According to the 13th Amendment slaves or indentured servants are allowed so long as they're "duly convicted." (ratified 1865)
In 2014, the US was said to have 5% of the world population and 25% of the world prison population.
"'Factories behind fences' is not a new idea. Traditional industries (TI)—in which offenders are supervised by corrections staff and work for a modest sum—have been a mainstay of corrections for more than 150 years." — NIJ.gov
2017 - 1865 = 152 years of slavery as a punishment for criminal convictions.

 Congressional Carnival

The Grand Jury Indictment for Two Bitcoin Traders Charged with "Conspiracy to Operate an Unlicensed MSB"

In Episode 3.1, we learned that Randall and Michael Lord are victims of a Treasury Department that has misapplied laws made for financial institutions to crypto traders and a Judiciary that is unwilling to "inconvenience" the Treasury Department. A Grand Jury indicted Randall Lord and his son, Michael, and they were recently sentenced to 46 and 106 months in the federal penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia.

From Episode 1, we know that the Treasury Department is Constitutionally-speaking, a responsibility of Congress. We also know that in 1933, the U.S. Congress handed over their control of the national purse to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, then president. The moment that happened, the United States of America entered unending States of Emergency (SoE) which have kept the power of the purse in the president's purview. Though Congress has seemingly left all control to the president, they've still managed to take time out to define things like "domestic financial institutions." As we learned in Episode 2, crypto trading is not listed, and as such, crypto traders are not required to file any reports.

What will we find out next? I shudder to think.

In Episode 3.2 of  Congressional Carnival, we're looking at Title 31 of the U.S. Code and Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations which is where "Conspiracy to Run an Unlicensed Money Services Business" can be found. We'll take a look at the remaining laws in later episodes.

Title 31 United States Code: Money and Finance
 31 U.S.C. § 5313 - Reports on domestic coins and currency transactions
 31 U.S.C. § 5317 (a)(1) - Search and forfeiture of monetary instruments

31 U.S.C. § 5318 - Compliance, exemptions, and summons authority
31 U.S.C. § 5322 - Criminal penalties
31 U.S.C. § 5331 (a) - Reports relating to coins and currency received in nonfinancial trade or business

Title 31 Code of Federal Regulations: Money and Finance: Treasury

31 C.F.R. 103 - Financial Recordkeeping and Reporting of Currency and Foreign Transactions
recodified 31 C.F.R. Chapter X: 1010, 1022, 1023 - Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Department of the Treasury

I'm willing to ask again:

How can a law—31 U.S.C. §§ 5318—which applies to "domestic financial institutions" be applied to the business dealings of two crypto traders?

31 U.S.C. §§ 5318 — Compliance, exemptions, and summons authority

(a) General Powers of Secretary.—The Secretary of the Treasury may [...] (2) require a class of domestic financial institutions or nonfinancial trades or businesses to maintain appropriate procedures to ensure compliance with this subchapter and regulations prescribed under this subchapter or to guard against money laundering [...]

This section is the first truly AMBIGUOUS piece of legalese. In short, the Secretary of the Treasury has the legal option available to force "a CLASS of domestic financial institutions or nonfinancial trades or businesses" to comply with anti-money laundering laws. This begs the question: What is a "class"? In a class action lawsuit, a class is the group of people that share the commonality of bringing a lawsuit against another party (company, etc), you know, to take them to court. Finally, a second question arises: What is the definition of "nonfinancial trades or businesses"? That's a question that may be answered as we continue to delve into the case. As it stands, we can only assume that it means the list of "domestic financial institutions" covered in the last episode.

31 U.S.C. §§ 5322 — Criminal penalties

(a) A person willfully violating this subchapter or a regulation prescribed or order issued under this subchapter (except section 5315 or 5324 of this title or a regulation prescribed under section 5315 or 5324), or willfully violating a regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or section 123 of Public Law 91–508, shall be fined not more than $250,000, or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

The entirety of this section hinges on the word "willfully" which indicates intentional violation. The government says that the Lords were operating as Money Service Businesses (MSBs) and were required to file Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs). But, cryptocurrency trading is not included in the list of money services businesses in the laws that apply to domestic financial institutions. If the law is not applicable, there can be no intentional violation. This goes back to logic:

Only an applicable law can be broken.

