BREAKING: US Treasury Secretary says that $1 billion in crypto has been seized from Iran
Timeline
Post
Remote status
Context
9
Not really a good instrument then huh
I'm sure some crypto-bro can tell us about how a usb drive could have stopped this.
I have a feeling this falls in some category of "they made it up"...
> Buy $1B in buttcoin
> Write Iran on the flash drive containing the keys
> Put it your pocket
> Winning
> Write Iran on the flash drive containing the keys
> Put it your pocket
> Winning
Million versions of this. One that I could see them trying is:
1. We've stolen a billion dollars of crypto in the history of us stealing crypto - and we can convince ourselves that it's Iran-related
2. Therefore, we seized 1bn$ of Iranian assets
Word-games they use to not feel like they're lying - except no one believes them, so it's kind of dumb.
1. We've stolen a billion dollars of crypto in the history of us stealing crypto - and we can convince ourselves that it's Iran-related
2. Therefore, we seized 1bn$ of Iranian assets
Word-games they use to not feel like they're lying - except no one believes them, so it's kind of dumb.
Yup. The question is if they used in rem forfeiture and whether the owners will show up in federal claims to establish legal use.
IDK much about US law but I feel like they lean pretty heavily on the Fuck You Gonna Do About It rule...
In the US, the government often uses in rem relief to take assets allegedly used in illegal activity, meaning they literally bring action against the thing β U.S. v. $10,000 in cash
The proceedings are usually "civil" and often flip the burden to the owner to establish legal use / innocence.
The proceedings are usually "civil" and often flip the burden to the owner to establish legal use / innocence.
This is the most jewish thing I've heard about since the red heifer
Replies
7Everyone knows it's horseshit, but the courts have dressed it up in legal fictions to end run constutional criminal protections.
This is why I don't give too much stock in US law. There's so much of this legal fiction going on that - pretty much - anything can be argued to be anything... And when anything can be anything, then what decides what it actually is, can only be power.
So my take is that when you're going up against anyone with significantly more power than yourself, you're basically always the same as a Sovereign Citizen. Maybe your arguments will be deemed amusing and you'll be granted your wish (as SovCits sometimes are), but if they don't like you, they will say nuh-huh and throw you in jail.
"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must"
So my take is that when you're going up against anyone with significantly more power than yourself, you're basically always the same as a Sovereign Citizen. Maybe your arguments will be deemed amusing and you'll be granted your wish (as SovCits sometimes are), but if they don't like you, they will say nuh-huh and throw you in jail.
"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must"
I did several pure statutory cases against the government when I was younger. Absolute black pills. Trial and appellate courts will literally ignore case law and depublish opinions on the losing statutory cases to cover up the bullshit.
In one case, I did get the government to back the fuck off my client prior to appeal, only to discover they went back to the legislature and amended the section in issue.
In another, I managed to use the appeal to distract the state from realizing the judgment was entered with a significant error until after the whole process was complete. It was too late for them by then.
While the results were successful as to the client, which is what matters re duty, the decisions established for me that it's all fuckery.
In one case, I did get the government to back the fuck off my client prior to appeal, only to discover they went back to the legislature and amended the section in issue.
In another, I managed to use the appeal to distract the state from realizing the judgment was entered with a significant error until after the whole process was complete. It was too late for them by then.
While the results were successful as to the client, which is what matters re duty, the decisions established for me that it's all fuckery.
By "pure statutory", I mean the cases turned on a single word, phrase, or definition, and ones defined in other cases.
i think sovcits are very similar to Patriotsβ’ who think the us constitution or bill of rights aren't dead letters and that we have consistent and standardized rule of law
they're both like adults who still think santa or the tooth fairy is real but at least the sovcits are more entertaining and dynamic about it
they're both like adults who still think santa or the tooth fairy is real but at least the sovcits are more entertaining and dynamic about it
I think in many, if not MOST cases, they're at least "more or less on point" if not exactly right. Maybe I'm biased because in my late teens I was one...
But you can argue as beautifully as you want about how "people" "keeping and bearing arms" is not mentioned anywhere in the written law - because if it was then it would directly contradict the US Constitution... But they'll just roll their eyes and say "guh hava gun permit bub"
But you can argue as beautifully as you want about how "people" "keeping and bearing arms" is not mentioned anywhere in the written law - because if it was then it would directly contradict the US Constitution... But they'll just roll their eyes and say "guh hava gun permit bub"
"interesting point, but i can tell all these guys with guns what to do, and you can't"