4 ms·

Dropped charges are dropped charges. It's right there in the title and rather baffling how you are glossing over them as if they are alien scriptures.

tptacek 4y ago
I'm literally staring at the superseding indictment right now. Page 7. Go look. He was charged, and those charges were not dropped. I don't know what title you're referring to.
- ssnistfajen 4y ago
  That's a narcotics conspiracy charge, due to "intent to prevent the communication by the Employee to a law enforcement officer ofthe United States of information relating to the commission and possible commission of a Federal offense". Dude didn't end up in jail for murder, because the murder charges were dropped. D.R.O.P.P.E.D. Words have meanings and you are twisting them.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    See upthread, where I took the time to pull up a bunch of other drug kingpin indictments to find similar charging structures, and trivially found one (I'm staring at it, too). I'm sorry they didn't charge the murder-for-hire scheme the way you'd have preferred them to, but they certainly did charge it, and the Reason article you're citing is plainly, obviously, factually, irrefutably wrong. The article says "Those charges were no part of what Ulbricht was actually tried and sentenced for." Obviously, they were. You are going to have a hard time getting me to take an opinion piece that commits a factual error that refutes its premise more seriously than the actual source documents that contradict it.
    - ssnistfajen 4y ago
      >they certainly did charge it Yes they did charge them, and then dropped them. That's what happened. Charges and convictions are not the same concept, and it's quite amusing you have the galls to say anyone else is "wrong".
      - tptacek 4y ago
        Yeah, you're wrong. I think what's happening here is what Kasey said: you're working exclusively from stuff like this Reason article, which is plainly wrong, and I'm working from the PACER docket of the case, which, uh, isn't. He was convicted of the charge that included the murder-for-hire scheme as its predicate. I don't know if there was some other more overt "murder" charge that he had that was later dropped (I only see the original and the superseding indictment). But if that happened, the only material implication of it is that they changed the structure of how they charged the murder-for-hire scheme. They did not give up on that charge; in a significant sense, they bet (and won) their case on it --- as the sentencing memoranda point out as well. This thread is an interesting example of how powerful the Internet folklore about Ulbricht is. Like, it stands up against the primary source documents of a conviction and sentencing! The sentencing documents must be what's wrong, not the Reason article! It's pretty fascinating, just sociologically.
        ssnistfajen 4y ago
        pxmpxm 4y ago
        >This thread is an interesting example of how powerful the Internet folklore about Ulbricht is. I imagine this is just self defense mechanism at work - if you concede to the reality that a libertarian drug utopia took around 3 years to devolve into cliche South American narco violence, you'll end up with that oh-so-uncomfortable step of having to revisit your worldviews.
        notch656a 4y ago
        Wasn't it the FBI/DEA that offered the narco-violence? Kind of throws a wrench into your libertarian utopia claims, when the murder-for-hire is a result of state intervention.
        tptacek 4y ago
        The "intervention" here is setting up a murder-for-hire sting?
- kasey_junk 4y ago
  The OP is referring to the reason article they linked to. They are not noting that said article is an opinion piece that is in a long running series advocating on behalf of Ulbricht via libertarian ideals not via the actual law. Nowhere in that opinion piece does it backup its titles assertion nor link to any of the legal documents. Basically op is arguing based on storytelling not law.

tptacek 4y ago

I'm literally staring at the superseding indictment right now. Page 7. Go look. He was charged, and those charges were not dropped. I don't know what title you're referring to.

ssnistfajen 4y ago
That's a narcotics conspiracy charge, due to "intent to prevent the communication by the Employee to a law enforcement officer ofthe United States of information relating to the commission and possible commission of a Federal offense". Dude didn't end up in jail for murder, because the murder charges were dropped. D.R.O.P.P.E.D. Words have meanings and you are twisting them.
- tptacek 4y ago
  See upthread, where I took the time to pull up a bunch of other drug kingpin indictments to find similar charging structures, and trivially found one (I'm staring at it, too). I'm sorry they didn't charge the murder-for-hire scheme the way you'd have preferred them to, but they certainly did charge it, and the Reason article you're citing is plainly, obviously, factually, irrefutably wrong. The article says "Those charges were no part of what Ulbricht was actually tried and sentenced for." Obviously, they were. You are going to have a hard time getting me to take an opinion piece that commits a factual error that refutes its premise more seriously than the actual source documents that contradict it.
  - ssnistfajen 4y ago
    >they certainly did charge it Yes they did charge them, and then dropped them. That's what happened. Charges and convictions are not the same concept, and it's quite amusing you have the galls to say anyone else is "wrong".
    - tptacek 4y ago
      Yeah, you're wrong. I think what's happening here is what Kasey said: you're working exclusively from stuff like this Reason article, which is plainly wrong, and I'm working from the PACER docket of the case, which, uh, isn't. He was convicted of the charge that included the murder-for-hire scheme as its predicate. I don't know if there was some other more overt "murder" charge that he had that was later dropped (I only see the original and the superseding indictment). But if that happened, the only material implication of it is that they changed the structure of how they charged the murder-for-hire scheme. They did not give up on that charge; in a significant sense, they bet (and won) their case on it --- as the sentencing memoranda point out as well. This thread is an interesting example of how powerful the Internet folklore about Ulbricht is. Like, it stands up against the primary source documents of a conviction and sentencing! The sentencing documents must be what's wrong, not the Reason article! It's pretty fascinating, just sociologically.
      - ssnistfajen 4y ago
      - pxmpxm 4y ago
        >This thread is an interesting example of how powerful the Internet folklore about Ulbricht is. I imagine this is just self defense mechanism at work - if you concede to the reality that a libertarian drug utopia took around 3 years to devolve into cliche South American narco violence, you'll end up with that oh-so-uncomfortable step of having to revisit your worldviews.
        notch656a 4y ago
        Wasn't it the FBI/DEA that offered the narco-violence? Kind of throws a wrench into your libertarian utopia claims, when the murder-for-hire is a result of state intervention.
        tptacek 4y ago
        The "intervention" here is setting up a murder-for-hire sting?
kasey_junk 4y ago
The OP is referring to the reason article they linked to. They are not noting that said article is an opinion piece that is in a long running series advocating on behalf of Ulbricht via libertarian ideals not via the actual law. Nowhere in that opinion piece does it backup its titles assertion nor link to any of the legal documents. Basically op is arguing based on storytelling not law.