Government Prosecutors Fear Liberty and Jury Nullification

This post needs to be spread far and wide-RW
Lyn Ulbricht, the mother of the Ross Ulbricht who is sitting in jail because the government alleges he was the operator of Silk Road, emails:

Bob,
I thought you’d be interested to know that the government has asked the judge to limit the defense by not allowing any of Ross’ political or philosophical beliefs to be introduced to the jury as they might influence the jury in his favor. The prosecution goes so far as to say that they fear that exposing the jury to his political thought could invite a jury nullification verdict.
The government obviously doesn’t want this trial to become about internet freedom, the drug war, or liberty.  But these crucial issues are on trial along with Ross. This trial is poised to be the most important of 2015 in the fight for freedom. Obviously the government thinks so. They are doing their best to smear Ross and obstruct his defense.
I’m attaching an excerpt (bolds and highlights mine) from the prosecution’s motions illustrating what I’m saying. If you want the original document, just let me know.
This outrage needs to become known, so please spread the word!
Many thanks,
Lyn

Par 2
Lyn did not include the attachments, so I emailed her back and told her I was going to post but that I would like the attachments. She sent them with this further note:

Hi Bob,
Great, thanks. Sorry, I’m so upset I’m forgetting lots of things! Here are the attachments.
In addition, the judge has already ruled that the defense cannot see which witnesses will be testifying against Ross for fear that he might orchestrate their killing from his jail cell! That’s with no email access and monitored phone calls. And the prosecution isn’t indicting him for any planned murder!
See http://www.wired.com/2014/12/silk-road-judge-ulbricht-could-kill-witnesses/ 

IV. THE COURT SHOULD PRECLUDE CERTAIN DEFENSE EVIDENCEQUESTIONING AND COMMENTS IN OPENING STATEMENTS ANDARGUMENT
In an abundance of caution, the Government moves to preclude the defendant frommaking particular arguments, or from attempting to introduce evidence on two topics: (1) the potential consequences to the defendant in the event he is convicted; and (2) the defendant’s political views or other attempts to excuse his conduct notwithstanding its criminality.
READ MORE:http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/12/robert-wenzel/what-government-prosecutors-fear-most/