Joined 6 years, 3 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, and 8 hours ago.

Rant and Rave about The Canna Trade.
Kilo20
some karma
some karma
Custom Title: nOT-a-BoT
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 10:59 am

Joined 6 years, 3 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, and 8 hours ago.

Post by Kilo20 »

smokebreaks wrote:No need to apologize my questions of Mr. Gibbons far extend beyond Clark's case.
With the greatest of respect ,I find your original post very hard to follow would you be so kind as too maybe
give some context for us.

User avatar
smokebreaks
The Big Cheese
Karma God
Karma God
Custom Title: High Society Stoner
Has bestowed Karma : 184 times
Received Karma : 338 times
Posts: 3009
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 1:18 pm

Joined 6 years, 3 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, and 8 hours ago.

Post by smokebreaks »

My question is this: How can Ross be held responsible under the DCMA? Online service providers are exempted from the liability of their users. Such as the legal framework for what they have thrown him away for life seems on its face would be invalid?

Unless it was as a result of his charging a commission on each transaction?

I'm stumped.

Beyond his growing and selling mushrooms and all his other nefarious activities which would not equal a life sentence for first offenders in most any other court.
GOVERNMENT WARNING: Marijuana use can cause complex thoughts leading to better ideas of how to live your life. Caution, free thinking has been routinely reported with continued use.

User avatar
gwildor
some karma
some karma
Custom Title: nOT-a-BoT
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2015 9:05 pm

Joined 6 years, 3 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, and 8 hours ago.

Post by gwildor »

smokebreaks wrote: Unless it was as a result of his charging a commission on each transaction?
I'm curious about this as well. Hopefully someone more enlightened can explain.

An unrelated question (well related to the thread actually)... why does our man PoM insist on speaking to Mr. Serrin Turner. I know he was the original prosecutor, but it seems like Mongoose won't talk much more until Turner responds. (I guess it doesn't help that he's locked up now). Either way, would be nice to know.
/feed the need/

User avatar
Jesús Malverde
Site Moderator
Karma Bhudda
Karma Bhudda
Custom Title: Munchy Sock since OG lol
Has bestowed Karma : 70 times
Received Karma : 131 times
Posts: 2469
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 6:59 pm

Joined 6 years, 3 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, and 8 hours ago.

Post by Jesús Malverde »

SR, unlike any mainstream platform or service, was seemingly built from the ground up with profiting from illicit sales of goods and services as its raison d'être. Sure there were some tiny percentage of legal goods offered, but I doubt anyone sought out SR for that stuff*. Thus, the whole thing was unapologetically a criminal enterprise and the internal communications that were made public fully reinforce this. The closest analogy I can think of is probably The Pirate Bay with illegal content, but I believe that was ad-funded and money wasn't changing hands between users. TPB was a *sharing* site, not a commerce site.

*I never even visited SR, but I saw screenshots showing some ordinary legal merch and thought, "Who in the hell is going to buy something you can get on Amazon or Ebay on a dark web commerce site?" I suppose that stuff was just planted on the site to whitewash the selling addictive hard drugs primary business model a bit.
One for the rook

One for the crow

One to rot

and one to grow

Kilo20
some karma
some karma
Custom Title: nOT-a-BoT
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 10:59 am

Joined 6 years, 3 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, and 8 hours ago.

Post by Kilo20 »

I don't believe those laws apply to criminal enterprises this was a website selling most illegal
drugs worldwide,I think his lawyer tried going down the route suggesting,Ross bore no liability.

I may be wrong, I think I've see your point come up in some other cases let me rack my brain and come
back too this.

DD Ramone
good karma
good karma
Custom Title: nOT-a-BoT
Has bestowed Karma : 2 times
Received Karma : 2 times
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 3:22 am

Joined 6 years, 3 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, and 8 hours ago.

Post by DD Ramone »

Yes, lets try and simplify exactly what Silk Road was, and how the operators were complicit in a criminal enterprise by making an analogy of it in the real world, and not the cyber-world.

Say eh...you or I were the propriotors of a market or bazaar and within that bazaar/market you allowed 1000 vendors to set up shop to sell guns, narcotics, fake documents and other harmless sundry goods.

Your business plan did not include just charging a rental fee to each vendor. Instead you devised a way to profit from any sales within the bazaar/market by taking a flat fee of 10% from any and all sales made.

As the owner of the market you were quite well aware of the goods and services that you earned from. And in just about every nation on the planet these goods/services would be deemed as being very illegal.

Due to the international nature of the Internet <it can be viewed globally>
This Bazaar/Market is situated in every nation on the face of the earth. And so it's illegality is global.

Can it not be said that a case against the owners/operators of this market/bazaar could be made by law enforcement from every nation on earth?
DD Ramone, picks his bass to the bone, he's a BLITZKRIEG BOPPER !

User avatar
smokebreaks
The Big Cheese
Karma God
Karma God
Custom Title: High Society Stoner
Has bestowed Karma : 184 times
Received Karma : 338 times
Posts: 3009
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 1:18 pm

Joined 6 years, 3 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, and 8 hours ago.

Post by smokebreaks »

(a) FindingsThe Congress finds the following:
(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
(2) These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
(b) PolicyIt is the policy of the United States—
(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
(4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
(d) Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.

(e) Effect on other laws

(1) No effect on criminal law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.

(2) No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.

(3) State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.

(4) No effect on communications privacy law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.

(f) Definitions as used in this section:

(1) Internet

The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.

(2) Interactive computer service

The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

(3) Information content provider

The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.

(4) Access software provider

The term “access software provider” means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:
(A) filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
(B) pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
(C) transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.
(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, § 230, as added Pub. L. 104–104, title V, § 509, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 137; amended Pub. L. 105–277, div. C, title XIV, § 1404(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–739.)

[1]  So in original. Probably should be “subparagraph (A).”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
GOVERNMENT WARNING: Marijuana use can cause complex thoughts leading to better ideas of how to live your life. Caution, free thinking has been routinely reported with continued use.

User avatar
smokebreaks
The Big Cheese
Karma God
Karma God
Custom Title: High Society Stoner
Has bestowed Karma : 184 times
Received Karma : 338 times
Posts: 3009
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 1:18 pm

Joined 6 years, 3 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, and 8 hours ago.

Post by smokebreaks »

DD Ramone wrote:Yes, lets try and simplify exactly what Silk Road was, and how the operators were complicit in a criminal enterprise by making an analogy of it in the real world, and not the cyber-world.

Say eh...you or I were the propriotors of a market or bazaar and within that bazaar/market you allowed 1000 vendors to set up shop to sell guns, narcotics, fake documents and other harmless sundry goods.

Your business plan did not include just charging a rental fee to each vendor. Instead you devised a way to profit from any sales within the bazaar/market by taking a flat fee of 10% from any and all sales made.

As the owner of the market you were quite well aware of the goods and services that you earned from. And in just about every nation on the planet these goods/services would be deemed as being very illegal.

Due to the international nature of the Internet <it can be viewed globally>
This Bazaar/Market is situated in every nation on the face of the earth. And so it's illegality is global.

Can it not be said that a case against the owners/operators of this market/bazaar could be made by law enforcement from every nation on earth?
Let's try and think of this more as more of an online flea market, where you charge a portion of the sale in response to hosting the listing. Or an online classifieds business where you provide publication of persons selling various goods and services.

Prostitution services are advertised on Craigslist.org, they arrest those engaged in the prostitution, not the admins at craigslist.
GOVERNMENT WARNING: Marijuana use can cause complex thoughts leading to better ideas of how to live your life. Caution, free thinking has been routinely reported with continued use.

DD Ramone
good karma
good karma
Custom Title: nOT-a-BoT
Has bestowed Karma : 2 times
Received Karma : 2 times
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 3:22 am

Joined 6 years, 3 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, and 8 hours ago.

Post by DD Ramone »

In front of a jury, the only spec of a chance PoM has is to have them find REASONABLE DOUBT.
And where can we find this reasonable doubt from?

Looking at what evidence has been expoused so far (more may come to light).
We see that PoM's past as an illegal director of GNLTD is not going to help him, since GNLTD was an international purveyor of cannabis seed, which is illegal in the US.

PoM's criminal record in the UK for cultivation and general nuisance making which led to his deportation, naa that won't help him either.

The fact that PoM's doxs (I.D. passport copy) was found on the 'Ulrich Computer' isn't going to be of use to show reasonable doubt, unless PoM can prove that the file was planted there by LE.

The 1000's of lines of chat text between DPR and VJ-cimon (PoM/Clark) won't do him any favors either.

Then that leaves a possible money trail that has not been disclosed as of yet, that might come up. Perhaps DPR had PoM's dox on his computer, so as to be able to send money transfers to Thailand, or perhaps PoM was just paid in bitcoins?

There is evidence on the 'Ulrich Computer' that shows that various large sums were paid to cimon (PoM). That won't help establish reasonable doubt, unless again, it can be proved that cimon is not PoM, and/or the Ulrich Computer had been tampered with to implicate PoM.

PoM would have to show that he was living on earnings that came from a legitimate source.
You cant afford to fly all over the planet and live in a cosy house near the beach in Thailand on thin air, so he would have to show some legit source of income to convince a jury that he wasn't living on 'immoral earnings'. (or whatever they call it).

If his defence can manage to infuse a spec of reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury( if indeed it all ends up in front of a jury, and PoM doesn't manage to cut some deal)...
Then he might have half a chance.

But looking at what the prosecution has against him so far, I must say that looks unlikely.
DD Ramone, picks his bass to the bone, he's a BLITZKRIEG BOPPER !

User avatar
Jane Donut
some karma
some karma
Custom Title: nOT-a-BoT
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 11:25 pm

Joined 6 years, 3 months, 4 weeks, 1 day, and 8 hours ago.

Post by Jane Donut »

No one remembers myredbook.com Maybe no one was paying attention.

Listings were free, site operator couldn't control listings, and yet the feds dropped a massive wham-hammer on the former operators.

Unlike Force and Bridges, any unfortunate non-government employee accused of anything is simply carpet-bombed into oblivion. Those employed by any government agency appear to be actually assumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

This blatant double standard is relentlessly shredding the vestigial remnants of respect for the US justice system into nothingness. The strain is showing.
If you trust in yourself,
and believe in your dreams,
and follow your star,
you'll still get beat by anyone who spends their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.

Locked