Which is the problem. If you think you're going to have problems with people giving their names to be part of a body of people to vote on those with legal liability, where do you plan on finding a group willing to give their names and be legally liable for things, and have no say or control over what they're being held liable for?

It helps the community by keeping the lights on. There needs to be a legal entity to take responsibility for these items. That could be a single person, or an e.V., or a corporation. You may be able to pull off having servers dangling out there is space for a while, an even have illegal things going on (ala Silk Road). But we've seen time and time again where that ends, and it's never pretty.

Because there are other legal items that it needs to do. Filing tax forms, renewing trade marks, handling requests from governments and other companies.

Tell me: If someone in tech staff were to post something they thought was legal, and it turns out it was not (just randomly, lets say something like an Angry Birds app). When Rovio comes after those servers, it's not going to go after "the community" or "Council" or even "GA". It looks for the legal entity responsible for the servers and goes for them. And there is always someone legally liable. Minimally the company or individual providing internet access to the server if the "owner" can't be found.

As for TechStaff and sysops not doing something requested if they feel it's "bad for the community", that was the core of an argument about device images. Nokia claimed it's images were copyright and needed to be removed. TechStaff bulked at removing them (someone was claiming they were "all FOSS") and they were vital to community. Legally though, we had to remove them. Nokia was nice about looking the other way for months while we had that debate internally.

Who will put themselves in a position of being liable for that, while having only the job of "cashier", and no say in what's going on?

Which is exactly what HiFo is, with the exception that HiFo is elected by the masses, where the e.V. board would be elected by the GA (in this case Council) only. GA elects the Board, and can force a new election. That is it's main power. Council has that same power over HiFo, except that it must potentially give up it's own reign at the same time by calling joint elections.

True, but with a caveat. There will also be times that the Board gets legal requests for action from outside, and in those cases, it must have authority to take the actions needed to sustain the community legally. And while that may include consulting Council, at times there are legal limits on who one can tell about things as they are required to do. (Like contract negotiations, some court orders, etc.)