WBD027 Audio Transcription

The Supreme Courts Denial of Ross Ulbricht's Petition with Lyn Ulbricht

Interview date: Friday 27th July

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 about the denial of the Supreme Court, the support of the Libertarian Party, the petition for clemency and life for Ross inside the prison.

“That’s why the founders wrote the Sixth Amendment, to protect the accused from judges, just on their own, deciding that something is true without the ruling of 12 jury members.”

— Lyn Ulbricht

Interview Transcription

Peter McCormack: Hi, Lyn, nice to see you again after this time.  How are you?

Lyn Ulbricht: I'm hanging in there.  I'm very heartened by the great support we've gotten for Ross's clemency petition, so that's been a real boost after being denied by The Supreme Court, which was quite devastating.  So, this whole thing has been a real rollercoaster, and just riding the rollercoaster and clinging on to it as best as I can.

Peter McCormack: And, how's Ross doing?

Lyn Ulbricht: I'd say pretty much the same.  It's challenging, but Ross is just amazing, because he just stays positive, he really does.  He's always fun to be with, he never complains, he always keeps going day to day in the most positive way possible.  He's started tweeting, so he's happy about that, because he's been basically muzzled up until now, because of the court process; it's just advisable not to speak at all.  And, he's going to be tweeting, he has been, mainly just about who he is. 

He feels like he has been so misrepresented in the media and really by the courts, and it's just not who he is, which has been one of the hardest things for me, because I'm like, "This is not my son.  I know him", and 100 other people who know him wrote that, and those letters are on our website, freeross.org.  So, now, he's just, "Look, I'm a down-to-earth, nice guy", basically.  He's going to be just tweeting about his life, not so much about his case and everything, but just his day-to-day thoughts.

Peter McCormack: And, he's not allowed internet access, right?

Lyn Ulbricht: No.

Peter McCormack: So, does he tweet via you and he tells you what he wants to say, you take it away and then you --

Lyn Ulbricht: Not me, a friend.

Peter McCormack: Okay.  Well, he's catching you up on followers!

Lyn Ulbricht: I know.  When he started, he goes, "Look, Twitter accounts take a long time to get followers", I'm like, "I don't think so".  But he hasn't been on the internet in almost five years, and he wasn't really on social media before that much.  So, he really has no idea what he's doing, but okay!  So, it's going to be very simple, he just wants to communicate; he really wants to communicate to people who he is and what he's thinking.

Peter McCormack: And how's your husband; how's he at the moment?

Lyn Ulbricht: He's, like us, hanging in there.  It's been tough on our family, I won't deny it, it's been very hard, but he's working and earning a living to keep us supported while I pretty much devote full time to this.  He just recently spent some time with Ross, it was really good.  Our business is in Costa Rica, so we're kind of stretched that way.

Peter McCormack: So, the main things since we last spoke that I wanted to talk to you about is, there's obviously the dropping of the murder for hire charges, which was obviously great news; losing the appeal to The Supreme Court; the petition you have out now; and also, the support you've received from the Libertarian Party.  But before we go into those things, there will be some people who haven't listened to the original interview, so I don't want to cover everything from that, but I'd like to cover some of it.  But can you update me where you are in the legal process and what there is, what avenues you have left now for Ross?

Lyn Ulbricht: Very few.  Really, our options for direct appeal to the courts are over, with the denial of The Supreme Court.  There is a very long-shot motion you can file within a year, called a 2255, that says -- it can bring up different things: newly discovered evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel at a trial, various things, maybe misconduct of a judge, different things that can be presented to the court, and then they can decide if it would have changed the outcome of the trial.  And if they think it does, they'll give you a new trial; very rarely granted.

Of course, we have to try for everything, but it's rarely granted.  I think we have some good arguments, I do, but we've been shot down so many times in the courts that we're going to go for it, but I think honestly, and it's another very difficult thing to achieve, but I think clemency, a commutation of Ross's sentence is feasible.  It's such an outrageous sentence, it's such a draconian, brutal sentence, that even if he were guilty of all the charges, which I don't believe, it's just wrong.

So, I think there might be a chance for clemency; I hope and pray there is.

Peter McCormack: He's received quite a lot of support from key people and key leaders in the crypto and Bitcoin community, which my podcast is obviously based: Charlie Lee from Litecoin; Roger Ver, obviously we've spoken about Roger; Erik Voorhees.  Is he aware that he has such wide backing?

Lyn Ulbricht: I haven't seen Ross since…  I mean, he knows that Erik is a supporter, because Erik visited him and they got along great, he really liked him, they like each other.  But I haven't had a chance to tell him about Charlie Lee, which we're very grateful for his support, because it means a lot.  So, I will be seeing Ross on Saturday and I will be able to fill him in on everything.

Peter McCormack: Okay.  So, there will be some people this will be the first time they've listened to this.  Obviously, my podcast has grown in reach since we last spoke.  I will direct people to our original interview, because I think it's important.  Can you give your best summary of how we have got to where we are now, in terms of what happened and what the key issues are and key questions are around Ross's conviction?

Lyn Ulbricht: Sure.  Ross was brought to court, arrested and brought to court, based on his involvement in the Silk Road website.  That site was essentially a free-market website that basically left it up to users what they would buy and sell on it, but there were restrictions, because it was based on a philosophy of voluntary interaction and do no harm and no use of force. 

So, things were prohibited, such as child pornography, there was no child pornography, there was no stolen property, there were no weapons, except for a very brief time when they were then taken off.  There were no fraudulent things allowed, they were taken off.  It was not highly regulated, but if it was seen, it was removed and prohibited in the rules.

But drugs were allowed.  Most commonly, what was exchanged was small quantities, user quantities of cannabis, by far the most common thing that was exchanged.  But because the philosophy is, "Well, if it's something you choose to do, you want to do, and you're not hurting somebody else, it's okay", it's just if you hurt somebody else.  So, that was the philosophy, and the whole idea behind it was the privacy involved and a free market, a truly free market where people could just decide what to do.  And they used Bitcoin, which was very little known at the time, to make these exchanges.  So, that's the site.

I'm not defending the site, because I think there are things on there, but there are things on lots of sites that I wouldn't defend, but there were worse things on Silk Road; I'm not defending the site.  However, that was the intention behind it, no harm was intended, I do believe.  So, anyway, Ross was arrested, put in solitary confinement.  At that time, another Dread Pirate Roberts logged into the Silk Road account, forum account, Dread Pirate Roberts being the handle of whoever was running it, and I think it's pretty obvious many people were.  And also, when he was in solitary, tampered evidence was discovered, but it was too late for trial.

In any case, went to trial, and there were many issues at trial that you can see listed on freeross.org, including blocked cross-examination, blocked defence witnesses, the judge coached the prosecution, she didn't allow testimony that pointed to an alternate perpetrator.  There's a lot of things about the trial that were wrong, in my opinion, and Ross was convicted of all counts. 

One of the counts was a Kingpin charge, which is usually reserved for violent leaders of cartels, who are responsible for multiple murders and assassinations.  Usually, they're not into voluntary interaction.  Cartel leaders do not ascribe to the philosophy of use no force, voluntary interaction.  But it was basically used as leverage against him to pressure him to agree to plead guilty; but even so, it wasn't really a plea deal, because the prosecutor said he'd recommend life anyway.  So, it was like, "Okay, I'll take my chances at trial".

In any case, he was convicted, and then the judge, Judge Forrest, who is now retiring at the end of the year, sentenced him, and at sentencing him brought in uncharged allegations of, among other things, murder for hire, which was never charged by New York at trial.  And just the last, the only charge actually has been, the prosecution has asked to drop just the other day, so it will be that there are no charges against Ross for this.  And yet, the prosecution used it to deny him bail, the judge used it to bolster this horrible sentence, justifying it with something that no jury ruled on.  It wasn't proven.  No jury said, "We think he did this", just the judge decided it, she decided it was true.

Now, this bleeds into his Supreme Court petition, but in any case, he was sentenced to double life plus 40 years without parole; there's no parole in the federal system.  All non-violent charges, first-time offender, for something that he created when he was 26 years old.  It's outrageous.

Peter McCormack: And the Drug Policy Alliance have actually come out and said that the website actually was a better situation and a better place for people to buy the drugs; as we're in a situation where prohibition doesn't work, it was a safer, non-violent way, and reduced crime and harm.  That's correct, right?

Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah.  Well actually, they and LEAP, and there are several academic papers that say this, and drugs were not necessarily, from what I understand, not the intention of creating the site, wasn't to sell drugs, but of course people gravitated towards it because of its anonymity and privacy.  And it did turn out to be, according to all these people, experts, which the judge just brushed aside, a safer place.

They even had a doctor that consulted with people, sometimes trying to get people to give up drugs, or trying to help them through things.  It was more of a community, from what I understand.  I was never on it, but a community of people.  There was a book club.  I don't think too many Kingpins have a book club on a website!  But there was a book club, there was a doctor consulting, there was a forum where people exchanged ideas.

Again, I think there were things there that I don't support, but at the same time, the way it was painted at trial and in the media is so distorted and accurate.  And I think in the case of the trial, and maybe the media, but certainly the trial, it was meant to prejudice the jury.  Marijuana was barely mentioned when they talked about the drugs sold.  I think it was mentioned once in passing, but that was the main thing that was sold, was small amounts of marijuana.  And they didn't mention the legal things that were sold, or the non-drug items that were sold; only drugs were mentioned.  So, it really painted a distorted picture to the jury.

Peter McCormack: When we met last time, we met prior to The Supreme Court ruling, so obviously there was a lot of hope, there was a lot riding on it.  Now obviously it's failed, I know you're not going to give up the fight, it's very clear, and a lot of people are behind you.  But at the same time, have you and have Ross had the conversation and discussed that he might never now leave prison; has he had a change of mindset, or an acceptance, that that is a very distinct possibility now?

Lyn Ulbricht: Well, it goes without saying.  We know it's a distinct possibility.  We haven't really talked, I haven't said, "You realise Ross, this is…", I mean we know it is.  But we're hopeful, we haven't given up hope.  Ross himself said, "Where's there's life, there's hope".  Things change.  I just can't leave him there to die in this place, it's just so wrong, it's so unacceptable to me.  I can't accept the idea and I can't go on living a fulfilling life knowing that's where he is, I just can't.  So, as long as I can keep going, I will, and he feels the same.

He'll make the best of it while he's there, and I'll make the best of the situation, so will our family, but we can't just desert Ross.  And actually, when he was first arrested and I first visited with him, behind glass that was, it's not now, I just said to him, "I will never desert you, Ross", and I keep my word, I'm the kind of person who does.  So, I'm not ever going to do that, and he's my kid; I can't.

So, yes, it was very disappointing, and not only for us; it was a big blow and actually the Foundation for Economic Education just wrote an article about how it's essentially denying the Fourth Amendment, the decision.  FEE, they just wrote an article about it because, do you want me to go into what the petition was and what was denied?

Peter McCormack: We can do.  Was that the article written by Lindsay Marie?

Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, I believe so, yeah.

Peter McCormack: Yeah, essentially nullified the Fourth Amendment.

Lyn Ulbricht: Let me explain a little bit.  I don't have to get into all the weeds, but there were two questions before The Supreme Court, and both of them are very important questions for all of us.  One was this Fourth Amendment question, and what it was, the question was, "Does the government need to get a warrant before they can search and seize and delve into all of our internet browsing history, all of our internet habits", which reveal a lot of personal information: medical records, political interests, sexual orientation, religious orientation, all kinds of things, apps.  And they don't need a warrant to get into all that and they have no oversight, they can do it secretly, nobody knows.  They can use this against people.

Even if you personally have nothing to hide, it's very concerning that the government can blackmail, for instance, high-level people, congressmen, judges, with maybe things on the internet that those people don't want the public to know, for example.  They can use it to persecute people who are part of a political group they don't like.  I mean, it's a very slippery slope.  All the petition was saying was, "Get a warrant, as per the Fourth Amendment, so that it's in the open, so that it's been stamped by a judge", which I don't think they turn down government warrants very often.

So, that issue, when they did not turn down Ross's petition initially, it looked like, and actually even the Solicitor General recommended that it be held pending another case, Carpenter vs The US, which they had accepted.  Carpenter basically says, "The government has to get a warrant to track us with our cell phones", that they can't just go into all of our cell phone information without a warrant; they affirmed that.  So, once we thought they were holding Ross's case pending Carpenter and then they affirmed Carpenter, it was very hopeful.  

The problem was is that Chief Justice Roberts, the way he wrote the opinion was extremely narrow.  So, he said, "This is just for this case, this is just for cell phones", even though a laptop and a cell phone are basically both computers, he kept it just as cell phones and left out all of our internet things for another day.  All of our internet history is not protected, it's open season still, legally.  So, they just kind of kicked the can down the road on that one and denied Ross's appeal.

We were surprised; our attorneys were extremely good and extremely experienced with the Supreme Court, they were surprised.  So, yeah, that was that one.

Peter McCormack: Yeah, I mean that was very strange as well, because they did wait for the decision on the Carpenter vs The US and then chose to ignore it.  And I think I read that it solidifies the feeling that American freedoms are illusionary?

Lyn Ulbricht: Well, it's hard not to think that.  I think our government's being hijacked, our principles, our founding principles are being hijacked, from what I see and how things operate.  It's just very, very alarming.

The other question, which was an important question, which I think they just denied behind the scenes, is a Sixth Amendment question of whether a judge, without a jury, can use an uncharged allegation to sentence somebody to life, and that's what Judge Forrest did.  She used allegations of murder for hire, now all charges have been dropped, to give Ross life.  That's why the Founders wrote the Sixth Amendment, to protect the accused from judges, just on their own, deciding that something's true, without the ruling on 12 jury members, supposedly of your peers, who will say, "No, wait a minute, we don't think so".

A judge is not supposed to be able to say, "Well, I think that's true and that's true, never mind going to a jury".  This is important, this is our Sixth Amendment protection, and it's been going on in the courts apparently, I didn't realise this, for decades and decades.  People are sitting in prison, even when they've been acquitted by a jury, because a judge overrides it, or haven't been charged, like Ross, because a judge decides that that's right.  This is again a very important protection that we have, that the precedent now continues to be that the judiciary can ignore the Constitution, basically.

Peter McCormack: So, we'll deal with both the Fourth and the Sixth separately, because obviously I've been reading about both, and this might be a challenging question on the Fourth one, you know I've always been honest with you.  But having a surveillance state is obviously an awful thing, that your cell phone or internet access can be monitored without a warrant signed from a judge.  But it doesn't actually change the crime; that's committed.  And I wonder with that one whether, in an alternate scenario, that maybe a crime had been committed on yourself, and used similar evidence without a warrant, how you would maybe feel?

This doesn't change my opinions on Ross, or anything, but I felt closer to -- I think I had much bigger problems with the Sixth Amendment than the Fourth, because whilst the Fourth feels unconstitutional, it doesn't change the crime; do you understand my point?

Lyn Ulbricht: Yes, I sure do.  And by the way, just as an aside, it wasn't just his internet, they had a directional antenna aimed at his home without a warrant.  They can be outside my house right now watching everything I do in my house without a warrant, based on this case.  And, I understand what your point is and I feel, kind of, the Sixth Amendment to me is easily as important, because it's so unjust.  It's like framing someone.  But The Supreme Court does not get into whether you're innocent or guilty.

By the time it gets to The Supreme Court, they're ruling on wide-ranging, broad-reaching principles that will affect everybody.  The bit about, does it affect the crime; that's more district court and maybe appellate, but you're not, at that point, arguing an individual case so much as using the case to bring constitutional questions to their attention.

So, that's why there's other arguments about Ross's innocence, or the crime, but that's not what The Supreme Court's interested in.  Carpenter might be guilty too.  Carpenter might be robbing RadioShacks, but that's not the point.  And there's this attitude of, or this principle of, it's better for one guilty person to go free than have all of our rights jeopardised, basically.  So, it's not about the case specifically.

Peter McCormack: No, I understand, and there are obviously constitutional issues there, and it's quite scary.  But I always felt, personally, there was a lot more strength in the Sixth Amendment, and especially now, you released last week, the timing, right?

Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, it's interesting timing, don't you think?  They hold on to it for five years and now, "Oh, never mind"!

Peter McCormack: Yeah, I read that, was it, the Attorney for the District of Maryland has moved to dismiss the prejudice, the indictment, right, and it happened so close to after The Supreme Court ruling, if I remember reading everything that Judge Forrester had said in court relating to the murder for hire, it was spoken as if the crime had been committed.

Lyn Ulbricht: That's right.

Peter McCormack: Firstly, I'm suspicious about the timing of why it's happened.  But I'm wondering if, if the charges had been dropped prior to The Supreme Court reviewing the case, would that have affected it?

Lyn Ulbricht: I think it might have affected the appellate court decision for sure, because they took it as fact as well, and they said, "The murder for hire definitely affected the sentence", they said that.  The Supreme Court, I'm not sure, but they are human beings, I'm sure they're familiar with the case and I don't know, you just don't know.  But we had tried to say to Maryland, "Look, either take this to trial, he has a right to a speedy trial, or drop it", but they kept it, poisoning the whole thing, for almost five years.

This is an indictment that's been there for almost five years unprosecuted and doing nothing with it.  So, yeah, you wonder about all that.

Peter McCormack: I don't see it as a coincidence, and I still struggle with the role of Judge Forrest in the case, and the hypocrisy of what happened with Blake Benthall with Silk Road 2.0, who spent 13 days in prison.  So, Ross was sentenced as a lesson to anyone thinking of creating a Dark Web marketplace to scare them.

Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, after her sentence, they were proliferated even more rapidly.  There's a couple of things about Judge Forrest that just came out that are on the record, a couple of things she did, that most people don't know.  First of all, prior to trial, she anonymised the jury, which means the jury were told, "Don't give your name and we won't give your name and you'll be kept protected", as if Ross was dangerous.  But she did it secretly.  There's a process for that where you have to justify doing that, you have to explain to the jury the situation; it needs to be public.  She didn't do it publicly.  She prejudiced the jury before trial by doing that secretly.  We brought it to the court fairly recently and they don't seem to be worried about it.

The other thing was, also she coached the prosecution.  She coached them, "Hey, that wasn't really clear what you said.  You might want to go ahead and rephrase that".  She helped them with their communication to the jury.  And there's other things she did.  And you know, the woman was recommended by Chuck Schumer for her position on the bench.  Chuck Schumer was the force behind this whole thing.  Preet Bharara, his good buddy, he was his Special Counsel for almost five years, and then Schumer recommended him to be Lead Prosecutor in New York, a very powerful position.  They're all friends.

Somehow, it really seemed like Ross didn't have a chance against this group.  Why was he brought to New York for his trial?  He was arrested in California, he has no connection to New York whatsoever.  It just really feels orchestrated, for me; this is my opinion.  I don't have proof.

Peter McCormack: But Lyn, you're not alone in those feelings, and I've had many a heated debate, or a debate on Twitter, some people not fully understanding what's happened in the case.  I don't think people understand that cross-examination by the defence was repeatedly blocked, that so-called ODs that were attributed to the Silk Road were not properly investigated and there were false toxicology reports; I don't think people understand all that. 

Often, the most common counterargument I've seen, when I've put up my own defence, or I've seen other people put up defences for Ross, is they always come back with, "Yeah, but he tried to have six people killed, have you not seen the transcripts?" to which I always say, "He's not been convicted of this, or prosecuted for this, and there's a reason".

What are the misconceptions around the murder for hire charges, and what do people not understand?

Lyn Ulbricht: Well, one thing about, "Have you not seen the transcripts?" is that the charge in Maryland was based on the evidence provided by Carl Mark Force, a corrupt agent now in prison.  We're supposed to believe him.  Secondly, I looked at that chat, and was like, "Wow, this is not Ross writing this.  He types like a techy.  There's all these nice capital letters and punctuation.  I have never seen Ross write anything to me in an email, or anything else that looks like this.  There is not a capital letter in sight".  It just seemed real phony to me, but again, anecdotal.

