Bitcoin Forum

Hi, i want to start a little discussion about Ross Ulbricht, the SilkRoad and the war on drugs in general. For this i write a short summary about Ross Ulbricht, the SilkRoad and the case Ross Ulbricht, so you know what i am talking about, if you never heared of this. Then i write my opinion and some discussion points.
 
Whats more to say? English isn't my first language, so sorry if there is something unclear or if there are some mistakes. I tried my best.


Ross Ulbricht

Ross Ulbricht, also known as Dread Pirate Roberts (DPR), was born on March 27th 1984 in Austin, Texas. He had a good childhood, was a scout and a typical American teenager. Ross has an above-average IQ, in high school he always was best in class in physics and graduated 2009 his master in crystallography with good chances on the doctorate.
In his free time he deals with American politics and its freedom ideals. But politics were more than only a hobby. He is displacing himself deeper and deeper in his radical ideas, leaves the University and dedicated to his political interests. The theories of a radical idealism from the Austrian Ludwig von Mieses, which continue to be popular in the US, have a big impact on Ross. With 24 years he develops to an ultra-liberal, who pursues his cause idealistically and passionately.
For ultra-liberals/libertarians the state cuts the freedom of an individual too much. They see the state as enemy. Ross wanted a world in which the government is paralyzed and don’t order what you can buy and don’t buy. He wants to bypass the government’s regulation, because the government want to controll you.
Ross didn’t know, what he want to do later, only that it would be something big and world changing. He tried diverse works, amongst other things he wrote a Website for an online bookstore for a friend, but the store didn’t do well. He played with the thought to use existing techniques like the tor-network and the Bitcoin payment system to build an anonym online market where you can get everything you want. So he put the SilkRoad on January 2011 online.


SilkRoad

The name SilkRoad refers to the historical trade rout. It is more than only a website for drug traffic and other illegal goods. On the SilkRoad you could buy everything you want. But there was a rule: It is forbidden to sell things that harm other or were procured by harm (e.g. stolen things), counterfeit money, fake coupons, hitman’s and child pornography.
SilkRoad is not about dealers or revolts, it's about the right of people to stand up and not submit, if you have not done anything wrong.
In order to boost the business, Ross started to grow Magic Mushrooms and sell them on SilkRoad. A report on Gawker causes an increase of the number of users; the site is visited 1 million times a day. SilkRoad works because users trust Dread Pirate Roberts. In 2 years it achieved sales of about 180 million US dollars. Statistics show that SilkRoad has greatly reduced the violence of drug trafficking.


The case Ross Ulbricht

On September 2013 began the around the clock monitoring of Ross Ulbricht. Beginning October 2013 he was arrested with 29 years in a public library in San Francisco because of drug trafficking, hacking and identity theft and money laundering. On the seized pc were about 144.000 BTC which at that time had a value of about 14 million euros.
The trial took place in federal court in New York and lasted for a period of three weeks. He was indicted on 7 counts, for which he was given a prison sentence of twice life sentence, plus 40 years without parole, as the judge wanted to set an example for him. However, this has brought nothing, today there are many more such sites.
The whole case was not fair. It is controversial how the FBI came to the servers in Germany and Iceland, there were corrupt FBI agents and much exculpatory evidence was not allowed in court. In addition, the five alleged assassinations were brought to justice, but which were not in the charges. They were only brought to influence the jury. The assassinations were never executed and 2 were fictitious names. It is not clear who has applied the assassinations. Many rumors that the SilkRoad had several administrators and one of them has applied and others say the FBI is behind it.


My opinion

For me, Ross Ulbricht is a hero; he had an idea that helps people and has implemented it, even though he knew it was forbidden. He is a great talent, which is a pity that it can’t be used. In my opinion, he has done the right thing.
In an interview with his best friend René Pinnell, René asked what Ross had wanted to do in 20 years and he said that until then he wanted to create something big that changed the world and I think he did.

The SilkRoad is a great tool that should be promoted rather than be banned. It has been proven that the SilkRoad has greatly reduced the number of violent crimes, you get little dirty to clean stuff, and you do not get withdrawn because there is an escrow whose idea is e.g. only through the SilkRoad came about.

