer".  You aren't an "exchange".  You're an individual engaged in trade.

This entire situation is disturbing on so many levels: so much so that I registered this new btctalk account solely to post in this thread alone, knowing that it's likely being monitored by over-zealous prosecutors all around the country.

But HOW pathetic IS that? That we in the Land Of The Free have to THINK this way? Srsly WTF?

Anyway, I wanted to quote the above info re: "trade" versus "commerce" because Benjamin's info seems to have been totally overlooked as this thread has progressed.

But IF this info is really true (?), if it's simply trade vs commerce, then how could LBC vendors best use this fact (?) to protect themselves?

Should they put it in some kind of legal-disclaimer text on their LBC ad listing, or maybe print it out and hand a copy on paper to all potential trade partners in-person, BEFORE proceeding with any exchange of money/value for bitcoins?

Would something like that work? Would it be sufficient protection?

Or is it all just some BS smoke-screen?

What do you guys think?

KEVIN

[kevinlarr]

...  I wanted to quote the above info re: "trade" versus "commerce" because Benjamin's info seems to have been totally overlooked as this thread has progressed.

But if this info is really true, simply trade vs commerce, then how could LBC vendors best use this info to protect themselves?

Should they put it in some kind of legal-disclaimer text on their LBC ad listing, or maybe print it out and hand a copy on paper to all potential trading partners, in-person, BEFORE proceeding with any exchange of money/value for bitcoins?

Yes, you are absolutely correct the material you quoted is on point, and extremely enlightening.  It calls into question the constitutionality of 31 USC 5331 with regard to the completion and submission of a govt form for transactions involving $10K+ cash for "trade" ....

Nevertheless, the "Trade" vs "Commerce" mentality is the heart of the matter.  Let's start at the most fundamental point: How does the US constitution define the words "trade" and "commerce".   From there we then ask how does settled case law further define 'trade' and 'commerce' to the extent that we could apply it to what we do in the CC world particularly regarding bitcoins via localbitcoins.

As for Localbitcoins, they should remove all indications of commerce (pro, vendor, etc ...) for everyone that has not specifically indicated that they are a business seeking to conduct business.  

LocalBitcoins.com vendors sadly do not have any control or option over the website design, formatting, text or language choice that the LBC site uses in building their website's service. And since LBC itself is not an American company (based in, I think, Finland is it?) they may not know or care enough about this issue to be bothered in changing their text to protect the site's users.

The ONLY thing that LBC vendors have any control over is the AD TEXT that they place on their page, listing bitcoins for sale. Individual terms of trade etc can be put in there, however anyone wishes.

Is this binding? It seems to me that -- at the very least -- prudent LBC vendors ought to put as much "disclaimer" shit and "get out of jail free card" attempts as possible into that text area!  Even multiple attempts at attacking this issue, different way, from as many angles as possible would be a good idea.

This would -- at least -- remove them from the "easy target" low hanging fruit category versus other vendors who don't know or care enough to protect themselves, i.e. guys that put in a one-liner for their "ad" that just says "Hey dudes, call me any time: I'm ready to sell ya some bitcoins at the local Starbucks".

I'd like to hear some expert opinions about EXACTLY what kind of text/language would work best for this!

Any actual lawyers or Constitutional Law Trade/Commerce experts here? (no offense Armis/Benjamin etc IF you guys actually ARE such creatures... in any case much appreciate your valuable input here...)

KEVIN

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

I dont think there is any semantic difference between commerce and trade. Trade would be seen as a sub activity of commerce, and commerce a sub set of Business.

Does the constitution talk about trade? Ithought it was about personal rights 

[Berau]

What do you guys think of the donation website?

Is it just a blatant scam or is it actually real, and where are the funds actually going to, in order to help BurtW?

[Gleb Gamow]

What do you guys think of the donation website?

Is it just a blatant scam or is it actually real, and where are the funds actually going to, in order to help BurtW?