But why didn't they charge him with it?  That's the question.  They talk about it, they use it, but funny, they never brought forth real evidence to the jury and asked them to rule on it.  This is not because they're nice, it's not because they don't pile on as many things as they possibly can; they gave him five years for fake IDs.  They will find anything they can to pile on to people.  They didn't charge him with murder for hire, and that's what our system's based on.  You're not supposed to just assume the government's telling you the truth and not presenting their narrative.  That's why we have juries, that's why we have trials.

People are like, "Well, let's be true, the media and the government say so"; it's a really dangerous mindset.  It's like, "Okay, so we'll just believe everything the media and government says and no problem".

Peter McCormack: There's a lot of suspicion, or allegations, that the wider case here was actually work being done by the NSA looking into Bitcoin, Bitcoin transactions and the reach of the NSA.

Lyn Ulbricht: Oh, yeah.  I mean, there's experts, Robert Graham, Nicholas Weaver, who looked at for instance the FBI Agent, Christopher Tarbell, who was Lead Investigator.  His explanation of how he found the Silk Road server, there were like, "This is gibberish".  Graham said, "This is a lie.  There's no way.  It's impossible".

So, here we have a federal agent, probably lying under oath about his investigation and his response was, "Oh, darn, I didn't save my work"; the dog ate my evidence, kind of thing.  And I'm like, "Really?  You didn't save your work?  You don't have a backup of the most important case you've ever been involved in?  Okay, I'm supposed to believe that?"  So, they're just, "Trust us.  This is how we found it".  And I'm like once again, do you just take the government's word?

Also, it's true that recently, this past March, it was publicised by The Intercept, based on Edward Snowden's papers and memos, that the NSA was tracking Bitcoin users a few months before Ross was arrested; not terrorists, mind you, not a lot of things, Bitcoin users, which if they're Americans, is illegal.  And I would bet $1 million, if I had it, that they were tracking Silk Road at the time, because that was the only marketplace basically for Bitcoin.  So how else are they going to track the Bitcoin users but the Silk Road?

And Edward Snowden himself said it was unthinkable that the NSA was not involved in Ross's case; he said this publicly.  So, I'm like, "Of course they were".  This is illegal, this is very alarming.  Then, what they do, and you probably know all about it, is parallel construction, which is basically evidence laundering; it's evidence laundering, okay.  You take the evidence illegally procured by the NSA, they provide it to the DEA, or whatever law enforcement, and then they make up a story to explain how they got it.  I believe this was done in several instances in Ross's investigation.

We are about to finish an extensive case history with over 350 footnotes documenting, based on public things, not our opinion, what transpired.  And one of them, it presents a pretty clear picture that I think there's a little parallel construction going on here; again, a threat to us; again, a precedent that is very dangerous.  You can't live in a surveillance state and be free; it's antithetical; you can't do it.

Peter McCormack: Yeah.  All the evidence and everything that happens is obviously really frustrating.  I've read a lot, and it's also very confusing, and sadly we now are in this position where The Supreme Court ruling has ruled that there won't be a rehearing of the trial.  So therefore, you've moved onto the petition?

Lyn Ulbricht: Correct, the clemency.

Peter McCormack: The clemency.  Some 34,000 signatures so far, which is growing quickly, which is pretty amazing.

Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, and that's in less than two weeks.  When was it, let's see?  Yeah, that's like a week and a half.

Peter McCormack: What is the process on the petition; what happens with the petition?

Lyn Ulbricht: I think what happens with trying to have clemency, we are hiring a pardon attorney, an expert, because we need that, and she will know the process.  But basically, there's a formal process.  I see the petition as almost a public relations vehicle, to show support, to show that this is important, to show that this is just not some random drug case, that this is bigger than that and that it deserves attention at the presidential level.

So, whether a petition influences a presidential decision regarding clemency, I don't know, but I don't see how it can hurt.  And I do know of two people, right off the bat, who have been pardoned and they had petitions.  Tim Tyler, who horribly was arrested, given a life sentence because it was his third strike, thank you, Bill Clinton, for drugs at 23 years old, selling LSD at a Grateful Dead concert, not a school year, mind you, a Grateful Dead concert.  He got life.  And 25 years later, thank God, President Obama pardoned him.

He had a petition that was over 400,000 signatures, and I believe that held the attention of President Obama.  So, I feel like of course, we have to have a petition where people can say, "I don't like this sentence.  I disagree.  Things are wrong here", that kind of thing.  All we can do is try.  Like I said, we're not leaving any stones unturned, we can't.

Peter McCormack: Are there other examples of clemency that have given you hope, outside of that case?

Lyn Ulbricht: Well recently, Alice Johnson.  Alice Johnson had President Trump recently pardoned.  I believe he commuted her sentence; there's a difference.  A pardon is full exoneration, it's not on your record, everything's gone.  A commutation of a sentence is normally given if you're still in prison, so that's really our goal with Ross, is a commutation of his sentence.  So, it doesn't have to address whether or not what you did was wrong or right, or you're guilty; it's just basically the sentence is wrong.

