Ross Ulbricht Faces New Drug Charges 102
Alleged Silk Road mastermind Ross Ulbricht now faces additional drug-related charges. Ars Technica gives a run-down on the run-down, and shows an array of driver's licenses that can't look good to a jury: According to a 17-page amended indictment filed late Thursday night, the government introduced one count of “narcotics trafficking,” of “distribution of narcotics by means of the Internet,” and of "conspiracy to traffic in fraudulent identification documents." Previously, Ulbricht was indicted in February 2014 on four formal criminal offenses: narcotics trafficking conspiracy, continuing criminal enterprise, computer hacking conspiracy, and money laundering conspiracy. Ulbricht pleaded not guilty to the previous charges, and he seems likely to plead not guilty to the new ones as well.
Guilty (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
According to the government he actually *failed* to hire a hit man...
Quite frankly the whole thing seems quite fabricated, even if parts of it are true.
To the extent most cases are made to seem extraordinary I'd throw them all out.
Every claim which is made should be backed up with evidence. Obviously saying or implying he was the biggest drug king pin on the internet is full of crap unless you are going to discard the billions of dollars the major drug cartels are laundering. Does anybody for an instance th
Re: (Score:2)
But I doubt it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Consent cannot be given if one of the parties is mentally impaired and under duress due to the well-documented effects of drug addiction. It would be one thing if Silk Road had been only a marketplace for non-addictive substances like cannabis or hallucinogens, but in fact trade in heroin, cocaine and addictive painkillers was a major part of the site.
That said, I think that a government policy of offering drug users medical treatment would b
Re: Guilty (Score:1)
I've smoked weed heavily for many many years. Recently I stopped. No withdraws.
Re: (Score:1)
No withdraws.
So you didn't stop after all?
Re: (Score:2)
That differs from the liquor store how?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure which class of substances is more addicative. But the ACs said that, "one of the parties is mentally impaired and under duress due to the well-documented effects of drug addiction." That statment could apply to many legal transactions. Even if you could show that alcohol was less addicative, many purchases are still made by addicts hoping not to face reality or withdrawls.
Re: (Score:2)
I've known people with gambling addictions. There aren't any physical withdrawal symptoms, but it seems to be as hard to kick as a real addiction. Apparently, there is a physiological response to betting that takes the place of drugs. For those people, lottery tickets might as well be cocaine.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. Psychosis is induced more often by weed than alcohol, smoking weed can give a lot of troubles with the lungs and cardio vascular system (mostly caused by carbon monoxide poisoning) which in turn can lead to other problems. Eating weed have less harmful effects but still can trigger psychosis.
Alcohol is a poison but if used in reasonable quantities have fewer side effects than reasonable use of weed. Yes it is well documented. No I won't google it for you.
[expecting to get downvoted by weed fanatics th
Re: (Score:3)
Outside of government propaganda, I haven't seen much supporting the case that drugs like cocaine have a higher rate of abuse than alcohol. Furthermore, alcohol is the only drug that I'm aware of with withdrawal symptoms that includes death.
At the end of the day, violently throwing people in cages at gun point for getting high on substances you don't approve of is far more harmful to both the drug user and society as a whole. This whole argument of which drug is more or less dangero
Re: (Score:3)
According to the federal government, Cannabis and Hallucinogens are in fact addictive.
http://www.justice.gov/dea/doc... [justice.gov]
It's all lies to keep the war on drugs alive and well... but hey, when did the truth matter?
Re: (Score:2)
There may be legitimate reasons to restrict pot, but they're really unconvincing when you find that the people against pot lie about its effects. The problem with lying for an agenda is that, once people see through the lies, they tend to think that anything in support of that agenda is a lie.
Re: (Score:2)
Consent cannot be given if one of the parties is mentally impaired and under duress due to the well-documented effects of drug addiction. It would be one thing if Silk Road had been only a marketplace for non-addictive substances like cannabis or hallucinogens, but in fact trade in heroin, cocaine and addictive painkillers was a major part of the site.
I think it would be a stronger argument that somebody isn't responsible for their own behavior while intoxicated. In fact, you'd have to pretty well establish that notion before you could even get to what you just said.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And you know, of conspiring to commit murder. People seem to forget that part.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Of facilitating voluntary transactions between consenting adults.
The illegality of those transactions is the only reason they are massively profitable, and that is likely the only reason he engaged in them.
Whether or not you agree with that illegality is irrelevant. By profiting from facilitation of illegal activity, Ulbricht leveraged an unfair market position to get ahead of the rest of the world. Anyone can break the law for disproportionate profit. He's That Guy, and if you live within the system (as most of us do), you need to support stamping him down. The alternat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of facilitating voluntary transactions between consenting adults.
So you also think we shouldn't have laws against buying/selling organs by adults, selling yourself into slavery, and prostitution? All of them are voluntary transactions between consenting adults.
Re: (Score:3)
What's wrong with prostitution? Ugly person A wants sex. Hot person B wants money and will tolerate and/or even enjoy a willy inside them. Person A pays person B for sex. Both get what they want. Damn those evil people, how dare they offend God! Why...sex is ok, but only if somebody doesn't get paid damnit! (Except the god described in the old testament. He's cool with it so long as you burn incense and sacrifice a lamb or two in his name.)
And I don't see anything wrong with selling your own organs either s
Re: (Score:2)
More litigants! (Score:1, Interesting)
So if I buy a cell phone at Walmart and the battery catches on fire I can sue Walmart too? How about the cashier at Walmart and all of the stock people? They all share responsibility!
Re: (Score:3)
If they knew of quality problems that might be a danger and failed to inform you in order to make a profit, yes, absolutely.
Re: (Score:2)
Chokehold (Score:3)
Is it just me, or is everyone against the War on Drugs at the same time opposed to the tobacco industry?