For the assassinations, I do not think he has commissioned them. That would contradict the basic principles of SilkRoad. He wanted a peaceful trading place that does not harm or harm anyone. I do not know Ross personally, but I think he's a quiet person, he would never do that. Why should he?

In my opinion, the trial was unfair and only shows again how bad the legal system works and how many "rights" you really have. Some cases were brought to court that had nothing to do with the case, just to influence the jury. Many exonerating evidence were not admitted. Why? If it is relieving for someone, is there not a right to be allowed to do so in court?

The war on drugs is meaningless and is only conducted so that the police get more money for investigations. Who wants to consume, consumed - whether prohibited or not. Everyone has the right to do what he wants with his body and life. Nobody is allowed to ban consumption unless you harm others.

If drugs were legal, alternatives such as Crocodile or Cloud9 are not sought, which are even more harmful and can cause harm to others. It would be pure stuff, reducing damage as well as the chance of an overdose as you know how much is in it. In addition, the state would have a new source of revenue for taxes.

When I was a kid, I lived next to a dealer. Except for dealing and listen to loud music, he did not do anything. The police often came in these 12 years, but she did not do anything except record everything. Why are taxes so wasted? I bet the police is still being called to this place today and can’t do anything. Why not just legalize the whole thing and let the police take care of more important things where they really are needed?


Some input for the discussion

• What do you think about Ross Ulbricht, the SilkRoad and the war on drugs in general?
• Do you think the trial was fair?
• What do you think about the assassinations?
• Should Ross be free?
• Should drugs be legalized? When yes, all or certain?

Some links

If you haven’t done yet, sign the petition (https://www.change.org/p/freerosspetition-we-seek-potus-s-clemency-for-ross-ulbricht-serving-double-life-for-a-website-realdonaldtrump-free-ross) to help Ross.
If you want to know more about Ross, go to FreeRoss.org (https://freeross.org/)
Two good documentaries (but they are in German):

• Deep Web – Der Untergang der SilkRoad (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB5ZkjywYgg)
• Kriminelle Karrieren: Ross Ulbricht – Der Darknet-Dealer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmlNwCUvFIk)

Here the interview between Ross Ulbricht and René Pinnell (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYShi9dhhJY)
Ross Ulbricht on Twitter (https://twitter.com/realrossu) and Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJHvrjMcj4H0Vq0ysrSJasA)

I'm against prohibition. People should be able to put what they want into their own bodies. I actually think that prohibition should be illegal. I realize this will make the current drug problem worse, people squatting or just doing drugs in the street would be arrested and put into education camps. We could get the money for something like that by selling these drugs to the public.

As for Ross, well Ross knew the consequences of running a public drug distribution network. He got caught and now his life is over. So what I have no remorse for him whatsoever and why should I? Was the trial fair? Who gives a shit, he knew what the laws were and what would happen to him if he did get caught.

When you go to Walmart and buy something, you know that some of the profits will eventually get into the hands of corrupt people and be used to harm someone. Same with any and all big business... Amazon, car companies, phone companies, the stock market, you name it.

What to do? Only buy from Mom and Pop small business that make their own products locally. If you don't, you are as guilty as Ross. We all are as guilty as Ross.

Since buying only from M&P is impractical, only imprison someone when it is proven that he has harmed someone in some way.

In Ross's case, was there ever a person who came forward with an injury of some kind, showed the injury, and proved that Ross was the one who did the injury? If there wasn't, then Ross was the one who did himself in, by agreeing with the prosecution that he did wrong and should be punished.

Actually, there are "Silk Roads" all over the place. They have simply gone further underground than Ross's Silk Road was. Some of the biggest "Silk Roads" are run by the same people who prosecuted Ross. For example, by not proving that Ross harmed anyone, yet by getting him thrown in prison, they are harming Ross and all kinds of people who act freely without harming anyone.

8)

I too think that prohibition should be illegal. It breaks the freedom. Many People who do drugs need them, because else they have no joy in life, not because they want to take drugs. Why take them peoples their joy away?

Yes, Ross knew the consequences, but don't you think everyone has a right on a fair trial, even if they have done something wrong?

As long as i know, there was no person who came forward with an injury. He agreed with the prosecution that he did wrong. It was part of his strategic in court. Nobody thought that the punishment would be that hard for hosting a website.

It's good, that out there are more "SilkRoads". This brings me to another point: The judge wanted to state an example on him, but now there are more and more of this sites. That means the example was pointless, so the case should be rolled up again. But this time fair.

Ross's problem in court is the same as the problem of most people.

The fundamental problem is this: the word "persons" in the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment:
What is the big deal about "persons?" Your persons are your agreements. You have your electric bill person, a different person for each of your bank accounts, car loan person, school attendance person, and loads of other persons. Why are they your persons? Because they have a name just like yours, they are associated with you, you are their boss, they exist (live) at your address, BUT THEY ARE NOT YOU.

What does this have to do with Ross? He was named in the court paperwork... or was he? The name looked like his name. But was it him? Or was it simply a person like one of the above, listed persons? And, up until he accepted it as such, was it really his person? Or was it a person named by the court in ways that he named himself, just to trick him into agreeing that he was the person named in the indictment?

You see. Ross had many "persons" living at his place of residence. But none of them were Ross, just like the person on the court docs wasn't Ross. How do we know that it wasn't Ross named on the indictment? It didn't say Ross, the man. If it doesn't say "man" or "woman" in the indictment, then it is only a person, and not the human being... at least not until the human accepts that person as himself.

Why do the courts trick you with fake court persons? Because a man or woman falls under a different class of entity. If it is a man or woman, the court is REQUIRED to show some injury done to another man/woman, and then prove that Ross did the injury. They couldn't do this injury thing in Ross's case. There was no injury, and there would be no proof that Ross did it. So they played on his ignorance of the law to get him to agree that he was a person that he really wasn't, and that he was under the jurisdiction of the court no matter what they decided.

You all really need to get into Karl Lentz at https://www.youtube.com/user/765736.

8)

Then again, if people can put whatever drugs into their body that they want -- who's going to be footing the bill on their medical treatments and such. I don't think it's fair to force Americans to pay for all of this extra stuff. There's no way in my mind that this is going to be a popular policy.

I think it's completely fair to decriminalize and to only have fines for drugs (at least non-lethal ones) as a way to pay for the medical treatments necessary for drug usage.

Ross should have gotten a fair trial, that's what should be afforded to EVERY single American. Though people shouldn't give him sympathy for his sentence, he ran a drug cartel online that he reaped the rewards from and NOW he must reap the consequences of such acts. I do think that his case should really be looked over again though, as it is still your right to have a fair trial.

Their family foots the bill, or, they make an agreement to pay the bill off and are forced to work it off from prison if necessary, or the bill is limited to their shallow grave when they die.

Having fines if there is no harm or damage done is against the law, really. After all, if you want to commit suicide, let friends and family warn you... but nobody can really stop you without taking your freedom away... and nobody has the right to stop you when you are serious about it and have been firmly warned.

Ross should have gotten a fair trial. But the fairness should have started with his attorney telling him that he was contracting into the court and throwing himself on their mercy, simply by hiring an attorney.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread691102/pg1
http://www.gemworld.com/US--AttorneyClient.htm
http://understandcontractlawandyouwin.com/attorney-client-relationship/

8)

But this would be new legislation would have to be passed in order to have something like, the current legislative state doesn't have these sort of provisions (at least to the best of my knowledge)

Well there is harm being done, and that is the harm caused by continuing to purchase drugs from the illegal marketplace and the damage that is caused by the health damage of using these drugs.

I don't know if anyone knows this off the top of his head, but was the case of Ross a bench trial or a jury trial? Because if I was him, I would without a doubt pick a bench trial to ensure that the letter of the law is used to charge me of my crimes by an expert instead of 9 people who don't really understand the law.

Current State legislation doesn't legalize the amount of shoe polish you have on your shoes, either. Get the State out of it altogether... except for warnings about the dangers.

If a person wants to shoot himself in the foot, is there a law against it? If so, that law is taking away freedom. The State should warn, only. If there is a claim of harm or damage, it should be taken to the courts, and the jury should rule on harm being done. As it is, it is harm being done by the State in taking away freedom through certain of the laws that the State makes.

Common law jury trial is 12 jurors. The question should always be about who was harmed. Show us the injury. Prove who did the injury. Ross was simply moving money in the same way any business person does. When you spend money at Walmart, some of that money is going to be used by some people to harm others. They don't hold you or Walmart responsible because somebody else did harm or damage with money that was yours at one time. In Ross's case, was there any harm or damage even shown, or was he found guilty because some money he handled might have harmed someone? What a legal joke!

8)

I agree, it will affect healthcare. But the drug market is a multi billion dollar market. Tax the drugs sold and use that money to help the addicts. If the government made and sold the drugs themselves then they would reap all of the profit.

As for Ross, I did a bit of research on his trial. Some people say it was unfair, it seems the trial was fair but the investigation was unfair. So what when you have bitcoin wallets that point to silk road there isn't really much one can say in defense of that.

Here is a paragraph from that article.
"The only 11th hour surprise to the defense involved tracking the Bitcoins. Apparently nobody realized that Bitcoins were trivial to trace. After the defense’s opening, the prosecution scrambled to analyze the wallet.dat files, not only discovering a huge amount of Bitcoins directly from Silk Road to Ulbricht (apparently Ulbricht’s wallets were also the Silk Road “cold” storage) but even sourcing the “hitman” payments as coming from Ulbricht’s wallet!"

Article here: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/op-ed-ross-ulbricht-got-a-fair-trial-but-not-a-fair-investigation/ (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/op-ed-ross-ulbricht-got-a-fair-trial-but-not-a-fair-investigation/)

Well there's no crime about shooting yourself in the foot, only if you were the person who had owned gun legally and had done it in your home. You also must not put anyone else in danger while doing this. It would have to be 100 percent accidental.

Didn't Ross also hire a hitman or something along those lines -- I'm not sure if I'm misremembering.

You're trying to compare TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. You're attempting to compare Walmart, a public company that is at the whims of lawsuits and prosecution for their crimes. They're a company which must follow the letter of the law, and if they don't they will face the consequences (there is subjectivity to if the consequences are enough, but they do face them) You're comparing Walmart with Ross, someone who facilitated the drug sales to tens of thousands of people. Does Walmart sell drugs to people? No.
 
Oops, slip of the tongue by myself. But I was asking if Ross either had a bench trial or a jury trial.

Is Ross under the control of the legal or the lawful? There is a difference. By his hiring of an attorney, he came under the legal so that nobody had to determine if he was or wasn't, before.

Hitman - I am also remembering that they didn't let him say much or anything at his trial. So he might have disagreed with them all over the place.

People are dying from the legal drugs that the Walmart pharmacy sells.

If a jury thinks that it has to judge according to what the magistrate says, it is not a real jury. It is only an arm of the magistrate. Jury nullification is not allowed to be told to an ignorant jury during any part of the trial, or even the questioning by the attornys when the jury is selected. If a potential jury member is found to have knowledge of jury nullification, he is usually disqualified.

8)

The alleged hiring of "hitmen" by Ulbricht makes it difficult to defend him.

It is very difficult to ascertain the credibility of these allegations because of the dirty agents involved. I don't think you can dispute that Ulbricht sent the money to what is alleged to be what he believed to be hitmen to kill the guy in Maryland, however the question is if Ulbricht was entrapped in doing so, and if so, how much pressure did law enforcement put on him to pay this money. Ulbricht's PGP key is still encrypted, so law enforcement cannot review all of his communications.

There is a second alleged hiring of hitmen in Canada, however it appears the "hitman" was actually a scammer who may have been the same person as who Ulbricht was trying to have killed. There does not appear to be any evidence of entrapment by law enforcement in this case, although the fact Ulbricht was apparently scammed would likely mean he couldn't be charged with as serious of a crime in this particular case, so charges were not filed in relation to this.

