How the Silk Road trial led us to the depths of disparate Justice

[rogerver]

"Deconstructing Rectitude - How the Silk Road trial led us to the depths of disparate Justice"

A lot has been written about the unfairness of sentencing in the trial of Silk Road creator, Ross Ulbricht. There is a lot of misinformation floating around, as well as a lot of debate on the harshness of the sentence that Ulbricht received; I'm writing this piece to help direct attention on the shameful actions of three individuals involved in Ulbricht's trial, all of whom have shown themselves to be enemies of liberty, and the very antonym of justice. One an inhumane United States district court judge, and two United States Attorneys whom are best described simply as crusaders of injustice.

Two of the three quite clearly acted out of self-interest rather than the interest of justice, with the third acting as no more than a lapdog. Two of the three are also closely linked to New York Senator Charles "Chuck" Schumer, arguably one of the most powerful politicians in the United States today and the man who - along with his colleague, Senatoer Joe Manchin (West Virgina) - called for a crackdown on Bitcoin itself due to its use in darknet marketplaces, the largest of which at the time was Silk Road. One can surely question why he didn't call for a crackdown on the US Dollar while he was at it due to the fact that the Dollar is the currency of choice for so-called criminals engaging in drug transactions, but I'm sure he has a very good reason for targeting Bitcoin. I'll elaborate on that a little further into the article.

Introducing our trifecta of tyranny:

The first is Katherine Forrest, the district court judge who thought that Ross Ulbricht represented such a threat to her beloved system of oppression that she sentenced him to life imprisonement for non-violent crimes. Her draconian sentence was purely punitive and was handed down in some misdirected attempt at "setting an example". As we all know, sending people to prison stops 'crime' dead in its tracks and eliminates it completely. Well, at least it does in the mind of Katherine Forrest. When one compares the sentence to that received by Ulbricht's employee and co-conspirator, Peter Nash - who received a sentence of 17 months (time served) - one is forced to acknowledge the vast disparity in sentencing. 17 months is a far cry from the slow death sentence that is life imprisonment. I mention this in relation to Forrest's potential political ambition, which you will read about below. Nash's sentence was delivered by Judge Thomas Griesa, a then 84 year old district judge whose only remaining ambition is to retire and peacefully live out the rest of his days. An incredibly different from the path that Forrest seems to wish to travel.

The second is Preetinder Singh "Preet" Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, whose decision it was to prosecute Ulbricht despite knowing full well the details of the corruption involved in the case, and having full details of the questionable methods used to identify the Silk Road server. An ambitious prosecutor with his eyes clearly on a higher office, this man has demonstrated in a number of cases that he is all about 'getting results' which will hold him up as a shining crusader against crime, regardless of the cost to individual liberty or the damage to society at large.

The third is Serrin Turner, Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York with a penchant for petulance, and who argued a case that he knew was based on information shared by two rogue government agents acting in their own interests, something that tainted the investigation into Ulbricht beyond a reasonable doubt.

"A caricature of Justice: Silk Road Judge Katherine Forrest"

What seems evident to me, at least, is that Katherine Forrest is a self-serving judge with potential political amibitions and complete disregard for the principle of rehabilitation. Forrest's decision to sentence Ross Ulbricht to not one but two life sentences, plus one for 20 years, one for five years and one for 15 years to be served concurrently with no possibility of parole - all for non-violent crimes - demonstrates her clear "tough on crime" stance. A sentencing judge should never hold such a stance as his or her job is not to be tough on crime, but to provide justice for society, balancing the needs of society against the actions of the individual that was put on trial. There was absolutely no need to sentence a man to two terms of life imprisonement for non-violent crimes when it was plain to see that he would not engage is such actions again in the future. The double life sentence seems to be motivated by a desire to ensure that at least one life sentence sticks should an appeal be in some way successful. In short, this judge failed in her task at balancing the generally accepted need to protect society and instead used her position to unfairly punish the individual who sat before her, accused of non-violent crimes.

The particular political stance of being ""tough on crime" is most notably held by political 'wannabes' the world over, all of whom are veritable philosophical throwbacks to the Nixon era and all of whom fail to see the storm of change brewing on the horizon. Perhaps Ms. Forrest wants to appear "tough on crime" in order to be considered for a position in a higher court. Perhaps she envisions herself being rewarded by her masters in government not for meting out justice (as that is not, nor has ever been the aim of government) but for attempting to further State control over the lives of individuals who wish to take back dominion over their own bodies. Or perhaps she even has political ambitions, the thought of which should send chills down the spine of any person that respects freedom and holds individual liberty in high esteem.

It has been said that as humans we are born free, but the moment we draw breath the State places us in chains; that is an inarguable statement. From the moment you are considered alive you are subject to countless rules and regulations imposed by the State through threat of violence; you can't do this, you can't do that, you need government permission for such and such an activity, or you need to pay the government in order to receive a permit to make your permitless illegal action legal - a tongue twister that's about as funny as requiring a child to have a permit to sell lemonade from a lemondae stand, which is absolutely ridiculous. That very basic example demonstrates perfectly how government stifles innovation, and more importantly, stifles the innovators behind it.

Ms. Forrest (and I refuse to call her "Judge" Forrest here because judges are tasked with meting out society's view of justice in today's world, not with acting vindictively out of a sense of self-interest) has proven herself to be a sharp legal mind when litigating. However, by attempting to come across as a strong handed judge she has now shown herself to be weak in character. Judges have a responsibility to be fair and impartial, and the actions taken by this woman were not those of a judge. Katherine Forrest previously worked at the Department of Justice as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the antitrust division. There, she oversaw operations of the antitrust division’s criminal and civil programs. A person who saw the Department of Justice as a shining beacon of light, so much so that she took up a position as Deputy Assistant Attorney General, cannot possibly remain impartial in a case involving the Department of Justice. She is automatically predisposed to their position and the belief that the Department of Justice is in the right - I mean, she did hold the DOJ in high enough regard to leave her Partner position at the prestigious law firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP to work for it. That being said, one cannot fault her for her predisposition. It is a natural state of the human condition to rely on past experience to influence present and future thinking. However, one can certainly fault her for the fact that she so clearly allows that predisposition to influence her decisions in the supposed pursuit of justice.

As I mentioned earlier Ms. Forrest has a direct link to Senator Charles "Chuck" Schumer, our Bitcoin antagonist and instigator of the investigations that led to Silk Road's seizure and Ross Ulbricht's arrest. Ostensibly Senator Schumer wishes to be able to preach come election time that he is a knight of justice, leading the charge against online free markets that allow people to "brazenly" engage in what are ultimately voluntary transactions between consenting parties. Perish the thought that people might engage in consensual transactions outside of the State's control!

I think it's important at this point to note that Forrest represented major record labels in their 2011 lawsuit against Limewire, and Charles Schumer was a co-sponsor of the "PROTECT IP Act" that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) had been pushing for for a number of years. Media corporations donated $1,465,160 USD to Schumer in order to buy his votes and bring SOPA and PIPA into law, acts which are themselves an attack on the freedom of the Internet. That, however, is something that has been covered extensively elsewhere and is only mentioned here in order to provide background.

So there was a tenuous link between Forrest and Schumer in 2011 due to their mutual interest and actions in acting on the RIAA's behalf. However, that link grows a little more substantial when we see that Forrest was recommended by Senator Schumer for consideration by President Barack Obama to fill a judicial seat on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that had been vacated by Judge Jed S. Rakoff. It's not beyond the realm of possibility, nor a stretch of the imagination, to consider that Charles Schumer may have recommended her with a view to utilising her position as a judge for his own ends. After all, what is politics if not a cesspit of corruption and deceit, eh! Adding a little more meat to the theory of political influence of her decisions is her ruling in a prominent aluminium market price-fixing suit against Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and Glencore, which was ultimately ruled in their favour. The judge found that although the defendant's actions did affect the aluminum marketplace, the plaintiffs failed to show the defendants had intended to manipulate prices. "Well, Roger, that's simply an absurd link to make!", you might say. However, do read on!

All of those financial institutions were significant contributors to Charles Schumer's political campaigns, as is the financial & securities sector in general. It's not hard to imagine financial institutions exercising their vote-buying muscle over a politician they have influence over, who in turn can exercise his political muscle over a judge he has influence over, to attack Bitcoin. That New York - Schumer's stomping ground - was the first territory to implement the BitLicense isn't all that surprising when we see the political support it had from Schumer. The BitLicense is a stifling crackdown on the privacy that Bitcoin can provide the individual and which caused an exodus of Bitcoin companies from New York . Charles "Chuck" Scumer is acting entirely in a self-serving capacity, both satisfying financial lobby groups by attempting to inhibit the wonderful abilities that Bitcoin and the Blockchain can provide people to make financial institutions irrelevant, and hoping to aid his re-election by appearing to be the one that can "get things done" when it comes to darknet markets. Ross Ulbricht, with his unprecedented harsh sentence, is an unfortunate victim of that political meddling.

My argument, therefore, is that Katherine B. Forrest is an inept judge that has failed to uphold the integrity of the position she has been appointed to. She has done this both by allowing herself to become the bottom rung on a ladder of political pressure and allowing her predisposition to the moral position of the Department of Justice have an influential effect on her ruling. She did not act with the intention of protecting society; instead, she acted without a hint of impartiality, fairness or justice, and with the joint intentions of satisying those higher up the political ladder and punishing a man that dared challenge the State's dominion over the body of the individual. As such, she has created of herself an enemy of liberty, and her actions are a most scathing indictment of her inability to satisfy the responsibilities of the role she holds in today's society, as stifling as it is.

No better caricature of a "purveyor of justice" shall we find than this shadow; a so-called judge who has established her courtroom as a bastion of oppression.

[bitkilo]

Great post.
This trial was a government show trial from the start.
Anything that could of helped Ross get off charges he should never have been charged with or at least a lighter sentence was either not aloud to be used in his defence or where just dismissed by the judge as not relevant to the trial or similar.

"Harm minimization"
"Tough on drugs"
"War on drugs"
"Zero tolerance"
None of these strategies work and never will they should just stop all this crap.

Has Ross still got to face the murder for hire trial in Baltimore?
These charges should be dismissed just because it would not have happened if Force didn't steal the coins and make DPR think that Curtis did it.

I have a lot of interest in this story.