Quote from: anth0ny on February 26, 2014, 06:59:51 AM

Quote from: JudgeHearst on February 26, 2014, 06:37:40 AM

"Your point which I disagreed with was that there have to be charges (or a civil case) before there's a subpoena."

Actually, I think I qualified my statement by saying "I think" or something to that effect. But whatever, it's all good and I learned a little something about Grand Jury Subpoenas (which is cool). The purpose of my initial post was to raise the possibility that Gox/Mk may not be the direct targets of the alleged subpoena (i.e., that the subpoena is related to another case). I believe you actually agreed with this.

Yes, I do. On the other hand, in May 2013 it is was reported that Gox was already being accused of criminal wrongdoing.

Whether the particular subpoena that was supposedly received in February 2014 was related to this, or some new investigation of Gox, or one of Gox's customers, or something else altogether, we don't know.

Quote from: JudgeHearst on February 26, 2014, 06:37:40 AM

Suggestion: next time, say "why" you disagree instead of asserting it without any explanation. That'll save us time in getting to the right answer.

"You agree that grand juries issue subpoenas before a person is charged, right?"

"Subpoenas often come before someone is charged with a crime."

I made those two statements pretty early on.

I don't have much knowledge of Bitcoin before this fall (the season; no pun intended), but I'll take a look at that article.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your first reply was something like, "that's completely incorrect." I would have been more inclined to double check my answer earlier had you said: 'that's not correct. Subpoenas can come before someone is charged with a crime.' In any case, good talking with you.