WBD010 Audio Transcription
Losing Your Son to the Prison System - The Silk Road and Ross Ulbricht with Lyn Ulbricht
Interview date: Wednesday 28th March
Note: the following is a transcription of my interview with Lyn Ulbricht. I have reviewed the transcription but if you find any mistakes, please feel free to email me. You can listen to the original recording here.
In this interview I talk to Lyn Ulbricht, Ross's mother about Ross, his arrest, the case and the US prison system. Lyn raises important questions around the harshness of the sentence and the growth in life sentences for non-violent crimes.
“You don’t have to be for drugs to be against the drugs war. It’s not really about drugs, it is about government expansion and money, because it feeds this mass incarceration in the United States. More than half are in there for drug offences.”
— Lyn Ulbricht
Interview Transcription
Peter McCormack: Hi, Lyn.
Lyn Ulbricht: Hi.
Peter McCormack: How are you today?
Lyn Ulbricht: I'm good. It's great to meet you.
Peter McCormack: Ross's birthday.
Lyn Ulbricht: It sure is. He's 34.
Peter McCormack: 34 today. Will you get a chance to speak to him?
Lyn Ulbricht: I hope so. I can't call him, but he will probably call us, yeah.
Peter McCormack: What does he get in terms of phone calls; is he allowed one a day?
Lyn Ulbricht: He's allowed 300 minutes a month and when that runs out, he can't call. If they're on lockdown, which they have been quite a bit in this particular prison because it's very violent there, there's no phone calls.
Peter McCormack: Wow.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah.
Peter McCormack: How often do you get to see Ross?
Lyn Ulbricht: When I'm in Colorado, I can see him three days a week for five hours a day.
Peter McCormack: Okay.
Lyn Ulbricht: It's a good long visit, it's great. We get to really hang out and talk about the case, talk about all of that stuff, but we can also hang out and just be with each other and play cards sometimes or just in a relaxed way, because we have lots of time, be able to just be with each other. That's fairly new; it wasn't true in New York.
Peter McCormack: How has he taken to prison and has he managed to build friendships and avoid violent situations; are the other inmates good to him?
Lyn Ulbricht: Ross is a very likeable guy and that applies in prison or outside prison. So, he's very sweet, he's very nice and he helps. In New York, he led classes. There's 100 letters on our website from people who know Ross talking about him; 4 of those are inmates. One of them wrote about how he helped them get into college, a remote course, GED. He helped them get their high school diploma.
These 100 letters are very indicative of who Ross really is, people who actually know him and talk about his character and his peacefulness and his compassion and his generosity. In prison, that's what happens. He does have friends and there's a guy actually in there, named Tony DeJohn, who has a life sentence for marijuana; a totally peaceful guy, no violence in his sentence. Just like with Ross's there's no violence.
Peter McCormack: Full life?
Lyn Ulbricht: He got life for marijuana, selling marijuana 15 years ago. He's done 15 years; he's got a life sentence.
Peter McCormack: Wow.
Lyn Ulbricht: , and the federal prison is in Colorado where it's legal; it's insane. So, he's got some friends. He also spends a lot of time in this particular facility in the law library working on his case and he's gotten to know other people in there doing that. Generally, he has not been singled out or harassed or anything.
However, there's always the danger of a riot in a prison like this; it's full of violent gangs and violent people. It's where they put their most violent people, short of the supermax, and where everybody's in solitary. In a riot, you can be collateral damage; you can just be walking down the hall and be attacked. It's a whole other level and I worry about it, frankly; it concerns me.
Peter McCormack: Gosh. So, your life must be very different now from what it was five years… Look, I've got a lot of questions, and l like when we spoke before we started recording, it is also personal to me because the Silk Road paved a way for other websites. And when my mother was sick with cancer, we wanted to buy her something that was illegal. So, it is a personal story and I've got a lot of questions. But I just want to go back to October 2013, Ross is arrested. You were in Costa Rica, close to it?
Lyn Ulbricht: No, my husband and I were in Austin.
Peter McCormack: You were in Austin?
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, it's where we lived.
Peter McCormack: When were you first aware, what happened? Can you talk me through the day?
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, I was going out to run some errands and I walked by my husband's office and he was sitting there like this, with his head in his hands. I'm, "What happened? What's wrong?" and he's, "Ross has been arrested" and I'm, "What?" It's the last thing I expected to hear about Ross and then suddenly I get on the phone. A Reuters reporter had called us, not sure how they got our number, but in any case she was very nice and she filled us in on what was going on. I'm like, "What?" Then suddenly, the phone's ringing off the hook, the emails are pouring in, journalists are driving by our house. I turn on the TV, Ross. I'm like, "This is insanity. I can't even believe it".
It was like a huge wave came in that was just carrying us and we've been trying to swim and surf it as much as possible since; it was a tsunami that just hit our family and hasn't really let up. It goes through different phases, but it's always dominating our existence, mainly too because we haven't given up. We're not going to give up and let Ross die in that place; it's just wrong.
He's such a good person, he's not a threat to anyone, he's not a danger to anyone. Even if, and I don't believe this, but even if everything they convicted him for is accurate, you don't give a double life sentence plus 40 years to someone where there's no violence involved, they're not a danger, they have no criminal record; it's just outrageous.
Peter McCormack: It must have been very strange because what he was arrested for wasn't a small crime; it was quite a big thing to get your head around. Were you even aware of the existence of the Silk Road as a website?
Lyn Ulbricht: No, no. I never was on it or heard about it, no.
Peter McCormack: So, at the time, how often were you talking to Ross? What was your belief he was doing in life?
Lyn Ulbricht: Well, I don't know when, I don't know the timeframe exactly, but he was developing a Bitcoin exchange, he was very interested in Bitcoin. He had told me about Bitcoin and how excited he was about it. I actually asked him, "Should I get some?" and he goes, "No mom, it's too volatile". I was, "That was not good advice".
Peter McCormack: That was not good advice! It must have been a couple of dollars at that point.
Lyn Ulbricht: It was actually even less. I think it was less than $1, but anyway I'm not sure exactly; it was cheap, very cheap. But in any case, a friend of his had asked him to come out to California because he was doing a start-up and he wanted Ross involved and they were friends, and he went out to get involved with that and other things.
Peter McCormack: What was your personal opinion and your stance on drugs prior to this, because I know you must have changed during the process because you have been exposed to a lot more information now?
Lyn Ulbricht: I've definitely changed about the whole criminal justice system. My stand on drugs, I don't know. I actually knew people who were arrested and put in jail for marijuana with a mandatory minimum, which seemed to me unconstitutional, it seemed like it was up to a judge to decide these things. I didn't agree with putting people in prison for that. I didn't have a real strong -- the drug war was not on my radar frankly that much. I just didn't think about it that much. My kids didn't have drug problems, it wasn't an issue that was foremost in my mind.
I do totally understand the argument that we own our bodies and I don't understand what the authority is in the US Government for making drugs illegal. When they made alcohol illegal, they had to pass an amendment to the Constitution, and then another amendment to make it legal again, because of course prohibition never works. They didn't do that with drugs; it's just they decided, and that's what bothers me. It's the overreach and the persecution of people.
But I didn't really think about it that much, but I really want people, especially maybe conservative people who are against drugs and so they're for the drug war, to have them understand. You can be against drugs, and I don't recommend drugs, I really don't. I think it's probably a bad idea; don't do them, okay. But probably shouldn't smoke cigarettes either, probably shouldn't drink too much. I know people who have killed themselves with alcohol, literally, but they decided to do that.
Peter McCormack: But it's a freedom of choice.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yes, I do see it as a freedom of choice, and I don't feel like the government has the authority. Maybe they want to pass an amendment and then maybe they have the authority but they don't have the authority right now. Besides the fact that it doesn't work; the drug war's been going on for 45 years, more now, over $1 trillion of taxpayer money and it hasn't stopped anyone from using drugs.
