Topic: Was Ross Ulbright framed by the FBI? (Read 2990 times)

Being charged doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the outcome of the case.

Did the bartender force or trick the people into the bar? Did he force or trick the people into buying too much? Didn't the bartender stop serving the people when he noticed that it was impairing their abilities to simply converse in the bar? Did the bartender introduce into court the warnings against alcohol that were dispersed throughout his establishment?

Many department stores sell hard liquor. Anyone can chug down a couple bottles of Jim Beam, and not be able to drive. It isn't the department store's fault the guy was an idiot.

It's mostly in how you handle it in court.

True. But also funny is that in many places a bartender could be charged in that case. 

Prior to the Revolutionary War, this was common knowledge among, like, all the people, even though the Constitution hadn't been brought into existence yet. Why? They needed this info to fight King George legally. It is based on all kinds of other legal documents, going back to the Magna Carta, and including the Northwest Ordinance, and The Articles of Confederation after they were brought into existence.

Everything is based on property rights. There is no other reason for government than to protect the property of the people. That's it, period. In civil law countries, property rights have been corrupted somewhat. But America is a common law country where property rights rule. Government has no other purpose.

What is your property? It is your body, your labor (no taxation allowed), your happiness, your peace.



EDIT: No taxation? Then how would government run? By donation. As soon as people thought that they needed the strength of government, they would donate more. If it were on a person by person basis, people would receive the protection they paid for. If people didn't like what the government was doing, they would stop donating, and government would shrink, until it started doing what was right by the people.

Interesting.....

Still reading the wikipedia article from your link, but I find this VERY interesting!

The Ninth Article to the Bill of Rights (generally called the 9th Amendment) from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-1:
Notice the word "retained." Retained means that the people had certain rights before the Constitution was enacted. The 9th Amendment means that the rights that the people had are not diminished by the Constitution. Thus, government (which was set up by the Constitution) has no effect on anyone who stands up as a man - one of the people - because man's rights remain no matter what is written in the Constitution or the laws that come about because of it.

It is man's right to start a Silk Road on the Internet through a Tor .onion domain. It is man's right to sell or otherwise cause drugs to be sold. It is certainly man's right to transfer funds this way and that way. It is man's right to have his privacy, so that if government agents steal his computer, the case against him fails right there.

It is, also, man's right to convict himself of wrongdoing if he so desires. That's what the government is tricking Ross into doing. They are tricking him into convicting himself, because he wouldn't do it if they weren't confusing him all over the place about what the basic law is... the common law of the people.

----------

Regarding what justusranvier said when he said, "It has nothing to do with you casting your spell correctly... ," he is completely wrong. Although we don't use the term "casting your spell" very often today, that's exactly what it is. Let me explain.

Ambiguous words in law weaken it. In court, your words must have a single meaning if you are on the side of government, and if you want them to stand strong. The exception is that you may define the way you use your words, if you want.

It is similar if you are a man presenting your claim. Use 1 or 2-syllable words, because the definitions of such words can't be easily broken by ambiguity.

Casting your spell means to cast (give notice to the world) your spell (you better spell your words correctly, even if there is the ability to, later, claim a spelling error). In other words, you make your claim in a notice to the world using words that are spelled correctly. In ancient times you would have called it casting a spell.

Nice, but we are not talking about a retrial due to the "rogue" agents.
We are talking about a dismiss of all electronic evidence due to them being fabricated.
That means a retrial with whatever else evidience they have, which means jack shit.

If the evidnce given to the court were fabricated, then several heads should fall and it ain't gonna be Ross's.

Oh:

http://gizmodo.com/silk-road-kingpin-ross-ulbricht-wont-be-getting-a-retri-1700647551

That is called entrapment 

I think they made his situation much worse. Like all the killings being related to the agents work.
But framed him? Not really.

True.
BUT, if the feds forged the evidence then he should be home free soon coz you can never know what is real or not. 

Thats funny, because the law does not charge the local liquer store for selling booze, that the people drink and then drive and then crash to death.....

I already contacted them couple of days ago to inform them of my findings - which seem to be fabricated by the feds.

Wrong. You should absolutely have your spelling correct when you notice a man/woman about the wrongdoing he/she does to you.

You are absolutely correct when you say that it is a pure cost/benefit calculation. It is incorrect when you say "on the part of government." No government person wants to lose his job because he can't be bonded any longer. No government person wants to sit in prison.

The guns are held by government people against other government people, if you litigate the government people correctly. Thus, they are essentially held by the people.

In Ross's case, he should file claims of wrongdoing against the people who took his computer while he was in the library, and all kinds of other things.

If the people who were harmed by the Silk Road don't stand up and file a claim of damage against Ross, it is all hearsay, even if it can be shown. As a man, Ross can beat every government accusation - even if he is entirely guilty regarding some laws or codes - if he stands present, as a man, and there is no man who is accusing him. It's the law. See it broken down here http://voidjudgments.com/.

I already addressed that.

It has nothing to do with you casting your spell correctly - it's a pure cost/benefit calculation on the part of the government.

They will play along with the charade of accountability exactly as long as it's profitable for them to do so.

The government does not have all the guns.

The government is made up of people. These people can be litigated against and convicted just like any other people... if it is done the right way.

The law, the courts, and the whole foundation of government - Constitution - is set up so that PEOPLE can litigate against other people who do them wrong.

If a government person (say, police officer) does you wrong, who does the wrong? Is it the government, the office of the police officer, or the man who wears the uniform 8 hours a day? It is always the man, no matter whose orders he might be following. Litigate the man for the wrong he does against you.

Litigate him correctly, and you win his bond money in court, and more if the city is behind ordering him to do the wrong.

It's such a strange, eye-opening case. He was certainly set up by the FBI to some degree but he was also guilty of a lot crimes before the FBI had even arrived on the scene. I wish Ross all the best of luck but I don't see him getting out of this one.

I saw that the prosecution is bringing in family members of 'victims' that died after taking drugs from the silk road. That's a very sly move by the prosecution, you can clearly see they are pulling out all the stops to silence him and lock him away for good.

My 2 satoshi's.

Not true:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/defense-in-silk-road-trial-lays-out-its-full-alternative-perpetrator-theory
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/is-mark-karpeles-the-man-behind-silk-road-for-ross-ulbricht-it-may-not-matter
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/defense-in-silk-road-trial-says-mt-gox-ceo-was-the-real-dread-pirate-roberts

I think he missed to put Variety Jones as the main suspect for the whole plot.

His lawyer, Josh Dratel, is not claiming this. During the trial, Mr. Dratel admitted that Ross Ulbricht ran Silk Road. That seems to settle the matter.

This is literally magical thinking.

It's like you believe that legal arguments are some kind spell incantation that has power over people if they are just recited correctly.

The government never "has to" do anything - they have all the guns.

It doesn't matter what you find in the legislation, or in some old copy of Black's Law Dictionary, or whether you write your spell in capital or lower case letters.

To the extent they pretend that the law has any power over them, they do so because maintaining the illusion is more profitable than not.

The instant that changes, they stop.

I understand why believing in magic is more comfortable than accepting that we just live thrall to a well-dressed mafia with a great propaganda arm, but at some point you need to grow up and face reality as it is.

The point isn't what he could be charged with, the point is who is doing the charging. In man-to-man common law, the one doing the charging has to be a human being who was personally harmed, or whose property was personally damaged. The accuser has to get on the stand and swear that the harm or damage is true, and that Ross did it.

The accuser has to have a witness to the harm or damage being done by Ross, one who can get on the stand and swear that he saw Ross do do the harm or damage.

On top of this, there needs to be evidence that unconditionally points to Ross.

But, none of this is required if Ross doesn't stand as a man, unrepresented in any way, rather present himself, and requiring that his accuser get on the stand so that he can question him. If Ross doesn't stand up, the courts can do anything to him that they want.

Such is the basic, foundational law in America in cases where some human being is accused of anything.