[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles

Title: Exclusive: Murdered DNC staffer's family, friends set record straight
Source: crimewatchdaily.com
URL Source: https://crimewatchdaily.com/2016/09 ... -set-record-straight/#comments
Published: May 21, 2017
Author: Michelle Sigona
Post Date: 2017-05-21 08:58:06 by sneakypete
Ping List: *Crime and Corruption*     Subscribe to *Crime and Corruption*
Keywords: Clinton, Murder, Corruption
Views: 21537
Comments: 62

Seth Rich, a 27-year-old staffer for the Democratic National Committee, was shot in the back in the early morning hours of July 10, 2016.

"It appears he was targeted," said D.C. Police Captain Anthony Haythe. "He was shot multiple times."

Seth was shot at 4:19 in the morning, just two minutes after hanging up with his girlfriend, Kelsey Mulka.

"We were on the phone just wrapping up our conversation, he had kind of told me that he was getting close to his house," said Mulka.

Seth's grieving girlfriend is speaking out for the very first time since his murder. They had dated for two years.

"There really aren't -- no words -- that can accurately express how devastating and horrific it is to bury someone that you love," said Mulka.

Although there are pockets of darkness, for the most part this neighborhood is pretty well-lit. Investigators tell Crime Watch Daily in the early morning hours of July 10, Seth was walking home. He was only about a block and a half away from home when he was gunned down, shot in the back.

"The officers who were there and they said 'Yeah, he was quite talkative, he did not realize he had been shot,'" said Joel Rich, Seth's father.

But an hour and a half later at a nearby hospital, Seth was pronounced dead.

Heartbreaking news to Kelsey Mulka. She was just on the phone with him, and in a split-second he was gone. Now Mulka is breaking news in our exclusive interview, revealing details, telling Crime Watch Daily there was no sign of trouble in his voice that terrible morning.

"I wasn't alarmed," said Mulka.

"He's kind of known as a goofball, but to me it was very clear to me that there was so much more," said Mulka. "It didn't matter who you were, where you came from or where you were going. If he thought you were in trouble, he wanted to help. If you were sad he was going to make you happy, he was going to make you laugh."

Still reeling from Seth's death, Kelsey is horrified to discover that the story of a conspiracy theory is swirling around his death. It all began on Dutch television. The founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, made a shocking assertion.

ASSANGE: There's a 27-year-old that works for the DNC who was shot in the back, murdered.

ANCHOR: That was just a robbery, I believe wasn't it?

ASSANGE: No, there's no finding.

ANCHOR: What are you suggesting?

Assange suggested Seth Rich may have become a target after being accused of leaking DNC emails, which led to the resignation of its chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Seth's best friend, Michael Cass-Antony, is also breaking his silence in this exclusive interview, telling Crime Watch Daily he's disgusted by the reports.

"All those lies that are being bandied about in the news are just that, and the reason that nobody close to him has refuted them is because there's no reason to," said Cass-Antony. "Because he spoke for himself. Because anybody who knows him knows how good of a person he was, knows how much he cared for the DNC and for where he worked and how much he believed in his cause."

But it's not just those close to Seth who adamantly deny those shocking claims. The police department in D.C. doesn't buy it either. The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia released an official statement which reads, in part:

"At this time, there is no indication that Seth Rich's death is connected to his employment at the DNC." -- Metro DC Police

And just the suggestion of Seth's shooting being a political hit has his parents outraged.

Seth's mom and dad want to set the record straight about the character of their beloved son, and disclose details of this case only to Crime Watch Daily.

"He had just found out he was going to go to work for the Clinton campaign doing data analysis and helping getting people out to vote," said

Seth's parents say he got the offer but tragically never had the chance to accept. They found the beginnings of his letter of acceptance in a draft email on his computer. Seth had only typed two lines, and his parents are sharing it with us.

"'All my life I wanted to be in a position that I can make a difference.' That resonates with me because that is the heart of what my son would have said, and working on Hillary's campaign, he would be making a difference," said Mary Rich, Seth's mother.

Police suspect Seth's murder is connected to a recent rash of robberies.

"There were a few robberies that we have investigated that we're looking into to see if those parties involved in those robberies could be the parties involved in our murder," said D.C. Police Captain Anthony Haythe.

But investigators go on record to confirm that Seth still had his wallet, watch and phone when he was discovered shot in the street.

continued at link......

Click for Full Text!


Poster Comment:

Yeah,he was murdered during a robbery. That's why he wasn't robbed.

I am convinced that his murder had nothing to do with him informing on Clinton/DNC "irregularities" .

Ok,ok,reasonably certain.

OK,OK,OK,I hear they have been making a honest effort to order the murders of fewer people this year than last year because they have mellowed out now that they are geezers. Happy now?

C'mon,people! How many times do we have to read news reports of informers or suspected informers close to the Clintons being murdered before it begins to dawn on people that all these murdered people had ONE thing in common?Subscribe to *Crime and Corruption*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 59.

#1. To: sneakypete (#0)

There's a claim that his computer had evidence of communications with Wikileaks. Is there no follow up on that, or was it not true?

But even if Seth did not leak the emails to Wikileaks, that doesn't mean he was not killed because of them. He could have been falsely accused as the leak source, and killed because of it.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-05-21   10:36:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Pinguinite (#1) (Edited)

There's a claim that his computer had evidence of communications with Wikileaks. Is there no follow up on that, or was it not true?

I don't know. I don't follow this stuff as closely as I used to. I am burnt out at all the lies and all the partisan politics and Party Animal Games being played by both branches of the Ruling Party.

I am convinced that America,as she stands today,is destined to fall by design of the ruling classes. What sort of government replaces the non-working nightmare we have now all depends on if the globalists or the nationalists win the dust up that follows.

sneakypete  posted on  2017-05-23   11:22:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: sneakypete (#10)

What sort of government replaces the non-working nightmare we have now all depends on if the globalists or the nationalists win the dust up that follows.

I don't know that history shows us any example at all of an oppressive, native government being overthrown and replaced with one that truly cherishes rights and liberties. In the case of the US revolution, what was deposed was a foreign monarchy over a land that was largely untamed where self sufficiency was a requirement of survival.

Maybe there have been a few cases of oppressive dictatorships being brought down, but whether they were cases where general freedoms were restored, taxes repealed, and government bureaucracy was significantly scaled back, I don't know. People just have a natural tendency to take control of all that is around them, and even when revolutions occur, it's usually not for the purpose of giving, but of taking.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-05-23   11:48:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Pinguinite (#12)

Maybe there have been a few cases of oppressive dictatorships being brought down, but whether they were cases where general freedoms were restored, taxes repealed, and government bureaucracy was significantly scaled back, I don't know. People just have a natural tendency to take control of all that is around them, and even when revolutions occur, it's usually not for the purpose of giving, but of taking.

History is full of examples. Kicking the Catholic Church out of ruling authority all over Europe is one prime example.

Removing monarchies from power all over Europe is another.

The nation created by the America Revolution is another.

Then there are examples due to losing wars,like when Japan lost WW-2 and we forced the Japanese to form another type of government with the Emperor only being a figurehead,and forcing the Nazi's out of power in Germany.

Then there is the example of the west,primarily America,forcing the communists into bankruptcy that resulted in the total collapse and replacement of the communist system there.

Right at this moment the whole west seems to be going through a reverse phase as we are not only allowing medieval jihadists to come in to destroy our nations,we are even paying them for doing so,

sneakypete  posted on  2017-05-23   12:27:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: sneakypete (#13)

I did mention the US revolution being an exception as it throws off not a native government but a foreign one, and any colonial revolution would qualify. The US was still mostly frontier, even in the east by today's standards, and people were acclimated to self-sufficiency (unlike today) which factored into their politics.

The French revolution deposing it's monarchy was a disaster for the French, and monarchies are not necessarily bad in any event, though it depends entirely on the monarch. I know England had, I think it was one of the King James's for about 3 years but he did such a poor job the English basically fired him and he accepted peaceful and not uncomfortable exile, though maybe my facts aren't quite right on that. Certainly people living under a monarch in the past have had, in sum, more rights and less taxation than present day USA.

But the problem with revolutions is that the rebels that take control invariably do just that, imposing their values on the population just freed from the values of the previous government. And if the kingpin rebel doesn't take control, then some underling more ambitious will cut him down and replace him. But even well meaning people will cause harm by trying to do good. It's a One Ring to Rule Them All type thing. Power corrupts.

So if/when the US fed apparatus collapses, it would create a vacuum of power that any new government would quickly fill. It's one of the reasons I see the proper future of the USA being a breakup into perhaps 6-8 different countries. It's the only way to dissolve the huge black hole in DC sucking up all that's good in the country. Decentralization/outsourcing is already a corporate reality and I think it needs to become a political reality, and I think technology will help make that happen, in time.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-05-23   13:22:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Pinguinite (#14)

Decentralization/outsourcing is already a corporate reality and I think it needs to become a political reality, and I think technology will help make that happen, in time.

Politically it is all about centralizing,and thanks to today's ability to handle data,it will be virtually impossible for a revolution to happen again,ever.

The first,and most important thing they are going to do is eliminate cash and create a digital debit and credit system that contains ALL of every individual on Earth's entire history.

Piss off some government flunky or just be known to run your mouth about "nonsense" like individual liberties,and you are toast. There will be no running and hiding from the authorities because there will be no cash and all of your digital assets will have disappeared the instant some minimum wage government flunkie was ordered to delete your personal ID number.

You won't even be able to buy a cup of coffee at the convenience store where you dialed the toll-free number to tell the authorities where to come and pick you up to take you to the salt mines because people that don't exist don't have bank accounts or ID numbers. The ONLY thing you can do for free is call to turn yourself in.

Beware the cashless society.

sneakypete  posted on  2017-05-23   18:35:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: sneakypete (#15)

There will be no running and hiding from the authorities because there will be no cash and all of your digital assets will have disappeared the instant some minimum wage government flunkie was ordered to delete your personal ID number.

Even with digital money, control will not necessarily reside with the government. Bitcoin is a decentralized currency that no government, central bank or other entity, governmental or non-governmental, can control. It's not possible to delete a bitcoin wallet. At least not until quantum computing becomes a reality, and then someone will make a quantum currency.

Of course govs will create their own digital currency which would/could be as you describe. But Bitcoin has real market worth that would compete with any electronic debit currency.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-05-23   21:37:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Pinguinite (#17)

But Bitcoin has real market worth that would compete with any electronic debit currency.

No it won't and can't because there won't be anywhere you can legally spend it. What good is money to you that you can't use?

sneakypete  posted on  2017-05-23   22:48:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: sneakypete (#22)

No it won't and can't because there won't be anywhere you can legally spend it. What good is money to you that you can't use?

Bitcoin is information, and "spending" consists of trading information. You can legally "spend" bitcoin anywhere Freedom of Speech exists.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-05-23   23:52:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Pinguinite, sneakypete (#27)

Bitcoin is information, and "spending" consists of trading information. You can legally "spend" bitcoin anywhere Freedom of Speech exists.

As for U.S. law and your creative interpretations of it, remind me again about why you emigrated to Ecuador.

Only the U.S. government has authority to issue legal currency within the United States. Make any phony crap and issue it as currency and you get prosecuted.

Bitcoin is considered property and not legal tender in any U.S. jurisdiction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_currency

In 2013, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), a bureau of the US Treasury, in contrast to its regulations defining currency as "the coin and paper money of the United States or of any other country that [i] is designated as legal tender and that [ii] circulates and [iii] is customarily used and accepted as a medium of exchange in the country of issuance", also called "real currency" by FinCEN, defined virtual currency as "a medium of exchange that operates like a currency in some environments, but does not have all the attributes of real currency". In particular, virtual currency does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction.[2]

[...]

The IRS decided in March 2014, to treat bitcoin and other virtual currencies as property for tax purposes, not currency.[11][12]

[...]

A cryptocurrency is a digital currency using cryptography to secure transactions and to control the creation of new currency units.[21] Since not all virtual currencies use cryptography, not all virtual currencies are cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies are generally not legal tender. Ecuador is the first country attempting a government run digital currency -no cryptocurrency; during the introductory phase from Christmas Eve 2014 until mid February 2015 people can open accounts and change passwords. At the end of February 2015 transactions of electronic money will be possible.[22][23]

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/ecuador-bans-bitcoin-favor-own-national-cryptocurrency/

Ecuador Bans Bitcoin In Favor Of Own National Cryptocurrency

Venzen Khaosan on 27/07/2014

On the 23rd of July, the government of Ecuador effectively banned bitcoin, along with all other cryptocurrencies, reports the PanAm Post. The legislation forms part of a reform of the country’s monetary and financial laws. The bill was approved by 91 members of parliament, with 22 votes against and 3 abstentions. President Rafael Correa, who introduced the reform bill, will sign it into law.

[...]

nolu chan  posted on  2017-05-24   16:51:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: nolu chan (#31)

As for U.S. law and your creative interpretations of it, remind me again about why you emigrated to Ecuador.

Because I like it better. I'll also remind you that a common tactic employed by those losing a debate is to resort to insults. You should be above that.

Only the U.S. government has authority to issue legal currency within the United States. Make any phony crap and issue it as currency and you get prosecuted.

Prosecution is only for imitating US legal tender currency, otherwise known as counterfeiting. Any community wanting to use poker chips as money is free to do so, so long as no representation made about the poker chips being US issued currency.

Bitcoin is considered property and not legal tender in any U.S. jurisdiction.

In particular, virtual currency does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction.[2]

You bolded the part about currency having "legal tender status". But what is "legal tender"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but currency that is "legal tender" means (at least in the USA) that if you offer payment having that status and the receiver refuses to accept it, the debt is considered paid. In other words, legal tender laws force people to accept crap money as something of real value. Currency is given such status when it has no intrinsic value on its own, as currency with intrinsic value, such as gold and silver does not require legal tender status.

So quite naturally, bitcoin will never, ever, ever have legal tender status. Ever. If someone doesn't want it, they suffer no penalty for refusing it. But even so, bitcoin still is a marketable commodity, albeit a virtual one.

And, by the way, FINCEN doesn't make federal law anyway. And neither does the IRS.

Ecuador Bans Bitcoin In Favor Of Own National Cryptocurrency

Meaning what, exactly? That I could go to jail because I have access to bitcoin which exists solely as data in redundant databases worldwide, And I happen to be walking down the street in Ecuador? Do you think Ecuador law calls for imprisoning anyone who has *access* to bitcoin?

Did you know that you can get a bitcoin debit card? What you do is open an account at an international vendor. They send you a plastic debit card. You deposit bitcoin in your debit card account. And then when you use your card at any point of sale worldwide, or an ATM, the transaction goes through and your account is deducted the equivalent amount of bitcoin, including service fees, of course. So in this case, bitcoin doesn't even enter Ecuador jurisdiction. The exchange between bitcoin and the national currency (US Dollars) takes place in the country having the bitcoin debit card service. So Ecuador cannot do squat (it's not unusual for stupid laws to be passed in Latin America). Did you hear that President Maduro in Venezuela wants to ban lines of people that extend out of bakeries? Apparently the country's food shortage is embarrassing so this is his way of making people not hungry.

But this is what I meant about technology trumping law. This is reality today. Check out wirex: https://wirexapp.com/

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-05-25   1:45:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: Pinguinite (#34)

As for U.S. law and your creative interpretations of it, remind me again about why you emigrated to Ecuador.

Because I like it better. I'll also remind you that a common tactic employed by those losing a debate is to resort to insults. You should be above that.

Give up with that crap already. You documented it all online and I have copies of your posts and you know it.

Your stated legal arguments were legal nonsense, just as your current legal arguments are delusional.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

http://www.cjmciver.org/cgi-bin/lwanread.cgi?2004-09-19 [can no longer access at link]

In your article on The Trial, you stated:

* If I proceed, I've got a 50/50 chance of winning, but I'm being handed a sure 'win' of sorts -- in the form of no criminal record -- on a silver platter.

At that moment the expatriation argument seemed to weigh heaviest of all things. This whole 'justice' system is a joke and I had the opportunity to make it all go away.

I looked at the judge and in what might be my most infamous moment, said 'I'll take it'.

[...]

I'm intrigued, and plan to visit this place -- I'll call it Oz -- and see for myself what it's like, because in my personal situation, with no wife, no kids, and a skill where geography means nothing, I actually have little practical need to stay in America. If learning a new language is the biggest obstical, I can overcome it. I have family that I love and very good friends that are very dear to me here, but beyond that, it seems all the land of the free has to offer me is continued second rate citizenship which culminated with criminal charges on May 17th. Is that actually going to change? The famed retort 'If you don't like America, why don't you leave' isn't just a sarcastic comment anymore. Beyond being a suggestion, it might be a good idea.

When you present your wackaloon views of the law to police or courts, it does not end well. You presumed you can present your nutbaggery to the police and act like a jerk and not face consequences.

What you proved is that you have a right to express your views on the law, and when you act on your misguided views, the police have the right to put your butt in jail. When the rubber met the road, you pleaded guilty, and you had no case to proceed with other than fringe tax protester gobbledygook.

As for your LWAN (Living Without A Number) delusion, you had a Social Security Number all the time, just as you have one now. Once you have one, it stays with you, delusional tax protester gobbledygook notwithstanding. Nor do your delusions entitle you to drive without a valid license, or with a suspended license, without consequences.

Regarding the law, you have a penchant to state things as fact which are directly contrary to actual law or opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court. You are entitled to your opinion even if it is delusional and has no basis in law. Others are entitled to state actual law.

As you discovered, acting on your delusions may entitle you to a jail cell.

And you made clear that you decided to leave the U.S. because you felt all the country had to offer you was continued second rate citizenship, and the best way to make the U.S. justice system leave your life would be for you to leave the country.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-05-25   17:55:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: nolu chan (#37)

You seem to have forgotten the discussion was about digital current, not me. You should learn to lose with at least a little bit of grace instead of resorting to insults and attacking with issues not raised.

Lawyer strategy: When the law is on your side, pound on the law. When the facts are on your side pound on the facts. When neither is on your side, pound on the table.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-05-25   23:26:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: Pinguinite (#38)

You seem to have forgotten the discussion was about digital current, not me. You should learn to lose with at least a little bit of grace instead of resorting to insults and attacking with issues not raised.

Lawyer strategy: When the law is on your side, pound on the law. When the facts are on your side pound on the facts. When neither is on your side, pound on the table.

No, it was about the power of the government.

You were babbling your sovereign citizen nonsense about how the government lacks power to enforce its laws against your sovereign citizen observations. I will not waste my time with your legal babble. The Federal government has enough power to regulate currency.

You pushed the babble of a tax fraudster. He was sent for a second stretch at Club Fed for fraud, and his son followed. The business was shut down by the Federal government and barred by permanent injunction from selling its bogus products regarding the law.

You decided you had the right to drive without a valid license. You tried your sovereign citizen nonsense with the local cops on a traffic stop for driving at night without headlights, was arrested for no valid license, and criminally convicted upon your plea of guilty.

You decided that the way for you to get out from under the sheer power of the local fuzz of Maryland was to retreat to Ecuador. But you still want to tell me that the Federal government is powerless to do much of anything in the face of your proclamations of bogus law.

As for your load of crap that you tried to unload on me that you went to Ecuador "because [you] like it better," that is contradicted by your own contemporary writings.

When the law is on your side, argue actual laws. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. And when you have no real argument, make up sovereign citizen nonsense and proclaim the lack of power of the Federal government. Or the lack of power of the state of Maryland. But do it from Ecuador, and not in a U.S. courtroom, or to a cop. That ends predictably.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnSd-E3Hb3Y

Judge Hysterically Owns a Sovereign Citizen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aptvDqvt5M4

Sovereign Citizen in Court on Trial for No Valid Registration -- GUILTY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Dvcd4Yzqjs

Sovereign Citizen: The Sitcom - Gettin' Tazed

nolu chan  posted on  2017-05-31   17:28:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: nolu chan (#44)

No, it was about the power of the government.

It was at the point of discussion about bitcoin where you suddenly decided to issue a personal attack instead of discussing the issue of the legality of bitcoin. If you think I said something about cryptocurrency that wasn't accurate, then the proper response, assuming you choose to respond at all, which is, of course optional on your part, would be to refute it, not issue a personal attack.

I am not the one that turned the discussion from bitcoin to me. That was you who did that. I suppose I should be flattered that you consider me so important.

Since you didn't post any legal material refuting my statement about it being legal for a community to use poker chips as money instead of US legal tender, and given that is your practice to do so, I think it's safe to assume you searched but found no such material.

Legal Tender laws create an obligation only on the receiver of legal tender, not the person who tenders. If two people make an exchange of maple leaves for real goods or services, it's not a violation of legal tender law. Counterfeit laws prohibit creating something that purports to be legal tender US currency. It is not against the law to make rounds of metal of whatever sort so long as no representation is made that they are legal US currency.

Now on the issue of cryptocurrency, I am a software professional and I have studied cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. So while you likely know more about so-called case law and such than me, I likely know more about Information Technology issues than you do, including bitcoin and cryptocurrency. That you despise me as greatly as you do doesn't change that. I suggest you grow up and get used to that fact. Once you do, you'll be amazed at what it's like to carry on objective discussions like an adult.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-01   2:02:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: Pinguinite (#45)

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/02/bitcoin-is-broken-heres-a-simple-plan-to-fix-it/283624/

Bitcoin Is Broken—Here's a Simple Plan to Fix It

It doesn't work as a currency, but it could help build the financial architecture of web payments. Here's how.

Matthew O'Brien Feb 5, 2014

Reuters

Nerds love Bitcoin, and they think you should too.

Actually, they think you will. They think it's the payments system, if not the currency, of the future. Something that will end Paypal, not the Fed. A way to send anything to anyone online for little to no fees. But mostly, they think Bitcoin is a technical marvel—because it is. Though that doesn't make it an economic marvel. At least not yet.

Netscape founder and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen is one of those nerds. He thinks Bitcoin is a game-changing technology on the scale of the PC and the Internet. In his telling, all were discounted as techie playthings, and all went on—or will go—to so fundamentally change how we live that we can't imagine life without them. There's something to that, but it's not enough on it's own. As I put it before, every big idea starts out sounding crazy, but not every crazy-sounding idea ends up being big. Some of them end up being ... Segway. That said, Bitcoin does hold a lot of promise, and it could change how we pay for things. But it's not there yet.

Here's why it could be big, why it isn't, and how it could in seven steps.

1. It's called the double-spending problem. Say I send you money online. You can't tell whether I've sent the exact same money to somebody else too. It's just too easy for me to copy the money's digital information, and use it more than once. Maybe I'm honest. But maybe I'm not, and I'm "paying" you with a dollar that's already been spent.

2. That's where financial institutions come in. They sit in the middle of every online transaction, and confirm that, yes, this money hasn't been spent before. These intermediaries add trust to the system, but this trust doesn't come cheap: They typically charge 2.5 percent per transaction.

3. Bitcoin's genius is it confirms transactions with a decentralized network of people who don't charge fees instead of financial institutions that do. Who are these people doing something for nothing? Well, they're Bitcoin miners, and they're not actually working for free—they're getting paid with new bitcoins.

For the uninitiated, Bitcoin is a virtual currency with a strictly limited supply that only grows at a slow, preset rate. Basically digital gold. And like actual gold, the only way to get new bitcoins is to "mine" them—but by solving computationally-taxing math problems, not with a pick and pan. In this case, though, the invisible hand is plenty easy to see. Solving these math problems doesn't just win new bitcoins for individual miners. It verifies all Bitcoin transactions for the entire network.

4. So why do people bother mining for bitcoins? Well, the question answers itself: because it's profitable, and they expect it to be even more so if Bitcoin keeps going up in value. This last point is critical. Bitcoin mining has become incredibly competitive the last few years—just look at the supercomputer fortresses in Iceland that use geothermal power and Arctic air for cooling—and that competition drives down margins. That means miners are really counting on Bitcoin to continue its journey to infinity and beyond, to keep rising forever.

5. When the price of money goes up, the price of everything else goes down. It's called deflation, and it's death for an economy. People put off buying things when they'll cost less tomorrow than today. Companies put off investing when their customers put off buying. And people who borrowed money are stuck trying to pay debts that don't change with wages that do—and have fallen.

But Bitcoin's deflationary bias is a feature, not a bug. It's why miners want to mine, and why there are no transaction fees. In other words, Bitcoin can't work as a technology without deflation. The question is whether Bitcoin can work as a currency with it.

Probably not. At least not when there's this much deflation. You can just how much there's been in the chart below from Peter Coy. It shows how much prices would have had to fall in 2013 if they'd been set in bitcoins instead of dollars.

[chart omitted]

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/BitcoinCPI.png

Now, to be fair, prices aren't set in bitcoins, and never will be. As Joe Weisenthal points out, it doesn't matter how much prices fall in bitcoins as long as prices are set in dollars—it won't hurt the real economy. But what about the Bitcoin economy? Will Bitcoin deflation hurt it? Almost certainly.

6. It's called Gresham's Law, and it's a simple idea: Bad money drives out the good. It dates back to when rulers would literally debase their currencies by reducing the amount of precious metals in coins, but kept the face values the same. (That's how inflation used to work). The government, of course, would try to collect all the old coins to burn them down, and make new ones. But it couldn't always, and this would create a two-tiered money system. There were old coins with more silver and gold, and new coins with less. So people would hoard the old, more valuable coins, and spend the new, less valuable ones.

It's the same with bitcoins and dollars. Why spend a currency that might go up in value ten or a hundred times—or more!—when you can spend one that won't? People don't. The only time people do use bitcoins is when they can't use dollars (or euros or yuan)—when they want to do something illegal. Things like buying drugs, gambling online, and evading capital controls. Indeed, 60 percent of all Bitcoin activity happens on the gambling site Satoshi Dice.

Other than that, people just hold on to their bitcoins; 64 percent are in accounts that have never been used. Which makes sense, if you think of Bitcoin as a dotcom stock instead of as a currency. It's not like people would use Facebook stock to buy things if they could do that instead of using dollars.

7. Bitcoin would be a clear step forward as a payments system if people actually used it to pay for things. But they don't. The people who have bitcoins don't use them, and the people who don't have them don't want them. Indeed, a new survey from The Street finds that 79 percent of people have never used a cryptocurrency, and never want to.

But there's an easy fix. Just ask yourself why sellers are so happy to accept Bitcoin. It's not just that there are no fees. It's that merchants can instantly turn their bitcoins into dollars thanks to startups like Bitpay. Sure, that means paying a fee, but it's lower than what they'd have to pay the credit card companies—and it means they don't have to worry about Bitcoin's incredibly volatile value.

Bitcoin needs the same thing for buyers. It needs a company that can immediately turn a buyer's dollars into bitcoins and then immediately turn a seller's bitcoins back into dollars—all for a lower fee than traditional intermediaries charge. You wouldn't have to worry about buyers not being willing to spend their bitcoins, because it wouldn't be their bitcoins. Nobody would even realize they were using bitcoins: buyers would pay with dollars and sellers would get dollars back. In other words, Bitcoin would stop trying to be a currency and start being a financial architecture. Of course, it would take a lot of bitcoins to make this work, but it would work if you had them.

Bitcon's killer app is a Bitcoin monopoly.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-02   18:10:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: nolu chan (#57)

It's no wonder why they call you Nolu Spam.

#1, I do not have to answer to you for my life's choices of where to live or the reason(s) I have for whatever my choice may have been in the past, is in the present, or may be in the future. I did not make my geographic location an issue on this thread. You did, intending to use it as a personal insult against me, as though doing so would support your arguments about bitcoin or whatever. But as any adult would tell you, that doesn't work. If you have a case or argument to make, then you should address the points without resorting to personal attacks.

In case it's not apparent, I don't know where you live and I don't care, as I know that where you chose to live has nothing to do with the views you have. So you should learn from my example.

#2, Bitcoin may have it's technical flaws. It would not be surprising, though the free market pricing usually takes that into account, and that market's opinion of bitcoin has been rising substantially of late. But that was not the issue we were discussing. The point I made was simply that technology would trump any laws attempting to ban bitcoin, as any such prohibitions would be relatively easy to circumvent, such as the now existent wirex service that allows you to have a debit card with bitcoins but which can be used for any visa/mastercard purchase worldwide.

#3) Whether the IRS considers bitcoins money or property is completely immaterial. Tax consequences of bitcoin are completely immaterial. At least to me. I never made any representations about that.

#4) Obviously Gresham's Law applies. People would prefer to use the intrinsically less valuable currency, which is why USD is currently preferred over bitcoin. But again, I never claimed otherwise.

#5) The case against Liberty Dollars, Your own post states:

On March 18, 2011, after a 90-minute jury deliberation, von NotHaus was found guilty on various counts, including the making of "counterfeit coins" (resembling legal tender coins).

This supports my claim that using poker chips for "money", should a community choose to do that, is not a violation of legal tender laws so long as the poker chips are not represented as US currency. The only reason for the conviction was that the jury was convinced that Liberty Dollars were intended to be passed off as legal tender coins. This conviction supports what I said, not what you said. You were simply happy to report the conviction of NautHous.

It's apparent you simply have an emotional hatred of bitcoin and cryptocurrency in general, and that my statement about laws failing to stop it set you off and erroneously gave you the impression that I believed bitcoin to be a utopian currency. While I do think the decentralized blockchain technology behind it is genius, that does not mean it's without flaws. If nothing else causes bitcoin to fall, quantum computing will destroy it, along with all other internet encryption, but of course, quantum-based encryption would usher a new quantum currency. If you really are a computer professional, you should understand how technology is growing exponentially, and is impacting all aspects of life, and it will impact the law no less than anything else.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-03   2:11:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: Pinguinite (#58)

[Pinguinite #58] It's no wonder why they call you Nolu Spam.

Oh, your poor dear. Let's face it. Nolu Spam will always be a better name than inmate.

[Pinguinite #45] If you think I said something about cryptocurrency that wasn't accurate, then the proper response, assuming you choose to respond at all, which is, of course optional on your part, would be to refute it, not issue a personal attack.

First you say a personal attack should not be used (not that I made one), then you say the proper response was to respond to your inanity, then when you get what you asked for, you issue a personal attack, demonstrating why I said giving a full response would be a waste of time.

[Pinguinite #58] #1, I do not have to answer to you for my life's choices of where to live or the reason(s) I have for whatever my choice may have been inthe past, is in the present, or may be in the future.

How true. But when your current statement flies in the face of past statements you published at the relevant time, I am free and fully justified in pointing out, with your own words, that you are merely trying to revise history. It is called rebuttal by prior inconsistent statement.

[Pinguinite #58] I did not make my geographic location an issue on this thread. You did, intending to use it as a personal insult against me, as though doing so would support your arguments about bitcoin or whatever. But as any adult would tell you, that doesn't work. If you have a case or argument to make,then you should address the points without resorting to personal attacks.

You were giving your creative opinions on U.S. law. You have a history of publishing such creative opinions. You come from a history where two associates went to prison for peddling fraudulent legal nonsense, and you went to jail for practicing you claimed belief that you did not need a valid driver's license. You published your nonsense at length. When you attempt to shovel more of the same sort of manure about U.S. law, relating your history as you published it is fair game. You could always try to clean up your act.

You drove a car with a five year expired license, drove after dark without headlights, and got pulled over. One would think this was not a propotious moment to be a jerk, inviting additional difficulty. Here is your description of that you proceeded to do.

Around 9:30 PM, I climbed into my car and drove off down Main Street. It was after dark and a bit rainy but the streetlights were quite ample to light the way. Someone ahead flashed headlights, and I realized mine were off. I turned them on. No problem.

About a half mile ahead, disco lights behind me. I pulled over, but so did they. Why was I being stopped? Been almost 5 years since the last one but I knew the drill. I pulled out my tape recorder, and reminded myself -- again -- that driving on a suspended license would probably get me arrested. Suspended, because I never did pay that pesky fine from 5 years ago, and suspension is how Maryland's DMV deals with such callousness, even if the license had already expired. [five years ago]

The officer approached -- a sherriff deputy. 'You know why I stopped you, don't you?'

'I have no idea'. I didn't. We were about a half mile from when I had turned my lights on and that I'd driven less that 2 blocks with them off had already been forgotten. Getting pulled over for that is unheard of.

'No headlights. License and Registration, please.'

I had registration, but of course no license. It took me a moment to get my act together. These incidents never do come when you expect them. Never when it's convenient. The deputy seemed a bit impatient in the rain. All I could come up with is just doing things by the book. Don't volunteer anything. Give and do only what is demanded and ordered. [nc - Buy a new book.]

'If you are requesting them, I'm denying that request'. After all, he was conducting an investigation of me and I had a right to not voluntarily help him compile his case. Besides, if I cooperated too much, he'd find out Maryland had me down for 'suspended'.

Not surprisingly, he called for backup and it seemed in no time there were about 5 more police cars behind him and another across the street. They were easy to count, because everyone of them had red disco lights lighting up the block. [Perhaps you were just a cop favorite.]

'Get out of the car'. Okay, that sounded like an order to me. I got out, still holding my tape recorder. In these situations, having an accurate record of what transpires is important to preserve my rights, particularly since I had no witnesses around.

He led me behind my car, in front of his cruiser. Numerous uniforms stood all around me. 'I'm recording this conversation, sir'. Recording a traffic stop secretly got one person in trouble, even though it was a recording of a police officer who purely engaged in harassment. I'd no desire to be secretive anyway. Let's keep everything above board.

'Turn it off. You need my permission to record me and you don't have that.'

'If I turn it off, I won't respond to any questions'. Without the recording, I won't have any record of exactly what transpires, and then it will simply be a matter of my word against his as to what transpired. Don't I have a right to have a witness present in the form of the tape recorder. [nc - You do not have a right to carry a tape recorder in hand.]

'Turn it off or have it confiscated.'

Sounded like an order. When a guy with a gun tells you to do something, it's best to do it. 'I'm turning it off'. I did so, even though I firmly believed this officer had no lawful authority whatsoever to deny me a record of the events, and placed it in my car.

'What's your name?'

Didn't really sound like an order. Sounded like a question, and questions are not orders. Just like when police ask if they can search your car. That's a request and no one has to comply with police requests. Not knowing the difference between a request and a demand has gotten people in trouble.

Motorists and passengers ignorantly complying with such requests, even when they believe they are orders, are not permitted to claim 4th or 5th Amendment violations when contraband is found in such circumstances. That 'case law' or 'case history' as I prefer to call it clearly established a burden upon motorists to understand the difference between a request and a demand, and the determining factor is simply what the officer says. Surely, I'm no more duty bound to notify the officer that it was his requests I wasn't responding to than police are duty bound to explain to motorists what things they need not volunteer. That's fair.... right?

Since it was not an order, I could or should have the option to say nothing, and since he deprived me of an audio record of my response, I decided it was was within my rights to stay mum.

'You're under arrest. You have the right to remain silent....'. [nc - You learned the power of the government agent unamused by your tired act] How ironic. He ran though the familiar Miranda just like they do in the movies. 'Do you understand these rights?'

'No, it seems I don't.'

As he made a valid traffic stop, he had the authority to search your vehicle.

He had the right to your identity, your license, registration and insurance. He had the right to have you exit it the car. He had the right to have you put down your recording device.

[Pinguinite #58] In case it's not apparent, I don't know where you live and I don't care, as I know that where you chose to live has nothing to do with the views you have. So you should learn from my example.

I learned from your example. Acting like a jerk with a cop when you are clearly in the wrong ends up with you in a cell. I prefer not to be locked up or charged and convicted. You wrote about it as if you were the hero of the story. It is clear you did not learn much. At least you learned to take a plea when your case was hopeless.

I have about a 20 year history of things posted online. They are fair game. You posted all about your plans to expatriate, your plans to shop for a place to do so, and that you found that place in Ecuador. I published the country you live in long after you had repeatedly published that information to the world. Please feel free to tell what country I live in. It is the United States.

Your published writings established a direct link between your views and your expatriation. Your prior inconsistent statements are fair game to challenge your revised history.

[Pinguinite #58] #2, Bitcoin may have it's technical flaws. It would not be surprising, though the free market pricing usually takes that into account, andthat market's opinion of bitcoin has been rising substantially of late. But thatwas not the issue we were discussing. The point I made was simply that echnology would trump any laws attempting to ban bitcoin, as any such prohibitions would be relatively easy to circumvent, such as the now existent wirex service that allows you to have a debit card with bitcoins but which can be used for any visa/mastercard purchase worldwide.

There you go again, demonstrating why a substantive response to you was a waste of time and like trying to educate a doorknob.

Under U.S. law, Bitcoin as property is subject to regulations that do not apply to money.

[Pinguinite #58] The point I made was simply that technology would trump any laws attempting to ban bitcoin, as any such prohibitions would be relatively easy to circumvent

That is the sort of shit that the Kotmair's went to prison for. You blathered that you did not need a valid license to drive and went to jail.

Some poor bastard getting an IRS audit tells the IRS that he did not have to report capital gains on his investment property (bitcoin) because he knows the law because he reads it on the internet, as published by Pinguinite. That sounds like the start of a story that does not end well.

You always have a way to circumvent the law. Your reader should know that if they believe the shit you shovel, they should be prepared to leave the country or pack a toothbrush.

How about trying to address how to COMPLY with the law, rather than just saying you have a way to circumvent the law. Saying that your profession of bogus law, and your advocacy of circumventing the actual law, led you to flee the United States, is not a personal attack but a warning and necessary information for those reading your line of crap. Your reader should know straight up that you advocate circumventing (or breaking or ignoring) the law, that you went to jail for doing so, and your associates went to prison.

[Pinguinite #58] #3) Whether the IRS considers bitcoins money or property is completely immaterial. Tax consequences of bitcoin are completely immaterial. At least to me. I never made any representations about that.

Oh, it's immaterial to you if people believe your crap and the tax implications are immaterial as long as you do not tell your reader.

[Pinguinite #58] #4) Obviously Gresham's Law applies. People would prefer to use the intrinsically less valuable currency, which is why USD is currently preferred over bitcoin. But again, I never claimed otherwise.

Get it thorugh your thick head: Bitcoin is not currency. It is not money. It is property. Keep saying it until it sinks in.

As I quoted in my #45, and you are unable to refute - Bitcoin is not spent for everyday purchases. It is spent for illegal stuff, like to satisfy your penchant of circumventing the law. At the time of writing the source article, 60% was being spent on a gambling site.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/02/bitcoin-is-broken-heres-a-simple-plan-to-fix-it/283624/

Bitcoin Is Broken—Here's a Simple Plan to Fix It

It doesn't work as a currency, but it could help build the financial architecture of web payments. Here's how.

Matthew O'Brien Feb 5, 2014

Reuters

[...]

5. When the price of money goes up, the price of everything else goes down. It's called deflation, and it's death for an economy. People put off buying things when they'll cost less tomorrow than today. Companies put off investing when their customers put off buying. And people who borrowed money are stuck trying to pay debts that don't change with wages that do—and have fallen.

But Bitcoin's deflationary bias is a feature, not a bug. It's why miners want to mine, and why there are no transaction fees. In other words, Bitcoin can't work as a technology without deflation. The question is whether Bitcoin can work as a currency with it.

Probably not.

[...]

Why spend a currency that might go up in value ten or a hundred times—or more!—when you can spend one that won't? People don't. The only time people do use bitcoins is when they can't use dollars (or euros or yuan)—when they want to do something illegal. Things like buying drugs, gambling online, and evading capital controls. Indeed, 60 percent of all Bitcoin activity happens on the gambling site Satoshi Dice.

Other than that, people just hold on to their bitcoins; 64 percent are in accounts that have never been used. Which makes sense, if you think of Bitcoin as a dotcom stock instead of as a currency. It's not like people would use Facebook stock to buy things if they could do that instead of using dollars.

7. Bitcoin would be a clear step forward as a payments system if people actually used it to pay for things. But they don't.

[Pinguinite #58] #5) The case against Liberty Dollars, Your own post states:

On March 18, 2011, after a 90-minute jury deliberation, von NotHaus was found guilty on various counts, including the making of "counterfeit coins" (resembling legal tender coins).

This supports my claim that using poker chips for "money", should a community choose to do that, is not a violation of legal tender laws so long as the poker chips are not represented as US currency. The only reason for the conviction was that the jury was convinced that Liberty Dollars were intended to be passed off as legal tender coins. This conviction supports what I said, not what you said. You were simply happy to report the conviction of NautHous.

You merely strive to prove my point that it is not possible to educate a doorknob.

You can make believe you do not comprehend the meaning of the word money, but it does nothing to bolster your claim of knowing U.S. law.

Money is currency. Contrary to your bogus crap about legal tender laws (uncited and unquoted), poker chips can not be used as money, and as money, they are unlawful. A one ounce silver round is legal. A one ounce silver round (or poker chip) which you claim to be money can get you a criminal conviction.

As I stated at #46:

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

Money. In usual and ordinary acceptation it means coins and paper currency used as circulating medium of exchange, and does not embrace notes, bonds, evidence of debt, or other personal or real estate.

No, since I did not entertain another discussion of one of your delusional sovereign citizen infantile excursions into fantasy land, it is not safe to assume that I have neither found nor already abundantly knew of such material. Your opinions on U.S. law are so delusional that any exposition would be embarrassing and humiliating to a normal person. I did not want to waste my time, knowing that nothing that can be said would make any difference. It would be like an attempt to educate a doorknob.

Your claim about money is precisely analagous to your prior delusional crap about not needing a valid license to drive, and your detailed publishing of your presumed, but hopelessly skewed, knowledge of the law.

Rounds of metal and poker chips are not money. If you create rounds of metal, with a likeness of Ron Paul on them, and circulate them as money in competition with real money, you may get a criminal conviction.

Bitcoin and poker chips are property, not money. Call them money, or give them too much resemblance to money, and you may acquire a criminal conviction.

A reader who depends on your blather about U.S. law, or how to circumvent U.S. law, should understand the source from which this blather emanates, and the possible consequences.

[Pinguinite #58] It's apparent you simply have an emotional hatred of bitcoin and cryptocurrency in general, and that my statement about laws failing to stop it set you off and erroneously gave you the impression that I believed bitcoin to be a utopian currency.

