Quote from: QuestionAuthority on June 23, 2013, 05:53:33 PM

Quote from: klee on June 23, 2013, 05:45:56 PM

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on June 23, 2013, 05:44:43 PM

Quote from: ElectricMucus on June 23, 2013, 05:36:52 PM

Quote from: Pale Phoenix on June 23, 2013, 05:31:14 PM

Quote from: Rampion on June 23, 2013, 05:10:25 PM

But there is any specific reasons of why they are "transmitting money" in the document? Can't read it all now.

No, there is no specific allegation in the document, just a general admonishment against violating the statute. California clearly has their wires crossed because, even under the most expansive interpretation of the law, the foundation is not a money transmitter.

They cannot be a money transmitter simply for advocating for Bitcoin as there are first amendment issues preventing regulation of that type of speech.

The point here is: They are a conglomerate of mtgox, bitpay and others which do fit the term money transmitter.

What if the state already knows they aren't a money transmitter but are looking to engage the membership all at once. Some of them are money transmitters. Remember, California is broke. Fines represent real income for the state. On a side note, they just raised the parking meter violation fine next to my house in SF. It's $90 now! This place is fucked!

What the hell happened with Arnold? I like this dude (I am not US citizen)...

He got caught making a baby with his house keeper. No joke.

LMAO I had forgot about that one!