Count One, Overt Acts, section b.? I saw that, but I don't see any charge or indictment of "murder-for-hire" they just sort of threw it in there. The crime charged is Title 21 section 846 "Attempt and conspiracy". Title 21 United States Code is the Controlled Substances Act.
It's not "just thrown in there". It's an overt act supporting the conspiracy charge. It was introduced into the case in such a way that rebutting that claim would harm the prosecution's case --- which is not something they were required to do, given the enormous wealth of evidence they collected for all manner of other overt acts.
It is literally the opposite of what you've been claiming it is. It was ventured by the prosecution as a formal piece of the case. The prosecution actually staked part of their case on it being true.
Okay, just so we're clear here, you're no longer claiming that Ulbricht was indicted with a charge of "murder-for-hire" or conspiring to hire a murder in USA v. Ulbricht, Case No. 1:14-cr-00068-KBF New York Southern District Court. Is that correct?
>It is literally the opposite of what you've been claiming it is.
I'm going to borrow a quote from you here:
>Read the actual indictment. It's staggering to me how people can be so firmly convicted of things about this case that are refuted by even a casual reading of the primary sources. Come on.
Indeed. Come on. You're mistaken. Stop digging. I hope this saves you further embarrassment. No need to thank me now. Good day.
>It was ventured by the prosecution as a formal piece of the case. The prosecution actually staked part of their case on it being true.
Sounds like a good argument for re-sentencing or maybe even a new trial; and also a good argument for prosecutors not to try to include such shabby evidence in their cases lest they risk an otherwise strong case.
I really can't tell what you're trying to argue here. Ulbricht was indeed indicted for conspiring to hire a murder, in the case in which he was convicted; he was convicted of conspiring to hire a murder, among other things. The defense failed to rebut the alleged facts.
>Ulbricht was indeed indicted for conspiring to hire a murder, in the case in which he was convicted
There is no need for you to repeat that statement again without showing me where in the indictment document Ulbricht is actually indicted with a crime entitled "murder-for-hire". I don't see it. I've given you a link to a copy of the indictment for USA v. Ulbricht, Case No. 1:14-cr-00068-KBF, New York Southern District Court
And I've asked you to point out where in the document the indictment for "murder-for-hire"; I certainly could've missed it and I wouldn't mind clearing it up.
