Topic: Charlie Shrem Pleads Guilty - What do you think? - page 4. (Read 5933 times)
Difficult. I'm no lawyer, I guess they do know what is the best way to go in this case! I think it's the safest way - in some cases - to actually plead guilty if it reduces your sentence, or if it's some kind of 'deal' you made with the prosecution... I don't know the exact background, though!
Btc price will be hit maybe or not with recent good news of overstock. i duno
Govt threatened him with 20+ years, what would you do? Roll the dice or take probation ...
My point from the beginning. If you have a family to think about, they come before public perception...always!
Govt threatened him with 20+ years, what would you do? Roll the dice or take probation ...
When you are kidnapped, cooperate with your captors if it will result in your freedom. Even McCain cooperated with the Vietnamese when he was a prisoner to get through his captivity.
There is no shame in taking the shortest path toward freedom.
There is no shame in taking the shortest path toward freedom.
I love Charlie Shrem, and I support a right to financial privacy. The whole idea of "money laundering" being a crime precludes a right to financial privacy.
The people who make this kind of stuff illegal are basically from a different planet than me, or a totally alien culture.
They're from planet "we print the money in this town, and we give it to our criminal bankster pals. DON'T GO PRINTING YOUR OWN MONEY BEHIND OUR BACKS YOU FUCKWITS, WE'RE THE FUCKIN MAFIA!"The people who make this kind of stuff illegal are basically from a different planet than me, or a totally alien culture.
I think the government wants to prosecute as many people who sold on silk road as possible to make others who sell/make money off other similar sites afraid to do business on those sites.
Exactly, it's not about justice, it's about setting an intimidating example in a futile attempt to scare people away from both dark markets and bitcoin. It won't work. 
I love Charlie Shrem, and I support a right to financial privacy. The whole idea of "money laundering" being a crime precludes a right to financial privacy. The people who make this kind of stuff illegal are basically from a different planet than me, or a totally alien culture.
The man only has one life so I wouldn't expect him to be trying to play a Bitcoin martyr. The feds are pro's at making people take deals they wouldn't normally take. The system is so rigged it it is not funny, especially if you don't have a great legal team and the money to pay them.. The fact that he pleads guilty is in many ways a win for the FEDS and a loss for the little guy who got caught in the wrong place and didn't know the right people.
IDK how much him fighting (successfully) the charges would help bitcoin. I think the case is really more about money laundering laws then anything else. If anything, the case is about someone who did business and made money off the silk road site regardless of the morality of what was being done. I think the government wants to prosecute as many people who sold on silk road as possible to make others who sell/make money off other similar sites afraid to do business on those sites.
Your point about this mainly being about money laundering is fair and makes sense. My issue is more so about how the court system works to make an example of the little guy. There are far bigger players who get caught laundering money and cooperating with murders and criminals and the people are told they are "to big to fail". The double standard in the court system by the have and have not's is my real point I'm trying to get across. For me this is just a witch hunt to take down some undesirables. Mr Shrem made a bad decision and it caught up with him so don't think I'm calling him an angel that is being attacked for nothing. I'm just interested bigger picture and the tactics used by the feds.
Hmm well if it is obvious that you will be found guilty and sentenced, it may indeed be better to accept the "lesser evil" and come forward for yourself. I'm certain he will have discussed this tactic with his lawyers well enough!
He can't be found guilty because he's pleading guilty.
Hmm well if it is obvious that you will be found guilty and sentenced, it may indeed be better to accept the "lesser evil" and come forward for yourself. I'm certain he will have discussed this tactic with his lawyers well enough!
I do not understand the thread. You are not a moron and yet you started this thread. He clearly broke the law and then put in writing how to continue to break the law and "he would not notice". Whether you agree with the law is irrelevant. He was not in the "gray area", he was fully entrenched in the black. Pleading guilty to save his ass and let the government set a precedent is the best outcome for him.
Nothing is ever as black and white as your making this sound. I started the thread to discover what people think about what the government is doing not to hold a trial.
Disagreeing with bad laws is not irrelevant. If I were the head of a Homeland Security office, under the NDAA, I could arrest your mother and hold her until the day she dies without a trial in a military prison. I think Rosa Parks would believe ignoring bad laws is relevant. She was tried and convicted using Jim Crow laws because she refused to give up her seat on a bus. People have been hunted down and killed to keep marijuana out of this country. Now it's legal in Colorado and Washington. Anti corruption and money laundering laws are a joke coming from a government that's as corrupt as the U.S. Government. Especially considering how much public money the CIA launders for its supply of arms to foreign factions to overthrow governments.
