Hi Jean, nice to see you here... I too contributed to the piggybank fund, hopefully we'll get it to $600 worth of BTC for Zoe (and, honestly, I'm hoping this aspect of the story will get some media play on your behalf, i.e. "Generous Bitcoin Community Replaces Girl's Money Stolen By Government Thugs" would probably be worth much more than just the $ for your daughter... newcomers to this part of the story please see this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=985596.0;all and kick in a couple bits if you can afford it!)

Anyway just a comment: seems to me that the seed of their argument's destruction is right there in their own wording, i.e. it says "FEW" legitimate uses.

FEW does not mean NONE.

IF there is even only ONE SINGLE LONE SOLITARY "LEGITIMATE" possible USE for bitcoins, then they ought to have ZERO -NO- NONE -ZIP- rights to seize them at all. Period. Full-Stop. End-of-Story.

Sure, IF the wording said "no legit uses" well okay then, maybe they have something to argue.

But it says FEW... right? THEIR WORD?

So?  They're admitting right there - by NOT saying "NONE" - that there are SOME!!!

You therefore shouldn't even NEED to make a list to enumerate them: all your lawyers really ought to need to do is get 'em to admit, in court, that "few" does not mean NONE.

Of course IANAL, but seems like a reasonable point to me. If I was on the jury and it was presented to me in this way, personally I'd agree with this argument 100% no question.

KEVLARR