Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht Sentenced To Life In Prison 363
An anonymous reader sends an update on the trial of Ross Ulbricht, the man behind the Silk Road online black market. Sentencing is now complete, and Ulbricht has been given life in prison. He had been facing a 20-year minimum because of the charge of being a "drug kingpin," and prosecutors were asking for a sentence substantially higher than the minimum. Prior to the sentence being handed down today, Ulbricht spoke before the court for 20 minutes, asking for leniency and for the judge to leave him a "light at the end of the tunnel." The judge was unswayed, giving Ulbricht the most severe sentence possible. She said, "The stated purpose [of the silk road] was to be beyond the law. ... Silk Road's birth and presence asserted that its creator was better than the laws of this country. This is deeply troubling, terribly misguided, and very dangerous." Ulbricht's family plans to appeal.
Good (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Selling drugs and weapons are only serious crimes if you're not the government.
Oh? You forgot for a minute that the CIA's major money maker is dealing illegal drugs? You even forgot about them selling weapons to or otherwise directly arming dangerous criminals involved in the drug trade? I mean, it's not like Sinaloa, the largest and most powerful drug cartel in the US and Mexico, was put in power directly because of the Drug Enforcement Agencies support, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep licking them boots and some day they might let you wear one for a few minutes
Re: (Score:2)
No, but it makes it difficult to accept judgments made by said government on citizens. No one likes a preachy, bulling hypocrite.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Selling drugs and weapons are serious crimes and should be justly punished.
Unless it's Caspar Weinberger or Eric Holder. Then it's totally legit.
~Loyal
Where does the Fed claim to get power to ban that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Selling drugs and weapons are serious crimes and should be justly punished. Propz to GNAA
Let's devil's advocate a bit...
The Second Amendment clearly (to anyone who understands how English was used at the time) forbids the Federal Government from interfering, in any way, with obtaining and carrying weapons. (infringe ~ "even meddle with the fringes of") That includes gun trafficing, because stopping gun sales makes it harder to exercise the right.
The Tenth Amendment explicitly, and the Ninth Amendment implicitly, ban the Federal Government from use of any power not explicitly specified in the Constitution as amended. I don't see anything in there that explicitly gives the Federal Government to ban any drugs or traffic in them, or in any way regulate such traffic (beyond forbidding false advertising claims, setting standards for labeling, and the like). (Do YOU find any such power in there? If so, please point it out to us.)
So it could be argued that, by the Federal Government's own basic laws, these were NOT crimes and the "Dread Pirate" was a freedom fighter.
(I won't even get into the issue of the Anarchist claims that ANY government is necessarily illegitimate, coercively imposing its will on people who did not pre-approve this and are not attempting, themselves, to coerce others. The people who promulgated the Constitution were doing their best to get governments off people's backs.)
Re:Where does the Fed claim to get power to ban th (Score:5, Interesting)
The Tenth Amendment explicitly, and the Ninth Amendment implicitly, ban the Federal Government from use of any power not explicitly specified in the Constitution as amended. I don't see anything in there that explicitly gives the Federal Government to ban any drugs or traffic in them, or in any way regulate such traffic (beyond forbidding false advertising claims, setting standards for labeling, and the like). (Do YOU find any such power in there? If so, please point it out to us.)
The Commerce Clause? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Where does the Fed claim to get power to ban th (Score:4, Insightful)
The Commerce Clause?
Nope. (The powers it DOES confer were already alluded to in my posting.)
"Regulating" = making regular, setting standards, etc. It does NOT include banning whole classes of trade entirely.
If they want to PROMOTE drug and gun sales, that's fine. B-)
Re:Where does the Fed claim to get power to ban th (Score:5, Informative)
Yes it can. [Gonzales v. Raich]
The issue was not in dispute in that case:
In my opinion, by the way, Wickard v. Filburn [wikipedia.org], the New Deal era decision that says making something for yourself (i.e. growing wheat to feed your own chickens, or growing marijuana to use yourself) affects interstate commerce (because you otherwise might have bought it instead, affecting the price) and can thus be regulated, is a travesty that is long overdue for the Supremes to revisit and reverse, as they sometimes do when a previous court broke something substantial.
But even if you agree that feeding your own wheat to your own chickens is a suitable subject for federal regulation under the commerce clause, don't you think it's a stretch to say that affecting the price of a banned substance by NOT buying it on the illegal market is a legitimate reason for the Federal Government to ban your growing and consuming your own plants? Either way you don't buy in interstate commerce, so how can the difference in your behavior affect it? (Or was it Congress' intent for you to buy illegal drugs?)
Sometimes more than half the Supreme Court justices follow some argument to a point beyond sanity.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you just got into it.
Re:Where does the Fed claim to get power to ban th (Score:4, Informative)
The Second Amendment clearly (to anyone who understands how English was used at the time) forbids the Federal Government from interfering, in any way, with obtaining and carrying weapons. (infringe ~ "even meddle with the fringes of")
Your interpretation is quaint, and incorrect, at least it didn't mean that until 2008, Columbia v. Heller [thedailybeast.com]
Nor in the Constitution!
The public's understanding of the 2nd Amendment started to be distorted by the NRA [politico.com] early in the last century. The NRA has been filling the minds of gun owners with an interpretation that was never intended by the Founders for some time, so no one can blame you for your incorrect interpretation when a propaganda machine like the NRA has been bombarding you with selective truths and out-right lies.
That includes gun trafficing, because stopping gun sales makes it harder to exercise the right.
Wow... THAT is OUT THERE. Of course, you are completely mistaken, and this bold statement of yours is wildly, dangerously inaccurate. Gun regulation is legal, and necessary.
Re:Where does the Fed claim to get power to ban th (Score:4, Insightful)
Your interpretation is quaint, and incorrect, at least it didn't mean that until 2008, Columbia v. Heller [thedailybeast.com]
Isn't this self-contradicting? 'quaint' ~ 'old fashioned'. A decision as recent as 2008 is very much not old fashioned.
The public's understanding of the 2nd Amendment started to be distorted by the NRA [politico.com] early in the last century.
The NRA wasn't a lobbying organization until late in the last century, so this statement is incorrect. The NRA ended up becoming a lobbying organization due to the spread of gun control laws resulting in it's membership having it create a lobbying branch.
The NRA has been filling the minds of gun owners with an interpretation that was never intended by the Founders for some time,
Given what I've read in sources like the federalist papers, I think that the NRA version is closer to reality than yours.
That being said, your rights can be restricted through 'due process of law', IE conviction by a court and jury of your peers. So I'm okay with things like the NICS check, prohibition by felons. I think that the post-facto punishment of misdemeanor DV charges is a violation, because there's a very good chance that people like police officers who were convicted of such things, usually by pleading guilty, long before this rule was in effect, would have fought it in court and won at least a percentage of the time if the rule had been in place, or they knew it was coming, before they pled guilty.
Re: (Score:3)
The sentence referring to Supreme Court rulings between 1876 and 1939 is a lie. In U.S. vs. Miller, for example, the court never questioned that the Second Amendment was an individual right, only whether or not a short-barrelled shotgun was an appropriate military weapon.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's devil's advocate a bit...
The Second Amendment clearly (to anyone who understands how English was used at the time) forbids the Federal Government from interfering, in any way, with obtaining and carrying weapons. (infringe ~ "even meddle with the fringes of") That includes gun trafficing, because stopping gun sales makes it harder to exercise the right.
That's an absurd approach to the interpretation of legal wording. For example, it would mean that the government couldn't enforce tax laws, financial fraud laws, immigration laws or worker safety laws on newspapers because such enforcement would be "interfering, in any way" with the newspapers' enjoyment of their first amendment rights. The Second Amendment prevents other issues being used as a pretext to harass gun owners (a special 100% income tax only for gun owners would not be allowed, for example), bu
Re:Where does the Fed claim to get power to ban th (Score:4, Insightful)
The Second Amendment clearly (to anyone who understands how English was used at the time) forbids the Federal Government from interfering, in any way, with obtaining and carrying weapons.
Since you're apparently an expert in the colloquial interpretation of 18th century American English, could you please explain what this part of the 2nd amendment means?
"A well regulated Militia"
As a serious student of 18th century American History (not focusing particularly on the genesis of the Bill of Rights) it would read comparably to other documents of the 1780's and 90's (this example being 1791) as: "A well regulated militia, by which we mean an armed militia and not a standing army, shall always be allowed."
Your translation doesn't seem to mention a militia at all...
Re:Where does the Fed claim to get power to ban th (Score:5, Insightful)
Since you're apparently an expert in the colloquial interpretation of 18th century American English, could you please explain what this part of the 2nd amendment means?
You're looking at the language and purpose of the amendment incorrectly. To translate its essence into more modern parlance, if would go something like: "Because it's always going to be necessary to have a trained and equipped military organization ready to defend the country, the government - in the interests of not allowing the government to have a monopoly on the tools of defense - shall not prevent citizens who are not in the military from having arms."
The people who wrote that amendment still had a very bad taste in their mouths from living under a monarchy that DID reserve the power to capriciously allow only the military to keep and bear arms. Knowing that a military/militia is necessary, they used the second amendment to be VERY clear that they considered the fundamental right to keep and bear arms to be NOT exclusive to the military. Just like the considered the freedom to speak to be not under the control of the government.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Your translation doesn't seem to mention a militia at all...
And yours doesn't mention 'the people'. That mention is rather a big deal, I think.
The 'well regulated milita' is known as a prefactory clause. It explains part, not necessarily all, of the reasoning for the following rule. Which is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'shall not be infringed'.
Personally, to me that means that the government can't prevent you from purchasing, keeping, or carrying firearms short of conviction(or commitment) in a court of law.
Consider it like the right to hav
An example (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Do you believe he was treated differently then any other kingpin?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
He most certainly was treated differently from other kingpins; the bribe he waved at the judge wasn't nearly big enough, apparently, and his efforts to taint the jury appear to have been entirely ineffective. If he had been a real drug kingpin, he would have walked.
outrageous (Score:5, Insightful)
Something is wrong with our country.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know of any country on earth where heroin, methamphetamine etc. can be bought and sold freely among consenting adults. So you probably should say something is wrong with human society.
Re:outrageous (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know of any country on earth where heroin, methamphetamine etc. can be bought and sold freely among consenting adults. So you probably should say something is wrong with human society.
I do. Portugal [wikipedia.org].
Re:outrageous (Score:5, Informative)
That was a last resort to curb the fact that otherwise, AK47's were being trafficked right along side the illegal drugs. So they made the drugs legal and came down hard on the organizations responsible. In no way does that imply that unrestricted free trade of all objects and substances is a good idea, or beneficial to anyone.
As a Portuguese citizen, I call bullshit. The reason why personal consumption was decriminalised was due to physicians seeing that the war on drugs was causing drug use and HIV (due to contaminated syringes) to rise instead of lowering it.
Since the decriminalisation in 2001 drug usage has actually dropped in Portugal.
Re:outrageous (Score:4, Interesting)
According to the sourced wiki article the use of pot went up a small amount while all the harder drugs saw measurable drops in use. They are also probably getting much more reliable statistics now that people don't need to lie.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This... I am a proponent of legalization of all drugs. Anybody that wants drugs can already get them (that is why we have a "drug problem"). Their being illicit makes them attractive to some. Legalization takes away the criminal aspect of drugs themselves which makes the price more reasonable. Nobody is just going to go out and start shooting heroin because it is legal - those who are going to do so are already doing so. The war on drugs is being won - it is being won by the junkies!
Go team Junkie!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not real keen on the right to have guns, but the AK-47 is the exact sort of thing the Second Amendment was intended to protect.
Re:outrageous (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know of any country on earth where heroin, methamphetamine etc. can be bought and sold freely among consenting adults. So you probably should say something is wrong with human society.
Still we're talking non-violent crimes... Compare this to the money laundering schemes many major American banks have been fined for... But in which no criminal persecution took place.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you mean "victimless crimes". There are plenty of non-violent crimes like (e.g. money laundering) that are not victimless. Victimless crimes are those who have no unwilling partcicipants who are harmed (i.e. victims).
Drugs certainly harm lots of people, but these people are "willing participants" in the legal sense of the word, and therefore not victims in the legal sense of the word.
The illicit drug industry is certainly exploitive, like how payday loans are exploitive, but these people are still
Re: (Score:2)
in essence, all ross did was the same thing google does
Re: (Score:2)
Re:outrageous (Score:4, Informative)
I don't say that using heroin makes sense. For me it doesn't. But who are we to meddle with people that want to intravenously inject that stuff? Just because someone proclaimed a war on drugs doesn't mean that such a war makes any sense.
Re:outrageous (Score:5, Funny)
A weekly prescription in the UK (citation was called for)? I am going to the UK baby! I get Suboxone (buprenorphine) by the ton - I am prescribed 32mg per day which is insane but... I had a rather long love affair with extracting Fentanyl from the mylar patches (easier to regulate the amount than the gel type) and the needle. It was a lovely time. I heard what was killing people (Fentanyl being used as a dope cut) so I went and found some Fentanyl... I bought in bulk (100 to 500 patches) so the price was fantastic. It truly was an enlightening time and I am retired with enough money to cover it so I planned on doing it forever - until I noticed I was 110 pounds and stopping on my own threw me into a long hallucination where I thought I was actually in a rehab but I was at home with vomit in a bunch of buckets and I smelled like ass. Fentanyl is about 80 times stronger than heroin. It is measured in the microgram. It is also very deadly if you are not opiate tolerant and/or try to do a lot of it. For harm reduction sake start small and then work up. You can do another shot, you can not undo a shot. You probably will not be able to self-administer Narcan.
So...
I recently hit a rehab... I am doing a long-term program as soon as I can find one that allows me to bring my own computer and has openings. This I should probably post AC but, I did it - I typed it, I own it and am responsible for it.
Yes I am still pro legalization of drugs, all drugs. I hold that position even if the only outcome is the decreased spending in the War on Drugs.
Re:outrageous (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:outrageous (Score:5, Insightful)
Posting Anon because I am Moding
The fact that a child molester in Texas would get less time should say we have our priorities wrong.
Re:outrageous (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sure someone mass marketing the rape of millions across the internet and attempting to have detractors killed would face a worse charge. The point was not the single crime but rather the mass-marketing and distribution of the crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes which is why they have a dispute resolution system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure someone mass marketing the rape of millions across the internet ...
Rape involves non-consenting victims. In fact, it is the lack of consent that makes it rape.
... and attempting to have detractors killed would face a worse charge.
That is BS. If there was evidence that he had done that, he would have been charged, and the evidence presented at his trial.
Re: (Score:2)
That is BS. If there was evidence that he had done that, he would have been charged, and the evidence presented at his trial.
Not necessarily. There's plenty of reasons you may not want to charge someone with a crime you know they've committed. Consider that it may be embarrassing for the prosecutor, may open up new technicalities that allow a case to be thrown out, expose sources of knowledge etc. If someone is going away for life as it is there's very little reason to slap something else on him when you could always do it later.
Re: (Score:3)
If someone is going away for life as it is there's very little reason to slap something else on him ...
... except he is "going away for life" precisely because of the accusations of "murder for hire", for which he was neither charged nor convicted. That is blatantly unconstitutional, and I hope this sentence is thrown out on appeal. A life sentence for providing an online marketplace is absurd.
Re:outrageous (Score:4, Informative)
You're wrong on two points.
One, he was given the maximum sentence available for the crimes he was charged with. In his sentencing hearing murder for hire was brought up by the prosecution, just as his supposedly good character was brought up by his parents. Both parties can say whatever they want in a sentencing hearing, as long as the judge sentences within the guidelines for the crime the criminal has been found guilty it is not an issue.
Two, he has been charged, separately with murder for hire. The case is in progress. If found guilty, he will be sentenced separately within the guidelines for that crime.
Re: outrageous (Score:2, Informative)
There are no more "consenting adults", only peons who must beg their masters for permission to do anything.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
In very few states, unless the drugs were administered against the will or without the knowledge of the victim.
I do not think most rape laws currently reflect the "common law" rules under which most people would like to live.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If he wanted to do that, he should have started a bank. Those guys are too big to jail.
Re:outrageous (Score:5, Insightful)
- I mean, if some corrupt African dictator wants to buy some weapons to wipe out the rioters, that's not my fault - all I did was facilitate the chemical weapons transaction.
- If someone wanted to buy some slaves, and all I did was facilitate the transaction; not my fault.
- CP getting bought and sold on my trading network? Whoa, not my fault, all i did was provide a medium for two consenting adults to make a transaction (involving non-consenting children).
- Someone hired a hitman to kill a journalist that exposed your corruption using my transaction network? Look pal, it's not like I pulled the trigger. All I did was provide a medium/platform that made it much easier for you to complete your transaction. I'm sure that even without my transaction network around, the hitman would have been hired in the black market yellow pages.
Ah, the old 'turn a blind eye' argument. Libertarianism at it's finest. Now it might be nice to be able to buy some drugs that the government says I shouldn't have. But I'd also like to not get murdered by posting dissenting opinions or becoming a whistleblower. And since you can't really have one without the other (don't get to choose what goes on your black market if you turn a blind eye), then I think I'll stick with not having this transaction platform exist at all for the betterment of humanity.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
All of which is facilitated by the Internet.
Lets round everyone at AT&T, Verison, Comcast, etc. up and arrest them.
Re: (Score:3)
Except for that you are speaking of what really amount to common carriers which transport bits without much worry about what they are.
Now if Comcast was in the business of advertising they have the best internet pipe for looking for slaves, chemical weapons or terrorists for hire... you might have a point.
There is a big difference between something legitimate being used for illegitimate purposes and something being built explicitly for illegitimate purposes... this is why guns tend to be legal while buildin
Re: (Score:2)
I always wondered about all the innocent men, women and children Weasley murdered during his time with/as the Dread Pirate Roberts, who, after all, "leaves no survivors."
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing it was only the first Dread Pirate who earned such a reputation, and the followups just cashed in on it. One might interpret that to be "no quarter given if you resist us". After all, it's not good business to kill all your victims, because:
a) You encourage them to fight to the death, since they've got nothing to lose, and
b) They can't return to the high seas for you to steal from again.
Westly demonstrated a willingness to kill when needed, but also demonstrated mercy as well, or at least a
Re: (Score:2)
Try making some bomb threats or death threats
Do it from an internet cafe or cafe/restaurant wifi or from any open wifi connection or one only protected by wep. Quite easy to do quasi-anonymously. This really had nothing to do with Ulbricht. He just provided the street corner where drug dealers could gather and offer drugs if they wanted. It's not like he put a gun to anyone's head and forced them to do anything.
Re: (Score:2)
What a lovely post. Depicts everything that is wrong with the war on drugs.
You just equated drug use by consenting adults to child pornography, terrorism, slavery, mass murder and war crimes. Great job there! You forgot to scream think of the children at the end. Though I do give you bonus points for the betterment of humanity bullshit at the bottom, as if YOU get to decide what betters humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no. Those things were also going on on Silk Road. It wasn't JUST drugs. It was also, actually, guns and CP and God knows what else.
Re: (Score:2)
then I think I'll stick with not having this transaction platform exist at all for the betterment of humanity.
Good luck with that. Let me when you are victorious in your war against substances and black markets. Really. Let me know. I'll sign up for your We are Going to Win Any Day Now newsletter.
You can't win. Ever. Because your enemy is us. Human beings in general. You can execute as many people as you want. There will always be more.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I keep saying about bookies and pimps!
Unfortunately, one of the guys with whom Ulbricht was facilitating a transaction to kill someone was a federal agent.
Re: (Score:2)
So arrest and prosecute the federal agent for attempted murder. He's the one who should be in jail. Not Ulbricht.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think facilitating the transaction for a hitman for a percentage of the price should be a crime?
Remember, Ulbricht got a cut of the money for every single drug transaction on Silk Road. It's as if he bought a downtown building and rented it out to drug dealers (and hit men) and got a cut for every single transaction.
I know there's a belief that the Internet is a magical place where law
Re: (Score:2)
What, exactly, would *you* not allow between consenting adults?
Re: (Score:2)
Illegal transactions. And he got a cut from every deal made.
Re:outrageous (Score:4, Insightful)
The article itself mentions that five of the attempts to hire a hitman were actually scams targeted at Ulbricht - it seems more like it was "hitmen" soliciting or trying to solicit him rather than him soliciting them. Given that, even the single supposed attempt by Ulbricht to hire a hitman sounds off - you would think that the prosecution would have charged him with something if they felt they could make it stick, which makes me wonder about entrapment in that case.
Re: (Score:3)
I've read the transcript [wired.com] that discusses his attempted hits, and it seems like he was supporting it. Whether it's enough to send him to prison for life, I'm not sure, IANAL, but he certainly wasn't innocent.
That being said, as they didn't allow it in the trial, it shouldn't be brought up in sentencing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And he fell for all of them.
"Attempting to hire a hitman" is not exactly like falling for someone selling a fake Rolex in Times Square.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Weirdly there's no evidence of that claim, and the government decided not to try and prosecute for that. It's almost like they made that argument up to try and get him a more severe punishment than he deserved.
This whole thing has been a travesty of justice anyway. Parallel construction, fabricated evidence, and a fall guy being thrown into prison for life to set an example for anyone who'd question law enforcement, this story has it all.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with that little tidbit is that he's not been convicted of doing it... Until he is convicted of the crime (or admits to it as factual), it cannot affect the sentence handed down. So you cannot use that as justification for the sentence.
Question Authority ... (Score:4, Interesting)
... and the authorities will question you.
Hard Appeal to Counter (Score:5, Interesting)
I think Ulbricht has a pretty good case for an appeal here. Take the part in the article where the federal prosecutor mentioned that people had died from overdoses of drugs they had purchased on Silk Road. The way the prosecutor says this, they make it sound like Ulbricht had something to do with their deaths by overdose, when in all likelihood they would have purchased drugs and overdosed from somewhere other than Silk Road had the site not existed. The same thing goes for the failed attempt at hiring a hitman - they didn't charge him in that case, and yet it was still being brought up as "character evidence".
I really fail to see what makes Ross Ulbricht any different from a regular drug dealer on the street (few of whom get life sentences) other than the massive amount of media attention that Silk Road got and that he was dealing drugs over the internet.
Re:Hard Appeal to Counter (Score:5, Insightful)
I really fail to see what makes Ross Ulbricht any different from a regular drug dealer on the street
The difference is that he stood up to the man, and challenged the system. It is the same reason that in Russia or China, dissidents are punished more harshly than murderers. They are a threat to the system.
Re: (Score:3)
I really fail to see what makes Ross Ulbricht any different from a regular drug dealer on the street (few of whom get life sentences) other than the massive amount of media attention that Silk Road got and that he was dealing drugs over the internet.
I don't know too many drug dealers who pocket $142 million. I feel that might have something to do with the decision.
Well That and given the number of transactions they can prove he was involved in... I'm sure it is thousands...
Re: (Score:3)
Well That and given the number of transactions they can prove he was involved in... I'm sure it is thousands...
Would you prefer that those thousands of transactions occur on street corners? Or on school playgrounds? By moving these transactions to the privacy and safety of the web, he was providing a useful public service.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
willful, repeated violation of the law
By whom? Not by Ulbricht.
This makes me wonder. (Score:2)
I don't know too many drug dealers who pocket $142 million. I feel that might have something to do with the decision.
This makes me wonder. Does anyone know how much the State of California collected in sales tax on pharmacy sales last year?
Re: (Score:2)
Except that he was the creator of the organization that facilitated all these illegal activities, not just a corner drug dealer.
Well, technically, on that note, DARPA, LLBL, the IETF, his ISP, A.G. Farbin, Bayer, Sandoz, Vint Cerf, and Tim Berners Lee are all accessories before the fact...
Re: (Score:2)
Except that he was the creator of the organization that facilitated all these illegal activities, not just a corner drug dealer.
Well, technically, on that note, DARPA, LLBL, the IETF, his ISP, A.G. Farbin, Bayer, Sandoz, Vint Cerf, and Tim Berners Lee are all accessories before the fact...
I don't think "accessory before the fact" means what you think it means. "Accessory before the fact" means you know about the *crime* (or perhaps even encouraged it) before the crime is committed. Simply enabling the commission of a future crime by your actions does not make you an accessory if you have no knowledge about the crime.
Re: (Score:2)
The internet ones all created facilities that could have conceivably been used to build a "Silk Road". And by "conceivably", I mean "conceivably at the time", as in "Silk Road is not sufficiently non-obvious that it should be granted a patent".
The two pharmaceutical companies were involved in the development of drugs which were capable of being abused (one of which was heroin), and it's not like drug abuse was unknown at the time.
If not "before the fact", then at least accessories.
In the same way that gun
Re: (Score:2)
So a gun, knife or rope manufacturer should be label anytime someone misuses their products?
Re: (Score:3)
You forgot "9/11 was an inside job"
of course! (Score:5, Insightful)
Lack of respect for legal and political authority is evidently a far worse crime than actual murder.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... maybe someone should start up a spin-off called LobbyRoad where politicians can meet to trade kickbacks and favors in an anonymous setting?
Done & done.
https://www.clintonfoundation.... [clintonfoundation.org]
Unfortunately, HRC's private email servers she hosted at her home while SoS are temporarily down due to a security issue. Authorities wanted to see the contents.
Strat
There seem to be a lot of implications (Score:3, Insightful)
The prosecution hinted that he was responsible for six murders, but didn't charge any, naturally ("he's a murderer, just take our word for it"). They pointed out that at least one person died from a drug overdose, implying that this was his fault. Really? Not the fault of the person who overdosed, or the person who sold the drugs but the person who created the means of sale? So the next time someone is caught selling drugs out of their car, we'll just seize the vehicle then dig up the corpse of Henry Ford and put it on trial?
It sounds a lot more like the government trying to make an example out of someone. I really hope that this doesn't hold up on appeal.
Re:There seem to be a lot of implications (Score:5, Insightful)
There are MANY avenues for appeal in this case... But that doesn't change the fact that he's going to jail, likely for a long time. After all, he made a boatload of cash from the illegal trade he made possible. Remember it was his INTENT to allow people to engage in illegal activities, it was the sole purpose of the website he ran, he knew what was going on and even made money from the illegal activities and encouraged such activities. Henry Ford built cars which may have had the potential for being used for illegal purposes, but cars are mostly used for legal purposes and are purchased for legal reasons. I'd further bet that if you told Ford that you intended to use your car to commit a crime, they would be inclined to at least report you.
No the Henry Ford analogy just doesn't work here...
His letter (Score:3)
I have to admit, whether he actually wrote it or not, the letter to the judge was pretty powerful. I realize it's just a bunch of bullshit, designed to get him the lightest sentence possible, but it was still good bullshit.
That being said, when you can physically murder someone and still not get a life sentence, I think the penalty may have been a little harsh. I don't understand how a life sentance "as to make a harsh example out of Ulbricht" helps anything.
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't seeing how a harsh sentence helps the political career of the prosecutor and judge. It's called tough on crime. There are a lot of people, particularly black men, in jail for very long times so someone could be seen as tough on crime while a woman that did the same thing never even went to jail.
Attention Citizens (Score:5, Insightful)
This is another example of how far our government has it's head up it's a**.
A man dealing in information and taking a fee is sentenced to life.
Most of his crimes are in the imagination of the prosecutors.
The Mafia still exists, but they pay bribery (and lawyers)
An organized criminal in our banking & financial industry get off with a fine.
It's just another day on Wall street (too big to fail?)
Destroy a million peoples retirement & mortgage, who may never recover and criminals profit.
Destroy the countries health and bribe the congress to allow it !
Monsanto, RJ Reynolds, & ?
Pay attention Eric Snowden, don't come back to the US.
They are planning something truly awful for you.
Harsh (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not at all supportive of what he did (you won't find a more anti-drugs person than me) but this seems particularly harsh.
If this sentence is to "set an example" then it must be overturned. The keystone of justice is fairness and setting an example with a harsh punishment is by definition unfair.
Re: (Score:2)
The guy is clearly an idiot (Score:4, Insightful)
IMO he is an idiot. He knew that what he was doing was illegal. He was taking big profit from it. Yet he decided to run his *internet* business from US. Which is stupid. Since it is an internet business you could run it from anywhere and given the income he had he would have settled him OK in any country. Yet he decided to reside in US where his sentence would be draconian for sure. Clearly an idiot.
Judges undermine justice (Score:5, Insightful)
I posted in this thread already but then went and read more about the case, and thought I'd share some anecdotal evidence.
As part of my job I sometimes have to sit in court rooms for specific cases, and I end up hearing a lot of other cases while I'm there. Two have stuck in my mind.
The first was the case of a lady who had been stopped by the police for using her mobile phone while driving. Her defence was that she'd been at home and a relative had called to tell her that her dad had been rushed to hospital. She jumped in the car, set off, and phoned her sister. That was when the police saw her. The prosecution didn't challenge her version of events. To me it seemed like an obvious time for a judge to use his discretion, but no, because her defence involved an admission that she did use the phone while driving, so she was found guilty and fined about £750 if I remember correctly.
Another case was a police officer accused of causing injury by dangerous driving. He'd driven through a red light while responding to an emergency call and collided with another car. I'm going to paraphrase as best I can how the judge handed down his verdict: "It is part of a police driver's job that they will sometimes have to exceed the speed limit or go through a red light when responding to an emergency call, and it is vital that due care and attention is paid to ensure that it is safe to do so. You did not exercise due care or attention when going through the red light and that lack of care caused the collision. However, you were responding to an emergency call, and therefore the court hands down an absolute discharge." Read that again if it's not immediately obvious what was wrong with the judge's logic :-)
Here's my point. When I read about the Ross Ulbricbht court, what comes across to me is that the judge is saying "blah blah yadda yadda legal stuff and now here is MY OPINION" which will vary from judge to judge. But surely justice must be consistent? You shouldn't have one judge convicting a person for making an urgent phone call, but a different judge effectively exonerating a policeman for not driving with the care required by his job. And you shouldn't have a judge handing down an entire life sentence when another judge would most likely have given a sentence of 10-20 years.
Opinions shouldn't come in to justice. If they do, it's not justice, it's one person's opinion of what justice should be.
Sentencing matched the guidelines (Score:5, Informative)
Here's my point. When I read about the Ross Ulbricbht court, what comes across to me is that the judge is saying "blah blah yadda yadda legal stuff and now here is MY OPINION" which will vary from judge to judge. But surely justice must be consistent? You shouldn't have one judge convicting a person for making an urgent phone call, but a different judge effectively exonerating a policeman for not driving with the care required by his job. And you shouldn't have a judge handing down an entire life sentence when another judge would most likely have given a sentence of 10-20 years.
I am undoing moderation to post this, because I have seen similar comments everywhere covering the story, all moderated up, and it simply isn't true.
