3 ms·

I do not acknowledge the authority of the legal system of the United States of America over my own beliefs and statements. However, if I did, I'd just call to y

I do not acknowledge the authority of the legal system of the United States of America over my own beliefs and statements. However, if I did, I'd just call to your attention the fact he was sentenced partly based on this the transgression I named, even if he was not charged with it. That would be enough for me to drop the "alleged" verbiage, were I inclined to put it there in the first place.

zucker42 6y ago
The fact that he was sentenced based on a crime he was not convicted for is a travesty and in my opinion unconstitutional (violates the rights to a public jury trial and to due process).
KMag 6y ago
I believe the GP was attempting to draw attention to the fact that the majority of Ross's sentence was based on mere allegation of a crime. (Granted, with good evidence, but without due process.) The probable reason charges were dropped on the conspiracy to commit murder charge was it probably would have fallen to an entrapment defence. Hiring a hitman was suggested and pushed by someone acting on behalf of the government at the time. Ross is no hero, but also, let's not pretend the court system acted reasonably here. If they had even a 50/50 chance of getting him on conspiracy to commit murder, they would have brought the charge to trial. The prosecutor didn't drop the charge to be nice. The evidence of entrapment probably would have hurt the case as a whole, so they dropped the conspiracy to commit murder charge. Yet, it appears this strong suggestion that he committed a serious crime played the majority role in his sentencing. This should scare anyone around the world, given the long reach of US law enforcement. The prosecutor kept embarrassing entrapment details out of the trial and still got a heavy sentence for just the allegation of a crime. The prosecutor got to have their cake and eat it too.
ktm5j 6y ago
> the fact he was sentenced partly based on this the transgression I named, even if he was not charged with it Do you have a source for that? IANAL but as far as I know that is not the way the US legal system caries out sentencing.
- zucker42 6y ago
  The petition for the Supreme Court to hear Ross Ulbright's case discusses some of the legal background in the second section https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-950/24860/20171222095855755_Ulbricht%20cert%20petition.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-950/24860/20171... Apparently there has been a long standing practice of judges finding facts to justify a longer second, but it's questionable whether the practice is Constitutional.

zucker42 6y ago

The fact that he was sentenced based on a crime he was not convicted for is a travesty and in my opinion unconstitutional (violates the rights to a public jury trial and to due process).

KMag 6y ago

I believe the GP was attempting to draw attention to the fact that the majority of Ross's sentence was based on mere allegation of a crime. (Granted, with good evidence, but without due process.) The probable reason charges were dropped on the conspiracy to commit murder charge was it probably would have fallen to an entrapment defence. Hiring a hitman was suggested and pushed by someone acting on behalf of the government at the time. Ross is no hero, but also, let's not pretend the court system acted reasonably here. If they had even a 50/50 chance of getting him on conspiracy to commit murder, they would have brought the charge to trial. The prosecutor didn't drop the charge to be nice. The evidence of entrapment probably would have hurt the case as a whole, so they dropped the conspiracy to commit murder charge. Yet, it appears this strong suggestion that he committed a serious crime played the majority role in his sentencing. This should scare anyone around the world, given the long reach of US law enforcement. The prosecutor kept embarrassing entrapment details out of the trial and still got a heavy sentence for just the allegation of a crime. The prosecutor got to have their cake and eat it too.

ktm5j 6y ago

> the fact he was sentenced partly based on this the transgression I named, even if he was not charged with it Do you have a source for that? IANAL but as far as I know that is not the way the US legal system caries out sentencing.

zucker42 6y ago
The petition for the Supreme Court to hear Ross Ulbright's case discusses some of the legal background in the second section https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-950/24860/20171222095855755_Ulbricht%20cert%20petition.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-950/24860/20171... Apparently there has been a long standing practice of judges finding facts to justify a longer second, but it's questionable whether the practice is Constitutional.