So, I point to people who -- you don't have to be for drugs to be against the drug war; it's not really about drugs. It's about government expansion and money, because it feeds this mass incarceration in the United States. Most people, more than half, are in there for drug offences.
Peter McCormack: Yeah. Did I read somewhere that the US has 25% of the world's prison population?
Lyn Ulbricht: Yes and 5% of the world's population; the biggest incarcerator in the world is our country and it's a national disgrace. It's really against the principles of our country.
Peter McCormack: And probably a false economy.
Lyn Ulbricht: Well, yes.
Peter McCormack: In that the trillions spent on the drug war could be spent on other things?
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, yeah. I think or maybe to bring down our debt a little bit!
Peter McCormack: Yeah.
Lyn Ulbricht: If it were doing something that actually proves results, you could have an argument about it, but since it doesn't, and not to mention the money involved in incarcerating people for these excessive sentences, I'm shocked, I was shocked. I didn't really know about all this before I was propelled into it and the more I've seen, the more alarming it is about how we're losing our freedoms on so many fronts. But it's just right in your face at the prison.
Peter McCormack: So, after Ross's arrest, when did you first get to talk to him?
Lyn Ulbricht: He was able to call. We didn't find out until the day after he was arrested and then he was able to call, I think, the next day and he said, "I'm sorry to be a bother". I'm like, "Well, that's the understatement of the year!" But yeah, he was able to call and he was in San Francisco in the county jail or something.
Ever since, anybody who has contact with Ross, including his public defender there, Brandon LeBlanc who's a really good guy, he's, "Ross is a great guy. I've never had anyone so easy and pleasant. He was calm". He deals with a lot of people and he says, "He was a good soul" is how he put it. He said, "Ross, this shouldn't be happening to him". That was right in the beginning and we've had guards and other staff at the prison come up to us and say the same thing, "He shouldn't be in here. He doesn't belong in here. At least he should be in a lower security prison".
Peter McCormack: Do you believe he committed a crime?
Lyn Ulbricht: I don't know what Ross did. You mean by creating the site?
Peter McCormack: Yeah. Do you believe there was a crime?
Lyn Ulbricht: I don't really feel like I am qualified to say; it depends what you're talking about. If you're talking about creating a website that a lot of people sell illegal things, I guess that's a crime. I haven't seen the law.
Peter McCormack: I think what I'm getting at is --
Lyn Ulbricht: Amazon did too.
Peter McCormack: Yeah, of course.
Lyn Ulbricht: So, there isn't a crime, I don't know the exact crime it would be.
Peter McCormack: I watched the Kim Dotcom documentary on the flight over and he's facing extradition, possible life sentence in prison.
Lyn Ulbricht: Meanwhile, he's not American.
Peter McCormack: I know.
Lyn Ulbricht: And he's not in America, but this happens all the time.
Peter McCormack: But he created a website where people can share files and some of them share movies.
Lyn Ulbricht: Life sentence for that?
Peter McCormack: I think potentially yeah. I see Google created a website where you can find all kinds of illegal things.
Lyn Ulbricht: People kill people on Facebook Live, Google had jihadist activity on. Amazon, a woman is set suing Amazon, because her daughter bought cyanide on Amazon and killed herself with it.
Peter McCormack: And Twitter has jihadi groups spreading content; child pornography has been found on Facebook.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, not on Silk Road by the way.
Peter McCormack: Not on Silk Road. I think the point I was trying to get to is, do you believe Ross should be in prison at all or do you believe Ross should have had a lighter sentence?
Lyn Ulbricht: Actually, at this point he's done almost five years. If you really are talking about correctional, I bet my life that Ross could come out of there now and never break the law again. He's not a slow learner, he's a fast learner and I believe that he could actually contribute to society. So, if the Department of Corrections is indeed correctional and not punitive, I think it would be just fine to let Ross out now. I would question people who have violently hurt people. There's no victim came forward at trial to say Ross had harmed them.
Peter McCormack: It's clearly punitive.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah. What I'm saying is it's supposed to be correctional.
Peter McCormack: Yes.
Lyn Ulbricht: So, in that case I would say no, I think he should be let out. I would love to see him let out; but as far as a lighter sentence, how could you debate that? Life sentences have quintupled in the US criminal justice system since the 1980s, quintupled. When I was growing up, hardly anybody got life. You had to be a mass murderer to get life. It was a big deal to give someone a life sentence and now they've quintupled. There's 17,000 people serving life that are non-violent like Ross and you're talking about Kim Dotcom. Life? There's no chance for redemption, there's no chance for restitution and it's just outrageous; it's scary.
Peter McCormack: In researching this interview I've read a lot and I've watched a lot; I've watched the documentaries; I've watched interviews and there seems to be divided opinion. There seems to be some people on one side of the fence that see Ross as a criminal mastermind who created the front for a drug empire; then there seems to be the other side that see Ross as a hero who allowed freedom of choice.
When researching that, I found that there were many people who saw the Silk Road as an opportunity to purchase their drugs in a non-violent environment and in a safe environment, and ensure that the purity of the drugs were higher and cleaner and, therefore, safer to take. I think on a personal level, I veer to that side.
It then goes back to the war on drugs not working and actually, do you believe the Silk Road therefore served a purpose and, in hindsight, do you believe Ross would do the same again knowing that it creates this debate? Has it been worth it?
Lyn Ulbricht: He's already said he would never do it again. He wouldn't have done it just for what's happened to our family; he just wouldn't. In fact, somebody who was visiting him said, "Well, hey if I'm ever in your seat, you helped my mom" and he said, "Don't get in my seat, it's not worth it. There's other ways you can make the point".
A lot of 26-year-olds, he was 26 when he got the idea and he actually created a video game first based on free market principles and Austrian economics, and then turned to the internet. The idea was not to sell drugs; it was to protect the anonymity and privacy of the users on the site. It was product-agnostic really; it was up to people what they decided to exchange using Bitcoin, because he saw the potential for monetary freedom with Bitcoin.
There were a lot of legal or certainly non-drug items on there and, as you point out, there were things that were helping people, CBD oil for children with seizures or cancer or things like that.
Peter McCormack: As I mentioned to you before, the Silk Road paved the way for the website where I bought CBD oil for my mother's cancer.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, exactly. The intention wasn't, "Oh, I'm going to be a big drug kingpin and make a lot of money and sell drugs and have people suffer". That is so not Ross, and he didn't even run it. He says, and I believe him, and there's a lot of indication which we will be putting up on the website that he didn't… What did you ask me again, because I really want to finish, I'm sorry!
Peter McCormack: What I was saying is that, by creating the Silk Road --
Lyn Ulbricht: Would he do it again?
Peter McCormack: Yeah. He has opened the door. Without the Silk Road, I might not have been able to purchase what I purchased for my mother. Was the sacrifice worth it?
Lyn Ulbricht: Right. He would say he would not do it again, he said it. 26-year-olds are sometimes reckless. They're very passionate about things, they think they're immortal, they're reckless, they do stuff. He's matured a lot; he's 34 now and he has learned a lot. He has learned a lot in prison from all the people he's met there, from the price he's paying. So, I don't believe he would do it again.
That's my opinion, because I don't think he would want to first of all give up his life; and secondly, hurt us. But it doesn't mean you can't have worked towards freedom in a way that maybe wouldn't be such an extreme thing, a reckless thing, thinking you can just do these things. You've got to know what you're doing.
Peter McCormack: Yeah. If he was released, how do you think he would spend his time? Do you think he would do something completely different, or do you think this is an area he would focus on in a way that's within the legal framework?
Lyn Ulbricht: He would definitely be within the legal framework. What he said to me the other day, he said, "Mom, when I get out, we're going to lead a simple life". I think what he would do immediately is go to nature, he's such a nature person and he's been couped up in a cage for so long. Ross still cares about freedom; I care about freedom. I think we're allowed to do that in this country. I don't think it means you're a bad person who should be put in jail, although the judge, in her sentencing, said, "We know you started this site for philosophical reasons and I'm not sure you've given that up yet".
Peter McCormack: Was this Judge Forrest?
Lyn Ulbricht: Yes, it was.
Peter McCormack: Katherine Forrest?
Lyn Ulbricht: Katherine Forrest.
Peter McCormack: I struggle with Judge Katherine Forrest, in that I believe she'd made her decision very early on to set an example with Ross. There seems to be a very different example set with Ross than those who, say, set up the Silk Road 2.0.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, who's out? You mean Blake Benthall who never did any time?
Peter McCormack: Who essentially did the same thing.
Lyn Ulbricht: They said it was bigger. The government said it is, in their PR and in their complaint, "It's an identical site" only it was four times the size of Silk Road and with more listings. Blake Benthall was in custody for 13 days. I don't know where he is, I don't know what he's doing, but he's served no time. And he knew what happened. It wasn't like some 26-year-old kid, "Oh, we had a great idea and let's see" and it gets away from you. He knew and he's out and I'm not saying I want him in jail, I'm not saying that.
Peter McCormack: We want the opposite, right?
Lyn Ulbricht: Yes, exactly.
Peter McCormack: We want Ross to have similar, but hasn't a precedent then been set with Ross, and the standards therefore seem to be different?
Lyn Ulbricht: Well, I can go into why I think Ross got it so hard.
Peter McCormack: Please do. I think people need to hear this.
Lyn Ulbricht: I don't think it is about drugs. The biggest drug seller on Silk Road got ten years. The biggest cocaine and heroin seller got five, the biggest meth seller got three, and Blake Benthall got none. Second in command at Silk Road 2.0 got eight. The corrupt agents, who were stealing and were probably tampering with the evidence and content on the server, got six and seven.
I think it's about Bitcoin. I think it's about privacy on the internet and Tor but about Bitcoin, because Chuck Schumer, Senator Chuck Schumer from New York, was a ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee and he's the one that called for the takedown of Silk Road and got law enforcement.
They talk about this in Deep Web; he was the impetus behind the whole thing and I think the NSA revelations recently about how the NSA was urgently pursuing Bitcoin users six months before Ross was arrested, around the time when Chuck Schumer with this whole thing, shows that the government was very concerned about Bitcoin. That's what they were worried about, this, "Hey, you don't mess with our money". It's an alternate currency that was gaining traction; this cannot be tolerated and I think that is really why.
So, Schumer was very influential, Judge Katherine Forrest was recommended by Schumer to her position on the bench in the southern district. Preet Bharara, who was the lead prosecutor, was Chuck Schumer's special counsel for many years. Ross was arrested in California, but he was brought back to New York to be tried in Schumer's state, so I do think he's a political prisoner. His sentence was so disparate from the biggest drugs seller who get ten years; same criminal designation, I don't know the right word; forget the word, but anyway they rank them based on what they've done, and he got ten years. Ross has already served almost five.
Peter McCormack: So ideally, if he'd have been given a similar sentence, he'd maybe be looking at release now for good behaviour.
Lyn Ulbricht: Good behaviour.
Peter McCormack: Do you have similar to the UK; it's half for good behaviour?
Lyn Ulbricht: You don't get half here anymore, you used to get better, but they do get some. You only get a couple of years.
Peter McCormack: Where are you now in the legal process?
Lyn Ulbricht: By the way, just let me say one more thing about the sentence. Judge Forrest, the mandatory minimum for what they said Ross was, like a kingpin, they're calling a website host a kingpin as if he's Pablo Escobar who's supposedly responsible for 3,000 deaths and 300 assassinations; supposedly Ross is equivalent. But in any case, she could have given him 20 years.
Peter McCormack: Yes, so the mandatory minimum.
Lyn Ulbricht: That's the mandatory minimum.
Peter McCormack: Yes, mandatory minimum.
Lyn Ulbricht: That's long for a 30-year-old guy. That means your whole young years, your really most vital years, you could argue, are taken. And then he's not going to get out after not being on the internet for 20 years and come out and do some revolutionary thing on the internet. I mean, come on, who knows what's going to be happening in 20 years? But she didn't think that was long enough. For her, he's got to die there; he has to come out, be carried out as a corpse out of that place. That's when she'll be happy.
Peter McCormack: To prove what point?
Lyn Ulbricht: She thought, well she said it was going to deter others from doing it and of course there was a spike in dark net markets after the sentencing.
Peter McCormack: She's essentially using Ross to set an example.
Lyn Ulbricht: That's what she said and that's what the prosecution said and that's even what the appellate court said.
Peter McCormack: But like the war on drugs doesn't stop drug use, the example hasn't stopped dark net markets.
Lyn Ulbricht: Exactly. No or drug use or anything, yeah.
Peter McCormack: They're actually worse, the drug and dark web.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yes, bigger and without the kind of restrictions Silk Road had, like I'm sure you can get child porn, I don't know; I don't go on them, but things that create victims that Silk Road didn't allow.
Peter McCormack: Yeah. So, where are you now in the legal process?
Lyn Ulbricht: Well, our legal team, Ross has a legal team that is one of the top in the country, Williams & Connolly. They took the case because they think it's a very important case and they really like Ross. Ross has worked with them on the case and they're great people and very brilliant. They've written what's called a petition of certiorari, a cert petition for short, which is basically presenting broad-reaching questions. Once it gets to the Supreme Court, they don't get into the nuts and bolts of the trial or violations at trial, but they talk about more broad-reaching issues.
So, they presented two questions, and this petition's been joined by 21 groups from both sides of the political spectrum in 5 amicus briefs, friends of the court, which are documents just saying, "This is important for these reasons and you need to hear it" to the court.
Peter McCormack: That is the National Lawyers Guild, American Black Cross, Reason Foundation, Drug Policy Alliance and Downsize DC Foundation.
Lyn Ulbricht: And Cato Institute, there are several and they joined it so it's several people on each one; it's not just those. There's 21 of them.
Peter McCormack: The Drug Policy Alliance have been very supportive?
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, oh yeah. They wrote an amicus brief for Ross's appeal at the second circuit level too.
Peter McCormack: What's going to happen now?
Lyn Ulbricht: Then what happens was the government, the Solicitor General of the United States actually answered the petition, he responded and then Ross's team replied to that and now everything's been presented to the court and we wait.
Now, I can tell you the two questions, I'll give you a quick synopsis of what they're addressing, because they're very important. One is the question, "Does it violate the Fourth Amendment for the US Government to seize an individual's internet traffic information without a warrant or probable cause?" which means it's a good reason that they present to the court. And the petition's saying, "No", which has huge implications because of all the relevant and personal information that can be gleaned from one's internet habits: political affiliations, religious affiliations, sexual orientation, all kinds of medical information, all kinds of things, apps you use, what are you interested in.
The thing is some people go to this privacy question, "So, I don't have anything to hide; it's fine". Well, that's good, but it doesn't mean they can't use that information to blackmail officials, judges, persecute people that they want to go after. It's a huge slippery slope and they should at least get a warrant. If they went into your house and took a filing cabinet without a warrant, it would be clearly unconstitutional, no question.
But because it's digital, it falls under this doctrine called the third-party doctrine which has been used now for four decades, based on the dial telephone and the privacy of numbers being dialled, that's it. They're saying, "We can do this" and I'm, "Well, why have warrants?" You'll find more on my laptop than you're going to find in my house really at this point. That's one question and it's a big deal for privacy in the digital age, because the Fourth Amendment's becoming shredded, basically; it's losing any kind of meaning now.
The other question is, "Does it violate the Sixth Amendment and the right to a jury trial?" to have a judge, 1 judge and not 12 members of a jury, decide and rule if something's true. She, this judge, Judge Forrest, she did this on a few issues, but the most glaring is murder for hire, never brought to court; the government never brought this to court, never prosecuted it, never proved it, never had the jury rule on it. But Judge Forrest just decided yes, it's true, and this is a very dangerous thing also.
The reason we have the Sixth Amendment, one of the reasons is to protect the accused from this kind of overreach of power of a judge and it's a pillar of our justice system and it's actually apparently quite widespread and I didn't know that.
