Silk Road, Online Freedom, and Why the Prosecution of Ross Ulbricht Should Worry Us All

The mother of the alleged "Dread Pirate Roberts" speaks out.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Silk Road, Online Freedom, and Why the Prosecution of Ross Ulbricht Should Worry Us All

HD Video Download

"I am fighting for my son," says Lyn Ulbricht, the mother of 30-year-old Ross Ulbricht, who faces life in prison as the alleged creator and operator of "Silk Road," an illicit online marketplace that was shut down by the feds last year. "But [this fight] is bigger than Ross, and I think one website is far less dangerous than the government trampling on our rule of law and the consitution."

Ulbricht sat down with Reason TV's Nick Gillespie to talk about why she believes the government's case against Ross broadly violates his constitutional rights and threatens online freedom.

For more on Ross Ulbricht and the government's case against Silk Road, read Brian Doherty's feature story in the December 2014 issue of Reason magazine, "How Buying Drugs Online Became Safe, Easy, and Boring."

Shot and edited by Jim Epstein; additional camera Anthony L. Fisher.

About 22 minutes.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel to get automatic updates when new material goes live.

Comments

[Suellington]

We need a national movement promoting jury nullification. It would be nice to see some rich libertarians buying ad time, but even something as small as mentioning it to friends could be helpfu.

[Jordan]

We could definitely affect change more easily that way than through the ballot box.

[bassjoe]

Defense attorneys being allowed to bring up nullification is sufficient. As it is now, defense attorneys face contempt and jail time for mentioning jury nullification (and judges instruct the jury to disregard the argument).

On the other hand, prosecutors are allowed to tell jurors it's their "duty" to convict if the elements are there.

[bassjoe]

Wow... I just read what happened to New Hampshire's watered down jury nullification law. The Supreme Court there essentially said a law actually allowing a jury nullification argument might be unconstitutional (which the law in question didn't even do). A-fucking-mazing.

[JParker]

There is one: The Fully Informed Jury Association (https://fija.org).

[jimbabb]

Jury Nullification Advertising - New York City
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com.....York-City/

Juror Rights Outreach - New York City
https://www.facebook.com/events/1500824033520677/

[FIJA]

There IS a national movement promoting jury nullification. I invite you to check out the Fully Informed Jury Association at http://www.FIJA.org and join us in promoting jury nullification.

Currently we are seeking volunteers for a campaign in New York City. Ideally we would have at least 2 people on the sidewalk at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan courthouse from 7:30 am- 4:30 pm daily starting immediately. So far I have 2 volunteers who can start right now. I encourage everyone to step up and help us educate New York City NOW rather than hoping for a last minute miracle.

FIJA will provide materials and training and help coordinate local volunteers. What we need are people willing and able to get out on the sidewalk for a couple of hours each week and share this important information. Give me a call at 406-442-7800 or email [e-mail] to volunteer or to steer local volunteers my way!

Kirsten C. Tynan
Fully Informed Jury Association

[Ken Shultz]

"It would be nice to see some rich libertarians buying ad time"

Rich people spend money to help keep the government off their backs. ...not so much to provoke the government.

And when you think of the wealthy people out there who contribute to political causes, who wants to be demonized like Soros or the Koch Brothers?

Besides, the way wealthy people get sued in this country, undermining the jury system may come back to bite them in the ass. After you've faced a couple of frivolous lawsuits, prolly the last thing you want juries to do is ignore the law.

We're gonna have to do it for ourselves.

[leaniefeneckgik]

my best friend's mother-in-law makes $62 /hr on the internet . She has been fired for six months but last month her check was $18735 just working on the internet for a few hours. visit site....

????? http://www.netjob70.com

[gipexavier]

i buy almost everything except food and clothing from online auctions most people aren't aware of the almost I unbelievable deals that they can get from online auction sites the site that has the best deals is..
================= http://WWW.WORK4HOUR.COM

[leilafairfieldbum]

Start working at home with Google! It's by-far the best job I've had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,
go to tech tab for work detail ????????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

[J2Hess]

I've occasionally read such arguments and wonder what the legal standing of nullification was. From the Cornell Legal Information Institute:

"Jury nullification is a discretionary act, and is not a legally
sanctioned function of the jury. It is considered to be inconsistent
with the jury's duty to return a verdict based solely on the law and the
facts of the case. The jury does not have a right to nulification, and
counsel is not permitted to present the concept of jury nullification
to the jury. However, jury verdicts of acquittal are unassailable even
where the verdict is inconsistent with the weight of the evidence and
instruction of the law."

So nullification in itself is not established in law, but it is a tactic available for juries to use to violate their duties under law. Hence it is no wonder that encouraging nullification is regarded as incitement to illegal behavior; in a jury deliberation incitement could possibly be charged as conspiracy. Juries would best use it only in egregious cases, given our democratic ability to amend the law and the ability of governors to pardon. Juries may most safely use it when the officers of the law are in sympathy with the overlooking the law as in the cases on racial discrimination mentioned below.

[FIJA]

Let's clear up some misinformation here from J2Hess.

1. Our first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay explicitly stated in the case of Georgia v. Brailsford (1794) that is is a RIGHT of jurors to judge both the facts AND the law. This is because it was clearly understood at the time our nation was formed that this was one of the main purposes of the jury. So valued was this right that one of the articles of impeachment against Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase cites his attempt to circumvent it as a reason for impeachment. No Supreme Court ruling has ever taken this right away from jurors. The simple fact that is is not specifically stated in law as right does not mean that it is not a right.

2. Juries using jury nullification are not by definition "violating their duties under law". The highest duty of jurors is to deliver a just verdict. Where the law is unjust or unjustly applied, where the penalty for the violation is unjustly severe, or where other mitigating factors make strictly enforcing the law an unjust outcome, jurors' have both the right and the duty to deliver a just verdict even if it requires setting aside the law to do so.

[FIJA]

3. Jury nullification is not illegal behavior. Even judges who do not like the full authority of jurors as intended when our legal system was established recognize that jurors cannot be punished for their verdicts. In the extremely rare instances where judges displeased with jurors' verdicts have gone after them legally,
(a) They have to go after them for some other alleged offense to punish them as they cannot punish them for their verdicts.
and
(b) In the two cases I'm aware of where judges tried to prosecute jurors on other charges in retaliation and punishment for their verdicts, one case was dropped before it went to trial and the other resulted in a conviction that was ultimately overturned.

[FIJA]

4. Jurors have the right and responsibility to conscientiously acquit in EVERY case where to do so would be a just verdict. Most people do not understand that even opening the door a tiny crack to punishment can mean they are complicit in a MASSIVE injustice. They may not be aware that a minor conviction can trigger egregious mandatory minimum or three strikes sentencing schemes. They may not understand that if they convict on ANY charge, judges have the option to "enhance" the defendant's sentence based on conduct of which the jury EXPLICITLY acquitted the defendant. Too many times we have seen cases where holdout jurors compromised on a "small" charge against their better judgment, thinking the penalty for violating it would be small, only to be horrified later at the abusive punishment doled out to the defendant in return. See for example the cases of Richard Paey, Cecily McMillan, and Antwuan Ball.

Kirsten C. Tynan
Fully Informed Jury Association

[uhclem]

If it were otherwise, we wouldn't need juries, we could just use computers.

[x4rqcks3f v2.0]

but it is a tactic available for juries to use to violate their duties under law.

What duties? Being required to sit on a jury is tantamount to slavery. I can nullify anything on those grounds alone.

[Ken Shultz]

"It is considered to be inconsistent
with the jury's duty to return a verdict based solely on the law and the
facts of the case."

Juries serve several different functions in political theory. One of them is that they're an embodiment of the idea that our rights are inalienable--in that we cannot be deprived of them by government.

The government can make the laws. The government can choose to prosecute. The government can prescribe punishment for a crime.

The government cannot decide to deprive someone of their rights--that has to be done by a jury of one's "peers", which specifically means that the jury is not made up of the government.

That is what was intended. How can they have intended that and not understood that juries would sometimes find against the government's laws? To me, the idea that they had no idea that juries would behave this way is a pretty indefensible position.

Especially considering that they were coming out of a revolution. Especially considering that there was already precedent in English common law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J....._precedent

[retiredfire]

Authors too lazy to condense a 22 minute video, yet all the comments are about jury nullification, which is an admission that the law was broken but some just don't like the law.
Allowing 12, or 6, people to unilaterally decide to nullify a legislative action is ever-so-slightly less than anarchy and why libertarians don't get past the front door of reasoned discussions - despite the name of their publication.

[FIJA]

First off, 12 or 6 people doing something together are not doing that thing "unilaterally".

