Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht Sentenced to Life in Prison

[Delek]

If he was such a genius he wouldn't be sitting in a jail cell right now.

Living in a Jail or in your House have nothing to do with being a genius or not. As I said, Socrates and Galileo were behind steel bars too and they were genius for sure.

[1715597808]

1715597808

[1715597808]

1715597808

[g-unit]

Do they still have him separated from the general population? Does he at least get to pump iron there? He was pretty skinny from what I remember.

[QuestionAuthority]

If he was such a genius he wouldn't be sitting in a jail cell right now.

Living in a Jail or in your House have nothing to do with being a genius or not. As I said, Socrates and Galileo were behind steel bars too and they were genius for sure.

That's true. I'd rather be a free idiot than a genius behind bars.

[BADecker]

If he was such a genius he wouldn't be sitting in a jail cell right now.

Living in a Jail or in your House have nothing to do with being a genius or not. As I said, Socrates and Galileo were behind steel bars too and they were genius for sure.

That's true. I'd rather be a free idiot than a genius behind bars.

The difference with Ross is, he knew for sure that he was butting heads with the legal system. If Ross were a genius, he would have used that knowledge to keep himself out of trouble.

I haven't been keeping up with his current status, but if he isn't out, or on the way out, he certainly isn't a genius. After all, his accuser the plaintiff never faced him by taking the stand in court, a basic requirement of law, except if one doesn't require it.

I'd say Ross wasn't a genius at all, except if this is all a show to slander Bitcoin, and Ross is part of the show intentionally.

[GreanT]

If he was such a genius he wouldn't be sitting in a jail cell right now.

Living in a Jail or in your House have nothing to do with being a genius or not. As I said, Socrates and Galileo were behind steel bars too and they were genius for sure.

That's true. I'd rather be a free idiot than a genius behind bars.

The difference with Ross is, he knew for sure that he was butting heads with the legal system. If Ross were a genius, he would have used that knowledge to keep himself out of trouble.

I haven't been keeping up with his current status, but if he isn't out, or on the way out, he certainly isn't a genius. After all, his accuser the plaintiff never faced him by taking the stand in court, a basic requirement of law, except if one doesn't require it.

I'd say Ross wasn't a genius at all, except if this is all a show to slander Bitcoin, and Ross is part of the show intentionally.

This was not a civil case, therefore there is no plaintiff (it is not J Smith v Ulbricht). This was a criminal case, and therefore the moving party was the government, or to be more specific the DOJ (US v Ulbricht). Whether or not the DOJ met their burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) can be argued, but you can't sit here and say nobody took the stand against him in court because that is not true. The DOJ had witnesses and those witnesses testified. Again, whether the DOJ proved the accusations beyond a reasonable doubt can be argued, but there certainly were people who took the stand to testify for the government.
I agree with several of the posts above. Personally, I think they proved their case, but I think the sentence imposed by the judge was a harsh statement that did not fit the crime. Ulbricht's best appeal will be based on the 4th amendment

[BADecker]

If he was such a genius he wouldn't be sitting in a jail cell right now.

Living in a Jail or in your House have nothing to do with being a genius or not. As I said, Socrates and Galileo were behind steel bars too and they were genius for sure.

That's true. I'd rather be a free idiot than a genius behind bars.

The difference with Ross is, he knew for sure that he was butting heads with the legal system. If Ross were a genius, he would have used that knowledge to keep himself out of trouble.

I haven't been keeping up with his current status, but if he isn't out, or on the way out, he certainly isn't a genius. After all, his accuser the plaintiff never faced him by taking the stand in court, a basic requirement of law, except if one doesn't require it.

I'd say Ross wasn't a genius at all, except if this is all a show to slander Bitcoin, and Ross is part of the show intentionally.

This was not a civil case, therefore there is no plaintiff (it is not J Smith v Ulbricht). This was a criminal case, and therefore the moving party was the government, or to be more specific the DOJ (US v Ulbricht). Whether or not the DOJ met their burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) can be argued, but you can't sit here and say nobody took the stand against him in court because that is not true. The DOJ had witnesses and those witnesses testified. Again, whether the DOJ proved the accusations beyond a reasonable doubt can be argued, but there certainly were people who took the stand to testify for the government.
I agree with several of the posts above. Personally, I think they proved their case, but I think the sentence imposed by the judge was a harsh statement that did not fit the crime. Ulbricht's best appeal will be based on the 4th amendment

This is an important thing that people don't understand about law. You can bring your civil (7th Amendment requirement for a common law trial) case right inside and on top of any criminal complaint that is brought against you. When you do this, your claim must be heard before the complaint brought against you. Since in a case like this, you have plenty of time to file your notices with the court clerk well in advance of any trial, the trial may essentially be done long before the court date.

