Mark Herpel wrote a very interesting article about e-gold’s present legal situation. I don’t know about you folks but I fully support e-gold and I believe that it does not need a money transmitter license simply because it does not transmit what can be classified as legal tender. Gold is not treated as money in the United States and as such how can e-gold be required to have a license to transmit something that is not technically money. Anyways, I don’t want to steal the limelight or get all academic here.
Read this interesting article by clicking over here (opens in new window)
Author:
Time:
Sunday, May 25th, 2008 at 8:15 am
Category:
Comments:
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
RSS:
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Navigation:
May 25th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Alan,
I agree with you, I don’t see how a company with NO bank account, a closed end accounting system that does not interact with any fed bank system, or any banking system, and accounts that are denominated by weight in grams….how can anyone say that is MT? It blows my mind so look for a big legal challenge to that argument. But big legal fights take years and millions of dollars. Smaller agents and operators may simply not be in a position to make that journey.
I’m reminded of, and perhaps this is not a good example to use but, Larry Flint. Larry believed he was correct and fought all the way to the Supreme Court and then won his legal battle over free speech, and he even went to jail several times.. so it can be done. No one can correctly say that moving digital units around a digital accounting program with NO connection to any bank, is money transmitting, I just think that is incorrect and needs to be clarified. I guess we will find out, in the mean time, I would think a move to add at least some US regulations such as PayPal did years back would not be such a bad move for e-gold to continue operations while being in the US, or just move :-)
Mark
May 25th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
You’re right. It is as ridiculous as me requiring to have a money transmitter license to move fictitious numbers around in a spreadsheet! If anything it is not e-gold itself which should require a MTL but the exchangers which deal with US customers. They can be truly said to “move money” and not only that but transform and covert it from one medium to another. E-gold ___IS___ money, and this simple fact just can’t seem to seep in the heads of the judges involved in this case. In this very light we can argue that the Federal Reserve requires a MTL!
What is interesting is that by their very accusation the prosecutors are admitting that e-gold and consequently gold itself is money - something unusual in today’s fiat currency dominated financial landscape.
My worry is that e-gold may have a strong legal case, they are going to be defeated by long delays and the increasing legal fees required to keep on fighting.
In worst case scenario I guess e-gold could placate their legal enemies by acquiescing to acquire one of these much vaunted “Money Transmitter License” but I fear that the scope of this legal battle is not one of legal minutia such as this but one of principle. E-gold represent a dangerous maverick financial element which if it cannot be made to conform to the established “rules of the game” must be instead crushed swiftly and with extreme - in this case legal - prejudice.
Just my two e-gold backed cents.
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Watch this movie the later part and you will find out why egold is a threat to the monopoly of the Big Banks.
Dave
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Watch this movie
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/main.htm
the later part and you will find out why egold is a threat to the monopoly of the Big Banks.
Dave
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Yep, I’ve seen that movie. Also “Monopoly Men” and another one about the Federal Reserve are both good. Click on the “Educational Video” category to the right of this blog at the top. I have video links to all of them.
Thanks for visiting Dave.