Was Ross Ulbright framed by the FBI?

[MGMT]

I think the only thing ulbricht got framed by was his own stupidity. It will be interesting to see if he gets a retrial due to this new 'evidence' though. I'm on the fence about him on a whole though but it would be nice to get the truth of the whole story.

[BADecker]

Of course Ross Ulbricht was framed by the FBI and others, even the whole justice system. But the biggest method that they framed him was to keep him thinking that they had a case against him. So, essentially, he framed himself.

In American law and courts, if Ross had simply fired his attorneys and:
1. Stood as a man in court, present, not representing himself and not being represented;
2. Wished, required and demanded that his accuser come forward, swear or affirm to tell the truth and take the stand so that Ross could cross examine him/her about whatever harm or damage Ross had done to him/her...

... nothing else would have mattered. Why not? Because the plaintiff must appear and get on the stand (if a person demands it man to man), and the plaintiff in Ross's case couldn't appear and get on the stand, because THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (the plaintiff in this case) can't do anything... not swear to tell the truth, not take the stand, not answer questions... nothing, because the plaintiff is paperwork.

If Ross had done this, and had stood his ground and did this clearly under all circumstances, he could have been set free, and demanded his property - computer and bitcoins - be returned to him, and government would have had to do it.

In fact, Ross's time for sentencing is coming up. If he does this even at sentencing, he can get off scott free.

Listen here http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-39904/TS-963949.mp3 to see how things work (almost 4 hours audio).

[BADecker]

Look, if you were walking down the sidewalk in your favorite city, and some guy named Pete passed you walking on the sidewalk, and you both said "hi" like people often do, and you went on your way and so did Pete, can Pete take you to court and sue you for harming him?

Yes, he can try... but...

Pete needs to have some harm or damage to himself.
Pete needs to show that it was you who did the harm or damage through some evidence.
Pete needs to have an impartial witness who saw that you did the harm or damage.

If Pete doesn't have all of these, he has no case.

In addition, since it is Pete who is accusing you, he has to be available at your trial to get on the stand and testify that these things are true. You have to be given the chance to question Pete.

This is standard American law.

----------

In Ross Ulbricht's case, who did Ross hurt? Where is the person who got a bloody nose or a broken arm, or some harm that was done by Ross? What person is going to come forward and say on the stand, "I was hurt, I was damaged, by Ross." Whose property did Ross damage? What property was it? Show the damage and the harm.

The laws don't count because Ross didn't have anything to do with making the laws or taking an oath to obey the laws.

You can use this to get out of ALL the traffic tickets you ever got into. As long as you don't harm somebody, or damage someone's property, and as long as the person is unwilling to get on the stand and literally testify that it was his property or person that was harmed or damaged, they have no case against you.

The trick is opening up your own case right in the middle of their case against you. You need to write a 2 or 3 sentences notice to the court that:
1. I, a man, Joe Blow, wish, require and demand that any man/woman whom I have harmed, or whose property I have damaged come forward and make their claim against me so that I can repay them for the harm or damage.
2. I wish, require and demand that if nobody comes forward to make a claim of harm or property damage against me, that this case against me be discharged.
3. I wish, require and demand that all of my property that was wrongfully taken from me regarding this case be immediately returned to me.
4. I wish, require and demand $100,000 as damages from my accusers for filing a false claim against me.

Give the notice in writing. Swear it under oath from the stand. And stick to it no matter what they say. Say almost nothing else.

America is a common law country. And "common law" means that you are set free if you haven't done any harm or damage, and your property is returned to you. In addition, if anyone has filed a false claim against you, you can require damages from him for making the false claim.

See http://voidjudgments.com/.

Ross can win big time if he only does something like this, and sticks to it.

And, you can use this in all your cases, as well.

[defcon23]

Yes ! sure he was ..  

[Lauda]

Latest news from today:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/katevinton/2015/04/27/ulbrichts-defense-calls-for-delayed-sentencing-after-feds-reveal-six-alleged-silk-road-drug-overdose-deaths/

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.