So, what would you do in your claim? You would require any person that you have harmed or injured to come forward and state the damages so that you can compensate him for the damages. He must come forward in a court of record (common law court), take the oath, get on the stand and testify, express the harm and/or injury, provide evidence that and a witness that verify it was you that did the harm or injury, and if someone shows up, bring it before a jury.

Now, Ross is way too dumb to know this. Other Americans are as well. But the people are waking up. Google and Youtube "Karl Lentz" and "Bill Thornton" and "Richard Cornforth" to find out what this is all about and how it can be done in every government case against a human being.

[BADecker]

Consider that the court has ruled that illegal aliens have 2nd Amendment rights. How could they rule such except to state that people are outside the formal laws if they don't harm anyone or damage his property?

https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/182492-2015-08-30-court-rules-that-illegal-aliens-have-second-amendment-rights.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/court-rules-that-illegal-aliens-have-second-amendment-rights.html

The Constitution was written before all the laws that followed it. Nowhere in the Constitution or its preamble is the authority of the writers or anybody else placed under the Constitution or the laws that flow out of it.

The point is this. When there is no harm or damage done by a human being, the courts and government do NOT have authority over the human being, except that he/she (usually out of ignorance) allows them to have authority over them.

There are hundreds of thousands of people in prison simply because of their own ignorance about this. And they remain there because they simply don't have the knowledge of how to get themselves out by going back to foundational law found in the 6th, 7th, and 9th Amendments.

[forevernoob]

This is an important thing that people don't understand about law. You can bring your civil (7th Amendment requirement for a common law trial) case right inside and on top of any criminal complaint that is brought against you. When you do this, your claim must be heard before the complaint brought against you. Since in a case like this, you have plenty of time to file your notices with the court clerk well in advance of any trial, the trial may essentially be done long before the court date.

So, what would you do in your claim? You would require any person that you have harmed or injured to come forward and state the damages so that you can compensate him for the damages. He must come forward in a court of record (common law court), take the oath, get on the stand and testify, express the harm and/or injury, provide evidence that and a witness that verify it was you that did the harm or injury, and if someone shows up, bring it before a jury.

Now, Ross is way too dumb to know this. Other Americans are as well. But the people are waking up. Google and Youtube "Karl Lentz" and "Bill Thornton" and "Richard Cornforth" to find out what this is all about and how it can be done in every government case against a human being.

There was a relative of a drug victim in the court that testified that her son died of drugs bought from SR or something. Doesn't that count?

[gentlemand]

This guy is a genius. Just like those persons that the church killed back in the day, in the future this will be seen like the death of socrates.

So in two thousand years a naive pipsqueak who facilitated the sale of drugs to fellow naive pipsqueaks will be considered one of the greatest and most learned human beings in history? For the sake of the human race I kinda hope not.

[BADecker]

This is an important thing that people don't understand about law. You can bring your civil (7th Amendment requirement for a common law trial) case right inside and on top of any criminal complaint that is brought against you. When you do this, your claim must be heard before the complaint brought against you. Since in a case like this, you have plenty of time to file your notices with the court clerk well in advance of any trial, the trial may essentially be done long before the court date.

So, what would you do in your claim? You would require any person that you have harmed or injured to come forward and state the damages so that you can compensate him for the damages. He must come forward in a court of record (common law court), take the oath, get on the stand and testify, express the harm and/or injury, provide evidence that and a witness that verify it was you that did the harm or injury, and if someone shows up, bring it before a jury.

Now, Ross is way too dumb to know this. Other Americans are as well. But the people are waking up. Google and Youtube "Karl Lentz" and "Bill Thornton" and "Richard Cornforth" to find out what this is all about and how it can be done in every government case against a human being.

There was a relative of a drug victim in the court that testified that her son died of drugs bought from SR or something. Doesn't that count?

It might. But the woman would have to file a claim that Ross deprived her of her property, her son. She would need evidence that would undeniably connect Ross's sales to her son. She would need to make her claim from the stand under oath. If she did it the right way, even if her claim wasn't substantiated by her testimony, the testimony of a witness, and other evidence, the jury might believe her, and condemn Ross anyway.

If she brings her case as a complaint, or if she brings it through an attorney or the government rather than attacking Ross directly, an informed Ross will win.

[311]

This is an important thing that people don't understand about law. You can bring your civil (7th Amendment requirement for a common law trial) case right inside and on top of any criminal complaint that is brought against you. When you do this, your claim must be heard before the complaint brought against you. Since in a case like this, you have plenty of time to file your notices with the court clerk well in advance of any trial, the trial may essentially be done long before the court date.

So, what would you do in your claim? You would require any person that you have harmed or injured to come forward and state the damages so that you can compensate him for the damages. He must come forward in a court of record (common law court), take the oath, get on the stand and testify, express the harm and/or injury, provide evidence that and a witness that verify it was you that did the harm or injury, and if someone shows up, bring it before a jury.

Now, Ross is way too dumb to know this. Other Americans are as well. But the people are waking up. Google and Youtube "Karl Lentz" and "Bill Thornton" and "Richard Cornforth" to find out what this is all about and how it can be done in every government case against a human being.

There was a relative of a drug victim in the court that testified that her son died of drugs bought from SR or something. Doesn't that count?

It might. But the woman would have to file a claim that Ross deprived her of her property, her son. She would need evidence that would undeniably connect Ross's sales to her son. She would need to make her claim from the stand under oath. If she did it the right way, even if her claim wasn't substantiated by her testimony, the testimony of a witness, and other evidence, the jury might believe her, and condemn Ross anyway.

If she brings her case as a complaint, or if she brings it through an attorney or the government rather than attacking Ross directly, an informed Ross will win.

You should test this method you keep trying to promote. Go commit a 'crime' then use this bollocks then report back. You should be invincible, right?

[forevernoob]

It might. But the woman would have to file a claim that Ross deprived her of her property, her son. She would need evidence that would undeniably connect Ross's sales to her son. She would need to make her claim from the stand under oath. If she did it the right way, even if her claim wasn't substantiated by her testimony, the testimony of a witness, and other evidence, the jury might believe her, and condemn Ross anyway.

If she brings her case as a complaint, or if she brings it through an attorney or the government rather than attacking Ross directly, an informed Ross will win.

I have read up on common law and the "Karl Lentz" way but I still don't really understand how it works in real life.
I know very little about the law. But can Ross really use the common law since this is a federal case?

From what I know about the US justice system is that a federal court can set a much harsher penalty and overrule a state court... etc

[BADecker]

This is an important thing that people don't understand about law. You can bring your civil (7th Amendment requirement for a common law trial) case right inside and on top of any criminal complaint that is brought against you. When you do this, your claim must be heard before the complaint brought against you. Since in a case like this, you have plenty of time to file your notices with the court clerk well in advance of any trial, the trial may essentially be done long before the court date.

So, what would you do in your claim? You would require any person that you have harmed or injured to come forward and state the damages so that you can compensate him for the damages. He must come forward in a court of record (common law court), take the oath, get on the stand and testify, express the harm and/or injury, provide evidence that and a witness that verify it was you that did the harm or injury, and if someone shows up, bring it before a jury.

Now, Ross is way too dumb to know this. Other Americans are as well. But the people are waking up. Google and Youtube "Karl Lentz" and "Bill Thornton" and "Richard Cornforth" to find out what this is all about and how it can be done in every government case against a human being.

There was a relative of a drug victim in the court that testified that her son died of drugs bought from SR or something. Doesn't that count?

It might. But the woman would have to file a claim that Ross deprived her of her property, her son. She would need evidence that would undeniably connect Ross's sales to her son. She would need to make her claim from the stand under oath. If she did it the right way, even if her claim wasn't substantiated by her testimony, the testimony of a witness, and other evidence, the jury might believe her, and condemn Ross anyway.

If she brings her case as a complaint, or if she brings it through an attorney or the government rather than attacking Ross directly, an informed Ross will win.

You should test this method you keep trying to promote. Go commit a 'crime' then use this bollocks then report back. You should be invincible, right?

So you want me to commit a crime? Sounds like you are the criminal.

If you want to see it in action, go here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOkAHRzuiOA&list=PLHrkQxgz0mg6kUBciD-HIvTXByqjcIZ-D and watch the 10 videos. The last one is most important. You can skip to the last one and go to the others if you have questions.

[BADecker]

It might. But the woman would have to file a claim that Ross deprived her of her property, her son. She would need evidence that would undeniably connect Ross's sales to her son. She would need to make her claim from the stand under oath. If she did it the right way, even if her claim wasn't substantiated by her testimony, the testimony of a witness, and other evidence, the jury might believe her, and condemn Ross anyway.

If she brings her case as a complaint, or if she brings it through an attorney or the government rather than attacking Ross directly, an informed Ross will win.

I have read up on common law and the "Karl Lentz" way but I still don't really understand how it works in real life.
I know very little about the law. But can Ross really use the common law since this is a federal case?

From what I know about the US justice system is that a federal court can set a much harsher penalty and overrule a state court... etc

Ross can use it. Here's basically why.

The government is paperwork. Paperwork doesn't do anything by itself. It is the people who exercise the writings of government that make things happen. So, it is people doing things to other people in court trials. If they can do it to you, you can do it to them when they are wrong.

Standard American law is, when you stand up as a man with your own claim in court, not represented by either yourself or an attorney, but rather present. There are certain things that must be done. The plaintiff (you) needs to appear and take the stand when necessary, it's your court (you make the rules of court; the judge is simply an administrator, the judge can't make rulings), witness and evidence must exist and be verified on the stand.

If you file your claim inside their case, they are the ones who must provide all that stuff, depending on how you state your claim.

There must be a man/woman complainant who gets on the stand and shows the harm or damage you did to him/her. There must be an eye (ear) witness. There must be evidence that could not have been faked. And they have to bring all this against you. Attorneys can't testify except that they are not testifying in their attorney capacity.

In Ross's case, the plaintiff can't get on the stand and testify, because it is not a man or woman. If it did get on the stand and testify, where is the harm or damage done to it? If there was harm or damage, where is the witness? If there was a witness, where is the non-tampered with evidence that clarifies how the harm or damage connects to Ross? We know that the government agents messed with the evidence all over the place, and at least could not verify on the stand that the evidence was always guarded 24/7 so that it could not be tampered with.

No brainer. Ross wins. Karl probably would help him. I don't think that Ross even asked.

[hdbuck]

US federal agent investigating Silk Road admits $800,000 bitcoin theft

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/01/us-federal-agent-investigating-silk-road-admits-800000-bitcoin-theft

In court on Monday Bridges admitted his theft had made Ulbricht believe that another individual was stealing from Silk Road and helped lead Ulbricht to try to hire someone to kill that person.

[foodstamps]

It is so ridiculous they can sentence someone to life in prison for this. It sickens me that people can murder someone or worse and get a fraction of the sentence Ross got.

[hdbuck]

It is so ridiculous they can sentence someone to life in prison for this. It sickens me that people can murder someone or worse and get a fraction of the sentence Ross got.

at least they did not "suicide" him..

[foodstamps]

It is so ridiculous they can sentence someone to life in prison for this. It sickens me that people can murder someone or worse and get a fraction of the sentence Ross got.

at least they did not "suicide" him..

That is tough. I had to think about it for a minute:

Would I rather choose death over life behind bars in the United States prison system? If it truly was life behind bars, and I had no hope at parole, escape, or a pardon, I think I would choose death. Maybe not though, things might seem different once I found myself in that position.

[hdbuck]

It is so ridiculous they can sentence someone to life in prison for this. It sickens me that people can murder someone or worse and get a fraction of the sentence Ross got.

at least they did not "suicide" him..

That is tough. I had to think about it for a minute:

Would I rather choose death over life behind bars in the United States prison system? If it truly was life behind bars, and I had no hope at parole, escape, or a pardon, I think I would choose death. Maybe not though, things might seem different once I found myself in that position.

yea well tough call indeed.. not so much for kids like Aaron anymore tho..

[AgentofCoin]

It is so ridiculous they can sentence someone to life in prison for this. It sickens me that people can murder someone or worse and get a fraction of the sentence Ross got.

at least they did not "suicide" him..

About 4.5 to 7 years from now they will find him hanging in his cell.
You usually want to "suicide" someone when they have been out of the public eye for a long while.
Then the suicide seems more credible. "So sad that he had to killed himself, must be very rough and depressing in there."

That is if they want to suicide him. I think they don't really care about him.

He is a nobody that knows nothing of value.