Note: IANAL and Blockstream is based in Canada. We need proper Canadian lawyers to look into this. Canada has strong antitrust and anti-racketeering laws as well as the USA.
I started thinking about this topic while I was reading that Greg Maxwell was threatening the BU team with legal action for the use of the word "Blockstream" in one of BUs configuration variables (absurd but true).
"That's interesting," I thought. "We're going to fight in court apparently. I wonder what sort of legal violations Blockstream might be guilty of?"
I'm presenting this layperson analysis to stimulate discussion about two things:
-
were actual crimes committed by Blockstream (I think so)
-
regardless of criminality, the community needs to expose this harmful behavior for what it is and call out Blockstream once and for all as an attacker
I'd like to review the history and offer my interpretation in the hopes that actual discussion can take place:
-
On February 21st, 2016, a group of miners with a significant hashpower majority entered into an agreement brokered by Adam Back, the President of Blockstream, which declared among other things:
-
(a) That miners would only run Bitcoin Core-compatible consensus systems
-
(b) That Core would continue to follow strategies that limit capacity to no more than 4MB, max
In my opinion, 1a and 1b taken together define a cartel, "an association of suppliers with the purpose of maintaining prices at a high level and restricting competition"
At least in the USA, the landmark Sherman antitrust act in the USA explicitly outlaws such cartels:
-
(c) Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal
-
(d) Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony
I believe that a good case can be made that Adam Back, acting as President of Blockstream (1), facilitated and contracted with various miners to create a capacity-limiting, anti-competitive cartel that violates the federal antitrust statutes in the USA, if not Canada.
Now how about racketeering? How is racketeering defined?
In the USA we define it loosely as "a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a prob
... keep reading on reddit ➡This is an automatic summary, original reduced by 84%.
> Investigative journalism by Inside Climate News into Exxon's internal documents revealed that the company was at the forefront of climate research, warning of the dangers posed by human-caused global warming from the late-1970s to the late-1980s.
> While the ICN investigation focused on Exxon's internal reports, Exxon's spokesman pointed to the peer-reviewed scientific research published by the company's scientists between 1983 and 2014 - 53 papers in all.
> The peer-reviewed research published by Exxon's climate scientists was entirely in line with the expert consensus that humans are causing potentially dangerous global warming, and that we need to explore ways to mitigate the associated risks.
> After pledging to stop funding these climate denial groups in 2007, Exxon continued to give more than $2.3 million to the American Legislative Exchange Council and to members of Congress who denied the expert climate consensus and acted to obstruct climate policies.
> Exxon funded outside scientists to publish shoddy research contradicting that of its own scientists, funded think tanks and other organizations to use that research to manufacture doubt about the consensus, and donated money to politicians and Alec to obstruct efforts to pass critically important climate legislation.
> There is a sharp contrast between what Exxon knew and what Exxon did.
Summary Source | FAQ | Theory | Feedback | Top five keywords: Exxon^#1 Climate^#2 scientist^#3 research^#4 Fund^#5
Post found in /r/politics, [/r/environment](http://np.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/3u8p
... keep reading on reddit ➡La ley federal contra la extorsión criminal y las organizaciones corruptas (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), conocida como RICO, fue aprobada en 1970 por el Congreso de Estados Unidos.
La iniciativa permite la persecución y sanciones civiles por determinados actos criminales, realizados en una empresa o asociacion.
La Ley RICO define una "empresa" como cualquier persona física, entidad comercial, asociación, sindicato o grupo de individuos.
Dicha ley es codificada bajo el Capítulo 96 del Título 18 del Código de Estados Unidos, que se ocupa de delitos federales y del procedimiento penal. En el momento de su promulgación, el Congreso tenía como finalidad eliminar los efectos negativos de la delincuencia organizada en la economía estadounidense.
La ley fue impuesta, según el gobierno norteamericano, a fin de desarticular "organizaciones" ilícitas como la mafia y los cárteles criminales. No obstante, desde que comenzó a ser implementada, su campo de acción ha sido más amplio de lo previsto y es aplicada a cualquier acto o amenaza que implica el homicidio, el secuestro, las apuestas, blanqueo de dinero, conspiración para traficar con narcóticos, obstrucción de la justicia, el incendio, el robo, el soborno, la extorsión, el tráfico de material obsceno o la negociación de una sustancia controlada o química.
La Ley RICO enumera 29 delitos federales y ocho estatales. Un miembro de una empresa criminal que haya cometido al menos dos de estos 37 delitos, dentro de un plazo de diez años, puede enfrentar cargos como el de extorsión criminal, el cual conlleva una pena que va desde una multa de 25 mil dólares hasta 20 años de prisión.
Toda persona convicta de este delito pierde el derecho a disponer de los fondos, y sus intereses, obtenidos como resultado de dicha actividad criminal.
Asimismo, bajo esta ley, una persona que ha sido afectada por extorsión criminal puede presentar una demanda por daños y perjuicios y ser acreedora a una indemnización de hasta tres veces las pérdidas reales sufridas.
Además, las propiedades de la persona o personas que cometen el delito son embargadas por el gobierno de Estados Unidos. Criticamos al Imperio , resulta que tiene un instrumento del que seria preciso disponer para evitar la corrupcion continuada y repetida en las organizaciones que gobiernan en alternancia los fondos publicos.Esta ley permite embargar los bienes del delito y permite que cualquier afectado pueda demandar y ser indemnizado. RICO-RICO
... keep reading on reddit ➡Is the FDA a {RICO} Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization ? Is it in fact not working for the people of the United States and in fact working only for special interests that could care less about the health of the American people? Is the current vendetta against the proven less harmful vaping alternative for tobacco use based on a corrupt receipt of money from corrupt organizations such as Bloomberg Philanthropies whose war on anything tobacco or nicotine related is not based upon science but rather a corrupt group whose only desire is to assert their will, even if their will is dangerous to public health?
Has the FDA {Food and Drug Administration, aka the Food and Death Administration} consistently denied the science and evidence of a safer tobacco product to satisfy special interests that promote the return of ex-smokers to smoking or to use alternative anti-smoking drugs promoted by the Pharmaceutical industry - And how much are these multi-trillion dollar a year industries paying the FDA to rule their way?
Does the current attempt to ban all flavored vape products really have anything to do with young users - - or is it in fact based upon a corrupt bias that is bought and paid for by corrupt organizations such as Bloomberg Philanthropies and corrupt politicians that are also bought and paid for by corrupt organizations such as Bloomberg Philanthropies ???
Should the FDA be charged under The RICO statues and disbanded as a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization ???
John Floyd was recently described by a client as “probably the leading authority on racketeering in the U.S.” He has a great depth of knowledge and experience in this complex area. Peers say he is “extremely bright, knowledgeable and also very practical on how to get the best results for the client.”
Knowledge:
John authored the preeminent book on state Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes, RICO State By State: A Guide to Litigation Under the State Racketeering Statutes (American Bar Association, Section of Antitrust Law 2011 and 1998). He has also written numerous book chapters and articles on federal and state RICO.
Experience:
The challenges of successfully pursuing and defending RICO cases are considerable. John has handled these cases in federal and state courts on behalf of plaintiffs, defendants, and as a special prosecutor in cases that have attracted national attention. He recognizes and understands the challenges and opportunities that these cases present.
A former Georgia Attorney General once said of John, “When you have a complex RICO question, you get John Floyd’s book and try and figure it out. If you can’t figure it out, you call John.” He has also been described as an “endless education” and “incredibly knowledgeable,” while “nobody outworks him.”
John is a frequent lecturer and has served as chair of Georgia’s ICLE RICO Seminar since its inception. John is often asked to speak to prosecutors and law enforcement organizations on RICO, gang prosecutions and white collar crime topics.
John also has extensive experience with cases under the False Claims Act. This has included cases on behalf of both relators and defendants, including a case that generated civil and criminal recoveries totaling $600 million.
In addition to his RICO and False Claims Act work, John conducts internal investigations for institutional clients and represents plaintiffs and defendants at the trial and appellate levels in cases involving business torts, and professional liability.
John is a Fellow in the Litigation Counsel of America, which is an invitation-only trial lawyer honorary society and represents less than one-half of one percent of American lawyers. Fellows are selected based upon excellence and accomplishments in litigation trial work and superior ethical reputation.
REPRESENTATIVE WORK
RICO plaintiffs
Successfully represented a county school district in an investigation of fraud and waste in the construction and reno
... keep reading on reddit ➡From Adam Klasfeld: The U.S. Virgin Islands government wants to intervene in the civil lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell to obtain records of interest to their Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (CICO) action against Jeffrey Epstein's estate. @CourthouseNews
The Virgin Islands filed its first enforcement actions against Jeffrey Epstein's estate and entities earlier this year, alleging human trafficking in its territory. (See Rolling Stone article that follows.) This Virgin Islands' doc spills that fight over to New York Fed.
Virgin Islands Suit Alleges Jeffrey Epstein Trafficked Girls and Women Through 2018
Women and girls were forced into a “trafficking pyramid scheme,” alleges lawsuit brought by attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands
By Elizabeth Yuko
The government of the U.S. Virgin Islands is suing the estate of late financier Jeffrey Epstein, claiming that he was behind a criminal enterprise which facilitated the trafficking of young women and female children to his secluded private islands, where they were held captive, raped and sexually assaulted. Though there are more than 20 women who are formally seeking compensation from Epstein’s $577 million estate, this lawsuit marks the first brought by a government.
According to the complaint, Epstein, whose August 2019 death was ruled a suicide, lured girls as young as 13 into a human trafficking operation, after promising them money for school, health care, or to
... keep reading on reddit ➡
In any organization, often time it is thought that every individual is at fault. A group of men stealing would implicate all of them including those who just made map or just even drove, even if they didn't take single penny. Similarly, people would argue that any big institutions who have done heinous crimes should have implication on its member at all levels. Like top executive wanted to launder money and how is that fault of someone who is just at customer service or maybe an accountant who was following order from his/her manager. That person has a family to raise so they cannot bear to lose their job. Hence, only top level individuals should be held accountable not the whole organization.