Peter McCormack: To help us understand, not everyone's based in the US, a right to a jury trial, does have anybody have that right in any case?
Lyn Ulbricht: Yes.
Peter McCormack: To request it?
Lyn Ulbricht: Most people don't go, because 98% of people plea, because they're bullied and threatened by prosecutors that if they go to trial they're going to lose and they'll get a worse sentence. So, it's becoming very rare that people even go to trial.
Peter McCormack: Ross was offered a plea?
Lyn Ulbricht: He was offered a threat; he wasn't really offered a plea.
Peter McCormack: Right. Aren't most pleas threats?
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, but he was offered by Serrin Turner, the prosecutor, he said, "We're going to charge you with narcotics trafficking. It has a ten-year mandatory minimum; we're going to recommend a life sentence. But if you don't plea, then we're going to charge you with kingpin charge". They weren't going to originally charge him with the kingpin charge; it was part of a threat. It just goes to show they don't really think he's a kingpin but anyway, "Oh, it's just a threat, okay". Then that has a 20-year mandatory minimum, "We're still going to recommend life". What kind of deal is that?
Peter McCormack: Was this related to him releasing the details of users and sellers on the site, which he refused to do?
Lyn Ulbricht: I don't know that it ever came to that. I'm not really clear on whether they said, "If you release names, you can get out". I think it was more, "If you confess to this, we're still going to recommend life; but instead of 20, it's kingpin charge".
Peter McCormack: Did Ross want a jury trial?
Lyn Ulbricht: With that kind of deal, yes.
Peter McCormack: Okay.
Lyn Ulbricht: I think potentially he would have been advised otherwise if there was a ceiling. Okay, you face the ten-year mandatory minimum, yeah, I would imagine he would take that, but he didn't really have much -- it's still giving the judge the power to give him life, which she did, and you don't have a chance to appeal it.
Peter McCormack: Does life always mean whole life? In the UK, we have life, which I think is 25 years, and then whole life which is, they're two separate.
Lyn Ulbricht: In the state system, no. The federal system changed that and took away parole in the 1980s, and so life does mean actual life; that you die in prison, you have no option. It's outrageous, it's really? That's one reason why we're spending a fortune on this mass incarceration, which of course is a huge industry; lots of people are benefiting from it and it's really a jobs program, it's so many things. Keeping old people in there that are dying and they won't let them out, there's a 90-year-old guy in there asking, "Can I come out now, okay?" He's 90. Nope and it's a drug run, by the way.
Peter McCormack: We're jumping around but there's some really interesting things here. You say it's a jobs program?
Lyn Ulbricht: Yes, it employs a lot of people.
Peter McCormack: At low rates to produce?
Lyn Ulbricht: I mean jobs for the guards. Why do you think there's lobbyists against legalisation of prison guard unions? They don't want marijuana legal. Low-hanging fruit keeps the place stocked, the inventory's stocked. Police unions, also one of the biggest lobbyists. The town where I live and the surrounding towns would be either absolutely deserted or totally depressed if it weren't for the prisons. It's a very big prison area and it employs millions, probably billions of dollars this whole kind of thing. It's huge.
Peter McCormack: Gosh, but it does feel like a false economy.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, well it's fuelled by taxpayer money.
Peter McCormack: Yes, of course, yeah.
Lyn Ulbricht: And it's fuelled by human lives. It's really human trafficking, I think. If you make money off human lives and you're doing this, how is it not human trafficking; that's what the human traffickers do?
Peter McCormack: I understand the whole life term for specific violent criminals who maybe can't change their ways and are a danger on the street. Ross is clearly not a danger to anyone.
Lyn Ulbricht: Hardly.
Peter McCormack: Have they given you any reason why they wanted life?
Lyn Ulbricht: Katherine Forrest said, "I'm going to give you the harshest sentence I possibly can". She would have given him the death penalty, but she can't. That must have frustrated her, but anyway she did give him a death sentence really, because the ACLU calls it a walking death sentence. Ross even said to me, he goes, "Mom, it's a death sentence, it just takes longer".
Peter McCormack: I've got it here as one of my first notes, a death sentence in disguise. Was that it? Who said that? Was that the Pope?
Lyn Ulbricht: I think the Pope did say that and it is. Like I said, there's 17,000 non-violent people and so just take from them. Now, I do think potentially even violent people, depending on like you say, if they're a danger, but people do change and mature.
Peter McCormack: Of course.
Lyn Ulbricht: You don't want to let people out that are obviously a danger to people, but there's clearly many, many who are not. Then if you add in virtual life, which is such a long sentence they'll die in there, 50 years or more, you're talking about over 200,000 people.
Peter McCormack: What a waste.
Lyn Ulbricht: Horrible, horrible waste of human lives, of money, of everything and it's evil, it's awful. This is the Land of the Free?
Peter McCormack: But it's not just one life, it's yours, it's Kirk your husband.
Lyn Ulbricht: That's true, you're right.
Peter McCormack: Your daughter.
Lyn Ulbricht: His sister, we have extended family who are affected. You're absolutely right; when your loved one is doing time you're doing time, absolutely. And I get to know the families in prisons, it's not just us. I get to know the children; I see them crying and suffering and they're wounded children who are clinging to their dads who have to leave, and the families trying to hold it together because of this situation. I hear the stories and these kids are statistically more likely to go into prison themselves.
Peter McCormack: Yeah.
Lyn Ulbricht: So that keeps that inventory flowing, that just keeps that thing moving on.
Peter McCormack: So, you've got these two points on the Fourth and Sixth Amendment.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yes.
Peter McCormack: Going to the Supreme Court.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yes, we hope.
Peter McCormack: You hope.
Lyn Ulbricht: It depends if they'll take it, but we'll hope they'll take it.
Peter McCormack: Did I read they have to reply by 18 March or February, was it?
Lyn Ulbricht: No, you might have been reading about the government having to reply.
Peter McCormack: This is separate.
Lyn Ulbricht: They did reply.
Peter McCormack: They did reply.
Lyn Ulbricht: That's basically the Solicitor General, that's the prosecutors, the ones bringing the charges. Then our team had to reply by, I think, 21 March.
Peter McCormack: Yes.
Lyn Ulbricht: So they did, that's all published and the Supreme Court, I'm not sure, they don't really have a deadline. It could be April, it could be June and it's being linked to another Fourth Amendment case called Carpenter v US, which is about cell phone tracking, although it's really more invasive; your internet browsing is more informative than where you are with your cell phone, it really is but more personal. But the government suggested that Ross's case be held to wait to see how they rule on Carpenter. There's another case Kyllo v US that's being held, probably being held to wait for Carpenter.
Peter McCormack: If rejected by the Supreme Court, is that the end of the legal process?
Lyn Ulbricht: There are a few other very difficult things you can try for.
Peter McCormack: Like a pardon or something?
Lyn Ulbricht: That would be great, that would be wonderful, and I am asking anybody who has political connections, please reach out to me; and also, if anybody knows anyone in the NSA who might have proof that the NSA was actually specifically tracking Silk Road, because that calls into the legality of the investigation, or political connections, anyone that has some power in politics in the United States or elsewhere even that could help us. We need it.
Peter McCormack: If the Supreme Court does take it on, I'm assuming you've done research into similar things that the Supreme Court has taken on before.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yes.
Peter McCormack: What's the process and how long does it take and what are you looking at getting yourself into with this?
Lyn Ulbricht: If they take it?
Peter McCormack: Yes.
Lyn Ulbricht: Or if they don't take it?
Peter McCormack: If they do take it.
Lyn Ulbricht: If they do take it, there's different things that can happen; it depends how they rule. They could rule broadly on Carpenter and say, "Hey, you've got to get a warrant for this, this is not right". Then it would be what's called remanded or sent back to the appellate court with guidance, so that the appellate court's getting guidance from the Supreme Court about now how to apply it, because they brought it up but they said, "We can't do anything with this. The Supreme Court's got to tell us what to do".
Peter McCormack: Okay.
Lyn Ulbricht: That could lead to a new trial which would be great. We'd like to have a new trial where we can actually talk about the corruption. We could actually talk about a lot of things that were never allowed; many, many things were supressed. The jury had no idea that two corrupt agents, now in prison by the way, were all over that site, not only stealing but they had the ability to act as a Dread Pirate Roberts persona that was running the site.
Since the trial, it's been uncovered that there was another, looks like another law enforcement agent who went in and deleted evidence. There's proof that there was evidence and then there's comparatively what was shown to the jury in evidence, there's a whole big section deleted; that's very important. So, someone went in there and there's proof that Dread Pirate Roberts logged in to the Silk Road seven weeks after Ross was arrested. He was in solitary, there's no way it was Ross. Who was that?
Peter McCormack: Gosh. You know what, I have a question on solitary as well and prison life but that was one of the key things when -- there's a lot of evidence to sift through, there was a lot to get your head around, there's a lot of inconsistencies, there's a lot of troubling things.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah.
Peter McCormack: But the fact that someone logged in as Dread Pirate Roberts seven weeks after said to me one of two things, well one of three things; either Ross wasn't Dread Pirate Roberts, either there were multiple Dread Pirate Roberts, either there was a government agency acting as Dread Pirate Roberts. Did this information come out after conviction?
Lyn Ulbricht: Yes.
Peter McCormack: Right.
Lyn Ulbricht: What happens is and what the government apparently routinely does, they'll have evidence called 3500 material, they had it for a year. Right before the trial, they dumped I believe it was around 4 terabytes of material.
Peter McCormack: Was this the thing I read, six million pages or something ridiculous?
Lyn Ulbricht: Yes, it was 1.2 billion of pages if you type it and, "Hey, here's our evidence. We gave it to you".
Peter McCormack: How long in advance?
Lyn Ulbricht: I think it might have been maybe two weeks, maybe it was less. It wasn't long.
Peter McCormack: Two weeks to get through 1.2 billion pages?
Lyn Ulbricht: Yes, basically, yeah. And apparently this is routine; this is how our government operates. These kinds of things, I was like, "Really?" This is the stuff that's opened my eyes and this is wrong. But anyway, the defence kept going through it after trial, sifting, sifting, sifting and that's when it was uncovered; that this other -- and there's proof and it was written in several publications, it's right there.
Peter McCormack: I went through everything on the website and I've listed about seven or eight things I struggle with on both sides of the argument.
Lyn Ulbricht: Okay. Yeah, sure.
Peter McCormack: I just want to talk through each of them with you. One we've already talked about. I said within the legal framework Ross has committed a crime, so again I see Ross as doing something that was good for me and my family, but I see within the legal framework he has committed a crime. That is something I can't get away from.
One thing I struggled with in the evidence is, and again correct me if I've missed something wrong here, but when Ross was arrested, he was logged into the website as the master admin, which says to me he was involved in the site up until the time of his arrest.
Lyn Ulbricht: He was actually downloading the Cold Bear Report in the library, that's in the transcripts. But he was messaged by an agent who was posing as Serious which was one of the admins to log on and he did.
Peter McCormack: So, a potential set up?
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, and there'll be more information about that on the website when it's all pulled together, not that anything's proven, but there's a lot of interesting information that makes one think, "Hmm, there's a lot more of this than…" But that's what he said.
Peter McCormack: Okay. One thing we've talked about, one of the things he was charged with was drug trafficking. Was the drug trafficking charge related to the mushrooms or was it related to the operations of the website?
Lyn Ulbricht: I think it was the operations of the website, because initially it was on the internet; they said trafficking on the internet.
Peter McCormack: This is something I struggle with, seeing him as a drug trafficker.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah.
Peter McCormack: Because, therefore, I see the owners of Google as guilty of piracy with YouTube; I therefore see the owners of Facebook as guilty of supporting child pornography, as child pornography has been found on Facebook; and therefore I see the operators of Twitter as guilty of supporting terrorism as there is terrorist activity on there. So, I struggle with that one.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, it's very hypocritical.
Peter McCormack: Very, very hypocritical.
Lyn Ulbricht: Jeff Bezos isn't being dragged into court for selling cyanide or whatever, or Craig Newmark for Craigslist. I'm not saying they should, I don't think they should and there was actually a state case in California, Backpage, where a judge said it's a freedom of speech issue and the owners of Backpage, who were child trafficking, sex trafficking, are not responsible for the traffickers on their site. They were enabling child sex trafficking and they got out, based on the same theory you're talking about which is they are website hosts; they are not doing it.
Peter McCormack: I guess the way other people would see it differently is that Amazon is a bookstore/anything now, YouTube is trying to take down pirated material, the Silk Road was primarily a place to buy drugs openly and freely. I think that's maybe the difference.
Lyn Ulbricht: I get that, except that it was user-driven.
Peter McCormack: Of course.
Lyn Ulbricht: And the anonymity did attract that, but yeah, it was.
Peter McCormack: I see it was an open shop, therefore…
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, almost open yeah.
Peter McCormack: I struggle with everything I've read --
Lyn Ulbricht: But Backpage was child sex trafficking.
Peter McCormack: Of course, yeah.
Lyn Ulbricht: So anyway, in my mind that's a lot worse.
Peter McCormack: Of course.
Lyn Ulbricht: Beyond worse.
Peter McCormack: Yeah, and I'm with you.
Lyn Ulbricht: I'm not saying… yeah, right.
Peter McCormack: From everything I've read about Ross and understand about him, I struggle to see somebody who would hire for murder.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, and so does everybody who knows him, including the alleged victim by the way. I assume you saw Kirstine's tweet?
Peter McCormack: Yes, I did. I did, yeah I did.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, I thought that was very interesting.
Peter McCormack: Where did this come from then?
Lyn Ulbricht: Well, I have my own theories.
Peter McCormack: Would love to hear them.
Lyn Ulbricht: When I read the chat that the prosecutor was permitted to read to the jury, he said to the jury, "He hasn't been charged with this, you're not expected to rule on it, there were no murders, but let me just show you this chat". This chat was the most contrived, it was to me very obvious that from my point of view one person had written it, perfectly punctuated. When Ross ever wrote to me, there was not a capital letter in sight, okay. This chat was perfect, punctuation, capitalisation, didn't sound like him at all and I'm like, "There's no way that was Ross". I'm, "Really?"
Then the agent who presented the evidence, he's the one in prison. He's the one that was stealing and changing things and basically why should we take his word that this is valid evidence at all. Yet other people think it was other things.
Peter McCormack: So, the agent could have created this to divert attention away from the site.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, sure.
Peter McCormack: And make this potentially a murder trial or a soliciting murder trial, and therefore divert attention away from the theft he was making from the website.
Lyn Ulbricht: Could and the motivation would be there. I've talked to other people who said, "The government did that to me too. They smeared me with murder and murder for hire and it never happened". But it's funny they never charged him for it, they dropped those charges.
Peter McCormack: But considered them.
Lyn Ulbricht: Right.
Peter McCormack: But considered them as part of the sentencing.
Lyn Ulbricht: They just talked about them, yeah. The judge did, yeah, and that's the argument. Look, you don't get to drop charges, not ask the jury to rule on them and then use them to put someone in a cage for life. Excuse me?
Peter McCormack: Yeah.
Lyn Ulbricht: If our Founding Fathers saw the danger of this, that's why they wrote the Sixth Amendment.
Peter McCormack: The last one I had on my list --
Lyn Ulbricht: And no one died, okay.
Peter McCormack: No one died.
Lyn Ulbricht: Even if, even if someone does murder for hire, if there's no victim, it's a ten-year sentence.
Peter McCormack: Another thing I've read --
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, I don't believe for a second Ross did that, so yeah.
Peter McCormack: I have read letters from the family of people who have attributed the deaths of their children to drugs they bought from the Silk Road.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah.
Peter McCormack: I'm not using this as an attack on Ross, but there are people who don't see this as a victimless situation.