I think most reasonable people can agree, not everyone, but his is way over the top.  So, Alice Johnson was a 62-year-old grandmother.  We were paying a lot of money to keep us protected from this 62-year-old grandmother who, 22 years ago, made a mistake, got involved in drugs; and Kim Kardashian brought it to President Trump's attention and he chose to pardon her -- give her commuted sentence, which is great, and that's an example.  And she had a petition of over 200,000 signatures.

Peter McCormack: So, we need to work to get that higher.  And I believe the cost to the US Government is around $2 million a year to keep Ross in prison?

Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, I think it's about $35,000 a year.  I call it the most evil and expensive hotel in the world.  It's costing a fortune.  The drug war itself has cost Americans over $1 trillion in over 45 years and people are still using drugs.  It has accomplished nothing except expanding government power, trashing the constitution and making them a ton of money.  That's what the drug war accomplishes.

Peter McCormack: And imprisons many non-violent criminals.  Is it 55% of people in prison are for non-violent crimes?

Lyn Ulbricht: It's over 60%, is what I've read.  I mean, there are different -- Ross himself knows people in there; a friend of his in there is doing life for marijuana.  He's done 13 years for selling it, granted he was selling it, and he's got a life sentence.  And the prison happens to be in Colorado where it's legal!  And here's this evil life sentence for this guy, and in fact Ross is about to release today, I think, or sometime soon on his Twitter, I was told, a photo of him and some other people who are serving life for non-violent offences, a picture of them together asking for mercy, saying, "We just want to go home, we don't want to hurt anybody.  We don't want to make any more mistakes, we just want to go home to our families, our communities", and it's a very, very powerful picture.

When you see it, you will see it, it's going to be today or this week he's going to post it.

Peter McCormack: You do have the support of the Libertarian Party, right, Darryl Perry has got behind you?

Lyn Ulbricht: Oh, yeah, Darryl's a good friend and supporter, and he proposed that the party official support a pardon for Ross, and they did.  At conference, they officially moved unanimously, which is amazing, because Libertarians rarely do anything unanimously, to be behind a pardon, a presidential pardon for Ross.  I was thrilled, it was great.

Peter McCormack: I read a great, I think it was a quote, whereby if President Trump doesn't accede to the resolution, that we need to elect a Libertarian President in 2020, "To get this shit done"!

Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, exactly!

Peter McCormack: Do they have any kind of relationship with Trump and can they lobby him, or does it not work like that?

Lyn Ulbricht: I really don't know.  They are the third largest political party in the country; I would hope that that would mean something, that they have officially endorsed a pardon for Ross for clemency.  I don't know, I'm kind of starting to reach out to different groups actually, different organisations, for support on the petition and on the clemency, so I will keep you posted.  There may be people in the party who do, yeah.

Peter McCormack: So, what are the ways we, I, my audience, how can we help?  And tell me any way we can help, and obviously I will share it out?

Lyn Ulbricht: Thank you, you've been so great, I really appreciate it.  I appreciate you being so knowledgeable about the case, because that's not always true of interviewers.  I'm always very impressed with interviewers who know so much about it and have bothered to really learn the truth about it, so really appreciate that; it shows top-notch professionalism.

But how to help?  It's really now about changing the narrative, what is this really about?  What it's about is a double life sentence plus 40 years for something a young, passionate libertarian, a young guy, when he was 26 years old, did; and the government, to make him an example, like the head on the spike of a medieval castle, "If you do what he did, this is where you'll be", it's exactly the same psychology, which doesn't work apparently, to destroy him, to crush him, to put him in a cage for the rest of his life. 

The mandatory minimum was 20 years.  That's long; that's a generation.  The means that Ross would have emerged at around 50 years old, having not been on the internet in 20 years.  Do you really think he would go out and create some kind of scary website?  Who knows what's going to be happening in 20 years; it's absurd and it's cruel?  It's un-American and it's horrible, and if I could just say a little spiel about sentencing.

Since the drug war, the mass incarceration in America has metastasised 800%, and a lot of this is because of excessive sentencing where people are kept in, and they make money off these people for so long.  Life sentences have quintupled, five times as many life sentences, for all kinds of non-violent -- there's 17,000 non-violent offenders who are doing life in our system, according to The Sentencing Project; it's unbelievable.

When I was growing up, you had to really be a mass-murdering maniac to get life.  And the prison population stayed at a fairly steady 180,000.  Now, I think it's over 2 million.  It's larger than 11 states in the United States.  The prison population could be its own state that's larger than 11 states.  I mean, it's a humanitarian crisis and a national disgrace.  It's horrible.

So, this petition, in Ross's case, is shining a light on this, and that's our intention, because one of the things in the picture I told you about is, all those guys are going to get petitions, we are going to promote all of them.  All of those people should be commuted, and it's a way to push back at this encroaching, draconian police state that is actually happening. 

So, please share it.  And it's about, what is this really about?  You can get into the weeds of Ross's case, and that's fine, but what is it really about?  So, social media, please follow me, follow Ross, re-tweet it, Facebook, like our Free Ross community page.  I do my best to keep up with all this.  Sometimes I do admit I lag behind.  But Instagram, @freerossulbricht, and also please share the petition.  The more signatures, the more impactful that's going to be, and my goal, my personal goal is 500,000.  It's a big goal, but I think we can do it, I do; I think we can do it.

Peter McCormack: We can definitely do it.

Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, and more would be great, but 500,000 would be pretty impressive.  So, please share the petition, just spread the word; that's my main goal.  I want my son to come home.  He's not going to hurt a fly, he never has.  He never intended harm to anyone.  He may have made bad choices; hey, have you?  Have we all?  But I don't know, it depends on how you see it.  But life?  Come on.

This is a chance, it's easy, it takes a minute, sign the petition, spread the word, that would be great.  And thank you, Peter, for your help, for your being willing to do that, for being so helpful.

Peter McCormack: It's not a problem.  I mean, I told you before.  It's important to me because of what happened, I told you about my mother, and it's important to me because it's right and also, obviously, the feedback I've had since I've done the interview.  What's really telling is how many people have shared it, and how many important leaders in crypto have shared it.  I'll do an interview and it will be forgotten about three months later; this one keeps getting shared.

Lyn Ulbricht: Oh, good.

Peter McCormack: So, it's very important, and I hope this new one will.  The target's half a million, which obviously I will mobilise who I can to help.

Lyn Ulbricht: Thank you.

Peter McCormack: But what was quite interesting in what you just said then, whilst obviously it's very personal to you because he's your son and you want him home, it also sounds like you have been mobilised personally to deal with this as a wider issue about the prison system and the locking up of non-violent criminals.  And I know you do a lot of work.  Is everything focused on Ross, or is this now becoming wider for you; are you working on wider issues with the prison system?

Lyn Ulbricht: Right, no absolutely.  It's been wider for me for a while.  And this photo that Ross is in and his friends is an example.  You can't go to that prison, or any prison, and get to know the families, see the children sobbing when they're being dragged away from their father, and know that that person -- I've been in a room with a guy for hours and he's fine.  They're non-violent.  They don't let violent people, dangerous people, into the visiting room.  And I'm like, "Really?"

These sentences are just unbelievable and not only are they hurt, the people in the cage, but their families, and these children, who are statistically more likely to end up right back in that prison again.  It's a self-feeding monster that keeps going, and I just can't forget those people either.  So, definitely a wider cause.  I mean, obviously, Ross is the focal point, but I hope that focal point can shed light.  I've got a pretty big mouth, I'm going to talk about it, I want to network with other groups, and I have been, and they have supported the petition, The Supreme Court petition, which is also a petition, so it gets confusing, but The Supreme Court appeal. 

Other groups are trying to change this situation in the criminal justice system, because it is a big problem, it's a huge problem, and it's evil, it's wrong, it's very, very wrong.  So, yes, it's a bigger cause for Ross too, both of us, and our family, and it has been for a while.  But we're going to keep at it, yeah.

Peter McCormack: Did I see right, he tweeted, because he had a visitor the other day and he was grateful for that, but he said 98% of prisoners do not get visitors?

Lyn Ulbricht: Yeah, it's so sad, because they don't make it easy.  Because we have an internet business that I can move around; not easy to move around, but I do it to be near him, to give him that lifeline to the "normal" world, because otherwise it just becomes your world.  But not everybody has that ability.  They have little kids in school, they own a house, and so they live all over the country.  It's expensive.  And sometimes they'll show up and, "Sorry, they're on lockdown", or something like that, and that's heart-breaking.

So, these people, these guys, often don't get visitors forever, or years and years, or it's the same inmates I see in the visiting room, with a little bit of mix-up, but basically a lot of the same faces every time, because they're the ones whose families can, or do, visit.  So, they're just warehoused, forgotten people, who their families have either given up on them, or are unable financially, or there's all kinds of things.

But I met a mum, she hadn't seen her son in three years and she finally saved the money to come, and it was great to see them together, but it had been three years.  She would have come more, but he's so far away and they can't afford it.  And that story is over and over again.  So, yeah, Ross gets visits, but a lot of those guys don't, most of them.

Peter McCormack: And what is prison life like for him now?  I mean, he's obviously been there for quite some time.  Does he face any difficult or dangerous situations, or is he kept away from that?  Has he got good friendship groups now?  What's life like for him in prison; what's he doing with his time?

Lyn Ulbricht: Well, it is a dangerous place, it's a maximum-security prison with violent people and violent gangs.  It is a dangerous place, so Ross has learnt to be on the alert for things.  You're on the alert all the time, because anything can happen, anything can break out, a fight.  There's been many stabbings since I've been visiting him, for example.

He is a very likeable, nice guy, and that works anywhere you are, including a maximum-security prison, so I think he's very well liked, and he helps people out and he just does it; if they need something written or something like that, he's happy to help them.  So, he's well liked, and I think he's respected as well.  And he does have people that he's better friends with, like anybody would; you make your friends.  Some of the people in the photo, the non-violent lifers, who are drug offenders who have life sentences, many of them are friends of his, because they're non-violent people.

But he has been immersed in his case, he has been immersed in writing and studying.  He was reading about artificial intelligence, he was reading about physics, he also meditates, tries to stay healthy, spends time outside.  He doesn't watch TV and he doesn't, of course, do drugs or any of that.  So he tries to stay as constructive as he can. 

It's boring, prison's very boring, and Ross is a very intelligent, educated guy, and frankly there aren't a lot of people there that he can have a high-level intellectual conversation with; no offence, it's just the truth.  It doesn't mean he's not happy to talk to people, but I think he feels that lack.  But there are some and he's learned a lot, he's matured a lot.

That's the other thing about a life sentence.  People change.  You give somebody life, their entire life, for something they did in their 20s, please; people change, even violent people change, never mind non-violent people, who did something reckless on the internet, or whatever.  It's like, "Really?"  But anyway, again, he makes the best of it, and it's been better than when he was in New York, because he can go outside, he can look at the mountains, when they're not on lockdown, that is, and watch the sunrise, and that helps.  All these little things help.

Peter McCormack: It's interesting.  I interviewed a chap called Mayer Mizrachi the other day, who was in prison in Columbia for a disagreement with the Panama Government.  I think he was probably a similar age to Ross when he was arrested, based in New York, building a tech company.  And he was put into a maximum-security prison in Columbia, obviously very scary. 

What he explained to me was that he came to appreciate very small things, little things which we take for granted.  He came to appreciate certain food he would get, very rarely.  I guess it would be similar for Ross?

Lyn Ulbricht: That's true, yeah, absolutely.  He's got a certain favourite chicken sandwich that's pretty good, that kind of thing, or they order food on the commissary.  In fact, basically, his diet is very much supplemented by his commissary account, which people can donate to if they like.

Peter McCormack: How do they do that?

Lyn Ulbricht: On the donation page of freeross.org.  It's through Western Union, so that's kind of unfortunate, there's a fee, but you can donate to his commissary that way.  And he can buy different foods, and they'll actually cook.  They'll make taco, or they can get rice and beans and fish and cheese and different foods through the commissary.  It's way better than the prison; it's not great, we wouldn't order it in a restaurant or something, but it's way better and more nutritious than often what they get served in what they call "chow".

But yeah, it's true, these little things.  And actually, I personally too have come to appreciate little things, because the stress that I've been under and the grief and everything, it's been hard; but when there's a moment of happiness or joy or encouragement or something like that, I've learned to go, "Okay, I'm going to really relish this right now", and I think we can all learn from that.  Life is just really made up of moments, right, and some of them are hard, some of them are really wonderful, and we need to appreciate those and let ourselves be strengthened by them, because this is a challenge, this is a very challenging thing, and it's definitely a marathon, it keeps going.

So anyway, Ross has definitely learned that ability.

Peter McCormack: Okay, so what's coming up for you next; what's going to be happening next and what should we keep an eye on?

Lyn Ulbricht: Well really, I'm working on trying -- if anyone has connections, political connections, please let me know.  Any way that we can influence clemency through political channels, we're out of the judicial now really; we're in the political, we're in the political realm now, and politics is done with connections, so we need them.  So, anyone who has those, please let me know.

I'm going to continue to speak on these issues publicly, and again not just for Ross, but for the whole thing, but of course for Ross, and do what I can.  I don't want Ross to be forgotten, to just be, "Well, that's old news, he's there rotting away.  Who cares?"  I do not want Ross to be forgotten and I want him free and I want the other non-violent people free and, like I said, even violent people, over time.  And there's a lot of people who are framed too, I believe.

But I don't know, I think there's room for certainly non-violent people to be let out with an ankle bracelet, not cost the taxpayers a fortune and be with their families and maybe do restitution, if restitution's called for, and not be just warehoused at the taxpayers' great expense.

Peter McCormack: Well, all I can do is I can share this out with people and help you as best I can.

Lyn Ulbricht: Absolutely.

Peter McCormack: It was great to catch up with you again.

Lyn Ulbricht: You too.

Peter McCormack: You look well.

Lyn Ulbricht: Thank you; that's a miracle in itself, right!

Peter McCormack: No, you look great.  Are there any final things you want to leave, any final comments, any final requests before I close out the interview?

Lyn Ulbricht: Well, just really to sum up, I really believe we, as Americans, but also the world is at a tipping point in history, I really do.  I think that we have a choice here.  It could go either way.  I hope it's not too late to go towards freedom and innovation and all of that could happen that's great, or towards more government intrusion and control, and that is the tendency of government.  So, we have to decide, it's up to us.

Ross's case is one case where this is an issue, but in general, we're at a crossroads and it's going to be up to us which path we take going into the digital age, because laws are being made, as we see, and it's a new world in the courts, and it's a new world in the law, and we need to decide how involved we're going to get.  I think it's important and I think we may not get this chance in the future to influence things.

Peter McCormack: Well, you have my full support.

Lyn Ulbricht: Thank you, Peter.

Peter McCormack: You have the support of quite a large community of people within the world of Bitcoin and crypto, and I think we will obviously all, everyone who's interested, will keep fighting for you and I won't ever stop talking to you.  I will be staying in touch with you for as long as this goes on.  Thank you again so much for your time.  Please do give my best to Ross when you speak to him.  Give it from me and the community and I wish you all the best.

Lyn Ulbricht: Thank you, Peter, thank you so much.