Topic: Silk Road Mastermind Ross Ulbricht Convicted of All 7 Charges (Read 1662 times)

Ah, let me see. Dead people all over who Ross killed. People forced to smoke pot shipped by Ross... all over the place, shouting, "He hurt me; he stole my money; his stuff was bad; it poisoned me; my medical bills are in the $millions."

And besides that, absolutely NO tampering of the computer by the Feds.

Hahahahaha.

The whole computer case was probably installed on the computer by the Feds who had it completely prepared except to throw in some names.

This is B.S. Get someone in there who can show that he has been hurt. Who can show that Ross stole his  money? Who can show that Ross shipped some drugs BECAUSE HE WAS THERE WATCHING IT ALL?

Circumstantial evidence... ALL HEARSAY, because ABSOLUTELY NO WITNESS TO SOME ACTUAL CRIME BEING DONE HAS COME FORWARD.

Do you like to be slaves of government lying scheming? They do it all the time. And you like it.

There is nothing tyrannical about imprisoning a guy who hired people to kill. He's a criminal, he took the chance and lost. If you don't like our laws on drugs (or murder) then go do something to change them. 

Where are you getting your profoundly misinformed information? He is in a criminal proceeding, not a civil proceeding. None of the stuff you said is true at all, it hardly even makes sense.

The question is how long will he be jailed for it . It looks like he will be put behind bars for life.

Some of the defense attorneys may have thought of that. But they are disallowed from defending that way by their position as officers of the court and by the judge.

There are several different kinds of courts. Ross is in a civil court hearing. If he fires his attorneys, and stands present as a man, not represented by himself or anyone else, the law is that he needs to be answered by a man/woman who was harmed or damaged.

You and I and the world may know in our hearts that he is guilty of the worst kinds of sins and crimes, but if he stands as a man, drawing the court over into the common law side rather than letting it remain in the civil side, there are a whole different set of rules.

This is standard law in America. He would probably need a friend passing him notes under the table, to be able to stand as a man, present, in a common law court of record.

As I have said many times, start by reading the court cases that "The Secret is most judgments are Void on their face and not merely voidable," at http://voidjudgments.com/. Then you can start to learn how to get all your buddies who are in prison for virtually nothing, out of prison, because it was a void judgment that put them there. They simply didn't know how to swing the court over into the common law.

Wow, if only his defense lawyers would have thought of that!  

They don't need someone to say Ross threatened him when they have all the evidence of him trying to hire a hitman. That's the opposite of hearsay, that's direct evidence. What you're describing is a defense for assault. He wasn't charged with assault, he was charged with attempted murder, and a murder-for-hire plot. Your legal ideas continue to be simplistic.

If no human being comes forward with the claim, "Ross threatened me. I want protection and retribution," and verifies it on the stand in open court, it's all hearsay. Ross can get out of it by requiring someone to come forward with a claim of attempted murder, and verify it on the stand.

I think he was charged with attempted murder in this trial. The Maryland indictment against him includes two charges related to attempted murder: one charge for attempted murder of a federal witness, and another charge for use of interstate commerce to facilitate murder-for-hire.

You say some variation of this in every almost every thread I see you comment in about court cases. There's no magic code for beating prosecution: some magic trick of demanding to face your accuser, or making your accuser speak in court, or claiming you didn't agree to a contract not to break the law. This grave misunderstanding of how the court system works makes you look like a simpleton. Stop peddling fantasies!

My understanding is his "expert witnesses" were disallowed because they didn't have credentials that would establish them as experts. I myself don't find this a compelling reason. It's your defense, if you want to put every Tom, Dick, and Harry you can find on the stand as your experts, you should be allowed to. It would be easy for the prosecution to discredit them if they didn't have the credentials anyway. So I don't see the justice in prejudging who can testify. I agree with you completely on this point.

I think generally murder or the attempt of is considered the worst crime there is, however he has not yet been charged of that. That's for another trial I believe.

He did try to get people bumped off. So spending time with murderers is something he shouldn't be complaining about.

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 harmed nobody. They damaged no property. Nobody got up and accused them on the stand. 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.

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.

Let's be honest there's no way he or anyone else could have got himself out of this unless they could sting the feds on a technicality or where they broke the law. He'll appeal whatever he gets but its not looking good for him. He was very silly and niave though.

So like most of Wired, I was rooting for Ulbricht, and thought him innocent. But I think with the exception of a few of us on the fringes, we can all admit he's probably guilty, the evidence is truly overwhelming. That being said.....

The judge's refusal to at least create a fair trial is an embarrassment, and just exposes the governments true agenda. You could tell that the defense realized quickly that they weren't going to get a fair shot, because they stopped fighting the injustices. I mean what judge in their right mind, lets the prosecution read a chat log about a murder for hire when the defendant isn't even being tried for that in this case? Yet claims that an official interview with DPR was only heresay and was inadmissible?

It was injustice after injustice, all for the sake of scaring the TOR community. A real shame, a fair trial may have yielded different results, or at least would have avoided this blatant violation of our civil justice system.

Yeah, pretty much things like that. Normally, the judge curbs what the prosecution can bring to the table as some of it could be irrelevant to the particular charges against the defendant yet allows some leeway for the defense to make a better case for someone who's freedom is on the line, especially here when he's facing 20 yrs to life when he's sentenced on May 30th. I don't have a timeline of what was allowed or not but numerous times the judge blocked evidence and testimony that would've helped Ross' cause so undoubtedly there'll be an appeal filed because of how one-sided things were for the defense. Imagine how vulnerable one would feel seeing how the tables were being stacked against you turning this ultimately into a kangaroo court.

Poor Ross. He should have admitted right from the start that he easily could be guilty of all that, long before it went to a jury trial. And he still can do this.

Why would he want to admit guilt? Because he also would admit that he doesn't understand the codes and laws. The codes and the laws are written in legal language, a language that he doesn't understand, and so he can't be damaged by them.

He still can require as a man to face his human accuser. If nobody comes forward to show harm or damage done by Ross, the conviction doesn't apply to Ross. But he has to step forward and say it, not being represented, not representing himself, but present... maybe fire his attorneys first.

If he doesn't do this, he is self convicting of harm and damage that he never did. He is essentially stating that he knows and understands that the codes and laws apply to him and that he knows what they mean, and that he willfully disobeyed them, even if he says it differently under the representation of attorneys.

On the other hand, government might pay him a big bundle to stay guilty. It makes their codes and laws look stronger in the face of people. After all, it doesn't have anything to do with controlling the Internet and Bitcoin. It has to do with enslaving the people.

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

Poor guy is gonna spend the rest of his life with rapists and murderers.. He's gonna get so destroyed in there =(

It's awful that in a system where everyone is innocent until proven guilty a judge can ban evidence that helps support the accused's innocence.

I mean, the guy isn't completely innocent, but he's not guilty of all the charges. Hopefully there's some good that can come out of this (like the good that has come out of Snowden's work.)

I am surprised that Andreas Antonopoulos was not even allowed to speak !!!