Overheard at prison:
Prisoner1: I killed two people. I get out in 23 years.
Prisoner2: I killed my girlfriend's baby. I get out in 7 years.
Prisoner3: I killed several people by selling them bad drugs. I get out in 12 years.
Prisoner4: I killed a van full of people cause I was drunk. I get out in 19 years.
Prisoner5: Hey, new guy. What you'll get?
Ross: Life.
Prisoner6: Dude, what the fuck did you do?
Ross: I was an admin of some website...
Prisoner7: What website was that?
Ross: Only the website that offered the most freedom in the world!
Prisoner8: Wait 'til you're
in for a while. You'll be running it a thousand times better and freer.
The reason the law interprets those things differently (I'm not defending it) is because those are individual crimes. Crimes against society are certain acts which are committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population or an identifiable part of a population. Ulbricht's crime can be classified as a crime against society and not specific individuals. Hate crime like the ones committed by groups (such as KKK members) are an example of people that get the death penalty or if death is off the table in that state they get life.
Ross's crime is nothing when compared with the crime of certain members of the government who acted criminally against Ross.
Government is allowed by the Constitution to make all and any laws that they want. Yet, by that same Constitution, in the 9th Amendment, none of those laws apply to people unless there is harm or damage done. Why? Because it was the harm or damage issue that was the thing that was around before the Constitution, and the 9th Amendment alludes to this. Government success only hangs on the point that Ross didn't know how to defend himself. And an attorney's first allegiance is to the court, not his client.
There are 4 requirements of the court in order to make a judgement that is not a void judgment from its inception. These are:
1. There must be real harm or damage done to the plaintiff or his property.
2. The plaintiff must get on the stand under oath or affirmation, and speak into the record the evident harm or property damages that were done to him. He must also state the way(s) in which the accused did this harm or damage.
3. There must be at least one witness who states the same things that the plaintiff does, under oath or affirmation, from the stand.
4. There must be clear, irrefutable, untampered-with evidence that corroborates the plaintiff and the witness.
One of the best websites that show you the basic requirements that government has, and the court cases to back it all up, is
http://voidjudgments.com/. If Ross doesn't use the rich info found on this site, he loses. If he does use it, government not only loses, but also, government pays Ross for harm and damage done to him by government, including the return of all his property.