Florida v. Espinoza, F14-2923 (11th Cir 2016)

Defines Cryptocurrency in the United States Legal System.

MM Steel, LP v. Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. et al, No. 4:2012cv01227 - Document 504 (S.D. Tex. 2014)

2 Companies conspiring against Competitor(s)

Tunica Web Advertising v. TUNICA CASINO OPERATORS, 496 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 2007)

Section 1 of the Sherman Act

Spectators’ Comm. Network, Inc. v. Colonial Country Club, et al., 253 F.3d 215 (5 th Cir. 2001)

Engaged in Conspiracy;
That restrained trade;
In a particular market

NW Wholesale Stationers v. Pac. Stationery 472 U.S. 284 (1985)

“Disadvantage competitors by directly denying… relationships the competitor needs in the competitive struggle”

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962)

On December 20, 1960, petitioner filed motions to vacate the judgment and to amend the complaint to assert a right of recovery in quantum meruit for performance of the obligations which were the consideration for the assertedly unenforceable oral contract. On January 17, 1961, petitioner filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of December 19, 1960. On January 23, 1961, the District Court denied petitioner's motions to vacate the judgment and to amend the complaint. On January 26, 1961, petitioner filed a notice of appeal from denial of the motions.
On appeal, the parties briefed and argued the merits of dismissal of the complaint and denial of petitioner's motions by the District Court. Notwithstanding, the Court of Appeals, of its own accord, dismissed the appeal insofar as taken from the District Court judgment of December 19, 1960, and affirmed the orders of the District Court entered January 23, 1961. 292 F.2d 85. This Court granted certiorari. 368 U.S. 951.

Gallagher v. Bitcointalk, 3:18-cv-05892 (CAND 2018)

Complaint

Martti Malmi is the user "Sirius" on Bitcointalk.org

Martti Malmi was the 2nd Human Being to ever touch the Bitcoin code on Github. This is on the record on Github.

Martti Malmi claims to have developed Bitcoin alongside the unknown developer who uses the pseudonym “Satoshi Nakamoto”.

Martti Malmi owns Bitcointalk.org

I have been a Member of the website Bitcointalk since 2011, when Bitcoin was $5 each.

Coins are hosted on Github.com and Announced with an [ANN] Announcement thread on Bitcointalk.org. As laid out in Case #1:2018cv02029, I was going to be creating Cryptocurrency Towns. The Defendants together, used Martti Malmi’s Website, Bitcointalk.org, to deny me any ability to compete by banning me, and slandering my name even though I had 0 ZERO negative points in their Reputation System. Denying me access to Bitcointalk.org denied me any access to hiring programmers, mining cryptocurrencies, or in any other way be involved in the world of Cryptocurrencies.

Just as an example of my involvement in the Community, I was the first person to contact Brookstone. They are now deeply invested in Crypto. I created email lists, and launched several email campaigns. I am part of the reason you even know what Bitcoin is today as you read this.

The Defendants are Monopolizing the Cryptocurrency Technology on their website. The Bitcoin Foundation emerged in 2012 to rehabilitate the image of Bitcoin away from the Silk Road and that is their motive.

This link explains some of my personal experience with Crypto, and explains the Silk Road Origins of Bitcoin. Understanding the Silk Road you can see why they did this at first, how it can be seen as Noble when it started and that they are in fact engaged in denying people competitive access to their platform, which is essential to the success of any Crypto project.
https://steemit.com/hive-142140/@punicwax/steemit-under-new-management

The Silk Road is a Black Market selling everything from Heroine, to Guns (including RPGs), Counterfeit Money, and they were about to start selling body parts. All of this is through the Mail. The Bitcoin Foundation began with the intent of professionalizing Bitcoin, and getting it off the Silk Road.

Which as we will discuss here, I was actually a big part of helping with before they attacked me.

Devcoin

When I came to Devcoin it had about 15 users, and was basically a Cryptocurrency connected to a Website like Wikipedia. You write whatever you want and for every 1,000 words you would get 1 share, and every month something like 100,000,000,000 Devcoins would get distributed amongst the writing shares.

So if 15 writers each write 1,000 words, each has a 1/15 share. If there is less writing each share is worth more, if there is more each share is worth less Coins.

Devcoin means Developer Coin, and people who programmed things earned a lifetime share or shares, meaning they would get like a monthly stipend. But as I brought in new writers the Developer shares got smaller. After a few months I had the writer numbers up to around 200, here is me Promoting their Coin for them.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=210446.0

While I upped the user count from 15 to 200, I personally was still writing enough to earn 50% of the shares. The developers did not like this, and they were Bitcointalk admins.

While I was there the price went from around 1/100 of a Penny, to nearly or over 1 cent each. This was 2013-2014. During this exact few months in December my 12 year old brother died, and these people started acting like I was lying about it as a scam and attacking me for talking about it.

https://www.historyonthenet.com/antitrust-laws-allow-government-prevent-mergers

This chart shows me bringing in new users, them banning me from Bitcointalk, and them never recovering

Bitcoin Town

This time was when Cryptocurrency was something brand new and we were still getting companies to accept it. When I raised the price of Devcoin, people quickly created an Amazon Giftcard purchasing capability, and others direct Gold, Silver and Copper sales for Devcoin. Launching the price higher as these people put precious metals on the line for Devcoins at market value.

I began formulating everything we would need to create a Cryptocurrency Town called Bitcointown. The idea caught fire and pretty much anyone who knew what a Bitcoin was were using my ideas.
https://www.vocativ.com/tech/bitcoin/bitcoin-u-s-a-digital-dollars-communities-might-be-coming-to-a-town-near-you/index.html

Then Dec 2013 my brother died. They pretend I am a scammer, and they ban me, regardless of the fact that they had a Merit system, and my reputation was fine. I had never even been involved in asking anyone for any Coins. I never did any kind of Sales, or a Fundraiser or anything.

Then Bud light steals my idea and make Whatever U.S.A
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/09/05/bud-light-turns-tiny-ski-town-into-whatever-usa/15172279/

And now Akon is making Towns, but he isn't really stealing it, at this point I have been banned so long he probably thought I gave up
https://www.blackenterprise.com/10-things-know-akons-futuristic-crypto-city-senegal/

We were talking about Ocean Housing and Boats once the Mainland Town got started and everything.

In 2017 I came back after learning how to generate Genesis Blocks and therefore birth my own Blockchains, and they banned my new account. Destroying a currency I had already launched on their Website.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION

In the Matter of

JOHNSON MATTHEY, INC.

|

|

|

|

|

|

Docket Number 99-27

MEMORANDUM OF THE ANTITRUST DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION OF JOHNSON MATTHEY, INC.

Competition is a rough, often inelegant process by which winners and losers (whether products, firms, or technologies) are chosen by decisions made in the marketplace. In that process, economic actors are constantly challenged to improve on price, cost, and technology, or exit. The end result is economic efficiency and increased technological innovation. Properly understood, the various challenges to the application of Johnson Matthey, Inc. ("Johnson Matthey") raised by Mallinckrodt, Inc. ("Mallinckrodt") and Noramco of Delaware, Inc. ("Noramco") rest on one ground: their fervid desire to avoid such competition and the challenges it would pose to them. Should their efforts to block Johnson Matthey's entry into the market succeed, the result will almost certainly be a less efficient and less innovative market and, ultimately, higher prices for consumers.
For that reason, assuming that the DEA can appropriately regulate Johnson Matthey's facilities to avoid illegal diversion, the Antitrust Division (the "Division") supports this application for registration.(1) More importantly, the Division strongly recommends that the DEA avail itself of this opportunity to clarify yet again its commitment to competition by lowering the regulatory barriers to entry consistent with the need to prevent unlawful diversion. As discussed below, where a market cannot sustain numerous participants -- whether because of production requirements, economies of scale, or government regulation -- its competitiveness depends significantly on facilitating the potential for entry. By clearly articulating the appropriate standard to be used in these proceedings, and by placing the burden of proof where it properly belongs, the DEA will be able to discourage the continuing use of its procedures by those who seek to hinder the development of competition

Noramco of Delaware, Inc., v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 375 F.3d 1148 (D.C. Cir. 2004)