Ross Ulbricht Guilty of Everything

[Quickseller]

There will be an appeal. The trial is far from over.

And like most appeals they go nowhere, though I can't blame him for trying.

There have been several articles that I have read citing law experts, that have said there may be valid appeals. I would say the biggest one is the denying of the motion to suppress the evidence from the SR server in Iceland based on a technicality, other potential appeal avenues would include the denial of the ability of some of the defense witnesses to testify (also on technicalities) as well as potential lack of competent counsel.

[Lauda]

So he took the fall for it. We can't really know if he was DPR or not.
I highly doubt that he was the only and main person behind Silk Road.

Didn't he set up the site using his own email address and the first postings about it was on here using a screen name that was traced directly back to him?

I am surprised how fast this trial went, did his lawyers even try?
I hope he didn't pay for them.

They caught him red-handed, not to mention all the other evidence they had against him. He was fucked from the start, but the best they could come up with was pathetically trying to shift blame on to Karpales.

I wasn't aware of this. Well this is why you never use a main address, especially when doing shady things (this even shows us more the need of encrypted emails).
Indeed. Even though I do not think that he was alone, trying to shift it on Karpales without any proof was pathetic just as you've said.
They could have come up with something better.
Not looking at the other part of the trial (due to the 'hiring of hitmen'), he will get way too much time for "just" running a drug website.

[gogxmagog]

Now that all is said and done, this really does appear to be nothing but a "show trial"

I have no idea if Ulbritch is guilty or not, and I don't see how the jury could either. What a farce.

Looks like they got their "straw man" anyway

[Buffer Overflow]

I have no idea if Ulbritch is guilty or not, and I don't see how the jury could either.

How would you possibly know what the jury saw and heard in the courtroom?

[AgentofCoin]

So he took the fall for it. We can't really know if he was DPR or not.
I highly doubt that he was the only and main person behind Silk Road.

Didn't he set up the site using his own email address and the first postings about it was on here using a screen name that was traced directly back to him?

I am surprised how fast this trial went, did his lawyers even try?
I hope he didn't pay for them.

They caught him red-handed, not to mention all the other evidence they had against him. He was fucked from the start, but the best they could come up with was pathetically trying to shift blame on to Karpales.

I wasn't aware of this. Well this is why you never use a main address, especially when doing shady things (this even shows us more the need of encrypted emails).
Indeed. Even though I do not think that he was alone, trying to shift it on Karpales without any proof was pathetic just as you've said.
They could have come up with something better.
Not looking at the other part of the trial (due to the 'hiring of hitmen'), he will get way too much time for "just" running a drug website.

Actually the US government thought DPR was Karpeles, at first. The Defense just used US govs original theory.
"The DHS witness, agent Jared DerYeghiayan, reportedly claimed that Mark Karpeles, former CEO of the embattled bitcoin exchange Mt Gox, was once suspected to be the online black market's mastermind, Dread Pirate Roberts."
Here: http://www.coindesk.com/mt-gox-ceo-mark-karpeles-implicated-silk-road-trial/

[hilariousandco]

There will be an appeal. The trial is far from over.

And like most appeals they go nowhere, though I can't blame him for trying.

There have been several articles that I have read citing law experts, that have said there may be valid appeals. I would say the biggest one is the denying of the motion to suppress the evidence from the SR server in Iceland based on a technicality, other potential appeal avenues would include the denial of the ability of some of the defense witnesses to testify (also on technicalities) as well as potential lack of competent counsel.

That technicality about how they accessed the servers was the only thing that probably could've got him off but good luck proving that (if it even did happen).

Not looking at the other part of the trial (due to the 'hiring of hitmen'), he will get way too much time for "just" running a drug website.

He'll get life. They'll want to make an example out of him.

Actually the US government thought DPR was Karpeles.
"The DHS witness, agent Jared DerYeghiayan, reportedly claimed that Mark Karpeles, former CEO of the embattled bitcoin exchange Mt Gox, was once suspected to be the online black market's mastermind, Dread Pirate Roberts."

From what I read it seemed like he was just one of the initial suspects and I haven't seen what evidence if any they had for that (and seemingly neither did Ross and his lawyers other than just outright blaming him). The Feds probably initially just brainstormed who DPR could possibly as they has no idea at first and I'm sure there were lots of well known names included but it's not surprising that someone like Karpales was on there.

[Quickseller]

There will be an appeal. The trial is far from over.

And like most appeals they go nowhere, though I can't blame him for trying.

There have been several articles that I have read citing law experts, that have said there may be valid appeals. I would say the biggest one is the denying of the motion to suppress the evidence from the SR server in Iceland based on a technicality, other potential appeal avenues would include the denial of the ability of some of the defense witnesses to testify (also on technicalities) as well as potential lack of competent counsel.

That technicality about how they accessed the servers was the only thing that probably could've got him off but good luck proving that (if it even did happen).

The judge didn't even rule on the merits of the motion to have the evidence excluded. She said that the defense attorney needed to hypothetically agree that Ross owned the servers in order to even "look" at the request. Although hypothetically agreeing to this could be used to impeach Ross's testimony in the event that he wanted to take the stand. She was effectively forcing him to decide if he wanted to testify prior to the trial ever starting.

If the verdict is overturned because of this or something else then the defense can put the guy who was doing the "hacking" of SR's servers on the stand to find out what exactly he was doing to get access to the servers. I don't think it was an accident that he did not testify.

[Enochian]

If the verdict is overturned because of this or something else then the defense can put the guy who was doing the "hacking" of SR's servers on the stand to find out what exactly he was doing to get access to the servers. I don't think it was an accident that he did not testify.

According to the FBI guy who figured out the server location, the CAPTCHA on his login page leaked his real IP,  and didn't go through Tor, due to a misconfiguration boo-boo.

Whether this is the truth or a parallel construction is anyone's guess.

[cozk]

I bet the jury still do not know what the F a Bitcoin is lolol

[Quickseller]

If the verdict is overturned because of this or something else then the defense can put the guy who was doing the "hacking" of SR's servers on the stand to find out what exactly he was doing to get access to the servers. I don't think it was an accident that he did not testify.

According to the FBI guy who figured out the server location, the CAPTCHA on his login page leaked his real IP,  and didn't go through Tor, due to a misconfiguration boo-boo.

Whether this is the truth or a parallel construction is anyone's guess.

Well if what he was doing would be considered "hacking" then it could get thrown out because the government was unlawfully accessing the servers. I somewhat doubt that it was a simple misconfiguration because many people had attempted to find exploits in SR so I would have thought someone else would have discovered it

[BADecker]

But he wasn't guilty of the most important thing. If he comes forward at the sentencing, not representing himself, and not being represented by anyone (attorney), but PRESENT as a man, he can still require that a harmed or damaged man or woman appear, and connect their harm or damage to him. If no man or woman comes forward to state harm or damage done by, or if it can't be shown that the harm or damage was connected to him, he gets off completely free. But he must state that with regard to the law and codes, he is incompetent. And he IS incompetent with regard to them. Why? Because he didn't write them, they are not written in plain English, he never agreed to them, so doesn't understand them (which means stand under them in legal language).

Without harm or damage of some human being that can be linked to you, these laws do not apply. If Ross doesn't do the above, he is convicting himself. That's all there is to it.



EDIT: This kind of application of law applies to everyone. The prisons would be empty if everyone did this. Attorneys would be out of a job. Bitcoin would flourish and the banking industry would die, if people simply understood that they can only be held liable for harming another person, damaging another person's property, or breach of contract.

http://voidjudgments.com/

http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html

http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-127469/TS-939473.mp3

[Inotanewbie]

But he wasn't guilty of the most important thing. If he comes forward at the sentencing, not representing himself, and not being represented by anyone (attorney), but PRESENT as a man, he can still require that a harmed or damaged man or woman appear, and connect their harm or damage to him. If no man or woman comes forward to state harm or damage done by, or if it can't be shown that the harm or damage was connected to him, he gets off completely free. But he must state that with regard to the law and codes, he is incompetent. And he IS incompetent with regard to them. Why? Because he didn't write them, they are not written in plain English, he never agreed to them, so doesn't understand them (which means stand under them in legal language).

Without harm or damage of some human being that can be linked to you, these laws do not apply. If Ross doesn't do the above, he is convicting himself. That's all there is to it.

While I do somewhat agree with your philosophy, it is unfortunately not how the law works. (how for example would a murder ever be found guilty if someone actually needs to come forward and claim they were harmed by the criminal).

Most laws, especially those that are serious crimes, are written so that when the law is broken, it is society as a whole that is damaged/harmed.

[redhawk979]

This is just as bad as when Al Capone went to jail for avoiding paying taxes, because taxes are immoral.

[BADecker]

But he wasn't guilty of the most important thing. If he comes forward at the sentencing, not representing himself, and not being represented by anyone (attorney), but PRESENT as a man, he can still require that a harmed or damaged man or woman appear, and connect their harm or damage to him. If no man or woman comes forward to state harm or damage done by, or if it can't be shown that the harm or damage was connected to him, he gets off completely free. But he must state that with regard to the law and codes, he is incompetent. And he IS incompetent with regard to them. Why? Because he didn't write them, they are not written in plain English, he never agreed to them, so doesn't understand them (which means stand under them in legal language).

Without harm or damage of some human being that can be linked to you, these laws do not apply. If Ross doesn't do the above, he is convicting himself. That's all there is to it.

While I do somewhat agree with your philosophy, it is unfortunately not how the law works. (how for example would a murder ever be found guilty if someone actually needs to come forward and claim they were harmed by the criminal).

Most laws, especially those that are serious crimes, are written so that when the law is broken, it is society as a whole that is damaged/harmed.

There is method to do what you are asking, in common law, which is what I am talking about. If there is a witness, and if there is evidence that conclusively proves guilt, the harmed person would be the relative that was deprived of his property... the dead person. In this case, under strict common law, the harmed relative can essential require the death penalty.

What is better, that an innocent person be found guilty? or that a guilty person go free? If an innocent person is found guilty, then the whole law is guilty of whatever punishment they apply to him.

This might be philosophy, but the things I stated in my previous post are the basis of law in America, Canada and the U.K.  However, basic law doesn't apply if you won't use it. And even if you do, mistakes will be made now and again.

Look at the websites listed above for the law regarding what I say. It is there, in plain English, in the court cases listed.

[BADecker]

This is just as bad as when Al Capone went to jail for avoiding paying taxes, because taxes are immoral.

Not because taxes are immoral, but because he wouldn't stand as a man in court.

Standard court law requires that, if you stand present as a man/woman (not represented in any way, rather present), you can require that your accuser come forward, get sworn in, and on the stand verify that you harmed him or damaged his property. If your accuser won't do this, or if there isn't a witness who will verify on the stand that he saw you do the harm or damage, or if there isn't evidence that connects it to you, no case against you.

In the case of Al C., like with Ross, the accuser can't take the stand, as required by law and court case, and even Constitution. Why not? The accuser is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Find me a Mr., Mrs., or Ms. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA who can get on the stand and verify in open court that he/she was harmed or damaged. It isn't going to happen.

[thejaytiesto]

So.. all these coins are lost for life or they will sell them?

[A.F.K]

Let's be honest, Ross didn't stand a chance.

[Inotanewbie]

But he wasn't guilty of the most important thing. If he comes forward at the sentencing, not representing himself, and not being represented by anyone (attorney), but PRESENT as a man, he can still require that a harmed or damaged man or woman appear, and connect their harm or damage to him. If no man or woman comes forward to state harm or damage done by, or if it can't be shown that the harm or damage was connected to him, he gets off completely free. But he must state that with regard to the law and codes, he is incompetent. And he IS incompetent with regard to them. Why? Because he didn't write them, they are not written in plain English, he never agreed to them, so doesn't understand them (which means stand under them in legal language).

Without harm or damage of some human being that can be linked to you, these laws do not apply. If Ross doesn't do the above, he is convicting himself. That's all there is to it.

While I do somewhat agree with your philosophy, it is unfortunately not how the law works. (how for example would a murder ever be found guilty if someone actually needs to come forward and claim they were harmed by the criminal).

Most laws, especially those that are serious crimes, are written so that when the law is broken, it is society as a whole that is damaged/harmed.

There is method to do what you are asking, in common law, which is what I am talking about. If there is a witness, and if there is evidence that conclusively proves guilt, the harmed person would be the relative that was deprived of his property... the dead person. In this case, under strict common law, the harmed relative can essential require the death penalty.

What is better, that an innocent person be found guilty? or that a guilty person go free? If an innocent person is found guilty, then the whole law is guilty of whatever punishment they apply to him.

This might be philosophy, but the things I stated in my previous post are the basis of law in America, Canada and the U.K.  However, basic law doesn't apply if you won't use it. And even if you do, mistakes will be made now and again.

Look at the websites listed above for the law regarding what I say. It is there, in plain English, in the court cases listed.

Much of the world (the US included) does not rely on strict common law. (although civil litigation is more revolved around common law).

I would agree that it would be better for society as a whole if someone who is guilty were to walk free then an innocent person to be punished for a crime he did not commit.

I would ask you if you truly think that Ross did not harm anyone. I do agree with a lot about what he was doing however I am very concerned about the allegation that he was so willing to hire a hitman to kill people who were causing him problems. Even if you were to ignore that, the fact remains that many addicts were able to continue to feed their addictions, and likely further destroy their lives by buying on Silk Road.

I do however have somewhat of a theory that whoever Ross hired to kill the people in Canada were potentially Law Enforcement and what they were doing was entrapment.

[Gumbork]

what if silk road was decentralize this would have never happen, the darknet now in days is just tricky when it comes to doing anything.

[BADecker]

But he wasn't guilty of the most important thing. If he comes forward at the sentencing, not representing himself, and not being represented by anyone (attorney), but PRESENT as a man, he can still require that a harmed or damaged man or woman appear, and connect their harm or damage to him. If no man or woman comes forward to state harm or damage done by, or if it can't be shown that the harm or damage was connected to him, he gets off completely free. But he must state that with regard to the law and codes, he is incompetent. And he IS incompetent with regard to them. Why? Because he didn't write them, they are not written in plain English, he never agreed to them, so doesn't understand them (which means stand under them in legal language).

Without harm or damage of some human being that can be linked to you, these laws do not apply. If Ross doesn't do the above, he is convicting himself. That's all there is to it.

While I do somewhat agree with your philosophy, it is unfortunately not how the law works. (how for example would a murder ever be found guilty if someone actually needs to come forward and claim they were harmed by the criminal).

Most laws, especially those that are serious crimes, are written so that when the law is broken, it is society as a whole that is damaged/harmed.

There is method to do what you are asking, in common law, which is what I am talking about. If there is a witness, and if there is evidence that conclusively proves guilt, the harmed person would be the relative that was deprived of his property... the dead person. In this case, under strict common law, the harmed relative can essential require the death penalty.

What is better, that an innocent person be found guilty? or that a guilty person go free? If an innocent person is found guilty, then the whole law is guilty of whatever punishment they apply to him.

This might be philosophy, but the things I stated in my previous post are the basis of law in America, Canada and the U.K.  However, basic law doesn't apply if you won't use it. And even if you do, mistakes will be made now and again.

Look at the websites listed above for the law regarding what I say. It is there, in plain English, in the court cases listed.

Much of the world (the US included) does not rely on strict common law. (although civil litigation is more revolved around common law).

Absolutely. Common law, real common law is law between people. Where governments are written down, activity between the written parts of government must be done under contract law or something else, other than common law.

The parts of USA law regarding people is based in common law. This is the reason that the courts need you to be represented. By being represented, they are dragging you into contract law, a place where you can be judged by them outside of common law.

I would agree that it would be better for society as a whole if someone who is guilty were to walk free then an innocent person to be punished for a crime he did not commit.

I would ask you if you truly think that Ross did not harm anyone.

I don't know of Ross harming anyone. I'm not into his life that much. But even if I were, the law is the law. If it were me he harmed, and I don't bring an accusation against him, one that I can back up, what's the dif?

I do agree with a lot about what he was doing however I am very concerned about the allegation that he was so willing to hire a hitman to kill people who were causing him problems.

Ross bad. The courts don't have jurisdiction until he is represented by an attorney, or until he represents himself. If he stands as a man without representation, some harmed man or woman needs to come forward and accuse him, on the stand, with at least one witness, and evidence that clearly points to Ross as the bad guy.

If the courts take jurisdiction outside of the above, then it is bad courts, bad United States, bad people of the United States.

Even if you were to ignore that, the fact remains that many addicts were able to continue to feed their addictions, and likely further destroy their lives by buying on Silk Road.

I do however have somewhat of a theory that whoever Ross hired to kill the people in Canada were potentially Law Enforcement and what they were doing was entrapment.

Entrapment doesn't work without harm or damage, or a harmed or damaged person who gets on the stand. In law it is called, "corpus delicti" and "plaintiff must appear." It is standard, basic law that has been around virtually since the beginnings of time. Of course, to see justice done, if the plaintiff (accuser or damaged person) can't appear because he is unable, then there are alternatives at times.

All the States, and the Federal, have as basic, standard law the term "corpus delicti." It has to be there, and it has to be evidenced, and it has to be witnesses by  at least two people. Ross can ignore his rights to use common law if he wants. But if he doesn't ignore common law, and no accuser human being comes forward with harm or damage, he walks.

http://voidjudgments.com/