Select Page ::

Former prosecutors join accused NSA leaker’s legal defense team – MyAJC

Posted on July 25, 2017 by Danzig

A former top U.S. Justice Department official and a former federal prosecutor have joined Reality Winners legal defense team in the National Security Agency leak investigation.

Joe Whitley, who served as the acting associate U.S. attorney general during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, is a partner with the Atlanta law firm of Baker Donelson. He also worked as the U.S. Department of Homeland Securitys general counsel and served as a federal prosecutor in Georgia. Joining Whitley is Matthew Chester, a former assistant U.S. attorney who works for the same law firm in New Orleans.

They are teaming up with John Bell and Titus Nichols of Bell & Brigham in Augusta. The attorneys joined the case after First Look Media, the parent company of The Intercept online news outlet, announced this month that it would help Winners legal defense. First Look said its Press Freedom Defense Fund would provide $50,000 in matching funds to Stand With Reality, a nonprofit campaign to support Winners case through advocacy and fundraising.

RELATED:Owner of The Intercept assisting accused NSA leakers legal defense

The U.S. Justice Department has accused Winner of leaking to The Intercept a top-secret NSA report about Russias meddling in the 2016 presidential election. The Intercept published the report, which says Russian military intelligence officials tried to hack into the U.S. voting system just before last Novembers election.

A federal grand jury has indicted Winner, 25, on a single count of "willful retention and transmission of national defense information. She faces up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines. Winner, who is being held in the Lincoln County Jail, has pleaded not guilty to the charge.

Winners mother, Billie Winner-Davis, released a statement to Stand With Reality about the new attorneys joining her daughters defense team.

I am very excited about Mr. Whitley joining Realitys defense team, she said, as he appears to have extensive experience. His background with homeland security should be helpful.

See more here:

Former prosecutors join accused NSA leaker's legal defense team - MyAJC

Two new attorneys join accused NSA leaker’s defense team | The … – The Augusta Chronicle

Posted on July 25, 2017 by Danzig

Two additional attorneys have joined Reality Leigh Winners defense team in the espionage prosecution in U.S. District Court in Augusta.

U.S. Magistrate Court Judge Brian K. Epps granted Joe Dally Whitley and Matthew Scott Chester permission to to be admitted to practice in the Southern District of Georgia to help defend Winner, 25.

Winner has pleaded not guilty to a single count of willful retention and transmission of national defense information. She is accused of copying a secret document while at work for National Security Agency contractor Pluribus at Fort Gordon and sending it anonymously to online news publication The Intercept. She has been held without bond since her arrest June 3.

Two days later, The Intercept published an in-depth article about a NSA analysis of Russias attempts to meddle in the presidential election, a subject now under scrutiny by the Senate and House intelligence committees and a special prosecutor investigating possible collusion between Russia and people supportive of Trumps campaign.

A tentative trial date for Winner is the week of Oct. 23.

The newest members of the defense team are both former federal prosecutors with the national law firm Baker Donelson.

Whitley of Atlanta served in the Department of Justice under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, serving as the acting associate attorney general, the number three position at the DOJ for a time. After 9/11, George W. Bush selected Whitley to serve as the first general counsel for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Whitley also previously served as the U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Georgia. At Baker Donelson, Whitley specializes in complex civil and criminal cases, according to the firms website.

Chester works in the Baker Donelson office in New Orleans. He previously served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the New Orleans office where he prosecuted white collar crimes and public corruption cases.

In 2015, he was awarded the Department of Justices Superior Performance in Litigation award for his work on the prosecution team that helped convict New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin of charges that included bribery, wire fraud and tax evasion. Nagin is serving a 10-year prison term. Chester now also serves as an adjunct faculty member at Tulane University School of Law where he graduated cum laude in 2004.

Reach Sandy Hodson at (706) 823-3226 or sandy.hodson@augustachronicle.com.

Original post:

Two new attorneys join accused NSA leaker's defense team | The ... - The Augusta Chronicle

UP: Police to invoke NSA against rape accused – The Indian Express

Posted on July 25, 2017 by Danzig

Written by Sarah Hafeez | Allahabad | Published:July 25, 2017 4:25 am (Representational Image)

Allahabad police have decided to invoke the stringent National Security Act (NSA) against an accused facing charges of rape and attempt to murder. The accused, Sanjay Hela, was arrested three days ago. The alleged rape and murder attempt took place in the Civil Lines area on July 20. The victim was a 20-year-old domestic help.

A senior police officer said the case does not have the features necessary for invoking NSA. There is no law and order problem and neither is there public disaffection as a result of this incident, the officer said. However, he added, invoking the NSA is the sole discretion of the SSP and the DM of the district.

SSP Sureshrao A Kulkarni said: The crime, committed during the day, has triggered a scare among local residents. It might also spark a protest. So we are going to invoke NSA when the accused applies for bail. We feel he might pose a threat to public safety.

The act, usually invoked by central or state governments in cases whereby security, defence or foreign relations of the country are compromised, also applies to cases where maintenance of public order is disrupted.

For all the latest Cities News, download Indian Express App

Continue reading here:

UP: Police to invoke NSA against rape accused - The Indian Express

Labor Dept partners with NSA in St Johnsbury to find workers – Vermont Biz

Posted on July 25, 2017 by Danzig

Vermont Business Magazine The Vermont Department of Labor has partnered with NSA Industries, LLC in St. Johnsbury in an effort to fill the companys available positions with skilled, available talent. On Wednesday, July 26, 2017, NSA will open its doors from 4 pm 7 pm for an onsite recruitment event for the general public. NSAs facility is located at 210 Pierce Road, St Johnsbury.

Founded in 1982, NSA specializes in machining, sheet metal fabrication, engineering and logistics. The company currently employs over 200 individuals and is looking to hire machine operators, assemblers, testers/inspectors and welders, as well as a variety of other positions.

This event displays our desire to actively work with employers to assist them in finding the talent they need to be competitive in todays economy. Additionally, this job fair provides another opportunity for the displaced workers in the Northeast Kingdom to find meaningful employment, said Michael Harrington, Deputy Commissioner for the Vermont Department of Labor.

Wednesdays job fair is open to all interested individuals, and the Vermont Department of Labor will be onsite to provide support services, including application assistance.

For a complete list of jobs available at NSA or across the State, visit: http://www.nsaindustries.com or http://www.vermontjoblink.com.

Source: Vermont Department of Labor 7.24.2017

Labor Dept partners with NSA in St Johnsbury to find workers - Vermont Biz

Libor and London Whale Cases Show Hurdles With Foreign Defendants – New York Times

Posted on July 25, 2017 by Danzig

The prosecution of two Rabobank traders from London, Anthony Allen and Anthony Conti, ran afoul of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan tossed out their convictions and, in a rare step, dismissed the indictment against them because the government used tainted testimony from its main witness.

The Financial Conduct Authority in England first started looking at Libor manipulation at Rabobank. Under British law, an individual working for a bank under investigation can be required to answer questions or face imprisonment for refusing to comply with the request. In exchange, the statements cannot be used directly against the person at a subsequent proceeding, although they can be used to develop new leads in a case

The British regulator dropped its investigation after Mr. Allen and Mr. Conti testified, and then prosecutors in the fraud section in the Justice Department took up the case, filing charges against the two men in 2014.

Mr. Allen and Mr. Conti were convicted after a trial on conspiracy and wire fraud charges involving their role in manipulating the submissions made by Rabobank that were used to set Libor. The governments theory was that they accommodated requests from the banks derivatives traders rather than making a good-faith estimate of the actual borrowing rate for that day. Evidence included a response to a traders request, I am fast turning into your Libor bitch!!! not a helpful comment.

Even with questionable messages, however, prosecutors needed a witness to explain what was taking place inside the bank and that the defendants knew they were acting improperly. That turned out to be Paul Robson, a co-worker subject of a Financial Conduct Authority enforcement action in Britain who also pleaded guilty in the United States for his role in the Libor manipulation.

Mr. Robson proved to be an effective witness, providing what the Second Circuit described as significant testimony against the two defendants, stating in court that the Libor submissions were nonsense and a charade.

The problem was that he carefully reviewed the defendants immunized statements to the Financial Conduct Authority and the appeals court found that the knowledge gained from them helped shape his testimony. It noted that Mr. Robsons own statement to the British authorities was toxic to the governments case because he later changed the description of the roles of Mr. Allen and Mr. Conti in setting Libor to reflect what they said.

The crucial legal issue was whether a grant of immunity by a foreign government in requiring testimony should be treated the same as if a witness received that protection from an American court. The Second Circuit was quite clear in its answer: The Fifth Amendments prohibition on the use of compelled testimony in American criminal proceedings applies even when a foreign sovereign has compelled the testimony.

The protection afforded under United States law is broader than in Britain, prohibiting any indirect use of an immunized statement to aid the prosecution. The Second Circuit concluded that Mr. Robsons testimony was tainted by what he read, even though prosecutors never introduced the statements in court.

Thus, any use of the statements against the defendants at their trial, like having a witness review it to assist in giving testimony, is a violation of their Fifth Amendment rights that can require reversal of a conviction. The cornerstone case for that proposition is United States v. North, a decision overturning the conviction of Oliver L. North because his immunized testimony before Congress in the Iran-contra hearings affected the recollection of a witness at his criminal trial.

The Second Circuit also dismissed the indictment because it found that the grand jury indirectly received Mr. Robsons views on the defendants involvement in manipulating Libor through the testimony of a F.B.I. agent, so the decision to indict the two men was also tainted by the immunized statements.

The appeals court had no sympathy for the governments complaint that applying the constitutional protection would make it more difficult to work with foreign governments to prosecute cases involving cross-border violations. The practical outcome of our holding today is that the risk of error in coordination falls on the U.S. government (should it seek to prosecute foreign individuals), rather than on the subjects and targets of cross-border investigations, the judges wrote.

Although prosecutors can seek a new indictment and a second trial, they may not use Mr. Robson or any other witness who might have reviewed the immunized statements made by Mr. Allen and Mr. Conti. That most likely means the case is over because there does not appear to be enough evidence, beyond some questionable messages, to show their intent to manipulate Libor submissions.

The decision will present a significant challenge to the Justice Department in pursuing fraud cases in which it works with foreign prosecutors and regulators to gather evidence. Many nations, especially in Europe, require those involved in the financial services sector to provide testimony during an investigation, and now any use of that power to gather evidence could make it more difficult to prove charges in the United States.

Prosecutors in this country are well aware of the potential pitfalls of prosecuting someone granted immunity because it requires showing that every piece of evidence to be used at trial is untainted by the immunized statements. Future investigations of international wrongdoing will have to avoid tripping the Fifth Amendment protection if a target is required to provide a statement.

The fallout from the Second Circuits decision is already being felt in the prosecution of two former Deutsche Bank traders accused of manipulating Libor. One of the defendants was compelled by the Financial Conduct Authority to testify and has asked that the court to scrutinize whether his statements have tainted the governments evidence.

Even if there are no Fifth Amendment issues, when the reliability of a crucial cooperating witness is open to question, the governments case can go straight down the drain.

The New York Times reported that the prosecution of two former JPMorgan Chase traders, Javier Martin-Artajo and Julien Grout, involved in transactions that culminated in 2012 in over $6 billion in losses for the bank, ended last Friday when the Justice Department announced it was dropping the case. Called a nolle prosequi motion, which means to be unwilling to pursue, prosecutors told the Federal District Court in Manhattan that Bruno Iksil, the major witness involved in the trades, who received the nickname London Whale for the outsize bets, was no longer a reliable witness.

Mr. Iksil created a website called London Whale Marionette to give his version of what happened, stating that this account looks quite different from the testimonies that I gave to the authorities. His admission that previous statements may not be accurate was certain to provide defense lawyers fodder for cross-examination to undermine his credibility if the case went to trial.

Whether that was ever going to happen was another question about the case. The Justice Department acknowledged in its motion that it was unable to extradite the two defendants from their home countries, Spain and France, so long as they stayed away from a nation that would send them to the United States.

Blaming Mr. Iksils commentary as the reason for dismissal could be a convenient face-saving means to drop a prosecution that was never going to reach the courtroom. The indictment of Mr. Martin-Artajo and Mr. Grout had languished since 2013, and the charges never reached anyone in JPMorgans senior management, despite Mr. Iksils claims that those well above him encouraged the risky trading. The bank paid out $920 million to settle multiple civil investigations of how it reported its losses.

The demise of the Libor and London Whale prosecutions shows how difficult it is for federal prosecutors to pursue charges in cases that reach across markets and involve defendants acting largely outside the United States.

One byproduct may be that the Justice Department will be more hesitant when it seeks to hold individuals responsible for misconduct by global financial companies, raising the prospect of even less accountability for corporate wrongdoing.

See original here:

Libor and London Whale Cases Show Hurdles With Foreign Defendants - New York Times

Co-founder of firm behind Trump-Russia dossier to plead the Fifth – Fox News

Posted on July 25, 2017 by Danzig

Glenn Simpson, whose Fusion GPS firm has been tied to anti-Trump efforts and pro-Russian lobbying, will not talk to lawmakers in response to a subpoena, the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committe said Friday.

Committee chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and ranking member Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., confirmed in a statement that they subpoenaed Simpson to appear before the committee Wednesday as part of a hearing about the influence of foreign lobbying in last year's presidential election.

"Simpsons attorney has asserted that his client will invoke his Fifth Amendment rights in response to the subpoena," Grassley and Feinstein said.

Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson is seen at the Aspen Security Forum in Aspen, Colo. Friday (Pam Browne/Fox News)

During the campaign, Fusion GPS contracted former MI-6 agent Christopher Steele to look into rumors about Trump's financial and social connections in Russia. The resulting "dossier," which was leaked to the media following Trump's victory in November included a number of sordid allegations about the president's sexual proclivities.

Last week, Fox News reported that Fusion GPS had ties to Russian efforts to undermine U.S. sanctions that were led by attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya.

Investment manager Bill Browder claims Simpson was hired by one of Veselnitskaya's clients, Prevezon Holdings, as part of an effort to repeal the Magnitsky Act, named for Sergei Magnitsky an attorney for Browder who was beaten to death in a Moscow prison after accusing Russian authorities of stealing hundreds of millions of dollars through tax refunds and then laundering the money through New York banks.

Veselnitskaya became the center of a political storm earlier this month after Donald Trump Jr. made public emails indicating that he had taken a meeting with her on the promise of receiving damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

Grassley and Feinstein also noted that both Trump Jr., who met with Veselnitskaya in June of last year, and former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, who sat in on the meeting, are negotiating their appearances and the possibility of turning over documents, but left open the possibility that the pair would be subpoenaed.

Fusion GPS has said it had nothing to do with the Trump Jr.-Veselnitskaya meeting.

Fusion GPS learned about this meeting from news reports and had no prior knowledge of it. Any claim that Fusion GPS arranged or facilitated this meeting in any way is absolutely false, the company said in a statement.

Manafort had attracted scrutiny for months from congressional committees and Mueller. The Associated Press reported in June that Mueller's probe has incorporated a long-standing federal investigation into Manafort's financial dealings. That investigation is scrutinizing political consulting work he did for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine and the country's former president, Viktor Yanukovych.

Manafort has denied any wrongdoing related to his Ukrainian work, saying through a spokesman that it "was totally open and appropriate."

Manafort also recently registered with the Justice Department as a foreign agent for parts of Ukrainian work that occurred in Washington. The filing under the Foreign Agents Registration Act came retroactively, a tacit acknowledgement that he operated in Washington in violation of the federal transparency law.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

See original here:

Co-founder of firm behind Trump-Russia dossier to plead the Fifth - Fox News

Who killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman? – CBS News

Posted on July 25, 2017 by Danzig

O.J. Simpson will serve the remainder of his prison time in protected custody. Officials changed his status for safety reasons after a parole board voted unanimously last week to approve his release.

Simpson could walk out as soon as October 1, after serving nine years for armed robbery in Nevada.

65 Photos

From football fields to Hollywood to courtrooms, see O.J. through the years

In 1995, he was acquitted of the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ron Goldman.

CBS News correspondent Jericka Duncan reports the case is still an open investigation for the Los Angeles Police Department.

A reported 13.5 million people tuned into Simpson's parole hearing last week. That's far fewer than the estimated 150 million people who watched his 1995 acquittal.

Still, it shows the O.J. obsession lives on, as well as the debate over who killed Nicole Brown and Goldman.

"I'd just like to get back to my family and friends and believe it or not, I do have some real friends," Simpson said in court last week.

It's unclear what life outside prison will look like for Simpson. But one thing is certain it'll be a world well acquainted with his past.

"People will always want to be a part of the O.J. case," Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levinson said. "They'll always be looking for evidence that the LAPD missed. That's because it's a mystery that to some has not been solved."

28 Photos

On October 3, 1995 "The Trial of the Century" ended with the acquittal of former football star O.J. Simpson for double-murder - Where are all the...

A string of TV films this past year reignited America's fascination with Simpson's acquittal.

"The word 'open' for an investigation can mean so many things," Levinson said. "It may simply mean that because O.J. was acquitted, and they've never found another murderer, there's no reason to shut it down."

Immediately following the 1995 verdict, Simpson vowed to find justice for his ex-wife in a statement read by his son, Jason: "I will pursue as my primary goal in life, the killer or killer who slaughtered Nicole and Mr. Goldman."

But no additional arrests were made. Simpson went on to release what was called a fictional account of the crime entitled, "If I did it." That book caused former Simpson trial juror Lionel Cryer to have a change of heart.

"The book was the turning point for me to go to the feeling that he probably did kill those people," Cryer said.

Simpson has repeatedly maintained his innocence. Last year, there appeared to be a possible break in the case when a knife was reportedly discovered on the property Simpson once owned. But the tip led nowhere, leaving the case largely where it was in the 1990s.

"O.J. cannot be tried again because of double jeopardy, but he certainly can be questioned," Levinson said. "In fact, he doesn't have Fifth Amendment protection anymore."

The LAPD wouldn't provide any additional details in the case. Legal experts say there are plenty of challenges that go with investigating a crime that is more than 20 years old. Among them, the fact that prosecutors are dealing with decades-old evidence and memories.

Continue reading here:

Who killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman? - CBS News

Supreme Court: Vehicle Impoundment Did Not Violate Fourth Amendment – WisBar

Posted on July 25, 2017 by Danzig

Supreme Court: Vehicle Impoundment Did Not Violate Fourth Amendment
WisBar
The majority concluded that police possessed a bona fide community caretaker justification for impounding the car and thus were not required to obtain a warrant despite the constitutional Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures.

Here is the original post:

Supreme Court: Vehicle Impoundment Did Not Violate Fourth Amendment - WisBar

9th Circuit Revives Bison Observer’s Civil Rights Claims – Courthouse News Service

Posted on July 25, 2017 by Danzig

A volunteer with the Buffalo Field Campaign was viewing a bison-hazing operation in 2012 when he was cited for obstructing the hazing. The Ninth Circuit on Monday ordered his First Amendment case back to federal court to be heard by a jury.

WEST YELLOWSTONE, Mont. (CN) Anthony Patrick Reed may one day get his day in court on behalf of Yellowstone National Parks wild bison, after the Ninth Circuit ruled Monday that a jury should have determined whether the volunteer for the Buffalo Field Campaign had his First and Fourth Amendment rights violated during a 2012 federal government hazing of bison back into Yellowstone National Park.

In July 2012, Reed tried to document the federal governments hazing of wild bison back into Yellowstone National Park. After a Gallatin County sheriffs deputy told Reed to move his car out of the line of bison, Reed complied and moved to a nearby gravel road. Deputy Douglas Lieurance threatened to arrest Reed, and ultimately issued Reed a misdemeanor citation for obstructing the herding operation.

Reed sued in Montana federal court in 2013, naming Lieurance, Gallatin County sheriff Brian Gootkin and Gallatin County as defendants.Reed argued Lieurances actions violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights and related Montana constitutional rights, and that Gallatin County Sheriff Brian Gootkin, the Sheriffs Office, and Gallatin County have a policy or practice of providing constitutionally inadequate training to law enforcement officers.

Rebecca Smith, a civil-rights attorney who represented Reed, said Mondays Ninth Circuit ruling affirms constitutional rights.

It was a case where volunteers with a nonprofit group were trying to document and observe a government operation on public land from the sidelines without actually protesting or interfering with it, she said. That was the key take-away in this case a reaffirmation that peacefully observing and documenting government conduct in a public place is protected conduct under the First Amendment and Montana citizens cannot be arrested for obstruction for exercising this First Amendment right.

Bison can carry the brucellosis virus, a disease that is harmful to cattle, and in Montana bison are hazed back into Yellowstone National Park to protect that states cattle. Toprevent collisions between cars and bison during the hazing operations, county law enforcement had set up a blockade along Montana Highway 191. According to court documents,Reed had initially parked his vehicle just east of Highway 191 in order to get a clear view of the buffalo as they crossed the highway.

While Reed was parked in that spot, a Gallatin County law enforcement officer approached the vehicle and advised Reed he was parked in the planned herding route and needed to move his vehicle. Reed complied but was cited.

A federal judge dismissed some of Reeds claims on summary judgment and granted judgment as a matter of law for defendants on the remaining claims after Reed presentedevidence at trial. Reed appealed those decisions, as well as the exclusion of Reeds expert witness and denial of his motion to amend the complaint. Defendants cross-appealed the judges denial of attorney fees.

In a ruling issued Monday, the Ninth Circuit panel said it could not conclude that as a matter of law that a reasonably prudent officer in defendant Deputy Lieurances situation would have had probable cause to believe that Reed obstructed the bison herding operation. Instead, the circuit judges determined the trial court improperly invaded the province of the jury by resolving factual disputes material to the question of probable cause.

The panel also found defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on Reeds unlawful seizure claim.

Additionally, the panel reversed the trial courts sua sponte dismissal of Reeds failure-to-train claim on the grounds that the judge did not first provide Reed with notice and an opportunity to respond before dismissing the claim. The panel also sided with Reed by finding the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the testimony of Reeds police-practices expert as it related to the failure-to-train claim.

The panel held the lower court committed reversible error in granting judgment as a matter of law on Reeds First Amendment and related state claims without first providing Reed notice of the grounds for the decision. Addressing the merits of the First Amendment claim, the panel held thatin ruling that defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the lower court improperly resolved numerous factual disputes reserved for the jury.

The panel determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the trial courts denial without prejudice of defendants motion for attorney fees and therefore dismissed defendants cross-appeal from that order.

As for the grant of summary judgment for defendants on Reeds claim of unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment and its corollary in the Montana Constitution, the panel said probable cause likely did not exist for the officer to cite Reed.

The panel said probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within an officers knowledge are sufficient for a reasonably prudent person to believe that the suspect has committed a crime.The analysis involves both facts and law. The facts are those that were known to the officer at the time of the arrest. The law is the criminal statute to which those facts apply.

Montanas right to privacy laws guarantees far greater protection than the U.S. Constitutions Fourth Amendment, the panel said.

Under Montana law, if an officer makes an arrest without probable cause, he or she may be entitled to qualified immunity as long as it is reasonably arguable that there was probable cause for the arrest.

The trial court ruled Lieurance had probable cause to arrest and cite Reed for the obstruction.But in City of Kalispell v. Cameron, the Montana Supreme Court reversed a conviction for obstruction when the defendant had merely failed to follow an officers instructions. Thecourt in that case explained that an individual obstructing a peace officer must engage in conduct under circumstances that make him or heraware that it is highly probable that such conduct will impede the performance of a peace officers lawful duty.

Portions of Reeds case that remain have been remanded to federal court, and the Ninth Circuit panel ordered the assignment of a new judge.

Rebecca Kay Smith of Missoula, Montana, represented plaintiff Reed. Steven Robert Milch of Billings, Montana, argued the case for defendants.

Circuit Judges Alex Kozinski and William Fletcher joined the opinion by Chief District Judge John R. Tunheim, sitting by designation from the District of Minnesota.

Like Loading...

Go here to see the original:

9th Circuit Revives Bison Observer's Civil Rights Claims - Courthouse News Service

No, Gretchen Carlson didn’t say 2nd Amendment written before guns invented – PolitiFact (blog)

Posted on July 25, 2017 by Danzig

A recent questionable claim we fact-checked stemmed from a discussion about whether to ban assault weapons.

Clickbait websites love to make up fake quotes for celebrities and controversial politicians, hoping to mislead readers into clicking into their content and seeing their ads.

For instance, we recently fact-checked a post accusing former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., of saying something she didnt say; we rated it Pants on Fire.

Now, as part of Facebooks efforts to fight fake news, we learned that users had flagged as questionable a post from someone Bachmann used to babysit for -- former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson. (Yes, the babysitting part is actually true.)

The claim about Carlson appeared first on a site called therightists.com. It was headlined, "Gretchen Carlson: The 2nd Amendment Was Written Before Guns Were Invented. "

Within days, the item was picked up and reprinted essentially verbatim on other websites. One version got 31,400 shares through July 24.

The accompanying article uses as its launching-off point something that Carlson did actually do -- making an on-air break with conservative orthodoxy by saying, in the wake of the Orlando nightclub mass shooting in 2016, that the assault-weapons ban should be reinstated.

"Do we need AR-15s to hunt and kill deer? Do we need them to protect our families?" she asked on air. "Cant we hold true the sanctity of the Second Amendment while still having common sense?"

These comments drew opposition from gun-rights supporters. Its at this point that the article veers off into fabrication.

The article reads, "Interestingly, when confronted by Second Amendment supporters on Twitter, Carlson doubled down on her pro-ban stance, claiming that the fact that youre even using the Second Amendment as an argument against banning assault weapons shows me youre ignorant. Dont you know the 2nd Amendment was written before guns were even invented? "

This would be a ridiculous claim if shed actually said it.

As schoolchildren are taught, muskets were used in the American Revolution. (Heres an example from the collection of the Museum of the American Revolution.) And the revolution occurred more than a decade before the 1789 drafting and ratification of the Bill of Rights, which includes the Second Amendment. ("A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.")

Indeed, the history of firearms goes back even further than that -- to the 1300s, more than four centuries before the Second Amendment was written.

The first hint that this may be bogus appears elsewhere on therightists.com website. On the sites "About Us" page, a grammatically challenged warning explains that therightists.com "is independent News platform That allow People and independent Journalist to bring the news directly to the readers. Readers come to us as a source of independent news that not effected from the big channels. This is HYBRID site of news and satire. part of our stories already happens, part, not yet. NOT all of our stories are true!"

Of course, this warning isnt noted on the actual page the Carlson story appears on.

We also couldnt find any credible news source reporting Carlsons words as cited in therightists.com article.

Finally, we checked with Carlsons office. In a statement, her office confirmed that the article was "total B.S."

Bottom line: Carlson did not say, "The 2nd Amendment Was Written Before Guns Were Invented." The accusation that she did rates as Pants on Fire.

Share the Facts

2017-07-24 19:53:16 UTC

Pants on Fire

Say Gretchen Carlson said, "The 2nd Amendment Was Written Before Guns Were Invented."

various websites

Thursday, June 15, 2017

2017-06-15

No, Gretchen Carlson didn't say 2nd Amendment written before guns invented - PolitiFact (blog)

Establishment Media Dumbfounded Rep. Mo Brooks Defends 2nd Amendment after Alexandria – Breitbart News

Posted on July 25, 2017 by Danzig

Breitbart News reported that Republican Congressmen were attacked June 14 by a Bernie Sanders supporter armed with a rifle and a handgun. Both guns were acquired via background checks, the gun control mechanism which the left and their surrogates in the establishment media hold as sacrosanct.

The New York Times admitted that the lefts beloved gun control was impotent to stop the attacker, but simultaneously covered their bases by arguing that no one wants to live in a world where guns are easier to acquire and law-abiding citizens go about their days with a gun on their hip or in their purses. The NYT does not realize that in the real worldthe world outside of NYT headquarters, CNN headquarters, and the Washington DC beltwaymillions upon millions of Americans carry a gun on their hip or in their purses daily for self-defense.

Brooks commercial shows that this is lost on the establishment media, who could not keep from asking him about gun control in the immediate aftermath of the Alexandria attack:

The establishment media stuck a mic in front of Brooks and asked, Does this change your views on the gun situation in America?

Brooks responded, The Second Amendment right to bear arms is to help ensure that we always have a Republic. So no, Im not changing my position on any of the rights that we enjoy as Americans.

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host ofBullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter:@AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Establishment Media Dumbfounded Rep. Mo Brooks Defends 2nd Amendment after Alexandria - Breitbart News

ACLU claims Gov. LePage is violating First Amendment – WGME

Posted on July 25, 2017 by Danzig

The ACLU of Maine claims Governor Paul LePage is violating the First Amendment with some of his actions on social media. (WGME)

AUGUSTA (WGME) - The ACLU of Maine claims Governor Paul LePage is violating the First Amendment with some of his actions on social media.

The issue is the governor's official Facebook page.

It has posts about the governor and first lady, links to videos of the governor giving speeches, everything you'd expect from the governor on Facebook.

But, the governor's office says they have nothing to do with that Facebook account, which is verified by Facebook.

The page itself says it's run by volunteers who don't work for the governor, or state government at all.

The ACLU says the Facebook page has been deleting comments and blocking people who disagree with the governor's opinion.

They believe those actions are in violation of the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech.

Monday, the ACLU of Maine sent the governor a letter, asking him to stop what they call censorship on his Facebook page.

They say the governor shouldn't get to decide who speaks and who doesn't, but there is often some confusion because social media is a relatively new forum for public speech.

They believe there are court cases that set a precedent.

The ACLU has given the governor two weeks to reply to their letter, they say if they dont respond they may take him to court.

ACLU claims Gov. LePage is violating First Amendment - WGME

There’s an Effort Around the Country to Curtail People’s Fundamental First Amendment Rights – Truth-Out

Posted on July 25, 2017 by Danzig

Janine Jackson interviewed Mara Verheyden-Hilliard about the right to protest for the July 14, 2017, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

MP3 Link

Janine Jackson: A recent popular op-ed called on those engaged in resisting the Trump administration to stop counting so much on lawyers. "The fate of the nation cannot be left in the hands of the courts," the piece, written by a lawyer, argued, and that's solid advice. Popular action is what historically has moved the country forward.

But when people do go into the street and are arrested, what then? When they put their bodies on the line and the state creates a new law to criminalize that resistance, what then? Like it or not, the law is still one of the bigger tools in the box for Americans. So what does and doesn't it do for us in the present moment?

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard is an activist and attorney. She's co-founder and executive director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund. She joins us now by phone from Washington, DC. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Mara Verheyden-Hilliard.

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard: Thank you for having me.

Well, I'd like to start, if we could, with an update on the J-20, those arrested in inauguration protests in DC, who are facing what I've heard called unprecedented charges for demonstrators, felony charges that could lead to 75, 80 years in prison. One of those still facing charges is journalist Aaron Cant, now at the Santa Fe Reporter, who has written for FAIR. We talked about the case in January. What should we know now about this ongoing story?

This case is really of extraordinary proportions, when you look at what the government is doing to people who are engaged in protests on the first day that Trump took office. And it's really in its own context significant, too, because of the major shift in policing in Washington, DC, which we believe is intended to send a signal.

What's happened now is more than 200 people were swept up in a dragnet arrest by the police, and this occurred after the police had followed the demonstration for, by their own account, approximately half an hour, while there were some people who broke windows, only a handful of people. And rather than going in and arresting the people for whom they had probable cause to arrest, the police waited that arbitrary time, tracked and detained 200 people. And so they swept up demonstrators, passers-by, journalists, anyone who's in proximity, anyone who is chanting and protesting.

And then they undertook this mass prosecution with the United States Attorney's Office here in the District of Columbia, in which people are being threatened with, as you've mentioned, jail time that is decades and decades long, really a lifetime of jail time, with these felony charges. They are charging people en masse with crimes that may have happened, in terms of property damage, but charging everyone with crimes without particularized probable cause, without being able to point to a person and say, you committed this act and so we're charging you for this act. They're charging everyone in the vicinity for being in proximity.

This is extremely dangerous; it sets the stage that for any demonstration, if anyone commits a criminal act, an act of property damage, whether that be a protestor or, frankly, a police agent provocateur, the police can now use this as license, or they wish to, to sweep up everyone else around them.

This is what we talked about before. It's not a crime, now, is it, to be in proximity to other people who break the law in conjunction with First Amendment activities?

Of course it's not, and it cannot be. And the First Amendment has always stood for that, in fact, you cannot criminalize a person for the acts of another. And particularly in the context of the First Amendment, when it's an issue where the connection is that there may be a sympathy of political views, one cannot do that. There are cases dating back, NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware and others, the courts said you have to act with precision. You cannot say that just because people have a similar point of view, or may have similar political goals, that those who carry out illegal acts or acts of violence in pursuit of those goals, that those acts can be attributed to the others who do not.

Right. These charges, at the level they're at, it feels new, but we know that the effort to repress First Amendment expression is not new. The Supreme Court last month rejected a First Amendment case that dates from years back, Garcia v. Bloomberg. Can you tell us about that and how it relates?

The Garcia v. Bloomberg case comes from the Occupy demonstration of 2011, when 700 people were peacefully marching, compliant with police orders, there was no violence, and as people marched, the police escorted the march. The police themselves closed the Brooklyn Bridge roadway to vehicular traffic. The police and police commanders themselves opened up the roadway to pedestrian traffic. It is the police and police commanders who led the demonstrators onto the roadway of the Brooklyn Bridge, and once those demonstrators had flowed and followed behind the lead of the police, the police stopped the march, trapped them from behind, mass-arrested 700 people.

When we litigated this case, we won at the District Court level, we won at the Second Circuit, in fact. And then Mayor de Blasio, who had taken office, frankly, running on an Occupy ticket, had the court reevaluate the ruling, and the court, in an extraordinary measure, reversed itself. And we took this case up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court just last month determined that they would not hear it.

Obviously, lots of folks are taking their lead from this, and kind of joining on this bandwagon. We have a spate of anti-protest legislation around the country, even UN experts are issuing alarmed statements now. Some 20 states have passed or tried to pass laws allowing protesters to be charged with conspiracy, increasing penalties for blocking streets, even protecting drivers who run protesters over, banning masks and hoodies. I mean, is anyone really confused that the intent of these rules is to quash dissent, and doesn't that thinly veiled intent matter?

It's clear that there is an effort around the country to try, through legal means -- although we would consider illegal means -- to curtail people's fundamental First Amendment rights to gather together in the streets, to be able to speak out in unified action.

I do think, as much as we're seeing these kinds of restrictions imposed and these rulings, that at the same time it can obviously have a chilling effect on people, the reality is that people do always come out and people will continue to come out. And while this may be intended to have a chilling effect, it is really crucial that people stand up and speak out for what they believe in. And I do think the reason that we're seeing these is because there is a growing recognition that there really is this fire of people, these embers burning, where we keep seeing people come up and demonstrating for what they believe in. We're seeing so many more people entering political life, even since the election of Donald Trump. People are taking to the streets, protesting, who never protested before.

So while we're faced with what is I think overt repression, both in terms of these felony prosecutions, these state laws, these court rulings, we also are faced with the fact that there are millions of people who are engaging in political protest and political organizing who have never done so before, and that's a force that really can't be stopped.

We've been speaking with Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund. Find them online at JusticeOnline.org. Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, thank you very much for joining us today on CounterSpin.

Thank you for having me.

Continue reading here:

There's an Effort Around the Country to Curtail People's Fundamental First Amendment Rights - Truth-Out

July 25 Letters: First Amendment – Daily Press

Posted on July 25, 2017 by Danzig

Wrong-headed

The Daily Press Editorial Board's July 23 stance, "Foundation of our freedom," is one of the most vividly foolish analyses of recent times. The thesis that President Donald Trump's criticism of today's press and media is an assault on the constitutional rights of a "foundation of our freedom," the free press.

In fact, President Trump has engaged in no such attack against the First Amendment right of a free press. His criticisms of the press are directed at the content of what many of today's journalists and publishers print, not at the constitutional rights of journalists and institutions to publish what they choose.

If his criticisms of the press threaten the very institution of the free press, then the fusillade of criticism by the press against President Trump threatens the institution of the presidency.

I doubt that any news agency would admit to that outrage.

Randolph Scott

Newport News

Credibility matters

The July 23 editorial, "Foundation of our freedom," taking to task those who undermine one of this country's basic freedoms, was factual, well-stated and critical for citizens to read at this time in our country's continuing efforts to be credible.

By attacking our First Amendment rights, our efforts to remain a beacon to others is threatened. The First Amendment, whether we agree or not agree, allows us to express ourselves through the written word, protests, bumper stickers, yard signs, etc.

Fake news is not included in the First Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution.

Jo-Ann L. Mahony

Hampton

Read the original here:

July 25 Letters: First Amendment - Daily Press

Start Your Hedging: LedgerX to Begin Trading Cryptocurrency Derivatives – CoinDesk

Posted on July 25, 2017 by Danzig

For the first time ever, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has given permission to a private company to exchange and clear any number of cryptocurrency derivatives.

After three years of work, New York-based startup LedgerX was today granted a rare derivatives clearing organization (DCO) license allowing it to clear and custody financial instruments backed by bitcoin, ether and any number of blockchain-based cryptocurrencies.

The instruments, designed to mitigate investment risk, are the latest signal that the cryptocurrency markets are maturing, with the total value of the asset class crossing $115bn earlier this year.

But the guidance from the agency in charge of ensuring the integrity of all futures and swaps markets in the US could have bigger implications than just letting a single company finally open for business.

LedgerX co-founder and CEO Paul Chou told CoinDesk:

"It means a lot, not just for the industry, but globally, because the CFTC will set the example of what a well-licensed clearinghouse and exchange based around digital currencies will look like."

As part of the DCO license, LedgerX will be required to surveil the institutional investors it works with and create increased transparency about those customers for the regulatory agency. Eligible participants include broker dealers, banks, futures commission merchants, qualified commodity pools and qualified high net worth investors.

With the granting of this license, these groups will now be able to enter into complex contracts with one another, with values derived from the underlying cryptographic asset.

As a result, Chou believes the creation of these assets will mark a pivotal moment for cryptocurrency markets, giving investors more sophisticated ways to hedge, and possibly, helping to stabilize long-volatile cryptocurrency prices.

"We have a lot of in-progress talks with customers that are looking to work with retail customers that want to buy derivatives on bitcoin, binaries, all these exotic options," he said.

Though frequently described as a bitcoin exchange and clearinghouse, LedgerX's license did not require an overly broad definition of cryptocurrency. Rather, the permission is open to any of a series of instruments derived from the cryptographic primitives used to build a number of protocols.

Similar to how G5 currencies are typically viewed as safe investments due to their relative stability, Chou imagines three to five cryptocurrencies will be deemed "viable" candidates for the exchange and clearinghouse, based on market capitalization and functionality.

Initial coin offering (ICO) tokens sold to raise funds will not likely be considered for inclusion on LedgerX, given their gray area between CFTC-regulated commodities and SEC regulated securities.

Rather than of having to reapply for each currency and each derivative contract LedgerX will "self-certify" that the new opportunity is compliant.

"Instead of evaluating different governments," as with the case of a G5 currency, said Chou. "Youll be evaluating different technologies or approaches underneath these digital currencies."

The CFTC decision comes at a time when many in the cryptocurrency industry have been anxiously awaiting clear guidance including other regulators.

In March, another lengthy cryptocurrency regulatory application was refused by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), citing among other things, a lack of "surveillance-sharing agreements," and a requirement that "markets must be regulated."

Currently under review by the SEC, the application would let Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss list a bitcoin-tied exchange-traded fund (ETF) on the BATS BTX Excahnge.

Given LedgerX's lengthy requirements to report on its customers and the regulatory body's history of co-regulating certain instruments, Chou believes today's decision could provide just the answer the SEC, and other agencies in Asia and Europe have been waiting for.

"I think the CFTC will set an example both for other regulators here in the U.S., but also globally as well," he said.

After years of working and waiting, progress had been moving swiftly leading up to today's news.

It was just earlier this month that the CFTC formally registered LedgerX as a swap execution facility (SEF) after operating with a temporary license for about two years, making the New York-based firm only the second cryptocurrency outfit to be regulated under the provision.

A close observer of the developing story might have even found a clue to the story back in May, when LedgerX announced it had raised an $11.4 million Series B led by Miami International Holdings and Huiyin Blockchain Venture Investments.

It turns out, the money for the startup that had already raised a $1.5 million seed round and an undisclosed Series A was intended to meet capital requirements implemented by the Dodd-Frank Act. In order to ensure agreements can be fulfilled in case of an emergency, the act requires that a DCO hold operating costs to run its business for a year.

Going as far back as September 2015, former CFTC commissioner Mark Wetjen has been sitting on the board of LedgerX parent company Ledger Holdings, and since January 2016, Chou has served on the CFTC technology advisory committee.

In a statement, Wetjen said:

"These are exciting times to have a new digital asset class emerge. I hope that the effort LedgerX put forward in the U.S. can set the stage for a global approach to this new digital asset class."

By moving the trading and settling of cryptocurrency assets into one, heavily observed operation, Chou expects he'll be able to generate revenue from an entirely new source: data analytics to an unprecedented depth.

In addition to charging other exchanges for his service, Chou expects the CFTC's heavy surveillance requirements will result in cryptocurrency markets data that can be cross-referenced with points from previously existing data sets.

When the platform formally launches later this year, these services and more will only be available to accredited investors. But, Chou described his business model as "multi-stage," eventually serving those who were previously unable to afford such services.

"At first we're going to target a lot of institutional customers that want to invest in this asset class," said Chou, who added:

"Then later, pretty much everybody."

Flames on hot rod via Michael del Castillo

The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is an independent media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. Have breaking news or a story tip to send to our journalists? Contact us at [emailprotected].

Here is the original post:

Start Your Hedging: LedgerX to Begin Trading Cryptocurrency Derivatives - CoinDesk

Incredible New Cryptocurrency Introducing BlancoCoin! – Daily Reckoning

Posted on July 25, 2017 by Danzig

Get in now, folks. This ones hot and moving fast!

For a limited time you can buy the newest, rarest, most sought-after cryptocurrency to hit the markets since at least 20 minutes ago.

Thats right.

Im proud to present, finally, after literally minutes of thought and hard work BlancoCoin!

There are only four in existence.

Three Im keeping for myself.

The other one Im ready to break into 4.2 million equally sized pieces and sell to you.

Now, heres the thing. Theres no set price.

Yes, all 4.2 million units of the ONE BlancoCoin Im selling today will go to the highest bidder.

Call now. Or use our kind-of secure and completely incomprehensible trading platform!

Its OK if you dont understand it.

What counts is you show everyone how smart, innovative and outside-the-box you are and just blindly buy BlancoCoin now and bid it up to the sky.

Remember, trying to spend BlancoCoin is pointless. Its an investment in your future!

Hi, this is the REAL Ray Blanco.

What you just read above is preposterous nonsense. We both know it.

But sadly, thats how the cryptocurrency storys playing out right now. Its a farce.

Lots of good folks are throwing their hard-earned money after cryptocurrencies.

As a tech researcher and writer, Ive seen this before. Internet stocks. 3-D printing stocks. Virtual reality. Immunotherapy.

You can ride frenzy for huge gains, sure. Huge gains, after all, come from all kinds of ideas.

Just like my readers could (right now) be up 731% on a driverless tech play, 208% on an off-the-radar chipmaker, 218% on a breakthrough pharma company, 296% on a life-extension tech company I mean, the list goes on.

The thing is those arent fundraising events, which is what most of the cryptocurrency market boils down to.

The gains I list above are from real things, products, sales and deliverables.

The cryptocurrency game doesnt work like that. If its new, its hot. If its complicated, people want it more. Heres what I mean

You know what an IPO is, right?

It stands for initial public offering.

Thats when companies go public, big banks make tons of money and regular folks get their butts kicked and lose money.

If you like those, youre going to love ICOs. Those are initial coin offerings.

An ICO is essentially the same as an IPO but for cryptocurrencies!

Now you can get you butt handed to you and lose a bunch of money WITHOUT big banks being involved.

Now, heres the best part. You can invest in an ICO without there being a real, live cryptocurrency behind it.

You know who makes all the money in that case? The people behind the ICO, thats who.

Not you. Want to make real money? Launch your own cryptocurrency.

My point: Cryptocurrencies are a vomit comet of volatility.

Volatilitys fine. Its your friend if you know how to use it in your favor when you trade.

But volatile markets driven by speculation and a get rich quick approach are recipes for disaster.

Thats the thing about hysteria, bloodthirsty speculation and investing mania.

No one listens. No one cares. Chasing the story is all that matters. Shiny objects have a way of doing that to peoples thinking.

Then the bottom falls out, folks get smashed and everyone says, Next time well be more careful.

Humans are funny like that. Because were NEVER smarter the next time.

My point is, please try to keep your head while all those around you are losing theirs.

If youre throwing money at ICOs and cryptocurrencies, youre likely blinded by greed right now.

Case in point if you had even an inkling of interest in my BlancoCoin farce above, youre EXACTLY the person I want to reach today.

Step back a second, take a deep breath and think clearly before you buy a cryptocurrency.

Do you know what youre getting into?

Are you prepared to feel the joy and the pain the excitement and the night-sweat fear sometimes several times a day?

If not, I recommend you stick to the real tech you can explain on a napkin.

There could be 731% (or more) in gains waiting for you. My readers are living proof.

To a bright future,

Ray Blanco for The Daily Reckoning

The rest is here:

Incredible New Cryptocurrency Introducing BlancoCoin! - Daily Reckoning

When Putin Met Buterin: Russia may use cryptocurrency to propel its economy – Crypto Insider (press release) (blog)

Posted on July 25, 2017 by Danzig

On the sidelines of the International Economic Forum in St Petersburg, President Putin and Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin met briefly and discussed the direct application of blockchain technology in Russian businesses and particularly banking systems which we may see in the coming years.

The implementation of virtual currencies such as Ethereum in the nation has the potential of improving the economy with faster and safer online transactions. In addition to this Etheruem offers services of smart contracts which can speed up businesses by removing intermediaries including trade deals, currency contracts, insurance contracts, and property rights. Investment in such technology could provide a powerful enhancement to a nations economy.

Vlad Martynov, adviser for The Ethereum Foundation, says:

Blockchain may have the same effect on businesses that the emergence on the internet once had it would change business models, and eliminate intermediaries such as escrow agents and clerks, if Russia implements it first, it will gain similar advantages to those the Western countries did at the start of the internet age.

Russia has been pursuing technologies that havent already been claimed by the other great powers the West, China or Japan in order to diminish the dependency on oil. In 2007, Russia set up and invested in a large-scale nanotechnology company, Rosnano. However it did not provide the breakthrough they were hoping for, nor did it find relevant projects to invest in.

Last year, a new project developing a hyperloop train received high investment, in prospect to create a train which rides through a tube in speeds of over 700 miles per hour. But this project got caught up in acourt case which involved a Silicon Valley startups founders as well as claims of financial mismanagement.

Cryptocurrency appears to be Russias new investment in innovative technology. The value of Ethereum surged when its investor confidence increased, due to this newly sparked interest. Over the past year, the value of one Ethereum has seen growth from $10 to around $350, an almost 3,500% increase.

The Central Bank of Russia has begun testing a number of digital currency pilots toward the development of a national digital currency. This comes after a procession of banning and unbanning cryptocurrencies in the country, which initially regarded them as money surrogates. It was even considered to condemn people to prison for using digital currency. This year, however, this idea was dropped and the attitude reversed as banks and the government are endorsing the blockchain with new laws being developed. In fact, the Bank of Russia is interested in developing a national cryptocurrency of its own.

Russia may therefore be the first nation with cryptocurrency. Olga Skorobogatova, deputy chief of Bank of Russia, stated:

Regulators of all countries agree that its time to develop national cryptocurrencies, this is the future. Every country will decide on specific time frames. After our pilot projects, we will understand what system we could use in our case for our national currency.

Whichever country becomes the first to nationally embrace this blooming technology can gain a significant economic advantage over the rest of the world just as Britain did with the invention of the railway, or as the US did with the mass-production of cars.

The romance between Russia and cryptocurrency is one the world will be watching as it develops.

Picture from Wikimedia Commons.

LedgerX Just Gave Us Another Way to Bet Against Bitcoin – Fortune

Posted on July 25, 2017 by Danzig

An illustration model of a Bitcoin is seen on Dec. 6, 2013.Thomas TrutschelPhotothek/Getty Images

Investors will soon have yet another way to bet on or against Bitcoin.

Namely, cryptocurrency traders will now be able to place option bets on digital money via LedgerX. That came after the Commodity Futures Trading Commission granted LedgerX approval to clear derivatives , making it the first federally regulated platform of its kind.

The approval will also give buyers of Ethereum and Bitcoin several regulated ways to lower the risk on their existing cryptocurrency bets which may be welcome or may increase their risk in the hopes of potentially outsized returns. That's possible because derivatives are a varied group that includes options and future contracts.

"Our recently-granted licenses give LedgerX an enormous regulatory advantage for serving our institutional customers," wrote the company's CEO Paul Chou in a blog post after the decision. "LedgerX offers our customers a one-stop shop for tools to buy and sell spot bitcoin, derivatives, and all manner of specialized cryptocurrency swaps."

For more on Bitcoin, watch Fortune's video:

LedgerX, which plans to roll out bitcoin options first starting in the fall, may also make it easier for investors to short cryptocurrencies. While it isn't the first to offer bitcoin options, LedgerX is the first to offer options regulated by the CFTC. In 2015, a San Francisco-based bitcoin options trading platform Derivabit, also known as Coinflip, was asked to cease operations by the CFTC in 2015 for failing to register with the agency.

See more here:

LedgerX Just Gave Us Another Way to Bet Against Bitcoin - Fortune

How Bitcoin is infiltrating the $60bn global art market – BBC News

Posted on July 25, 2017 by Danzig

BBC News

How Bitcoin is infiltrating the $60bn global art market
BBC News
Why is the art world getting excited about digital currency Bitcoin and its underlying technology blockchain? Eleesa Dadiani owns and runs an art gallery in London's famous Cork Street. She was born in Georgia in the Caucasus and was "breastfed by ...
As Japan Bitcoin Exchanges Cancel Shutdowns, Poloniex Leaves All Options OpenCoinTelegraph
Poloniex Will not Provide Support for Any Potential Bitcoin ForksnewsBTC
3 Reasons Bitcoin Has Soared 740% in 2 YearsMotley Fool
The Merkle -Scoop.co.nz -Money Morning Australia
all 34 news articles »

Link:

How Bitcoin is infiltrating the $60bn global art market - BBC News

Major Wall Street analyst: Here’s what needs to happen for the bitcoin boom to keep going – CNBC

Posted on July 25, 2017 by Danzig

Amid the emergence of new currencies, gold has long been a benchmark for international measures of value. The precious metal backed the U.S. dollar for decades, marking a peg for global currencies. But in 1971, President Richard Nixon suspended the ability for the dollar to be converted into the precious metal.

Cryptocurrencies arose during the financial crisis and have demonstrated "a few advantages" over major world currencies, such as the ability to cheaply and instantaneously transfer money around the world, and record all transactions through a digital accounting system known as a blockchain, Blanch said.

In expectation of this potential, many have called bitcoin "digital gold" despite the lack of businesses that accept bitcoin and the often high transaction fees.

Gold itself has stagnated in the last several years. The precious metal leaped from several hundred dollars in the early 2000s to near $2,000 in 2011, and has traded between $1,000 and $1,400 in the last two years.

Fundstrat's Tom Lee said in a report on bitcoin in early July that buyers' shift from gold into cryptocurrencies is a reason why the digital currency's price could rise into the tens of thousands.

Due to higher bitcoin mining costs and a surge of interest, the digital currency's price has climbed in "a pattern similar to gold" and "over a much more compressed time period," Blanch said.

Bitcoin (years in parentheses) vs. gold

Source: Bank of America Merrill Lynch Global Research

To be sure, short-term appearances of similarities among bitcoin, gold and the development of historical currencies don't imply that bitcoin is here to stay.

"There is no certainty that that [similarity to gold] will continue and, most certainly, no way to predict it," Blanch said. "In our view, cryptocurrency returns will mostly depend on the faith placed by individuals, corporations, and financial institutions on this emerging technology."

See the rest here:

Major Wall Street analyst: Here's what needs to happen for the bitcoin boom to keep going - CNBC

Select Page ::