[Poll] Free Ross OR Kill Ross <search for public opinion>

[Window2Wall]

I can't say I disagree with either one of you. When I was a young single guy in college I could have been either one of you. My attitudes changed when I became a father. I made the extreme post showing the photos because I want people to understand this is a real issue not a hypothetical one. Is the girl in the photo just some knocked up stupid bitch that let her boyfriend hook her on drugs or is she someone's daughter or sister in trouble? Perspective is everything. It's easy to want freedom for this drug dealer (or facilitator) if his release won't effect you personally. I know jailing this guy is like floating in a sea of shit and reaching over the side of the boat to pick up one turd. It seems stupid until you realize that all you can do is flush one turd at a time.

Young people don't always make the best decisions. Mainly because they're immortal. I know because I was immortal until I was about 30. I don't know how to get my kids to 30 without being overprotective. Many times the legal system overprotects people even when it can't really solve the problems. But some people think they're immortal or their just stupid and need protection. Is it the best system? Definately not. Is it a good system? Definately not but it's the only tool I have to work with today.

I see your point. For the record, I'm a few weeks shy of 46. I also have two kids and a third on the way. I still believe as strongly as I stated above, and yes, this is the system we're currently stuck with. But it needs to go, and punishing DPR for, frankly, doing the same thing that any pharmacist is doing, does not help this nebulous "society" nor serve to protect anyone. The simple fact of the matter is that getting drugs is ridculously easy, no matter the venue, and that the silk road and similar sites existed before bitcoin, and will continue. I agree with the guys who say it probably prevented more violence than it caused trouble.

Drugs get a lot of blame. Drugs,, like guns, knives, and blunt instruments are neutral. They do nothing on their own. You can't have a war on drugs, cuz they won't fight back. The war on drugs is a war on people. I do not advocate the legalization of some drugs, we already have that. In fact, the two most deadly are available in most convenience stores. I advocate and end to ALL criminalization of personal behaviours. I know whence I speak, as I've know a lotof addicts. Most who do want help don't seek it, because they are afraid of the consequence of the law. This is counterproductive.

It also leads to massive corruption and a narrowing of focus by so called law enforcement agencies. When a drug bust carries more time than capital murder, which is often the case, you know that the system is useless. I don't have any short term solutions, other than immediate repeal of all criminal penalties for the sale and possession of drugs. That one thing would reduce the violence, stigma, and danger by so much that the rest would seem a small problem. Addicts would be able to seek help without fear. People who used and were personally responsible (in my experience, the vast majority of drug users) don't run the danger of getting shot or getting a vein full of Drano. It's the only short term solution that makes any sort of sense, and the evidence of it's success lies in Holland.

The difference between Ross and a pharmacist is that a pharmacist is simply following the instructions of someone who took an oath look after the medical interests of the patients they see while ross was looking after the interests of drug dealers who only wanted to make money and were not looking after the interests of their customers (other then the fact that they would get a good "high"

So, quantitatively, no difference at all. Just a different market demographic.

Also, pharmacists and doctors both are more often looking after the interest of their actual customers (the insurance companies) than their patients. It's not general, but it is wide spread. By your argument, a "street pharmacist" is by far the more honorable of the two, as they are neither using the Nuremberg defence or actively suppressing the true effects of their product.

A doctor swore to look after the best interests of their patients. The insurance company does pay the bill to the doctor however the insurance is contractually obligated to do so when the patient incurs these charges. A doctor could lose his license to practice medicine if he does something that is not in the best interest of his patient. The pharmacist is only following the directions of a doctor.

A drug dealer on the other hand runs a business that gets people to be repeat customers by getting them addicted to drugs. They will do things to prevent them from kicking their addiction (for example by offering free/discounted drugs when someone cannot pay).

[QuestionAuthority]

I can't say I disagree with either one of you. When I was a young single guy in college I could have been either one of you. My attitudes changed when I became a father. I made the extreme post showing the photos because I want people to understand this is a real issue not a hypothetical one. Is the girl in the photo just some knocked up stupid bitch that let her boyfriend hook her on drugs or is she someone's daughter or sister in trouble? Perspective is everything. It's easy to want freedom for this drug dealer (or facilitator) if his release won't effect you personally. I know jailing this guy is like floating in a sea of shit and reaching over the side of the boat to pick up one turd. It seems stupid until you realize that all you can do is flush one turd at a time.

Young people don't always make the best decisions. Mainly because they're immortal. I know because I was immortal until I was about 30. I don't know how to get my kids to 30 without being overprotective. Many times the legal system overprotects people even when it can't really solve the problems. But some people think they're immortal or their just stupid and need protection. Is it the best system? Definately not. Is it a good system? Definately not but it's the only tool I have to work with today.

I see your point. For the record, I'm a few weeks shy of 46. I also have two kids and a third on the way. I still believe as strongly as I stated above, and yes, this is the system we're currently stuck with. But it needs to go, and punishing DPR for, frankly, doing the same thing that any pharmacist is doing, does not help this nebulous "society" nor serve to protect anyone. The simple fact of the matter is that getting drugs is ridculously easy, no matter the venue, and that the silk road and similar sites existed before bitcoin, and will continue. I agree with the guys who say it probably prevented more violence than it caused trouble.

Drugs get a lot of blame. Drugs,, like guns, knives, and blunt instruments are neutral. They do nothing on their own. You can't have a war on drugs, cuz they won't fight back. The war on drugs is a war on people. I do not advocate the legalization of some drugs, we already have that. In fact, the two most deadly are available in most convenience stores. I advocate and end to ALL criminalization of personal behaviours. I know whence I speak, as I've know a lotof addicts. Most who do want help don't seek it, because they are afraid of the consequence of the law. This is counterproductive.

It also leads to massive corruption and a narrowing of focus by so called law enforcement agencies. When a drug bust carries more time than capital murder, which is often the case, you know that the system is useless. I don't have any short term solutions, other than immediate repeal of all criminal penalties for the sale and possession of drugs. That one thing would reduce the violence, stigma, and danger by so much that the rest would seem a small problem. Addicts would be able to seek help without fear. People who used and were personally responsible (in my experience, the vast majority of drug users) don't run the danger of getting shot or getting a vein full of Drano. It's the only short term solution that makes any sort of sense, and the evidence of it's success lies in Holland.

The difference between Ross and a pharmacist is that a pharmacist is simply following the instructions of someone who took an oath look after the medical interests of the patients they see while ross was looking after the interests of drug dealers who only wanted to make money and were not looking after the interests of their customers (other then the fact that they would get a good "high"

So, quantitatively, no difference at all. Just a different market demographic.

Also, pharmacists and doctors both are more often looking after the interest of their actual customers (the insurance companies) than their patients. It's not general, but it is wide spread. By your argument, a "street pharmacist" is by far the more honorable of the two, as they are neither using the Nuremberg defence or actively suppressing the true effects of their product.

A doctor swore to look after the best interests of their patients. The insurance company does pay the bill to the doctor however the insurance is contractually obligated to do so when the patient incurs these charges. A doctor could lose his license to practice medicine if he does something that is not in the best interest of his patient. The pharmacist is only following the directions of a doctor.

A drug dealer on the other hand runs a business that gets people to be repeat customers by getting them addicted to drugs. They will do things to prevent them from kicking their addiction (for example by offering free/discounted drugs when someone cannot pay).

So drug dealers are pretty close to doctors then? That's kind of what FattyMcButterpants(lol) said, isn't it? I know my Dr. gives me free samples of drugs to try out before I buy them. He usually doesn't give me free samples of heroin or morphine though.

[BADecker]

Look. Standard law is that a person is allowed to face his accuser. More standard law is that there must be harm or damage that can be proved to be done by the accused.

If Ross stands as a man, and requires his accuser come forward and prove the damage or harm done with affidavit verified proof, from the witness stand, they better have such.

If Ross does these 5 things he will go free if they don't have the verified witness:

1. Stand as a man;
2. Require his accuser come forward (not be represented, but come in person);
3. Require his accuser verify/validate by affidavit, from the witness stand that there is harm or damage done;
4. Require his accuser reveal the harm or damage, and how it was done by Ross;
5. Require his accuser have a verifying witness to all that is stated in the accusation affidavit.

This is standard American, Canadian and British law.

If there are witnesses, then he must pay according to the harm or damage he did. Otherwise not. If he goes free, he can sue for the bitcoins back, along with hardship loss, and litigation fee damages.



EDIT: But he can't do this if he doesn't know that he can, or if he doesn't know the way to do it. Do you think his attorneys will reveal it to him?

[Window2Wall]

I can't say I disagree with either one of you. When I was a young single guy in college I could have been either one of you. My attitudes changed when I became a father. I made the extreme post showing the photos because I want people to understand this is a real issue not a hypothetical one. Is the girl in the photo just some knocked up stupid bitch that let her boyfriend hook her on drugs or is she someone's daughter or sister in trouble? Perspective is everything. It's easy to want freedom for this drug dealer (or facilitator) if his release won't effect you personally. I know jailing this guy is like floating in a sea of shit and reaching over the side of the boat to pick up one turd. It seems stupid until you realize that all you can do is flush one turd at a time.

Young people don't always make the best decisions. Mainly because they're immortal. I know because I was immortal until I was about 30. I don't know how to get my kids to 30 without being overprotective. Many times the legal system overprotects people even when it can't really solve the problems. But some people think they're immortal or their just stupid and need protection. Is it the best system? Definately not. Is it a good system? Definately not but it's the only tool I have to work with today.

I see your point. For the record, I'm a few weeks shy of 46. I also have two kids and a third on the way. I still believe as strongly as I stated above, and yes, this is the system we're currently stuck with. But it needs to go, and punishing DPR for, frankly, doing the same thing that any pharmacist is doing, does not help this nebulous "society" nor serve to protect anyone. The simple fact of the matter is that getting drugs is ridculously easy, no matter the venue, and that the silk road and similar sites existed before bitcoin, and will continue. I agree with the guys who say it probably prevented more violence than it caused trouble.

Drugs get a lot of blame. Drugs,, like guns, knives, and blunt instruments are neutral. They do nothing on their own. You can't have a war on drugs, cuz they won't fight back. The war on drugs is a war on people. I do not advocate the legalization of some drugs, we already have that. In fact, the two most deadly are available in most convenience stores. I advocate and end to ALL criminalization of personal behaviours. I know whence I speak, as I've know a lotof addicts. Most who do want help don't seek it, because they are afraid of the consequence of the law. This is counterproductive.

It also leads to massive corruption and a narrowing of focus by so called law enforcement agencies. When a drug bust carries more time than capital murder, which is often the case, you know that the system is useless. I don't have any short term solutions, other than immediate repeal of all criminal penalties for the sale and possession of drugs. That one thing would reduce the violence, stigma, and danger by so much that the rest would seem a small problem. Addicts would be able to seek help without fear. People who used and were personally responsible (in my experience, the vast majority of drug users) don't run the danger of getting shot or getting a vein full of Drano. It's the only short term solution that makes any sort of sense, and the evidence of it's success lies in Holland.

The difference between Ross and a pharmacist is that a pharmacist is simply following the instructions of someone who took an oath look after the medical interests of the patients they see while ross was looking after the interests of drug dealers who only wanted to make money and were not looking after the interests of their customers (other then the fact that they would get a good "high"

So, quantitatively, no difference at all. Just a different market demographic.

Also, pharmacists and doctors both are more often looking after the interest of their actual customers (the insurance companies) than their patients. It's not general, but it is wide spread. By your argument, a "street pharmacist" is by far the more honorable of the two, as they are neither using the Nuremberg defence or actively suppressing the true effects of their product.

A doctor swore to look after the best interests of their patients. The insurance company does pay the bill to the doctor however the insurance is contractually obligated to do so when the patient incurs these charges. A doctor could lose his license to practice medicine if he does something that is not in the best interest of his patient. The pharmacist is only following the directions of a doctor.

A drug dealer on the other hand runs a business that gets people to be repeat customers by getting them addicted to drugs. They will do things to prevent them from kicking their addiction (for example by offering free/discounted drugs when someone cannot pay).

So drug dealers are pretty close to doctors then? That's kind of what FattyMcButterpants(lol) said, isn't it? I know my Dr. gives me free samples of drugs to try out before I buy them. He usually doesn't give me free samples of heroin or morphine though.

A doctor will only allow you to "try" a free sample if a drug would be medically beneficial to you and will generally only give you a sample prior to you filling a prescription, a drug dealer on the other hand will cut you a break financially if you cannot pay for your drugs in order to prevent you from kicking your addiction via being unable to pay (and be unable to use) their drugs.

I am saying they are very different kinds of people

[cryptocoiner]

Poll does not make any sense. I think he will get about 10 years.

[duke1839]

Free Ross of course!  And donate here http://freeross.org/

If there is any good news that has come out of this case so far it is that the irrationality of the government's side is being exposed.  The Judge has to do some mental gymnastics to try to think up reasons for not dismissing the case even though the FBI clearly broke the law during the investigation.  I'm still holding out hope that reason will win the day. 

[inBitweTrust]

a drug dealer on the other hand will cut you a break financially if you cannot pay for your drugs in order to prevent you from kicking your addiction via being unable to pay (and be unable to use) their drugs.

I am saying they are very different kinds of people

This is a very unusual statement that typically doesn't reflect reality. Your friendly pot dealer may let you borrow some marijuana because he is being nice, but any dealer selling cocaine, meth, or heroin doesn't need to promote or use creative marketing tricks to attract and maintain users. The drugs sell themselves and all they are concerned about is delivering it as efficiently as possible with the least amount of risk to themselves. Is there a ethical difference between someone that sells marijuana and dangerous and addictive drugs? Certainly. Is this a different level of moral responsibility than someone who is trying to maintain a neutral marketplace of drugs where people have the liberty to make poor decisions. Absolutely. Are there legitimate reasons why people need to have the right to buy these dangerous drugs.? Certainly.

[Tzupy]

Although I voted for the 5 years option (for sloppiness  ), it seems DPR should be given a medal for preventing criminal violence:
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/silk-road-prevented-criminal-violence/

[bf4btc]

Although I voted for the 5 years option (for sloppiness  ), it seems DPR should be given a medal for preventing criminal violence:
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/silk-road-prevented-criminal-violence/

I am not sure about a medal, but I do agree that he should be given some credit for selling drugs in a non-violent way (except for the contract killings of course). The drug deals were more or less all done in non-violent ways while traditional "street" deals are often the cause of robberies, assaults, and murder. 

[BayAreaCoins]

15 years and parole in 5

It should be thrown out though I hope.

[bluemountain]

15 years and parole in 5

It should be thrown out though I hope.

There are a lot of facts/circumstances about the case that could get it (or a large portion of government evidence) to be thrown out on appeal.

One notable issue is that the judge denied the defense's motion to suppress evidence from the SR1 server in iceland because the government did not have a warrant on the basis that Ross did not claim ownership of the server, even though if he did claim such a fact it could not have been used against him in court, but could be used to impeach his testimony in the event he were to testify.

[Conqueror]

Hurray!

Great news:
http://cointelegraph.com/news/113433/ross-ulbricht-found-guilty-on-all-charges

[Towlie]

I'm sure it's already been mentioned but pioneers of freedom don't try murder others. If it wasn't for that he would have my support but he doesn't have anyone else to blame but himself for this.

[Possum577]

This guy created a market for illegal activity to be conducted. If you believe he's a "pioneer of freedom" then you also must agree that the person that organizes sex trafficking of children is a pioneer of freedom.

I want to hear some reasons why this guy is a "pioneer of freedom"...

[Biomech]

This guy created a market for illegal activity to be conducted. If you believe he's a "pioneer of freedom" then you also must agree that the person that organizes sex trafficking of children is a pioneer of freedom.

I want to hear some reasons why this guy is a "pioneer of freedom"...

I am unimpressed with him, but your first sentence and your second are logically contradictory. Illegal and immoral are NOT equivalent. Everything the Nazi regime did to the Jews and other "undesirables" was legal. Those who helped them escape were engaging in illegal activities.
Use of drugs is NOT illegal in the United States, regardless of what the politicians have decreed. The Constitution of the United States, while frequently ignored, is their only claim to legitimacy, and it DOES NOT authorize them to regulate or ban drugs. This would require an amendment, as the Volstead act did. They are unwilling to go there, because they know (and knew) exactly what these edicts will do and have done to society. In this sense, I do believe that the Silk Road was a frontier for freedom, in that it took away a great deal of violence and uncertainty in the black markets that the DEA and it's predecessors deliberately and cynically foisted on the world.

[BADecker]

This guy created a market for illegal activity to be conducted. If you believe he's a "pioneer of freedom" then you also must agree that the person that organizes sex trafficking of children is a pioneer of freedom.

I want to hear some reasons why this guy is a "pioneer of freedom"...

Government people (not all of them, maybe not the majority of them) under their disguise as government people, do way more propagating of evil than Ross could ever even think of.

The government sees to it that millions of innocent people in other countries are murdered, using as the excuse, "They got in the way when we were after some bad guys." Killing off innocent people in the name of hunting down bad guys is completely wrong.

In America, Canada and the U.K., the law is, let your accuser get on the stand and validate that you did wrong through oath or affirmation, speaking it into the record. Wrong doing doesn't include breaking some Law Code of the government except if you have a signed contract to obey that Law Code. Wrongdoing only includes harming a person with actual harm, damaging a person's property with actual damage, or breaking a signed contract where you have explicitly agreed to the terms of the contract.

Millions of Americans are in jail in America simply because they unwittingly and unknowingly made a contract with government when, at their court trial, they affirmed that they were being represented by someone else (usually an attorney) or when they represented themselves. They did no wrong. They simply, accidentally, unknowingly, made a contract. They didn't even know that they made a contract. How can you see that they made a contract by being represented? You can see it in the question, "Why do I need representation? I am present!"

It's a trick, folks. It's a big trick perpetrated by government. When the courts try you under the representation contract, they find you guilty according to their rules, not according to any harm or damage that you may have done. Then they throw you into prison for smoking a joint, or for multitudes of kinds of petty little things that HARMED OR DAMAGED NOBODY.

Government people are way more your common crooks than Ross could ever imagine being even if he happened to be evil incarnate. Why? Because they constantly deny people their rights through ignorance of the law. And then they rob and jail and even murder their victims. And now Ross is one of their victims by this same methodology.

Consider. An attorney is first and foremost an officer of the court. The attorney doesn't owe you anything except that the court tells him he does. When he represents you, this is CONFLICT OF INTEREST. It is the way government is criminally acting against all the people of the land.

Ross should be given a medal. He should be given a medal for helping to bring this thing about the courts to light.

The one important word that is destroying our freedom in the courts is REPRESENTATION. If we weren't represented in the courts by an attorney or by ourselves, but rather, if we were present as a man or woman, most of the codes and laws wouldn't apply. Only harm, damage, or breaking a contract (which is harm or damage) would apply to us.

Free Ross. Free us all!

[Biomech]

This guy created a market for illegal activity to be conducted. If you believe he's a "pioneer of freedom" then you also must agree that the person that organizes sex trafficking of children is a pioneer of freedom.

I want to hear some reasons why this guy is a "pioneer of freedom"...

Government people (not all of them, maybe not the majority of them) under their disguise as government people, do way more propagating of evil than Ross could ever even think of.

The government sees to it that millions of innocent people in other countries are murdered, using as the excuse, "They got in the way when we were after some bad guys." Killing off innocent people in the name of hunting down bad guys is completely wrong.

In America, Canada and the U.K., the law is, let your accuser get on the stand and validate that you did wrong through oath or affirmation, speaking it into the record. Wrong doing doesn't include breaking some Law Code of the government except if you have a signed contract to obey that Law Code. Wrongdoing only includes harming a person with actual harm, damaging a person's property with actual damage, or breaking a signed contract where you have explicitly agreed to the terms of the contract.

Millions of Americans are in jail in America simply because they unwittingly and unknowingly made a contract with government when, at their court trial, they affirmed that they were being represented by someone else (usually an attorney) or when they represented themselves. They did no wrong. They simply, accidentally, unknowingly, made a contract. They didn't even know that they made a contract. How can you see that they made a contract by being represented? You can see it in the question, "Why do I need representation? I am present!"

It's a trick, folks. It's a big trick perpetrated by government. When the courts try you under the representation contract, they find you guilty according to their rules, not according to any harm or damage that you may have done. Then they throw you into prison for smoking a joint, or for multitudes of kinds of petty little things that HARMED OR DAMAGED NOBODY.

Government people are way more your common crooks than Ross could ever imagine being even if he happened to be evil incarnate. Why? Because they constantly deny people their rights through ignorance of the law. And then they rob and jail and even murder their victims. And now Ross is one of their victims by this same methodology.

Consider. An attorney is first and foremost an officer of the court. The attorney doesn't owe you anything except that the court tells him he does. When he represents you, this is CONFLICT OF INTEREST. It is the way government is criminally acting against all the people of the land.

Ross should be given a medal. He should be given a medal for helping to bring this thing about the courts to light.

The one important word that is destroying our freedom in the courts is REPRESENTATION. If we weren't represented in the courts by an attorney or by ourselves, but rather, if we were present as a man or woman, most of the codes and laws wouldn't apply. Only harm, damage, or breaking a contract (which is harm or damage) would apply to us.

Free Ross. Free us all!

<blink>

What the hell were you and I disagreeing on before?

I fully endorse this!

[HarryPotHead]

That mouth is going to be handy in jail, i voted 30 years!

He paid for murders and i know we don't know it's fact but we do know he paid for them.   

[BADecker]

This guy created a market for illegal activity to be conducted. If you believe he's a "pioneer of freedom" then you also must agree that the person that organizes sex trafficking of children is a pioneer of freedom.

I want to hear some reasons why this guy is a "pioneer of freedom"...

Government people (not all of them, maybe not the majority of them) under their disguise as government people, do way more propagating of evil than Ross could ever even think of.

The government sees to it that millions of innocent people in other countries are murdered, using as the excuse, "They got in the way when we were after some bad guys." Killing off innocent people in the name of hunting down bad guys is completely wrong.

In America, Canada and the U.K., the law is, let your accuser get on the stand and validate that you did wrong through oath or affirmation, speaking it into the record. Wrong doing doesn't include breaking some Law Code of the government except if you have a signed contract to obey that Law Code. Wrongdoing only includes harming a person with actual harm, damaging a person's property with actual damage, or breaking a signed contract where you have explicitly agreed to the terms of the contract.

Millions of Americans are in jail in America simply because they unwittingly and unknowingly made a contract with government when, at their court trial, they affirmed that they were being represented by someone else (usually an attorney) or when they represented themselves. They did no wrong. They simply, accidentally, unknowingly, made a contract. They didn't even know that they made a contract. How can you see that they made a contract by being represented? You can see it in the question, "Why do I need representation? I am present!"

It's a trick, folks. It's a big trick perpetrated by government. When the courts try you under the representation contract, they find you guilty according to their rules, not according to any harm or damage that you may have done. Then they throw you into prison for smoking a joint, or for multitudes of kinds of petty little things that HARMED OR DAMAGED NOBODY.

Government people are way more your common crooks than Ross could ever imagine being even if he happened to be evil incarnate. Why? Because they constantly deny people their rights through ignorance of the law. And then they rob and jail and even murder their victims. And now Ross is one of their victims by this same methodology.

Consider. An attorney is first and foremost an officer of the court. The attorney doesn't owe you anything except that the court tells him he does. When he represents you, this is CONFLICT OF INTEREST. It is the way government is criminally acting against all the people of the land.

Ross should be given a medal. He should be given a medal for helping to bring this thing about the courts to light.

The one important word that is destroying our freedom in the courts is REPRESENTATION. If we weren't represented in the courts by an attorney or by ourselves, but rather, if we were present as a man or woman, most of the codes and laws wouldn't apply. Only harm, damage, or breaking a contract (which is harm or damage) would apply to us.

Free Ross. Free us all!

<blink>

What the hell were you and I disagreeing on before?

I fully endorse this!

I don't remember. But I'm sure that we could figure it out if we tried.

Remember the saying, "divide and conquer?" That's what the whole judicial system in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K. are trying to do to us, their people. Isn't it about time that we do the same to them? by getting rid of our petty arguments until we throw their yoke off our necks?

If you haven't seen how Karl Lentz is doing just that, you really need to look. You'd probably like Karl. He is a farmer, was a motorcycle "tough" guy, knows the law up and down right and left, and understands exactly how to do the things the so-called patriot gurus have been trying to do forever without success.

Start learning about Karl here http://recordings.talkshoe.com/rss127469.xml.

Karl's two major websites are http://www.broadmind.org/ and http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/.

Be ready for profanity, lots of "f***."

Some of his best info is found in the 4 audios before and including Episode 171 here http://recordings.talkshoe.com/rss127469.xml.

Want more links? Look at some of my other posts, or ask. Let's first straighten up the courts, get the good guys out of prison, and then fight out between us our petty differences.

[BADecker]

image

That mouth is going to be handy in jail, i voted 30 years!

He paid for murders and i know we don't know it's fact but we do know he paid for them.  

It's all hearsay. Nobody has come forward with a claim that Ross did the wrong from a first-hand stance. Nobody has come forward to say, "Ross paid me to be a hit man." Yet, somehow we just know that Ross did it.