But thank God we had numerous people engaging in mass acts of nullification who "didn't like" the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Rather, these jurors you consider "ever-so-slightly less than anarchists" refused in dozens of trials to punish anyone for helping men such as Shadrach Minkins and William Henry (aka Jerry) escape from slavers who considered them to be property. If it takes an "ever-so-slightly" less than anarchist to deliver just verdicts, then so be it. Everyone else should learn a thing or two about human decency from them.

Kirsten C. Tynan
Fully Informed Jury Association

[Flaming Ballsack]

leaving justice to the whim of 12 people is nothing short of mob rule so if a jury thinks its unjust that a white be punished for killing a black or cop be pnished for killing anyone then hey nullify away. or better yet if a jury thinks a black guy accused of a crime against a white guy should be sent to jail despite evidence of innocence then thats okay too right? oram i gog to get the standard lecture about how you dont know what you mean but you dont mean that?

[Rebel Scum]

Tell me, do progs know how to do anything other than race-bait, put words in other peoples mouths, and be generally/deliberately disingenuous? (rhetorical)

P.s. It is good to see that you are so comfortable with your genital herpes as to reference it through your Reason handle.

[Rufus J. Firefly]

I see you're incapable of answering Kirsten based on the merit of the content and facts provided.

Progs are gonna prog.

[RussianPrimeMinister]

Absolutely nothing you just vomited into that chat box has anything to do with jury nullification.

You're just another cunt handle for that cunt Mary. Shut the fuck up, Kizone Kaprow.

[gaoxiaen]

Some people like more than superficial coveerage of an issue. Obviously, you're not one of them. That, being said, several years ago I watched a TV show in which a sheriff in Kentucky seized smome marijuana plants behind someone's barn but didn't arrest the property owner (who said they weren't his and he didn't know anything about them. When the host aked him about that the sheriff said that it didn't matter because they never get a conviction. Things like that are probably why foefeiture without a conviction are so commonplace today. When they started this forfeiture bullshit long ago when I was in college people scoffed when i said that it was to easy to abuse forfeiture. My third point is "Fuck yo, troll. Go back to Police One!"

[gaoxiaen]

*them) *too Proofreading. How does it work?

[Ken Shultz]

It should be pointed out, too, that this isn't the first time people who follow Reason have heard about this story.

It's silly to expect those of us who have already discussed this case in a dozen or so other threads to start in on this new thread like we've never discussed this case before.

[Ken Shultz]

"Allowing 12, or 6, people to unilaterally decide to nullify a legislative action is ever-so-slightly less than anarchy"

It's actually one person in a federal trial. No need for six or seven to agree. Just one person.

And I don't think that "anarchy" word means what you think it means. The unanimity of a jury requirement is set within the law. If a juror couldn't decide a defendant should not be found guilty for his or her own reasons, that would be more...chaotic. It would certainly make jury decisions less legitimate.

The idea that people should be free to make choices for themselves is fundamental to libertarians. Why people on a jury shouldn't be free to make choices for themselves using their own judgement about the guilt of a defendant is beyond me. Again, that's what juries are for.

"Why libertarians don't get past the front door of reasoned discussions - despite the name of their publication."

Did somebody say "For a magazine called Reason"?

DRINK!

[Cytotoxic]

Wait a second...let me get this straight: a single juror can get nullification? Really? I did not know that. Every libertarian must strive for jury duty!

[Ken Shultz]

It's like each jury member gets veto power over the Congress and the President.

Talk about individual rights!

It's only in one case, but still. If you don't like some law Barack Obama signed, you can effectively veto his legislation if you're a juror in a federal case.

No doubt, some people find that frightening. But they're generally the same people who find freedom frightening.

[Cytotoxic]

But is this the case in Canada?

[x4rqcks3f v2.0]

I'm not watching 22 minutes of video, so maybe this was answered. How would this woman feel if her son told her that he is Dread Pirate Roberts? My guess is that she thinks drug trafficking and money laundering are wrong. The first minute makes it seems like her objection to his charges are simply on due process grounds.

[kathyhivepyu]

Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I've started averaging 15k a month... The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start... This is where to start...

?????? http://www.payinsider.com

[Duelles]

So . . . If someone is cheating on their taxes this would implicate the IRS agents, employees, and right up to the President whose administration is "in charge". We hear all the time about the size of the black market, the underground economy, the barter and cash arrangements taking place. The IRS and government agencies are aware, involved , ergo guilty. Interesting!

[userve32]

One thing is for sure the Feds have nothing but spare time on their hands!

http://www.Anon-Rocks.tk