Yes they will. They like money as much as the next guy - plus they are smart.
Its NOT smart to keep yourself away from a new source of money/income.
Topic: Will lawyers ever band together and defend bitcoin in the name of freedom? (Read 1800 times)
March 03, 2013, 01:34:03 PM
March 01, 2013, 08:25:18 AM
I use Bitcoin because I am already subject to the whims of misguided legislation and regulation. Bitcoin is a tool I use to protect myself from such things.
You want to play nice with a system that has slowly, yet consistently, eroded our freedoms, in the hope that you will end up with some crumbs? I prefer to opt out entirely. You can call that ignorance if you want.
That is exactly why I use Bit-coins. I might add because the legal/Bank system is like a 2nd job & big brother, I don't need that stuff around to live or survive its just too much mental stress to worry about if my "accumulated work" will be swiped right from under me for things that are breaking my Sovereign Rights I don't do anything illegal why should I have to feel like I"m being punished for working legitimately.
February 28, 2013, 04:20:29 AM
From my perspective, it would me more like the legal question whether I can exchange a bread for a goat and the goat received for a bread again (or something else). Of course this is possible. If you doubt whether this is possible in your country, there is more at stake than just a legal question (hint: freedom).
February 28, 2013, 04:16:55 AM
Every single one of them that I explained Bitcoin to is greatly offended by the idea that there is a currency that can't be controlled by the government.
In Spain we have the € and we don't control them, just germany and france. So is worse than have a currency with no control at all. At least 2 countries doesn't have the power to decide.
February 28, 2013, 03:45:27 AM
It is more a matter of legal advocacy. There are many yet to be tested legal questions for bitcoin that will eventually need to be answered. Taxation, currency status, fiat competition, govt regulation etc.
The reason I use Bitcoin is because I don't care about any of those things you've just mentioned. The "need" you suggest is pretty much pointless.
The more successfull bitcoin is , the more scrutiny it will get. We can either help shape that future together or ignore that eventuality, and be subject to the whims of unguided legislation and regulation.
February 26, 2013, 03:22:56 PM
Why does Bitcoin have to be defended if it has not been declared illegal?
It is more a matter of legal advocacy. There are many yet to be tested legal questions for bitcoin that will eventually need to be answered. Taxation, currency status, fiat competition, govt regulation etc.
Now is the time to advocate for those rights proactively rather than stand by passively and be subject to what ever is decided without us
February 26, 2013, 03:07:08 PM
Why does Bitcoin have to be defended if it has not been declared illegal?
February 26, 2013, 12:56:24 PM
I am working on it
BTCLAG.ORG
BTCLAG.ORG
February 26, 2013, 06:28:04 AM
Quote
You would be surprised. I know 5 idealist lawyers (the absolutely worst kind to fight with!) who are extremely strong Bitcoin supporters. They have wide ranging pro-bono experience from winning free speech cases at state Supreme court levels to helping wrongfully convicted people who have been proven conclusively innocent via DNA evidence get released from jail, etc. Their professional experience is wide ranging from contracts, business litigation, criminal defense (private and as public defenders), civil liberties, immigration, etc.
Good to hear. Ultimately, it is a war of ideas ... gunslingers don't come cheap, but maybe they'll accept bitcoin?
February 24, 2013, 09:12:31 PM
The way I would see the legality of anything(In California) that is a victimless crime by analogy is if any "authority" figure that takes me into custody that is sworn by oath must have proof that I am an "enemy" of the state(or United States), and if there is no victim there is no crime to prove that I am an enemy of the state as oath keepers can only apply the law to enemies of the state, foreign and domestic. They have no obligation to apply the law to the free citizens or sovereign citizens which is anyone who isn't an enemy of the state as said in California law article 1.
Quote
"I, ___________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.
"And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows:
(If no affiliations, write in the words "No Exceptions") and that during such time as I hold the office of
______________________________________________ I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means."
And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a qualification for any public office or employment.
"Public officer and employee" includes every officer and employee of the State, including the University of California, every county, city, city and county, district, and authority, including any department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or instrumentality of any of the foregoing.
"And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows:
(If no affiliations, write in the words "No Exceptions") and that during such time as I hold the office of
______________________________________________ I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means."
And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a qualification for any public office or employment.
"Public officer and employee" includes every officer and employee of the State, including the University of California, every county, city, city and county, district, and authority, including any department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or instrumentality of any of the foregoing.
February 24, 2013, 08:40:58 PM
I wasn't aware that bitcoin needed lawyers to defend it.
Until there's some move against Bitcoin per se, it doesn't. To date, any potential or actual legal battles involving Bitcoin have basically been contractual disputes in which the nature of Bitcoin isn't a central issue or centred on regulatory issues unrelated to Bitcoin.
