Select Page ::

Talk About INDEPENDENCE. We just divorced, yet get along better than ever! – The Good Men Project (blog)

Posted on July 4, 2017 by Danzig

Question: Coach Allana, my wife and I just signed divorce papers. Now, were getting along better than ever! Should we have gotten the divorce? Is it possible being free from each other is making us want each other more?

Answer: Isnt independence curious? We certainly dont want codependent relationships or to be controlled or dominated by anyone, yes? And yet once weve become solid on our own, solid independently, whats next in our conscious evolution is interdependent relationships where we each contribute to one another and the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

It sounds like in your marriage there wasnt a sense of freedom with in the partnership. Perhaps there werent spacious non judgmental conversations about what it would take for each of you to be thriving independently so you could come together interdependently.

Perhaps one or both of you gave away your time with your girlfriends or guyfriends. Perhaps once you began to live under the same roof, old limiting beliefs or negative programming or cellular memories or images imprinted into your mind flashed up to the surface triggering each other. Perhaps you didnt have the skills to move through challenges with success during the marriage, bringing you closer ever time. Perhaps you never learned about intimacy rituals or healthy communication patterns so that it was safe to be vulnerable and honest together.

And now that youre divorced and getting along better than ever making you want each other even more it seems were back to the core place that attracted you to one another. This is great but dont think just by getting back together everything will be fine! The old patterns have not been healed! The sabotaging mechanisms have not been healed! Its simply youve taken the foot off the gas and youre coasting in a bigger bubble of spaciousness But is soon as you get back into gear living under one roof, the issues will rise again. Promise. And perhaps worse given all youve been through with the divorce, too.

My recommendation would be to have a clear look at whats going on: youre attracted to one another and have the capacity to get along when theres a sense of freedom and honor and spaciousness. Marriage the old way didnt work. What WOULD it take for a relationship to work together? The next step would be to do the inner work and gain the communication skills so that you could thrive in a relationship again whether thats officially marriage or cohabitating.

I literally have one couple that I coach who unknowinglgy haphazardly blended two families with 6 teenagers together. As you an imagine it combusted into a legal separation with tremendous shame and judgment from family and friends. However during the separation period they found me. I worked with each of them separately and together while they lived separately. They actually realized they parented quite differently and each enjoyed their downtime away from each other substantially. Thus living a few blocks away from one another was perfect for now. Coming back together meant some forgiveness work, a new solid deal in place, new courageous communication rituals and a boat load of patience.

This past month their last child graduated from high school and is off to college. Theyve already put their house on the market and found a beautiful lake property to retire two together They are living beyond other peoples judgments of their non traditional marriage and theyre happier than ever.

Bottom line if they hadnt been willing to do the inner work and learn how to communicate effectively together, separation wouldve led to divorce. Yet because they were willing to sit in the fire and look inside and do the deep work that I take my clients through now they are happier than ever, kind of like high school kids to be honest! The sex is incredible, the communication is honest and theres a sense of vulnerability, safety and connection theyve never had before.

If youre a 10 out of 10 ready to roll up your sleeves and do this type of transformational work with your I guess shes your ex-wife Why dont we call her your beloved If youre ready to do this work with your beloved and would like to see if youre a fit to be invited to work with me I would be thrilled to see your application in my inbox!

Go to http://www.allanapratt.com/connect and apply for a complementary session with me so that I can ensure exactly the results youre looking for, and more

Life rarely looks like what we think its going to Yes?

I guess thats why they call the unknown a mystery

Sending you so much love XOXO Allana

p.s. GentlemenEnd the Fear of Rejection.

Enjoy your How To Be A Noble Badass Complementary Training atwww.GetHerToSayYes.com

LadiesBe irresistible. Feel sacred. Attract him now.

Enjoy your Vulnerability is the New Sexy Complementary Training atwww.AllanaPratt.com

Photo:www.BigStock.com

Featured on CBS, TLC, FOX; coach to celebrities, a cum laude graduate of Columbia, Allanas a single mom who triumphed over an internal war of body shame and sexual guilt that was destroying her confidence, joy and softness. Now, author of three books, she pole dances for pleasure, and knows When Mamas happy, everybodys happy! She inspires women to embrace their sacred erotic nature to attract all the love and attention they choose. She heals mens emasculated hearts, cures their nice guy and awakens their noble badass honoring of women. Thousands flock to her sexy empowering show, Intimate Conversations LIVE. Shes here to end sexual violence on the planet, have stupid amounts of joy as a mother, ooze sensuality and inspire reverence for our exquisite sexual nature. For your free report & video series, go to Get Her To Say Yes.

Continue reading here:

Talk About INDEPENDENCE. We just divorced, yet get along better than ever! - The Good Men Project (blog)

Abbott couldn’t read the public mood with the help of the Hubble telescope – The Guardian

Posted on July 4, 2017 by Danzig

Tony Abbott spent a lot of time reflecting on issues of national importance last week, contemplating very publicly what he should have done differently when he was prime minister. His conclusions bear little resemblance to the broader publics views of his failings a lack of focus on jobs and education, a budget that undermined every single election promise his party made and the knighting of Prince Phillip.

No, if he had his time again he would have invested in more coalmines and nuclear-powered submarines. While the real prime ministers adversaries in his own party like to paint him as out of touch, Tony Abbotts pronouncements are those of a politician who couldnt read the public mood with the assistance of the Hubble space telescope.

Abbotts determination to remain in parliament, in the news and in the public eye cant only be because he wants to be a wrecker. He must believe even if he only whispers it to himself in the dark that he is relatively young, fit and capable of leading his party again. But todays Essential Report results show that not only does a good-sized chunk of the electorate want him out of parliament but his policy agenda is out of sync with the national conversation.

On the question of same-sex marriage, the trend towards growing support continues with 63% in favour and just a quarter against, representing the highest level of support for the issue in over a year. If you break these numbers down according to generations, the argument that marriage equality is inevitable is reinforced; 74% of 18-24-year-olds support same-sex marriage, compared with 48% of over 65-year-olds. The longer Abbott stays in parliament, the greater distance on this issue between him and the electorate. One area where his position matches the broader position of voters is whether this issue should be solved by a national vote or by parliament alone; 59% still favour a national vote.

But as I have said and written many times, the issues of same-sex marriage is rarely discussed in the qualitative work I have conducted on Australian attitudes; it is most often raised as an example of how our politicians seem incapable of dealing with issues that other countries seem capable of dealing with easily.

What does get raised constantly in all kinds of households, in all kinds of communities across the land, is the question of housing affordability. Abbott did very little on this when he was prime minister. His most recent policy ideas in this area have been to cut immigration and let people raid their superannuation. This reflects his lack of understanding that an issue as complex and acute as the availability and cost of housing requires a suite of policies, not just the few that align with his political agenda.

As the Essential Report numbers show, the community understand a range of measures are needed to deal with this escalating problem including tax incentives for downsizers, a ban on interest-only loans for property investors and, yes, reform of negative gearing.

His suggestion about superannuation is in fact the most polarising measure, receiving 44% support and 30% opposition. In my qualitative work on housing affordability, Ive found very strong views against this idea of using super to buy a home. Even among younger people desperate to get into the housing market, the idea of pillaging their super seems a short-term solution, robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Let me end on a positive note for our former PM: the group of voters who are most supportive of him remaining in parliament in some capacity are independents, who dont vote Green, Labor or Liberal. Perhaps they think he is raising the issues that matter to them. Or perhaps it is because he is behaving as if he isnt a member of a party at all, except the one he is throwing for himself.

Visit link:

Abbott couldn't read the public mood with the help of the Hubble telescope - The Guardian

Fast-spinning dead galaxy changes ideas about galactic formation – Cosmos

Posted on July 4, 2017 by Danzig

A Hubble Space Telescope image of MACS21291 (the red blob outlined in the white rectangle).

Toft et al.

The astronomical understanding of how massive galaxies form and evolve is being revisited after the recent discovery of a pancake-shaped disc galaxy that stopped forming stars just a few billion years after the Big Bang.

This dead galaxy so-called for its lack of star formation was discovered by Sune Toft from the Niels Bohr Institute in Denmark and his colleagues using gravitational lensing and NASAs Hubble telescope. Ancient disc galaxies are normally too far away to examine in detail, but gravitational lensing offered the researchers a magnified view of this one.

When Toft and team examined the galaxy, known as MACS 2129-1, they initially expected to see a chaotic ball of stars that had formed from the merging of different galaxies.

Surprisingly, however, they found evidence in the photographs taken by the Hubble Telescope that the galaxys stars were born in a flattened disc formation.

Their findings, published in the journal Nature, appear to conflict with observations that elliptical galaxies are generally comprised of older stars and spiral galaxies are usually the domain of younger ones.

Toft and his team suggest that the current rotation of MACS 2129-1 indicates that it must have begun life as a flattened disc and only later changed its shape to become more elliptical.

Toft hypothesises that such a metamorphosis could be caused by a series of mergers with other galaxies from a variety of angles, which would eventually randomise the orbits of stars into what can be seen today.

As Toft points out, this research is invaluable because it is forcing astronomers to re-evaluate their theories of how galaxies burn out early on and evolve over time.

Perhaps we have been blind to the fact that early dead galaxies could in fact be discs, simply because we havent been able to resolve them, he says.

Original post:

Fast-spinning dead galaxy changes ideas about galactic formation - Cosmos

NATO military head warns Russia threat is growing – The Hill (blog)

Posted on July 4, 2017 by Danzig

The topmilitary officer of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) said Monday the alliance was working on multiple fronts to thwart Russian efforts toelevate its military power.

General Petr Pavel, chairman of the NATO Military Committee, told Politico's Brussels Playbook that it is unclear what the Kremlin's intentions are, but theirsteps to increase military prowessis clear.

When it comes to capability there is no doubt that Russia is developing their capabilities both in conventional and nuclear components. When it comes to exercises, their ability to deploy troops forlong distance and to use them effectively quite far away from their own territory, there are no doubts,Pavel toldthe newspaperduring a breakfast event.

When it comes to intent, its not so clear because we cannot clearly say that Russia has aggressive intents againstNATO,he added.

The general said the allies must be prepared to confront "any potential threat that would mirror the situationwe know from Crimea, from eastern Ukraine," adding that they would not stand for such actions to be"repeated against any NATO ally.

"We face a huge modernization of all Russia military, Pavel told the newspaper.

The general said the organization cannot fully focus on one threatening state. He said the alliance is working to vamp up its counter-terrorism efforts.

NATO defense officialsare expectedto meet later this week in Brussels.

View post:

NATO military head warns Russia threat is growing - The Hill (blog)

Russia and Europe: Donald Trump Will Feel at Home in Poland But Faces Questions Over NATO – Newsweek

Posted on July 4, 2017 by Danzig

When Donald Trump touches down in Poland on Thursday, hell get a better welcome than he would in many European capitals. Unlike Frances centrist President Emmanuel Macron or Germanys cautious Chancellor Angela Merkel, the Polish government is from the hard right. Like Trump, the ruling Law and Justice party is wary of refugees, the mediaand social liberalism.

But however sympathetic another leader is, they always want something from the president of the United States. And in this case, according to Polands foreign minister, they want protection against another country Trump is planning to meet with this week:Russia.

Foreign minister Witold Waszczykowski told reporters on Monday he would be seeking assurances that the U.S. and NATO troops currently in the country would remain as long as Russia was a threat. "We would like to hear that as long as the threat continues we will be supported by the U.S. and NATO troops," Waszczykowski said.

Daily Emails and Alerts- Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

Poland shares a border with Russia, marking a crucial frontline in the escalating tension between Europe and the vast country to its east. In April, a NATO battalion arrived in the country, marking the start of a stepping up of the alliances troops there, consisting of more than 1,100 soldiers with 900 from the U.S., 150 from the U.K. and 120 from Romania.

"Generations of Polish people have waited for this moment since the end of the Second World War, dreaming about Poland's return to membership in the just, solidary, democratic and truly free West," Polish President Andrzej Duda said at the time.

But in Poland there has beenconcern over the level of Trumps commitment to NATOs Article five, which states that other members will defend a member who is attacked. Trump has previously called the alliance obsolete (though he later backtracked), and in a May speech at a NATO summit he failed to explicitly endorse the collective defense principle. In June, after much criticism, he finally committed to the clause in a speech after meeting Romania's president. Countries in the east ofEuropewho would find themselves in the immediate firing line of any Russian aggression were particularly keen to gain confirmation thatthe U.S. would immediately respond.

For Trump, endorsing NATOin Poland may be politically easier than strongly backing the alliance as a whole. Unlike many members, the country meets NATOs minimum defense spending goalof 2 percent of GDP; that means Trump could choose to hold it up as a good example, since one of his main foreign policy priorities has been encouraging Americas allies to pump more money into their own security. That, of course, might annoy other allies: Poland is locked in several battles with Brussels, and Trump taking Poland's side over other European nations would send a controversial signal.

Defense policy is likely to resurface throughout Trumps schedule in Europe, which ends with a visit to France for the July 14 Bastille Day celebrations where hell discuss security with Emmanuel Macron, and includes Trumps first meeting with Vladimir Putin. What note he strikes on Thursday will help to set the tone.

Visit link:

Russia and Europe: Donald Trump Will Feel at Home in Poland But Faces Questions Over NATO - Newsweek

Trump’s America Isn’t Any More Independent Than Obama’s – Fortune

Posted on July 4, 2017 by Danzig

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, (front left to right) NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, US President Donald Trump, Prime Minister Theresa May and President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan, during the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) summit on May 25, 2017 in Brussels, Belgium.Stefan Rousseau/Pool/Getty Images

When President Donald Trump took office, many expected him to usher in a new "independent" U.S. foreign policy, breaking the bridges forged by President Obama to multi-national organizations and significantly shifting the direction of American statecraft.

That hasnt happened.

This Independence Day, hardly anyone argues anymore that the new administration is seeking independence from international institutions or binding treaties. Indeed, the U.S. has been forward-leaning on the global stagereassuring NATO; broadly engaging in the Middle East; laying out new initiatives in Latin America; renegotiating, not scrapping NAFTA; talking tough on North Korea; sparring with China; embracing India; and redoubling efforts in Afghanistan.

Critics now complain that Trump is decoupling the U.S. from the post-World War II liberal order, the network of international institutions that fostered globalization. At least philosophically, there is no question that Trump and Obama come at foreign policy from opposite perspectives. Obama was a structuralist who believed that the keys to peace and prosperity are global institutions that normalize the behavior of states. Trump, on the other hand, is a realist. The sitting president holds that nation-states are the coin of the realm, the real power in the global order.

But in practice, the kid from Chicago and businessman from the Big Apple are less far apart than their rhetoric suggests.

For starters, the Constitution still binds the left and right. It still limits what presidents can do overseas, both through specified and imposed powers given to the executive branch, and the separation of powers that gives both the courts and Congress some say in what America does in the world.

In addition, regardless of their politics, presidents get elected to protect the nations interests. Those interests don't change dramatically unless the world dramatically changes. Thats why U.S. foreign policy always has more continuity than change from one administration to the next.

Further, presidents are hardly purists. Obama had a predilection for multi-nationalism, but he was perfectly willing to go his own way when he thought it suited U.S. policy. Likewise, Trump has no prohibitions against a multi-national approach. U.S. commitment to NATO is as strong as ever. Rather than pulling out of the United Nations, the U.S. has been proactive in its leadership role. Trump went to the G7, and hes going to the G20 and ASEAN summit.

There are still distinct differences between Trump and Obama. Some are mostly stylistic. The Paris climate accord is a case in point. Obama committed to it because it fit his politics, not because it really moved the ball on dealing with climate change. Trump pulled out because he didn't care about a symbolic commitment. Neither president's choice tells us much about the real exercise of American power in the world.

Other differences are more substantive. Obama's instinct was to make a deal and then use the deal and multi-national instruments to normalize the behavior of adversarial states. That was the plan with the Russian reset and New START treaty, chemical weapons accord with Assad, and Iran nuclear deal. Trump's instincts are to take action where there is a clear deliverable to U.S. interests on the front end, not trust the global order to tutor good behavior on the backside.

However, to portray these differences of statecraft as moving from interdependence to independencean unmooring of the U.S. from the liberal world orderis a profound oversimplification. In practice, Trump will be seen using different approaches to solving America and the world's problemssometimes acting unilaterally, but mostly working with friends and allies, and often through multi-national institutions.

Trump will certainly in the end have different policies. He may in the end produce different outcomes. But, in the final judgment, it may be far more difficult to differentiate between interdependent and independent foreign policies than the current raging controversy over Trumps international leadership suggests.

James Jay Carafano is vice president of the Heritage Foundation and directs the think tanks research on foreign relations and national security issues.

See the original post:

Trump's America Isn't Any More Independent Than Obama's - Fortune

‘State actor’ behind NotPetya cyberattack, expect ‘countermeasures’ NATO experts – RT

Posted on July 4, 2017 by Danzig

Published time: 4 Jul, 2017 14:26

NATO officials have warned that last weeks global cyberattack could result in international retaliation.

The so-called NotPetya attack hit Ukrainian government systems, as well as networks in 64 other countries, causing an unprecedented scale of disruption.

NATO now argues the cyber ambush violated Ukraines sovereignty and countermeasures could be expected, including sabotage.

Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said cyber operations against a NATO member state could trigger Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, demanding a collective military response. Ukraine is not a member of the bloc.

Kiev has since pointed the finger at Russia for the attack, while NATO said it could most likely be attributed to a state actor.

A countermeasure could be, for example, a cyber operation sabotaging the offending states government IT systems, but it does not necessarily have to be conducted by cyber means, NATO Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence researcher Tomas Minarik said in a statement this week.

If the operation could be linked to an ongoing international armed conflict, then law of armed conflict would apply, at least to the extent that injury or physical damage was caused by it, and with respect to possible direct participation in hostilities by civilian hackers, he added.

But so far there are reports of neither.

A report from NATO showed that although the attack had cost billions of dollars to the Ukrainian state, the damage was not comparable to a military strike.

The attack follows the recent WannaCry strike on a series of computer systems in Britains hospitals. It was reported that North Korean hackers were likely behind the attack.

It seems likely that the more sophisticated and expensive NotPetya campaign is a declaration of power; a demonstration of acquired disruptive capability and readiness to use it, NATO cyber expert Lauri Lindstrom said.

Now the company blamed for allowing NotPetya to slip through the system is being threatened with criminal charges. Accounting software firm MeDoc had its main system hacked and used to send out malware to the attacks victims.

See original here:

'State actor' behind NotPetya cyberattack, expect 'countermeasures' NATO experts - RT

Federal Court: The Fourth Amendment Does Not Protect Your …

Posted on July 4, 2017 by Danzig

In a dangerously flawed decision unsealed today, a federal district court in Virginia ruled that a criminal defendant has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his personal computer, located inside his home. According to the court, the federal government does not need a warrant to hack into an individual's computer.

This decision is the latest in, and perhaps the culmination of, a series of troubling decisions in prosecutions stemming from the FBIs investigation of Playpena Tor hidden services site hosting child pornography. The FBI seized the server hosting the site in 2014, but continued to operate the site and serve malware to thousands of visitors that logged into the site. The malware located certain identifying information (e.g., MAC address, operating system, the computers Host name; etc) on the attacked computer and sent that information back to the FBI. There are hundreds of prosecutions, pending across the country, stemming from this investigation.

Courts overseeing these cases have struggled to apply traditional rules of criminal procedure and constitutional law to the technology at issue. Recognizing this, we've been participating as amicus to educate judges on the significant legal issues these cases present. In fact, EFF filed an amicus brief in this very case, arguing that the FBIs investigation ran afoul of the Fourth Amendment. The brief, unfortunately, did not have the intended effect.

The implications for the decision, if upheld, are staggering: law enforcement would be free to remotely search and seize information from your computer, without a warrant, without probable cause, or without any suspicion at all. Tosay the least, the decision is bad news for privacy. But it's also incorrect as a matter of law, and we expect there is little chance it would hold up on appeal. (It also was not the central component of the judge's decision, which also diminishes the likelihood that it will become reliable precedent.)

But the decision underscores a broader trend in these cases: courts across the country, faced with unfamiliar technology and unsympathetic defendants, are issuing decisions that threaten everyone's rights. As hundreds of these cases work their way through the federal court system, we'll be keeping a careful eye on these decisions, developing resources to help educate the defense bar, and doing all we can to ensure that the Fourth Amendment's protections for our electronic devices aren't eroded further. We'll be writing more about these cases in the upcoming days, too, so be sure to check back in for an in-depth look at the of the legal issues in these cases, and the problems with the way the FBI handled its investigation.

A Federal Judge Halts California’s Confiscation of High-Capacity Magazines – National Review

Posted on July 4, 2017 by Danzig

In 2000, California banned the sale of firearm magazines that can hold more than ten rounds. Residents who already possessed such magazines were grandfathered in. Or at least that was the promise.

Recently, Californians approved Proposition 63, which would have required all grandfathered owners to surrender those magazines by July 1, 2017, or face up to a year in prison. Civil-rights groups challenged the confiscation in federal courts. With less than a day to spare, Judge Roger T. Benitez of the Southern District of California blocked the measure from going into effect. In his thoughtful opinion, he meticulously deconstructs every strawman erected by gun-control advocates, who can show no evidence that limiting magazine sizes will improve public safety. No doubt this decision will be appealed, but the higher courts should take note: Judge Benitez provided a clinic on how to scrutinize laws that restrict Second Amendments rights.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right is not limited to guns; it extends also to the ammunition and magazines that make the gun operable. Californias law directly infringes on that right, by prohibiting law-abiding firearm owners from using their magazine of choice for self-defense. Following Heller, lower courts have held that the government can ban certain types of arms only if it demonstrates that doing so will reasonably protect public safety. Unfortunately, in the past, most judges simply rubber-stamp whatever evidence the state provides to justify gun-control measures, whether or not it fits with public safety.

Not Judge Benitez. He refused to defer to the attorney generals incomplete studies from unreliable sources about a homogenousmass of horrible crimes in jurisdictions near and far for which large capacity magazines were not the cause. With the precision of a scalpel, the court systemically sliced apart the governments unpersuasive efforts to justify the ban. For example, the attorney general had relied on a survey of shootings published by Mother Jones, a progressive magazine. Judge Benitez dismissed the publication, which has rarely been mentioned by any court as reliable evidence. Moreover, he added, it is fair to say that the magazine survey lacks some of the earmarks of a scientifically designed and unbiased collection of data.

What about the governments citation of a survey issued by the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns? Judge Benitez noted that this group, founded by former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, is apparently not a pro-gun rights organization. That is an understatement. More significantly, the court concluded, the survey of 92 mass shootings 82 of which were outside California does not demonstrate that the ban on possession of magazines holding any more than 10 rounds would reasonably help the state to achieve its public-safety goals. Of the ten shootings in California, eight were not known to involve high-capacity magazines, and two involved magazines that were probably illegal. For example, the Santa Monica shooter used high-capacity magazines that were likely shipped from outside California. Criminalizing possession of magazines holding any more than 10 rounds, the court reasoned, likely would not have provided additional protection from gun violence for citizens or police officers or prevented the crime. More important, even though millions of high-capacity magazine are owned nationwide, the mayors survey could identify only six mass-shooting incidents between 2009 and 2013 that employed them.

The governments expert witnesses fared no better. The court dismissed their evidence as little more than anecdotal accounts, collected by biased entities, on which educated surmises and tautological observations are framed. One professor said the ban on high-capacity magazines seems prudent, based only on what Judge Benitez labelled a complete absence of reliable studies done on formal data sets. Another professor justified the ban on large magazines by citing the need to force mass shooters to pause and reload ammunition. That argument, supported by zero data, is belied by common experience. The court noted that during mass shootings in Alexandria, Va., and Fort Hood, Texas, mass shooters were able to reload several times without difficulty; they were stopped only when confronted by another shooter. In any event, why stop at ten rounds? For example, New York sought to limit magazine sizes to seven rounds, because the average defensive gun use involves on average two rounds. Judge Benitez asked, somewhat rhetorically, why not then limit magazines to three rounds?

In other contexts, courts are perfectly comfortable second-guessing the governments need to promote public safety even concerning the rights of aliens outside the United States and in delicate matters of foreign affairs. For example, in recent litigation over the travel ban, federal courts have dismissed the executive branchs goal of protecting national security as a fraud. But with the Second Amendment, courts have regrettably treated the right to keep and bear arms as a second-class right and consistently accepted the governments interests as articles of blind faith.

Not so in Judge Benitezs courtroom. He explained that the phrase gun violence may not be invoked as a talismanic incantation to justify any exercise of state power. In any case, the measures in question would not deter crime. Criminals intent on violence would then equip themselves with multiple weapons, Benitez observed. Or, as Justice Stephen Breyer noted last year in an opinion striking down Texass abortion laws, determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations. (Of course, the right to keep and bear arms is framed in the Constitution; a right to privacy is not.) Criminals bent on breaking the law will break the law. Confiscation measures like Proposition 63 punish law-abiding citizens, limit their ability to defend themselves, and have at best a negligible impact on public safety.

On the same day that Judge Benitez issued his important decision, another federal judge in Sacramento reached the opposite result, allowing the confiscation measure to go into effect. The California attorney general will no doubt seek an emergency stay from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to nullify Judge Benitezs decision. Second Amendment rights, alas, have not fared well in that court. Because of the urgency of this case, sooner or later an emergency petition may wind up on the desk of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who supervises appeals from California. Justice Kennedy joined the Heller decision in 2008 and two years later joined the follow-up case of McDonald v. City of Chicago. But since 2010, the Court has not heard arguments in any Second Amendment case.

Regrettably, last week the Supreme Court turned away another case from California that concerned the right to carry outside the home. Only Justice Clarence Thomas and his newest colleague, Justice Neil Gorsuch, disagreed: The Courts decision to deny certiorari in this case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right, Thomas wrote. Over the last seven years, the justices have hesitated to expand gun rights beyond allowing law-abiding citizens to keep a firearm in the home. Proposition 63 is radically different from previous appeals: It attempts to take away what law-abiding citizens already have. Perhaps now that the fear of confiscation has come to fruition, five justices will intervene and ensure that Americans are not punished for exercising their constitutional rights.

READ MORE: Its Still a Mad, Mad California Californias Medicaid-Spending Crisis Californias Calexit Craziness

Josh Blackman is a constitutional-law professor at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and the author of Unraveled: Obamacare, Religious Liberty, and Executive Power.

See more here:

A Federal Judge Halts California's Confiscation of High-Capacity Magazines - National Review

CNS Files Ninth Circuit Brief in Six-Year First Amendment Odyssey – Courthouse News Service

Posted on July 4, 2017 by Danzig

In a six-year First Amendment battle, Courthouse News has filed its appellate brief defending Federal Judge James Oteros finding that the court clerk in Venturamust let the press see new civil actions before they are processed.

Californias Judicial Council has tried in a number of ways to roll back traditional press access where journalists would review the new cases before they were docketed. That term is now subsumed into the word processing, the set of procedures applied to get a new case into a court computer system.

The diehard resistance by the council and clerk Michael Planet to pre-processing access contrasts with the prompt and efficient resolution of the same issue in a number of other federal jurisdictions.

Planet undervalues the First Amendment, the medias role in democracy, and the importance of access to civil records, says the 90-page brief filed by CNS lawyers late Friday before the long Fourth of July weekend.

In the preceding 74-page brief, clerk and council argued, It has always been Ventura Superior Courts policy to provide reasonable access to all civil records.

On the cases third trip to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the clerk relied on an argument made intermittently in the six years of litigation, claiming that the First Amendment right of access does not attach to civil filings until a judge makes a ruling, an event that generally comes months if not years after a new case is filed.

The same underlying issue press access before processing was quickly resolved last year in the Southern District of New York. Ruling from the bench, Judge Edgardo Ramos enjoined the state court clerk in Manhattan from withholding access while he processed the new cases.

I find that injunctive relief would serve the public interest, said Ramos from the bench. There is, of course, an important First Amendment interest in timely access.

The injunction was granted in December, about one month after CNS filed the action, and by the end of January, the Manhattan clerk had set up an electronic in-box that allowed journalists to see the new cases the moment they are filed. E-filing is required in many New York courts, including Manhattan.

Since the ruling by Ramos, eight county courts in and around New York City have set up in-boxes for the press, providing access along the same lines as federal courts.

In an earlier Texas case on the same issue, U.S. District Court Judge Melinda Harmon enjoined the Houston clerk who was withholding access while he docketed, scanned and put paper-filed complaints online.

In both cases, the litigation cost less than on tenth of the millions of dollars spent to establish prompt access in one small court in California.

In the California case, Judge Otero in the Central District ruled last year that the First Amendment attaches to new civil actions upon their receipt by the Ventura clerk. In his judgment, he wrote that the press has the right to see the new cases before they are processed, whether they are paper-filed or e-filed.

The clerk and council then appealed his ruling to the Ninth Circuit, where judges Kim Wardlaw, Mary Murguia and N. Randy Smith will hear the case.

At the same time, Otero declined a request to publish his ruling which ran 30, single-spaced pages and, in response to CNSs request for attorney fees as the prevailing party, cut the lodestar amount by 63 percent. That cut, reducing a $5 million cost to a roughly $2 million reimbursement, is the subject of a cross-appeal by CNS and explains the length of the brief.

Since then, Oteros writ has not extended very far, even within the Central District.

A small set of clerks have stonewalled the ruling, including Orange County Clerk David Yamasaki who continues to withhold access to newly filed complaints until after processing. In an action filed by CNS against Yamasaki, seeking to enforce the guts of Oteros ruling, Otero declined to take the case as related.

It was assigned to Judge Andrew Guilford in Santa Ana who tentatively ruled that it is OK to withhold the new cases until they are reviewed for confidentiality, at which time they are also processed.

As a result of that tentative, which the judge has signaled he will confirm, a new case filed in Orange County at the same time as the CNS brief was filed, late on Friday, would be considered provided to the press in a timely fashion, even if it is made available on Wednesday morning, five days later. By way of contrast,the Ninth Circuit brief was available for review upon receipt, late Friday afternoon, before what many are taking as a long weekend.

In fact, most cases filed in Orange County on Friday were withheld and will not be seen for five days. Likewise, all new cases filed on Monday in Orange County were withheld.

A few other clerks, in Santa Barbara and San Jose, for example, are also stonewalling Oteros ruling, and withholding new cases from the press while the clerks process them into their case management systems. San Jose is a paper court while Santa Barbara has put in place e-filing software by Tyler Technologies.

In courts outside California, Tyler which makes the popular Odyssey case management system provides the press with an electronic in-box, in other words access before processing.

Traditionally, reporters gathered at the end of the day in the clerks office to review the days new civil cases, a potent source of news, long before they were docketed. That was true in the Central District and the rest of the federal courts in California, as well as Los Angeles and Orange County superior courts, among many others in the state and across the nation.

That tradition has come under attack from within the Judicial Council and from its staff who wrote a definition into statewide e-filing rules that a clerk wishing to withhold access could use as justification. That rule was passed by the council over the objection of the L.A. Times and a good part of the rest of the press corps in California.

The most loyal defenders of the withholding practice have been in courts, including Orange County and Ventura, that were early adopters of the Court Case Management System, software pushed by the Judicial Council that was meant to usher in e-filing but wound up as a half-billion-dollar waste of public funds.

In their Ninth Circuit brief on behalf of the council and the clerk, Robert Naeve, Craig Stewart, Erica Reilley, Jaclyn Stahl with Jones Day, and Frederick Hayes with his own law offices, argued the First Amendment does not attach when a new civil case is filed.

Rather than impose upon state court clerks a constitutional stopwatch, which starts ticking the moment a complaint is received, this Court should hold that access to civil complaints should be considered timely so long as they are made available to the public at the time the parties see judicial resolution of the issues arising from the complaint e.g., a motion to dismiss, a summary judgment motion, or trial, they wrote.

In their Ninth Circuit brief on behalf of CNS, Roger Myers, Rachel Matteo-Boehm, Jonathan Fetterly and Leila Knox with Bryan Cave cited a long list of recent appellate opinions in support of Oteros finding that Complaints have historically been made available to the press and public soon after they are received by the court.

The clerk is also arguing on appeal that he does not know what timely access means, and so Oteros decision is too vague. But most weeks since the Oteros ruling, the clerk has provided access to every single new complaint on the day it was filed, suggesting he understands the import of the ruling and how to put it into effect.

The CNS brief also outlined a standard that provides some elasticity in the application of Oteros ruling: If complaints are not withheld pending processing and can be viewed during the hours they can be filed, the result is access soon after they are received by the court, which is timely. That will usually be the day of filing, but there may be instances where complaints are delayed without violating the injunction.

In their final paragraphs, the clerk and council argued, An ordinary person reading the injunction would not be able to determine what is meant by in a timely manner. Hence, the district courts injunction must be vacated for vagueness.

They concluded, The district courts order granting summary judgment in favor of CNS and entering a permanent injunction against Ventura Superior Court should be reversed.

In their contrary conclusion, the CNS lawyers wrote, As CNSs declarations demonstrate, there is a long history of courts making complaints and exhibits publicly available upon receipt.

But in California, a few clerks in courts that adopted the ill-fated Court Case Management System refuse to budge. Influential on and funded by the state Judicial Council, they seek to upturn history and logic by allowing clerks to treat complaints as private until after processing, judicial action, judgment, or forever if a case settles first.

Forced to spend a small fortune over six years and three appeals to right this public wrong at just one court, the brief wound up, CNS respectfully requests this Court affirm the merits order, so clerks cannot deny access until after processing.

Like Loading...

Go here to see the original:

CNS Files Ninth Circuit Brief in Six-Year First Amendment Odyssey - Courthouse News Service

FAQ | Jitsi | Futurist Transhuman News Blog | Prometheism.net

Posted on July 4, 2017 by Danzig

Will Cryptocurrency See a Third Wave? – The Merkle

Posted on July 4, 2017 by Danzig

The cryptocurrency industry continues to attract a lot of investors and speculators. So far, we have seen two waves of major price momentum for Bitcoin and other currencies. The bigger question is whether or not we will seethe third wave, and if so, what we can expect from it. While it is impossible to predict the future,there is a lot of optimism forBitcoin right now.

The past nine years have been spectacular for both Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin first started getting a lot of mainstream attention near the end of 2013. At that time, BTCs price was skyrocketing, and even hit a peak of $1,200 in early 2014. Unfortunately, that peak was created by the nefarious Willy Bot artificially pushing up the price. Eventually, that manipulation caused a major Bitcoin price decline throughout most of 2014 and early 2015.

Earlier in the year 2017, we witnessed the second wave of cryptocurrency. With Bitcoin hitting an all time high of just over US$3,000 and Ethereum surpassing the $400 mark in quick succession, there wasa lot of positive momentum. However, bullish markets never last forever.Both Bitcoin and Ethereum are going through a bearish period right now. Despite this, Bitcoin price still hovers around $2,450 and Ethereum is trading above $250.

Without the historical market context of these previous two waves, things look very different. All major cryptocurrencies are in the red, and it looks like the market will continue this bearish trend for quite some time to come. In fact, there is only one currency in the top 50 which has not lost value over the past 24 hours. Looking at the top 100 currencies, only 7 have not lost value.

It is important to keep in mind cryptocurrency investing is not ashort-term gains these days. Instead, one always has to look at the bigger picture. Bitcoin has been one of the worlds best-performing assets since 2012. It has seen many setbacks but always comes back much stronger. As traders like to say, we are setting higher lows all the time, which indicates a future uptrend is around the corner. When that corner will come within our grasp is anybodys guess.

In fact, these temporary setbacks are not reducing the optimism among Bitcoin price speculators by any means. Bobby Lee, the CEO of BTCC, stated how Bitcoin can be worth between $5,000 and $11,000 by 2020. Granted, that is quite a wide price gap, but it would indicate the Bitcoin price will at least double in the next three years. There will be another Bitcoin block reward halving in 2020, which means less new coins will enter the ecosystem every day. It also gives Bitcoin three more years to mature and gain more mainstream traction.

Fred Wilson, the managing partner and co-founder of Union Square Ventures, feels Ethereums market cap will ultimately grow larger than Bitcoins. That is a boldstatement, especially when considering Bitcoins market cap may very well double, triple, or even quadruple by 2020 if Bobby Lee is correct. However, it is unclear how many Ether was in circulation at that time, as Ethereum has no fixed supply cap, unlike Bitcoin. Assuming there is 100 billion ETH in circulation at that time, it would put the value of one Ether at the US$850 mark. This is a very optimistic outlook, andone speculators would certainly appreciate.

If you liked this article, follow us on Twitter @themerklenews and make sure to subscribe to our newsletter to receive the latest bitcoin, cryptocurrency, and technology news.

Go here to see the original:

Will Cryptocurrency See a Third Wave? - The Merkle

How to Avoid Being Scammed by a Cryptocurrency ICO – The Merkle

Posted on July 4, 2017 by Danzig

With cryptocurrency ICOs taking center stage lately, there will be more attempts to scam people as well. It can be difficult to protect oneself against thesescams, butsome basic precautions will keep most people safe. This new digital craze will need to be regulatedsomehow, as the amount of scamscan get out of hand pretty quickly. Below are some basic tips to avoid getting scammed by a cryptocurrency ICO.

The first step investors always need to take is conducting due diligence on a project. Randomly investing in cryptocurrency ICOs can pay off in the long run, but it also greatly increases ones chances of investing in a bogus project. Any ICO that does not have a detailed whitepaper should be avoided, as that is a basic requirement for any serious project. If the company or project cannot convince you of its use cases, you should not give them your money.

Any project that does not want to make the names of its team members public should also raise red flags. If the names and identities are made public, do some research on the people involved in the project. Do not be fooled by big names working as an adviser for a project either. These roles often lack real influence over the direction and execution of projects. Fancy names mean nothing these days, as a lot of information found on the internet is either doctored or utterly fake.

On multiple occasions, we see people spreading fake Ethereum wallet addresses to participate in a specific cryptocurrency ICO. This mostly occurs on Telegram, butSlack can suffer from the same problem. Never trust an Ethereum wallet address given to you by strangers on the internet. Do not ask for these addresses either, as you are only asking to be scammed by doing so. Only use the information provided by the team itself and the address shown on the legitimate ICO website.

Perhaps the biggest threat to cryptocurrency ICOs and potential investors comes in the form of phishing sites. More often than not, we see clone websites for upcoming ICOs appear on the internet. This can affect both CIO and pre-ICO campaigns, which makes it very difficult for novice users to determine which site is legitimate and which one is not. The best course of action is to links spread on Telegram or Slack, other than the ones provided by the moderators and team members.

Since phishing sites look exactly like the real ICO site, investors would almost need to know the official site before it launches. That is very hard to achieve, as most ICO projects want to keep pre-ICO and ICO links undisclosed until the campaign starts. Keeping tabs on projects through platforms such as Tokenmarket will guarantee users will always find the correct URL for a cryptocurrency ICO. It is by far one of the most trusted ICO websites out there.

Even though TokenMarket does a good job to keep track of cryptocurrency ICOs, we will ultimately need a decentralized registry for these types of projects. Adecentralized registry can provide whitelist services to cull the phishing sites from the real platforms. Ensuring people provide the correct information in the first place can be a challenge, though. For some reason, virtually all cryptocurrency ICOs rely on centralized technology, which is problematic to any such efforts.

If you liked this article, follow us on Twitter @themerklenews and make sure to subscribe to our newsletter to receive the latest bitcoin, cryptocurrency, and technology news.

See the rest here:

How to Avoid Being Scammed by a Cryptocurrency ICO - The Merkle

Japan Ends Consumption Tax On Cryptocurrencies – ETHNews

Posted on July 4, 2017 by Danzig

News world

Japans end on consumption tax furthers the countrys overall agenda.

As of July 1, 2017, Japanese cryptocurrency holders are now exempt from the eight percent Japanese Consumption Tax (JCT). The exemption is the result of 2017 tax reform revisions which were proposed by the Japanese Liberal Democratic Party and Komeito Party in December. As per the KPMG Japan Tax Newsletter from December 14, 2016:

It is proposed that transfers of virtual currencies will be treated as non-taxable transactions, since virtual currencies were officially defined as a means of payment by virtue of the amendment to the Payment Services Act which was passed in May this year. The document continues, This amendment will be applied to transactions carried out on or after 1 July 2017.

The proposed amendment was passed by the Japanese National Diet on March 27, 2017. Days later, Japans Financial Services Agency authorized cryptocurrencies to be used as a form of payment. As a result, the country has experienced increased cryptocurrency related activity. Further, the country has also taken steps to capitalize upon this action by securing likeminded partnerships with progressive countries like Australia.

The government of Australia also revealed in its 2018 Budget that cryptocurrencies will be exempt from double Goods and Services taxation after July 1, 2017.

On June 23, both countries announced the co-operative framework that would create opportunities and facilitate innovation within the financial service industries of both jurisdictions. The partnership encourages both parties to share with each other vital information on Innovation Functions like cryptocurrencies. As per The Financial Services Agency of Japan:

The Authorities share a mutual desire to promote innovation in financial services in their respective markets. Both Authorities have established Innovation Functions in order to do so. The Authorities believe that through co-operation with each other, they will be able to further the promotion of innovation in their respective markets.

Dan is a US Army veteran and Los Angeles-based writer passionate about science and technology, current events, human rights, economic impacts, and strategic calculus. Dan is a full time staff writer for ETHNews and holds value in Ether.

Visit link:

Japan Ends Consumption Tax On Cryptocurrencies - ETHNews

How Much Will the Cryptocurrency World Keep Growing? (BTC) – Investopedia

Posted on July 4, 2017 by Danzig

In the world of digital currencies, Bitcoin (BTC) paved the way. The original cryptocurrency has continued to dominate the field, with prices reaching up to $3000 or so per coin at its peak. And yet, Bitcoin is no longer as dominant over the rest of the field as it once was: while Bitcoin used to enjoy a share of the total industry market capitalization around 80-90%, it now represents less than half of the total market cap. Other currencies are racing to catch up with Bitcoin, with Ethereum's Ether token appearing to be the most likely to overtake Bitcoin in terms of market cap. And yet, regardless of whether Bitcoin remains on top or if another digital currency surpasses it, Bitcoin's influence on the industry, and on the world at large, cannot be overstated. The cryptocurrency world is continuing to grow: where will it end up?

Bitcoin's success has spawned over 800 other cryptocurrencies in the past decade. Now, the market for Bitcoins is worth about $40 billion, but the total value of the rest of those currencies is worth even more than that, whent hey are taken together. The next biggest players are Ethereum, occupying about $25.7 billion worth of the total market value share, and Ripple, with about $10.5 billion. Litecoin, Dash, NEM, and many others follow after that. The total value of the industry is hovering just under $100 billion at this point, which is roughly equivalent to the combined values of Weyerhaeuser (WY), Ford (F), and Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), three of the largest corporations in the United States, according to Business Insider.

One of the reasons that analysts see the cryptocurrency world continuing to grow into the future is Bitcoin's shifting role. For the first time since its founding more than a decade ago, Bitcoin now makes up a minority of the entire cryptocurrency market. For many years the original cryptocurrency completely dominated its competition, but in the past six months or so, Bitcoin has dropped to just 41.6% of the total market. Litecoin, which aims to process blocks at four times the speed of Bitcoin, has been in existence since 2011. Ethereum, launched only in 2015, has ascended through the ranks of digital currencies at lightning speed. And Ripple has made impressive gains thanks to its unique software, which has already been adopted by some of the largest banks in the world in order to increase global liquidity.

At this point, it seems likely that the cryptocurrency world will continue to expand, with more currencies, more customers, more miners, and new technology. Of course, there are also those who speculate that the rapid growth is a result of a bubble, but only time will tell if the digital currency world will come crashing down.

Panda Trading Systems Launches Cryptocurrency ‘Brokerage in a … – Finance Magnates

Posted on July 4, 2017 by Danzig

Tel Aviv-basedPanda Trading Systems, known for its binary options, FX and CFDbrokerage solutions, hasannounced that it has now started offering trading on cryptocurrencies on all of its platforms, as well as a complete cryptocurrency brokerage solution.

The London Summit 2017 is coming, get involved!

Panda has added support for trading CFDs on sevencryptocurrencies on its existing brokerage packages and platforms Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, Peercoin, Dash, Namecoin and Novacoin. Brokers can now add these cryptocurrencies to their existing offerings.

Panda has also added a new Brokerage in a Box solution, allowing its customers to set up their own cryptocurrency brokerage entirely from scratch, complete with trading platforms, CRM, client area, PAMM facility and more. End users are currently able to make deposits, withdrawals and have accounts with a base currency in Bitcoin, with Panda promising that additionalcryptocurrency support is currently in the works.

Ori Hazan, Panda TS VP Business Development, commented: Were very pleased to be a part of this exciting new direction the online trading industry is taking. Cryptocurrencies have been on our radar for quite a few years now, but they finally seem to be moving into mainstream adoption and were ready for this change with a complete suite of solutions that have been in development for some time.

At Panda weve always been instrument agnostic, our commitment is to make trading easier and more accessible for all, regardless of what products the market favors. We regard this as an exciting time for traders and are delighted to be at the forefront of this new movement.

Continue reading here:

Panda Trading Systems Launches Cryptocurrency 'Brokerage in a ... - Finance Magnates

If You Bought $5 in Bitcoin 7 Years Ago, You’d Be $4.4 …

Posted on July 4, 2017 by Danzig

Seven years ago, the value of a single bitcoin was worth a quarter-of-a-cent. Today, that single bitcoin is worth upwards of $2,200 .

Monday marked the seventh anniversary of what is said to be the first recorded instance of bitcoin used in a real world transaction. Over the course of seven years, bitcoin's value has multiplied 879,999 times over since 2010. If an investor had decided to spend five dollars back then on about 2,000 bitcoins, that stake would be worth $4.4 million today. With $1,200 spent on some 480,000 bitcoins, the investor would be worth at least $1.1 billion today.

The early months of 2017 have been particularly heady days for bitcoin. Since the beginning of the year, the value of the cryptocurrency has surged as it gains legitimacy in countries like Japan . Investors have also come to see the currency as something of a safe haven asset amid geopolitical turmoil and there's been plenty of that in recent months, in both Europe and the United States.

And that first transaction? A software programmer on " Bitcoin Talk " known as Lazlo Hanyecz offered to 10,000 bitcoins for a couple of pizzas. For a least three days, no one took bite of the offer, with Hanyecz writing: "So nobody wants to buy me pizza? Is the bitcoin amount I'm offering too low?"

A user eventually paid about $25 for two pizzas. In today's bitcoins, those pizzas cost Hanyecz $22 million.

View original post here:

If You Bought $5 in Bitcoin 7 Years Ago, You'd Be $4.4 ...

Bitcoin is Growing in Value and Users ; Factors toward $4000? – CryptoCoinsNews

Posted on July 4, 2017 by Danzig

Bitcoin has its challenges, such as concerns about its possibly overinflated price and questions about how it will scale to accommodate more users, but one things for sure: its use is expanding at a rapid clip. Two of the largest bitcoin wallets, Coinbase and Blockchain, have posted major user growth in the last month.

Alistair Milne, an entrepreneur, investor and bitcoin evangelist, recently tweeted that Coinbase has added about 1 million new users in 30 days. He presented a chart showing the number of users jumped from 5 million on Nov. 28, 2016 to 8.4 million at the end of June. Coinbases website also noted it had 8.4 million users, 27.6 million wallets, 46,000 merchants and 10,000 developer apps.

When asked to provide his source for the growth in Coinbase users, Milne cited a link to a source called The Wayback Machine that gives historicsnapshots of Coinbase user activity. That link shows that on May 30, Coinbase had 7.3 million users, which confirms Milnes claim that about 1 million new users joined in the last 30 days.

In February, Coinbase announced it hit its 6 million user milestone. It was around this time the company received the New Yorks BitLicense, making it one of the largest bitcoin companies to gain the approval of New Yorks department of financial services.

Blockchain.info reported a total of more than 15 million users as of July 2, which also marks around a 1 million user increase in the last 30 days and nearly a 10 million increase from a year ago, according to the company website.

Last month, Blockchain.inforaised $40 million in a fresh round of funding,securing the largest Series B by a bitcoin firm in 2017. The investment, the company claims, is also the single biggest investment in the fintech space in the post-Brexit economy. The second round of Blockchains institutional funding was led by European venture capital firm Lakestar and GV, formerly Google Ventures, the venture capital arm of Alphabet Inc., Googles parent company. Industry investor DCG (Digital Currency Group) and Nokota Management participated. As did existing investors in billionaire Richard Branson, Lightspeed, Mosaic and Virgin, among others.