One other thing that is not often discussed is the fact that SR was apparently insolvent when Ulbricht was arrested, based upon the spreadsheet found on Ulbricht's laptop with the expenses and revenues from running SR. IIRC, the insolvency largely steamed from Ulbricht paying extortion payments to stop DDoS attacks on SR.

We all use the money system. But the money system is now known to be a big Ponzi. And a bunch of bankers who use the money for all kinds of immoral things - especially to start and maintain wars - are being enriched by our use of their money. So, are we all guilty for their crimes, since like Ross, we support them?

Let one harmed or directly threatened person come forward and show his injury. Then let him show the proof that it was Ross that did it. If this proof was shown, great. But not a double life sentence for it. If it wasn't shown, free him.

8)

Whne people talk about Ross Ulbricht I always remember that thread where bitcointalk helped him to restore his BTC wallet and one of the helpers got 100 BTC or something. Was a funny one.

I'm fine with people doing whatever they want as long as they don't harm others. I'm just uncertain about drug use though coz once these people get addicted and sick they could resort to crime and we'd be paying for them through healthcare and prison.

As i read, many people are fine by people doing drugs but are worried about healthcare. I don't think, that the cost for healthcare will increase. First, who is paying for them now? Second, many harm is created by extender. If drugs would be legal, there wouldn't be extender in the drugs and they don't harm you (unless you're taking too much).

It's not the drugs that make them turn to crime, and it's not the person who allows other to sell drugs that makes people addicted.
Your logic of blaming the drug for people resorting to crime is a fairytale pushed by the mainstream media.
If you get addicted to eating pastry, and get overweight and unable to walk due to this addiction, who is to blame? The pastry, the bakers, or you?

Ross broke the law, a stupid law but still a law, got sloppy, got caught. He should be punished, but not like this. He was a businessman, not some crime lord. Another farce by the justice system after TPB. How can a murderer get 20 years and a young man who made a website gets life?

^^^ And the point is, he admitted that he was under the law, and thereby condemn himself to the mercy of the court... which didn't execute him... so the court was merciful.

Where is the document that I signed that obligates me to be under a law. If your neighbor makes a new law for you to obey, do you have to obey it? Don't you only have to obey it if you sign the paperwork accepting it?

Where is the paperwork that you signed that shows that you are required to obey the laws that a bunch of people in Washington, D.C., made? Or are you being forced into it by dictatorial force of the courts? Remember. 13th Amendment. No involuntary servitude. If they force you to do something - like obeying a law - you should be paid.

Ross volunteered by signing up with an attorney. Prior to that, where did he sign that drug and money laws applied to him? I'll bet it was nowhere. And I'd bet that if average people looked the laws that they are supposed to obey, they would find dozens or hundreds of them that were against what they believed in their free living of life.

8)

Great post, well my take on this matter will be discussed below.

What do you think about Ross Ulbricht, the SilkRoad and the war on drugs in general?

I am with Ross when it comes to the idea of giving a better platform for trading such as Silkroad. I also like the principle. For the drug war for me really depends on the authority's loyalty to their job. If they will implement it legally then I will support it but if not then it should be stop.

Do you think the trial was fair?

For me yes, if Ross really did commit selling of illegal drugs then he is really countable for it

Should Ross be free?
Hmm, his idea is really good and why not instead we should allow him to improve his idea in a more legal ways? If he can then I guess he can really bring a huge help in terms of economy. Probably giving another chance is not that hard

Should drugs be legalized? When yes, all or certain?
Illegal drugs should really not be legalized. Execpt for the organic ones. Distributing such goods for me is equivalent to killing that person who the goods were sold and obviously is a crime

Interesting thought that touches the notion of authority. Your neighbor is an authority in his own home so you're supposed to obey his laws when you visit him. He's not an authority state wise or country wise.

I don't agree with the system of crime and punishment as it is and I see the flaws that you point out, however it has a very long history. The Negroes in the 19th century did not sign any document that gave white farmers an authority over them, but somehow they needed a signed document from these farmers when they were being set free.
Gunslingers did not sign any paperwork that made them respect the sheriff's authority, yet they were being shot if they did not comply.
How come the police have the right to enter your property without your consent and kill your guard dog if it growls? There were numerous cases of the police killing unarmed citizens only because they refused to follow orders. Those dead people did not sign any papers either.
The world is a strange place indeed.


Are you implying that the distributor is fully responsible for any harm his product may cause? Let's make alcohol distributors responsible for every alcohol overdose, painkiller distributors responsible for pill overdose, and cigarette companies for every case of lung cancer.

People don't realize the strength of the word "property" in law. Neither do they realize the power of the jury in jury nullification.

The jury has the right to nullify any law. If people understood this, they would be challenging the laws and the lawmakers any time they did not like a law... right at the time that the law was set in place. If the jury agreed with the challenger(s), the law would be nullified for the particular person that brought the suit against the particular law.

Then, when others who didn't like the law saw it, they would bring suit, as well. Soon the law would have to be repealed for the whole country.

8)

There are some illicit drugs that will cause a person to become addicted almost 100% of the time after a single dose, that do not have any medical benefits.

Drug dealers will also sometimes give away illegal drugs to their frequent customers when they are upfront about being unable to pay, which ultimately results in it being more difficult to stop taking drugs once addicted, and to break the habit of taking harmful drugs.

In each of these cases, it is the drug dealer that causes the addiction, even if disclosure is made.

---

I believe a lot of people blindly support Ulbrict because of his contribution to the bitcoin ecosystem, and not necessarily on the merits of the case and the underlying facts.

The drug dealer doesn't cause anything. The drug dealer is taking advantage of human weakness and suffering sure, but at the end of the day people choose to do this, either the first time or subsequent times. People are responsible for their own choices. The drug war has been more destructive than the drugs themselves would ever be.

Ulbrict believe it or not was taking the first steps toward regulation of this distribution by providing more safety for all involved, including incentives for quality control. They railroaded him to send a message that this is their racket, and not to interfere, not because his crimes deserved such a punishment under the law.

If someone is selling a drug that causes addiction during the first dose, I don't think the person can be blamed for the subsequent times they take the drug.

The ethics of legalizing (or prohibition) of drugs boils down to the harm to society (or lack thereof) when specific types of drugs are legalized. To get an idea as to the harm legalization of drugs does to society, take a look at San Francisco, Portland, or parts of Washington state. All of these places have prevalent drug use and drug dealing is largely ignored by police. The drug use often happens within large homeless camps that are very unsanitary to the extent that you should not use the shoes you wear if you visit one. 
Yes, that was his public mission, however behind the scenes this was not the case. There were many scams on his platform, including exit scams, but perhaps you cannot blame him for this. When people stole from him, he allegedly tried to have them killed, but was unsuccessful because he was dealing with an undercover LE informant. When a second person stole (hundreds? of) thousands of dollars from various users in his site, he allegedly tried to have him killed, but failed to perform enough due diligence to even realize these people don't exist. IIRC, his business was insolvent for many months (if not longer) before it was forced to close due to multiple unexpected business expenses over many months. The murder for hire was not proven, however the undercover agent did know the location/identity of the person who had stolen from Ulbtict.

Sorry, but absolving people of personal responsibility in this situation is a fantasy. Additionally I don't buy your premise of instantly addictive substances for a second. If you know anything about addition, it has more to do with personality types than the drugs involved, and some people are simply more predisposed to addiction, so this premise of instant addiction is more of a result of genetic factors than the drug itself.

As far as the rest of this, it is clear that agents involved with this investigation were proven corrupt and convicted for embezzling resources from this operation. Also there is some question of exactly when control of SR was handed over, and if others still maintained access leaving reasonable doubt as to Ulbricht's personal involvement. Furthermore it would have been a simple task to stage the more serious accusations. The fact that any of this needs to happen is a travesty, and the drug war needs to be ended and shifted to a legalized, regulated, medical approach otherwise this will keep happening.

Ulbricht's lawyers brought this up in opening statements, and in pre-trial motions (? - IIRC), but didn't provide any evidence to back this up, nor did anyone testify to this effect. I don't particularly believe ownership of SR was ever transferred based on the fact that the SR "cold wallet" (was not *really* cold) was found on his laptop when he was arrested that contained the private keys to addresses used in 2012. There is also the fact that, to my knowledge, SR users were never told to start using new deposit addresses, which could indicate new ownership of the site (among other things).

You are correct that the agents working out of one of the FBI field offices, the Maryland office I believe were corrupt and has stolen from Ulbricht via the moderator account of the moderator of SR that was arrested.

I am having trouble finding it now, however I remember reading an excerpt from Ulbricht's diary acknowledging that he was risking a life sentence by doing the prep work to get SR launched (by growing the mushrooms in a cabin). A life sentence for that would probably be unrealistic.

I think we can agree to disagree on who is to blame on the harmful effects of drug use. However the current laws make both possession and distribution/selling illicit drugs illegal. If you believe the laws on the books are wrong or bad, you should try to get politicians elected who will vote to change the laws, or try to get current politicians to change the laws. I don't think it is okay to 'look the other way' just because you believe a law is bad.

Laws are laws, and if the law was applied in an unbiased way he never would have got so much time. He was railroaded by anyone's definition to make an example of him.

Sorry to nerco bump this thread....

---

It appears that Ulbricht is likely to get pardoned in the near future. Trump said (https://archive.is/ALwRe#selection-2037.0-2040.0) today that he will commute the sentence of DPR/Ulbricht when he is reelected.

I have mixed feelings about this. His sentence is certainly harsh for the crimes he was convicted of. OTOH, there is substantial evidence that he intended to use violence to protect his business. It would be inappropriate for the judge to consider this when handing down his sentence because he was not convicted of this, but as someone outside the judicial process, I am free to consider any evidence that is available to me.

In the US...

A man or woman being accused and going to court should never have an attorney. In fact, he should never represent himself. Rather, he should stand present, unrepresented.

The accused has the right to face his accuser. If Ross had been unrepresented, he would have the right to get his accuser on the stand under oath or affirmation, so that he could question his accuser. Who was his accuser? The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Call 3 times for your accuser to get on the stand. Nobody called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA could ever get on the stand. Case dismissed.

Ross, like most of us, had attorneys. So, he shot himself in the foot - head. Consider what a client of an attorney is >>> https://www.youarelaw.org/Download/CorpusJurisSecundum-AttorneyClient.pdf. And look here to find more - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=corpus+juris+secundum+-+client+of+an+attorney&ia=web.

Ross needs to rescind his signature off all paperwork regarding his case, and require a new trial without attorneys. Success would be difficult for him now that things have gone this far. But outside of Trump pardoning him, it might be the only way.

8)

Any examples of your legal strategy being used successfully?  Or even unsuccessfully? 

The examples are all over the place. Doing it right gets the DA to drop the case before it gets recorded. However, back in the early 1800's this was almost the only way it was done. Go look at the old cases before the Civil War to see loads of wins like this. Or, you could check out the "Judge Judy" cases.

8)

Well, I am trying on how to get on compatible passage on this with viable opinion.
Prohibition can actually ruin ones life and can hinder carrier and blind folding know knowledgeable ideas from an individual which could be innovative and be useful to the World but due to how the government has always tended to assume they knows best about the world, they rather uses their authoritative power to kill those dreams from individuals.

At other hand, if prohibitions of the law is not a legal practice, then somedays we may find the world at an extinction probably when we human are privileged to do whatever we wanted, things would go astray for over privilege can be abused.
I came across a thread in this board titled If there was no government to government human (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5484971.msg63656213#msg63656213).
So let us assumed that if there should not be prohibition at certain illiciting levels, then there is absolutely no relevances of the government and its terms and conditions as law of conducting fairness in the Societies too would be of zero adherence.

The reality fact is that government has also taken things personal just as Ross has said, that most cases of prohibitions was amenities created for the police and other agencies to launder monies from the citizens by when the laws catches up with victims.


In the first place he messed up his carrier by associating with politics and then diverted to be against the laws implemented by the same politicians he once mingled with.
Let us also understand that the government to do builds cartels and executing illegal activities which the same laws are against. Believe it, Ross was not smart enough. When you builds a program that may help the people and the government is against it, if you can successfully anonymously activate to keep your ventures in use by the people, then you should stay anonymous as well because the government will surely look for you.
Satoshi Nakamoto knew that earlier and that why the government is against him and still can not get him.

I have never been a defendant in any federal criminal case, but I don't think the defendant normally signs any documents on the paperwork involving the case.

More importantly, I cannot stress how much of a bad idea it is to not have a lawyer in a criminal case (or any case you are a party to for that matter). A lawyer can speak on your behalf while anything they say in court cannot be used against you. If you represent yourself, anything you say 'as your lawyer' can be used against you, even if you misspeak.

Further, you can have your lawyer implement whatever strategy you like (provided it is legal) for your defense.

Prohibition is a big business. It keeps a full US government agency employed, makes sure plenty of people go to jail for really long sentences, makes sure the poorest people die or have to put untested stuff in their body... if you ask me, a degree of control would be much better than prohibition.

BTW, people are free to put whatever in themselves sure, as long as: a) do not harm others (e.g. robbing to get the money) and b) do not ever aspire to have subsidised healthcare.

But that is unlikely to change. My take on this, is that despite the guy being an example of "free trade", liberty and all that, it is also true that provided a framework for services such as booking a henchman, killing services, child abuse materials, snuff media or even worse than that, and that is not "liberty" in my book.

I doubt Trump could get him out just like that. Ross is more than just a geek turned Kingpin. He also hired someone to kill a person. Although the hired man turned out to be an agent the intention is evident. But we shall see how Trump can turn things around as it seems like he will win the presidency.

Good luck to Ross though. It's never too late for a man to be rehabilitated.

Fixed your post.

Fixed it similar to the way Ross did it. Do it this way and lose. Your choice.

8)

Although Ross Ulbricht is currently in prison, he has received more punishment than Silk Road. 
But I'm very happy to see Ross punished because he certainly deserves punishment, and in many ways he will rot in prison.

Where's the paperwork that says your signature on paperwork means anything?  

If you live in a society that has laws and the means to enforce them, you can't just decide that they don't apply to you after you're caught breaking them (at least in most cases, depending on who you are) and then go back to enjoy all the benefits that come with living somewhere with law and order and a functioning government.  

You'd have a lot more to cry about if there were no laws.

We're talking US, right? It's the foundational law of the US, the Constitution, that says you have the right to oppose every law the government makes. It's in the Contract Clause and the adjudications about the Contract Clause. It's the right to contract. If you can contract in, you can contract out.

The trick has to do with what you are contracted to. Government can only go by the words it has. Government doesn't assume anything. Words show that you are contracted into government unless there are other words that show that you are contracted out.

What words show that you are contracted into government? Your birth certificate, where your Mom signed you over to government in trust fashion. Of course, she didn't realize what she was doing. But that fact isn't recorded anywhere, so everybody in government can only understand that she knew what she was doing.

If you don't contract out once you reach the age of maturity (18 to 21 depending on the State), you are always under the thumb of the government. Your body is their property in trust. That's why the laws of the US apply to you.

Formally tell them by wording that expresses that you, the man/woman have contracted out of government. File it with your county recorder, and place an ad in the business gazette of your State/County that gives them notice. You are obeying the law when you do this.

Regarding what the signature has to do with it, contact an attorney to find the foundational law for this. Everybody know that a contract without a signature is not valid. You might ask, then why can they assume that you are under the laws of the US? The signature of your Mom on the birth certificate stands until you sign out of it.

There you go. Pay an attorney to set up the contract where you are contracting out. Sign it, having the signature witnessed. And then notice government with several copies to various agencies, and in the business gazette. Since few attorneys understand this stuff, and other government people don't understand it at all, you might have to fight court battles at times.

Remember one important thing about this. Government bases everything on words. They can't do anything else. So, learn how to use the right words to show that you are not under their thumb. Many people who attempt this, accidentally and inadvertently state by the words that they use to get out, that they are really still in. Their words contradict themselves.

8)

Are you saying you're obligated to live "under the foundational law of the US, the Constitution"?  Did you sign a document or something?  '

I didn't sign a document, am I obligated to live under this law?  Don't I only have to obey it if I sign the paperwork accepting it?