^
http://s33.postimg.org/3kzvghjxb/bad.gif
I hear there are some excellent R&W hitmen available on DNMs.
Topic: BurtW arrested (update: charges dropped!) - page 3. (Read 74713 times)
So even if the jury decided with my side (a 50/50 proposition according to both sides) I would still be facing up to an additional $100,000 in attorny's fees to prove my property was innocent in a totally separate civil court.
$80k might buy a significant amount of justice on the free market...
If this is a "matter of fact and circumstance", then everyone can be running a business, so let's seize everything. Or maybe nobody runs businesses, let's keep everything as it is.
Exactly. Nothing to do with right and wrong, just arbitrary talk about an arbitrary attribution, to which there is no logical resolution. Outcome: victim is tens of thousands of dollars worse off, Colorado PD is up by a smaller amount, and the victim's legal representatives win most of all. The reason? There isn't one. Other than the PD and the lawyers need to make a living.
I find it disgusting that anyone would participate in what happened to Burt. Even simple court clerks and clerical police staff should be identified and ostracized, I'd love to see how "just doing my job" washes when these so-called people can't get served in grocery stores.
Democracy (via representatives, at least) just isn't valid when the majority of the population aren't capable of making appropriate ethical decisions in a case like this (or indeed in all sorts of other situations).
Oh Carlton! Ur rite, democracy failed us, could u b our new ethical dictator?
Oddly, democracy is neither here nor there. Democracy didn't have a chance to fail Burt, Burt pled out
@unamis76, "All of this because someone thought you were running some kind of business," Think about it this way:
You claim you killed the guy in self-defense, prosecution claims you're a murderer. "They" get shitloads of murder cases, you have an expensive lawyer. "They" offer you a deal: plead to manslaughter, they drop murder 1.
Wow that thread took a turn. Legal? Illegal? Not even close.
I was trading Bitcoins. I was operating under the assumption that what I was doing was not a business. They claimed it was. The regulations are very "clear" on this point: if it is not a business I did not need a business license, if it was a business I needed a business license.
Now who decides if it is a business or not? Regulations clearly state "whether is is a business or not is a matter of fact and circumstance". OK, fine. Then who is the decider of "fact and circumstance"? In the US system the decider of "fact and circumstance" is the jury.
I claimed it was not a business, they claimed it was. It is not illegal to claim it is not a business and technically they did nothing wrong in claiming it was a business. Both my attorney and the prosecutor stated that "this is a toss up". They both knew and stated that it could go either way. My claim might have been declared correct by the jury and I would have been acquitted of all criminal charges against me. Of course their claim might have been declared correct and then I could have been sentenced to up to 5 years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine.
Now realize that even if my claim is declared correct by the jury this does not settle all the civil suits that have been filed against the property seized. So even if the jury decided with my side (a 50/50 proposition according to both sides) I would still be facing up to an additional $100,000 in attorny's fees to prove my property was innocent in a totally separate civil court.
Faced with the option of taking this to trail and flipping a coin followed by additional expenses to clear my property on the one hand and just donating $40,000 in cash and $40,000 in Bitcoin to the federal asset forfeiture slush fund what would you do?
This had nothing to do with legal versus illegal. Only an opinion of whether what I was doing was a business or not.
What should they have and would they have done if they did not think they could just walk away with the loot?
Send me a cease and desist letter explaining that they thought what I was doing might be a business and to get a fucking free license if I wanted to continue doing it.
I was trading Bitcoins. I was operating under the assumption that what I was doing was not a business. They claimed it was. The regulations are very "clear" on this point: if it is not a business I did not need a business license, if it was a business I needed a business license.
Now who decides if it is a business or not? Regulations clearly state "whether is is a business or not is a matter of fact and circumstance". OK, fine. Then who is the decider of "fact and circumstance"? In the US system the decider of "fact and circumstance" is the jury.
I claimed it was not a business, they claimed it was. It is not illegal to claim it is not a business and technically they did nothing wrong in claiming it was a business. Both my attorney and the prosecutor stated that "this is a toss up". They both knew and stated that it could go either way. My claim might have been declared correct by the jury and I would have been acquitted of all criminal charges against me. Of course their claim might have been declared correct and then I could have been sentenced to up to 5 years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine.
