If you violate money transmission laws because you pay a salary to someone (without being a licensed money transmitter) there would be lots of people violating those laws in California.
I agree, I'm just speculating on California's justification for the C&D, assuming it isn't simply a result of ignorance of how bitcoin works and the role of the Bitcoin Foundation.
Isn't a simpler explanation that they are just stupid and didn't take 5 minutes to find out exactly who they are sending the letter to and just sent it to the first google result for bitcoin?
That's a two way street. I'm guessing the Bitcoin Foundation might have overlooked some of its due diligence obligations; it looks to me like CA is 'piercing the corporate veil' if you're familiar with that legal term.
Comments
If you violate money transmission laws because you pay a salary to someone (without being a licensed money transmitter) there would be lots of people violating those laws in California.
I agree, I'm just speculating on California's justification for the C&D, assuming it isn't simply a result of ignorance of how bitcoin works and the role of the Bitcoin Foundation.
Isn't a simpler explanation that they are just stupid and didn't take 5 minutes to find out exactly who they are sending the letter to and just sent it to the first google result for bitcoin?
That's a two way street. I'm guessing the Bitcoin Foundation might have overlooked some of its due diligence obligations; it looks to me like CA is 'piercing the corporate veil' if you're familiar with that legal term.