Quote from: HairyMaclairy on September 19, 2019, 05:58:10 AM

Quote from: jbreher on September 18, 2019, 02:47:42 AM

Quote from: kurious on September 17, 2019, 04:57:22 PM

Interesting to read a debunking of the 'in jail for fireworks' line:

Quote from: Foxpup on September 17, 2019, 02:48:06 PM

Quote from: above the one above all on September 17, 2019, 02:20:52 PM

I somehow don't believe his story of going to jail for 10 months for selling firecrackers on ebay. I think there is something to the story he is leaving out.

Here's a transcript of the sentencing hearing, detailing exactly why he was sentenced to 10 months in jail, including the parts of the story he may have left out. Spoiler alert: pipe bombs aren't firecrackers.

I'm not so sure. I'm not going spelunking through the entire trial transcript. But from the sentencing, it appears that the term 'pipe bomb' appears only once. To wit:

"I think one factor that the Court can take into consideration or at least should consider is there were some pipe bombs involved in this case as well that were not charged and are not incorporated in the conduct that's before the Court..."
(emphasis added)

To me, this looks as if the matter of any pipe bombs were never even discussed in trial -- no evidence entered, no testimony revealing, etc -- and that the prosecution was allowed to get a sideswipe freebie in unchallenged.

Of course, 'pipe bomb' is a pretty specific term of art. I'd be curious to know what the legal definition of such was -- if indeed any evidence referring to such was ever entered into trial. But it apparently was not.

Until someone points me at anything within the trial transcript itself indicating evidence of dealing in pipe bombs, I'm inclined to accept Roger at his word.

As a sidebar, I find it kind of funny how this here crypto community is absorbed by long-past actions of various parties that have absolutely nothing to do with any crypto topic whatsoever.

You missed the bit where the judge says selling bombs to juveniles is a very serious offence.

Quote

I think that these offenses are very serious. They could have been a lot more serious. The bombs could have gone off or people could have used them in destructive ways. Selling bombs to juveniles is never okay.

While it is true that the judge does not use the word pipe bomb in these sentences and only uses the word bomb, the intent is clear.

I would be unsurprised to learn that from a legal perspective, 'unlicensed firecracker' is precisely synonymous with 'bomb'.

Quote

This is a typical example of you providing a partial truth in a deliberately misleading manner.

Bullshit, my nuance-challenged counterpointer.