5 ms·

I don't think there was anything fundamentally unethical about Silk Road (other than the owner very likely attempting to have several people murdered, of course

by rudolf0 12y ago

I don't think there was anything fundamentally unethical about Silk Road (other than the owner very likely attempting to have several people murdered, of course), but the defense is clearly grasping at straws here.

jMyles 12y ago
> very likely I take issue with this characterization. Unless there is a much, much more realistic piece of evidence yet to emerge, I regard this allegation as very unlikely. And if it's not true, and all DPR did was help people to circumvent laws prohibiting transactions of prohibited substances, then he's a libertarian hero.
sp332 12y ago
From reporter https://twitter.com/sarahjeong https://twitter.com/sarahjeong Trial adjourned. There's a lot going on. DHS agent was pursuing Karpeles as late as August 2013. Ulbricht was arrested Oct 2013. Like I wrote in my last article, he went after Ulbricht based on a tip off from an IRS agent in September 2013. Whiplash! Amazing moment later today: in affadavit, DHS agent referred to @a_greenberg's interview of DPR and said it sounded like Mark Karpeles. Recall, this is the same guy who was on a 6 person team to arrest Ulbricht. In Aug '13 he said he had probable cause to suspect Karpeles.
- sp332 12y ago
  [More tweets] DHS agent acknowledged under cross that he was preparing an affadavit for a warrant to search Karpeles's email. DHS agent's OWN THEORY around early to mid 2013 was that Mt. Gox and Silk Road worked in tandem. Investigation found that Mutum Sigilum, a Karpeles holding, had registered silkroadmarket.org
krapp 12y ago
Whatever one thinks about Silk Road, darknets or drug policy in general (I have issues with all of them) I would hope that Ulbricht could get a better defense than one that seems as farcical as this. I don't know what it would be. Maybe they're hoping people will think it's too crazy not to be true? The only possible way it isn't a complete joke is if it's true.
- Zancarius 12y ago
  I thought the same thing until I read the entirety of the article. As others have pointed out, the DHS investigator Jared DerYeghiayan himself was convinced Mark Karpeles was Roberts as late as 2 months prior to Ulbricht's arrest (and admitted as much under cross-examination). It seems insane, almost far-fetched even, until you consider that DerYeghiayan even went as far as to draft a search warrant for Karpeles' email. If it wasn't at least plausible, any defense attorney who went down this road would be a fool. Having sat on a jury before, I can guarantee you that this will have at least some impact on the decision. Even if you're convinced the defendant is guilty, the job of the jury is to act as finders of fact, and if sufficient doubt is raised to that end an acquittal is likely. The trial I sat on had a similar event unfold where the law enforcement involved completely screwed up and made some admissions during cross-examination that severely harmed reaching a guilty verdict.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    Law enforcement revealing true exculpatory information during cross-examination isn't screwing up -- like all witnesses, their duty is to tell the truth. (Its true that some of them may view their job as getting a conviction, and may view providing the truth as screwing up when it is contrary to that, but its a very bad idea to reinforce that meme.)
    - krrrh 12y ago
      The parent comment was phrased somewhat ambiguously, but I think he meant that the law enforcement admitted to screwing up, not that they screwed up by admitting.
    - Zancarius 12y ago
      As krrrh observed, I wasn't suggesting that they screwed up by mentioning anything. I apologize for not making that obvious. I have a very deep respect for law enforcement, and I'd like to believe that on the whole they're good people. Reports that shed negative light on LEOs are common IMO like other forms of negative news: It's more interesting or captivates more viewers. That said, it's like anything else. Depending on circumstance, stress, etc., they might make mistakes without thinking much of it. When these mistakes are admitted through cross-examination, then yes, it's a screw up. On the trial I sat on, one of the most damning admissions also came from a DHS employee who admitted they handled evidence without gloves. The admission in that case wasn't the screw up--violating the number one rule of handling evidence was!
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- jsnathan 12y ago
  That makes no sense whatsoever. If the law is unethical then so are the consequences of that law. This is like saying that laws against homesexuality may be unethical, but trying to avoid being punished for being gay is wrong.
- Crito 12y ago
  It would be very convenient for the establishment if every revolutionary was obliged to throw themselves upon a pyre....
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    A friend of mine once commented that high treason is one of the only crimes on the books where the penalty for attempting it is infinitely higher than for succeeding, mainly because if you do succeed, you are then in charge of the country.
    - wmf 12y ago
      Was your friend Shakespeare?
      - lotsofmangos 12y ago
        Not last time I checked. I didn't know that this was from Shakespeare. I wonder where Shakespeare first heard it. edit - And just in case you are reading. Hi Ben, are you really Shakespeare in a wig?
- harshreality 12y ago
  The Socratic position of accepting judicial punishment doesn't make sense if you have anything you want to do with your life other than making a political point. If you think making that point, with its immense opportunity cost, is the most important remaining thing you can do, fine, but you can't assume everyone is at that place in their lives. I don't think someone should be expected to sacrifice everything on principle in order to be justified in refusing to comply with an unjust law.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- cheald 12y ago
  This argument can be applied to any transaction engaged in by people who are drunk or high or otherwise in a state of modified consciousness. Is it unethical to sell Cheetos because the buyer might be a stoner who is high and not in a state to give consent to the transaction?
  - eru 12y ago
    Maybe, maybe not. In any case, the stakes are lower.
- Kenji 12y ago
  Well they consented to get intoxicated so they should deal with the consequences. If what you say were true, intoxicated people couldn't even buy a bottle of water because that requires entering into a contract which you claim they cannot.
toolz 12y ago
if you followed the story closely there is essentially no reason to believe the owner ever attempted to have anyone killed. The substantial evidence points directly to him bluffing in order to scare someone. I wrote a short summary on reddit a while back that you can read here https://www.reddit.com/r/silkroadnews/comments/1nndtk/ulbricht_never_attempted_to_hire_for_murder_and/ https://www.reddit.com/r/silkroadnews/comments/1nndtk/ulbric...
- ne0n 12y ago
  Assault: "Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause physical injury needs to exist, and no physical injury needs to result. So defined in tort law and the criminal statutes of some states." http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault
  - toolz 12y ago
    What are you suggesting? That he may be guilty of assault regardless? I'm not understanding your comment in context.
    - numbsafari 12y ago
      It's true. In many states, you are guilty of assault if you threaten someone sufficiently, even if you had no intention of carrying out the threat. It's true for a number of violent crimes. Not sure why the GP got downvoted for stating facts, though I don't know the details of the murder-for-hire plot, so perhaps it somehow doesn't pertain in that particular case. Regardless, it's a legit thing. So be careful about threatening people with bodily harm.

by rudolf0 12y ago

jMyles 12y ago

> very likely I take issue with this characterization. Unless there is a much, much more realistic piece of evidence yet to emerge, I regard this allegation as very unlikely. And if it's not true, and all DPR did was help people to circumvent laws prohibiting transactions of prohibited substances, then he's a libertarian hero.

sp332 12y ago

From reporter https://twitter.com/sarahjeong https://twitter.com/sarahjeong Trial adjourned. There's a lot going on. DHS agent was pursuing Karpeles as late as August 2013. Ulbricht was arrested Oct 2013. Like I wrote in my last article, he went after Ulbricht based on a tip off from an IRS agent in September 2013. Whiplash! Amazing moment later today: in affadavit, DHS agent referred to @a_greenberg's interview of DPR and said it sounded like Mark Karpeles. Recall, this is the same guy who was on a 6 person team to arrest Ulbricht. In Aug '13 he said he had probable cause to suspect Karpeles.

sp332 12y ago
[More tweets] DHS agent acknowledged under cross that he was preparing an affadavit for a warrant to search Karpeles's email. DHS agent's OWN THEORY around early to mid 2013 was that Mt. Gox and Silk Road worked in tandem. Investigation found that Mutum Sigilum, a Karpeles holding, had registered silkroadmarket.org

krapp 12y ago

Whatever one thinks about Silk Road, darknets or drug policy in general (I have issues with all of them) I would hope that Ulbricht could get a better defense than one that seems as farcical as this. I don't know what it would be. Maybe they're hoping people will think it's too crazy not to be true? The only possible way it isn't a complete joke is if it's true.

Zancarius 12y ago
I thought the same thing until I read the entirety of the article. As others have pointed out, the DHS investigator Jared DerYeghiayan himself was convinced Mark Karpeles was Roberts as late as 2 months prior to Ulbricht's arrest (and admitted as much under cross-examination). It seems insane, almost far-fetched even, until you consider that DerYeghiayan even went as far as to draft a search warrant for Karpeles' email. If it wasn't at least plausible, any defense attorney who went down this road would be a fool. Having sat on a jury before, I can guarantee you that this will have at least some impact on the decision. Even if you're convinced the defendant is guilty, the job of the jury is to act as finders of fact, and if sufficient doubt is raised to that end an acquittal is likely. The trial I sat on had a similar event unfold where the law enforcement involved completely screwed up and made some admissions during cross-examination that severely harmed reaching a guilty verdict.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  Law enforcement revealing true exculpatory information during cross-examination isn't screwing up -- like all witnesses, their duty is to tell the truth. (Its true that some of them may view their job as getting a conviction, and may view providing the truth as screwing up when it is contrary to that, but its a very bad idea to reinforce that meme.)
  - krrrh 12y ago
    The parent comment was phrased somewhat ambiguously, but I think he meant that the law enforcement admitted to screwing up, not that they screwed up by admitting.
  - Zancarius 12y ago
    As krrrh observed, I wasn't suggesting that they screwed up by mentioning anything. I apologize for not making that obvious. I have a very deep respect for law enforcement, and I'd like to believe that on the whole they're good people. Reports that shed negative light on LEOs are common IMO like other forms of negative news: It's more interesting or captivates more viewers. That said, it's like anything else. Depending on circumstance, stress, etc., they might make mistakes without thinking much of it. When these mistakes are admitted through cross-examination, then yes, it's a screw up. On the trial I sat on, one of the most damning admissions also came from a DHS employee who admitted they handled evidence without gloves. The admission in that case wasn't the screw up--violating the number one rule of handling evidence was!

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

jsnathan 12y ago
That makes no sense whatsoever. If the law is unethical then so are the consequences of that law. This is like saying that laws against homesexuality may be unethical, but trying to avoid being punished for being gay is wrong.
Crito 12y ago
It would be very convenient for the establishment if every revolutionary was obliged to throw themselves upon a pyre....
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  A friend of mine once commented that high treason is one of the only crimes on the books where the penalty for attempting it is infinitely higher than for succeeding, mainly because if you do succeed, you are then in charge of the country.
  - wmf 12y ago
    Was your friend Shakespeare?
    - lotsofmangos 12y ago
      Not last time I checked. I didn't know that this was from Shakespeare. I wonder where Shakespeare first heard it. edit - And just in case you are reading. Hi Ben, are you really Shakespeare in a wig?
harshreality 12y ago
The Socratic position of accepting judicial punishment doesn't make sense if you have anything you want to do with your life other than making a political point. If you think making that point, with its immense opportunity cost, is the most important remaining thing you can do, fine, but you can't assume everyone is at that place in their lives. I don't think someone should be expected to sacrifice everything on principle in order to be justified in refusing to comply with an unjust law.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

cheald 12y ago
This argument can be applied to any transaction engaged in by people who are drunk or high or otherwise in a state of modified consciousness. Is it unethical to sell Cheetos because the buyer might be a stoner who is high and not in a state to give consent to the transaction?
- eru 12y ago
  Maybe, maybe not. In any case, the stakes are lower.
Kenji 12y ago
Well they consented to get intoxicated so they should deal with the consequences. If what you say were true, intoxicated people couldn't even buy a bottle of water because that requires entering into a contract which you claim they cannot.

toolz 12y ago

if you followed the story closely there is essentially no reason to believe the owner ever attempted to have anyone killed. The substantial evidence points directly to him bluffing in order to scare someone. I wrote a short summary on reddit a while back that you can read here https://www.reddit.com/r/silkroadnews/comments/1nndtk/ulbricht_never_attempted_to_hire_for_murder_and/ https://www.reddit.com/r/silkroadnews/comments/1nndtk/ulbric...

ne0n 12y ago
Assault: "Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause physical injury needs to exist, and no physical injury needs to result. So defined in tort law and the criminal statutes of some states." http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault
- toolz 12y ago
  What are you suggesting? That he may be guilty of assault regardless? I'm not understanding your comment in context.
  - numbsafari 12y ago
    It's true. In many states, you are guilty of assault if you threaten someone sufficiently, even if you had no intention of carrying out the threat. It's true for a number of violent crimes. Not sure why the GP got downvoted for stating facts, though I don't know the details of the murder-for-hire plot, so perhaps it somehow doesn't pertain in that particular case. Regardless, it's a legit thing. So be careful about threatening people with bodily harm.