I’ve seen far less constitutionally important cases be funded with millions of dollars and nominally “straw “plaintiffs that just barely have standing sufficient support because of action simply to get the matter to the supreme court, and yet these two individuals couldn’t muster funds to survive through trial when everyone seems to agree that they should’ve won which means when they lost appeal would’ve been all the more valuable
Discussion
My point is there seems to be something more to this story. Marty Bent just had that lawyer on regarding censorship and he is working basically for free and yet these guys couldn’t rally legal support? Had to plea because they couldn’t afford it? It just doesnt seem right to me.
Yeah, I definitely agree. It feels like there's something more that we're not seeing publicly.
kind of feels like one of two directions is where the answer is.
1. there are complex and or extenuating circumstances some are aware of keeping people quiet.
2. the “bitcoin space” is actually a larp full of disingenuous cowards and wannabe influencers who just want to be popular and rich.
Definitely something in between. Sadly, there are a lot of larps here in the Bitcoin space, Who only really care about number go up and being rich.
And the more I think about it, it does kind of feels like there might be some extenuating circumstance or something we're just not seeing or know about that could be causing people to keep quiet. The extenuating circumstance could be as simple as the government wanted to make an example of them no matter what And defence saw the writing on the wall. Or it could be something completely different.
Marty isnt being tried in federal court. You cannot compare a consultation and criminal proceedings in a clearly politically motivated trial. Please stop simping for the state.
Taking a plea was probably the smart move if they wanted to minimize their pain. It was the wrong move if they wanted others to be inspired to support them with money amd time. No one pays to watch a movie where the hero takes the deal. If Ross had a five year sentence from taking a deal, probably few would have fought for him either.
From listening to the interview, it seems the core issue wasn’t the money itself, but that the potential maximum sentence made fighting the case too risky. They believed the judge was biased against them, so pleading guilty felt safer than risking a possible 25 year sentence.
Add to that though the confounding plea deal. If they had better funding and a more aggressive defense, they could have gotten a better deal and likely negotiated a situation where, notwithstanding the deal, the government wouldn’t be seeking the maximum sentence on what was plead to.
Please understand though Im talking out of my ass because I dont know what happened behind closed doors. Who the hell knows, but if they had unlimited funding that typically leads to better results in my experience.