No doubt the meteoric rise in bitcoins price is drawing more attention, which is likely encouraging more users.Bitcoin has been on a historic tear in 2017. After ringing in the year at $1,000 on Jan. 1, the price reached an all-time high of $3,000 in mid-June.

The growth in user interest can also be explained by Donald Trumps election, and Brexit. After these two events, many people decided to turn to bitcoin in order to hedge against economic instability.

The remarkable rise amid an overall boom period for cryptocurrencies has drawn skepticism from some observers who have pointed to inflated values amid accusations of a bubble. Others are looking at more bullish gains.

Also read: Bitcoin could hit near $4,000: Goldman Sachs chief analyst

In a note sent to clients, Sheba Jafari Goldman Sachs head of technical strategy predicted bitcoin to climb higher, ultimately getting near $4,000.

Jafari, who was persuaded into covering bitcoin by Goldman Sachs clients recently, sees the current corrective course to tread longer with upward gains to be the ultimate outcome.

Read this article:

Bitcoin is Growing in Value and Users ; Factors toward $4000? - CryptoCoinsNews

Phoenix Neurologist is Charged With Selling Bitcoin Without a License – Reason (blog)

Posted on July 4, 2017 by Danzig

When the U.S Treasury Department declared in March 2013 that exchangers and administrators of virtual currencies like Bitcoin were "money service businesses" subject to regulation under the Bank Secrecy Act, Reason's Brian Doherty issued a prescient warning.

"What the government cannot stop (and ought not try to stop) it can still interfere with, and ruin lives in the process," he wrote that May. "Those who think it necessary that Bitcoin be regulated, even if they want to be in on making the regulations as sane and harmless as possible, need to remember that every regulation has a punishment attached for violating it."

On Friday, the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network charged Phoenix-area neurologist Peter Steinmetz with operating an unlicensed bitcoin exchange.

FinCEN alleges that Steinmetz, along with co-defendant Thomas Costanzo, "enabled their customers to exchange cash for 'virtual currencies' charging a fee for their service" without a federal or state money transmitting license in violation of the Bank Secrecy Act.

Costanzo, whose internet alias is Morpheus Titania, established a localbitcoins.com account to conduct in-person exchanges of cash for bitcoin a month after FinCEN made such exchanges without a money transmitters license a crime, according to the indictment.

While Steinmetz and Costanzo's business failed to attract federal attention for several years, Steinmetz had received $10,000 in Bitcoin funding from an anonymous donor to continue his work researching memory for the Arizona-based Barrow Neurological Institute (BNI).

"It's almost appropriate actually, that a cutting-edge method of funding is used to fund cutting-edge research," he told the Arizona Republic at the time of the donation.

A month later security arrested Steinmetz for carrying a loaded AR-15 into the Phoenix Sky Harbor airport as a protest against the TSA. BNI cut ties with him soon after.

Undercover federal agents in 2015 initiated a series of transactions with Costanzo, paying him roughly $160,000 in cash in exchange for bitcoin over two years. Agents arrested Costanzo on April 20 and got an indictment issued for Steinmetz two months later.

The indictment does not make clear what role Steinmetz played in the bitcoin-for-cash business.

Several men have already been convicted of similar offenses. In April, a New York man pleaded guilty to operating an unlicensed money transmitting business after an undercover federal agent paid him $37,000 for 37 Bitcoins. In May, Missouri tech entrepreneur Jason Klein pleaded guilty to the same crime after making several in-person cash-for-bitcoin transfers with an undercover federal agent.

There has been some legal pushback to these prosecutions.

In 2016, Florida State Circuit Judge Teresa Pooler dismissed state-level charges against Michell Espinoza for selling $1,500 worth of bitcoin to an undercover cop he met via localbitcoins.com, ruling that bitcoin did not count as a "payment instrument" under Florida law.

"Attempting to fit the sale of Bitcoin into a statutory scheme regulating money services businesses is like fitting a square peg in a round hole," Pooler wrote at the time.

Pooler's interpretation of a Florida statute is unlikely to help Steinmetz.

Making the square bitcoin peg fit into the round financial regulation hole could mean as much as five years in prison for Steinmetz. An associated conspiracy charge could cost him even more.

If convicted, Steinmetz could join the "ruined lives" of which Doherty warned.

Go here to read the rest:

Phoenix Neurologist is Charged With Selling Bitcoin Without a License - Reason (blog)

No Regulations, No Problem. Colombia Wants to Tax Bitcoin Users – CryptoCoinsNews

Posted on July 4, 2017 by Danzig

No Regulations, No Problem. Colombia Looking to Tax Bitcoin Users

As previously reported by CCN, the Superintendencia de Sociedades, an organization associated with the Colombian Ministry of Commerce, has in the past announced that digital currencies arent allowed in Colombia, including bitcoin. The only valid currency in the country is the peso.

The announcement was made by Francisco Reyes Villamizar, who assured Colombians that the only entity allowed to issue money in Colombia is the Banco de la Repblica, the countrys central bank.

Now, thanks to bitcoins growing popularity, the Colombian government seemingly wants something to do with the cryptocurrency, as trading volume keeps growing, according to data from Coin.Dance,despite it lacking a legal framework in the country.

Those who invest in bitcoins, according to Colombian publication La Rpublica, need to declare their earnings because its a high-risk investment in the governments eyes. Being an investment, its taxable. Analysts the publication polled claim that the fact the government didnt release an official statement on these investments, doesnt exempt investors from declaring their earnings.

Attorney Juan Sebastin, according to PanAm post, stated that people need to report their cryptocurrency investment profits on their tax returns. Since bitcoins are a part of peoples assets, the attorney stated, they need to follow corresponding tax rules. He also claimed that the cryptocurrency raised concerns among tax authorities in other countries because its semi-anonymous nature allows people to evade paying taxes.

Moreover, bitcoin expert Johnathan Alexander Higuera, stated:

Currently, in Colombia, people are not required to report their investments or transactions in Bitcoins or any other cryptocurrency, so it can be used to evade taxes. Users can invest in this virtual currency through platforms such as Kraken, Bitstamp, Localbitcoins and Poloniex

On the other hand, director of the Colombian Bitcoin Foundation Carlos Mesa, pointed out that the Dian (Direccin de Impuestos y Aduanas Nacionales de Colombia) hasnt clarified anything and, as such, bitcoiners who do want to declare their earnings dont know how to proceed.

Nevertheless, reports suggest the Financial Superintendence of Colombia is planning on implementing tax rules over earnings generated through the sale of cryptocurrencies, despite the lack of regulations.

The Colombian government isnt the only one trying to cash in on bitcoins growing popularity, after warning people not to invest in the cryptocurrency a few years ago. As reported by CCN, the Portuguese government also wants to tax bitcoins, despite a lack of regulations in the country.

According to the countrys Ministry of Finance, as long as cryptocurrency earnings come from a professional or business activity, these should be declared and taxed. On the other hand Japan, a country that decided to legalize bitcoins, recently ended an 8% consumption tax on the cryptocurrency.

See more here:

No Regulations, No Problem. Colombia Wants to Tax Bitcoin Users - CryptoCoinsNews

Select Page ::