Steve Schear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yes, but unfortunately it is not clear at all that
> courts would find the opposite, either. If a lawsuit
> names the currency issuer as a defendant, which it
> almost certainly would, a judge might order the 
> issuer's finances frozen or impose other measures
> which would impair its business survival while trying
> to sort out who is at fault. It would take someone
> with real cojones to go forward with a business 
> venture of this type in such uncharted waters.

Anyone can sue for anything.  Paypal is entirely located
in the US, making it easy to sue, has done numerous bad
things, but no court orders have been issued to put it
out of business.  If a business's main assets are gold
located in offshore banks, courts are apt to be quite
reluctant to attempt to shut it down, as issuing
ineffectual or difficult to enforce orders makes a judge
look stupid.

People fuss too much about what courts might do.  Courts
are as apt, perhaps more apt, to issue outrageous orders
if you are as innocent. as the dawn.   Courts are like
terrorists in that there is no point in worrying what
might offend the terrorists, because they are just as
likely to target you no matter what you do.

Government regulators are a bigger problem, since they
are apt to forbid any business model they do not
understand, but they tend to be more predictable than

         James A. Donald

Reply via email to