Re:Chokehold (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, as long as other people are allowed to physically remove a person smoking from their vicinity and they don't get any public funding for smoking disease related heath care.
Other than that... they're selling a highly addictive substance that in normal use results in disease and premature death.
Re: (Score:2)
they don't get any public funding for smoking disease related heath care.
It's actually cheaper to just pay out the healthcare than to drive it underground.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yeah, as long as other people are allowed to physically remove a person smoking from their vicinity..."
What's the vicinity, chum? If I'm smoking a cigar outside and you walk up and lay a hand on me, there's problems.
Re: (Score:2)
The vicinity is where I can smell it.
I believe the problem would be the cigar shoved up your nose.
Re: (Score:2)
don't get any public funding for smoking disease related heath care
Why not? They paid a lot more of the tax that funds it compared to (say) sugar addicts with bad hearts, bacon lovers with clogged ateries, or skateboarders with broken bones. All of those health problems are "self inflicted" and entirely avoidable but for some reason nanny state arseholes like you have a vendetta against smokers, you insist they pay an excessive "sin tax" and then demand they be denied any benifits from that tax. Fuck you and the holier than thou horse you rode in on.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just you.
Re: (Score:3)
Your friendly neighborhood drug dealer is at least more honest in not claiming that snorting will make you look young and sexy like a hunk or supermodel. I really can't understand why big tobacco isn't banned while most countries will send you to death or to jail for a very very long time if you're caught with even a few grams of the stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it just me, or is everyone against the War on Drugs at the same time opposed to the tobacco industry?
No. The New York Times editorial staff maintains a stance in favor of legalizing marijuana, but opposed to tobacco, including e-cigarettes.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for this input. Do they not understand that this leads to high taxes on cigarettes, leading to smuggling, leading to a chokehold death of a guy trying to make a living by selling them?
Nevermind Ulbricht.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm "against" the tobacco industry, but I'm not a tobacco prohibitionist. Same as to marijuana.
On the other hand, I am against the methamphetamine industry and I am a methamphetamine prohibitionist.
Other drugs require more thought and /. isn't worth that.
Well... (Score:2)
I certainly didn't do it.
You probably didn't do it.
That leaves only the overlords, themselves.
It's all a set up, with a scapegoat, as usual. This wouldn't make a decent T.V. show,lacks imagination. Therefore I suspect government tomfoolery in all of this.
Define torture (Score:3, Insightful)
Adding on more charges is to play the game of "we'll get you on something, so if you don't confess to this small list, we'll send you away to prison for a long time." That's threats of violence to get a result. So this is all a game of legal torture.
Cause harm and threaten harm until you get a confession, regardless of the guilt of the people involved. That's the American Way.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well if you define it that vaguely, I guess any sort of punishment at all is torture, and I am guilty of some kind of war crime if I ground my 13 year old daughter.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. You're also guilty if you threaten to ground her.
The government is also guilty because they've defined laws that pretty much say "If you kill someone on purpose and we can prove it beyond reasonable doubt, you're going to jail"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's no more moronic than what AK Marc proposed.
Re: (Score:2)
The original definition, as it was used in the Inquisition, would include taking away her iPad if she didn't do what you wanted (like clean her room). Threatening to kill her if she didn't perform sex acts with you would be "torture"? Or would you dispute that one as well? Then let's "lessen" the punishment and act demanded, and see where you draw the line.
But then, older definitions of slavery would still come close to applying t
Re: (Score:2)
Re:TOR (Score:4, Informative)
Why not? The whole proof beyond reasonable doubt comes into play here (criminal charges). If the prosecution can't prove anything, he walks. If he used TOR in order to hide suspected illegal activities, then they'll have to prove that, using TOR in itself is not a criminal activity.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not going to look good if you funnel your money through multiple companies to hide the real source.
He also can't disprove any allegations relating to what he's done over the Internet because he's purposefully removed all traces.
Like if I was a murder suspect and my alibi was "I was at a party on the night in question. There are hundreds of witnesses, except I was wearing a mask so no one could identify me. I also walked some of the way, took several different cars, buses and bikes in multiple direction
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not going to look good if you funnel your money through multiple companies to hide the real source.
Oh, you mean not unlike American companies who funnel their money through offshore arms of the org to avoid paying taxes on it?
Yeah, somehow magically that bullshit isn't called tax evasion.
The double-standard just bruised your face you fell down so hard. Sorry 'bout that.
Re:TOR (Score:5, Informative)
He also can't disprove any allegations relating to what he's done over the Internet because he's purposefully removed all traces.
He doesn't have to disprove anything. In America it's up to the prosecution to prove that he did what they accused; it's not up to him to prove his innocence.
Re: (Score:2)
that the Republicans forced Obama to sign
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm pretty much a bleeding heart lefty and I still think blaming the Republicans for Obama signing NDAA is pretty ridiculous. There are plenty of things to blame the Republicans for, but Obama is hardly blameless either.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only is the president still capable of vetoing bills, but it was passed with a bipartisan effort, and the administration has defended it in court.
Re: (Score:2)
that the Republicans forced Obama to sign
Hilarious.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was up to the jury to decide innocence based on all the admissible information provided.
You assume that circumstantial evidence has no effect on the members of a jury.
If you can't refute evidence (of any kind), it's going to have an effect in the minds of the jury.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but if they're using illegal searches and wiretaps, they'll have to reveal it in court... and may not be admissible as evidence.
So then (Score:2)
What's with the phrasing? (Score:2)
In the middle of the article there's a list of charges, and all refer to a "detectable amount of [drug]". That's a pretty low standard. For example, when you're handling cash you're probably trafficking a detectable amount of cocaine.