Dear Gerard,
I am completely baffled at the reasoning in your ruling regarding Ross William Ulbricht and I was wondering if you could answer a couple questions to help me understand precisely what you were thinking.
You stated in the ruling: “At this point in our history, however, the democratically-elected representatives of the people have opted for a policy of prohibition, backed by severe punishment.”
What did you mean by “democratically-elected representatives”? The last time I checked, nobody in Congress or the Senate was elected by a simple majority of registered voters. Take for example Senator Chuck Schumer of New York. He “won” the 2016 election with a reported 4,788,374 votes. There were 10,728,748 active registered voters in the state of New York for that 2016 election. That means 5,940,374 registered voters (55.37% of registered voters) did NOT want Chuck Schumer to represent them, let alone make policies for them. Is that "democratically-elected"?
What merit or authority then, do any of these “representatives” (who are opposed by the majority of registered voters) have to make any policies at all for this country? Or are we ruled by a dominant minority? Is that democracy?
Concerning the laws that Ross Ulbricht was prosecuted under, did Ross even get a chance to vote for or against the people who wrote those laws and enacted them? I certainly didn’t. Is it democracy when the people who made the laws are long since gone and a dominant minority (that doesn’t represent the will of the majority) is continuing with those policies anyway and my generation (and those to come) get no say in the matter?
You also stated in the ruling: “In this case, a reminder of the consequences of facilitating such transactions was perhaps more necessary, particularly because Ulbricht claimed that his site actually made the drug trade safer, and he appeared to contest the legitimacy of the laws he violated.”
Can you articulate specifically why ‘contesting the legitimacy of the laws’ is just cause for an extreme punishment when it’s undeniable that we all have a moral obligation to contest immoral laws? It used to be illegal to teach black people how to read; are you saying that you would punish someone extra just because they contested the legitimacy of that law? It used to be illegal to help blacks escape slavery; are you saying that you would give someone a harsher sentence just because they contested the legitimacy of that law? Explain why you would.
It is plainly evident that laws, which are in violation of moral law, are illegitimate because there is no logical explanation of how people, who don’t have a moral right to do something, can convey or delegate that right to anyone else. Is it moral or immoral for any individual to initiate force against another person outside of the imminent defense of their life, liberty, or property? I know it, you know it, everyone knows it - it is immoral to initiate force against others outside of defense. I may not like my neighbor doing heroin, but it would be immoral for me to kick in their door, kidnap them, and put them in a cage just because they crossed my political opinion. Because I don’t have that moral right as an individual, I can’t get together with a bunch of my neighbors, pass a “law”, and send anyone else to kick in their door either. There is no mechanism and no authority by which we could delegate or convey a moral right to do something that individuals cannot morally do ourselves.
I don’t expect you to answer these questions, because every cop and lawyer I have asked refuses to answer them, but if you are the least bit honest, you’d give them some thought:
Generally, for a court to find a person had constructive possession of an object, the person must have had knowledge of the object as well as the ability to control it. What specifically is the legal definition for “the ability to control” so people can stay in compliance? I can’t find a plain and commonly understood legal definition, just different opinions.
If law enforcement, prosecuting attorneys, and judges who all work upholding the “rule of law”, cannot articulate to someone precisely what is legal and what is not in a set of circumstances; is that truly “rule of law”, or is it rule of whatever those in power say is law?
If the citizens have no ability to precisely gauge what is legal or not in a set of circumstances, where does the power and authority of law enforcement actually derive from? It can’t be “the law” because the law is vague and unknown in many cases and it can take years of appeals and decisions to finally clarify and codify. So what is the law then, just the opinions of those in power? Where are those opinions published for citizens like me to even know so we can be in compliance? If there are contradictory laws, how can law enforcement claim to uphold and enforce "the law" when it hasn’t even been determined which law is ‘legal’ yet or how it even applies to certain circumstances?
In Ross Ulbricht’s case, I was under the impression that running a website was completely legal and any violations of the law by its users were their responsibility, not mine. If my common understanding of the law was that Ross’ conduct was lawful, and Ross’ understanding was that his conduct was lawful at the time, how can law enforcement and the prosecution have a completely different opinion? Is that rule of law, or rule of someone’s opinion? Where were the FBI’s and prosecuting attorney's opinions even published for anyone to actually know so they could stay in compliance? Ultimately the jury decided Ross was in violation of the law, where was that opinion punished for anyone to know?
If the most prominent legal authority in the country (The Supreme Court) can look at identical facts and laws and come to a split decision over a matter; is that truly “rule of law”, or rule by an authority opinion, which the average person has no ability to know until the court is asked to decide the matter?
Is a person truly a criminal simply because only four Supreme Court justices agree with them instead of five? Or was the defendant simply mistaken? Or was one Supreme Court justice mistaken? Is that rule of law?
It is legal for anyone to possess a firearm if someone is attacking them with said firearm and they disarm the attacker to protect themselves. How can it ever be illegal for someone to possess a firearm at the same time the law clearly states that it is legal for anyone to possess a firearm in the commission of defending life? Is that rule of law? Which law?
Why are lawyers terrible at math? Because math is logic and reason. ;-)
As an engineer, I deal with laws all the time. Ohm's law, Faraday's law, the laws of Thermodynamics, etc. These laws are self evident. They are plainly knowable and commonly understood. These laws are not the convoluted published opinions of idiots. In our application of the law, the math (logic and reason) is either right or it is wrong. It's not based on who is right or wrong, it's not based on an authority opinion. That's true rule of law, just like moral law.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Brent Russ