I do not understand the thread. You are not a moron and yet you started this thread. He clearly broke the law and then put in writing how to continue to break the law and "he would not notice". Whether you agree with the law is irrelevant. He was not in the "gray area", he was fully entrenched in the black. Pleading guilty to save his ass and let the government set a precedent is the best outcome for him.
The man only has one life so I wouldn't expect him to be trying to play a Bitcoin martyr. The feds are pro's at making people take deals they wouldn't normally take. The system is so rigged it it is not funny, especially if you don't have a great legal team and the money to pay them.. The fact that he pleads guilty is in many ways a win for the FEDS and a loss for the little guy who got caught in the wrong place and didn't know the right people.
IDK how much him fighting (successfully) the charges would help bitcoin. I think the case is really more about money laundering laws then anything else. If anything, the case is about someone who did business and made money off the silk road site regardless of the morality of what was being done. I think the government wants to prosecute as many people who sold on silk road as possible to make others who sell/make money off other similar sites afraid to do business on those sites.
The man only has one life so I wouldn't expect him to be trying to play a Bitcoin martyr. The feds are pro's at making people take deals they wouldn't normally take. The system is so rigged it it is not funny, especially if you don't have a great legal team and the money to pay them.. The fact that he pleads guilty is in many ways a win for the FEDS and a loss for the little guy who got caught in the wrong place and didn't know the right people.
I must admit I'm disappointed with you Charlie. If you are truly innocent then you must not plead guilty to *ANY* charges that you did not commit. We cannot permit the Federal Mafia to simply threaten everyone into submission. This sets a very bad precedent for the future and other Bitcoin users.
You need to take your chances of winning at trial into consideration. If there is evidence against him and the potential penalty is great then it would be better to accept a guilty plea, especially if the plea deal would likely result in no jail time. No one ever wins at trial.
I think a jury would likely get confused if this case went to trial and would likely side with the government. This was a good idea considering the potential maximum sentence.
Pleading guilty to a victimless crime that prohibits you from your right to self-defense is suicidal. No need to imprison someone if you can simply murder their disarmed and defenseless ass after collecting their fines.
I must admit I'm disappointed with you Charlie. If you are truly innocent then you must not plead guilty to *ANY* charges that you did not commit. We cannot permit the Federal Mafia to simply threaten everyone into submission. This sets a very bad precedent for the future and other Bitcoin users.
You need to take your chances of winning at trial into consideration. If there is evidence against him and the potential penalty is great then it would be better to accept a guilty plea, especially if the plea deal would likely result in no jail time. No one ever wins at trial.
Sooner or later their misdeeds will come back around to bite them in the ass, it is the way of the world. No tyranny can continue forever.
Can't compare white collar crime with rape and murder.
I made no such comparison. 
I think anyone in this kind of situation would have taken any chance they had to get themselves a lighter sentence even if it meant pleading guilty. It seems this was the case and I know many of us if put into the same situation would have taken the same decision.
Especially anybody with a family...imagine having to go decades without seeing those people you hold most dear in your life.
Can't compare white collar crime with rape and murder.
Charlie Shrem was just buying and selling bitcoin. It is a victimless crime.
I must admit I'm disappointed with you Charlie. If you are truly innocent then you must not plead guilty to *ANY* charges that you did not commit. We cannot permit the Federal Mafia to simply threaten everyone into submission. This sets a very bad precedent for the future and other Bitcoin users.
You need to take your chances of winning at trial into consideration. If there is evidence against him and the potential penalty is great then it would be better to accept a guilty plea, especially if the plea deal would likely result in no jail time. No one ever wins at trial.
I must admit I'm disappointed with you Charlie. If you are truly innocent then you must not plead guilty to *ANY* charges that you did not commit. We cannot permit the Federal Mafia to simply threaten everyone into submission. This sets a very bad precedent for the future and other Bitcoin users.
You need to take your chances of winning at trial into consideration. If there is evidence against him and the potential penalty is great then it would be better to accept a guilty plea, especially if the plea deal would likely result in no jail time. Jump to: