Is it constitutional or does it satisfy precedence? There's a huge difference.

And two of the FBI agents involved in the investigation coerced several thousand dollars in Bitcoin from him. Let's see how much sentence they get.

And we're supposed to respect the law and those that enforce it. Bah!

If following your conscience is a crime worthy of a life sentence (actually 2) when you don't have an individual victim, then what can you say about the basis of law that we live under.

All that I can find that I accept is that he set up a communication means for people to voluntarily trade with each other. No differently than the telephone, the FAX, the legal internet, texting, the Post Office, books, semaphore, and talking.

What raises questions in my mind is when they have to do some convoluted tugging and stretching of an existing law to make the case. A good example of this is using the Commerce Clause to legitimize ACA. I would ask, "Now is this ACA to regulate foreign commerce, commerce between the States or commerce with Indian Tribes?" because those are the areas of authority granted by the Commerce Clause under the Enumerated Powers.

Even if you accept that the charges he was found guilty of are legitimate (notice I didn't say legal), putting a 31 year old kid (and that's what he is) in prison for life has to be at least 'cruel and unusual' punishment for the crimes he supposedly committed. What the Hell is society's gain in locking him up for that kind of period? Society has actually lost and government's ability to ruin lives has increased.

I don't have time to research this law that he supposedly broke but if this law was unconstitutional, which I believe many are, it is my belief that we are doing a disservice to this country by following these laws. Truthfully, there is not a single person in this country that is not breaking some law everyday and they do not even know it. Way to many laws and if they want you, they will find a way. Sad!

Common last words of the vanquished condemned: I'm a free man from a free country.

yes. I left because of it

Make no mistake, K...I'm as fed up as you are. The Supremes rule that ACA is a go as long as it's treated as a tax, and Obama says "no it isn't" and goes on his merry way doing whatever he wants. What I'm truly disgusted with is the citizenry...we all just roll over, the Cogress just rolls over, and even the Supeme Court just rolls over. And our once-great nation turns into a banana republic...just like that.

I for one, hate it. and I am not going to say "oh well" law and order. I am tired of this nation has become with their draconian rules. this man is serving lie in prison? why? because he operated of the grid and govt wasn't fed. I'm fed....UP!

It's not only on the books, it has the blessing of the Vestal Virgins of the Potomac which makes it settled law, and by definition, constitutional. Again, if you and I think it's wrong, that's a separate issue.

no. just because a law is on the books does not make it constitutional. If that were the criteria, what would be the point in writing the Constitution in the first place? It is still important to point out the truth and not whether 9 people voted some other way

Legally, it is constitutional...the Supremes have said so. You and I can disagree with that, but our opinion is meaningless to them.

Well since he was under a gag order and remains that way we will never know. Equating alternative currencies to laundering is convenient but un constitutional.

The case can be made that he facilitated money laundering for one thing. And that could be the crack that allowed RICO in. Remember...one of the qualifying criteria is "contributing to an ongoing criminal enterprise".

If RICO helped put him away then RICO benefited organized crime. It's like gov't needs an underworld of drug traffickers and "terrorists" as an Emmanuel Goldstein.

what laws did he break? actually, can anyone clearly define racketeering for me? There is a highly profitable business in RICO law. you know why? the government does not need to prove its case against the defendant. all through the case, they can change their mind, not produce evidence, withhold evidence from the trial. Why would you automatically side with the government? who are the real criminals in this crumbling society anyway?

There is an immutable fact that goes along with following the dictates of one's conscience, that being that there will always be consequences to doing what you believe is right. I'm not arguing or condoning the law; what I'm saying is that the law exists and this young man clearly ignored that fact. I'm sorry for his plight, and would argue for a change in the law. However, that's a completely separate issue.

unbelievable. Sad day for US justice and a brilliant young man put away for ever. any gulchers for springin him? I think we have some prison savvy members around here ...