Even if you could force a test case regarding Bitcoin, it doesn't mean it would be a good idea and you really need to consider whether a court ruling on the nature of Bitcoin while it's so immature would be beneficial or bring with it unintended consequences.
The whole point of Bitcoin is that it really shines when it becomes illegal.
February 24, 2013, 08:31:41 PM
I wasn't aware that bitcoin needed lawyers to defend it.
Until there's some move against Bitcoin per se, it doesn't. To date, any potential or actual legal battles involving Bitcoin have basically been contractual disputes in which the nature of Bitcoin isn't a central issue or centred on regulatory issues unrelated to Bitcoin.
Even if you could force a test case regarding Bitcoin, it doesn't mean it would be a good idea and you really need to consider whether a court ruling on the nature of Bitcoin while it's so immature would be beneficial or bring with it unintended consequences.
February 24, 2013, 08:17:24 PM
Sounds like a cool idea.
I don't know much about law , but is it possible to somehow force some case or issue with a good chance of winning to set a good precedent for bitcoin? If that makes sense. In other words to start some litigation related to bitcoin with the sole purpose of winning so that it can be used as precedent and used as a defense in future court cases? HMM
I don't know much about law , but is it possible to somehow force some case or issue with a good chance of winning to set a good precedent for bitcoin? If that makes sense. In other words to start some litigation related to bitcoin with the sole purpose of winning so that it can be used as precedent and used as a defense in future court cases? HMM
February 24, 2013, 01:45:29 PM
Luckily there are exceptions, idealist lawyers. But they are rare.
You would be surprised. I know 5 idealist lawyers (the absolutely worst kind to fight with!) who are extremely strong Bitcoin supporters. They have wide ranging pro-bono experience from winning free speech cases at state Supreme court levels to helping wrongfully convicted people who have been proven conclusively innocent via DNA evidence get released from jail, etc. Their professional experience is wide ranging from contracts, business litigation, criminal defense (private and as public defenders), civil liberties, immigration, etc.
I have been seriously considering gathering some of these idealist lawyers and getting commitments that they would publicly commit to defending Bitcoin cases that center on particular published Bitcoin related issues so long as the cases pass their discretion. Compared to most legal work it would be incredibly fun since it would be on the cutting edge of technology and law along with having a tremendous societal impact.
But not only is there the time (which is like inventory for the attorney so they can't be doing other work to feed their family) for the cases but also lots of other fees and costs for taking a case like filing fees, paperwork, paying help staff like paralegals, etc.
After getting the squad of attorneys together then I could setup a Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund that people could contribute to via bitcoin. An advantage to this is that if bitcoins continue to appreciate from adoption then the fund's economic value would increase. Thus, it would be like 'shields at 5%'. Then if regulators attempt to prosecute someone, like WordPress, Reddit, BitVouchers, Silk Road, whoever, etc. then an appeal for 'shields full' could be issued and donations could flood in to help support the case as related to the Bitcoin specific issues.
If 1,000 bitcoin were sitting in the fund, at $30 today but say in 12-18 months when prosecution may start the price is up to $150, then the equivalent of $150k sitting in a Bitcoin Legal Defense Fund instead of just $30k and would be constantly gaining more value as there is Bitcoin growth and usage resulting in price appreciation.
I think any regulators are going to think twice about prosecuting anyone for any type of Bitcoin related issues because there would be a squad of idealist attorneys with significant monetary reserves that are anxious to chomp at the bit to litigate some of these cutting edge issues.
Right now there is this specter of potential litigation that is acting as a chilling effect on Bitcoin acceptance. This type of fund may counteract that and would have a chilling effect on potential litigation because the regulators would know they cannot just bully the Bitcoin community but would have to bring their A game to the court room.
February 23, 2013, 01:44:32 PM
I wasn't aware that bitcoin needed lawyers to defend it.
February 23, 2013, 12:28:41 PM
I know a few lawyers.
It seem that many of them get the thinking that the "state sets the rules and we have to obey them no matter what" washed in their had during study, or that studying Law attracts this kind of people.
Every single one of them that I explained Bitcoin to is greatly offended by the idea that there is a currency that can't be controlled by the government.
Luckily there are exceptions, idealist lawyers. But they are rare.
It seem that many of them get the thinking that the "state sets the rules and we have to obey them no matter what" washed in their had during study, or that studying Law attracts this kind of people.
Every single one of them that I explained Bitcoin to is greatly offended by the idea that there is a currency that can't be controlled by the government.
Luckily there are exceptions, idealist lawyers. But they are rare.
February 23, 2013, 06:28:50 AM
Depends how many lawyers the bitcoin foundation has at its disposal 
February 23, 2013, 04:24:59 AM
ACLU will need to honor the right to self-defense before they can fully meet their definition, then maybe after that they will move on to economic liberty/Bitcoin. Until then, freedom isn't free.
February 23, 2013, 04:21:15 AM
Just curious
Jump to: