Ross Ulbricht, who was sentenced to two life sentences for a variety of drug-distribution charges in connection with Silk Road, has been pardoned.
Wow, did I call that one wrong.
In our previous article, “We Got Our First DMCA! From the Ross Ulbricht Legal Defense Fund,” I wrote:
At this point his only hope is that some future US President will grant him clemency. The President has an unlimited authority to pardon anyone. There’s at least four reasons that is very unlikely to happen.
I think I got things right and yet he was pardoned anyway.
My list:
- “First, it has been US tradition going back to George Washington that a pardon is for those who show remorse.” There are exceptions where people are pardoned for political reasons, but Ross showed no remorse.
- “Second, there is no political benefit to a President in pardoning Ross.” I’m not a an expert on politics, but I think this is still true. Trump can’t even run for reelection.
- “Third, Obama and perhaps Trump probably remembered the Ulbricht case. I doubt Biden does. Go forward a few Presidents and Ulbricht will have faded into obscurity.” I thnk this is true, because very few people before this pardon were still talking about Ulbricht.
- “Finally, these pardon recommendations typically come up through the political and governmental machinery. It’s not that the President reviews old cases in his spare time. When his file does come up through routine procedure, the murders-for-hire are going to be strongly considered.” In other words, he so offended the justice system that he would never be considered.
What can I say? I think that’s all accurate. I’m a bit baffled, as the justification given is rather strange.
So Why?
Putting on my political analysis hat, what does Trump gain?
First, he fulfills a political promise. At the Libertarian Party convention, Trump said:
“If you vote for me on day one I will commute the sentence of Ross Ulbricht. He’s already served 11 years. We’re gonna get him home.”
He actually waited for day two.
However, the payoff on that promise is pretty weak. Keep in mind that libertarians poll at well under 1%. Hardcore libertarians are going to vote for libertarians. Those who are less committed to that cause will likely vote Republican. They’re certainly not going to vote for Democrats. So the payback is pretty minimal. You can make the case that in closely-contested states every tenth of a percentage counts, I suppose.
Beyond that…I’ve got nothing.
Let’s Remember Who Ross Ulbricht Is
You’ll hear a lot of screechy chat about libertarianism, free commerce, drug policy reform, etc. Maybe that’s all worth talking about, but not in the context of Ross Ulbricht
Ross Ulbricht attempted to have multiple people murdered.
I’ll close by repeating something from our previous article.
Here are some things the US Second Court of Appeals said:
Ulbricht does not mention his orders for the commission of those murders until his reply brief. Even there, he does not argue that the district court erred in concluding that he deliberately commissioned those murders; rather, he claims instead only that the murders did not support a life sentence because they did not actually take place.
So Ross admitted that he paid $730,000 to have five people murdered. He would have been indicted on this charge as well, but once he was put away for life plus, the government saw no need to waste time and money on furher prosecutions.
And this isn’t one stray mention in that opinion. It’s referred to multiple times as the reason he got a harsh sentence:
The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Ulbricht commissioned at least five murders in the course of protecting Silk Road’s anonymity, a finding that Ulbricht does not challenge in this appeal.
The fact that his hired assassin may have defrauded him does not reflect positively on Ulbricht’s character.
In light of the overwhelming evidence, discussed below, that Ulbricht was prepared, like other drug kingpins, to protect his profits by paying large sums of money to have individuals who threatened his enterprise murdered, it would be plainly wrong to conclude that he was sentenced for accidental deaths that the district court discussed only in passing in imposing sentence.
Ulbricht discussed those anticipated murders callously and casually in his journal and in his communications with the purported assassin Redandwhite.
As the district court stated in discussing Ulbricht’s journal entries concerning these projected murders, his words are “the words of a man who is callous as to the consequences or the harm and suffering that [his actions] may cause others.”
Moreover, he attempted to commission at least five murders to protect his criminal enterprise. Those facts render his case distinguishable from those who committed other crimes using Silk Road or otherwise facilitated its operation.
And now he’s free.
I also enjoy using LEBs! I have an empire of little guys for VPNs, larger guys for apps, and big guys for databases and storage. When I'm not in front a screen I'm into German Shepherd dogs, quality knives, target shooting, theology, tabletop roleplaying games, and forest hiking.
I enjoy writing technical articles here on LowEndBox to help people get more out of their systems. You can find me on LowEndTalk @raindog308
- RubyHost: Cheap VPS Offer in Dallas!4GB VPS for $3.96/Month!Special Bonus for Our Readers! - February 21, 2025
- About Those Social Security Zombies…are Elon’s Teens Just Unfamiliar with COBOL? - February 20, 2025
- Will You Glimpse the Future Watching “What’s Next? The Future with Bill Gates”?No. - February 19, 2025
Ross Ulbricht’s recent pardon, despite his history of attempted murder and drug offenses, raises eyebrows. It’s surprising how political promises can sway decisions, akin to navigating tricky levels in Geometry Dash. Just as players face unexpected challenges, Ulbricht’s case reveals the complexities of justice and politics. His actions were heinous, yet he walks free, leaving many questioning the integrity of the system.
On the freeross website, they say this on their misinformation page :
About the hire to kill accusations (more thorough explanations on their website) :
“Ross has always denied being involved with these allegations. And even Curtis Green, the only alleged victim ever identified in these allegations, has spoken out against these allegations and is a longtime, fervent supporter of Ross’s release.”
I think it’s worth adding this part too (more details on freeross website) :
It’s still about hire to kill accusations :
“The accusations relied on anonymous chats and text files never proven to have been authored by Ross. Hard evidence and testimony—including from the lead Silk Road investigator—show that, over time, multiple people were behind the site admin’s handle (who was called Dread Pirate Roberts or “DPR” for short). Two corrupt investigators (sent to prison) also had unfettered access to Silk Road and were admittedly involved in numerous plots.”
OH no…you’re kidding.
This is far from good news.
For a political administration priding itself on law and order, it seems to me that they’re using it as a cover to do acts like this. And it’s only as of the time of this writing, a week since it began.
Please tell me…what is so urgent that someone like this needs to be pardoned?
As I see it, whether it is attempted, or actual, doesn’t matter. The word of a judge is the word of the law. And this sets a precedent to the effect that if you’re willing to buy yourself a spot in power, you can get away with anything.
This makes the law meaningless.
If it were anyone else less fortunate, they would not be this lucky. There is dirty money at play here and I’d bet the entirety of cryptocurrency on it.
Silk Road is not the pinnacle of capitalist economic freedom that some people may believe it to be. I truly think he was pardoned for his connections. And if that’s the case, it will be conditional so that the government can track criminals, or help them. It’s one or the other.
And from what I see, it is going to help them. We see a similar theme playing out with everyone else who has been so far, pardoned from criminal sentences who may have ties to dirty ambitions, to say the least more often than not.
Just because you may have the privilege to be fortunate enough to be born in a country that believes in the right to be violent as a defence, doesn’t make that country a role model for avoiding such acts altogether when they as a defence of any kind, are protected from prosecuted offences altogether.
Case in point, the way they treat people who they believe to be unwanted burdens on society, is utterly inhumane. Ross Ulbricht’s Silk Road with no oversight has proven this very concept as is, to be among the most valid examples of such behaviour. And as such, it is the reason for the sentencing being as harsh as it was in the first place alongside his personal vindictiveness.
Things are made illegal for a reason. If anyone can just get famous by abusing law and order by circumventing it altogether, and then get praised for doing so, because they’re seen as special. That really undermines citizens rights movements altogether in their entirety because the state holds supreme authority by the actions they take to not protect them.
This is scary, and chilling.
Thank you for your unintentional whistle-blower article in regards to this matter. This reader appreciates it.
That’s your opinion :). But remember the Democrats also did the same. Biden pardoned Anthony Fauci to help him get away with what you call the rule of law. So he’ll escape the “rule of law” too as you say.
Also, that’s not the first thing that escaped the rule of law. Some rights we take for granted now, such as encryption were a crime not so long ago. Like Ross, those who challenged the status quo took a big risk for their own freedom.
No wonder why Bitcoin maker stayed anonymous. He could had been made responsible for any illegal use of his cryptocurrency.
Yeah. I hear you on Fauci as well as the pardons for everyone suspected of wrong doing by any critics during his final day in office. That whole mess was something else. And to be honest, I’m not happy with either one of them.
Both of them are way too extreme. I like some of the policies from all parties. But this whole culture of doing what the other guy doesn’t on repeat, and finding absolutely 0 common ground is new. And it never used to be so wide spread of a problem.
I’m frustrated that pardons on a mass scale are getting signed so quickly. I guess if you’re a supporter of someone who has been wronged, it hits different. But we have to still find common ground with our justice system. Not all of those who serve are corrupt. But the bad ones definitely do leave a stink of sorts that is hard to reconcile.
The main thing I worry about is a minority of people whose needs don’t get addressed by the other side who leads their country too. You vote for one side, and you have to agree with every single thing they do or you get treated like Vivek over one single issue. Or like Biden did when they didn’t even have a fairly elected democratic candidate nominee to replace him.
I have not seen in my lifetime, a candidate that wants to be in an office like that who isn’t loaded to the hilt with riches of every possible conceivable kind. To me the whole show feels like a renewal at the cost of someone moderately rich or lower being unable to be selected for a role of modest leadership.
That’s why this hits hard. Because those who live by such means, would not be treated like they were as valuable in most cases.
I don’t truly harbour a true disregard for someone even if I dislike the way they lead. I just wish that it didn’t have to disobey the principle of leadership. And that the people who have enough resources to be worth some rule bending, weren’t the only ones able to be used for political pandering.
Getting back to the whole Bit Coin, and Ross Ulbricht issue at hand…I don’t think that the creators of Silk Road or Cryptocurrency originally intended for those platforms to be known for bad. And for that matter I feel the same way about Telegram, and other companies like Uber as well.
I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. And media will give you part truth, and part misconception to push out more ratings. But also, that true accountability will be something someone who is guilty will deny because it’s in their best interest to. When they’ve got a target on their back. And everything they’re dependent on is on the line.
The thing is, if Silk Road came back today, it’d be supporting the same principles it did before likely with immunity.
What really still bugs me, is that a place like Silk Road does in large part avoid legal guidelines as a community platform. Where you could get tools to enable criminal acts and that it would be marketed solely as such to anyone as a zone of digital anarchy.
I also believe that this same approach, forces others who are not heard to remain silenced on this matter. In ways that can be proven to still have valid facts to add to cases unfolding during times of both respected, and critical insight.
The fight to force business over community, corporation over cultivation however, is a very slippery slope. No CEO has ever publicly chosen what’s best for the community, because instead they want to think they can handle everything on their own. But by doing that, they fail to utilize the great resource having a platform provides. And that’s public innovation…and if necessary, outcry.
So few utilize it. Donald Trump was the rare exception to this rule. I do not like a lot of his enforcement measures, but I will say, he is effective in being understood by millions. And that can be a good thing, when people benefit from a trickle down effect by which any policy decision comes into effect.
Some of the ones he’s signed lately into law I do support. But the fact that they are jarring to the extreme, and pushed out in such a rush…feels like it’s a setup of some sort. And for those caught in the crossroads of such a thing, I truly do not wish them to go through such a rough transition unless they have outright violated the peaceful coexistence of others. To which some elements of such policies also apply.
I truly just wish that the system more so than anything else, could offer a more fair way to let more than a few people have a second chance at life. AS opposed to only those in a perfect position for a political comeback through merits of select interest groups. If anyone can just buy their way out of justice when a new president comes into power, I would call that lawful disruption of the highest degree. As to me, there is nothing democratic about that.
The people who are responsible for leading others should ideally have to answer to reason just like anyone else who uses the platform has to. It’s one thing for a public figure to get away with doing whatever they feel like because they own the resources by which they can get away with it. It’s just that the whole idea of accountability through transparency is blind to net worth, net wealth and net profession. And it is brought into question, when ever something out of the ordinary capitalizes on extremes for either favour or future.