|
S4VV4S (OP)
|
 |
April 28, 2015, 02:40:19 PM
Last edit: April 28, 2015, 02:54:06 PM by S4VV4S |
|
Exactly how is it his fault that someone bought drugs from some person and overdosed? Ross had no influence over who bought what nor how would they take it. It's not a law I like, but I think he could be charged with their deaths in some states. If he is facilitating a criminal enterprise then he may be held responsible for all the actions of that enterprise. For example, if I ran a murder for hire ring that preformed several hits, I could be charged with those murders even if I did not participate in any way. Simply being the leader of the group that specifically kills people could be enough. It is similar to how a a bank robbery that causes a death is on every member of the team that robs the bank. They can all be charged with the same death. In fact they don't even have to kill anyone. If the bank guard dies of a heart attack during the robbery, then all the robbers may be charged with reckless homicide. I don't know what the laws are in NYC. Murder is not against federal law, states decide what murder is and who should be charged. Thats funny, because the law does not charge the local liquer store for selling booze, that the people drink and then drive and then crash to death..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whoever mines the block which ends up containing your transaction will get its fee.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
S4VV4S (OP)
|
|
April 28, 2015, 02:43:39 PM |
|
It's such a strange, eye-opening case. He was certainly set up by the FBI to some degree but he was also guilty of a lot crimes before the FBI had even arrived on the scene. I wish Ross all the best of luck but I don't see him getting out of this one.
I saw that the prosecution is bringing in family members of 'victims' that died after taking drugs from the silk road. That's a very sly move by the prosecution, you can clearly see they are pulling out all the stops to silence him and lock him away for good.
My 2 satoshi's.
True. BUT, if the feds forged the evidence then he should be home free soon coz you can never know what is real or not.  |
|
|
|
|
|
CryptoPanda
|
|
April 28, 2015, 03:49:55 PM |
|
I think they made his situation much worse. Like all the killings being related to the agents work.
But framed him? Not really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
S4VV4S (OP)
|
|
April 28, 2015, 03:52:21 PM |
|
I think they made his situation much worse. Like all the killings being related to the agents work.
But framed him? Not really.
That is called entrapment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S4VV4S (OP)
|
|
April 28, 2015, 04:37:53 PM |
|
Nice, but we are not talking about a retrial due to the "rogue" agents. We are talking about a dismiss of all electronic evidence due to them being fabricated. That means a retrial with whatever else evidience they have, which means jack shit. If the evidnce given to the court were fabricated, then several heads should fall and it ain't gonna be Ross's. |
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
April 28, 2015, 04:54:45 PM
Last edit: April 28, 2015, 05:31:07 PM by BADecker |
|
The Ninth Article to the Bill of Rights (generally called the 9th Amendment) from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-1: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Notice the word "retained." Retained means that the people had certain rights before the Constitution was enacted. The 9th Amendment means that the rights that the people had are not diminished by the Constitution. Thus, government (which was set up by the Constitution) has no effect on anyone who stands up as a man - one of the people - because man's rights remain no matter what is written in the Constitution or the laws that come about because of it. It is man's right to start a Silk Road on the Internet through a Tor .onion domain. It is man's right to sell or otherwise cause drugs to be sold. It is certainly man's right to transfer funds this way and that way. It is man's right to have his privacy, so that if government agents steal his computer, the case against him fails right there. It is, also, man's right to convict himself of wrongdoing if he so desires. That's what the government is tricking Ross into doing. They are tricking him into convicting himself, because he wouldn't do it if they weren't confusing him all over the place about what the basic law is... the common law of the people. ---------- Regarding what justusranvier said when he said, "It has nothing to do with you casting your spell correctly... ," he is completely wrong. Although we don't use the term "casting your spell" very often today, that's exactly what it is. Let me explain. Ambiguous words in law weaken it. In court, your words must have a single meaning if you are on the side of government, and if you want them to stand strong. The exception is that you may define the way you use your words, if you want. It is similar if you are a man presenting your claim. Use 1 or 2-syllable words, because the definitions of such words can't be easily broken by ambiguity. Casting your spell means to cast (give notice to the world) your spell (you better spell your words correctly, even if there is the ability to, later, claim a spelling error). In other words, you make your claim in a notice to the world using words that are spelled correctly. In ancient times you would have called it casting a spell.  |
|
|
|
|
S4VV4S (OP)
|
|
April 28, 2015, 05:02:36 PM |
|
The Ninth Article to the Bill of Rights (generally called the 9th Amendment) from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-1: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Notice the word "retained." Retained means that the people had certain rights before the Constitution was enacted. The 9the Amendment means that the rights that the people had are not diminished by the Constitution. Thus, government (which was set up by the Constitution) has no effect on anyone who stands up as a man - one of the people - because man's rights remain no matter what is written in the Constitution or the laws that come about because of it. It is man's right to start a Silk Road on the Internet through a Tor .onion domain. It is man's right to sell or otherwise cause drugs to be sold. It is certainly man's right to transfer funds this way and that way. It is man's right to have his privacy, so that if government agents steal his computer, the case against him fails right there. It is, also, man's right to convict himself of wrongdoing if he so desires. That's what the government is tricking Ross into doing. They are tricking him into convicting himself, because he wouldn't do it if they weren't confusing him all over the place about what the basic law is... the common law of the people. ---------- Regarding what justusranvier said when he said, "It has nothing to do with you casting your spell correctly... ," he is completely wrong. Although we don't use the term "casting you spell" very often today, that's exactly what it is. Let me explain. Ambiguous words in law weaken it. In court, your words must have a single meaning if you are on the side of government, and if you wan them to stand strong. The exception is that you may define the way you use your words, if you want. It is similar if you are a man presenting your claim. Use 1 or 2-syllable words, because the definitions of such words can't be easily broken by ambiguity. Casting your spell means to cast (give notice to the world) your spell (you better spell your words correctly, even if there is the ability to, later, claim a spelling error). In other words, you make your claim in a notice to the world using words that are spelled correctly. In ancient times you would have called it casting a spell. Interesting..... Still reading the wikipedia article from your link, but I find this VERY interesting! |
|
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
April 28, 2015, 05:19:37 PM |
|
The Ninth Article to the Bill of Rights (generally called the 9th Amendment) from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-1: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Notice the word "retained." Retained means that the people had certain rights before the Constitution was enacted. The 9the Amendment means that the rights that the people had are not diminished by the Constitution. Thus, government (which was set up by the Constitution) has no effect on anyone who stands up as a man - one of the people - because man's rights remain no matter what is written in the Constitution or the laws that come about because of it. It is man's right to start a Silk Road on the Internet through a Tor .onion domain. It is man's right to sell or otherwise cause drugs to be sold. It is certainly man's right to transfer funds this way and that way. It is man's right to have his privacy, so that if government agents steal his computer, the case against him fails right there. It is, also, man's right to convict himself of wrongdoing if he so desires. That's what the government is tricking Ross into doing. They are tricking him into convicting himself, because he wouldn't do it if they weren't confusing him all over the place about what the basic law is... the common law of the people. ---------- Regarding what justusranvier said when he said, "It has nothing to do with you casting your spell correctly... ," he is completely wrong. Although we don't use the term "casting you spell" very often today, that's exactly what it is. Let me explain. Ambiguous words in law weaken it. In court, your words must have a single meaning if you are on the side of government, and if you wan them to stand strong. The exception is that you may define the way you use your words, if you want. It is similar if you are a man presenting your claim. Use 1 or 2-syllable words, because the definitions of such words can't be easily broken by ambiguity. Casting your spell means to cast (give notice to the world) your spell (you better spell your words correctly, even if there is the ability to, later, claim a spelling error). In other words, you make your claim in a notice to the world using words that are spelled correctly. In ancient times you would have called it casting a spell. Interesting..... Still reading the wikipedia article from your link, but I find this VERY interesting! Prior to the Revolutionary War, this was common knowledge among, like, all the people, even though the Constitution hadn't been brought into existence yet. Why? They needed this info to fight King George legally. It is based on all kinds of other legal documents, going back to the Magna Carta, and including the Northwest Ordinance, and The Articles of Confederation after they were brought into existence. Everything is based on property rights. There is no other reason for government than to protect the property of the people. That's it, period. In civil law countries, property rights have been corrupted somewhat. But America is a common law country where property rights rule. Government has no other purpose. What is your property? It is your body, your labor (no taxation allowed), your happiness, your peace. EDIT: No taxation? Then how would government run? By donation. As soon as people thought that they needed the strength of government, they would donate more. If it were on a person by person basis, people would receive the protection they paid for. If people didn't like what the government was doing, they would stop donating, and government would shrink, until it started doing what was right by the people. |
|
|
|
RodeoX
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1145
The revolution will be monetized!
|
|
April 28, 2015, 05:27:22 PM |
|
Thats funny, because the law does not charge the local liquer store for selling booze, that the people drink and then drive and then crash to death.....
True. But also funny is that in many places a bartender could be charged in that case.  |
|
|
|
BADecker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3780
Merit: 1372
|
|
April 28, 2015, 05:40:13 PM |
|
Thats funny, because the law does not charge the local liquer store for selling booze, that the people drink and then drive and then crash to death.....
True. But also funny is that in many places a bartender could be charged in that case. Being charged doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the outcome of the case. Did the bartender force or trick the people into the bar? Did he force or trick the people into buying too much? Didn't the bartender stop serving the people when he noticed that it was impairing their abilities to simply converse in the bar? Did the bartender introduce into court the warnings against alcohol that were dispersed throughout his establishment? Many department stores sell hard liquor. Anyone can chug down a couple bottles of Jim Beam, and not be able to drive. It isn't the department store's fault the guy was an idiot. It's mostly in how you handle it in court. |
|
|
|
|