Yes sentencing should be consistent which is why we have sentencing guidelines, and this judge followed them. He was convicted of running a continuing criminal enterprise which has a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years. And it gets worse when you add up the offense levels in the guidelines for his crimes: It was demonstrated that people who took drugs purchased on Silk Road have died from that drug use, which give him a base offense level of 38. The continuing criminal enterprise offense adds 4 points, and since he played an Aggravated Role as the ring leader that adds another 4 points, bringing him to 46 points. The sentencing table for someone with no prior convictions and an offense level of 43 or more is a life sentence, period, and that is before talking about the other five charges he was convicted of! As a judge you would have to present a very strong argument as to why someone with that high of an offense level should get less than life.
The reason he got such a harsh sentence is because our drug laws are so harsh, not because the judge was harsh. Prosecutors have huge flexibility in what they charge people with, and in this case they threw the book at him.
*Gets out pocketbook* (Score:2)
Oh boy! Now we get to pay for him to sit on his ass and eat for the rest of his natural life!
WOO!
Learn the lesson (Score:3)
Next time if you want to rip off people, swindle them out of their money, flaunt your condescendence towards the law and be a scourge of society, run a bank. Not only is it far more efficient than some petty drug dealing, it's also safer. The worst that can happen if things go wrong is that you get bailed out.
Ulbricht Ties The Noose Which Hangs Him (Score:4, Insightful)
Before the sentence was handed down, the court heard from two parents of young men who died from drugs purchased on the Silk Road.
''You don't fit a typical criminal profile,'' she began. ''It's not TV or the movies in here. You're educated. You've got two degrees, an intact family, and 98 people willing to write letters on your behalf. And yet, we have you. And you are a criminal.''
Ulbricht had been betrayed by his own words, and over the next several minutes, Forrest proceeded to read the most damning passages from his own logs and journals.
'It's still not clear to me why you kept a journal,'' she noted, an aside that apparently produced laughter in the overflow room.
''You were captain of the ship. It wasn't a world of 'freedom'---it was a place with a lot of rules. It was a world of your laws.''
''It was a carefully planned life's work,'' she said, pointing to a 2010 journal entry saying he'd already been thinking about the site for a year. ''It was your opus. You wanted it to be your legacy---and it is.''
Ulbricht's ideological messages on Silk Road boards ''reveal a kind of arrogance,'' she said. ''Silk Road's creation shows that you thought you were better than the laws.''
As for the ''harm reduction'' arguments, the judge could not have been more cutting. She read every academic study suggested by the defense, and then some, and was not impressed.
''No drug dealer from Harlem or the Bronx would have made these arguments,'' said Forrest. ''It's an argument of privilege.''
Ulbricht was focused on harm that could come the user. But most drug violence didn't come from buys on the street, but from ''upstream'' violence that grows as demand grows, she asserted. Believing that the user is the only person affected by drug violence is ''f'antasy, it's magical thinking,'' she said.
As for Fernando Caudevilla, or ''Doctor X,'' the Spanish doctor hired by Ulbricht to give advice to users, the judge read his messages, and found them ''breathtakingly irresponsible.''
Caudevilla told a diabetic that using MDMA would be OK, as long as he remembered to check his glucose levels by setting an alarm. In another message, he advised an 18-year-old first time drug user to ''be careful and I think you'll be fine,'' and to ''stick to psychedelics.''
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point of Silk Road was to AVOID law enforcement.
I thought the point was to provide anonymity. Can't we in the same extent say that people who are running TOR nodes are also trying to avoid law enforcement?
Actually DPR's purpose was to MAKE MONEY by avoiding law enforcement entanglements.... He knew what was being sold and where the money he was making came from.
Running TOR nodes falls eerily close to this, and I would imagine that doing this would put you at risk of criminal charges. Personally, I'd not risk it.
Re: (Score:2)
From the WSJ: [wsj.com]
Re: (Score:3)
According to the news reports I've read, and assume are accurate...
He was 14, not 18, the issue was reported (albeit not to the right authority) and the young man was sent to "treatment" for his issues by his parents and as far as we know it didn't happen again. I haven't heard any of the victims complaining that something else needs to be done, or that his behavior didn't stop. It was also 13+ years ago and the statute of limitations happened to be 3 years. It's old news and there is nothing of value we
Re: (Score:2)
An adult (yes, he _was_ over 18) who molested his pre-pubscent sisters
paid a "judge" to expunge the on-going criminal records citing those facts...
Oh, wait, those aren't the facts? Well we'll just look at the records and sort
these thigns out - oh, wait - the records are gone!
Too bad he didn't live in Europe; sending a "Right to be forgotten" email to Google is a heck of a lot cheaper.