pull down to refresh
I agree with almost all of the above. But this, coming from you, is just baffling:
A man that is innocent of any crime will NEVER EVER plead guilty, no matter what.
From my perspective, saying that falls into the same intellectually lazy or dishonest error category of "you only need privacy if you have something to hide."
The disappointing bit is that you, our #1 anti-statist megaphone over here, would seem to imply that everyone should trust the state's judicial system to be so pure that it could never, ever convict an innocent person. And therefore, pleading guilty means you cannot possibly be innocent.
Now, if that came from some potentially more mid-curved source, I would mentally roll my eyes and move on without comment. But from you I expect much better.
You didn't understand my words. Read again.
If you are accused of something, address THAT issue and defend yourself for THAT issue, not move the accusations to something else.
would seem to imply that everyone should trust the state's judicial system
NO. I didn't say that. Don't put words that I didn't said.
pleading guilty means you cannot possibly be innocent.
No, if you plead guilty, are these explanations:
- you are truly guilty and recognize it
- you are too dumb and take a deal (with hidden goals) in exchange of pleading guilty, even that you aren't.
- Pleading guilty in a courtroom is the worst and dumb thing ever. Even pleading "not guilty" is dumb. Never plead. Just address the issue. And the main issue is not of what they accuse you but... DO THEY HAVE ANY AUTHORITY OVER YOU (if you didn't commit any crime) ?
But people read whatever they want from my words and never used their brain to process.
But from you I expect much better.
You must read all my posts to understand my position on this case.
what you see in this meme, it really happened.
And the main issue is not of what they accuse you but... DO THEY HAVE ANY AUTHORITY OVER YOU (if you didn't commit any crime) ?
Again, you as anti-statist will know this better than any normie.
It doesn't matter how hard you declare they have no authority over you if they have the keys to your shackles and the state's backing to declare whatever they did to be legitimate.
But people read whatever they want from my words and never used their brain to process.
You can try to explain why your arguments show inconsistencies when called out, or you can simply call the other side too dumb to understand.
Choosing the latter option as often as you do looks weak to me. It makes you sound like some 16 year-old larping as freedom fighter.
I'm certainly not going to go through your expansive post history to figure out where you may or may not have hidden the golden nugget explaining the inconsistencies of your arguments in this thread.
What's most astonishing to me is that you keep sounding as if you expect the courts to always provide a fair, correct outcome.
So maybe we need to start at a more basic point, so someone like me who never used their brain to process can try to understand:
Do you believe a court can convict a person for a crime they did not commit and lock them away for decades?
If your answer is "no" we're done. If yes, then the follow up question is this:
Do you believe only guilty people will ever consent to a plea deal to exchange a potentially critical outcome for a bad but less extreme one?
"They just need to have the balls to not cave, and rather take the bad sentence. Like real manly men" is not a valid answer, because that is not what I was asking.
Do you believe a court can convict a person for a crime they did not commit and lock them away for decades?
Yes. Because the judicial system is NOT to protect the individual.
But you must learn how to defend and rebut their authority.
As "crime" is simple:
- do not steal
- do not kill
- do not do damage to a property or body.
Did Samourai devs did something like that? NO
So why they plead guilty then?
All the rest is another story that can be rebutted easily in a court.
But if you do what lawyers says... you are doomed.
What's most astonishing to me is that you keep sounding as if you expect the courts to always provide a fair, correct outcome.
Where did I say that?
You can try to explain why your arguments show inconsistencies when called out, or you can simply call the other side too dumb to understand.
Yes, because you tried to put words in my mouth that I didn't said.
Do you believe only guilty people will ever consent to a plea deal to exchange a potentially critical outcome for a bad but less extreme one?
NEVER plead. Simple as that.
Pleading means bargain... When you are in a court and fall into bargaining trap, you are done, you are fucked, you lost in the 1st second, no matter you are guilty or not.
Please read about how courts "operate":
- https://livingintheprivate.blogspot.com/p/the-courts.html
- http://livingintheprivate.blogspot.co.nz/p/the-law-vs-statutes.html
- http://livingintheprivate.blogspot.co.nz/p/administrative-courts.html
- http://livingintheprivate.blogspot.co.nz/p/jurisdiction-is-key.html
- http://livingintheprivate.blogspot.co.nz/p/declining-to-appear.html
- http://livingintheprivate.blogspot.co.nz/p/strategies-for-court.html
As "crime" is simple:
- do not steal
- do not kill
- do not do damage to a property or body.
That's how we as individuals think of it. But the state's take is "breach any of the piles vague laws we have" as additional, tactical bullet point.
Did Samourai devs did something like that? NO
So why they plead guilty then?
To avoid being sentenced for longer periods on the fourth bullet point.
All the rest is another story that can be rebutted easily in a court.
Being able to rebut does not guarantee not getting sentenced for it, or something else where laws are vague enough to convince a jury.
The GA must have had enough vague points to potentially get a much worse outcome.
Not everyone is willing to roll the dice. Otherwise insurance companies would look very different today.
The GA offered them "insurance" of a shorter sentence if they'd rather not roll the dice on a much longer one.
But if you do what lawyers says... you are doomed.
I'm inclined to agree. But in distress and without the knowledge to help themselves, people will seek council. To make matters worse, they won't be able to tell good from bad council except for old "reviews" of past outcomes.
Not everyone is willing to roll the dice.
That's the difference between people with balls (sovereign) and cowards (slaves).
If I know I didn't committed any crime I will die defending MYSELF (not with lawyers) and never plead (bargain) anything.
Read: #581259
That's the difference between people with balls (sovereign) and cowards (slaves).
If I know I didn't committed any crime I will die defending MYSELF (not with lawyers) and never plead (bargain) anything.
I have no issue with that.
But I also expect very few people to choose that path.
And that's the only reason why I disagreed with your initial blanket statement:
A man that is innocent of any crime will NEVER EVER plead guilty, no matter what.
I think that is true for very few people and that most will be inclined to take the deal.
They'd rather spend less time in, or take a deal for a more comfortable period of incarceration than risk it all in a claim for their own sovereignty (which they can't enforce).
In this case, the state wanted them to ask for a less severe spanking for having shown an interest in breaking free.
It's a classic abusive relationship with a state we're all born into, trained to accept and, heck, in many cases even defend.
which they can't enforce
You are wrong. You do not have to "enforce" it, just defend your status and jurisdiction.
https://livingintheprivate.blogspot.com/p/jurisdiction-is-key.html
Now come the other question: if somebody PLEAD guilty, so in other words recognize the wrong, WHY in the hell I have to try to pardon him?
All this with petitions, protest, signatures etc is just a cheap useless theater, virtue signaling that serve absolutely nothing. PATHETIC BEGGING.
Is still stunning to see people thinking that Samourai devs were jailed for developing a bitcoin app.
I find this false narrative so blatantly wrong among many bitcoiners and they do not want to hear anything else.
I do not defend also the position of the gov, but opposite.
But guys, wake the fuck up and stop repeating same bullshit somebody else is feeding you on social media.
Samourai devs were charged with money laundering and they PLEAD GUILTY.
We don't really know the details of that case, weather was a setup, a deal or whatever else, IT DOESN'T MATTER. What matter is that they plead guilty for money laundering and NOT for developing a bitcoin app !
If they did it wrong or not, if they really "launder" money or not, also doesn't matter. and is not the subject of this matter "being charged because you write code" as it is trying to be portrayed...
IMHO they could launder as much as they want, is not my damn business and I do not consider "money laundering" a crime.
What matter is that they PLEAD GUILTY. NEVER forget that. And that say it all about the whole case. Keep in mind: no matter what petition you sign or protest you support... is totally useless. A man that plead guilty will not be pardoned. A man that plead guilty was entering in a secret deal with the real thugs. That means betrayal. You are a fool to believe that they are clean.
A man that is innocent of any crime will NEVER EVER plead guilty, no matter what.
So please stop being a peon following the narrative you are fed by all media and influencers.