Now realize that even if my claim is declared correct by the jury this does not settle all the civil suits that have been filed against the property seized. So even if the jury decided with my side (a 50/50 proposition according to both sides) I would still be facing up to an additional $100,000 in attorny's fees to prove my property was innocent in a totally separate civil court.
Faced with the option of taking this to trail and flipping a coin followed by additional expenses to clear my property on the one hand and just donating $40,000 in cash and $40,000 in Bitcoin to the federal asset forfeiture slush fund what would you do?
This had nothing to do with legal versus illegal. Only an opinion of whether what I was doing was a business or not.
What should they have and would they have done if they did not think they could just walk away with the loot?
Send me a cease and desist letter explaining that they thought what I was doing might be a business and to get a fucking free license if I wanted to continue doing it.
All of this because someone thought you were running some kind of business... Your post really put things into perspective.
If this is a "matter of fact and circumstance", then everyone can be running a business, so let's seize everything. Or maybe nobody runs businesses, let's keep everything as it is.
The cease and desist letter would definitely be appropriate, I guess. Seems like legal/illegal is exaggeratedly open to police and justice's interpretation of the law (where the law should be clear in what is a business or not).
Apologies if it appears I'm suggesting you're a no-good lawbreaker Burt, my statement about illegality was rhetorical (and I very much support your position)
And who determines what definition of "business" is used? It's totally bizarre the more you think about it, the rights you had secured for yourself can be totally overridden on the basis of a question that does not even have a definitive answer. And so really, you were at the mercy of the feelings of the judge, jury or (in this case) the state prosecutors. This kind of caprice is considered justice?
Democracy (via representatives, at least) just isn't valid when the majority of the population aren't capable of making appropriate ethical decisions in a case like this (or indeed in all sorts of other situations).
Now who decides if it is a business or not? Regulations clearly state "whether is is a business or not is a matter of fact and circumstance". OK, fine. Then who is the decider of "fact and circumstance"? In the US system the decider of "fact and circumstance" is the jury.
And who determines what definition of "business" is used? It's totally bizarre the more you think about it, the rights you had secured for yourself can be totally overridden on the basis of a question that does not even have a definitive answer. And so really, you were at the mercy of the feelings of the judge, jury or (in this case) the state prosecutors. This kind of caprice is considered justice?
Democracy (via representatives, at least) just isn't valid when the majority of the population aren't capable of making appropriate ethical decisions in a case like this (or indeed in all sorts of other situations).
I don't want you to say anything. Consider that saying nothing is an improvement on what you did say.
Why are you upset? If I, somehow, cheapened your feelings for Burt by telling you that they're normal and common, I'm really sorry. Accept my apology plz? Are we good?
@BurtW, I honestly didn't know that cooking meth was against the law. I thought they'd, at least, send me a "cease & desist," but no! Jackboots pulled up in a party van, some bullshit about ignorance of the law not being an excuse
Read my post above.
I have read your post above. You chose to plead out, and then grumble about it.
I would buy your ideological protestations if you, certain of being in the right, took your case to the jury. You didn't. So I do not.
I don't want you to say anything. Consider that saying nothing is an improvement on what you did say.
Why are you upset? If I, somehow, cheapened your feelings for Burt by telling you that they're normal and common, I'm really sorry. Accept my apology plz? Are we good?
@BurtW, I honestly didn't know that cooking meth was against the law. I thought they'd, at least, send me a "cease & desist," but no! Jackboots pulled up in a party van, some bullshit about ignorance of the law not being an excuse
Read my post above.
I don't want you to say anything. Consider that saying nothing is an improvement on what you did say.
Why are you upset? If I, somehow, cheapened your feelings for Burt by telling you that they're normal and common, I'm really sorry. Accept my apology plz? Are we good?
@BurtW, I honestly didn't know that cooking meth was against the law. I thought they'd, at least, send me a "cease & desist," but no! Jackboots pulled up in a party van, some bullshit about ignorance of the law not being an excuse
Wow that thread took a turn. Legal? Illegal? Not even close.
I was trading Bitcoins. I was operating under the assumption that what I was doing was not a business. They claimed it was. The regulations are very "clear" on this point: if it is not a business I did not need a business license, if it was a business I needed a business license.
Now who decides if it is a business or not? Regulations clearly state "whether is is a business or not is a matter of fact and circumstance". OK, fine. Then who is the decider of "fact and circumstance"? In the US system the decider of "fact and circumstance" is the jury.
