
The mystery of the disappearing Silk Road murder charges - brownbat
http://www.dailydot.com/crime/silk-road-murder-charges-ross-ulbricht/
======
at-fates-hands
I love it when non-legal people report on the legal system, get a ton of shit
wrong and then point at the system and say how broken it is.

First of all, Federal indictments are almost always granted to the prosecutor.
This lead to the now famous quote from the story about a ham sandwich. This is
the because of the Supreme Court case United States v. R Enterprises, Inc:

 _" federal grand jury subpoenas are presumed to be reasonable and the burden
of showing unreasonableness is on the recipient. A motion to quash a federal
grand jury subpoena on relevancy grounds must be denied unless, “there is no
reasonable possibility that the category of materials the Government seeks
will produce information relevant to the general subject of the grand jury's
investigation.”_

source: [http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/federal-
gra...](http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/federal-grand-jury-
crash-course.html)

All a grand jury does is determine if there is enough compelling evidence to
try a person for a crime, that's it. To say those charges have been dropped is
misleading. All the prosecutor has to do is reinstate the indictments and they
can proceed with those charges. They didn't "fall off the table" like the
article states, the government hasn't formally charged Albrecht yet -
something which could happen if he walks in his other case. Just because the
government is dragging its feet on these charges doesn't mean they don't
intend to charge him.

Like I've said before, the murder charge is essentially an ace in the hole for
the prosecutors. If he walks on the Silk Road charges, they can pursue their
murder charges against him and reinstate all the murder indictments and
formally charge him with those - it's pretty simple. The article makes it seem
like the government has dropped all the charges and thus, he's innocent of
what he's been accused of. On the contrary, the writer simply is misinformed
about how the legal system works.

~~~
Evolved
If you're going to present yourself as more knowledgeable than the rest of us
as far as the law goes then it would be prudent to read the article and get
the defendant's name correct.

Given that the information that would implicate him in Silk Road might very
well be from the same area as the alleged murders then one can reasonably
assume if he walks on the SR charges then he could also potentially walk on
those charges.

In response to your comment about the indictments, is it not also possible
that the jurisdictions that obtained the indictments (because they're so easy
to get as you say) doesn't actually have sufficient evidence to present even a
prima facie case or perhaps the information they did obtain was obtained
illegally and thus they don't want to lose on those counts so to save face
they drop the counts? Perhaps it is as the author states where the indictments
were used to obtain a no-bail status so Ulbricht doesn't flee (assuming he has
other funds hidden elsewhere).

All of what I said is what some folks (myself included) in the non-legal world
would consider to be "reasonable doubt."

~~~
at-fates-hands
Sorry about the name - auto correct on my mobile.

As for your other points, they're moot.

This whole case hinges on the fact that Ross Ulbricht = Dread Pirate Roberts.
All of the government's evidence claims Ulbricht ran Silk Road and he's the
person who ordered several assassinations. All they know is the person "known
as" Dread Pirate Roberts did these things, so they need to tie DPR directly to
Ulbricht.

Therefore, if the servers were searched illegally, then whatever was on those
servers is important to Ulbricht, which means they're important to DPR, which
then the government can tie the two together and make the direct relationship
between them. This means even if he wins the Silk Road case, the government
have established him as DPR and then can formally charge him under the several
indictments they have for the murder for hire scheme.

If he doesn't challenge the search of the servers, and maintains since he's
not DPR, then he has no stake in the evidence on those servers, then all the
evidence (fairly strong circumstantial evidence) would stand and the
government will most likely get a conviction since even though they haven't
tied him directly to the DPR persona, all the evidence from the servers and
other circumstantial evidence points directly to him. I say "most likely" but
you never know for sure in these cases.

Contrary to what you believe, getting evidence thrown out in one case,
actually solidifies the evidence in the other case. Also, it's likely the
government is preparing their case to be ready to charge Ulbrict depending on
what happens in the SR trial. Since Grand Jury's are a closed affair
(defendants and their attorneys are not present) it's a dry run for the
prosecution to see how strong their case is. They could be sitting on
additional information, or still in the process of collecting more evidence
against Ulbricht, you never know. There's a LOT we the general public won't
know about their case until they actual charge him and have to start providing
the evidence they have.

------
tempodox
“Justice” in the U.S. has always been a bad joke. The best you can hope for is
a completely random outcome (“a jury of your peers“, what a laugh), or, as in
this case, a politically motivated campaign that ignores truth, decency, all
due process, and the principles why we have something like laws in the first
place. In the Silk Road case the pure unadulterated power of corruption would
have been completely sufficient to reach the outcome; bothering the law with
that is nothing but an embellishment and a fig leaf. I feel reminded of Iraq's
WMDs and the embarrassing spectacle around Kim Dotcom. Seems like the U.S.
gov't will spread publicly any lies that seem convenient at the time, never
mind the consequences.

~~~
gadders
The WMDs that ISIS has found in Iraq and is using now?