Lyn Ulbricht: Right.
Peter McCormack: Do you have opinions on this, because it's an emotive subject?
Lyn Ulbricht: It's awful. Of course, I feel horrible and so sad for anyone who's lost a child in any way, including of course drug use. I would hate to think -- look, it's a terrible thing. The reason they call it victimless is because there was no force. I'm not approving it, I'm not defending Silk Road; I'm not defending drugs, let me just get really clear about that. However, I don't think it's the same as taking a needle and plunging it into somebody's arm and pushing the plunger and murdering them; it's not the same.
It's not good for anyone to use drugs or alcohol for that matter. I feel bad for people I know whose child has been killed by a drunk driver too. It's horrible, terrible. I don't think it has a place in the sentencing. It wasn't proven that it was from Silk Road actually. We hired a pathologist who said, "There's no way you can prove this was even drugs in two of the cases and that it was from Silk Road at all". There's no proof and they're just saying this at a sentencing to create a circus almost of emotion.
Peter McCormack: Ross did actually promote safe drug use on the website.
Lyn Ulbricht: Whoever was running it did, yeah.
Peter McCormack: Apologies, yes; whoever was running it.
Lyn Ulbricht: At the time and yes, absolutely. That was brought up and the court doesn't care about that really. That wasn't a good argument I suppose, in their mind, but it did and I've had people write me and say it did. Yeah, so it wasn't proven; it was brought up in sentencing and of course, of course it's horrible, it's horrible to lose a child and I'm completely sympathetic, it's awful. But that's where the victimless thing is; is that it wasn't forced, nothing was forced. It's not forced when you buy drugs on the street either; it's your choice. I don't think it's a good choice, bad choice.
Peter McCormack: Do you feel in some way you've lost a child?
Lyn Ulbricht: Yes, I do, absolutely do. I do; it's different, he's alive and there's hope because he's alive, but I have. He would have probably gone on to have a family at this point even and be part of our family and yes, I do. He's still Ross, he's still there, I get to see him and so it is different. Once actually a child dies, there's no comparison.
Peter McCormack: Of course, yeah.
Lyn Ulbricht: But at the same time, yeah I do. And it never ends, there's no closure, because as long as Ross is in there, I can't go on and go, "Oh well, I'll go and have my life now. I'm going to go travel or I'm going to go do this, enter a hobby". I can't do that.
Peter McCormack: What was your life before the arrest and what is it now? Can you give us a picture of your life now, how it's changed?
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, well my husband and I had a business in Costa Rica. He built bamboo houses in the rain forest off-grid and we'd rent them out as vacation rental.
Peter McCormack: Wow.
Lyn Ulbricht: So, we were living down there part time, pretty tranquil. That was our business and still is. Now, he's taken that over completely, because I was helping with that ,and now he's taken that over completely to support us and I completely and full time dedicate myself to various issues in Ross's case. And not only Ross; it's become bigger.
Peter McCormack: I was going to say, it seems like you've become a spokesperson for wider issues that do relate to Ross's case.
Lyn Ulbricht: Ross and I both hope that his case can shine a spotlight on some of these issues. Since I can talk first hand at least about some of it, certainly about the prison, and there's privacy, there's crypto, there's currency, there's the whole criminal justice system. It's converged all on this case and I see it as a bigger fight, really I do. I'm concerned about us losing our freedoms and the way the government's going in this country.
Peter McCormack: If I was to put a situation to you, say Ross had a successful appeal with the Supreme Court and was released, say there were significant changes to some parts of the law, something to do with the prison system, something that meant something, would this then have all been worth it?
Lyn Ulbricht: That's a really big question. It depends when he gets released.
Peter McCormack: I can only ask for you, not for Ross.
Lyn Ulbricht: For me. At this moment in time, it may be if we really got a good result for others as well. Ross told me, he said, "Look, it's not like" -- he said, "Depending on how long this goes on, it hasn't been a complete waste. I've learned things I've never would have learned; I've met people I never would have met; my eyes have been opened to things I never would have known". That made me feel so much better, because he's making the best of it and he's trying to be a good influence, he's trying and he's matured tremendously.
So, even though it's been horribly hard, maybe. I have to say maybe, but I've met so many amazing people who have stepped up beside us, who I really admire, that have inspired me. I've had experiences I never would have; I've learned things I never would have. So, if it weren't for Ross being in prison, it's been one of the most challenging and enriching four years of my entire life.
So, I don't know. Yeah, I'd say up to this point maybe so, especially if we could get some kind of attention to what's going on in the criminal justice system and the drug war.
Peter McCormack: Your husband Kirk is based in…?
Lyn Ulbricht: He goes back and forth.
Peter McCormack: Goes back and forth.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah.
Peter McCormack: You're based in?
Lyn Ulbricht: Right now, I'm in Colorado so I can be near Ross, but they move people around in the system. I don't know how long I'll be there.
Peter McCormack: I think I want to ask some stuff about the prison system.
Lyn Ulbricht: Sure.
Peter McCormack: Does this mean that naturally you and Kirk have less time together?
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, we do.
Peter McCormack: Which must be rubbish?
Lyn Ulbricht: Well, it's okay. We manage it.
Peter McCormack: You've become a figure for this, but I did read Kirk's letter as well. How's his relationship with Ross? Is he going to spend regular time with him?
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, he's going to see him soon.
Peter McCormack: Good.
Lyn Ulbricht: Actually, he's coming today to help me out with some things.
Peter McCormack: Okay. He's coming to Austin?
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, he is. His mother lives here as well.
Peter McCormack: Okay.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, he will see Ross and they have a very good relationship. They communicate regularly, yeah.
Peter McCormack: In terms of the prison system and in terms of Ross's experience there, you say, and I've heard you talk about this before, they move people around regularly and this is a big country.
Lyn Ulbricht: It is.
Peter McCormack: In the UK, you could move somebody from one end to the other and it's a five-, six-hour drive. You can do it one end of the country here and it's a five-, six-hour flight.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah.
Peter McCormack: What is the reason they move people around so much?
Lyn Ulbricht: I've learned in the prison system, I use this term "why ask why" because there's so many things I go, "Why, why?" and I'm, "There's no rational reason that I can see". However, it might be because they had more beds to fill. The prisoners are not people, they're units and actually Ross said one time, he was referred to as freight. He said to the guy, "I'm freight?" He says, "Freight coming up" you know, the elevator or whatever.
Peter McCormack: Gosh.
Lyn Ulbricht: They don't consider the people or the families as far as I can see.
Peter McCormack: It's a machine and they're cogs in the machine.
Lyn Ulbricht: It's a bureaucracy, it's a heartless bureaucracy. It's probably one of the worst examples of what bureaucracies can become as far as I can tell, because they have ultimate power. The team that decides where you go is called, if you can believe it, the Hotel Team.
Peter McCormack: That is just ludicrous.
Lyn Ulbricht: It is. It's the most evil and expensive hotel ever. The Hotel Team decides where you go and it might have to do with, I don't know, how many beds need to be filled here or there or whatever; it might have to do with they don't want someone in there too long. I really don't know the reasoning, but you never know. I've talked to families who are like, "How am I going to move? I've got kids in school, I've got a house and now my husband's going to be so far away, their dad", that kind of thing. There's a visiting room, the visiting room's huge. It can seat 250 people and usually there's about 3 to 5 inmates with visitors in there; it's vast and we're all sitting in this big empty room.
Peter McCormack: Why is that?
Lyn Ulbricht: Because I think a lot of it they live so far away, they can't afford it and sometimes people show up and it's on lockdown or something. There's so much heartbreak just in the day-to-day dealing with the situation, it's just amazing.
Peter McCormack: Gosh. Has Ross now become used to prison? Does he have a life and a routine in there that he keeps to?
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah. I don't know if he's used to it. He's definitely coping with it very well, he's very strong, he's very strong mentally, emotionally and I'm very happy to see that and he's intentionally positive. He never complains to me, ever, he never complains. On a normal day, if they're not on lockdown, which has been way too frequent and almost non-stop since Thanksgiving, he goes outside.
At this facility, unlike New York, he's got access to a big yard, he can see the mountains, he can watch the sun rise, he can run a track. So, he's one of the few people, a few of them go out and watch the sun rise every day if they can. Then he'll also go and spend a lot of time in the law library. He meditates.
Peter McCormack: The law library because of his case, or just a wider interest?
Lyn Ulbricht: No, his case but he has learned a lot from others, and they talk and learn from each other. Yeah, he's researching his case and he actually worked on it with the lawyers somewhat on his case and made good arguments that they accepted, so that was pretty good. But yeah, he's learning, he's taking initiative. And he doesn't watch TV, which most prisoners, many, many of them just veg in front of the TV 24/7.
Peter McCormack: He doesn't watch any?
Lyn Ulbricht: No, he feels like it's a waste of time.
Peter McCormack: Does he have access to the outside world?
Lyn Ulbricht: He's reading about artificial intelligence and he's making the most of his time.
Peter McCormack: Really?
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah. He's a scientist really, he's not a computer programmer, he's a scientist.
Peter McCormack: My last interview with Morgan, who I told you was arrested for selling Bitcoin, a lot of that discussion we discussed about AI actually. It was a really interesting conversation.
Lyn Ulbricht: Same mentality, I guess.
Peter McCormack: I think those people who have discovered Bitcoin and who are interested in technology all converge on the same topics.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah. They're left brain, unlike myself. Maybe there's something in it.
Peter McCormack: Now you're open to this and you've exposed to it, maybe you are. How has Ross changed?
Lyn Ulbricht: The thing about Ross is he hasn't changed and I'm so happy. That's one of the reasons I want to make sure he gets visits all the time, as much as possible, because he needs that lifeline. I think people do change after a while. We laugh, we have fun talking, he's sweet. He's not bitter. In fact, when I start getting, saying things I'm not real happy about some of the things that's happened or some of the people involved, he's, "Don't go there. We don't want to get into that, we want to just move forward. It's okay, this is all part of this whole fight". He's so inspiring to me, he keeps me from going down that road. It's very easy to go down that road.
Peter McCormack: Yeah.
Lyn Ulbricht: He's not like that, he's not vindictive or anything like that. That's why the people in there love him. They say, "He's a good guy, he shouldn't be in here". They take me aside, because he is.
Peter McCormack: Very positive energy.
Lyn Ulbricht: He really does and he cares about people, he's very sweet. So, this image in the media of this thug kingpin, it's absurd; but a lot of the media, not all, love that sensationalist stuff, clickbait.
Peter McCormack: Yes, clickbait, and he was tried by media before he was guilty, before he was convicted, in many people's eyes.
Lyn Ulbricht: He sure was, oh yeah.
Peter McCormack: That didn't help him.
Lyn Ulbricht: No. No, the media and the government work very well together as far as I can tell.
Peter McCormack: You must now be very suspicious of the government, the different agencies within the government, their motivations.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah.
Peter McCormack: Does that make you feel any less American in any way?
Lyn Ulbricht: What I have really learned is, I do believe the urge for freedom is innate somewhat; maybe not in everyone, but I think it is. There's this thing in people, "I want to lead my life, I want to make my own choices. I want to live my life". And I'm finding that that is international, it's all over. We get, I get people from all over the world contacting me and Ross does too. It's resonated all over the world.
I think, for me, I was a pretty patriotic person, American ideals. I've been very disillusioned; I feel like our country's being hijacked by people who don't have those ideals and don't believe in the principles that this country was founded on, but I do still love those principles. They're American, but they're universal and so that's how I see it. And I see it like we need to defend them. The thing is, you're not American, but as somebody from Germany said, "When the United States sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold". We influence everybody for better or worse.
Peter McCormack: You do.
Lyn Ulbricht: So, it's important to everyone.
Peter McCormack: This is about my 40th trip here. I come to America all the time; I do love it here. I travel all over, meet people.
Lyn Ulbricht: Great people.
Peter McCormack: Great people.
Lyn Ulbricht: Americans are great people for the most part, they really are.
Peter McCormack: They get a bad rep internationally.
Lyn Ulbricht: Because of our government.
Peter McCormack: Because of the government.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah.
Peter McCormack: And what my experience is, I think also the over-exuberance at sport sometimes! But what I find is the people here are very different from how the government represents them.
Lyn Ulbricht: Definitely we are, yeah. I think so too, definitely.
Peter McCormack: I see Ross very much along the lines of how I see Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, people who have fought for freedom, fought for privacy, fought for rights. Yet, he's the one in prison.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, Julian, they both have their own restrictions but they're not in prison.
Peter McCormack: But they have their own separate prisons. Julian Assange is stuck in an embassy in the UK, Edward Snowden would like to come back, I believe, but he wants a fair trial.
Lyn Ulbricht: I think Ross would probably trade with either one of them as far as venue.
Peter McCormack: Of course. Have they been in contact with you? Have they been supportive?
Lyn Ulbricht: No. Snowden did actually. He was interviewed at Liberty Forum two years ago and actually the clip of the video's on our website, where Nick Gillespie of Reason asked him, he said, "Can we assume that the NSA was involved in the investigation of Ross Ulbricht and Silk Road?" and he went, "Yeah". He just said, "Yes" and then he said, "It's unthinkable they weren't". And he said some other stuff, but basically that's the bottom line. And now it's just come out from his memos that were top secret, and I assume he knew this, that the NSA was specifically tracking Bitcoin users, "Well, in 2013 where were the Bitcoin users? I think they were on Silk Road". I think they were probably tracking Silk Road and of course the government denied it.
In the motions, Ross's defence said, "Look, the NSA, how did you get the server? This isn't making sense". They said under oath how they got the server and experts were, "Why?" and, "That doesn't make any sense, you're lying". Even Robert Brown said, "We think the NSA did it". Well, the government didn't actually deny it; they just mocked the defence and went, "Oh, bogeyman. You're just bringing up a bogeyman, the NSA, oh". I'm like, "Well, were they or not?" But they never said and now it's come out that they were tracking Bitcoin users. They weren't worried about drugs; they were worried about Bitcoin.
Peter McCormack: The NSA probably know we're having this conversation right now then.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah.
Peter McCormack: Am I going to be banned from coming back to America now?
Lyn Ulbricht: I hope not.
Peter McCormack: We hope not.
Lyn Ulbricht: I don't know.
Peter McCormack: I could talk to you for hours.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, I know.
Peter McCormack: It's fascinating some of this. If it wasn't so heart-breaking, it really is fascinating as well.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah.
Peter McCormack: Just a couple of more questions, because I'm conscious of the time. I've got a couple of more questions for you.
Lyn Ulbricht: Sure.
Peter McCormack: How are you financing this; this must be very expensive?
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah. Well, we were pretty much depleted personally, but we've gotten a lot of really great support, grass-root support from the crypto community as well as lots of different people.
Peter McCormack: Good.
Lyn Ulbricht: We had a fundraiser called the FreeRossAThon, like a telethon, but it was a FreeRossAThon on the internet. It was an eight-hour online conference where 35 leaders in crypto and liberty movements and others in criminal justice reform came forward to speak on Ross's behalf and on these principles and what we've discussed a lot today. We raised about $28,000 and then Roger Ver matched it. We ended up with $40,000, whatever the maths, $24,000 or whatever. That has enabled us, that and Roger's previous support, he's supported us, really helpful.
Peter McCormack: That's very cool of Roger.
Lyn Ulbricht: It is. But there's also been other people, either anonymous because it was Bitcoin, or people who stepped up; but small people too. Even the price of a cup of coffee, buy Ross a cup of coffee, give it to his defence fund and it adds up when enough people care. So, we have been able, with our own money and then with raising money, to fund it. We negotiated things with different people who are helping and stuff like that.
Peter McCormack: This fundraising is something that's continually going on?
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, freeross.org
Peter McCormack: Please do tell. Say how people can help.
Lyn Ulbricht: Well, freeross.org has lots of ways. There are different ways to contribute financially, including just buy on Amazon through our site and it doesn't cost you anything, but we get a little bit. There's other things on there; there's an art game based on Ross's art that for $1 you can play and it adds up. There's a tax-deductible option, there's just flat-out crypto, lots of different coins, also just PayPal.
But also, people have skills. I'm not super tech or anything, I've had to learn all this and I don't know a lot. People have different skills that they want to offer to help, that would be great. All our labour is me and then a lot of people volunteering their time.
Peter McCormack: Anything specifically you're looking for right now?
Lyn Ulbricht: Well, also the political connections and anybody in the government that would have access to knowing any kind of documentation that the NSA was actually tracking Silk Road would be super helpful. I know that's pretty esoteric, but political connections. I don't know, just tech ability, video editing ability, social media ability and even just liking us and sharing on social media and that kind of thing helps us too. You're helping us by having me on, it's spreading the word and seeing the bigger picture; it's the bigger picture.
Peter McCormack: You're helping me too.
Lyn Ulbricht: Good.
Peter McCormack: I really appreciate your time. Is there anything I've not covered today that you would want, any questions I've not asked that you wish I had have asked, because I feel this is such an important subject?
Lyn Ulbricht: That's nice. I always try to say to people we're at a tipping point in history, and I know there's a lot of sensationalism and stuff around this case and it's, "Argh" some of it, some people feel. But it's really not about Ross and it's really not about a website; it's become much bigger and I've gotten to see that we're at a tipping point in history. Which way are we going to go? We're in the digital age and they're trying to apply 20th century law to the 21st century, and in the process they're shredding our constitutional protections, "they" meaning the United States Government, and this is very alarming.
Peter McCormack: Has it got worse under the current government? Is there any difference?
Lyn Ulbricht: It was bad, it's been bad. I don't know that it's gotten worse. I think that it's just -- and I don't even know that it has to do with this president.
Peter McCormack: Right.
Lyn Ulbricht: I think that it's something that, I mean the NSA for example, they've been around a long time; they're entrenched. There's a lot of entrenched bureaucracy that's just there, you know. But I do think the whole criminal justice system and the prosecutorial system is pretty much out of control and that's been under, as far as I know, the previous administration, this administration's ramping up the rhetoric, for sure, death penalty for drugs.
Peter McCormack: I've seen it for drugs.
Lyn Ulbricht: More violence in this thing.
Peter McCormack: That's like what's happening in the Philippines.
Lyn Ulbricht: And it doesn't work, yeah it doesn't work.
Peter McCormack: Yeah.
Lyn Ulbricht: It'll just make it more violent, it's just crazy. I think we have to decide with privacy and freedom in general, are we going to go -- there's so much innovation that can happen, there's so much that can happen for good, are we going to take that road or more government intrusion and control? Because I really think that the government wants to control the internet as well and privacy on the internet. They said, the prosecution said in their motion, "Anyone who uses Tor has criminal intent". They said that or something along, basically that was the gist. I'm like, "Dissidents use Tor".
Peter McCormack: Journalists --
Lyn Ulbricht: Journalists use Tor.
Peter McCormack: -- in Iran use Tor.
Lyn Ulbricht: Lots of people.
Peter McCormack: Journalists in Syria use Tor. Lots of people use Tor.
Lyn Ulbricht: They don't like Tor even though they invented it.
Peter McCormack: They invented Tor, right?
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah.
Peter McCormack: This is the ironic thing.
Lyn Ulbricht: Exactly, they're controlling it now and I'm, "Okay, I don't know. I don't know enough about it to say". Openly they said that, I was, "Woah".
Peter McCormack: This is why it's interesting with the crossover. I said to you, my podcast is about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, but this is an important story in the history of Bitcoin, but the interview isn't about Bitcoin and cryptocurrency. But it seems to be almost, we're at a time now where the growth of cryptocurrency seems to be relevant and related to what is happening with privacy, with NSA, with Snowden, with Assange, with everything.
Lyn Ulbricht: Now we know the NSA was tracking Bitcoin users.
Peter McCormack: Yes.
Lyn Ulbricht: So that certainly ties it in.
Peter McCormack: Freedom of money at a time where rampant national debt, we've got changes to internet laws, everything seems to be converging at once.
Lyn Ulbricht: It's accelerating, it seems like.
Peter McCormack: Yeah. Do you have hope?
Lyn Ulbricht: I do. Well, I've hope for Ross, I have hope. I'm worried, I won't deny that and I don't even know if I would say I'm optimistic, although I want to be. But I think there's always hope and I do feel like the spirit of freedom is within people. I have hope, yes I do. I don't think it's hopeless. I don't think we're quite there yet, but I'm afraid we're sliding down a very slippery slope to it.
Peter McCormack: Yeah, and I'm not sure of the word to use, but Ross created something originally which was about freedom.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah.
Peter McCormack: And has had his freedom taken away.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yes.
Peter McCormack: It seems a very interesting battleline that's been drawn between those who want to take freedom away and those who want to give it.
Lyn Ulbricht: I think it's what it boils down to actually, people who want to be free and left alone and people who want to control people. I'm seeing the world dividing up that way.
Peter McCormack: Yeah, I'm with you. So, what's coming up then? What's going to be happening over the next few weeks, months? What should we be looking out for; what should everyone be watching out for?
Lyn Ulbricht: The Supreme Court will decide if they take the case and that's huge.
Peter McCormack: Okay.
Lyn Ulbricht: I also am going to be doing other preliminary things, not stopping. I'm going to be seeing what other avenues or things can be done to help Ross and to work with groups that are working towards reform and pooling our resources there. I do, it's not just about Ross; it's a bigger thing. I have connected with people and I want to keep that going and see if we can come together to make some difference.
Peter McCormack: How can people get in touch and who do you want to hear from? I don't want people to pester you.
Lyn Ulbricht: No, no, don't ever feel that way. Well, freeross.org has contact. On the Take Action page, there's a contact and there's also an address you can write to Ross. But my email's up there, I'm on Twitter, I'm on Facebook and also anything that people send to want to encourage Ross, we print it out and send it to him.
Peter McCormack: Okay.
Lyn Ulbricht: It means a lot to him.
Peter McCormack: Is there anything you'd like to add to this at the end, any final thoughts?
Lyn Ulbricht: No, I think it's been a great interview and I think we've covered…
Peter McCormack: There was a bunch we didn't cover.
Lyn Ulbricht: Oh!
Peter McCormack: I had this structure of things I wanted to go through.
Lyn Ulbricht: Okay.
Peter McCormack: I wanted to ask a lot about Ross, but do you know what I think I'd like to do; I'd like to do this again with you sometime.
Lyn Ulbricht: Okay. You just go anywhere, right?
Peter McCormack: I will go anywhere, yeah.
Lyn Ulbricht: Sure, we'll do it again. We could do it when the Supreme Court thing is decided or whenever you think.
Peter McCormack: Either way.
Lyn Ulbricht: I've been happy to talk to you. You've been great.
Peter McCormack: Thank you so much. Thank you so much again.
Lyn Ulbricht: It's very nice. Anyway, you're the only person who's ever given me flowers for an interview and it was my birthday yesterday.
Peter McCormack: Yeah, I didn't know it was your birthday yesterday.
Lyn Ulbricht: I know you didn't know, yeah.
Peter McCormack: That was a coincidence. It's just because it's Ross's and I couldn't buy Ross a present.
Lyn Ulbricht: That's so sweet, that's very nice.
Peter McCormack: It's funny, I went to get a coffee this morning, a place across there, and it was a coffee shop and a florist.
Lyn Ulbricht: There you go.
Peter McCormack: So, I managed to get coffee and flowers at the same time. But Lyn, thank you so much.
Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, you're welcome. Thank you.
Peter McCormack: Take care and all the best.
Lyn Ulbricht: Thanks.
