Topic: What do you think about Ross Ulbricht, the SilkRoad and the drugwars in general? (Read 538 times)

Are you saying you're obligated to live "under the foundational law of the US, the Constitution"?  Did you sign a document or something?  '

I didn't sign a document, am I obligated to live under this law?  Don't I only have to obey it if I sign the paperwork accepting it?

We're talking US, right? It's the foundational law of the US, the Constitution, that says you have the right to oppose every law the government makes. It's in the Contract Clause and the adjudications about the Contract Clause. It's the right to contract. If you can contract in, you can contract out.

The trick has to do with what you are contracted to. Government can only go by the words it has. Government doesn't assume anything. Words show that you are contracted into government unless there are other words that show that you are contracted out.

What words show that you are contracted into government? Your birth certificate, where your Mom signed you over to government in trust fashion. Of course, she didn't realize what she was doing. But that fact isn't recorded anywhere, so everybody in government can only understand that she knew what she was doing.

If you don't contract out once you reach the age of maturity (18 to 21 depending on the State), you are always under the thumb of the government. Your body is their property in trust. That's why the laws of the US apply to you.

Formally tell them by wording that expresses that you, the man/woman have contracted out of government. File it with your county recorder, and place an ad in the business gazette of your State/County that gives them notice. You are obeying the law when you do this.

Regarding what the signature has to do with it, contact an attorney to find the foundational law for this. Everybody know that a contract without a signature is not valid. You might ask, then why can they assume that you are under the laws of the US? The signature of your Mom on the birth certificate stands until you sign out of it.

There you go. Pay an attorney to set up the contract where you are contracting out. Sign it, having the signature witnessed. And then notice government with several copies to various agencies, and in the business gazette. Since few attorneys understand this stuff, and other government people don't understand it at all, you might have to fight court battles at times.

Remember one important thing about this. Government bases everything on words. They can't do anything else. So, learn how to use the right words to show that you are not under their thumb. Many people who attempt this, accidentally and inadvertently state by the words that they use to get out, that they are really still in. Their words contradict themselves.

Where's the paperwork that says your signature on paperwork means anything?  

If you live in a society that has laws and the means to enforce them, you can't just decide that they don't apply to you after you're caught breaking them (at least in most cases, depending on who you are) and then go back to enjoy all the benefits that come with living somewhere with law and order and a functioning government.  

You'd have a lot more to cry about if there were no laws.

Although Ross Ulbricht is currently in prison, he has received more punishment than Silk Road. 
But I'm very happy to see Ross punished because he certainly deserves punishment, and in many ways he will rot in prison.

Fixed it similar to the way Ross did it. Do it this way and lose. Your choice.

Fixed your post.

I doubt Trump could get him out just like that. Ross is more than just a geek turned Kingpin. He also hired someone to kill a person. Although the hired man turned out to be an agent the intention is evident. But we shall see how Trump can turn things around as it seems like he will win the presidency.

Good luck to Ross though. It's never too late for a man to be rehabilitated.

Prohibition is a big business. It keeps a full US government agency employed, makes sure plenty of people go to jail for really long sentences, makes sure the poorest people die or have to put untested stuff in their body... if you ask me, a degree of control would be much better than prohibition.

BTW, people are free to put whatever in themselves sure, as long as: a) do not harm others (e.g. robbing to get the money) and b) do not ever aspire to have subsidised healthcare.

But that is unlikely to change. My take on this, is that despite the guy being an example of "free trade", liberty and all that, it is also true that provided a framework for services such as booking a henchman, killing services, child abuse materials, snuff media or even worse than that, and that is not "liberty" in my book.

I have never been a defendant in any federal criminal case, but I don't think the defendant normally signs any documents on the paperwork involving the case.

More importantly, I cannot stress how much of a bad idea it is to not have a lawyer in a criminal case (or any case you are a party to for that matter). A lawyer can speak on your behalf while anything they say in court cannot be used against you. If you represent yourself, anything you say 'as your lawyer' can be used against you, even if you misspeak.

Further, you can have your lawyer implement whatever strategy you like (provided it is legal) for your defense.

Well, I am trying on how to get on compatible passage on this with viable opinion.
Prohibition can actually ruin ones life and can hinder carrier and blind folding know knowledgeable ideas from an individual which could be innovative and be useful to the World but due to how the government has always tended to assume they knows best about the world, they rather uses their authoritative power to kill those dreams from individuals.

At other hand, if prohibitions of the law is not a legal practice, then somedays we may find the world at an extinction probably when we human are privileged to do whatever we wanted, things would go astray for over privilege can be abused.
I came across a thread in this board titled If there was no government to government human.
So let us assumed that if there should not be prohibition at certain illiciting levels, then there is absolutely no relevances of the government and its terms and conditions as law of conducting fairness in the Societies too would be of zero adherence.

The reality fact is that government has also taken things personal just as Ross has said, that most cases of prohibitions was amenities created for the police and other agencies to launder monies from the citizens by when the laws catches up with victims.


In the first place he messed up his carrier by associating with politics and then diverted to be against the laws implemented by the same politicians he once mingled with.
Let us also understand that the government to do builds cartels and executing illegal activities which the same laws are against. Believe it, Ross was not smart enough. When you builds a program that may help the people and the government is against it, if you can successfully anonymously activate to keep your ventures in use by the people, then you should stay anonymous as well because the government will surely look for you.
Satoshi Nakamoto knew that earlier and that why the government is against him and still can not get him.

The examples are all over the place. Doing it right gets the DA to drop the case before it gets recorded. However, back in the early 1800's this was almost the only way it was done. Go look at the old cases before the Civil War to see loads of wins like this. Or, you could check out the "Judge Judy" cases.

Any examples of your legal strategy being used successfully?  Or even unsuccessfully? 

In the US...

A man or woman being accused and going to court should never have an attorney. In fact, he should never represent himself. Rather, he should stand present, unrepresented.

The accused has the right to face his accuser. If Ross had been unrepresented, he would have the right to get his accuser on the stand under oath or affirmation, so that he could question his accuser. Who was his accuser? The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Call 3 times for your accuser to get on the stand. Nobody called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA could ever get on the stand. Case dismissed.

Ross, like most of us, had attorneys. So, he shot himself in the foot - head. Consider what a client of an attorney is >>> https://www.youarelaw.org/Download/CorpusJurisSecundum-AttorneyClient.pdf. And look here to find more - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=corpus+juris+secundum+-+client+of+an+attorney&ia=web.

Ross needs to rescind his signature off all paperwork regarding his case, and require a new trial without attorneys. Success would be difficult for him now that things have gone this far. But outside of Trump pardoning him, it might be the only way.

Sorry to nerco bump this thread....

---

It appears that Ulbricht is likely to get pardoned in the near future. Trump said today that he will commute the sentence of DPR/Ulbricht when he is reelected.

I have mixed feelings about this. His sentence is certainly harsh for the crimes he was convicted of. OTOH, there is substantial evidence that he intended to use violence to protect his business. It would be inappropriate for the judge to consider this when handing down his sentence because he was not convicted of this, but as someone outside the judicial process, I am free to consider any evidence that is available to me.

Laws are laws, and if the law was applied in an unbiased way he never would have got so much time. He was railroaded by anyone's definition to make an example of him.

Ulbricht's lawyers brought this up in opening statements, and in pre-trial motions (? - IIRC), but didn't provide any evidence to back this up, nor did anyone testify to this effect. I don't particularly believe ownership of SR was ever transferred based on the fact that the SR "cold wallet" (was not *really* cold) was found on his laptop when he was arrested that contained the private keys to addresses used in 2012. There is also the fact that, to my knowledge, SR users were never told to start using new deposit addresses, which could indicate new ownership of the site (among other things).

You are correct that the agents working out of one of the FBI field offices, the Maryland office I believe were corrupt and has stolen from Ulbricht via the moderator account of the moderator of SR that was arrested.

I am having trouble finding it now, however I remember reading an excerpt from Ulbricht's diary acknowledging that he was risking a life sentence by doing the prep work to get SR launched (by growing the mushrooms in a cabin). A life sentence for that would probably be unrealistic.

I think we can agree to disagree on who is to blame on the harmful effects of drug use. However the current laws make both possession and distribution/selling illicit drugs illegal. If you believe the laws on the books are wrong or bad, you should try to get politicians elected who will vote to change the laws, or try to get current politicians to change the laws. I don't think it is okay to 'look the other way' just because you believe a law is bad.

Sorry, but absolving people of personal responsibility in this situation is a fantasy. Additionally I don't buy your premise of instantly addictive substances for a second. If you know anything about addition, it has more to do with personality types than the drugs involved, and some people are simply more predisposed to addiction, so this premise of instant addiction is more of a result of genetic factors than the drug itself.

As far as the rest of this, it is clear that agents involved with this investigation were proven corrupt and convicted for embezzling resources from this operation. Also there is some question of exactly when control of SR was handed over, and if others still maintained access leaving reasonable doubt as to Ulbricht's personal involvement. Furthermore it would have been a simple task to stage the more serious accusations. The fact that any of this needs to happen is a travesty, and the drug war needs to be ended and shifted to a legalized, regulated, medical approach otherwise this will keep happening.

If someone is selling a drug that causes addiction during the first dose, I don't think the person can be blamed for the subsequent times they take the drug.

The ethics of legalizing (or prohibition) of drugs boils down to the harm to society (or lack thereof) when specific types of drugs are legalized. To get an idea as to the harm legalization of drugs does to society, take a look at San Francisco, Portland, or parts of Washington state. All of these places have prevalent drug use and drug dealing is largely ignored by police. The drug use often happens within large homeless camps that are very unsanitary to the extent that you should not use the shoes you wear if you visit one. 
Yes, that was his public mission, however behind the scenes this was not the case. There were many scams on his platform, including exit scams, but perhaps you cannot blame him for this. When people stole from him, he allegedly tried to have them killed, but was unsuccessful because he was dealing with an undercover LE informant. When a second person stole (hundreds? of) thousands of dollars from various users in his site, he allegedly tried to have him killed, but failed to perform enough due diligence to even realize these people don't exist. IIRC, his business was insolvent for many months (if not longer) before it was forced to close due to multiple unexpected business expenses over many months. The murder for hire was not proven, however the undercover agent did know the location/identity of the person who had stolen from Ulbtict.

The drug dealer doesn't cause anything. The drug dealer is taking advantage of human weakness and suffering sure, but at the end of the day people choose to do this, either the first time or subsequent times. People are responsible for their own choices. The drug war has been more destructive than the drugs themselves would ever be.

Ulbrict believe it or not was taking the first steps toward regulation of this distribution by providing more safety for all involved, including incentives for quality control. They railroaded him to send a message that this is their racket, and not to interfere, not because his crimes deserved such a punishment under the law.

There are some illicit drugs that will cause a person to become addicted almost 100% of the time after a single dose, that do not have any medical benefits.

Drug dealers will also sometimes give away illegal drugs to their frequent customers when they are upfront about being unable to pay, which ultimately results in it being more difficult to stop taking drugs once addicted, and to break the habit of taking harmful drugs.

In each of these cases, it is the drug dealer that causes the addiction, even if disclosure is made.

---

I believe a lot of people blindly support Ulbrict because of his contribution to the bitcoin ecosystem, and not necessarily on the merits of the case and the underlying facts.