there were undoubtedly many many people who's lives were destroyed through easier access to hardcore narcotics ... that IS harm ... law or not law ... technicality or not technicality ... *ethically* the guy should burn ... (assuming actual evidence exists linking his involvement which , of course, there was) ...
You are entitled to your opinion, but BTC users tend to be libertarian and thus think governmental babysitting such as banning drug use/drug dealing is immoral. I don't tell other ppl what to do w/ their bodies so would hope for the same in return. Banning drug use sounds like something out of a previous century. 
Topic: Ross Ulbricht Guilty of Everything - page 6. (Read 6674 times)
regardless of whether or not anyone chooses to step forward out of the blue in such an event as this trial and put themselves in the spotlight despite their illegal actions merely for the sake of claiming harm to themselves ... there were undoubtedly many many people who's lives were destroyed through easier access to hardcore narcotics ... that IS harm ... law or not law ... technicality or not technicality ... *ethically* the guy should burn ... (assuming actual evidence exists linking his involvement which , of course, there was) ...
Guilty of everything. He wasn't found guilty of the murder charges was he? Were they dropped or is that a separate trial? I think he'll go down for life merely for running Silk Road so it probably doesn't matter either way.
I read about it only today. How do you think, is he guilty?
Yes, he is. Maybe not of every single charge but it's pretty obvious he's the guy who was responsible for setting it up and running it.
Where you on the jury or did you sit in the courtroom during the whole case?
Often when the US government wants to nail someone they will have so much FUD spread on forums and on the net just to help themselfs get the conviction.
I admit his defence sounded a bit strange, but truth can be stranger than fiction a lot of the time.
I would have prefered the outcome to go Ross's way and see MK in prision dropping the soap, lol.
I read about it only today. How do you think, is he guilty?
Yes, he is. Maybe not of every single charge but it's pretty obvious he's the guy who was responsible for setting it up and running it.
Sorry for being a bit out of date but is the "Murder-For-Hire" stuff going to go on in a later trial or is this it?
Murder for hire is a different case altogether, that case will be held in the state of Baltimore.yet the cnbc media mix that in to the news report when they say he was guilty making it look like hes a murderer also.
but his BTC are worth much more in 50 years 
! maybe he can buy the whole jail and flee then 
! maybe he can buy the whole jail and flee then 
Did the defense came up to say, that DPR is still out there and earning commissions? I mean, shortly after SR was closed, "The Real DPR" opened the SR2 site, which he also abandoned after leaving it with a fall guy.
Now SR Reloaded is up and running ...
Now SR Reloaded is up and running ...
I just hope this will signal the end to the "BTC=Criminal Activity" chapter of the FUD cycle. They got their Judas Goat, now can they please report on something OTHER than bad actors using BTC?
Fortunately the whole ISIS uses BTC thing is just too ridiculous to gain much traction, but honestly, can't they just look beyond these shock-stories?
Hopefully the fools out there can consider the world of BTC to be "cleaned up" now that the evil internet drug peddler is locked up, and maybe move on to a more positive view of this new tech.
Can't really tell you if Ross is guilty or not, doesn't seem entirely honest. We shall see what he's in for when sentanced. Also, he's going to appeal, and appeal, and appeal.
This aint over yet.
Fortunately the whole ISIS uses BTC thing is just too ridiculous to gain much traction, but honestly, can't they just look beyond these shock-stories?
Hopefully the fools out there can consider the world of BTC to be "cleaned up" now that the evil internet drug peddler is locked up, and maybe move on to a more positive view of this new tech.
Can't really tell you if Ross is guilty or not, doesn't seem entirely honest. We shall see what he's in for when sentanced. Also, he's going to appeal, and appeal, and appeal.
This aint over yet.
Whats the punishment is he getting ?
Probably life without parole. Taking in to account the fact that SR dealt in hundreds of millions of USD worth of drugs, that seems quite possible. And add in the (FBI-invented) attempted murders, he is in deep s*it.
Whats the punishment is he getting ?
I bet the jury still do not know what the F a Bitcoin is lolol
I'm sure you are 100% right, most if not all of the jury wouldn't have a clue what bitcoin is but this trail really didn't have much to do with understanding bitcoin.It was a show trial about a new type of drug dealing, a kind that is safer for buyers and sellers alike who do have to risk getting shot, stabbed or just plain ripped off while buying what they wanted.
If this trial was about bitcoin then they would have let the BTC 'experts' talk.
I don't condone Mr. Ullbricht's involvement in the drugs trade. But at the same time, he has become one of the earliest martyr's in Bankers' warfare against Bitcoin. The Bankers will make sure that he will never come out of jail.
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). 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.
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.
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.
Quote
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 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?
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
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/
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.
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). 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.
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.
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.
Let's be honest, Ross didn't stand a chance.
So.. all these coins are lost for life or they will sell them?
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.
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). 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.
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.
Jump to: