Quote from: GreanT on September 02, 2015, 03:52:11 PM

Quote from: BADecker on September 02, 2015, 03:38:17 PM

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on September 02, 2015, 01:45:20 PM

Quote from: Delek on August 23, 2015, 09:18:10 PM

Quote from: Wonka on August 23, 2015, 03:14:14 PM

If he was such a genius he wouldn't be sitting in a jail cell right now.

Living in a Jail or in your House have nothing to do with being a genius or not. As I said, Socrates and Galileo were behind steel bars too and they were genius for sure.

That's true. I'd rather be a free idiot than a genius behind bars.

The difference with Ross is, he knew for sure that he was butting heads with the legal system. If Ross were a genius, he would have used that knowledge to keep himself out of trouble.

I haven't been keeping up with his current status, but if he isn't out, or on the way out, he certainly isn't a genius. After all, his accuser the plaintiff never faced him by taking the stand in court, a basic requirement of law, except if one doesn't require it.

I'd say Ross wasn't a genius at all, except if this is all a show to slander Bitcoin, and Ross is part of the show intentionally.

This was not a civil case, therefore there is no plaintiff (it is not J Smith v Ulbricht). This was a criminal case, and therefore the moving party was the government, or to be more specific the DOJ (US v Ulbricht). Whether or not the DOJ met their burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) can be argued, but you can't sit here and say nobody took the stand against him in court because that is not true. The DOJ had witnesses and those witnesses testified. Again, whether the DOJ proved the accusations beyond a reasonable doubt can be argued, but there certainly were people who took the stand to testify for the government.
I agree with several of the posts above. Personally, I think they proved their case, but I think the sentence imposed by the judge was a harsh statement that did not fit the crime. Ulbricht's best appeal will be based on the 4th amendment

This is an important thing that people don't understand about law. You can bring your civil (7th Amendment requirement for a common law trial) case right inside and on top of any criminal complaint that is brought against you. When you do this, your claim must be heard before the complaint brought against you. Since in a case like this, you have plenty of time to file your notices with the court clerk well in advance of any trial, the trial may essentially be done long before the court date.

So, what would you do in your claim? You would require any person that you have harmed or injured to come forward and state the damages so that you can compensate him for the damages. He must come forward in a court of record (common law court), take the oath, get on the stand and testify, express the harm and/or injury, provide evidence that and a witness that verify it was you that did the harm or injury, and if someone shows up, bring it before a jury.

Now, Ross is way too dumb to know this. Other Americans are as well. But the people are waking up. Google and Youtube "Karl Lentz" and "Bill Thornton" and "Richard Cornforth" to find out what this is all about and how it can be done in every government case against a human being.