Bitcoin Forum
July 16, 2019, 03:24:46 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Was Ross Ulbright framed by the FBI?  (Read 2691 times)
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1006



View Profile
April 28, 2015, 01:28:18 PM
 #41

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.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2058
Merit: 1108


View Profile
April 28, 2015, 01:41:45 PM
 #42

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/.

Smiley

Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz !
S4VV4S
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 28, 2015, 02:37:53 PM
 #43

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.

 
STORICHAIN
  ❂❂
❂❂
❂❂
▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬
  ❂❂
❂❂
❂❂
  BOUNTY START
25 JUNE 2019
S4VV4S
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 28, 2015, 02:40:19 PM
Last edit: April 28, 2015, 02:54:06 PM by S4VV4S
 #44

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.....

 
STORICHAIN
  ❂❂
❂❂
❂❂
▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬
  ❂❂
❂❂
❂❂
  BOUNTY START
25 JUNE 2019
S4VV4S
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 28, 2015, 02:43:39 PM
 #45

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.  Wink

 
STORICHAIN
  ❂❂
❂❂
❂❂
▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬
  ❂❂
❂❂
❂❂
  BOUNTY START
25 JUNE 2019
CryptoPanda
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250


View Profile WWW
April 28, 2015, 03:49:55 PM
 #46

I think they made his situation much worse. Like all the killings being related to the agents work.
But framed him? Not really.

S4VV4S
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 28, 2015, 03:52:21 PM
 #47

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  Wink

 
STORICHAIN
  ❂❂
❂❂
❂❂
▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬
  ❂❂
❂❂
❂❂
  BOUNTY START
25 JUNE 2019
bennybong
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 682
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 28, 2015, 04:07:07 PM
 #48

Oh:

http://gizmodo.com/silk-road-kingpin-ross-ulbricht-wont-be-getting-a-retri-1700647551
S4VV4S
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 28, 2015, 04:37:53 PM
 #49


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.

 
STORICHAIN
  ❂❂
❂❂
❂❂
▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬
  ❂❂
❂❂
❂❂
  BOUNTY START
25 JUNE 2019
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2058
Merit: 1108


View Profile
April 28, 2015, 04:54:45 PM
Last edit: April 28, 2015, 05:31:07 PM by BADecker
 #50

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:
Quote
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.

Smiley

Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz !
S4VV4S
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 28, 2015, 05:02:36 PM
 #51

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:
Quote
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.

Smiley

Interesting.....

Still reading the wikipedia article from your link, but I find this VERY interesting!

 
STORICHAIN
  ❂❂
❂❂
❂❂
▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬ ▬▬▬▬▬
  ❂❂
❂❂
❂❂
  BOUNTY START
25 JUNE 2019
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2058
Merit: 1108


View Profile
April 28, 2015, 05:19:37 PM
 #52

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:
Quote
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.

Smiley

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.

Smiley

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.

Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz !
RodeoX
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3010
Merit: 1136


The revolution will be monetized!


View Profile
April 28, 2015, 05:27:22 PM
 #53

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.  Huh

The gospel according to Satoshi - https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
Free bitcoin in ? - Stay tuned for this years Bitcoin hunt!
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2058
Merit: 1108


View Profile
April 28, 2015, 05:40:13 PM
 #54

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.  Huh

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.

Smiley

Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz !
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!