The last law we're going to look at today, 31 U.S.C. § 5331, is the second seemingly ambiguous law we've come across. It's title gives us a clue, but it's text is undefined:

31 U.S.C. § 5331 (a) - Reports relating to coins and currency received in nonfinancial trade or business

(a) Coin and Currency Receipts of More Than $10,000.—Any person—(1)(A) who is engaged in a trade or business, and (B) who, in the course of such trade or business, receives more than $10,000 in coins or currency in 1 transaction (or 2 or more related transactions), or (2) who is required to file a report under section 6050I(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, shall file a report described in subsection (b) with respect to such transaction (or related transactions) with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may, by regulation, prescribe.

As you can see, this section is still talking about who is required to file reports to FinCEN. The title specifies "nonfinancial trade or business" and the law says "trade or business." This might give everyday entrepreneur's a fright. And, given the ways that the Treasury Department has misapplied this section, we all have the right to be frightened. The title's similarity to the language of 31 USC 5318 is telling, in that it reiterates that this section applies to the class of businesses listed in 31 USC 5313. Once again, crypto trader is not one of these businesses. Additionally, it refers to cash, coin, and currency, none of which apply to cryptocurrency.

At the end of the day, we've scratched 3 more laws because they don't apply.

So, what happened to Lords? Good question. The enforcement arm of the Treasury Department worked with multiple agencies within the government to simulate a money laundering transaction whereby the Lords were used to facilitate the trade. In essence, the government money laundered by using drug money to purchase cryptocurrency from the Lords. As it turns out, the Lords were not breaking any laws in trading cryptocurrency. As a final twist, the government charged, prosecuted, and sentenced the Lords by applying financial institution laws to cryptocurrency transactions. So, first the government sets up a money laundering operation, then they pin it on the Lords.

We'll pick up the injustice trail in a couple days, after I've had a chance to sit down with the next few regulations on our list: 31 C.F.R. 103 and recodified 31 C.F.R. Chapter X: 1010, 1022, 1023). In the mean time...

Who can help?

Image Credit

How can YOU help?

Resteem, upvote, and comment on this post. 100% of the proceeds will be used to support the Lord Legal Defense Fund.
Share this post on LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, and whatever other social media networks you prefer. Use the tag: #freethelords
Contact the ACLU and ask them to stand up and protect cryptotraders from government infringement of our civil liberties.
Stay tuned for upcoming "Congressional Carnival" posts where we’ll dissect the Lords' grand jury indictments, examine the language of the laws (USC) and regulations (CFR), as well as discover what court precedence has already been set.
Write a SteemIt post about interactions between governments and cryptotraders. Put your link into the comments!
Sign the Whitehouse.gov Petition to have the Lords pardoned.

Up Next on  Congressional Carnival [S1E3.3]

 Congressional Carnival [S1E3.3]: US Treasury Dept's Overreach Exposed as Bitcoin Traders Sent to Federal Penitentiary [STEEMIT EXCLUSIVE #4]

Congressional Carnival [S1E3.2]: US Treasury Dept's Overreach Exposed as Bitcoin Traders Sentenced to Jail [STEEMIT EXCLUSIVE #3]

 Congressional Carnival

The Grand Jury Indictment for Two Bitcoin Traders Charged with "Conspiracy to Operate an Unlicensed MSB"

What will we find out next? I shudder to think.

I'm willing to ask again:

How can a law—31 U.S.C. §§ 5318—which applies to "domestic financial institutions" be applied to the business dealings of two crypto traders?

Only an applicable law can be broken.

At the end of the day, we've scratched 3 more laws because they don't apply.

Who can help?

How can YOU help?

Up Next on  Congressional Carnival [S1E3.3]

Further Readings: In No Particular Order

Congressional Carnival [S1E3.2]: US Treasury Dept's Overreach Exposed as Bitcoin Traders Sentenced to Jail [STEEMIT EXCLUSIVE #3]

 Congressional Carnival

The Grand Jury Indictment for Two Bitcoin Traders Charged with "Conspiracy to Operate an Unlicensed MSB"

What will we find out next? I shudder to think.

I'm willing to ask again: How can a law—31 U.S.C. §§ 5318—which applies to "domestic financial institutions" be applied to the business dealings of two crypto traders?

Only an applicable law can be broken.

At the end of the day, we've scratched 3 more laws because they don't apply.

Who can help?

How can YOU help?

Up Next on  Congressional Carnival [S1E3.3]

Further Readings: In No Particular Order

I'm willing to ask again:

How can a law—31 U.S.C. §§ 5318—which applies to "domestic financial institutions" be applied to the business dealings of two crypto traders?