so what does Patrick Murck do except try to bring more regulation to Bitcoin?
perhaps Dax Jensen should be TBF's head attorney?
Topic: 2013-07-02 BitcoinFoundation.org - Response to CA DFI Warning Letter (Read 6205 times)
July 03, 2013, 10:18:30 AM
Not to be too cynical, but I wonder if this was planned...
Granted California leads the way for the US, I'm curious if all the same arguments hold up in Ohio, or any other state for that matter.
Is this simply a defense for the California law, or also the FINCEN guidance?
Either way, awesome job Foundation!
The FinCEN is guidance on enforcement and not basic law, and not adjudicated or even well clarified either.Granted California leads the way for the US, I'm curious if all the same arguments hold up in Ohio, or any other state for that matter.
Is this simply a defense for the California law, or also the FINCEN guidance?
Either way, awesome job Foundation!
So this response is based on California law.
"The same rationale that applied to the sale of a peso should prevail under the California statute with regard to the sale of a bitcoin."
The California law makes different distinctions from Federal law.
Federal distinguishes also between current money of a foreign nation and other payment instruments.
If CA does issue a concurring opinion letter, that would be the epic win.
"If CA does issue a concurring opinion letter, that would be the epic win."
So FINCEN guidance is for enforcement of federal laws?
Would the epic win be the same as Washington legalizing pot? It's legal at the state level, but illegal at the federal level?
Even though I understand you're saying it's not an "illegal" at the federal level, but merely interpreted to be illegal without registration based on FINCEN guidance which isn't exactly "illegal" but rather not congruent with their interpretation of existing rules which they (FINCEN?) would be required to enforce.
So the thoughts would be Cali says it's cool with this interpretation of Cali law, and then someone at the federal level says yeah, we think the same is a good interpretation of federal law/regulation, and then FINCEN issues guidance saying, yeah, I guess that's cool, so no registration necessary?
So a three step process?
Banking is regulated by states, there are 50 + some state-like geographies.
When it gets into inter-state issues, the federal jurisdiction gets more power.
The federal is broken into districts, the districts do not always agree.
If it is a constitutional matter, it can go to SCOTUS (supreme court of the US).
California is not a horrible jurisdiction if we were doing forum shopping.
NY is more banking centric, and California does things right sometimes, like this today:
http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/water_cooler/california-man-found-not-guilty-in-chalk-vandalsim-case-at-bank-of-america-branches
Glad there was no mention of bitcoin, but I hope he learns about them soon to help his cause!
July 03, 2013, 09:25:23 AM
Not to be too cynical, but I wonder if this was planned...
Granted California leads the way for the US, I'm curious if all the same arguments hold up in Ohio, or any other state for that matter.
Is this simply a defense for the California law, or also the FINCEN guidance?
Either way, awesome job Foundation!
The FinCEN is guidance on enforcement and not basic law, and not adjudicated or even well clarified either.Granted California leads the way for the US, I'm curious if all the same arguments hold up in Ohio, or any other state for that matter.
Is this simply a defense for the California law, or also the FINCEN guidance?
Either way, awesome job Foundation!
So this response is based on California law.
"The same rationale that applied to the sale of a peso should prevail under the California statute with regard to the sale of a bitcoin."
The California law makes different distinctions from Federal law.
Federal distinguishes also between current money of a foreign nation and other payment instruments.
If CA does issue a concurring opinion letter, that would be the epic win.
"If CA does issue a concurring opinion letter, that would be the epic win."
So FINCEN guidance is for enforcement of federal laws?
Would the epic win be the same as Washington legalizing pot? It's legal at the state level, but illegal at the federal level?
Even though I understand you're saying it's not an "illegal" at the federal level, but merely interpreted to be illegal without registration based on FINCEN guidance which isn't exactly "illegal" but rather not congruent with their interpretation of existing rules which they (FINCEN?) would be required to enforce.
So the thoughts would be Cali says it's cool with this interpretation of Cali law, and then someone at the federal level says yeah, we think the same is a good interpretation of federal law/regulation, and then FINCEN issues guidance saying, yeah, I guess that's cool, so no registration necessary?
So a three step process?
Banking is regulated by states, there are 50 + some state-like geographies.
When it gets into inter-state issues, the federal jurisdiction gets more power.
The federal is broken into districts, the districts do not always agree.
If it is a constitutional matter, it can go to SCOTUS (supreme court of the US).
California is not a horrible jurisdiction if we were doing forum shopping.
NY is more banking centric, and California does things right sometimes, like this today:
http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/water_cooler/california-man-found-not-guilty-in-chalk-vandalsim-case-at-bank-of-america-branches
July 03, 2013, 09:05:31 AM
Not to be too cynical, but I wonder if this was planned...
Granted California leads the way for the US, I'm curious if all the same arguments hold up in Ohio, or any other state for that matter.
Is this simply a defense for the California law, or also the FINCEN guidance?
Either way, awesome job Foundation!
The FinCEN is guidance on enforcement and not basic law, and not adjudicated or even well clarified either.Granted California leads the way for the US, I'm curious if all the same arguments hold up in Ohio, or any other state for that matter.
Is this simply a defense for the California law, or also the FINCEN guidance?
Either way, awesome job Foundation!
So this response is based on California law.
"The same rationale that applied to the sale of a peso should prevail under the California statute with regard to the sale of a bitcoin."
The California law makes different distinctions from Federal law.
Federal distinguishes also between current money of a foreign nation and other payment instruments.
If CA does issue a concurring opinion letter, that would be the epic win.
"If CA does issue a concurring opinion letter, that would be the epic win."
So FINCEN guidance is for enforcement of federal laws?
Would the epic win be the same as Washington legalizing pot? It's legal at the state level, but illegal at the federal level?
Even though I understand you're saying it's not an "illegal" at the federal level, but merely interpreted to be illegal without registration based on FINCEN guidance which isn't exactly "illegal" but rather not congruent with their interpretation of existing rules which they (FINCEN?) would be required to enforce.
So the thoughts would be Cali says it's cool with this interpretation of Cali law, and then someone at the federal level says yeah, we think the same is a good interpretation of federal law/regulation, and then FINCEN issues guidance saying, yeah, I guess that's cool, so no registration necessary?
So a three step process?
July 03, 2013, 09:02:31 AM
wondering why this story, or rather the response, is not making more news headlines??
Nobody was killed or caught in infidelity?How many July 4th hotdogs can a legal opinion letter sell?
July 03, 2013, 08:18:21 AM
Agreed, good strategy.
July 03, 2013, 07:59:52 AM
Really happy to see the Foundation using this situation to spread understanding of Bitcoin to officials and regulators, rather than simply covering their own butts. That's what we signed up for, keep up the good work!!
July 03, 2013, 07:57:52 AM
interested in MSANTORI's opinion on this response.....or anyone else who can poke holes in the response.
July 03, 2013, 07:56:51 AM
wondering why this story, or rather the response, is not making more news headlines??
July 03, 2013, 07:01:55 AM
Not to be too cynical, but I wonder if this was planned...
Granted California leads the way for the US, I'm curious if all the same arguments hold up in Ohio, or any other state for that matter.
Is this simply a defense for the California law, or also the FINCEN guidance?
Either way, awesome job Foundation!
The FinCEN is guidance on enforcement and not basic law, and not adjudicated or even well clarified either.Granted California leads the way for the US, I'm curious if all the same arguments hold up in Ohio, or any other state for that matter.
Is this simply a defense for the California law, or also the FINCEN guidance?
Either way, awesome job Foundation!
So this response is based on California law.
"The same rationale that applied to the sale of a peso should prevail under the California statute with regard to the sale of a bitcoin."
The California law makes different distinctions from Federal law.
Federal distinguishes also between current money of a foreign nation and other payment instruments.
If CA does issue a concurring opinion letter, that would be the epic win.
July 03, 2013, 02:43:10 AM
Bravo!
July 03, 2013, 01:41:55 AM
Boy, I sure am glad we have Bitcoin Foundation to help fight the legal battles 
July 03, 2013, 01:30:55 AM
I still wish they'd have used the word "Nincompoop" just once in the response!
July 02, 2013, 11:34:02 PM
Bitcoin Foundation, I think you just scored some major points.
July 02, 2013, 06:17:32 PM
Not to be too cynical, but I wonder if this was planned...
Granted California leads the way for the US, I'm curious if all the same arguments hold up in Ohio, or any other state for that matter.
Is this simply a defense for the California law, or also the FINCEN guidance?
Either way, awesome job Foundation!
Granted California leads the way for the US, I'm curious if all the same arguments hold up in Ohio, or any other state for that matter.
Is this simply a defense for the California law, or also the FINCEN guidance?
Either way, awesome job Foundation!
July 02, 2013, 05:24:25 PM
at least they're doing part of what we pay them to do :p
July 02, 2013, 05:15:49 PM
They definitely chose a good way to answer!
July 02, 2013, 04:24:16 PM
Great response - essentially taking some negative attention and turning it into a huge win!
July 02, 2013, 04:15:38 PM
Epic 
July 02, 2013, 04:09:42 PM
This is an excellent response!
All bitcoin enthusiasts should read this. It does the best job that I have seen to qualify what bitcoin is and is not, from a money transmitter perspective but also simply from a "money" perspective.
Great work.
All bitcoin enthusiasts should read this. It does the best job that I have seen to qualify what bitcoin is and is not, from a money transmitter perspective but also simply from a "money" perspective.
Great work.
Jump to: