Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 2 months ago
    Even if you accept that the charges he was found guilty of are legitimate (notice I didn't say legal), putting a 31 year old kid (and that's what he is) in prison for life has to be at least 'cruel and unusual' punishment for the crimes he supposedly committed. What the Hell is society's gain in locking him up for that kind of period? Society has actually lost and government's ability to ruin lives has increased.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by SaltyDog 10 years, 2 months ago
      When was the last time that the Congress passed ANY law with good of Society (with a capital S) as its' primary motivation?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by plusaf 10 years, 2 months ago
        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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by khalling 10 years, 2 months ago
      What do you think about the 5 murder for hire schemes? Was he entrapped? I can 't find much about them were they charges in this case?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by $ jdg 10 years, 2 months ago
        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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 2 months ago
        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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 2 months ago
    unbelievable. Sad day for US justice and a brilliant young man put away for ever. any gulchers for springin him? I think we have some prison savvy members around here ...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by davidmcnab 10 years, 2 months ago
    Makes me think of Shakespeare's quote about Hydra's heads. For every black market site which gets taken down, two or more spring up in its place. Now, since Ulbricht's demise, the Tor network has fallen into disrepute - its anonymity can be easily compromised by an agency simply placing enough nodes around the place and mounting timing attacks.
    These days, the anonymising (read: Gulch) network of choice is I2P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I2P
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 10 years, 2 months ago
      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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 2 months ago
    The jury had the opportunity to vote on the merit's of the law itself in their verdict. Assuming there was a jury. Ways to vote. Regular polls, jury box, absent a return to active use of the Military Conscription Acts (which still exist) enlisting or not enlisting in the military, If we ever got an end user consumption tax then voting by buying or not buying would add another method. The reason it will never happen.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Flootus5 10 years, 2 months ago
      Good question. Was this a jury trial? There at least would have been the chance for jury nullification - if handled right. And where is Fox News, Judge Napolitano, Judge Janine on all of this? This is the first I have heard of it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by SaltyDog 10 years, 2 months ago
      Truly. In America, the jury is supposed to be the highest human authority in the courtroom, not the judge. I think that notion went out with high button shoes.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by $ winterwind 10 years, 2 months ago
        It didn't "go out", it was stamped on my judges and [mostly] DA's. Jury nullification is still valid today, but you can get a nice long contempt-of-court sentence for even using the phrase. The concept was actually taken to the state Supreme Court in Colorado [a juror in a drug trial refused to convict because she viewed the law as wrong] and won. trivia: the lawyer who argued the case had run for Governor as a Libertarian some years before.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by khalling 10 years, 2 months ago
          Tancredo?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 2 months ago
            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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 2 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 | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by MarjoriePeters 10 years, 2 months ago
    This is a grievous miscarriage of justice. But I can do something about it. I contributed to the fund for Ross Ulbrict's appeal. I hope many others do the same.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 10 years, 2 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 | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 10 years, 2 months ago
    just having scanned through the article, this is
    precisely what I hope the internet will continue to be,
    whether the govt interferes or not -- an open source
    for trading value for value. . yet amazon is charging
    sales tax and the fcc is getting ready to do nasty
    stuff, so PTUI. . how can we prevent the downfall
    of the best thing for personal markets in ... well,
    since forever? -- j
    .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by bassboat 10 years, 2 months ago
    Life in prison? Maybe some of our rock stars in D.C. but not this guy. I hate drugs and what they do but when I saw a pretty 22 year old girl blown away working at a Shell station by a guy who was blown out on drugs did I realize that there has to be a better way. Some people will self destruct no matter what. I believe in educating the kids from 1st grade on and take them to places where people are trying to dry out. The state should sell the drugs at cost and eliminate the profit incentive for the bad guys. The war would be over from that aspect but then we could do to drugs what we have done to cigarettes. Education in the long run is the key, not swat teams.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 2 months ago
      This is entirely too reasonable a view. You probably should be sentenced to life imprisonment but I am feeling lazy - will 8-10 years be OK for you?

      Jan
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by davidmcnab 10 years, 2 months ago
    He is purely guilty of technical negligence. When he posted for technical help to that online forum, he should have bounced his access off at least 2 layers of VPN proxy, or double-routed through Tor, and used an account which couldn't be traced back to him.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by SaltyDog 10 years, 2 months ago
    There is an immutable fact that goes along with following the dictates of one's conscience, that being that there will always be consequences to doing what you believe is right. I'm not arguing or condoning the law; what I'm saying is that the law exists and this young man clearly ignored that fact. I'm sorry for his plight, and would argue for a change in the law. However, that's a completely separate issue.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by khalling 10 years, 2 months ago
      what laws did he break? actually, can anyone clearly define racketeering for me? There is a highly profitable business in RICO law. you know why? the government does not need to prove its case against the defendant. all through the case, they can change their mind, not produce evidence, withhold evidence from the trial. Why would you automatically side with the government? who are the real criminals in this crumbling society anyway?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by SaltyDog 10 years, 2 months ago
        The case can be made that he facilitated money laundering for one thing. And that could be the crack that allowed RICO in. Remember...one of the qualifying criteria is "contributing to an ongoing criminal enterprise".
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by khalling 10 years, 2 months ago
          Well since he was under a gag order and remains that way we will never know. Equating alternative currencies to laundering is convenient but un constitutional.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by SaltyDog 10 years, 2 months ago
            Legally, it is constitutional...the Supremes have said so. You and I can disagree with that, but our opinion is meaningless to them.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              -
            • Posted by khalling 10 years, 2 months ago
              no. just because a law is on the books does not make it constitutional. If that were the criteria, what would be the point in writing the Constitution in the first place? It is still important to point out the truth and not whether 9 people voted some other way
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                -
              • Posted by SaltyDog 10 years, 2 months ago
                It's not only on the books, it has the blessing of the Vestal Virgins of the Potomac which makes it settled law, and by definition, constitutional. Again, if you and I think it's wrong, that's a separate issue.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  -
                • Posted by khalling 10 years, 2 months ago
                  I for one, hate it. and I am not going to say "oh well" law and order. I am tired of this nation has become with their draconian rules. this man is serving lie in prison? why? because he operated of the grid and govt wasn't fed. I'm fed....UP!
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    -
                  • Posted by SaltyDog 10 years, 2 months ago
                    Make no mistake, K...I'm as fed up as you are. The Supremes rule that ACA is a go as long as it's treated as a tax, and Obama says "no it isn't" and goes on his merry way doing whatever he wants. What I'm truly disgusted with is the citizenry...we all just roll over, the Cogress just rolls over, and even the Supeme Court just rolls over. And our once-great nation turns into a banana republic...just like that.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              -
            • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 2 months ago
              Is it constitutional or does it satisfy precedence? There's a huge difference.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                -
              • Posted by SaltyDog 10 years, 2 months ago
                As far as I know, the Supremes don't rule on precedence; that's for the lower courts. The Supreme Court rules on new constitutional ground.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 2 months ago
                  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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jdg 10 years, 2 months ago
            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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 2 months ago
            Perhaps the gag order is a thing we can do something about. I doubt the legality of gag orders in the first place, and I certainly doubt that they are applicable in a situation when a person has been put into prison. He should be writing a book.

            Jan
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              -
            • Posted by khalling 10 years, 2 months ago
              it is a big part of racketeering laws. He has no chance of parole. When I read some of the things the judge said-she clearly buys into the distribution of drugs is responsible for deaths of users and I think these 5 murder for hire schemes, played a big role (I can't find much on that) and finally-making an example out of him. She said "there is good in you, but also bad." No possibility of parole. none. The feds are going to milk him like an aphid and lie to give him hope. He's going to hang himself in his cell I bet.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                -
              • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 2 months ago
                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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  -
                • Posted by khalling 10 years, 2 months ago
                  yes, but there is no difference between mainstream Ds and Rs
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ jlc 10 years, 2 months ago
                    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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 10 years, 2 months ago
          Under that definition one could point the finger at the Congress and ...more. Mark Twain said it best. That group is America's only true homegrown criminal class.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 2 months ago
      If following your conscience is a crime worthy of a life sentence (actually 2) when you don't have an individual victim, then what can you say about the basis of law that we live under.

      All that I can find that I accept is that he set up a communication means for people to voluntarily trade with each other. No differently than the telephone, the FAX, the legal internet, texting, the Post Office, books, semaphore, and talking.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by SaltyDog 10 years, 2 months ago
        I don't believe that he was charged with following the dictates of his conscience. I don't believe that it's a crime, at least not yet.

        As to no victim, well, that's not necessary. Witness how many young men were imprisoned or driven into exile for refusing induction during the Vietnam conflict. My point is that whenever we get away from a semblance of constructionalism where the intent of the Constitution is concerned, we venture into a dark country where the law is whatever they say it is. And I dare say that that train is even now pulling into the station.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 2 months ago
          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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by blackswan 10 years, 2 months ago
          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 | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by edweaver 10 years, 2 months ago
      I don't have time to research this law that he supposedly broke but if this law was unconstitutional, which I believe many are, it is my belief that we are doing a disservice to this country by following these laws. Truthfully, there is not a single person in this country that is not breaking some law everyday and they do not even know it. Way to many laws and if they want you, they will find a way. Sad!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by SaltyDog 10 years, 2 months ago
        What raises questions in my mind is when they have to do some convoluted tugging and stretching of an existing law to make the case. A good example of this is using the Commerce Clause to legitimize ACA. I would ask, "Now is this ACA to regulate foreign commerce, commerce between the States or commerce with Indian Tribes?" because those are the areas of authority granted by the Commerce Clause under the Enumerated Powers.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by edweaver 10 years, 2 months ago
          Or any time they put a gag order on what is deemed a crime. What are they hiding? Wisconsin's John Doe law is an example and sounds like the evidence is being hidden in this case too.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by JoleneMartens1982 10 years, 2 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 | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo