What do you think about Ross Ulbricht, the SilkRoad and the drugwars in general?

[dissi_xD]

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 to help Ross.
If you want to know more about Ross, go to FreeRoss.org
Two good documentaries (but they are in German):

• Deep Web – Der Untergang der SilkRoad
• Kriminelle Karrieren: Ross Ulbricht – Der Darknet-Dealer

Here the interview between Ross Ulbricht and René Pinnell
Ross Ulbricht on Twitter and Youtube

[1713970647]

1713970647

[1713970647]

1713970647

[1713970647]

1713970647

[1713970647]

1713970647

[MisO69]

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.

[BADecker]

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.

[dissi_xD]

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.

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?

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.

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?

[dissi_xD]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[BADecker]

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.

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.

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.

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:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

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.

[squatz1]

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.

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.

[BADecker]

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.

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/

[squatz1]

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/

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.

[BADecker]

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/

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!

[MisO69]

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.

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.

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/

[squatz1]

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/

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!

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.

[BADecker]

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/

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!

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.

[Quickseller]

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.

[BADecker]

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.

[Waradlain]

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.

[TheCoinGrabber]

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.

[dissi_xD]

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).

[darkangel11]

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.

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?

[BADecker]

^^^ 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.