~~~
ta74747
The pretext for the war was Iraq having an _active_ WMD program. What ISIS has
are stockpiles from before Iraq dismantled their WMD program (which was prior
to the invasion).

~~~
runjake
WMD stockpiles supplied by the US for use against the Iranians in the 1980s.
So in fact, we had a pretty good idea that Saddam had WMDs.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destru...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Western_help_with_Iraq.27s_WMD_program)

~~~
csorrell
I was under the impression that the shelf life on most of these WMDs (chemical
nerve agents) is only 5 years or so. So we had a pretty good idea about what
Saddam was holding, but they were almost certainly unusable at the time of the
invasion.

------
Evolved
If Ulbricht is guilty for providing a safe place to buy illegal drugs then
aren't San Francisco and other cities complicit since they hand out clean
needles freely for addicts to use? Sure the idea behind it is noble but aren't
both still technically illegal whether you supply the paraphernalia and you
absolutely know what will be done with it or whether you provide a safe
environment where people can trade $ for drugs?

~~~
refurb
One of those actions is allowed by the law and the other isn't. I would say
that's the distinction.

~~~
Evolved
The problem becomes when the laws are structured to favor certain entities or
when the laws purposely aren't changed because they're a very useful financial
tool for 3-letter agencies.

~~~
paxcoder
Noone is being favored here. Silk road would not have been shut down had it
been selling needles. Likewise, whoever sells illegal drugs, delivers drugs,
or knowingly fascilitates either of those things is held accountable. Two
disclaimers: 1\. Not all favoring is inherently evil. Eg. favoring based on
objective criteria. 2\. Not all things that are legal are morally justified.
Eg. abortion.

~~~
Evolved
You seem to like the word "facilitate" as you used it in both your replies to
my post. If I were to ask you if it is easier to mail vacuum-sealed drugs
across the U.S. or to drive them there yourself then what would you say?
Mailing is obviously easier. Therefore I could say that UPS/FedEx/USPS
facilitate the sale of drugs. They most certainly know they do it as well as
it is common knowledge and drugs have been successfully mailed for years. They
also take actions to try to prevent it though. Is that where the difference
lies?

Silk Road doesn't engage in drug trafficking as it does NOT: cultivate,
manufacture, transport, deliver, distribute or sell drugs. Those actions are
solely up to the sellers.

~~~
paxcoder
SR is a marketplace. The postal services are excused by the same logic that
manufacturers of knives are from their misuse. On SR, however, the contents of
each advertized item are public knowledge. SR is therefore accountable. If the
postal service knew any particular package carried contraband, they too would
be obliged not to deliver it, and to report it.

Disclaimer #2 withstanding.

------
Evolved
Let's clear up a very often perpetuated and very disingenuous misconception.
Silk Road did NOT sell a damn thing. Silk Road (the website and very much the
same as the actual location) was a conduit for sellers to do their business.
SR merely provided a safe environment and safe alternative for people who are
going to get their drugs one way or another. Arguably a much safer alternative
as well since the purity and accuracy of content could be better verified than
what you get off the street.

Therefore, Ulbricht is no more a drug trafficker than John Donahoe (CEO of
eBay) sells iphone screen protectors and decorative beads for art projects.

~~~
forrestthewoods
I'm going to strongly disagree with your last point. How many sellers were on
Silk Road? How many of them sold drugs? Take this percentage and compare it to
the number of eBay auctions that are for iphone screen protectors or dedocrate
beads. These numbers will differ by more than a few orders of magnitude. It's
not reasonable to compare them.

If you know your service is being used for drug trafficking to a significant
degree and you don't try to stop it then yes, you do hold some responsibility
and can be held accountable. Morally, ethically, and legally.

~~~
crazypyro
Legal problems are obvious, so I'll focus on the ethical/moral side.

I think it is wrong to equate drug trafficking, in any sense, to a moral or
ethical argument. Those questions do not yet have concrete, society-accepted
answers, so by imposing the ethical and moral objects on drugs, we are in
danger of simply following the status quo without question, I think.

There are also cases where the most moral or ethical thing to do would be
allow a patient to use a state-controlled/restricted drug, if it would save
their lives. If we were to follow this argument to its conclusion, there may
be a moral or ethical argument that it would be wrong for him to attempt to
shutdown the ability of a patient to acquire life-improving drugs.

tl;dr: Equating legal wrong to moral/ethical wrong is not always the right
way.

~~~
forrestthewoods
My intent was for all three to be considered separately. I didn't specify
whether it was immoral/moral, ethical/unethical, or legal/illegal.

However my real point is that the Silk Road creator and maintainer is
responsible and accountable along all three axes. If it is moral, ethical, and
legal then that's great! If it's moral, ethical, but illegal then that kinda
sucks but that's the risk you take. Morals and ethics are an endless debate
which is beside the point here. My opinion is that the initial comparison vs
eBay is unreasonble and that the creator is responsible in all three ways.

------
AgentME
The murder charges appeared to be a bullshit charade that both DPR and the
"victim" knew. The transcripts are available online somewhere.

Some guy anonymously messages DPR, telling DPR that he found an exploit in the
Silk Road, stole some information on a lot of big-time sellers, and was going
to release it if DPR didn't pay him some large amount of money. DPR flat-out
rejects the other. The guy then said he owed money to a dealer that he re-sold
drugs to, explains that if DPR could settle his debts with the dealer then
he'd be happy, and _then he gave DPR that dealer 's (anonymous) contact info_.

If you're anonymously trying to blackmail someone, why on earth would you tell
your target the contact information of a third party who knows where you live
AND who shares a motive against you? The story as-is is barely believable.

The "dealer" then offers to solve the problem of the blackmailer for DPR, and
asks for an amount of money, suspiciously a little lower than the amount the
blackmailer wanted. DPR pays him, and no longer worries about his customer
data seller being leaked.

There's no evidence that the "dealer"/assassin was a real person, or that any
murder ever occurred. The dealer and the blackmailer only ever anonymously
communicated with DPR, and no one else. The blackmailer introduced the
dealer/assassin to DPR unprompted. No one besides each other knew who they
were. It seems likely they're the same person. The whole thing appears to be a
weird charade for the blackmailer to barter with DPR down a price to not leak
the data.

~~~
Evolved
I'm going to go flat-out conspiracy theorist and say that DPR/alleged
dealer/blackmailer are all the same person and he concocted this story and
leaked it to let everyone know how seriously he takes privacy.

Unfortunately, the prosecution will probably say it had to do with intent and
use that as a reason for why the public should be protected from DPR.

Either way I agree with the points you made. Also very bad opsec for DPR to
not smell something fishy with the story if it is in fact a different person
and even worse to act on it if that is in fact what happened.

~~~
gwern
> I'm going to go flat-out conspiracy theorist and say that DPR/alleged
> dealer/blackmailer are all the same person and he concocted this story and
> leaked it to let everyone know how seriously he takes privacy.

That incident was not known publicly before Ulbricht was arrested and the
complaints released.

~~~
voxic11
it was supposedly known by the other silk road admins.

------
ASneakyFox
I personally think ulbricht is guilty..

I just wish the prosecutors and investigators didn't rely on so many
questionable and in some cases possibly illegal tactics to bring him down. It
really just makes him look more innocent.

As notorious as he was ( and as bad as he was at online security) the us
government shouldn't be having so much trouble to prove their case (assuming
their allegations are correct)

~~~
tomp
I too think he is guilty.

Guilty of breaking non-sense, victim-less laws. Laws that restrict usage of
non-addictive mind-altering substances that are much less harmful than other,
legal drugs (alcohol, tobacco, medical drugs). Laws that shouldn't even be on
the books! Laws that cause millions of dollars of damage and thousands of
deaths each year. Laws that power organized crime.

The drug laws.

I totally support him, and I hope he comes out a free man, albeit his business
will probably be ruined.

~~~
nhstanley
> ...non-addictive...

I agree with your general point, but SR was being used for all kinds of things
including selling Cocaine and Heroin (and also for not selling drugs but
services). Those are very addictive drugs by almost any definition. Fine if
you want to argue they are less harmful than, say, alcohol, but they are
definitely addictive. Do not allow your point to be weakened by stating
something that is clearly incorrect.

~~~
MacsHeadroom
Cocaine is very pleasurable, but it's hardly as addictive as heroine or (the
legal drug) alcohol.

~~~
mikeyouse
> Cocaine is very pleasurable, but it's hardly as addictive as heroine or (the
> legal drug) alcohol.

Not really true;

[http://i.imgur.com/sBQn1Hr.gif](http://i.imgur.com/sBQn1Hr.gif)

~~~
Evolved
Not that I necessarily doubt the veracity of this claim but you should
probably point to a better looking graphic than that. Where did you even find
it?

~~~
mikeyouse
Agreed, it's a shitty chart, but it's from a study The Lancet performed;

[http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67...](http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(07\)60464-4/fulltext#article_upsell)

Wiki actually sums it up pretty well;

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence#Dependence...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence#Dependence_potential)

------
canjobear
It seems the murder for hire charges were dropped because no murders can be
shown to have taken place. But isn't it still a crime to pay for murder, even
if it does not actually take place? The logs in the indictment documents sure
made it sound like Ulbricht thought he was ordering real murders.

~~~
at-fates-hands
Yes, very much so. It's also a federal crime which means you're subject to
those sentencing guidelines:

[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1958](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1958)

18 U.S. Code § 1958 - Use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission
of murder-for-hire

 _(a) Whoever travels in or causes another (including the intended victim) to
travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes another (including
the intended victim) to use the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign
commerce, with intent that a murder be committed in violation of the laws of
any State or the United States as consideration for the receipt of, or as
consideration for a promise or agreement to pay, anything of pecuniary value,
or who conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for
not more than ten years, or both; and if personal injury results, shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than twenty years, or both;
and if death results, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment, or
shall be fined not more than $250,000, or both.

(b) As used in this section and section 1959— (1) “anything of pecuniary
value” means anything of value in the form of money, a negotiable instrument,
a commercial interest, or anything else the primary significance of which is
economic advantage;

(2) “facility of interstate or foreign commerce” includes means of
transportation and communication; and

(3) “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia,
and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States._

~~~
Evolved
Fortunately, from what we know about the case, that information is on the same
servers that are alleged to have been hacked illegally by the FBI which would
make their contents inadmissible and thus, a boom for DPR.

~~~
at-fates-hands
You must have missed this article which debunks their search as "illegal":

[http://www.wired.com/2014/10/feds-silk-road-hack-
legal/](http://www.wired.com/2014/10/feds-silk-road-hack-legal/)

 _The Silk Road server in question, after all, was located not in the United
States but in a data center near Reykjavik, Iceland. And though Ulbricht is an
American citizen, the prosecutors argue that the server’s location abroad made
it fair game for remote intrusion. “Because the SR Server was located outside
the United States, the Fourth Amendment would not have required a warrant to
search the server, whether for its IP address or otherwise,” the prosecution’s
filing reads._

 _In a footnote, the memo adds another strike against Ulbricht’s Fourth
Amendment protections: The Silk Road was not only hosted in a foreign data
center, but also rented from a third-party web hosting service. And because
Ulbricht allegedly violated the company’s terms of service by using its
computers to deal in narcotics and other contraband, that company was exempted
from any obligation to protect his privacy._

 _Finally, prosecutors argue that for the 30-year-old Texan to claim privacy
protections for Silk Road’s server, he would have to declare that it belonged
to him—a tricky Catch-22. Ulbricht hasn’t claimed personal possession of that
computer’s data, as doing so would almost certainly incriminate him. But
because he hasn’t he can’t claim that his privacy was violated when it was
searched, according to the prosecutor’s reasoning. “Because Ulbricht has not
submitted any affidavit alleging that he had any possessory interest in the SR
Server—let alone one that would give him a reasonable expectation of
privacy—his motion should be denied,” reads the prosecutors’ filing._

Or maybe the decision by a US Magistrate Court which said private information
is fair game, even if its located on servers in other countries, given a valid
search warrant. Considering federal agencies tend to get a lot of leeway in
such cases in regards to what exactly is contained in the warrant, and what
they're searching for. So even if they had or needed a valid warrant, it's
still within the governments authority to seize the data:

[http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/29/us-
court-m...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/29/us-court-
microsoft-personal-data-emails-irish-server)

 _In a detailed ruling on Friday, US Magistrate Judge James Francis said that
US companies, including Microsoft and Google, must turn over private
information when served with a valid search warrant from US law enforcement
agencies.

"Even when applied to information that is stored in servers abroad, an SCA
warrant does not violate the presumption against extraterritorial application
of American law," he concluded._

~~~
scintill76
I don't think this matter has been settled enough to call it "debunked." From
Wired: "Whether Judge Forrest, who’s presiding over Ulbricht’s case, takes a
similar view will only become clear in the coming weeks."

> Or maybe the decision by a US Magistrate Court which said private
> information is fair game, even if its located on servers in other countries,
> given a valid search warrant.

Sounds irrelevant to me -- isn't it part of the argument here, that the agents
did _not_ have a warrant to search the Icelandic server?

------
aikah
> Dread Pirate Roberts once wrote prolifically about non-violence, even saying
> “#SilkRoad while under my watch will never harm a soul.

It's unlikely Ulbricht created SilkRoad ,he's probably not the first Dread
Pirate Roberts.

~~~
arcatek
What makes you think that, except the movie reference?

~~~
ksherlock
he made that claim himself in an interview.

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/08/14/an-
inte...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/08/14/an-interview-
with-a-digital-drug-lord-the-silk-roads-dread-pirate-roberts-qa/)

~~~
chobo
I'm not sure that claim itself makes it likely or unlikely. Could be the
truth, could be an obfuscation tactic. No way of knowing at this point.