I think that we can safely assume it's legit and that any funds amassed will benefit those seeking it. If nothing else, perhaps some trustworthy Bitcoiner could start a campaign to collect $600 via donations to replace what the LEOs confiscated from Burt's eight-year-old daughter. If so, and it's amassed via bitcoins, have it converted to fiat and placed in an exact or similar container that said amount was once held in, the goal being to make the little girl cry with tears of joy.

Aside (from the above): I wonder if the purpose of placing Burt in the fed pen for a couple days was their way of extracting from him some private keys (not meaning physical abuse). <just thinkin' out loud>

[Berau]

What do you guys think of the donation website?

Is it just a blatant scam or is it actually real, and where are the funds actually going to, in order to help BurtW?

I think that we can safely assume it's legit and that any funds amassed will benefit those seeking it. If nothing else, perhaps some trustworthy Bitcoiner could start a campaign to collect $600 via donations to replace what the LEOs confiscated from Burt's eight-year-old daughter. If so, and it's amassed via bitcoins, have it converted to fiat and placed in an exact or similar container that said amount was once held in, the goal being to make the little girl cry with tears of joy.

Aside (from the above): I wonder if the purpose of placing Burt in the fed pen for a couple days was their way of extracting from him some private keys (not meaning physical abuse). <just thinkin' out loud>

I still don't get how he was arrested though.

[CoinCidental]

What do you guys think of the donation website?

Is it just a blatant scam or is it actually real, and where are the funds actually going to, in order to help BurtW?

I think that we can safely assume it's legit and that any funds amassed will benefit those seeking it. If nothing else, perhaps some trustworthy Bitcoiner could start a campaign to collect $600 via donations to replace what the LEOs confiscated from Burt's eight-year-old daughter. If so, and it's amassed via bitcoins, have it converted to fiat and placed in an exact or similar container that said amount was once held in, the goal being to make the little girl cry with tears of joy.

Great idea

Aside (from the above): I wonder if the purpose of placing Burt in the fed pen for a couple days was their way of extracting from him some private keys (not meaning physical abuse). <just thinkin' out loud>

Oh, SPIT!!! that makes a whole lot of sense, fits snug like a puzzle piece.  

Ahhhh man, if that's true, could you imagine how demoralized he got to finally submit to that?  wow





__________________________________

I still don't get how he was arrested though.

Much of the fundamentals of the arrest has the hallmarks of the Miami sting, however along the way they determined he was a 'big fish' worthy of "PATRIOT act" level investigative resources and arrest.

It might be that the LEOs are dumb and confused when they use blockchain to trace BurtW's transactions, they might mistake an exchange address as BurtWs so they assumed he hold thousands of Bitcoins.

I wonder if those LEOs suffer anything if BurtW beat them in court. I assume they dont, so they dont care.
 

if they link him to the BTCST and or the PPT scam they might have come to the conclusion he was in custody of tens of thousands of btc at some times (even if they were only in his hands before they were passed onto pirate to ponzivest in the scheme ........

[CoinCidental]

What do you guys think of the donation website?

Is it just a blatant scam or is it actually real, and where are the funds actually going to, in order to help BurtW?

I think that we can safely assume it's legit and that any funds amassed will benefit those seeking it. If nothing else, perhaps some trustworthy Bitcoiner could start a campaign to collect $600 via donations to replace what the LEOs confiscated from Burt's eight-year-old daughter. If so, and it's amassed via bitcoins, have it converted to fiat and placed in an exact or similar container that said amount was once held in, the goal being to make the little girl cry with tears of joy.

Aside (from the above): I wonder if the purpose of placing Burt in the fed pen for a couple days was their way of extracting from him some private keys (not meaning physical abuse). <just thinkin' out loud>

I still don't get how he was arrested though.

it happens so fast your head would spin ,open the door and theres a swat team 
BOOM -GET DOWN ON THE GROUND
youre read your rights ,handcuffed  and dragged away awhile they ransack your house 
and confiscate whatever they think maybe involved

computers , external hard drives whatever media or cellphones they can find

doesnt really matter much  if theres proof or not thesedays ,seem to do whatever the fuck they want

[kevinlarr]

That's why I say if there is a way to settle this for only money (<$200K), take the deal because if it goes to trial you can bet it will cost him about $200K and he will almost certainly be found guilty on the first count and sentenced to a minimum of 1 year and 1 day.

He'd probably be better served finding an agent to negotiate a book deal, movie rights, and a worldwide btc meet-up tour than trying to find a defense attorney that could properly argue this case.    

Sadly, Armis, you are probably right... but in a perverse way I am hoping this MIGHT only be true, not because I wish any ill upon Burt of course, but ONLY because IF this is truly the case, it means that LE and the Feds, Colorado prosecutor, etc in this whole F'ed up situation really only targeted Burt *PRECISELY BECAUSE* he is a BIG FISH.

IF this is the situation, then they simply wanted his cash & bitcoins.

IF ALSO this is "only" what they're doing here, then in the larger scheme of things it means small-fry normal nickel & dime bitcoin traders on LBC and elsewhere are probably safe enough, and they (probably) won't be bothered like this (read: attacked) simply because they're not worth it to the "authorities".

In that case, if you don't visibly have tens of thousands of bitcoins to lose (as Burt did, allegedly, in the ponzi) then it means they won't figure you probably still have thousands more bitcoins under your control (somewhere) that THE MAN can try and seize.

If this is really the case, it seems to me that it means Burt's only REAL MISTAKE in all of this mess, was to try to be an upstanding, visible, promoting and supporting member of the crypto-coins community.

Burt did that, perhaps for all the best reasons, but it meant "they" SAW HIM and so he became a big target.

Very sad, if so.  WTF is this country coming to???  Fuck 

KEVIN

[jubalix]

I doubt it the bitcoin amount they are concerned with but most likely the USD amount. The man wants his cut! Especially when the amounts start to get anywhere close to 10k.

Right now one is free to stack Bitcoins to the sky with minimal reprecussion but once you start dealing in USD you better have your shit straight.

This is why its better to wait for the economy to catch up to BTC.

[jbreher]

1) I'm convinced the BurtW.com site is genuine. Why am I convinced? I have communicated with Jean about it. For background, I have known Jean for several years, so this is no particular oddity.

2) If you're not sure about whether the donation site is or is not legit, perhaps you might contact Jean yourself. Compare the voice you hear with the voice in the legislative testimony. Her email and phone are there on the site.

3) How convinced am I? I donated - more than several Bitcoins worth.

4) If monetary donations aren't your bag, it appears from the site that there are several objectives in addition to just money for Burt's defense (of which is certainly dozens of thousands of dollars already, and likely ultimately well in excess of one hundred thousand dollars). These objectives include:
- repeal patriot act
- end civil forfeitures
...efforts in this area would at least seem to show solidarity. (Then again, I've not discussed with Jean the ultimate desires for this website - I am merely projecting what I think about it).

While you are likely sitting there thinking 'WTF does this have to do with me?', there are really three sets of defendants here:
1) Burt himself
2) all Bitcoiners in the USA that may buy or sell bitcoins at some time or another
3) all people within the geographical boundary of the United States.

Here's the deal. If it can happen to Burt, it can happen to you. The lumbering apparatus of the state knows no reason. You might be just one (grossly misnamed) patriot-act-enabled extraordinary rendition away from  being permanently dissappeared.

[Gleb Gamow]

@jbreher

If you're up to the task, would you be so kind as to escrow a bitcoin wallet address that you'll create for the purpose of garnering $600 USD worth of bitcoins? Once amassed, you convert (or however) the bitcoins to fiat, and source a like or similar container/safe that said amount once held Burt and Jean's eight-year-old daughter's savings to once again store the $600. Jean may be able to help you source said vessel. You or I could start a new thread, or continue using this one to forward the campaign. Doesn't matter which option, for we're ONLY talkin' 'bout six hundred bucks, thus shouldn't take long to accomplish the task. I'll seed it with the umpteen dollars worth of bitcoins I possess.

Please let me know via PM if you're game, same if you post here but give me a heads-up that a post was penned.

Thanks, bud.

[kevinlarr]

@jbreher

If you're up to the task, would you be so kind as to escrow a bitcoin wallet address that you'll create for the purpose of garnering $600 USD worth of bitcoins? Once amassed, you convert (or however) the bitcoins to fiat, and source a like or similar container/safe that said amount once held Burt and Jean's eight-year-old daughter's savings to once again store the $600...

I'd like to contribute a few bits to a fund for the little girl too. I actually generated a 'vanity address' for this purpose the other day, just in case that'd make it more fun for her too:

1zowie-deleted address, never mind

...I believe from listening to the audio they said the girl's name is Zowie? Is that spelled right?

Whoever sets this up: if you want to use this vanity address, please PM me for the private key to import to the wallet for it (and YES I realize that'd mean people have to trust me not to rip off the little girl a second time, but FFS Jesus-H Christ I'd never do something that heinous... so trolls please refrain from even bothering to pre-emptively accuse me, okay? Just STFU on that whole angle...)

Let's all try and make something NICE happen here in this whole fucked up situation... can we?

KEVIN

[jbreher]

If you're up to the task, would you be so kind as to escrow a bitcoin wallet address that you'll create for the purpose of garnering $600 USD worth of bitcoins?

Hey Bruno - I'd be happy to do so. However this happens, I think another thread might be more appropriate.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=985596.0

[Gleb Gamow]

If you're up to the task, would you be so kind as to escrow a bitcoin wallet address that you'll create for the purpose of garnering $600 USD worth of bitcoins?

Hey Bruno - I'd be happy to do so. However this happens, I think another thread might be more appropriate.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=985596.0

Read and commented (just now seeing a van addy above, but haven't a clue at this penning as to the status).

[kevinlarr]

Read and commented (just now seeing a van addy above, but haven't a clue at this penning as to the status).

Oops, never mind re: the vanity address I posted, above.

I've edited the post to delete it, since I spelled the girl's name wrong anyway LOL

Don't want people sending to an address we are not using after all (at least, not yet for sure).

Sorry my bad

KEVIN

[kevinlarr]

Getting back on-topic, now that the Zoe-Fund idea is off on its own thread.

If you guys have not seen yet, go back to the website set up by Burt's family and click the link where his wife has posted some thoughts on her own page: http://www.jmwagner.com/

Notice there, she said the FIRST ISSUE that the prosecutor raised with the judge in asking to keep Burt in jail "for as long as allowed" after his arrest, was that they were worried "IF he is set free then he will be able to hide his bitcoins".

Jail

One of the agents then told me that Burt was arrested for violating 18 U.S.C. 1960.  Friends helped me find an attorney that day.   Burt spent that night in the Denver County Jail.  The next day, the attorney went to the hearing.  Magistrate Craig B. Shaffer asked Assistant United States Attorney Michele Korver “what she desired.”  She said she wanted to keep Burt the maximum number of nights possible.  The defense attorney started to speak (he wanted to point out that Burt has no criminal record and that he is not a flight risk.)  The judge refused to hear from the defense attorney.  The judge said that AUSA Korver was entitled to hold him the maximum number of nights.  Case closed.  AUSA Korver argued that if Burt was set free he would be able to hide the Bitcoins from her.  (Not true.  The feds already had his Bitcoins.)

So, let me get this straight? Their FIRST CONCERN is... they wouldn't be able to get his bitcoins???

Wait, what? 

That's pretty telling, isn't it?  They just wanted to be able to seize his money and so he needed to be "kept out of the way" for as long as possible, while they went about their task.

It's amazing to me that they actually feel safe enough -- just outright admitting this is their Big Motive, IN OPEN COURT as the reason and justification to the freaking JUDGE -- of WHY someone needs to be kept in JAIL.

This story just keeps getting more insane and Kafka-eske the longer it goes on.

KEVIN