All Comments

  • Posted by JoleneMartens1982 10 years, 3 months ago
    OK, life senrence is a lot excessive, and I agree the laws are really getting out of hand, but the guy did enable drug abuse and distribution.
    I personally believe they should legalize and tax the shit out of all drugs. If people want to do drugs they are going to, let's take the illusion out of it. How many teenagers would never try drugs if they knew the effects and what they are doing to the body. And if it was expensive. Just my opinion.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 10 years, 3 months ago
    He bucked the system. This cow jumped the fence. Bad cow...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 10 years, 3 months ago
    I'm very ambivalent about this whole case. It seems that this young man let down his guard. A brilliant young man like Ulbricht should have had a cadre of Hackers working with him in different countries that would have lessen the chances of the Federales catching him. The gov't should be going after Terrorist and other dangerous cyber criminals.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 3 months ago
    Cruel and unusual... excessive. He set up a market place, but was not directly responsible for selling contraband right? If an "escort service" spams any website aren't they just as responsible? Nonsense. There is too much money in incarceration... The RICO laws are constantly over applied... abused. Dr. Ferris - "Laws are of no use unless the right people break them." Apparently the "right people' are anyone they can make an example of.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    we are going to listen in to the liberty.me show tonight 9PM EST. If I tune in an hour earlier, two people who actually were in the courtroom during the trial are going to reflect on it. maybe I can learn more there
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'd guess, "often" because you specified 'motivation.'

    But then I'd have to ask, when was the last time that the law(s) they passed DELIVERED on the promise of 'benefit to society'?

    A few, maybe, but would it break out of single-digit percentages?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There are differences, but not as significant as we would like. In the Gulch, we feel that we are watching a train wreck and we are all baffled that everyone else cannot see the approaching crisis too. If we are going to turn away from this, it will take some sort of a change that is extreme. This doesn't have to be a political change - an asteroid striking the Earth would do the trick quite nicely - but a political change is the most likely method (and the most pleasant).

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    salty, you brought up following one's conscience. As to the government using a law enacted to address one thing, against an entirely difference circumstance--that doesn't require a change in the law. It only requires that juries follow their consciences and that (jury nullification) is entirely legal and constitutional.

    As to your train, it's long been in the station. It was just well camouflaged.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The supreme court sets precedence and follows it's own precedence as set by previous courts. If they settle a case using precedence, that is their first priority. They try to avoid constitutionality by setting levels of scrutiny for different types of cases. Congress can deny court review of decisions by stating so in the legislation.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    They didn't charge any of them in this trial, though they made the allegations in public.

    There is talk (again public allegations) of the possibility of another trial to come in Maryland.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    As long as the courts consider Wickard v. Filburn to be valid law, it makes everything interstate commerce.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I would love it if this were overturned, but it is unlikely. His only real hope now is that we elect a president who will pardon him.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No. The looters are the banks AND the politicians they've paid off.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The whole concept of "money laundering" is unconstitutional. ML is nothing more than not telling anyone where your money came from. The government uses scenarios such as "what if we couldn't collect taxes?" to scare people, but if that were ever really a problem, they could simply forget about income and sales taxes and use property taxes to fund everything instead. (And besides, if government weren't 100 times larger than it has any constitutional business being, nobody would be making such heroic efforts to resist taxation.) No, those who oppose ML are just busybodies.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I used it in the one case I sat on with one count of racketeering, 19 other but similar counts, and two that differed. The first had no evidence the latter had little evidence and the 19 used a phrasing that on jury poll came up with three separate opinions on what it could mean. As the Judge had stated the law would be explained to us we asked. They (both attorneys agreeing, denied the information.

    I convinced the jury that without a proper understanding of the law in question there was huge amounts of reasonable doubt. the majority agreed. The first we just though out. The last two were thrown out because we couldn't trust the prosecution given the other 20 counts.

    I did state I was taking that position and would if asked lead when questioned by the judge. We were not allowed to dismiss charges of course which left it as a not guilty. I also mentioned do not say anything about judging the law nor the judge openly for reasons others had stated. I voted not guilty on all 21 counts due to insufficient evidence and reasonable doubt. and said no more. The foreman stated the others when polled had stated the same.

    Was the guy guilty? Could be. We will never know. But he wasn't guilty of the charges as filed.

    AFTER when leaving a reporter asked if I would explain reasonable doubt. I did. Three differing opinions all of which meant we didn't know. Asked for an explanation and were refused which left us with no choice.

    For a while I really thought I was going inside for three days. Haven't much been a fan of the Dictatorship of the Black Robe Society ever since.

    I did not mention having a of the Fully Informed Jury pamphlet in my pocket throughout.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I rather doubt all of them -- because if there were decent evidence for any of them, the prosecution would have charged him with those and left the drug "crimes" to be talked about during sentencing, instead of the other way around.

    I am very disappointed that there are still enough Americans willing to convict someone of a drug "crime" to form a jury. We'll have to work harder on that.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The breaking of the Ulbricht security was attributed to a bug in an out of date version of firefox still being used, not tor.

    The possibility of timing tor exit nodes synchronized with potential entry to the network was well known before that, and is a reason why tor has recommended heavier usage of the network to dilute the possibility of attacks.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well, he should not do that. As Wm comments, when a government changes radically, one of the things they do is release the prisoners from the Bastille. It would be well worthwhile for a future gov to review the causes of imprisonment for a few tens of thousands of prisoners and then have some way of releasing the ones for whose crime there were no victims.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Don't forget that 3rd on the list of looters at that time behind Dodd and Frank was Senator Obama.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by blackswan 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You're still missing the point. The looters were Dodd, Frank and Co., NOT the banks, which were merely the cat's paws in the game.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by blackswan 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And after ruining all those lives, and getting all those guys killed, they gave up the war as if it was nothing. They just played with peoples' lives like they were their toys.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo