Quote from: Chuck Finley on May 15, 2013, 12:27:04 PM

Quote from: jubalix on May 15, 2013, 11:43:54 AM

My point was that it is easy to freeze funds, and you thought not!

nor did I link the action to coins labs.

And yet you're still wrong! :lol:

You are clearly confusing a private lawsuit with the government here. Coinlab has not had the funds frozen. The US Government stepped in and for whatever reason took action against Dwolla re: gox. Obviously the government will have a much easier time doing things like this than a private citizen - duh!

Quote

I also never said business would stop, if some funds are frozen. However, accounts are stopped. It is not a large step to see how this could happen to Gox in JP, In fact I am sure coin labs lawyers are watching with interest.

I'm sure coinlab's lawyers don't need to "watch with interest" to see how to conduct a lawsuit. "Oh they got an order against a company mtgox works with to stop doing business with them? Damn, we should try something like that!" :lol:

If anything every minute that goes by makes you look more foolish since apparently it is "so easy" to freeze funds and now that coinlab's lawyers are apparently "watching with interest" to see how "it is not a large step to see how this could happen to gox". If it's so quick and easy, why hasn't coinlab tried to freeze gox's funding yet? Surely putting their nuts in a vice could help force them to the bargaining table....

:lol:

The point was it is relatively easy to freeze some ones account, you thought not, it has happened, you do not deny but acknowledge that point. You do appear to minimize the fact of what has happened. A few quotes ago, you were full of sound and furry should any one touch your account at the bank, and how it would never happen if you were not there. QED on that.

Nether do you now deny your second error (quite large) that you though some how GOX's lawyers were in a court fighting this, yet GOX themselves knew nothing about it and they publicly said so. That's just basic research of the facts and understanding of what happened.

Further you don't appear to understand the separation of powers doctrine. The Govt is as private person or commercial entity in-front of the court when it comes to seizure of funds, freezing accounts. Sure they have a few more statues here and their but they still have to go before a court like anyone else. Here is a good example of separation of powers

"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frailits roof may shakethe wind may blow through itthe storm may enterthe rain may enterbut the King of England cannot enterall his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement." So be itunless he has justification by law.

Southam v Smout [1964] 1 QB 308 at 320

As I explained before Coin labs may face a hard time, due to normal trade considerations made before injuncnting them, and it could be sort of shooting themselves in the foot, but this may give another limb to go after funds, though they will have to consider that such an attack may lead to gov confiscation. CoinLabs also have to conisder would you rather let them trade so they have money to pay. However countering that is the question of who will get priority to any funds so should they leap in. This was not my point here, but you seem to be averting to it, as cover for your capitulation and error.

Please do continue you are most fine sport.