[Lnc-business] Various items

Sat Jul 1 20:26:02 EDT 2017

Jim,

	Thanks for passing along Theo Chino's update on the troubling Bitcoin legislation brewing in Congress. I'd like to see us take a stand against S1241 and mobilize opposition to defeat or modify this dangerous bill. Others in the freedom movement are also speaking out against it. See e.g. this informative June 7 piece from Wendy McElroy:

https://news.bitcoin.com/prepare-for-sb1241s-pit-bull-assault-on-bitcoin-freedom/

	This from McElroy's article is particularly troubling:

> "S1241 mandates a report from Department of Homeland Security which is due 18 months after the bill’s passage. DHS is asked to detail “a strategy to detect prepaid access devices and digital currency at border crossings and ports of entry”. Travelling in and out of the U.S. with bitcoin could become a real problem. Currency control at the border is an indication of a government that is becoming or has become a totalitarian state."

	What else could a "strategy to detect" involve, but searching travelers' digital devices? The Trump administration's limited travel ban on people from certain countries restricting traveling with laptop computers is another dangerous hint pointing in that direction. A while back, the Libertarian Party successfully encouraged mass opposition that helped defeat "Know Your Customer" authoritarian banking legislation. I think this piece of evil from Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) deserves a similar effort. Theo's page (https://article78againstnydfs.com/advocacy.php) contains this lobbying suggestion we could help publicize:
> If you live in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont call the State Office (numbers at the bottom of the page) and simply ask the staffer to tell the U.S. Senator to:
> 
> Remove "Digital Currency" from Section 13 of Bill S1241 (Money Laundering Bill).

	I also agree with you about not holding one-day LNC meetings. 

Love & Liberty,

                                     ((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
                        RealReform at earthlink.net
                                  (415) 625-FREE
                                    @StarchildSF

On Jul 1, 2017, at 2:19 PM, James Lark wrote:

> Dear colleagues:
> 
>     I hope all is well with you.  I am writing to provide some information about various items; I hope this information is helpful to you.
> 
> 1)  In a separate message I shall vote "aye" on the motion regarding the number of LP News issues published.  While I have a weak preference for publishing six issues rather than five, I am willing to approve allowing Mr. Benedict discretion in this matter (after consultation with the chair).
> 
> 2)  In his message of June 28, Mr. Benedict suggested the possibility of holding an LNC meeting in DC at or about the same time as the Students For Liberty LibertyCon event next year.  While I understand the reasons for this suggestion, I strongly urge that the LNC not hold a meeting in conjunction with (or in proximity to) the LibertyCon event.
> 
>     There are several reasons for this, including the following:
> 
> *  If a two-day LNC meeting is held in conjunction with (or in proximity to) the event, and if we arrange the meeting schedule to allow members to attend parts of the event, we shall not utilize fully the opportunities afforded by an in-person meeting.  I suspect we shall have a great deal of business to conduct during what may be the penultimate meeting of the 2016-2018 term.  If the business we must conduct during that meeting can be handled in one day, then I believe we should meet for a second day to consider strategic matters and conduct some "blue-sky thinking."
> 
>     As an aside, the longer I have served on the LNC, the less keen I have become to support holding one-day meetings at the tail end of events such as FreedomFest and LibertyCon.  I realize there are advantages to holding one-day meetings; however, in all but one of     the cases when the LNC has done so, I believe we would have been better served by holding two-day meetings. 
> 
> *  As a matter of full disclosure, I am a member of the Board of Advisors of Students For Liberty, and I frequently participate in SFL events.  (Last Saturday I gave the keynote address at the annual SFL campus coordinators' retreat, which took place at Vanderbilt University.)  Based upon my previous experience at major SFL conferences, I anticipate being very busy with SFL-related activities on both Mar. 2 and Mar. 3 (and perhaps on Mar. 4).  In addition, I consider it likely that I shall be invited to give an address at the event.  (I have given addresses at each of the previous ten SFL international conferences.)  
> 
>     Participation in an LNC meeting on Mar. 3 will force me to miss several important activities at LibertyCon.  In addition, an LNC meeting on Mar. 3 may mean that Mr. Benedict and other staff members will be unavailable (or at least, much less available) to conduct outreach at the event.
> 
> *  If we are going to meet in the DC area, I believe we should meet at the Marriott Residence Inn (the hotel near the office) rather than the Marriott Wardman Park or a hotel in that neighborhood.  I would be very surprised if we were unable to obtain a much better financial deal at the Residence Inn.  
> 
>     Incidentally, I believe the "early bird" room rate for the 2017 International Students For Liberty Conference at the Marriott Wardman Park was $149/night (I believe parking was around $45/night); I don't recall the "later bird" rate.  The Residence Inn room rate (which included a buffet breakfast) for the LNC meeting on Dec. 10-11, 2016 was $119/night (parking was $15 per night).  I don't know the relevant taxes for DC and Alexandria.
> 
> *  The LNC will meet on Dec. 9-10, 2017 in New Orleans and (presumably) on or about June 30, 2018 in New Orleans.  I suspect the LNC will have only one in-person meeting between the two New Orleans meetings.  I believe we would be better served holding that meeting in later March/early April, rather than early March.
> 
> 3)  On June 18, I forwarded a message to you from Theo Chino concerning a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding S1241.  I subsequently requested that Mr. Chino provide some additional information; I have enclosed his response below, as well as his original message that I forwarded.  Please note that he responded several days ago; I apologize for the delay in relaying his response.
> 
>     As always, thanks for your work for liberty.  Best wishes to you for a wonderful Independence Day.
> 
>     Take care,
>     Jim
> 
>     James W. Lark, III
>     Dept. of Systems and Information Engineering
>     Applied Mathematics Program, Dept. of Engineering and Society
>     Affiliated Faculty, Dept. of Statistics
>     University of Virginia
> 
>     Advisor, The Liberty Coalition
>     University of Virginia
> 
>     Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee
> -----
>     
> Response from Theo Chino to my request for more information:
> 
> Dear Professor Lark, 
> 
> The problem with the Bill is 2 words; "Digital Currency" - It has not been defined; and the two judges that really studied Bitcoins said it did not qualify as "money." (However their word is not binding because one is a state case and the other was not judged on because of a plea bargain.)
> 
> As I was crafting my response I did not realize that there is a new case that include one of yours, Randall Lord: https://www.lp.org/libertarian-party-condemns-government-persecution-of-bitcoin-exchange-vendor
> 
> Bitcoin is so many different thing to different people; some call it a currency, other a new asset class, and a smaller group (myself included) a commodity. I came to the conclusion it was a commodity because none of the economic models for currency do apply to it; all the commodity models do. I felt I am back in 1510 when Copernicus first proposed the heliocentric theory. This is how people who agree with Copernicus must have felt like.
> 
> The Bill would add the term "Digital Currency" in the Money Laundering Statutes without any definition anywhere else. 
> 
> It would just be what the people understand "Digital Currency" believe it is and it does let the definition defined by a federal judge in the Charlie Shrem case (which is tied to the Ulrich case [Silk Road]) be the definition. The problem is that he never defined it because it is not needed in criminal cases. Anything that is used for payment on an illicit transaction is forfeited (car, money, gold, horses, etc ...) To start an investigation you need to break a civil law; trading drug is illegal, trading bitcoin is not.
> 
> The DOJ (and our friend at the FBI) have being using the Criminal criminal reasoning to spy on us; out of the last four DOJ cases where Bitcoin was the reason to lunch an for investigation (this guy is using Bitcoin, therefore he is doing something illegal); the last three are stunning.
> 
> The first one is not morally defensible because the perpetrator was convicted of child pornography and was forbidden to be on a computer. He plead guilty but a judge did write a report that Bitcoin is not currency (and makes a good case) but that report can't be used because of the guilty plea. It's a non binding report.
> 
> The other three cases are worse from a freedom perspective; Arizona, Missouri, and Michigan. The one is Arizona story is still pending because the defendant want to fight it and has nothing to lose; he was charged on having a box of ammunition (this person, Morpheus, was forbidden to have weapon because of a old marijuana conviction. The FBI, ATF and Co were hopping to find a big stash of drug or weapon. Did not find anything.) The other two people plead guilty of not having registered as money transmitter; nothing more. They even paid their taxes. And as I write, I discover one more, Louisiana.
> 
> By adding "Digital Currency" in the law at this time will open the door for all the government entities to start investigations on people just because they trade bitcoins (or the new derivatives) and not because they were caught selling drug.
> 
> The bill is a repeat of 2011 attempt when Chuck Schumer discovered Silk Road and Bitcoin. 
> Pierre, my lawyer, will send a copy of the letter in the next few days.
> 
> Regards
> Theo Chino
> 
> 
> Original message from Mr. Chino (forwarded to the LNC on June 18):
> 
> Dear Jim,
> My name is Theo Chino and I am a Bitcoiner suing the State of New York over the Bitlicense in the municipal court that overseas the New York Departement of Financial Services.
> 
> I am writing you because Senator Grassley has reintroduced a bill that was originaly writen in 2011 in effect criminalizing Bitcoin exchanges.
> 
> I am CC my lawyer in this email because he is preparing a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee to kill S1241 like it happened in 2011. He can explain the dichotomy of the two arguments. DOJ has arrested 5 people and the same Senate Judiciary is in charge of DOJ.
> 
> Theo Chino
> https://article78againstNYDFS.com/advocacy.php
> 
> From: Pierre Ciric
> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 4:41:10 PM
> To: Theo Chino
> Cc: Jason Brett; Jeremy Kauffman
> Subject: Re: S1451 / EFF
> Following Theo's request, we are preparing a letter to the attention of Nathan J Hallford, Senior Counsel at the Senate Judiciary Committee, focusing on two separate issues:
> 
> - the letter seeks to have the committee withdraw the bill S1241 (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s1241), based on the legal position adopted by Theo before New York courts that Bitcoin lacks the characteristics of a financial product.
> - the letter seeks to alert the Judiciary Committee, which has oversight authority over the DOJ, about the recent prosecutions of Bitcoiners under the federal money transmitter statute, especially when no other criminal charge is being sought. The letter will argue that those prosecutions may be baseless based on the legal position adopted by Theo before New York courts that Bitcoin lacks the characteristics of a financial product.
> 
> Once the letter is ready, we will send you a draft. We are seeking your concurrence so that we can indicate in the letter that your foundation supports this position. We are however not claiming that we represent you, only that you share Theo's position.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170701/84c192d5/attachment-0002.html>