Monthly Archives: July 2017

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

Posted: July 25, 2017 at 11:53 am

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.

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

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off on Supreme Court: Vehicle Impoundment Did Not Violate Fourth Amendment – WisBar

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

Posted: at 11:53 am

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...

Here is the original post:
9th Circuit Revives Bison Observer's Civil Rights Claims - Courthouse News Service

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Comments Off on 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: at 11:53 am

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

1

1

7

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

Go here to read the rest:
No, Gretchen Carlson didn't say 2nd Amendment written before guns invented - PolitiFact (blog)

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on No, Gretchen Carlson didn’t say 2nd Amendment written before guns invented – PolitiFact (blog)

Appeals court blocks enforcement of District’s strict concealed-carry law – Washington Post

Posted: at 11:53 am

A federal appeals court on Tuesday blocked the District from enforcing strict limits the city has in place on carrying concealed firearms on the streets of the nations capital.

In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said the Districts system that requires a good reason to obtain a permit is so restrictive that it is essentially an outright ban in violation of the Second Amendment.

The good-reason law is necessarily a total ban on most D.C. residents right to carry a gun in the face of ordinary self-defense needs, wrote Judge Thomas B. Griffith, who was joined by Judge Stephen F. Williams.

Bans on the ability of most citizens to exercise an enumerated right would have to flunk any judicial test.

The courts rejection of the Districts gun-control measure is the latest legal blow for city officials who have been forced to rewrite regulations ever since the Supreme Court in 2008 used a D.C. case to declare a Second Amendment right to gun ownership.

In her dissent on Tuesday, Judge Karen L. Henderson said the Districts regulation passes muster because of the citys unique security challenges as the nations capital and because it does not affect the right to keep a firearm at home.

The ruling from a three-judge panel gives city officials 30 days to decide whether to appeal for review by a full complement of D.C. Circuit judges. If the court does not agree to revisit the case sitting as an en banc panel, the order would take effect seven days later.

[Appeals court questions D.C.s restrictions on concealed carry of firearms]

Residents who want a permit to carry a concealed firearm in D.C. must now show that they have good reason to fear injury or a proper reason, such as transporting valuables. The Districts concealed-carry rules are similar to those in New Jersey, New York, Maryland and in some jurisdictions in California.

The Supreme Court has turned down several opportunities, including in June, to decide whether such regulations are constitutional.

At oral arguments in September, the D.C. Circuit was reviewing two challenges to the citys law that resulted in conflicting opinions and was asked to decide whether the citys permitting restrictions could remain in place while the broader challenge to the law is litigated.

District officials told the court the restrictions are necessary in a city that struggles with gun violence and faces heightened security challenges because of the number of federal government buildings and public officials.

Gun rights groups and Republican attorneys general from more than a dozen states told the court that the Districts system is unconstitutional because the typical law-abiding citizen could not obtain a permit.

View original post here:
Appeals court blocks enforcement of District's strict concealed-carry law - Washington Post

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Appeals court blocks enforcement of District’s strict concealed-carry law – Washington Post

ACLU claims Gov. LePage is violating First Amendment – WGME

Posted: at 11:53 am

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.

Read the original here:
ACLU claims Gov. LePage is violating First Amendment - WGME

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on 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: at 11:53 am

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.

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

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on 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: at 11:53 am

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

View post:
July 25 Letters: First Amendment - Daily Press

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on July 25 Letters: First Amendment – Daily Press

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

Posted: at 11:51 am

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 eligible contract participants. 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].

Read more:
Start Your Hedging: LedgerX to Begin Trading Cryptocurrency ... - CoinDesk

Posted in Cryptocurrency | Comments Off on Start Your Hedging: LedgerX to Begin Trading Cryptocurrency … – CoinDesk

Bitcoin LIVE news: Cryptocurrency soars after fears of crash wobble market – Express.co.uk

Posted: at 11:51 am

GETTY

1.20pm: Bitcoin needs a few more 'swings' before trend continues

According to Sheba Jafari, head of technical strategy at Goldman Sachs, bitcoin will "need a few more swings" before the witnessed trend continues.

"Anything above 3,000 (Jun. 13th high) will suggest potential to have already started wave V, which again has a minimum target at 2,988 and scope to reach 3,691 (the latter being a preferred target as this assumes a new high)," Ms Jafari wrote in a note to clients.

11am: Bitcoin bounces back from price crash

Bitcoin has recovered from its recent crash, with the price of the cryptocurrency reaching $2,790 at 2.00am BST this morning before falling slightly to $2,691 as of 11.30am BST.

This is close to the high of $2,855 that was recorded on Sunday.

The price has stabilised after Bitcoin miners activated BIP91 a software update aimed at solving Bitcoins scalability problem.

On Saturday, BIP91 was activated after 93 per cent of miners signalled their support well above the 80 per cent threshold that was needed.

The Bitcoin market crashed between July 12 and July 16 amid fears that the update would not be accepted, which would have triggered a user-activated soft fork splitting the cryptocurrency into two assets.

Bitcoin's volatility is very high compared to the euro, the yen or even gold

Francisco Blanch, America Merrill Lynch

Andrew Lee, head of bitcoin-shopping startup purse.io, said: Were thrilled to get past this impasse.

In further good news, Bank of America Merrill Lynch has predicted that Bitcoin will go mainstream once banks start accepting it.

A crucial hurdle for the cryptocurrency will be whether institutions accept it as collateral, the banks commodity and derivatives strategist Francisco Blanch wrote in a report.

"But we are not aware of any major institution that takes cryptocurrency as collateral at the moment, he added.

Blanch detailed how currency has developed through the ages from salt and other commodities, to gold and finally to modern money.

He noted that in the last year, volatility in Bitcoin markets fell below levels witnessed in silver markets.

COIN.DESK

"Bitcoin's volatility is very high compared to the euro, the yen or even gold," he wrote, according to CNBC.

"But it fell twice last year below the volatility of silver, the world's currency for 400 years."

Bitcoins value has more than doubled since the start of the year and has soared almost 740 per cent in the past two years, according The Motley Fool.

Go here to read the rest:
Bitcoin LIVE news: Cryptocurrency soars after fears of crash wobble market - Express.co.uk

Posted in Cryptocurrency | Comments Off on Bitcoin LIVE news: Cryptocurrency soars after fears of crash wobble market – Express.co.uk

Incredible New Cryptocurrency Introducing BlancoCoin! – Daily Reckoning

Posted: at 11:51 am

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

Here is the original post:
Incredible New Cryptocurrency Introducing BlancoCoin! - Daily Reckoning

Posted in Cryptocurrency | Comments Off on Incredible New Cryptocurrency Introducing BlancoCoin! – Daily Reckoning