I claimed it was not a business, they claimed it was. It is not illegal to claim it is not a business and technically they did nothing wrong in claiming it was a business. Both my attorney and the prosecutor stated that "this is a toss up". They both knew and stated that it could go either way. My claim might have been declared correct by the jury and I would have been acquitted of all criminal charges against me. Of course their claim might have been declared correct and then I could have been sentenced to up to 5 years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine.
Now realize that even if my claim is declared correct by the jury this does not settle all the civil suits that have been filed against the property seized. So even if the jury decided with my side (a 50/50 proposition according to both sides) I would still be facing up to an additional $100,000 in attorny's fees to prove my property was innocent in a totally separate civil court.
Faced with the option of taking this to trail and flipping a coin followed by additional expenses to clear my property on the one hand and just donating $40,000 in cash and $40,000 in Bitcoin to the federal asset forfeiture slush fund what would you do?
This had nothing to do with legal versus illegal. Only an opinion of whether what I was doing was a business or not.
What should they have and would they have done if they did not think they could just walk away with the loot?
Send me a cease and desist letter explaining that they thought what I was doing might be a business and to get a fucking free license if I wanted to continue doing it.
I was trading Bitcoins. I was operating under the assumption that what I was doing was not a business. They claimed it was. The regulations are very "clear" on this point: if it is not a business I did not need a business license, if it was a business I needed a business license.
Now who decides if it is a business or not? Regulations clearly state "whether is is a business or not is a matter of fact and circumstance". OK, fine. Then who is the decider of "fact and circumstance"? In the US system the decider of "fact and circumstance" is the jury.
I claimed it was not a business, they claimed it was. It is not illegal to claim it is not a business and technically they did nothing wrong in claiming it was a business. Both my attorney and the prosecutor stated that "this is a toss up". They both knew and stated that it could go either way. My claim might have been declared correct by the jury and I would have been acquitted of all criminal charges against me. Of course their claim might have been declared correct and then I could have been sentenced to up to 5 years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine.
Now realize that even if my claim is declared correct by the jury this does not settle all the civil suits that have been filed against the property seized. So even if the jury decided with my side (a 50/50 proposition according to both sides) I would still be facing up to an additional $100,000 in attorny's fees to prove my property was innocent in a totally separate civil court.
Faced with the option of taking this to trail and flipping a coin followed by additional expenses to clear my property on the one hand and just donating $40,000 in cash and $40,000 in Bitcoin to the federal asset forfeiture slush fund what would you do?
This had nothing to do with legal versus illegal. Only an opinion of whether what I was doing was a business or not.
What should they have and would they have done if they did not think they could just walk away with the loot?
Send me a cease and desist letter explaining that they thought what I was doing might be a business and to get a fucking free license if I wanted to continue doing it.
I don't want you to say anything. Consider that saying nothing is an improvement on what you did say.
Your logic is faulty, adding hundreds of thousands of repetitions of faulty logic doesn't make it any less faulty. Or any less trollish
Carlton. I'm trying to tell you that what you're feeling for Burt is perfectly natural. Why are you arguing? What else do you want me to say?
Your logic is faulty, adding hundreds of thousands of repetitions of faulty logic doesn't make it any less faulty. Or any less trollish
Oh, lol @ "Google says I'm right". Reality says you're wrong. Moral ambiguity is attractive. Outright, egregious breaking of moral codes is not. If you believe that poor ethical behaviour is appealing, that's you on your own. And your Google article, lol
Such a contrarian
You'll outgrow this too, Carlton, another perfectly natural phase normal children go through. Searching for "Why Do We Root For Villains" nets me ... About 690,000 results (0.66 seconds). Try it, there's absolutely no need for you to rationalize your attraction to Burt
Oh, lol @ "Google says I'm right". Reality says you're wrong. Moral ambiguity is attractive. Outright, egregious breaking of moral codes is not. If you believe that poor ethical behaviour is appealing, that's you on your own. And your Google article, lol
You find yourself sympathizing with lawbreakers because you identify with them. Nothing wrong with that, most people (especially the young) root for the villain in crime dramas, because they're so free and more interesting.
No.
I find myself identifying with Burt because he didn't do anything wrong, despite the letter of the law. Most people do not applaud or side with villainous characters in dramas, I don't know where you're getting that from. People take that stance with morally ambiguous characters, because real-life is often morally ambiguous, and that's easy to relate to.
"Villans are usually rebels who reject authority. They know what they want and are not afraid to get it. Society's norms are sometimes too oppressive. People root for villains who are not scared to speak their minds, especially if they agree with what the villains is saying.
Sometimes its sex appeal of the danger and excitement, sometimes its an injustice that needs to be addressed. Occasionally it is the criminal's good looks, like the Mendez Brothers or Casey Anthony. [...]" https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140512203539AAThgXc
Quote
Overt villains exhibit clear-cut psychopathy. No-one likes or identifies with people like that, apart from other psychopaths (I know, ironic isn't it)
It's not unusual for psychopaths to see themselves as perfectly normal, and the (perfectly normal) people around them as psychopaths. But you're not a psychopath. What you're feeling right now is perfectly normal, most male children go through a rebellious phase. Think of it as a rite of passage, an elegant way to sidestep the Oedipal complex (see: Daddy issues) You find yourself sympathizing with lawbreakers because you identify with them. Nothing wrong with that, most people (especially the young) root for the villain in crime dramas, because they're so free and more interesting.
No.
I find myself identifying with Burt because he didn't do anything wrong, despite the letter of the law. Most people do not applaud or side with villainous characters in dramas, I don't know where you're getting that from. People take that stance with morally ambiguous characters, because real-life is often morally ambiguous, and that's easy to relate to. Overt villains exhibit clear-cut psychopathy. No-one likes or identifies with people like that, apart from other psychopaths (I know, ironic isn't it)
But what Burt did was illegal, and yet I find myself sympathising with him, and not with self-proclaimed "legit" users.
You find yourself sympathizing with lawbreakers because you identify with them. Nothing wrong with that, most people (especially the young) root for the villain in crime dramas, because they're so free and more interesting.Quote
Why is it that otherwise intelligent people do not understand the difference between "illegal" and "immoral"?
Most do. They also realize that mores are subjective, that ones commonly shared within a particular society are codified into laws.Quote
How can people who have understood and used Bitcoin for years not recognise that Bitcoin's very existence cuts right to the heart of that issue?
You mean, breaking laws you feel are immoral? Bitcoin elevates you above man's law?Now, imagine if Raskolnikov, instead of using an ax to make his point, posted about his dissatisfaction with bourgeois laws and conventions on an internet forum? We'd have one less book in the world
I'm pleased you can see where I'm coming from. I won't pretend I know how to solve all these problems, because they are difficult; better solutions would already be apparent if it was so easy.
But half of the battle is the perception of others; if some critical number of people simply did not accept that confiscating money is ever legitimate, then maybe a change in culture could be established (and I expect this will happen eventually: the poor are well incentivised to use Bitcoin to protect their assets, and they have the requisite numbers for a critical-mass ).
But half of the battle is the perception of others; if some critical number of people simply did not accept that confiscating money is ever legitimate, then maybe a change in culture could be established (and I expect this will happen eventually: the poor are well incentivised to use Bitcoin to protect their assets, and they have the requisite numbers for a critical-mass
). With the current mindset, if authorities somehow find someone with "tainted" coins on an address they control, they'll immediately have their heads at stake and their property seized...
As a legit Bitcoin user, this worries me a lot. I don't have to pay for the mistakes others make... But that looks like the future we're heading towards to.
As a legit Bitcoin user, this worries me a lot. I don't have to pay for the mistakes others make... But that looks like the future we're heading towards to.
But what Burt did was illegal, and yet I find myself sympathising with him, and not with self-proclaimed "legit" users. Why is it that otherwise intelligent people do not understand the difference between "illegal" and "immoral"? How can people who have understood and used Bitcoin for years not recognise that Bitcoin's very existence cuts right to the heart of that issue? I'm sorry unamis, I like your posts, but I have to say this. Where does the assumption come from that all laws are moral?
I think what Burt did would be illegal if we were talking about fiat currency. But since my knowledge on American law is pretty low, I might be wrong. If what Burt did was illegal, then they probably wouldn't "agree on disagreeing" that it wasn't a business. Or at least, they shouldn't.
Maybe I have a too optimistic vision on laws and justice around the world.
You have a valid point in saying that Bitcoin cuts to the heart of the issue, but I think Bitcoin is far from legal, or illegal. It is also far from immoral. It is a bit above rules and laws.
I guess I have no extra arguments and don't really have anything else to add to this thread at this moment... Your post got me thinking a bit
Jump to: