Topic: Any other Americans considering a claim against the FBI over SilkRoad? (Read 4040 times)

The theory of damages for that kind of dilution is that the mere existence of inferior knockoff products tarnishes the name of the original.  For example, Rolex is damaged by the profusion of cheap knockoffs out there, such that someone wearing a real Rolex enjoys less benefit from it because of the presumption that it too is a cheap fake.

The point of the separate dilution clause is there doesn't have to be actual confusion:
It is enough that is clearly meant to look like the original, even if it isn't exactly the same, or uses a misspelled name.

Found similar situation with the quote that could be useful.

Things like fake Rolexes are routinely seized.  They don't need an injunction to do that, just a temporary restraining order or, for instance, an ex parte writ of search and seizure.  The counterfeiting scum rarely challenge this after the products are seized, because there is a criminal element to trademark infringement (18 U.S.C § 2320), and the crooks are glad just to get away with whatever profits they earned with their fakes.

It is rarely if ever illegal simply to purchase a counterfeit product.

As for fake Rolexes, the fakes generally do not have the same second hand action as a real Rolex.  A real Rolex has a second hand that is a delight to watch.  The fakes tick along and spaz out and look like shit.

Yes, but there is more to it than that.  First off, it has to be fairly obvious that the manufacturer and the seller intended to commit fraud.  A copycat that is obviously a copycat can easily be argued to be a parody product in court, and if the trademark holder never prosues the issue in a US court at all, then the law presumes that the product is not in violation of trademarks.  Granted, this assumes that the trademark owner is aware of said copycat product, but that's their problem.  Until an injuction against the product has occurred, selling them is not illegal; and buying them never is.

EDIT:  There are a number of Chinese knockoff products that have the trademarked name diliberately misspelled, that are often sold in cheap retail places commonly called "dollar stores".  The copycats aren't very good, perhaps deliberately, and anyone who thought the product was the original had to be less than observant.

Perhaps US law is different, but I would have thought that selling them at all, even if clearly labelled as fakes, would still be a trademark violation.

Edit: I'm not a lawyer, but it would appear to be covered by 15 USC § 1125

Fakes aren't, unto themselves, illegal.  Selling them as the real thing is fraud, though.

Apart from the fake rolex.

So again, the lesson to be learned is to keep your bitcoins locally on your own hardware unless you are spending them for some reason. Forget anything online.

Only way I would take this on is if I could relocate myself and all my assets to a country without an extradition treaty, and have my attorney file the suit for me.

Then if it's all cool and a fair hearing you can come home, if they come down on you you're not another digital martyr in a cage.

Good luck whatever you decide.

I have a feeling that this is true and could be an important precedent.  But it would be nice to hear it discussed from a very experienced constitutional attorney.

I think you should definitely move forward with lawsuit. But if you find pro bono lawyer or such organization like ACLU helps you. There are several other that can help.
At least such lawsuit will be part of history and could be sited as precedent. 

Well, ya.  Unless they didn't have any liability from doing so (and do not forget income tax and/or attempts to evade it! in evaluating that!)

I'll tell you what the administrative agencies should do...it would be to take the attitude that "we did really good here, ran a few honey pots and pulled in a whole crew of under-current-defined-law-"wrongdoers" and raked in a bunch of illegally gotten cash.  Say what?  Say there was a lot of honest money there?  Hey, take it back, no problem".

Well...that's what they SHOULD DO....

ROFL....

If they didn't even have enough evidence to win a forfeiture action, how the hell could they successfully prosecute a criminal case?

I think the more important issue as to why it might be foolish to file a challenge to the forfeiture is that fee shifting might not be available and the cost of actually pursuing the action might be higher than the value of the seized property.

Obviously, anyone considering such an action should consult an attorney or attorneys with civil and criminal experience and make damn sure they don't have any criminal liability.  One (semi-creative) argument a prosecutor could make is that simply by depositing money on a site the main purpose of which was criminal activity, one is aiding and abetting the criminal enterprise by increasing its liquidity.

