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

[darklus123]

Great post, well my take on this matter will be discussed below.

What do you think about Ross Ulbricht, the SilkRoad and the war on drugs in general?

I am with Ross when it comes to the idea of giving a better platform for trading such as Silkroad. I also like the principle. For the drug war for me really depends on the authority's loyalty to their job. If they will implement it legally then I will support it but if not then it should be stop.

Do you think the trial was fair?

For me yes, if Ross really did commit selling of illegal drugs then he is really countable for it

Should Ross be free?
Hmm, his idea is really good and why not instead we should allow him to improve his idea in a more legal ways? If he can then I guess he can really bring a huge help in terms of economy. Probably giving another chance is not that hard

Should drugs be legalized? When yes, all or certain?
Illegal drugs should really not be legalized. Execpt for the organic ones. Distributing such goods for me is equivalent to killing that person who the goods were sold and obviously is a crime

[darkangel11]

^^^ 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.

Interesting thought that touches the notion of authority. Your neighbor is an authority in his own home so you're supposed to obey his laws when you visit him. He's not an authority state wise or country wise.

I don't agree with the system of crime and punishment as it is and I see the flaws that you point out, however it has a very long history. The Negroes in the 19th century did not sign any document that gave white farmers an authority over them, but somehow they needed a signed document from these farmers when they were being set free.
Gunslingers did not sign any paperwork that made them respect the sheriff's authority, yet they were being shot if they did not comply.
How come the police have the right to enter your property without your consent and kill your guard dog if it growls? There were numerous cases of the police killing unarmed citizens only because they refused to follow orders. Those dead people did not sign any papers either.
The world is a strange place indeed.

Should drugs be legalized? When yes, all or certain?
Illegal drugs should really not be legalized. Execpt for the organic ones. Distributing such goods for me is equivalent to killing that person who the goods were sold and obviously is a crime

Are you implying that the distributor is fully responsible for any harm his product may cause? Let's make alcohol distributors responsible for every alcohol overdose, painkiller distributors responsible for pill overdose, and cigarette companies for every case of lung cancer.

[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.

Interesting thought that touches the notion of authority. Your neighbor is an authority in his own home so you're supposed to obey his laws when you visit him. He's not an authority state wise or country wise.

I don't agree with the system of crime and punishment as it is and I see the flaws that you point out, however it has a very long history. The Negroes in the 19th century did not sign any document that gave white farmers an authority over them, but somehow they needed a signed document from these farmers when they were being set free.
Gunslingers did not sign any paperwork that made them respect the sheriff's authority, yet they were being shot if they did not comply.
How come the police have the right to enter your property without your consent and kill your guard dog if it growls? There were numerous cases of the police killing unarmed citizens only because they refused to follow orders. Those dead people did not sign any papers either.
The world is a strange place indeed.

People don't realize the strength of the word "property" in law. Neither do they realize the power of the jury in jury nullification.

The jury has the right to nullify any law. If people understood this, they would be challenging the laws and the lawmakers any time they did not like a law... right at the time that the law was set in place. If the jury agreed with the challenger(s), the law would be nullified for the particular person that brought the suit against the particular law.

Then, when others who didn't like the law saw it, they would bring suit, as well. Soon the law would have to be repealed for the whole country.

[Quickseller]

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.
[...]
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?

There are some illicit drugs that will cause a person to become addicted almost 100% of the time after a single dose, that do not have any medical benefits.

Drug dealers will also sometimes give away illegal drugs to their frequent customers when they are upfront about being unable to pay, which ultimately results in it being more difficult to stop taking drugs once addicted, and to break the habit of taking harmful drugs.

In each of these cases, it is the drug dealer that causes the addiction, even if disclosure is made.

I believe a lot of people blindly support Ulbrict because of his contribution to the bitcoin ecosystem, and not necessarily on the merits of the case and the underlying facts.

[TECSHARE]

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.
[...]
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?

There are some illicit drugs that will cause a person to become addicted almost 100% of the time after a single dose, that do not have any medical benefits.

Drug dealers will also sometimes give away illegal drugs to their frequent customers when they are upfront about being unable to pay, which ultimately results in it being more difficult to stop taking drugs once addicted, and to break the habit of taking harmful drugs.

In each of these cases, it is the drug dealer that causes the addiction, even if disclosure is made.

I believe a lot of people blindly support Ulbrict because of his contribution to the bitcoin ecosystem, and not necessarily on the merits of the case and the underlying facts.

The drug dealer doesn't cause anything. The drug dealer is taking advantage of human weakness and suffering sure, but at the end of the day people choose to do this, either the first time or subsequent times. People are responsible for their own choices. The drug war has been more destructive than the drugs themselves would ever be.

Ulbrict believe it or not was taking the first steps toward regulation of this distribution by providing more safety for all involved, including incentives for quality control. They railroaded him to send a message that this is their racket, and not to interfere, not because his crimes deserved such a punishment under the law.

[Quickseller]

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.
[...]
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?

There are some illicit drugs that will cause a person to become addicted almost 100% of the time after a single dose, that do not have any medical benefits.

Drug dealers will also sometimes give away illegal drugs to their frequent customers when they are upfront about being unable to pay, which ultimately results in it being more difficult to stop taking drugs once addicted, and to break the habit of taking harmful drugs.

In each of these cases, it is the drug dealer that causes the addiction, even if disclosure is made.

I believe a lot of people blindly support Ulbrict because of his contribution to the bitcoin ecosystem, and not necessarily on the merits of the case and the underlying facts.

The drug dealer doesn't cause anything. The drug dealer is taking advantage of human weakness and suffering sure, but at the end of the day people choose to do this, either the first time or subsequent times. People are responsible for their own choices. The drug war has been more destructive than the drugs themselves would ever be.

If someone is selling a drug that causes addiction during the first dose, I don't think the person can be blamed for the subsequent times they take the drug.

The ethics of legalizing (or prohibition) of drugs boils down to the harm to society (or lack thereof) when specific types of drugs are legalized. To get an idea as to the harm legalization of drugs does to society, take a look at San Francisco, Portland, or parts of Washington state. All of these places have prevalent drug use and drug dealing is largely ignored by police. The drug use often happens within large homeless camps that are very unsanitary to the extent that you should not use the shoes you wear if you visit one. 

Ulbrict believe it or not was taking the first steps toward regulation of this distribution by providing more safety for all involved, including incentives for quality control. They railroaded him to send a message that this is their racket, and not to interfere, not because his crimes deserved such a punishment under the law.

Yes, that was his public mission, however behind the scenes this was not the case. There were many scams on his platform, including exit scams, but perhaps you cannot blame him for this. When people stole from him, he allegedly tried to have them killed, but was unsuccessful because he was dealing with an undercover LE informant. When a second person stole (hundreds? of) thousands of dollars from various users in his site, he allegedly tried to have him killed, but failed to perform enough due diligence to even realize these people don't exist. IIRC, his business was insolvent for many months (if not longer) before it was forced to close due to multiple unexpected business expenses over many months. The murder for hire was not proven, however the undercover agent did know the location/identity of the person who had stolen from Ulbtict.

[TECSHARE]

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.
[...]
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?

There are some illicit drugs that will cause a person to become addicted almost 100% of the time after a single dose, that do not have any medical benefits.

Drug dealers will also sometimes give away illegal drugs to their frequent customers when they are upfront about being unable to pay, which ultimately results in it being more difficult to stop taking drugs once addicted, and to break the habit of taking harmful drugs.

In each of these cases, it is the drug dealer that causes the addiction, even if disclosure is made.

I believe a lot of people blindly support Ulbrict because of his contribution to the bitcoin ecosystem, and not necessarily on the merits of the case and the underlying facts.

The drug dealer doesn't cause anything. The drug dealer is taking advantage of human weakness and suffering sure, but at the end of the day people choose to do this, either the first time or subsequent times. People are responsible for their own choices. The drug war has been more destructive than the drugs themselves would ever be.

If someone is selling a drug that causes addiction during the first dose, I don't think the person can be blamed for the subsequent times they take the drug.

The ethics of legalizing (or prohibition) of drugs boils down to the harm to society (or lack thereof) when specific types of drugs are legalized. To get an idea as to the harm legalization of drugs does to society, take a look at San Francisco, Portland, or parts of Washington state. All of these places have prevalent drug use and drug dealing is largely ignored by police. The drug use often happens within large homeless camps that are very unsanitary to the extent that you should not use the shoes you wear if you visit one. 

Ulbrict believe it or not was taking the first steps toward regulation of this distribution by providing more safety for all involved, including incentives for quality control. They railroaded him to send a message that this is their racket, and not to interfere, not because his crimes deserved such a punishment under the law.

Yes, that was his public mission, however behind the scenes this was not the case. There were many scams on his platform, including exit scams, but perhaps you cannot blame him for this. When people stole from him, he allegedly tried to have them killed, but was unsuccessful because he was dealing with an undercover LE informant. When a second person stole (hundreds? of) thousands of dollars from various users in his site, he allegedly tried to have him killed, but failed to perform enough due diligence to even realize these people don't exist. IIRC, his business was insolvent for many months (if not longer) before it was forced to close due to multiple unexpected business expenses over many months. The murder for hire was not proven, however the undercover agent did know the location/identity of the person who had stolen from Ulbtict.

Sorry, but absolving people of personal responsibility in this situation is a fantasy. Additionally I don't buy your premise of instantly addictive substances for a second. If you know anything about addition, it has more to do with personality types than the drugs involved, and some people are simply more predisposed to addiction, so this premise of instant addiction is more of a result of genetic factors than the drug itself.

As far as the rest of this, it is clear that agents involved with this investigation were proven corrupt and convicted for embezzling resources from this operation. Also there is some question of exactly when control of SR was handed over, and if others still maintained access leaving reasonable doubt as to Ulbricht's personal involvement. Furthermore it would have been a simple task to stage the more serious accusations. The fact that any of this needs to happen is a travesty, and the drug war needs to be ended and shifted to a legalized, regulated, medical approach otherwise this will keep happening.

[Quickseller]

Also there is some question of exactly when control of SR was handed over, and if others still maintained access leaving reasonable doubt as to Ulbricht's personal involvement.

Ulbricht's lawyers brought this up in opening statements, and in pre-trial motions (? - IIRC), but didn't provide any evidence to back this up, nor did anyone testify to this effect. I don't particularly believe ownership of SR was ever transferred based on the fact that the SR "cold wallet" (was not *really* cold) was found on his laptop when he was arrested that contained the private keys to addresses used in 2012. There is also the fact that, to my knowledge, SR users were never told to start using new deposit addresses, which could indicate new ownership of the site (among other things).

You are correct that the agents working out of one of the FBI field offices, the Maryland office I believe were corrupt and has stolen from Ulbricht via the moderator account of the moderator of SR that was arrested.

I am having trouble finding it now, however I remember reading an excerpt from Ulbricht's diary acknowledging that he was risking a life sentence by doing the prep work to get SR launched (by growing the mushrooms in a cabin). A life sentence for that would probably be unrealistic.

I think we can agree to disagree on who is to blame on the harmful effects of drug use. However the current laws make both possession and distribution/selling illicit drugs illegal. If you believe the laws on the books are wrong or bad, you should try to get politicians elected who will vote to change the laws, or try to get current politicians to change the laws. I don't think it is okay to 'look the other way' just because you believe a law is bad.

[TECSHARE]

Also there is some question of exactly when control of SR was handed over, and if others still maintained access leaving reasonable doubt as to Ulbricht's personal involvement.

Ulbricht's lawyers brought this up in opening statements, and in pre-trial motions (? - IIRC), but didn't provide any evidence to back this up, nor did anyone testify to this effect. I don't particularly believe ownership of SR was ever transferred based on the fact that the SR "cold wallet" (was not *really* cold) was found on his laptop when he was arrested that contained the private keys to addresses used in 2012. There is also the fact that, to my knowledge, SR users were never told to start using new deposit addresses, which could indicate new ownership of the site (among other things).

You are correct that the agents working out of one of the FBI field offices, the Maryland office I believe were corrupt and has stolen from Ulbricht via the moderator account of the moderator of SR that was arrested.

I am having trouble finding it now, however I remember reading an excerpt from Ulbricht's diary acknowledging that he was risking a life sentence by doing the prep work to get SR launched (by growing the mushrooms in a cabin). A life sentence for that would probably be unrealistic.

I think we can agree to disagree on who is to blame on the harmful effects of drug use. However the current laws make both possession and distribution/selling illicit drugs illegal. If you believe the laws on the books are wrong or bad, you should try to get politicians elected who will vote to change the laws, or try to get current politicians to change the laws. I don't think it is okay to 'look the other way' just because you believe a law is bad.

Laws are laws, and if the law was applied in an unbiased way he never would have got so much time. He was railroaded by anyone's definition to make an example of him.

[Quickseller]

Sorry to nerco bump this thread....

It appears that Ulbricht is likely to get pardoned in the near future. Trump said today that he will commute the sentence of DPR/Ulbricht when he is reelected.

I have mixed feelings about this. His sentence is certainly harsh for the crimes he was convicted of. OTOH, there is substantial evidence that he intended to use violence to protect his business. It would be inappropriate for the judge to consider this when handing down his sentence because he was not convicted of this, but as someone outside the judicial process, I am free to consider any evidence that is available to me.

[BADecker]

In the US...

A man or woman being accused and going to court should never have an attorney. In fact, he should never represent himself. Rather, he should stand present, unrepresented.

The accused has the right to face his accuser. If Ross had been unrepresented, he would have the right to get his accuser on the stand under oath or affirmation, so that he could question his accuser. Who was his accuser? The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Call 3 times for your accuser to get on the stand. Nobody called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA could ever get on the stand. Case dismissed.

Ross, like most of us, had attorneys. So, he shot himself in the foot - head. Consider what a client of an attorney is >>> https://www.youarelaw.org/Download/CorpusJurisSecundum-AttorneyClient.pdf. And look here to find more - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=corpus+juris+secundum+-+client+of+an+attorney&ia=web.

Ross needs to rescind his signature off all paperwork regarding his case, and require a new trial without attorneys. Success would be difficult for him now that things have gone this far. But outside of Trump pardoning him, it might be the only way.

[TwitchySeal]

In the US...

A man or woman being accused and going to court should never have an attorney. In fact, he should never represent himself. Rather, he should stand present, unrepresented.

The accused has the right to face his accuser. If Ross had been unrepresented, he would have the right to get his accuser on the stand under oath or affirmation, so that he could question his accuser. Who was his accuser? The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Call 3 times for your accuser to get on the stand. Nobody called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA could ever get on the stand. Case dismissed.

Ross, like most of us, had attorneys. So, he shot himself in the foot - head. Consider what a client of an attorney is >>> https://www.youarelaw.org/Download/CorpusJurisSecundum-AttorneyClient.pdf. And look here to find more - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=corpus+juris+secundum+-+client+of+an+attorney&ia=web.

Ross needs to rescind his signature off all paperwork regarding his case, and require a new trial without attorneys. Success would be difficult for him now that things have gone this far. But outside of Trump pardoning him, it might be the only way.

Any examples of your legal strategy being used successfully?  Or even unsuccessfully? 

[BADecker]

In the US...

A man or woman being accused and going to court should never have an attorney. In fact, he should never represent himself. Rather, he should stand present, unrepresented.

The accused has the right to face his accuser. If Ross had been unrepresented, he would have the right to get his accuser on the stand under oath or affirmation, so that he could question his accuser. Who was his accuser? The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Call 3 times for your accuser to get on the stand. Nobody called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA could ever get on the stand. Case dismissed.

Ross, like most of us, had attorneys. So, he shot himself in the foot - head. Consider what a client of an attorney is >>> https://www.youarelaw.org/Download/CorpusJurisSecundum-AttorneyClient.pdf. And look here to find more - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=corpus+juris+secundum+-+client+of+an+attorney&ia=web.

Ross needs to rescind his signature off all paperwork regarding his case, and require a new trial without attorneys. Success would be difficult for him now that things have gone this far. But outside of Trump pardoning him, it might be the only way.

Any examples of your legal strategy being used successfully?  Or even unsuccessfully? 

The examples are all over the place. Doing it right gets the DA to drop the case before it gets recorded. However, back in the early 1800's this was almost the only way it was done. Go look at the old cases before the Civil War to see loads of wins like this. Or, you could check out the "Judge Judy" cases.

[EluguHcman]

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.

Well, I am trying on how to get on compatible passage on this with viable opinion.
Prohibition can actually ruin ones life and can hinder carrier and blind folding know knowledgeable ideas from an individual which could be innovative and be useful to the World but due to how the government has always tended to assume they knows best about the world, they rather uses their authoritative power to kill those dreams from individuals.

At other hand, if prohibitions of the law is not a legal practice, then somedays we may find the world at an extinction probably when we human are privileged to do whatever we wanted, things would go astray for over privilege can be abused.
I came across a thread in this board titled If there was no government to government human.
So let us assumed that if there should not be prohibition at certain illiciting levels, then there is absolutely no relevances of the government and its terms and conditions as law of conducting fairness in the Societies too would be of zero adherence.

The reality fact is that government has also taken things personal just as Ross has said, that most cases of prohibitions was amenities created for the police and other agencies to launder monies from the citizens by when the laws catches up with victims.

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.

In the first place he messed up his carrier by associating with politics and then diverted to be against the laws implemented by the same politicians he once mingled with.
Let us also understand that the government to do builds cartels and executing illegal activities which the same laws are against. Believe it, Ross was not smart enough. When you builds a program that may help the people and the government is against it, if you can successfully anonymously activate to keep your ventures in use by the people, then you should stay anonymous as well because the government will surely look for you.
Satoshi Nakamoto knew that earlier and that why the government is against him and still can not get him.

[Quickseller]

Ross needs to rescind his signature off all paperwork regarding his case, and require a new trial without attorneys. Success would be difficult for him now that things have gone this far. But outside of Trump pardoning him, it might be the only way.

I have never been a defendant in any federal criminal case, but I don't think the defendant normally signs any documents on the paperwork involving the case.

More importantly, I cannot stress how much of a bad idea it is to not have a lawyer in a criminal case (or any case you are a party to for that matter). A lawyer can speak on your behalf while anything they say in court cannot be used against you. If you represent yourself, anything you say 'as your lawyer' can be used against you, even if you misspeak.

Further, you can have your lawyer implement whatever strategy you like (provided it is legal) for your defense.

[paxmao]

Prohibition is a big business. It keeps a full US government agency employed, makes sure plenty of people go to jail for really long sentences, makes sure the poorest people die or have to put untested stuff in their body... if you ask me, a degree of control would be much better than prohibition.

BTW, people are free to put whatever in themselves sure, as long as: a) do not harm others (e.g. robbing to get the money) and b) do not ever aspire to have subsidised healthcare.

But that is unlikely to change. My take on this, is that despite the guy being an example of "free trade", liberty and all that, it is also true that provided a framework for services such as booking a henchman, killing services, child abuse materials, snuff media or even worse than that, and that is not "liberty" in my book.

[target]

I doubt Trump could get him out just like that. Ross is more than just a geek turned Kingpin. He also hired someone to kill a person. Although the hired man turned out to be an agent the intention is evident. But we shall see how Trump can turn things around as it seems like he will win the presidency.

Good luck to Ross though. It's never too late for a man to be rehabilitated.

[TwitchySeal]

In the US...

A man or woman being accused and going to court should never have an attorney. In fact, he should never represent himself. Rather, he should stand present, unrepresented.

The accused has the right to face his accuser. If Ross had been unrepresented, he would have the right to get his accuser on the stand under oath or affirmation, so that he could question his accuser. Who was his accuser? The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Call 3 times for your accuser to get on the stand. Nobody called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA could ever get on the stand. Case dismissed.

Ross, like most of us, had attorneys. So, he shot himself in the foot - head. Consider what a client of an attorney is >>> https://www.youarelaw.org/Download/CorpusJurisSecundum-AttorneyClient.pdf. And look here to find more - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=corpus+juris+secundum+-+client+of+an+attorney&ia=web.

Ross needs to rescind his signature off all paperwork regarding his case, and require a new trial without attorneys. Success would be difficult for him now that things have gone this far. But outside of Trump pardoning him, it might be the only way.

Any examples of your legal strategy being used successfully?  Or even unsuccessfully? 

no

Fixed your post.

[BADecker]

~

no

Fixed your post.

Fixed it similar to the way Ross did it. Do it this way and lose. Your choice.

[Hallroom]

Although Ross Ulbricht is currently in prison, he has received more punishment than Silk Road. 
But I'm very happy to see Ross punished because he certainly deserves punishment, and in many ways he will rot in prison.