Feds Say They've Arrested 'Dread Pirate Roberts,' Shut Down His Black Market 'The Silk Road'
The 29-year-old University of Texas graduate had first created a trail for himself, however, by asking for help working with Tor dark web tactics on coding site StackOverflow.com, the complaint says. His original question appears to remain on the site here.-The Article
Things to note:The 29-year-old University of Texas graduate had first created a trail for himself, however, by asking for help working with Tor dark web tactics on coding site StackOverflow.com, the complaint says. His original question appears to remain on the site here.-The Article
...But you have nothing to hide right?? When asking a simple coding question on a coding site gets you tossed on a watch list ...Hm... Yepper things has gone way too far at a point what's well past now.-Stoic Joker (October 03, 2013, 06:51 AM)
If the part of the indictment that he was actually involved in it and not just a 'platform provider' is true then of course it has be shut down. The whole issue of NSA snooping being bad is because normal, legal and fair things are being infringed upon, if we are going to get mad that a site used for various long illegal activities is shut down we are going way too far.
(Before accusing me of things remember I am using IF here)-rgdot (October 03, 2013, 11:26 AM)
If the part of the indictment that he was actually involved in it and not just a 'platform provider' is true then of course it has be shut down. The whole issue of NSA snooping being bad is because normal, legal and fair things are being infringed upon, if we are going to get mad that a site used for various long illegal activities is shut down we are going way too far.
(Before accusing me of things remember I am using IF here)-rgdot (October 03, 2013, 11:26 AM)
Legal vs. Illegal is actually a much more slippery slope than it is purported to be when they want to get you. A phone can be used for illegal purposes. In addition the phone company is making a profit on the arrangement of the illegal services.-wraith808 (October 03, 2013, 11:45 AM)
...if we are going to get mad that a site used for various long illegal activities is shut down we are going way too far.
(Before accusing me of things remember I am using IF here)-rgdot (October 03, 2013, 11:26 AM)
While state worshippers fret over the meaningless "shutdown" of the federal government, the supposedly inactive government violently shut down a very important and highly publicized free marketplace. National parks were closed for show, but the domestic terrorism continued from the offices of the FBI which seized the Silk Road website and arrested its alleged operator, the "Dread Pirate Roberts", Ross William Ulbricht yesterday morning.
Prohibition is the Morally Reprehensible Part, Not Buying and Selling Drugs
Let's get this out of the way first. To most of the violence-addicted authoritarians still infesting the planet, particularly the US, in overwhelming numbers, the FBI's takedown of the Silk Road is a triumph of good over evil. The mainstream media and the comments section under the pertinent articles bear this out. Most people think that it's a good thing that government tells people what they can buy to put into their own bodies. Despite the empirical evidence that prohibition of certain substances for private consumption increases usage and outright abuse while setting up violent underground markets, they still cheer on the war against people and their personal choices. They consider the resulting damage to and loss of life due to kidnapping by the government and murderous regulation among black market competitors to be worth making their personal code of conduct a matter of official gun-backed policy.
Action and participation are clearly different and distinguishable from any other involvement (passive, 'providing means', etc), both in law and in practical terms.
Legal vs illegal is only a slippery slope when those applying the rules are allowed to apply it the way they choose.-rgdot (October 03, 2013, 12:13 PM)
Popehat has yet another good write-up on the Federal indictment & complaint that was filed. Read it here (http://www.popehat.com/2013/10/02/the-silk-road-to-federal-prosecution-the-charges-against-ross-ulbricht/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Popehat+%28Popehat%29).
Worth the read. Learned a few things about how something like this works. For instance, I didn't realize there are actually two separate mechanisms that can be used to charge somebody with a crime under US federal law. Never knew that a 'criminal complaint' and an 'indictment' are two completely separate things. Either one of wihch can land you in court.
Most interesting...-40hz (October 03, 2013, 10:31 AM)
What's Ulbricht Charged With, Anyway?
The New York complaint charges Ulbricht with three crimes:
1. A conspiracy to...
2. A "computer hacking conspiracy"...
3. A conspiracy to...
Example:
If I sell drugs on a site vs if I have a site that people sell drugs is the same to you guys now? there is a slippery slope if doing the former leads to an arrest?
(It has nothing to do with legalization by the way, I am not against that but have yet to hear how legalization is going to be applied. Every corner store or limited sellers and where exactly those seller are bringing their supply from...)-rgdot (October 03, 2013, 12:45 PM)
Teaser: Prohibition is the Morally Reprehensible Part, Not Buying and Selling Drugs-Renegade (October 03, 2013, 12:33 PM)
Example:
If I sell drugs on a site vs if I have a site that people sell drugs is the same to you guys now? there is a slippery slope if doing the former leads to an arrest?
(It has nothing to do with legalization by the way, I am not against that but have yet to hear how legalization is going to be applied. Every corner store or limited sellers and where exactly those seller are bringing their supply from...)-rgdot (October 03, 2013, 12:45 PM)
Example: Someone is using telecommunications to monitor all activity. They arrest someone based on that activity. Does that arrest justify the fact that they spied on my innocent communications?
The ends NEVER justify the means.-wraith808 (October 03, 2013, 12:48 PM)
I already said (anything remotely close to) blanket snooping is wrong (see above).
But how do you think all arrests are made, I mean in other times in history? Take any case from the 20th century or whenever before the current NSA era. Listening to communication to catch bad and evil people has helped and certainly nothing new, not even a 20th century invention.
This is exactly what I am talking. In the face of an evil authoritarian and corporate take over of our world we are doing and saying things that will do nothing to improve the world, just play in the hands of those who want this world this way.-rgdot (October 03, 2013, 01:17 PM)
In fact, if this evidentiary trail was submitted in any reputable court of law under the rule of law, then the whole case should, by the same rule of law that you're trying them under, be thrown out.-wraith808 (October 03, 2013, 03:07 PM)
You catch them with good old fashioned police work. Do I think that targeted intelligence operations against people that are build upon the systemic gathering of evidence and the layering of work upon work are wrong? No.
But do I think that spying against everyone on the chance that you will gather information from the few is wrong? Emphatically yes.
And if people are caught using this manner, does the fact that you caught a bad person absolve you of the responsibility for using the wrong methods. Emphatically no.
In fact, if this evidentiary trail was submitted in any reputable court of law under the rule of law, then the whole case should, by the same rule of law that you're trying them under, be thrown out.-wraith808 (October 03, 2013, 03:07 PM)
But how do you think all arrests are made, I mean in other times in history? Take any case from the 20th century or whenever before the current NSA era. Listening to communication to catch bad and evil people has helped and certainly nothing new, not even a 20th century invention.-rgdot (October 03, 2013, 01:17 PM)
Federal drug charges for Bellevue man involved in 'Silk Road'
A Bellevue man who sold drugs using an online black market known as Silk Road now faces federal drug charges, Homeland Security agents say.
According to court documents, 40-year-old Steven Sadler hid his identity using the profile "Nod," and used a fake name to purchase mailboxes at several UPS stores in Washington.
I'm sure it only took this long to arrest him because the FBI (and god knows who else) first wanted to be sure they had the details and names of everyone else involved. That and coordinate with other countries for arrest warrants and additional seizures.-40hz (October 04, 2013, 06:29 AM)
what I don't want to see is a libertarian world. Because I fear that a lot too, a whole lot.-rgdot (October 04, 2013, 01:00 PM)
Jackson West
@jacksonwest
Public Defender Brandon LeBlanc denies all charges, but will not discuss case. Ulbricht will not be taking interviews. #silkroadbust
I hate roads. ;D-Renegade (October 05, 2013, 12:05 AM)
Deep Web Users Are Ready To Launch Silk Road 2.0
In an interesting post-mortem release by the creators of the defunct anonymous marketplace Atlantis there is information that the former admins and users of the Silk Road are planning to resurrect the service. User RR writes: “We have SilkRoad v2.0 ready to launch and is now in its final testing stages. Our site has all the features of the original one and we have kept the same style of forum for your ease.”
Silk Road Subdued But This Ex-Black-Market Employee Believes Feds Only Woke A Monster
So the gig is up, My two favorite Drug dealers have been taken down in the space of a week, Christopher Tarbell is now the mystery agent who infiltrated Silk Road and can add Dread Pirate Roberts to his list of take-downs which include “Sabu” of Anonymous.
While other sites ramp up server capacity to meet demand and I watch the number of listings on alternative marketplaces such as Sheep and Black Market Reloaded increase at an exponential rate, (Sheep has gone from 500 Drug listings to over 1500 as I write) I can’t help but get the feeling DPR would be relatively happy with the results of his self-professed “economic simulation” as his legion of vendors and customers scramble to re-establish contact on other marketplaces.
There’s also a hint of Karma in the air too, had the Admins behind the failed Silk Road alternative “Atlantis” kept the site alive just two more weeks they’d be swimming in a sea of bitcoins Scrooge McDuck style right now but given the allegations of ex black marketplace employees having hits put out on them maybe I’ll tone down on the criticism and just be glad I was never on the inside.
Dread Pirate Roberts
Administrator
*****
Posts: 256
Karma: +127/-8
View Profile
WE RISE AGAIN
« on: Yesterday at 02:52:31 pm »
Dear Community
It is with great joy that I announce the next chapter of our journey. Silk Road has risen from the ashes, and is now ready and waiting for you all to return home: http://silkroad6ownowfk.onion
Welcome back to freedom.
Over the last 4 weeks, we have implemented a complete security overhaul. This overhaul marks the dawn of a brand new era for hidden services, and it would not have been possible without the patient support of this community. So for waiting patiently; for offering encouragement; for keeping the community spirit alive in Silk Road’s temporary absence; for all of this and more, each of you has my deepest and most sincere gratitude.
It took the FBI two and a half years to do what they did. Divide, conquer and eliminate was their strategy… but four weeks of temporary silence is all they got. And as our resilient community bounces back even stronger than ever before, never forget that they can only ever seize assets – they can never arrest our spirit, our ideas or our passion, unless we let them.
We will not let them.
Please enjoy the marketplace, but be aware – although the site is both functional and stable, we are still in the early phases of development. Despite us having worked through any major bugs that might prevent full-functionality or compromise security, you may notice minor bugs. Please bring these to our attention. More so, even though security has been our top priority over the last few weeks, we encourage you to continue reporting both theoretical and even proven exploits. You will be rewarded for doing so.
Please also be aware, that because we expect a large surge in Bitcoin deposits when we open up our transaction system, there may be delays with account withdrawals and deposits initially. These delays should become less as the marketplace settles, but at least for the earlier stages, please do not report coins as missing unless 12 hours or more have elapsed.
You might also notice that the re-launched marketplace lacks a number of features from the original marketplace – we will be working hard over the next few weeks to implement improvements, and we continue to study each and every post made in the Feature Requests forum. Your opinions matter to us, and we will not neglect the thoughts of the community.
We are proud to announce though, that our new security measures include emergency strategies to ensure that, in the event of Silk Road’s demise once more, no member will lose their coins. We have learned hard lessons from the unfortunate events of recent weeks, and the man hours that have gone into this new release are phenomenal. We look forward to helping Silk Road grow on the back of these lessons, and look forward to helping this community flourish even more beautifully than before.
We have already committed a large percentage of our revenues to good causes, charities, and organizations who support our cause or have similar interests. We are also contributing back to the Tor network with our relay fund.
But without a doubt, the re-launch of our beloved marketplace will create a ripple throughout the world’s various media channels, and not all of these channels will see our cause as positive. You don’t need telling that there are very powerful media outlets controlled by various world governments, who will seek to muddy our name and reputation. But it is up to us to embrace this newfound exposure in mainstream media, rather than hide from it – and for this reason, I have chosen to speak briefly with a number of journalists who I am confident will report this memorable day without the pull of governmental strings. I have also conducted an exclusive interview with Mashable. In light of the FBI’s recent ‘victory’, it would be impossible for Silk Road to stay off the radar – it is therefore our responsibility to make sure that our mark on the radar is the right one. So I would advise you all to prepare yourself for a spike in media attention, and to review your personal security measures to ensure your anonymity is protected.
We will be hiring staff to handle Silk Road’s marketing shortly – formal offers may be made to members who have already demonstrated their marketing prowess.
And it goes without saying that if you are in touch with anybody who may not be aware that Silk Road has risen once more, now is the time to spread the word. Open communication with your old suppliers and customers; let this wonderful news be taken to all corners of the Tor network and beyond.
Let us never forget this recent hurdle in our battle for freedom. But let us not allow it to stop our fight, either – it is now time to simply pick ourselves back up, dust ourselves off, and continue fighting this revolution like we’ve never fought it before.
I’m proud to have you all at my side.
Yours Loyally
Dread Pirate Roberts
Please do not message me unless it is absolutely required.
Quote 13: The enemies of freedom do not argue; they shout and they shoot.
silkroad6ownowfk.onion
^Caution does seem prudent about now.-Stoic Joker (November 07, 2013, 11:49 AM)
Ross Ulbricht’s attorney Joshua Dratel submitted a reply to the prosecution on May 27 (full document below) supporting his pretrial motions and illustrating the fundamental deficiencies in the government’s arguments. Here are some key points.
It will be hard for the prosecutors to get through that-Renegade (May 28, 2014, 07:19 PM)
It will be hard for the prosecutors to get through that-Renegade (May 28, 2014, 07:19 PM)
Assuming they don't get a sympathetic judge... ;)-40hz (May 28, 2014, 09:46 PM)
In a pre-trial motion filed in the case late Friday night, Ulbricht’s lawyers laid out a series of arguments to dismiss all charges in the case based on Ulbricht’s fourth amendment protections against warrantless searches of his digital property. As early as the FBI’s initial discovery of servers in Iceland hosting the site on the Tor anonymity network—seemingly without obtaining a search warrant from a judge—Ulbricht argues that law enforcement violated his constitutional right to privacy, tainting all further evidence against him dug up in the investigation that followed.
Ross Ulbricht’s defence team has filed a new pre-trial motion calling on the court to dismiss charges in the Silk Road case on the grounds of Fourth Amendment privacy protections.
It will be interesting to see how the judge tries to wiggle out of that.-Renegade (August 05, 2014, 10:36 AM)
So barring Ulbricht's motion coming before an extremely sympathetic judge, it will most likely be dismissed with little comment. (Yes, US judges can do that.)-40hz (August 05, 2014, 02:01 PM)
So barring Ulbricht's motion coming before an extremely sympathetic judge, it will most likely be dismissed with little comment. (Yes, US judges can do that.)-40hz (August 05, 2014, 02:01 PM)
You think his 4th amendment argument will work?-Renegade (August 05, 2014, 07:56 PM)
So barring Ulbricht's motion coming before an extremely sympathetic judge, it will most likely be dismissed with little comment. (Yes, US judges can do that.)-40hz (August 05, 2014, 02:01 PM)
You think his 4th amendment argument will work?-Renegade (August 05, 2014, 07:56 PM)
Not really. Maybe for some of the evidence. But that's a long shot. And certainly not for all the evidence.
But I'm not an attorney - so who knows?-40hz (August 05, 2014, 09:06 PM)
So barring Ulbricht's motion coming before an extremely sympathetic judge, it will most likely be dismissed with little comment. (Yes, US judges can do that.)-40hz (August 05, 2014, 02:01 PM)
You think his 4th amendment argument will work?-Renegade (August 05, 2014, 07:56 PM)
Not really. Maybe for some of the evidence. But that's a long shot. And certainly not for all the evidence.
But I'm not an attorney - so who knows?-40hz (August 05, 2014, 09:06 PM)
Got it. For a bit there I thought you were saying that it would work.
My guess is that nothing short of divine intervention will help Ross. The evidence doesn't matter. The law doesn't matter. He is hated, and that's reason enough to punish him.-Renegade (August 05, 2014, 09:53 PM)
So barring Ulbricht's motion coming before an extremely sympathetic judge, it will most likely be dismissed with little comment. (Yes, US judges can do that.)-40hz (August 05, 2014, 02:01 PM)
You think his 4th amendment argument will work?-Renegade (August 05, 2014, 07:56 PM)
Not really. Maybe for some of the evidence. But that's a long shot. And certainly not for all the evidence.
But I'm not an attorney - so who knows?-40hz (August 05, 2014, 09:06 PM)
Got it. For a bit there I thought you were saying that it would work.
My guess is that nothing short of divine intervention will help Ross. The evidence doesn't matter. The law doesn't matter. He is hated, and that's reason enough to punish him.-Renegade (August 05, 2014, 09:53 PM)
Or the selection of the right attorney that knows the right judge. And that's a fact.-wraith808 (August 06, 2014, 10:45 AM)
The argument, not surprisingly, is relying on the new Supreme Court ruling in the Riley / Wurie cases, about the need for a warrant to search mobile phones. That is an important ruling bringing back certain 4th Amendment protections, but Ulbricht's lawyers are really trying to stretch it to argue that it applies to the warrants issued against him.
There may be some real issues in how the feds got access to the Silk Road servers, but to claim that other searches (and even actual warrants) were unconstitutional in light of Riley would require an almost ridiculously broad reading of the Riley ruling. That case involved searches of mobile phones that were on someone's person -- not a coordinated effort to track down someone they believed to be a criminal.
I do think there are some real issues with the case against Ulbricht, mainly focused on his liability for the actions done by users of Silk Road, but these kinds of broad attempts to throw anything at the wall are likely to be rejected, and can actually piss off judges who feel that lawyers are just trying to throw up a smoke screen.
There are important cases to be had in challenging various digital searches and how the 4th Amendment applies to them, but it's doubtful that this is a particularly good test case.
I do think there are some real issues with the case against Ulbricht, mainly focused on his liability for the actions done by users of Silk Road, but these kinds of broad attempts to throw anything at the wall are likely to be rejected, and can actually piss off judges who feel that lawyers are just trying to throw up a smoke screen.
Due process is a joke.-Renegade (August 07, 2014, 07:26 AM)
“I find it surprising that when given the chance to provide a cogent, on-the record explanation for how they discovered the server, they instead produced a statement that has been shown inconsistent with reality, and that they knew would be inconsistent with reality,” Weaver said. “”Let me tell you, those tin foil hats are looking more and more fashionable each day.”
...even for the more nuanced legal arguments -- or Ulbricht's attorney's chosen path of trying to toss out a bunch of alternate scenarios to sow "reasonable doubt" in the jury -- the simple nature of the fact that many people used Silk Road to buy and sell illegal drugs was always going to cloud the overall case against Ulbricht.
@Ren - You're still overlooking the 800lb gorilla in the picture.-40hz (February 04, 2015, 10:05 PM)
re: jury nullification
Again, almost always in movies.-40hz (February 04, 2015, 10:05 PM)
R v Morgentaler [1] was a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada which held that the abortion provision in the Criminal Code of Canada was unconstitutional, as it violated a woman's right under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to security of person. Since this ruling, there have been no criminal laws regulating abortion in Canada.
The unanimous decision in Krieger was written by Justice Fish and it further demonstrates the Supreme Court of Canada‘s willingness to link law and morality, embracing edicts of natural law. The Supreme Courtaffirmed the not guilty verdict which the trial jury would have rendered because they believed more so in the process than the plain meaning interpretation of the statute. Fish states
It has since then (in 1670, when jurors were fined and imprisoned for a ―not guilty verdict) been well established that under the system of justice we have inherited fromEngland juries are not entitled as a matter of right to refuse to apply the law — but they do have the power to do so when their consciences permit of no other course.
This paragraph is suggestive that the judges of the Supreme Court believe in juries using their own morality. Justice Fish is quick to point out that the process of refusing to apply the law, or nullification is not ― a matter of right but that the power to do so exists, only when it is deemedby that jury to be absolutely necessary. When a jury‘s collective conscience tells them that thereis ―no other course‖ of action this is when nullification is absolutely necessary, as the jury felt in
was the situation in this case. Furthermore, the Court continues into the next paragraph by stating
63
case law from 1784 that they have used throughout Canadian jurisprudence as the base for jurynullification:
It is the duty of the Judge, in all cases of general justice, to tell the jury how to do right,though they have it in their power to do wrong, which is a matter entirely between Godand their own consciences.
Justice Fish indicates that while the Court has decided in this case and going forward that trial judges should not instruct jurors on how to find, that judges should still instruct jurors on what is the most appropriate legal course of action, or how to ―do right. Whether or not a jury chooses to abide by that course of action is, as the Supreme Court decided in this case, up to them.
The trial judge deprived the accused of his constitutional right to a trial by jury when he directed the jury to find the accused guilty as charged. The trial judge’s direction was not a “slip of the tongue” to be evaluated in the context of the charge as a whole; nor is this a matter of assessing the impact of subtle language susceptible to different interpretations. His purpose and words were clear. In effect, the trial judge reduced the jury’s role to a ceremonial one: He ordered the conviction and left to the jury, as a matter of form but not of substance, its delivery in open court.
Attorneys are expected to argue for the law as it applies to the case, and the facts as presented. It's generally been seen as a violation of an attorney's oath (as an officer of the court) for one to ask a jury to ignore the law as it exists when considering their verdict.-40hz (February 04, 2015, 10:05 PM)
And there's also a great deal of legal precedent that says that even though juries may choose to nullify, the courts are under no obligation to tell them they can - or - to allow an attorney on either side to so inform them. And that opinion goes back a number of years, and was the determination made in several different rulings on the subject of jury nullification.-40hz (February 04, 2015, 10:05 PM)
So while it may seem like a cool idea for juries to take the initiative and override a law they disagree with when reaching a verdict (and they legally can do just that under US law) it's a dangerous road to go down. Because if it becomes commonplace, the entire legal system goes out the door and you have a small-scale version of mob rule in effect. Which means it's not the law, or the facts in a case, but rather the jury selection that becomes the deciding factor in obtaining a judgement. Which is ripe for abuse by both the prosecution and the defence.-40hz (February 04, 2015, 10:05 PM)
Call it a win for 40hz.-Renegade (February 05, 2015, 08:54 AM)
But you didn't address the 1st amendment violation. This seems to be a teensy, tiny bit important.
I don't see how there's any way around that.
The judge put a gun to the defense's head and threatened them if they tried a sane defense (speech).
Trying to claim "federal rules of evidence" doesn't address the issue. If anything, it only illustrates the debasement of the first amendment and the criminality of the courts, judges, lawyers, and politicians that are complicit in that crime.-Renegade (February 05, 2015, 08:54 AM)
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Frankly, I Don't Care How Due Process Makes You Feel
by Ken White · October 9, 2012
I stopped blogging about Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the maker of the "Innocence of Muslims" video. I stopped because (1) I am interested in discussions about what the law is, to the extent that discussion is based on law, (2) I am interested in discussions of what the law should be, (3) I am interested in discussions of how courts work, to the extent those discussions are premised on actual experience and facts, but (4) I am completely uninterested in what people feel the law is, and (5) I am completely uninterested in what people feel happens in courts, frequently based on TV.
Discussions of what the law is based on feelings annoy me. They're about mob rule, not the rule of law...<more (https://www.popehat.com/2012/10/09/frankly-i-dont-care-how-due-process-makes-you-feel/)>
Am I missing something?-40hz (February 05, 2015, 10:01 AM)
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Maybe you meant Amendments V through VIII?-40hz (February 05, 2015, 10:01 AM)
I don't see anything in any of the above that was clearly (or even obscurely) violated. :(-40hz (February 05, 2015, 10:01 AM)
Perhaps you're saying that the due process itself is unjust? Well, therein lies the critical difference between what the law actually says - as opposed to what most of us (i.e. non-attorneys) usually think it says or wish it said.-40hz (February 05, 2015, 10:01 AM)
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. (http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1101/pg1101.html)
Am I missing something?-40hz (February 05, 2015, 10:01 AM)
Yes.Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Is speech not allowed in court?-Renegade (February 05, 2015, 10:51 AM)
Maybe you meant Amendments V through VIII?-40hz (February 05, 2015, 10:01 AM)
Nope. We don't even need to go there. Full stop at the 1st. That's all that is needed to show that the US judicial system is a complete and total farce and that the judges and related officers are nothing but criminals.
I don't see anything in any of the above that was clearly (or even obscurely) violated. :(-40hz (February 05, 2015, 10:01 AM)
The first was obviously violated.
Or is speech in court not counted?
That would be a clear violation of the 6th, but only if you believe that a trial involves actually allowing a defense. If you don't believe that defendants are allowed to present a defense, then, well, all bets are off. Accusations equal convictions?
I think that we both know where that leads. The 4th box.
Perhaps you're saying that the due process itself is unjust? Well, therein lies the critical difference between what the law actually says - as opposed to what most of us (i.e. non-attorneys) usually think it says or wish it said.-40hz (February 05, 2015, 10:01 AM)
There is no due process. It's a bloody joke. The rules are "fixed".
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. (http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1101/pg1101.html)
A mighty fine proposition! :P
If the law is incomprehensible, f**k it. Really.
Does everyone need to have a law degree to function?
If so, then yes. Killing all the lawyers is a good start to stave off that insanity.
You don't get off that easy talking about "Oh, gee, if only we poor serfs understood the heights and depths of law, and how it makes 'society' a better place!"
There is no reasonable expectation for most people to know what the law is. At all. Except in the most basic forms, e.g. theft, murder, etc.
40,000 new laws? In 1 year? Really?
Ignorance of the law **IS** an excuse.
It still remains that the judge violated Ross' fundamental right to free speech in proscribing several of his proposed defenses.
Please note that some of the most popular drugs on the Silk Road were prescription drugs sold for 10% of the cost of regular prescriptions.[/size]
Does that give any more perspective on the issue? ;)
So sez Ren! But in practice, it works pretty well most of the time. Possibly something you clearly can't allow yourself to acknowledge - or even see?-40hz (February 05, 2015, 12:12 PM)
Actually, after many real world experiences in court, I'd more agree with Ren on this point.-wraith808 (February 05, 2015, 12:40 PM)
So sez Ren! But in practice, it works pretty well most of the time. Possibly something you clearly can't allow yourself to acknowledge - or even see?-40hz (February 05, 2015, 12:12 PM)
Actually, after many real world experiences in court, I'd more agree with Ren on this point.-wraith808 (February 05, 2015, 12:40 PM)
So sez Ren! But in practice, it works pretty well most of the time. Possibly something you clearly can't allow yourself to acknowledge - or even see?-40hz (February 05, 2015, 12:12 PM)
Actually, after many real world experiences in court, I'd more agree with Ren on this point.-wraith808 (February 05, 2015, 12:40 PM)
Me too - And I've been fighting really hard to stay quiet and let the adults talk, but... Just because something has always been done that way doesn't mean it isn't stupid. :D
We -(The People)- need jury nullification to "down vote" idiotic laws.-Stoic Joker (February 05, 2015, 05:10 PM)