you said
3) There is nothing saying Mt Gox didn't know about this as you claim. Just because it happened doesn't mean they didn't have lawyers in a courtroom in Maryland arguing against it.
It was crystal clear that Gox had no idea what was going on at the time you made this statement, Its called basic research, I did it, you just went oh GOX had lawyers there.
I'm confused - are you trying to be an obvious troll now? If you're going to make up something I didn't say don't claim it is in the part you just quoted when it clearly does not say "mtgox had lawyers in court" anywhere in the quote.
your confused yes, you wrote
"There is nothing saying Mt Gox didn't know about this as you claim. Just because it happened doesn't mean they didn't have lawyers in a courtroom in Maryland arguing against it."
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.
That's got nothing to do with separation of powers. Ok at this point, you probably need to get a formal legal education, or refresher if you have had one. Separation of powers has nothing to do with the executive having more ways to bring an action vs a private person. It is to do with the judicial arm being separate to the the executive and parliament.
Alright my confusion is clearing up - so you ARE just being a troll, right? I *really* hope you aren't a lawyer. Separation of powers doesn't have any bearing here.
your argument devolves into ad hominem, re -read what you though separation of powers was as against what it is.
The govt has to stand in line for property like anyone else or compensate: check your Constitution
for example
the 5th
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]
see those last words without just compensation.[1]
My money held that is owed to anyone else eg your money held in say GOX's account and that bank and that account is seized by gov, for your part you are entitled to just compensation from the GOV for them taking your property.
:lol: :lol: - well I guess the DHS will be pissed when gox's lawyers show up in court and say "hey guys this law is unconstitutional kthxbai".
See the part where it says "nor shall any person ... be deprived of ... life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"? Do you know what that means? I guess the government can't throw people in jail either, right? Wrong. That's exactly what the "due process of law" part means. This order follows the due process of law - legislative branch made the law, executive sent out the DHS agents to ensure compliance and now the judicial branch is hearing it. There's your "separation of powers" lol. In any event the US can certainly make a law that says that if you break a law the property used in that lawbreaking is forfeit to the US Government and that's what happened here.
The part about "just compensation" is a restriction on the government's power to exercise eminent domain which is a direct "taking" and different from the case at hand.
Anyways if you seriously think the US government has NO power to seize funds (and can only "buy" them for fair market price) you'll be in for a rude awakening if it ever happens to you.
[/quote]
due process is an additional and separate requirement imposed by 5, the in read AND
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation, is another separate condition.
Do you see the ";" followed by norsure the govt can take private property, but not without just compensation.
anyhow in addition to taking some formal legal education, I recommend basic reading/comprehension, and attetnion to detial.
also the executive Gov does not throw anyone in "jail" they have no authority to. At most they can hold a person on remand, but must take that person before a judge / magistrate or judicial officer within a very short time frame, and then the Judge decides on bail/jail/imprisonment to trial. Again you appear to have no grasp of how the judicial, executive and legislative arms or government work, or a person rights in respect of them.
You probably don't even know what the term executive Govt means.
as I said before, please continue your have leveled up (down) to shooting fish in a barrel stage.