Then again, this case took place in the same state where a judge literally said that the Second Amendment doesn't exist in her courtroom.
Discussion
The constitution doesn't matter. All that matters is sheep still believing that it matters.
The SDNY literally said that sw is not a money transmitter. If my memory is correct, I believe the judge forbid the lawyers from using that statement in their defense. How can an impartial judge impose a rule like that?
FinCEN said they didn't require a license too.
Right. I found the note
If you read the article carefully you'll see that they're not arguing they required a license.
They're just arguing that they conspired to move stolen money.
So by not making it about the license requirements it may have actually worked *against the defense.
How would they even prove it was stolen money? This is so fucking retarded