
U.S. Attorney Moves to Dismiss Murder-For-Hire Charges Against Ross Ulbricht - Tomte
https://www.ccn.com/u-s-attorney-moves-to-dismiss-murder-for-hire-charges-against-ross-ulbricht/amp/
======
mchannon
Ross Ulbricht is not done with the courts because, contrary to popular belief
and media reporting, the Supreme Court is not the last stop on the appeals
process line.

Next on tap for Mr. Ulbricht is the time-honored 2255 motion. Mr. Ulbricht now
has until next June to file a civil lawsuit against the US government accusing
it of violating his civil rights and seeking the verdict to be set aside or
his sentence to be redetermined.

Why bring it up? 2255's are far more likely to succeed than a Supreme Court
petition (the high court gets more petitions every year and yet considers
fewer of them every year). Why now? The law says you can't bring up a 2255
until your last conventional appeal is exhausted.

Further, the 2255 gets to be considered by the very same trial judge who
convicted and sentenced him. While that's a foregone conclusion, the second
circuit will no doubt thereafter be asked to consider that petition, and might
decide to either set Ulbricht free or reduce his time to maybe 10 years or
time served, given how ridiculously beyond the pale the original sentence was.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Ross considered the Supreme Court taking his
case as being a snowball's chance in hell for the year-plus they've been
sitting on the case, and has just been looking forward to finally filing his
2255.

Keep watching. It might be about to get good.

~~~
Tomte
Wouldn‘t the Second Circuit have already found a way, a procedural
technicality or whatever, if they felt the sentence was „beyond the pale“?

They did confirm the judgement, right?

~~~
mchannon
You probably mean "affirm", which is lawyerese for confirm.

No, circuit courts limit themselves to what your appellate counsel brings, and
strictly limits what you can bring up by limiting the amount of time at
argument to 30 minutes or less. That translates to, at most, 2 issues, and I'm
sure Mr. Ulbricht can point to over 200 at this point (2255's have a page
limit, and you can move for extra pages, but you are pretty much stuck filing
a 2255 only once).

Further, the original appellate process only considers matters of law (was XYZ
a crime) and not matters of fact (witness alleging XYZ was also convicted for
stealing Ross' bitcoins), so the juiciest stuff was barred until now.

Further, the panel of circuit judges that originally affirmed things can
differ markedly with the judges who'll grant the certificate of appealability
and/or consider the 2255 petition.

~~~
tango24
What two issues (of the 200 you mentioned) do you expect his council to argue?
Why do you anticipate he will win?

~~~
mchannon
Let me clear up the confusion. The original appeal is highly limited to at
most two issues, and strictly matters of law.

The 2255 is wide open. You're limited by the number of pages (and the
realization that if the first, say, 10 claims you bring up fail, maybe it
wasn't likely to make a difference if you file any more).

Mention of counsel is funny, because 2/3 of 2255 issues tend to revolve around
"ineffective assistance of counsel" (IAC). As such, you generally have to get
a different lawyer or do it yourself, since no lawyer will accuse himself of
doing a bad job with a straight face.

IAC may include anything from the attorney forgetting to bring up something
important, to declaring the defendant guilty in open court, to falling asleep
at trial. It generally has to be something really really unprofessional, and
the defendant had to have suffered "prejudice". In other words, if you were,
based on the mountain of evidence, going to be found guilty, whether or not
(for example) your attorney slept with your wife, you suffered no prejudice
and the verdict and sentence stand.

I'm sure in that pile of 2255 complaints will be the matter that the
investigating officers and leading state witnesses (Carl Mark Force IV, FBI,
and Shaun Bridges, Secret Service) committed perjury and theft and this
prejudiced Ulbricht's right to a fair trial.

There will probably also be matter about unlawful search and seizure by the
feds using hacking tools, etc.

I have a feeling the most fascinating stuff will be unknown to the public thus
far.

------
tptacek
As always, worth remembering that the "murder for hire" scheme was a predicate
in the conspiracy charge Ulbricht faced†; it was introduced at trial, Ulbricht
was formally accused of it, and his defense had an obligation to refute it.
People on message boards tend to believe that Ulbricht was never confronted
with an actual charge that he tried to have someone killed, but was merely
smeared with it during sentence. That is not the case.

The fact that Ulbricht has a locked-in life sentence on a charge that involved
the murder-for-hire scheme makes a separate murder prosecution pointless. Had
he actually succeeded in his plan to have someone killed, the trial would
serve a purpose (for the family of the victim, at least). But he didn't.

 _Source: you can just read the indictment for the case he lost, which
discusses the murder-for-hire scheme directly._

~~~
gamblor956
In the US court system, a defendant is not required to refute a charge--it is
the obligation of the prosecution to prove all of the elements of a given
charge.

However, because conspiracy is a separate crime, it can in some cases survive
the voiding of the underlying crime, i.e., in this case the purported
attempted murder.

~~~
tptacek
Evidence for the charge was presented in the indictment and, I believe, at
trial. The defense failed to address it. Obviously, the defense can do so
because they think the evidence is _prima facie_ unconvincing; the defense
isn't obligated to overtly speak directly to it (see today's Manafort trial,
in which the defense just rested without bringing a case, and the Popehat
thread about why that's common in criminal cases). But we see how that worked
out for Ulbricht: he was convicted and got a life sentence.

~~~
gamblor956
We're talking about 2 different things.

The Defendant is never required to disprove a criminal charge, or any factor
of a criminal charge, which is what I'm saying.

However, once the prosecution has provided prima facie evidence of each factor
of a criminal charge, it is generally advisable to attack the
credibility/reliability of the evidence supporting that factor. Which is what
you're saying. It isn't necessary for a defendant to present a defense, and in
many cases defendants don't bother, since they never actually had a defense.
They were simply hoping the prosecution would fail to prove its case to the
jury.

~~~
tptacek
I agree that we are talking about two different things.

------
Simulacra
After reading American Kingpin I get that Ulbricht did a lot of bad things,
broke many laws, and should be punished. Yet at the same time the length of
his sentence feels more like government retribution than punishment. The
government piled on and I feel there's a strange parallel to be drawn between
Mr. Ulbricht and Kevin Mitnick's abuse by the government. I hope his sentence
is severely reduced and he gets a chance at rehabilitation and redemption.

------
gok
...because his appeal to the Supreme Court was denied, and he’ll be unable to
avoid serving the rest of his life in prison, so a conviction would serve no
purpose.

~~~
gwern
It probably also has a lot to do with the corruption scandal with Bridges,
Force, and possibly even more dirty cops - which is why the _other_ set of
murder-for-hire charges in NY were dropped in 2014 before the trial...

It would be a prosecutor's nightmare to try a case where you have several of
the principal investigators stealing funds, money-laundering, tampering with
witnesses, selling internal info to the suspect, and who knows what else (we
still don't know who scammed Ulbricht for the other hits, and Variety Jones
has claimed that at least one more dirty cop is still on the loose). And let's
not forget that FBI agent Tarbell, who 'found' the SR1 server in Iceland, beat
a very hasty retreat to the private sector after what should've been a career-
defining triumph, and no one wants to discuss exactly what bug supposedly spat
out the IP address... I once asked a pair of FBI agents what was up with
Tarbell leaving so fast, and they looked uncomfortable and didn't reply. (This
is part of why Ulbricht's defense team's decision to not claim the Iceland
server is widely regarded as a trial-losing mistake.)

Not only would there be little point, but any trial would likely be hugely
embarrassing and discovery reveal things that the FBI and IRS and DEA would
very much prefer be forgotten.

~~~
defen
> no one wants to discuss exactly what bug supposedly spat out the IP address

I haven't really followed this case too closely, so what exactly are you
hinting at here? That the government possibly used NSA / national-security-
level exploits to figure out who DPR was? That there was some level of
parallel construction / evidence laundering?

~~~
gwern
The DEA does use parallel-construction, and the FBI does recruit computer
security researchers for attacks (the CMU CERT attack on SR2) and hand-me-down
NSA exploits (and against Tor specifically), so neither of those is remotely
far-fetched. And SR1 was a priority target.

We may never know what really happened; the whole Bridges/Force corruption
thing, for example, is so wild no one could have dreamed it up.

However, from the descriptions like Nick Bilton's article/book puffpiece, I
think it's somewhat likely (and more probable than NSA tech) that Tarbell did
some unauthorized (and likely illegal) personal hacking and that's the kernel
of truth behind his BS 'I was just typing in some random stuff and the server
spat out an IP address at me!' story - SR1 was not very securely coded. Had
this come out, it would've led to some serious evidence-tainting problems for
the prosecutors because it affects everything downstream: the Iceland server,
the SF IP address, the Pennsylvania backups, and finally Ross's unencrypted
laptop in SF.

~~~
ct520
Parrallel re construction should be out lawed. How the heck do you defend
against a lie after the fact. You could never challenge using the fruits of a
poisonous tree method. Dirty dirty federal government move.

~~~
chimeracoder
> Parrallel re construction should be out lawed.

Parallel construction is, by definition, illegal (it's covering up illegal
behavior in order to introduce evidence in court illegally). The trouble is
that it's difficult to identify and prove.

~~~
ct520
Yet this is exactly what they preach... smh

[https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2014/feb/03/dea-
paral...](https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2014/feb/03/dea-parallel-
construction-guides/)

------
atemerev
So it is a double life sentence for nonviolent crimes. Isn’t it a little
ridiculous?

~~~
Tomte
I wouldn‘t call it nonviolent. He caused several deaths (and that they
could/would/might have died otherwise without his involvement doesn‘t absolve
him).

Not to speak of the murders he paid for, but that were thankfully stopped in
the stage where it‘s still only an attempt.

~~~
imsofuture
Sorry, how did he cause several deaths?

~~~
Tomte
You can look up the articles and the HN commentary yourself. In short: he
supplied drugs to people who then died of those drugs.

(Long version: he ran a platform where people sold the victims drugs, from
which sales he financially profited). Victims who subsequently died.

I assume you think that they would have overdosed from other peoples' drugs
anyway, but as I wrote, I don't accept that, so we can probably not discuss
this productively.

~~~
jknightco
This is absurd. Does Walgreens "cause death" every time someone ODs on
Tylenol? Or your local Ford dealer when someone gets in a car accident?
Smoking killed 6.6X the number of people drugs did in 2017—do you think we
should start arresting everyone who owns a 7/11?

~~~
bdcravens
To carry forth the analogy, if I sell a handgun to a known felon, and they
kill someone, did I "cause death"?

Presumably illegal substances are illegal in part based on risk, so even
participating in the transaction you're assuming that risk.

~~~
beaner
You're talking about selling things that enable violent crimes against others,
while the person you're responding to is taking about selling benign things
with which one can only harm oneself. They seem categorically different.

~~~
bdcravens
I sell a gun to someone who has expressed to me interest in self harm. They
commit suicide. Did I "cause death"?

~~~
michaelmrose
You would be complicit fault is infinitely divisible.

~~~
gnode
Does fault need to divide, or can it apply severally?

------
hackermailman
Somewhat related, if you use the BOP inmate locator, he's doing max security
time at a place with total communication control where the most violent and
high risk inmates are sent in order to earn back rights to re-enter gen
population. Average time spent there is 2 yrs.

------
0x4f3759df
I wonder if the case would have played out differently if Silk Road hadn't
coincided with the rise of synthetic drugs.

~~~
ddtaylor
Roughly 25% of all opioid overdoses in the US are from government prescribed
Methadone, which is essentially synthetic heroin.

[https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-
statistics/o...](https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-
statistics/overdose-death-rates)

~~~
csours
Your statistic is not apparent in the linked information.

~~~
scott_s
You're right, and the actual statistic is slightly different: "Despite this
decline, however, methadone continues to account for nearly one in four
prescription opioid-related deaths",
[https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6612a2.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6612a2.htm)
That is, not _all_ opioid-related deaths, but _prescription_ opioid-related
deaths.

~~~
csours
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I had assumed that methadone was a safe
alternative.

So, are there solid studies on how mortality compares per-capita, per-usage
duration?

~~~
cwkoss
Methadone seems like a very dangerous drug to use outside of a controlled
clinical setting. Terrifying that variance of dosage between users (~18x) is
greater than theraputic index (12x) - meaning a dose that is ineffectively low
for one person can be an overdose for a another.

"Methadone, an opioid analgesic, is used clinically in pain therapy as well as
for substitution therapy in opioid addiction. It has a large interindividual
variability in response and a narrow therapeutic index. Genetic polymorphisms
in genes coding for methadone-metabolizing enzymes, transporter proteins
(p-glycoprotein; P-gp), and mu-opioid receptors may explain part of the
observed interindividual variation in the pharmacokinetics and
pharmacodynamics of methadone. Cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 and 2B6 have been
identified as the main CYP isoforms involved in methadone metabolism.
Methadone is a P-gp substrate, and, although there are inconsistent reports,
ABCB1 genetic polymorphisms also contribute slightly to the interindividual
variability of methadone kinetics and influence dose requirements. Genetic
polymorphism is the cause of high interindividual variability of methadone
blood concentrations for a given dose; for example, in order to obtain
methadone plasma concentrations of 250 ng/mL, doses of racemic methadone as
low as 55 mg/day or as high as 921 mg/day can be required in a 70-kg patient
without any co-medication."

Li Y et al; Mol Diagn Ther 12 (2): 109-24 (2008)

------
cwyers
> Perry said if the president does not act according to the resolution, the
> country needs to elect a Libertarian president in 2020 to get Ulbricht
> pardoned.

Yes. Clearly, that is the single-most important issue in the 2020 presidential
election.