Of course Ross Ulbricht was framed by the FBI and others, even the whole justice system. But the biggest method that they framed him was to keep him thinking that they had a case against him. So, essentially, he framed himself.

In American law and courts, if Ross had simply fired his attorneys and:
1. Stood as a man in court, present, not representing himself and not being represented;
2. Wished, required and demanded that his accuser come forward, swear or affirm to tell the truth and take the stand so that Ross could cross examine him/her about whatever harm or damage Ross had done to him/her...

... nothing else would have mattered. Why not? Because the plaintiff must appear and get on the stand (if a person demands it man to man), and the plaintiff in Ross's case couldn't appear and get on the stand, because THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (the plaintiff in this case) can't do anything... not swear to tell the truth, not take the stand, not answer questions... nothing, because the plaintiff is paperwork.
If Ross had done this, and had stood his ground and did this clearly under all circumstances, he could have been set free, and demanded his property - computer and bitcoins - be returned to him, and government would have had to do it.

In fact, Ross's time for sentencing is coming up. If he does this even at sentencing, he can get off scott free.
Listen here http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-39904/TS-963949.mp3 to see how things work (almost 4 hours audio).

I rarely agree with you due to certain reasons, but now I have to. I remember watching some video or reading something about this.
This is quite real and possible; certainly some would doubt it. The question is how to get this information to Ross himself?
His defense lawyers could be influenced by the FBI as well!

Update:
After taking a look at this website: http://freeross.org/contact-us-2/ there seems to be a way to contact him. Can someone confirm this?

[AGD]

I can confirm.

[BADecker]

Latest news from today:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/katevinton/2015/04/27/ulbrichts-defense-calls-for-delayed-sentencing-after-feds-reveal-six-alleged-silk-road-drug-overdose-deaths/

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.

Of course Ross Ulbricht was framed by the FBI and others, even the whole justice system. But the biggest method that they framed him was to keep him thinking that they had a case against him. So, essentially, he framed himself.

In American law and courts, if Ross had simply fired his attorneys and:
1. Stood as a man in court, present, not representing himself and not being represented;
2. Wished, required and demanded that his accuser come forward, swear or affirm to tell the truth and take the stand so that Ross could cross examine him/her about whatever harm or damage Ross had done to him/her...

... nothing else would have mattered. Why not? Because the plaintiff must appear and get on the stand (if a person demands it man to man), and the plaintiff in Ross's case couldn't appear and get on the stand, because THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (the plaintiff in this case) can't do anything... not swear to tell the truth, not take the stand, not answer questions... nothing, because the plaintiff is paperwork.
If Ross had done this, and had stood his ground and did this clearly under all circumstances, he could have been set free, and demanded his property - computer and bitcoins - be returned to him, and government would have had to do it.

In fact, Ross's time for sentencing is coming up. If he does this even at sentencing, he can get off scott free.
Listen here http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-39904/TS-963949.mp3 to see how things work (almost 4 hours audio).

I rarely agree with you due to certain reasons, but now I have to. I remember watching some video or reading something about this.
This is quite real and possible; certainly some would doubt it. The question is how to get this information to Ross himself?
His defense lawyers could be influenced by the FBI as well!

Update:
After taking a look at this website: http://freeross.org/contact-us-2/ there seems to be a way to contact him. Can someone confirm this?

Yes, getting the info to Ross is part of the problem. More of the problem is how to get him to believe. More of the problem shows itself when he believes, in that he can't play in both worlds with this. He either has to go as he has, or he must go in exclusively under common law. The government will attempt to trick him into remaining as he is, or into perjuring his common law testimony by changing it.

If anyone can get Ross off, winning this battle all the way, it would be a great help both for Bitcoin and for freedom to use psychedelic drugs as they wanted.

We want freedom from government. We have it if we use the process I express in my previous post correctly.

[RodeoX]

Latest news from today:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/katevinton/2015/04/27/ulbrichts-defense-calls-for-delayed-sentencing-after-feds-reveal-six-alleged-silk-road-drug-overdose-deaths/

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.

[Lauda]

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.

Well that is ridiculous. Running a website where people trade illegal goods shouldn't be comparable to that, but I guess the people running the states aren't very smart. Such a law shouldn't be applied on all criminal enterprises since it obviously has variations. Selling someone drugs, and hosting a website where someone else is selling drugs shouldn't be put in the same bag.

Yes, getting the info to Ross is part of the problem. More of the problem is how to get him to believe. More of the problem shows itself when he believes, in that he can't play in both worlds with this. He either has to go as he has, or he must go in exclusively under common law. The government will attempt to trick him into remaining as he is, or into perjuring his common law testimony by changing it.

If anyone can get Ross off, winning this battle all the way, it would be a great help both for Bitcoin and for freedom to use psychedelic drugs as they wanted.

We want freedom from government. We have it if we use the process I express in my previous post correctly.

Getting him to believe that he can walk away free if he calls upon America on the stand? I don't think we'd have a problem with that since his defense horribly failed.
How about getting in touch with his mother?  
 

[RodeoX]

It's not a law I like, but...

Well that is ridiculous. Running a website where people trade illegal goods shouldn't be comparable to that, but I guess the people running the states aren't very smart. Such a law shouldn't be applied on all criminal enterprises since it obviously has variations. Selling someone drugs, and hosting a website where someone else is selling drugs shouldn't be put in the same bag.

Yes, and in this case it's once more removed. As you point out, HE did not even sell the drugs. I could imagine an argument against someone who helped Al Qaeda get a nuke. We would not let that guy go free because he should have some responsibility when they blow up London. But how far can you carry this logic?
 

[Lauda]

Yes, and in this case it's once more removed. As you point out, HE did not even sell the drugs. I could imagine an argument against someone who helped Al Qaeda get a nuke. We would not let that guy go free because he should have some responsibility when they blow up London. But how far can you carry this logic?

It should be somehow judged on case to case. In this case Ross would have provided the location for the nuke buy/exchange. Although one can't compare nukes and drugs. Things become complicated the deeper we go.
If he does get convicted for these overdoses then something is definitely wrong. They're trying to bury Ross so deep that no amount of evidence would set him free.

That's what happens when the government wants to make an example of you.

[BADecker]

The point isn't what he could be charged with, the point is who is doing the charging. In man-to-man common law, the one doing the charging has to be a human being who was personally harmed, or whose property was personally damaged. The accuser has to get on the stand and swear that the harm or damage is true, and that Ross did it.

The accuser has to have a witness to the harm or damage being done by Ross, one who can get on the stand and swear that he saw Ross do do the harm or damage.

On top of this, there needs to be evidence that unconditionally points to Ross.

But, none of this is required if Ross doesn't stand as a man, unrepresented in any way, rather present himself, and requiring that his accuser get on the stand so that he can question him. If Ross doesn't stand up, the courts can do anything to him that they want.

Such is the basic, foundational law in America in cases where some human being is accused of anything.

[justusranvier]

Of course Ross Ulbricht was framed by the FBI and others, even the whole justice system. But the biggest method that they framed him was to keep him thinking that they had a case against him. So, essentially, he framed himself.

In American law and courts, if Ross had simply fired his attorneys and:
1. Stood as a man in court, present, not representing himself and not being represented;
2. Wished, required and demanded that his accuser come forward, swear or affirm to tell the truth and take the stand so that Ross could cross examine him/her about whatever harm or damage Ross had done to him/her...

... nothing else would have mattered. Why not? Because the plaintiff must appear and get on the stand (if a person demands it man to man), and the plaintiff in Ross's case couldn't appear and get on the stand, because THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (the plaintiff in this case) can't do anything... not swear to tell the truth, not take the stand, not answer questions... nothing, because the plaintiff is paperwork.

If Ross had done this, and had stood his ground and did this clearly under all circumstances, he could have been set free, and demanded his property - computer and bitcoins - be returned to him, and government would have had to do it.

In fact, Ross's time for sentencing is coming up. If he does this even at sentencing, he can get off scott free.

Listen here http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-39904/TS-963949.mp3 to see how things work (almost 4 hours audio).

This is literally magical thinking.

It's like you believe that legal arguments are some kind spell incantation that has power over people if they are just recited correctly.

The government never "has to" do anything - they have all the guns.

It doesn't matter what you find in the legislation, or in some old copy of Black's Law Dictionary, or whether you write your spell in capital or lower case letters.

To the extent they pretend that the law has any power over them, they do so because maintaining the illusion is more profitable than not.

The instant that changes, they stop.

I understand why believing in magic is more comfortable than accepting that we just live thrall to a well-dressed mafia with a great propaganda arm, but at some point you need to grow up and face reality as it is.

[Blackbird0]

Is his lawyer claiming this?
It seems only people here are saying he was framed. How did you arrive at that conclusion even when his own defense is not making such a claim? If he was framed you would think he would mention it.

His lawyer, Josh Dratel, is not claiming this. During the trial, Mr. Dratel admitted that Ross Ulbricht ran Silk Road. That seems to settle the matter.

[AGD]

Is his lawyer claiming this?
It seems only people here are saying he was framed. How did you arrive at that conclusion even when his own defense is not making such a claim? If he was framed you would think he would mention it.

His lawyer, Josh Dratel, is not claiming this. During the trial, Mr. Dratel admitted that Ross Ulbricht ran Silk Road. That seems to settle the matter.

Not true:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/defense-in-silk-road-trial-lays-out-its-full-alternative-perpetrator-theory
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/is-mark-karpeles-the-man-behind-silk-road-for-ross-ulbricht-it-may-not-matter
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/defense-in-silk-road-trial-says-mt-gox-ceo-was-the-real-dread-pirate-roberts

I think he missed to put Variety Jones as the main suspect for the whole plot.

[bennybong]

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.

[BADecker]

Of course Ross Ulbricht was framed by the FBI and others, even the whole justice system. But the biggest method that they framed him was to keep him thinking that they had a case against him. So, essentially, he framed himself.

In American law and courts, if Ross had simply fired his attorneys and:
1. Stood as a man in court, present, not representing himself and not being represented;
2. Wished, required and demanded that his accuser come forward, swear or affirm to tell the truth and take the stand so that Ross could cross examine him/her about whatever harm or damage Ross had done to him/her...

... nothing else would have mattered. Why not? Because the plaintiff must appear and get on the stand (if a person demands it man to man), and the plaintiff in Ross's case couldn't appear and get on the stand, because THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (the plaintiff in this case) can't do anything... not swear to tell the truth, not take the stand, not answer questions... nothing, because the plaintiff is paperwork.

If Ross had done this, and had stood his ground and did this clearly under all circumstances, he could have been set free, and demanded his property - computer and bitcoins - be returned to him, and government would have had to do it.

In fact, Ross's time for sentencing is coming up. If he does this even at sentencing, he can get off scott free.

Listen here http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-39904/TS-963949.mp3 to see how things work (almost 4 hours audio).

This is literally magical thinking.

It's like you believe that legal arguments are some kind spell incantation that has power over people if they are just recited correctly.

The government never "has to" do anything - they have all the guns.

It doesn't matter what you find in the legislation, or in some old copy of Black's Law Dictionary, or whether you write your spell in capital or lower case letters.

To the extent they pretend that the law has any power over them, they do so because maintaining the illusion is more profitable than not.

The instant that changes, they stop.

I understand why believing in magic is more comfortable than accepting that we just live thrall to a well-dressed mafia with a great propaganda arm, but at some point you need to grow up and face reality as it is.

The government does not have all the guns.

The government is made up of people. These people can be litigated against and convicted just like any other people... if it is done the right way.

The law, the courts, and the whole foundation of government - Constitution - is set up so that PEOPLE can litigate against other people who do them wrong.

If a government person (say, police officer) does you wrong, who does the wrong? Is it the government, the office of the police officer, or the man who wears the uniform 8 hours a day? It is always the man, no matter whose orders he might be following. Litigate the man for the wrong he does against you.

Litigate him correctly, and you win his bond money in court, and more if the city is behind ordering him to do the wrong.

[justusranvier]

The government does not have all the guns.

The government is made up of people. These people can be litigated against and convicted just like any other people... if it is done the right way.

The law, the courts, and the whole foundation of government - Constitution - is set up so that PEOPLE can litigate against other people who do them wrong.

If a government person (say, police officer) does you wrong, who does the wrong? Is it the government, the office of the police officer, or the man who wears the uniform 8 hours a day? It is always the man, no matter whose orders he might be following. Litigate the man for the wrong he does against you.

Litigate him correctly, and you win his bond money in court, and more if the city is behind ordering him to do the wrong.

I already addressed that.

It has nothing to do with you casting your spell correctly - it's a pure cost/benefit calculation on the part of the government.

They will play along with the charade of accountability exactly as long as it's profitable for them to do so.

[BADecker]

The government does not have all the guns.

The government is made up of people. These people can be litigated against and convicted just like any other people... if it is done the right way.

The law, the courts, and the whole foundation of government - Constitution - is set up so that PEOPLE can litigate against other people who do them wrong.

If a government person (say, police officer) does you wrong, who does the wrong? Is it the government, the office of the police officer, or the man who wears the uniform 8 hours a day? It is always the man, no matter whose orders he might be following. Litigate the man for the wrong he does against you.

Litigate him correctly, and you win his bond money in court, and more if the city is behind ordering him to do the wrong.

I already addressed that.

It has nothing to do with you casting your spell correctly - it's a pure cost/benefit calculation on the part of the government.

They will play along with the charade of accountability exactly as long as it's profitable for them to do so.

Wrong. You should absolutely have your spelling correct when you notice a man/woman about the wrongdoing he/she does to you.

You are absolutely correct when you say that it is a pure cost/benefit calculation. It is incorrect when you say "on the part of government." No government person wants to lose his job because he can't be bonded any longer. No government person wants to sit in prison.

The guns are held by government people against other government people, if you litigate the government people correctly. Thus, they are essentially held by the people.

In Ross's case, he should file claims of wrongdoing against the people who took his computer while he was in the library, and all kinds of other things.

If the people who were harmed by the Silk Road don't stand up and file a claim of damage against Ross, it is all hearsay, even if it can be shown. As a man, Ross can beat every government accusation - even if he is entirely guilty regarding some laws or codes - if he stands present, as a man, and there is no man who is accusing him. It's the law. See it broken down here http://voidjudgments.com/.

[S4VV4S]

Latest news from today:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/katevinton/2015/04/27/ulbrichts-defense-calls-for-delayed-sentencing-after-feds-reveal-six-alleged-silk-road-drug-overdose-deaths/

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.

Of course Ross Ulbricht was framed by the FBI and others, even the whole justice system. But the biggest method that they framed him was to keep him thinking that they had a case against him. So, essentially, he framed himself.

In American law and courts, if Ross had simply fired his attorneys and:
1. Stood as a man in court, present, not representing himself and not being represented;
2. Wished, required and demanded that his accuser come forward, swear or affirm to tell the truth and take the stand so that Ross could cross examine him/her about whatever harm or damage Ross had done to him/her...

... nothing else would have mattered. Why not? Because the plaintiff must appear and get on the stand (if a person demands it man to man), and the plaintiff in Ross's case couldn't appear and get on the stand, because THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (the plaintiff in this case) can't do anything... not swear to tell the truth, not take the stand, not answer questions... nothing, because the plaintiff is paperwork.
If Ross had done this, and had stood his ground and did this clearly under all circumstances, he could have been set free, and demanded his property - computer and bitcoins - be returned to him, and government would have had to do it.

In fact, Ross's time for sentencing is coming up. If he does this even at sentencing, he can get off scott free.
Listen here http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-39904/TS-963949.mp3 to see how things work (almost 4 hours audio).

I rarely agree with you due to certain reasons, but now I have to. I remember watching some video or reading something about this.
This is quite real and possible; certainly some would doubt it. The question is how to get this information to Ross himself?
His defense lawyers could be influenced by the FBI as well!

Update:
After taking a look at this website: http://freeross.org/contact-us-2/ there seems to be a way to contact him. Can someone confirm this?

I already contacted them couple of days ago to inform them of my findings - which seem to be fabricated by the feds.