Updates on the Death Prediction Lottery.
Some updates to DPL. 1) I have added a lot of names, mainly FISA court members and people from intelligence agencies. 2) I have decided not to have multiple pools but to have every name in the same death pool. Most names qualify for 75% of the pool funds, a few for 100%. The list is not complete yet, and I would consider any suggestions that I might receive. D.
From: David - <vfwavrwava@yandex.com>
Some updates to DPL.
I recommend that you ask for "ideas", not "suggestions. While I see no reason to believe that a "death prediction lottery" is illegal, any prosecutor salivating to victimize people would want to charge 'conspiracy', an extraordinarily broad charge. A 'conspiracy' is an agreement by two or more people to commit a crime, and at least one action done in furtherance of that crime. Asking for 'suggestions' implies an offer, and giving the 'suggestion' implies an agreement, and the implementation of that agreement could be called the completion of that conspiracy. Asking for mere 'ideas', instead of 'suggestions', tends to isolate the source of those ideas from responsibility. I wish somebody (one not associated with any DPL, 'AM', 'AP', etc) would file a lawsuit in federal court, challenging the government to prove that a 'death prediction lottery' or 'Assassination Market' is necessarily illegal. That's because currently the Feds may be secretly planning to file charges against 'AM's Sanjuro or others, and it would be better to pre-challenge them, before they can act like heroes, sweep in, and arrest the 'evil criminals'. Jim Bell
Well, while the chosen name "Assassination Market" is intentionallyquite provocative, Sanjuro's 'AM' site includes some appropriate caveats (they will pay regardless of the nature of the death, including presumably: Accidents, natural disasters, illnesses, suicide, etc) that ought to make it the overall system legal. (At least, legal with the exception of some people out there who might commit murder.) Jim Bell ________________________________ From: David - <vfwavrwava@yandex.com> To: "cypherpunks@cpunks.org" <cypherpunks@cpunks.org> Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 12:51 AM Subject: Re: Updates on the Death Prediction Lottery. Thank you for your ideas. There is indeed a very important distinction here. I am quite sure that 'Assassination Market' would be illegal. That being said I run a 'death prediction lottery', which is something else entirely. 19.01.2014, 12:30, "Jim Bell" <jamesdbell8@yahoo.com>: From: David - <vfwavrwava@yandex.com>
On 19 Jan 2014, at 18:57 , Jim Bell <jamesdbell8@yahoo.com> wrote:
I wish somebody (one not associated with any DPL, 'AM', 'AP', etc) would file a lawsuit in federal court, challenging the government to prove that a 'death prediction lottery' or 'Assassination Market' is necessarily illegal. That's because currently the Feds may be secretly planning to file charges against 'AM's Sanjuro or others, and it would be better to pre-challenge them, before they can act like heroes, sweep in, and arrest the 'evil criminals'.
I think such a market would be reasonably safe if the pay-outs were covered by a condition which cancelled the payment if the recipient were determined to be criminally responsible for the death (in which case the money would otherwise be seized as proceeds of crime anyway, so the bookmakers might as well try to claim the money back rather than let the treasury have it). However, I think the operators would probably run into difficulties with either the bookmaking laws or the life-insurance laws. It is also very difficult to get a court to rule that something is legal before you get prosecuted or sued for doing it, which, given the complexity of our legal systems, seems like a fairly significant flaw. Test cases provide some protection in civil matters, but there isn’t really a practical analogue in criminal matters.
From: Philip Shaw <wahspilihp@gmail.com> On 19 Jan 2014, at 18:57 , Jim Bell <jamesdbell8@yahoo.com> wrote: I wish somebody (one not associated with any DPL, 'AM', 'AP', etc) would file a lawsuit in federal court, challenging the government to prove that a 'death prediction lottery' or 'Assassination Market' is necessarily illegal. That's because currently the Feds may be secretly planning to file charges against 'AM's Sanjuro or others, and it would be better to pre-challenge them, before they can act like heroes, sweep in, and arrest the 'evil criminals'.
I think such a market would be reasonably safe if the pay-outs were covered by a condition which cancelled the payment if the recipient were determined to be criminally responsible for the death (in which case the money would otherwise be seized as proceeds of crime anyway, so the bookmakers might as well try to claim the money back rather than let the treasury >have it).
At the risk of inadvertently patting myself on the back (I probably mentioned something like this in my AP essay), that's a good tactic. Keep in mind that most donors to DPL/'AM/AP would have no problem paying any perpetrators. Further, such systems will presumably be carefully designed to prevent the identification of those bettors/donors, so even if there is a prosecution after a death, it will become very difficult or impossible to determine if the party charged is the same person who is to receive the payment. Further, the wheels of justice grind slowly. Any such payment should probably be made very quickly, certainly within a month and quite possibly within a week. The organization making the payments will have made the payment long before anybody is convicted for a crime. So, while I think it's a good idea to include such a clause, it would (happily) be of minimal effectiveness.
However, I think the operators would probably run into difficulties with either the bookmaking laws or the life-insurance laws.
Yes, that is an additional factor. Internet-betting has, in the past and perhaps currently, is objected to by the United States Federal government. Defending a DPL/'AM'/AP system ought to be as easy as analogizing with life-insurance laws.
It is also very difficult to get a court to rule that something is legal before you get prosecuted or sued for doing it, which, given the complexity of our legal systems, seems like a fairly significant flaw. Test cases provide some protection in civil matters, but there isn’t really a practical analogue in criminal matters.
Sorry to contradict you, but I recall cases (up to the level of the US Supreme Court) allowing this. How 'difficult' it is, I don't recall. Problem is, I don't have access to the Lexis system that I used while stuck in the Fed's "gated communities". But at least at the Federal level, such a mechanism exists. I wish I could be more specific. I'll check www.law.cornell.edu. Jim Bell
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014, Jim Bell wrote:
Sorry to contradict you, but I recall cases (up to the level of the US Supreme Court) allowing this. How 'difficult' it is, I don't recall. Problem is, I don't have access to the Lexis system that I used while stuck in the Fed's "gated communities". But at least at the Federal level, such a mechanism exists. I wish I could be more specific. I'll check www.law.cornell.edu. Jim Bell You are looking for "Declaratory Judgments". //Alif -- Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. An American Spring is coming: one way or another.
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014, Philip Shaw wrote:
If I were the Fedz (and I'm not :-), I would *immediately* size the entire pot by declaring them to be "Proceeds from drug activity", and then let each donator go and try to prove otherwise. This tactic is widely abused (despite the obviousness of it being patently unconstitutional, the SCOTUS has ruled otherwise on several cases: individual States, as well as the Fedz that came up with this idea of "Sieze first, "let the perps argue over it later - if they really want too". Turns out that very few siezures are ever contested (imagine that!?!?!?), out of fear of being further persecution. In fact, YT has a vast collection of examples in HD, where you can see the pigs in action: "I'm siezing that $200,000 as proceeds from a drug conspiracy. If you want to contest it, we'll arrest you for conspiracy to engage in the distribution of controlled substances, otherwise, you can just sign this handy little waiver form which says you are OK with this siezure, because the money isn't yours and you never saw it before, and if you sign it, we'll let you just walk away.". Literal Highway Robbery. Fed, SCOTUS, and usually, Population Approved. *Digusting*!
However, I think the operators would probably run into difficulties with either the bookmaking laws or the life-insurance laws.
Both of these are great points which I hadn't thought of. //Alif -- Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. An American Spring is coming: one way or another.
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 4:26 PM, David - <vfwavrwava@yandex.com> wrote:
... The list is not complete yet, and I would consider any suggestions that I might receive.
please add me[0] to the list. my worst enemy; that fucker has it coming! best regards, 0. where me == coderman@gmail.com / 0x65A847E7C2B9380C true name just a hop skip jump from this and other identifiers, but why ruin the fun?
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 7:41 AM, coderman <coderman@gmail.com> wrote:
apologies; forgot to add: Name: "coderman" Known as: "0x65A847E7C2B9380C" Keywords: "[redacted]" Agency: probably free, but philosophically unresolved. txn d4f89ca19c9ce0e9bcf1fc47d8223e4bee07ad269323faca68ae1113fa867d16
participants (5)
-
coderman -
David - -
J.A. Terranson -
Jim Bell -
Philip Shaw