Your excuse making sounds like a cross between Hillary Clinton and Kathy Griffin.

I have no emotional hatred of bitcoin or cryptocurrency. There is some genius in the idea. I have a disdain for deliberately false arguments that can get believers in legal or tax difficulties, and I have a disdain for a position that knowingly relies upon circumventing the law and which withholds that information from the reader. Your crap will give no comfort whatever to some gullible reader who finds himself in a nasty tax audit.

You present bitcoin, TOR and SHA256 as ensuring that one's identity is unattainable. It may not be obtainable by Joe Curious, but the power of the government has been demonstrated. Ross Ulbricht, the founder of Silk Road, is an example of one who did not remain so anonymous. He is doing two life terms.

You asked me to point out any flaws in your nonsense about Bitcoin. Now you attempt to run and hide and obfuscate.

[Pinguinite #58] While I do think the decentralized blockchain technology behind it is genius, that does not mean it's without flaws. If nothing else causes bitcoin to fall, quantum computing will destroy it, along with all other internet encryption, but of course, quantum-based encryption would usher a new quantum currency.

There is nothing like instant bullshit. Just add water and you have bullshit.

GOVERNMENT Quantum computers could destroy Bitcoin before was any chance whatever for them to be generally available to the public. Anyway, what's the jurry? Just think of the big database of names users of TOR ard Bitcoin are making via their usage for illegal shit.

Only a fool thinks that TOR keeps one anonymous from the NSA and the other agencies with access to the shared data. What keeps most users anonymous is that they have not attracted enough attention to distinguish them from the other 300 million and become the focus of a determined government effort. It is not the powerlessness of the government to give you an anal probe.

[Pinguinite #58] If you really are a computer professional, you should understand how technology is growing exponentially, and is impacting all aspects of life, and it will impact the law no less than anything else.

I did not say I am a computer professional. I am retired, left the computer field decades ago (except for making some of my own computers), and I am well aware of how fast the technology changes.

Somewhat off topic, but I found a recent FR announcement unintentionally amusing:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3557844/posts

[excerpt]

ANNOUNCEMENT: We have installed a new SHA-256 secure server certificate on our freerepublic.com domain and we have a NEW donate link: https://freerepublic.com/donate/

FR is now more secure than ever! Google, Firefox, et al, were flagging our old SHA-1 secure server as "not secure" even though our certificate was paid-up, still valid, still in force and our secure server was still encrypting our donation transactions as securely as always to the SHA-1 standard.

FR seems to remain blissfully unaware that the SHA-1 hash was broken. At my #56, I linked the quoted the article that spread the news in February: "The cryptography world has been buzzing with the news that researchers at Google and CWI Amsterdam have succeeded in successfully generating a 'hash collision' for two different documents using the SHA1 encryption algorithm, rendering the algorithm 'broken' according to cryptographic standards."

PGP with Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange and Digital Signatures utilized hashing. Asychronous Encryption occurs where one key is used to encrypt the file and a different key is used to decrypt the file. You publish your public key online. I encrypt with your public key. Even I cannot decrypt the encrypted version I create and sent to you. You use your private key, known to and possessed only by you to decrypt the file. The Digital Signatures are used to prevent a Man-in-the-Middle attack. PGP was developed in 1991, well before Bitcoin.

[Pinguinite #34] And, by the way, FINCEN doesn't make federal law anyway. And neither does the IRS.

Where do you get this insane bullshit? The majority of U.S. law is administrative law, published by the administrative agencies of the executive branch in implementing the statutory laws of Congress.

Tell your nonsense to the IRS at an audit.

http://law.richmond.libguides.com/c.php?g=129566&p=1552476

RICHMOND SCHOOL OF LAW

Federal Tax Research

A selective list of titles intended to provide some of the more useful sources for researching tax law

Regulations are laws made by an executive branch agency under the authority of a statute passed by Congress. Regulations are first published in the Federal Register. The Treasury Department issues three types of administrative regulations: proposed, temporary and final. Temporary regulations are issued to provide guidance to tax payers on new tax provisions. They do not require a comment period and are effective immediately upon publication. Final and temporary regulations are first published as Treasury Decisions, which are recognized by a four digit citation, i.e. T.D. 8860 and a description of the purpose and content of the new regulation. Upon codification, regulations are assigned a prefix corresponding to the type of tax provision as indicated.

1        Income Tax
20 	Estate Tax
25 	Gift Tax
26 	Generation Skipping Tax
31 	Employment Tax
301 	Procedural Tax
601 	IRS Procedural Rules

[...]

What law is not changed, remains in effect. Technological advances do not change the statutory law, Congress does. Agencies change the regulatory law after Congress changes the statute law.

https://www.fincen.gov/what-we-do

United States Department of the Treasury

FinCEN

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

What We Do

FinCEN is a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The Director of FinCEN is appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury and reports to the Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. FinCEN’s mission is to safeguard the financial system from illicit use and combat money laundering and promote national security through the collection, analysis, and dissemination of financial intelligence and strategic use of financial authorities.

FinCEN carries out its mission by receiving and maintaining financial transactions data; analyzing and disseminating that data for law enforcement purposes; and building global cooperation with counterpart organizations in other countries and with international bodies.

FinCEN exercises regulatory functions primarily under the Currency and Financial Transactions Reporting Act of 1970, as amended by Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 and other legislation, which legislative framework is commonly referred to as the "Bank Secrecy Act" (BSA). The BSA is the nation's first and most comprehensive Federal anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CFT) statute. In brief, the BSA authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations requiring banks and other financial institutions to take a number of precautions against financial crime, including the establishment of AML programs and the filing of reports that have been determined to have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, andregulatory investigations and proceedings, and certain intelligence and counter-terrorism matters.

The administrative laws have the force of law.

Your misstating of the law is, and has always been, dangerous. I would like to hear how you would COMPLY with the law, not how you can CIRCUMVENT it.

nolu chan  posted on  2017-06-05   3:09:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 59.

#60. To: nolu chan (#59)

Your misstating of the law is, and has always been, dangerous.

You flatter me.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-06-05 13:28:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 59.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com