Quote from: Blackbird0 on May 28, 2015, 12:09:57 PM

Quote from: BADecker on May 28, 2015, 05:45:06 AM

Quote from: Blackbird0 on May 28, 2015, 12:14:26 AM

So ...

This is the procedural phase of a federal prosecution that we call sentencing. The defendant has been found guilty by a jury. The judge then sentences the defendant according to the now-advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. During sentencing, the government and the defense make arguments to the judge tending to aggravate or mitigate the conduct that the defendant committed. It is only after a sentence has been handed down (judgment has been entered) that a defendant can appeal.

So, I fully expect the defendant, Ulbricht, to appeal. And simply because he is arguing for leniency at sentencing does not mean that he is no longer going to appeal. In fact, it is entirely in the normal course of things for a defendant who has lost his trial but still intends to appeal to argue as he has at sentencing.

It was an administrative hearing trial and jury. As you said, Ross can appeal.

Look at the 7th Amendment. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution:

Quote

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.

Since the verdict can be appealed, it wasn't a common law verdict. The 7th Amendment says that common law jury verdicts can't be appealed.

Certainly the amount of money involved is more than $20. Ross needs to stand up any time during the appeal and require a common law court trial. Things change in common law. They aren't done the same as administrative. In common law, Ross could easily win.

You continue to have no idea what you are talking about. This was not a "suit at common law," which is a civil suit, but rather a criminal trial.

Additionally, you utterly mangle the rule of the 7th amendment, which is that one cannot appeal a factual finding, but one can in a civil suit, appeal the law. Thus, if a judge instructs a civil jury incorrectly, and that jury renders a verdict, you can appeal the legal error of the jury instruction and get a new trial, even when that means overturning the jury's verdict.

You completely disregard the fact that, if a defendant in an administrative hearing is asked anything, even to plead, that all he need do is require pen and paper to write his answer, and then notice the court on paper that he wishes his accuser to appear and present, under oath, on the stand, the harm or injury that the defendant did to him, so that he, the defendant, can pay his accuser what he owes him. This effectively throws the whole case into common law, where the rules are different than the administrative side.

EDIT: The things you say about the 7th Amendment, are administrative law understandings. Once the case goes into the common law of the people, this understanding is no longer relevant, because it is no longer administrative law that is involved.