5 ms·

Government had bo legal right to the bitcoin. Innocent until proven guilty, means the government stole the bitcoin in a criminal attempt to deny him an adequate

Government had bo legal right to the bitcoin. Innocent until proven guilty, means the government stole the bitcoin in a criminal attempt to deny him an adequate defense. You can’t “steal” your own property. The government agents involved are all felons under 18 U.S. Code § 241. Conspiracy against rights - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241 and 18 U.S. Code § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242 The problem us our country is so corrupt you have forgotten we have a constitution and have probably never heard of the above two statutes.

cedilla 4y ago
It's always funny to see someone who first talks about the presumption of innocence then going on to call huge groups of people felons without even knowing the details of the case.
iudqnolq 4y ago
As I understand it your (incorrect) reading of 241 is that when the government securely holds your property pending the final outcome of your trial that violates the clause of 241 that forbids a conspiracy to "injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person". If that was true detaining a person would be a much more serious violation than detaining your property. Now I happen to believe that pretrial detention is almost never moral. However, it's pretty obviously not a federal crime for a judge to order someone accused of murder to be held in jail until their trial.
- tomohawk 4y ago
  On the other hand, feds routinely seize defendants assets to prevent them from being able to pay for robust legal defense. Those assets aren't going to harm anyone, so the case for seizing them is much weaker than holding someone accused of violence in jail. In this specific case, the assets are alleged ill-gotten gains, but often that is not the case at all. It doesn't seem to be a stretch that the feds "securely holding your property" does not cause injury when it interferes with your right to legal representation. After all, posession is 9/10ths of the law. If the feds are holding it, its not really yours at that time.
  - theGnuMe 4y ago
    Feds do this because they can’t win against well funded defendants.
    - 988747 4y ago
      That does not make it OK. The proper solution is one or both of: - Make laws so simple that a layman can understand them, thus removing the need for professional lawyers, and their exorbitant fees. - Have prosecution be equally well funded as a defendant.
      - dale_glass 4y ago
        Laws start simple. Eg, Code of Hammurabi. Then they get complicated as we run into more and more edge cases that need handling. In good measure laws get complicated because simple laws get worked around and abused. We see this in tech too. Email is a simple concept that's grown into a highly specialized territory because spammers will exploit everything they can, and the more holes you patch, the more complex the system becomes.
        api 4y ago
        > the more holes you patch… In protocols at least the solution is to design one that assumes a very hostile network and is inherently built for it. None of the old first generation Internet protocols are like that.
        dale_glass 4y ago
        So for instance, Bitcoin? Yeah, it's not the worst out there, but it's far from layman friendly. That's already highly specialized territory.
        api 4y ago
        There's a lot to dislike about cryptocurrency but in that department it does represent a newer generation of protocol that is designed for the modern "dark forest" Internet. All protocols should be designed with the assumption that you will face a well financed adversary at least as smart as you are who wants to destroy what you are building. All protocol work is security protocol work. "The Internet is a dark forest."
DonHopkins 4y ago
Hey Trump is looking for a lawyer who will tell him just that. No qualifications necessary (or desirable) except that you just tell him everything he wants to hear, and trust he won't decide not to pay you, lie to you expecting you to repeat it in court, throw you under the bus, say racist shit about your wife, then send an angry mob of confederate surrender flag wielding MAGA mouth breathers to burn your house down. Give him a call, he'll be pleased to her from you! Have fun.
fritztastic 4y ago
Even without knowing the letter of the law to a T I'm aware that in a criminal case evidence is confiscated, assets are frozen, etc. during prosecution. It's standard procedure. I don't see how holding bitcoin from a money laundering case is evidence of government corruption. Sure, the CJ system is broken and awful... but your ideas of why are just incorrect.
- tut-urut-utut 4y ago
  > I'm aware that in a criminal case evidence is confiscated, assets are frozen, etc. during prosecution. It's standard procedure. I don't see how holding bitcoin from a money laundering case is evidence of government corruption. As fas as I understand it, they didn't seize Bitcoins. They seized the computer, and the computer is still in the government's hands. If they really wanted to seize Bitcoins, they could transfer them to the Wallet they own. Given the fact that they left them where they were, means they didn't seize them, and they can't complain that a person moved them somewhere else.
pc86 4y ago
> The government agents involved are all felons Pretty ironic this appears just a couple words after "innocent until proven guilty." This is borderline sovereign citizen nonsense. The prosecutors and government agents did nothing wrong here.

cedilla 4y ago

It's always funny to see someone who first talks about the presumption of innocence then going on to call huge groups of people felons without even knowing the details of the case.

iudqnolq 4y ago

As I understand it your (incorrect) reading of 241 is that when the government securely holds your property pending the final outcome of your trial that violates the clause of 241 that forbids a conspiracy to "injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person". If that was true detaining a person would be a much more serious violation than detaining your property. Now I happen to believe that pretrial detention is almost never moral. However, it's pretty obviously not a federal crime for a judge to order someone accused of murder to be held in jail until their trial.

tomohawk 4y ago
On the other hand, feds routinely seize defendants assets to prevent them from being able to pay for robust legal defense. Those assets aren't going to harm anyone, so the case for seizing them is much weaker than holding someone accused of violence in jail. In this specific case, the assets are alleged ill-gotten gains, but often that is not the case at all. It doesn't seem to be a stretch that the feds "securely holding your property" does not cause injury when it interferes with your right to legal representation. After all, posession is 9/10ths of the law. If the feds are holding it, its not really yours at that time.
- theGnuMe 4y ago
  Feds do this because they can’t win against well funded defendants.
  - 988747 4y ago
    That does not make it OK. The proper solution is one or both of: - Make laws so simple that a layman can understand them, thus removing the need for professional lawyers, and their exorbitant fees. - Have prosecution be equally well funded as a defendant.
    - dale_glass 4y ago
      Laws start simple. Eg, Code of Hammurabi. Then they get complicated as we run into more and more edge cases that need handling. In good measure laws get complicated because simple laws get worked around and abused. We see this in tech too. Email is a simple concept that's grown into a highly specialized territory because spammers will exploit everything they can, and the more holes you patch, the more complex the system becomes.
      - api 4y ago
        > the more holes you patch… In protocols at least the solution is to design one that assumes a very hostile network and is inherently built for it. None of the old first generation Internet protocols are like that.
        dale_glass 4y ago
        So for instance, Bitcoin? Yeah, it's not the worst out there, but it's far from layman friendly. That's already highly specialized territory.
        api 4y ago
        There's a lot to dislike about cryptocurrency but in that department it does represent a newer generation of protocol that is designed for the modern "dark forest" Internet. All protocols should be designed with the assumption that you will face a well financed adversary at least as smart as you are who wants to destroy what you are building. All protocol work is security protocol work. "The Internet is a dark forest."

DonHopkins 4y ago

Hey Trump is looking for a lawyer who will tell him just that. No qualifications necessary (or desirable) except that you just tell him everything he wants to hear, and trust he won't decide not to pay you, lie to you expecting you to repeat it in court, throw you under the bus, say racist shit about your wife, then send an angry mob of confederate surrender flag wielding MAGA mouth breathers to burn your house down. Give him a call, he'll be pleased to her from you! Have fun.

fritztastic 4y ago

Even without knowing the letter of the law to a T I'm aware that in a criminal case evidence is confiscated, assets are frozen, etc. during prosecution. It's standard procedure. I don't see how holding bitcoin from a money laundering case is evidence of government corruption. Sure, the CJ system is broken and awful... but your ideas of why are just incorrect.

tut-urut-utut 4y ago
> I'm aware that in a criminal case evidence is confiscated, assets are frozen, etc. during prosecution. It's standard procedure. I don't see how holding bitcoin from a money laundering case is evidence of government corruption. As fas as I understand it, they didn't seize Bitcoins. They seized the computer, and the computer is still in the government's hands. If they really wanted to seize Bitcoins, they could transfer them to the Wallet they own. Given the fact that they left them where they were, means they didn't seize them, and they can't complain that a person moved them somewhere else.

pc86 4y ago

> The government agents involved are all felons Pretty ironic this appears just a couple words after "innocent until proven guilty." This is borderline sovereign citizen nonsense. The prosecutors and government agents did nothing wrong here.