<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Dear colleagues:<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
There are several reasons for this, including the following:<br>
<br>
* 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."<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
* 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.) <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
* 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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
* 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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
As always, thanks for your work for liberty. Best wishes to you
for a wonderful Independence Day.<br>
<br>
Take care,<br>
Jim<br>
<br>
James W. Lark, III<br>
Dept. of Systems and Information Engineering<br>
Applied Mathematics Program, Dept. of Engineering and Society<br>
Affiliated Faculty, Dept. of Statistics<br>
University of Virginia<br>
<br>
Advisor, The Liberty Coalition<br>
University of Virginia<br>
<br>
Region 5 Representative, Libertarian National Committee<br>
-----<br>
<br>
Response from Theo Chino to my request for more information:<br>
<br>
<div>Dear Professor Lark, <br>
<br>
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." <i>(However their word is not
binding because one is a state case and the other was not judged
on because of a plea bargain.)<br>
<br>
</i></div>
<div>As I was crafting my response I did not realize that there is a
new case that include one of yours, Randall Lord: <b><a
href="https://www.lp.org/libertarian-party-condemns-government-persecution-of-bitcoin-exchange-vendor">https://www.lp.org/libertarian-party-condemns-government-persecution-of-bitcoin-exchange-vendor</a></b><br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>The Bill would add the term <b>"Digital Currency"</b> in the
Money Laundering Statutes without any definition anywhere else. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <b>And as I write, I
discover one more, Louisiana.</b><br>
<br>
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.<i><br>
<br>
</i>The bill is a repeat of 2011 attempt when Chuck Schumer
discovered Silk Road and Bitcoin. <br>
Pierre, my lawyer, will send a copy of the letter in the next few
days.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Regards<br>
</div>
Theo Chino<br>
<br>
<br>
Original message from Mr. Chino (forwarded to the LNC on June 18):<br>
<br>
Dear Jim,
<p> 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.
</p>
<p> I am writing you because Senator Grassley has reintroduced a
bill that was originaly writen in 2011 in effect criminalizing
Bitcoin exchanges.
</p>
<p> 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. </p>
<p>
<b>Theo Chino</b><br>
<i><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://article78againstNYDFS.com/advocacy.php">https://article78againstNYDFS.com/advocacy.php</a></i>
</p>
<pre>From: Pierre Ciric
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 4:41:10 PM
To: Theo Chino
Cc: Jason Brett; Jeremy Kauffman
Subject: Re: S1451 / EFF
</pre>
<ul>
<p>
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:
</p>
<p>
- the letter seeks to have the committee withdraw the bill S1241
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s1241">https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s1241</a>), based on the
legal position adopted by Theo before New York courts that
Bitcoin lacks the characteristics of a financial product.<br>
- 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.
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
</ul>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>