Bitcoin Exchange CEO Pleads Guilty to Enabling Silk Road Drug Deals
1–10 of 52 posts
Re: Bitcoin Exchange CEO Pleads Guilty to Enabling Silk Road Drug Deals
#2To make matters worse, while Shrem was CEO he was simultaneously BitInstant’s compliance officer, responsible for ensuring that his company followed the law.
Impressive amount of hubris there.
Re: Bitcoin Exchange CEO Pleads Guilty to Enabling Silk Road Drug Deals
#3When will the law stop violating the rights of free men?
Re: Bitcoin Exchange CEO Pleads Guilty to Enabling Silk Road Drug Deals
#4When will the law stop violating the rights of free men?
When people decide to change the law.
If you think drugs should be illegal, then justice was served here. If you don't think drugs should be illegal, then it wasn't.
Either way, Shrem's behavior seems pretty idiotic to me, from start to finish.
Re: Bitcoin Exchange CEO Pleads Guilty to Enabling Silk Road Drug Deals
#5To make matters worse, while Shrem was CEO he was simultaneously BitInstant’s compliance officer, responsible for ensuring that his company followed the law. Impressive amount of hubris there.
more likely that they were under staffed and didn't have funding to hire a compliance officer
Re: Bitcoin Exchange CEO Pleads Guilty to Enabling Silk Road Drug Deals
#6When will the law stop violating the rights of free men?
When people decide to change the law. If you think drugs should be illegal, then justice was served here. If you don't think drugs should be illegal, then it wasn't. Either way, Shrem's behavior seems pretty idiotic to me, from start to finish.
I agree. Regardless of one's stance on drugs and their respective online black markets (the latter of which I had a sizable knowledge), I don't really see what Shrem's expected outcome of this could have been other than, well, what happened.
Re: Bitcoin Exchange CEO Pleads Guilty to Enabling Silk Road Drug Deals
#7When will the law stop violating the rights of free men?
When people decide to change the law. If you think drugs should be illegal, then justice was served here. If you don't think drugs should be illegal, then it wasn't. Either way, Shrem's behavior seems pretty idiotic to me, from start to finish.
There is no provision in the constitution for the federal government to regulate money exchange. Thus the law he was convicted under is itself a criminal act (and under USC 18-242 everyone enforcing it is a felon).
The constitution is the highest law of the land. If you think this guy belongs in jail, then you need to amend it.
The supreme court has already ruled that unconstitutional laws are null and void the moment they are passed. They do not need to be struck down by the supreme court.
Remember the legislature, executive and judicial branches all derive their power from the constitution, thus none of them have the power to exceed the power it gives them, by definition.
The real problem here is not that people haven't changed the law (which they can't since the people are not in power).
The problem is we have a criminal syndicate for a government.
This is why there are no prosecutions for spying on the NSA's part, despite breaking the law. This is why the TSA violates the fourth amendment with impunity (again, a violation of USC 18-242) without ever there being charges filed.
Hell, the TSA is violating state criminal statutes in most states when they molest minors who opt out of having their nude photos taken (which itself is child pornography).
No charges have been filed. Why is that?
So, we can't really say we have the "rule of law" here.
The law only is used against people like Charlie, never against the rulers.
Re: Bitcoin Exchange CEO Pleads Guilty to Enabling Silk Road Drug Deals
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
When people decide to change the law. If you think drugs should be illegal, then justice was served here. If you don't think drugs should be illegal, then it wasn't. Either way, Shrem's behavior seems pretty idiotic to me, from start to finish.
There is no provision in the constitution for the federal government to regulate money exchange. Thus the law he was convicted under is itself a criminal act (and under USC 18-242 everyone enforcing it is a felon). The constitution is the highest law of the land. If you think this guy belongs in jail, then you need to amend it. The supreme court has already ruled that unconstitutional laws are null and void the momen…
So, we can't really say we have the "rule of law" here.
We do have a rule of law, it just ain't perfect. Otherwise, we would be like China.
Re: Bitcoin Exchange CEO Pleads Guilty to Enabling Silk Road Drug Deals
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
When people decide to change the law. If you think drugs should be illegal, then justice was served here. If you don't think drugs should be illegal, then it wasn't. Either way, Shrem's behavior seems pretty idiotic to me, from start to finish.
There is no provision in the constitution for the federal government to regulate money exchange. Thus the law he was convicted under is itself a criminal act (and under USC 18-242 everyone enforcing it is a felon). The constitution is the highest law of the land. If you think this guy belongs in jail, then you need to amend it. The supreme court has already ruled that unconstitutional laws are null and void the momen…
>There is no provision in the constitution for the federal government to regulate money exchange.
Er, what? If you fund or help fund a criminal enterprise, you can be prosecuted for it. If someone was funnelling millions of dollars to, say, a child sex slave ring, you think that the constitution protects their sending of that money and they can't be charged for it?
I don't personally think drugs should be illegal at all, but I do think that funding crimes in general should be illegal, which is essentially what Shrem was charged with here.
Re: Bitcoin Exchange CEO Pleads Guilty to Enabling Silk Road Drug Deals
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no provision in the constitution for the federal government to regulate money exchange. Thus the law he was convicted under is itself a criminal act (and under USC 18-242 everyone enforcing it is a felon). The constitution is the highest law of the land. If you think this guy belongs in jail, then you need to amend it. The supreme court has already ruled that unconstitutional laws are null and void the momen…
>There is no provision in the constitution for the federal government to regulate money exchange. Er, what? If you fund or help fund a criminal enterprise, you can be prosecuted for it. If someone was funnelling millions of dollars to, say, a child sex slave ring, you think that the constitution protects their sending of that money and they can't be charged for it? I don't personally think drugs should be illegal at…
Without taking a position on whether I think is right as a policy matter, you're responding to a different point.
is arguing (admittedly in a rant-y kind of way) that the U.S. Constitution is a document that grants limited and specific powers to the federal government and reserves the rest for the states and the people. That argument says those powers do not include the ability to regulate money exchange. An implication of that argument is that nearly all law enforcement would be left to the states -- so your hypothetical sex slave ring would be prosecuted by the states, and in fact every state currently has a law on its books making such a conspiracy illegal. And in fact most criminal prosecutions are already done by state governments.
Again, I'm not saying what I would prefer as a normative matter, just that it looks like you're talking past each other to some extent.