Slashdot Mirror
Ross Ulbricht Faces New Drug Charges
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.
Of facilitating voluntary transactions between consenting adults.
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!
Is it just me, or is everyone against the War on Drugs at the same time opposed to the tobacco industry?
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
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.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Torture is violence or the threat of violence to extract a result. Prison is violent, so threats of prison are threats of violence.
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
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 directions to get there and back, so no one can even verify if I travelled there or not."
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.
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.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
that the Republicans forced Obama to sign
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
that the Republicans forced Obama to sign
Hilarious.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Someone will have to point me to the part of Austrian School of Economics and libertarianism which says it's okay to have competitors and rivals iced.
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.
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.
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.
It's fine to support Obama, but to come up with that particular twisted viewpoint, a person would need to expect Obama to agree with him on everything.
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.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."