I don't see why they'd bother retaliating solely because one filed with the administrative process they set up to handle exactly this kind of situation.  That's why it's there.  Now, if by losing your anonymity, you are therefore exposed to criminal liability, that's another issue, and one nobody should be discussing here, but in private with an attorney.  Nobody could give a valid opinion on potential liability without the specific facts of the individual's situation, which they shouldn't be talking about in public.

Yes, I have read the whole thread.  I guess you don't understand where I'm coming from.  I agree with your concerns about the onset of totalitarian operations and the loss of the rule of law in the Justice department.  However, those are not related to what happens when a case is filed in a situation as has been described here. 

First, there are 'administrative remedies' which might be required to be pursued.   This is where you might have some valid concern about retaliatory prosecution of the innocent.  Second, assuming some time had past and no positive results had been achieved in those processes, the class action lawsuit might be filed.  That would be to compel an action, such as here to return the money as the statutes say is possible.  What that would do is take the action out of the administrative justice nonsense and put it in a courtroom.

You can speculate that the administrative agency would take retaliatory action, sure.  But once the matter was in the hands of a judge they wouldn't look very good if they did that, and there tend to be consequences.  Plus, they have other things to do than harass silkroad people. 

I gather you haven't read this whole thread? I am discussing it from the point of view of a district attorney, because the district attorney (or more likely the AG in this case) will be filing the criminal charges against SR users, and those suing for return of property will be first in line to be charged.

For the fifth time, this has nothing to do with right or wrong, or valid punishments for "crimes". If it did, Aaron Swartz would have maybe been on the hook for community service or been banned from the MIT campus. Instead he killed himself rather than fight a multi-million dollar criminal defense or plea bargain for federal prison time.

I am saying forget your armchair lawyer delusions about "your rights" and "due process" and all the imaginary trappings of a justice system. They don't exist anymore, not when it comes to cyber crimes and certainly not cyber crimes affiliated with drug crimes and possible 'other' frowned upon crimes.

See Hedges vs. Obama for where we the people stand. It is an important guidepost. Also, it is probably the best thing to do at this point, people need to file civil suits against the government and force them to defend the stripping of rights, so there is precedence that is not set in a criminal court that has already proven biased against search and seizure, probable cause, due process, scope of authority, etc. Hedges v Obama failed for the most part, but it did bring light to the problem, and may find support in a future less prejudiced courtroom.

No, it's not relevant.  You are discussing law as applied by a district attorney.

Here we are discussing law as applied by citizens (subjects) seeking redress from government injustice.

They would probably have an arguable case if say a known drug dealer with a history of convictions had a large amount of money on silk road, but had not done anything with it.

But we are not talking about that.

yeah i don't know how one would be able to prove that they were not using SR for illegal activity. even if you bought something legal, that does not prove your innocence.

I don't even think that's correct.  That's presumption of guilt and no due process.

Really?  You don't think the leaders of groups like the Zetas or the Sinoloa or Juarez cartels are intelligent?  Yet they somehow manage to prosper and control multi-billion dollar industries?  That's bullshit.

The Zetas actually managed to create their own alternative cell tower network to have completely off-the-grid communication.  Is that stupid?  The fact is they've succeeded because they are, in fact, very resourceful and their leaders are intelligent.  They did this at least in part by kidnapping the tech geeks capable of setting it up, forcing them to do it and then disposing of their bodies.

Now, they certainly act non-optimally in doing things in this manner.  Seems to me you could find some bad geeks and just compensate them royally and ensure their loyalty and that way, you wouldn't have to kidnap someone else just to maintain the network your now-murdered geeks put together.

But the idea that Mexican (and other Middle and South American) drug cartels are not intelligent enough to use something like Bitcoin if they see it to their advantage is ridiculous.  If they decided to do it, they'd either figure it out themselves or hire or kidnap some geek to tell them how to do it or manage it for them.

It is inevitable that lawless actors will flock to Bitcoin.  Yes, some will be chaotic evil.  Some will be chaotic good, to pick a geek trope to end a post about geeks and Mexican drug cartels.