6 ms·

I wonder if the government buried this until after the Ulbricht trial was over. The fact that two of the investigators were corrupt and stealing funds could hav

I wonder if the government buried this until after the Ulbricht trial was over. The fact that two of the investigators were corrupt and stealing funds could have derailed the case.

ipsin 12y ago
That hadn't even occurred to me. Is that something that prosecutors can even do? It seems legally and ethically suspect, but prosecutors seem to be unaccountable when it comes to that sort of tactic. I can imagine the prosecutors pretending it's not material because it's an "ongoing investigation" (that's purposely paused until the trial finishes), but it would be very interesting to know the complete timeline and see how it meshes with that of the Ulbricht trial.
- nateabele 12y ago
  If the agents are convicted, you'd think Ulbricht's lawyer could appeal to have his conviction overturned...
  - fweespeech 12y ago
    Except these agents were a separate investigation and their evidence wasn't included in the trial.
    - ianstallings 12y ago
      It's relevant though. Missing information is just as important as provided information when it comes to the law. That's what they mean when they say the whole truth.
      - rosser 12y ago
        Only if the missing evidence is exculpatory.
      - fweespeech 12y ago
        If Officer A arrests you for a DUI and speeding on Day X...the actions of Officer B on Day Y for a separate DUI case is irrelevant. The "missing information" as you put it, is related to a murder-for-hire trial that is separate from the Ulbricht-ran-Silk-Road trial.
  - cubano 12y ago
    Even if they are not convicted, these charges are more than enough to appeal the entirety of the case against Ulbricht. As someone with direct experience with police corruption (I will save the story for some other time), I hope like heck he gets relief from his conviction due to these stunning revelations. I don't claim to know all the details or connections between these rotten agents and the non-rotten ones, but to be honest, I don't think it matters much. The actors in power have to be held to a much higher standard of conduct than the criminals do, and just the appearances of these perhaps illegal behaviors should cast grave doubt over the entire case.
emodendroket 12y ago
What difference would it have made?
- matart 12y ago
  I would assume just media wise
- vaadu 12y ago
  Any evidence these 2 agents provided would be regarded as unreliable.
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    What evidence did these 2 agents provide?
    - gwern 12y ago
      For one thing, the entire Maryland hitman case collapses if you can't use anything Force touched, because he ran it from start to finish as Nob.
      - tedunangst 12y ago
        No doubt the case they were working is probably tanked, but my question was meant to be pointed more towards the trial that's already happened, where evidence has been presented (past tense).
- CPLX 12y ago
  It would cast a shadow of doubt over any and all evidence that these now discredited agents were involved in collecting and any testimony they made or influenced.
- john_b 12y ago
  IANAL, so hopefully someone more knowledgeable will chime in, but if you can show in court that a witness has comitted a crime you can show that they are not trustworthy and essentially impeach their testimony. There was so much evidence against Ulbricht that it probably wouldn't have changed the outcome, but the fact that this is only now being brought to light is very suspicious.
higherpurpose 12y ago
Ulbricht can still appeal on this basis, no?
fweespeech 12y ago
The Ulbricht case that went to trial was a different investigative team. [e.g. These agents were not involved] > The charges stem from the agents’ role in one of the federal investigations into Silk Road; a separate Manhattan-based investigation ultimately led to the filing of charges against the website’s founder, Ross W. Ulbricht, who was convicted last month on numerous counts. The website was also shut down by the authorities. > The Baltimore investigation resulted in an indictment of Mr. Ulbricht on a charge of murder for hire, but that case has remained pending and the evidence in support of it was kept out of the New York trial, apparently because of the investigation into the agents. However, I'm pretty sure the "murder for hire" trial is going to die quietly because of these agents.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- fiatmoney 12y ago
  Yes, it's unheard of for agents in a "different investigative team" (that, BTW, happens to be involved in shaking down suspects) to, say, provide illegally obtained evidence to their coworkers. The government is very strict about tracking the source of evidence so it can be turned over to the defense; otherwise it'd be a clear Brady violation. They could face as much as a light chastizement from a federal judge! http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/epidemic_of_brady_violations_decried_in_kozinski_opinion http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/epidemic_of_brady_vio...
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Is there some link you can point us to suggesting that that's happened in this case? There are 113,000 employees at DOJ, so, statistically, every case is always going to be one or two hops away from some kind of malfeasance somewhere, right?
    - woah 12y ago
tptacek 12y ago
It turns out one of them was probably on Ulbricht's payroll: http://www.wired.com/2015/03/dea-agent-charged-acting-paid-mole-silk-road/ http://www.wired.com/2015/03/dea-agent-charged-acting-paid-m...
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  Wow. How could Ulbricht's attorney not appeal after this is made public?
  - tptacek 12y ago
    You think evidence that Ulbricht bribed someone to get intelligence on another DEA investigation is going to help him? I mean: they'll probably appeal no matter what, because what do they have to lose at this point.
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      > You think evidence that Ulbricht bribed someone to get intelligence on another DEA investigation is going to help him? Not at all! > I mean: they'll probably appeal no matter what, because what do they have to lose at this point. Exactly this. Sorry I wasn't clear.
    - revelation 12y ago
      It's hardly bribery if the other party isn't acting in an official capacity. Fake authority has probably been a ploy of scammers and fraudsters since they existed. On the other hand, I'm sure theres a major problem for the government here if the guy signing seizures is doing so for his own illicit gain.
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        > It's hardly bribery if the other party isn't acting in an official capacity. You can't be an officer in a case and not be acting in an official capacity at the same time. It's not like you go home at 17:00 sharp and then turn around to the people that you just spent time with as an official and pretend that didn't happen.
gwern 12y ago
This was pretty deliberately buried, yes. I've been going through the evidence exhibits for the trial, and in retrospect, knowing what I know now, it's remarkable how carefully chosen exhibits are to hide all the traces on Ulbricht's end: for example, due to redaction failures, we know all the mentions of French Maid were scrubbed by prosecution; his journal is carefully chosen to start after Chronicpain was busted and used to rob SR1 accounts; the failed extortion attempt using the name 'A.A.' is partially redacted so it sounds like an isolated incident; and so on.
- tedunangst 12y ago
  What do you mean by buried? I think it's fairly obvious why the prosecutor would choose not to present this evidence if the case could be made without it. The prosecution isn't required to present everything at trial. I guess there's the question of whether the prosecution provided it to the defense or not, though I'm not sure how that would help. Ulbricht was sticking with the claim he wasn't running the site at the time, no? Seems irrelevant that some bad agents stole from the site he wasn't running.

I wonder if the government buried this until after the Ulbricht trial was over. The fact that two of the investigators were corrupt and stealing funds could have derailed the case.

ipsin 12y ago

That hadn't even occurred to me. Is that something that prosecutors can even do? It seems legally and ethically suspect, but prosecutors seem to be unaccountable when it comes to that sort of tactic. I can imagine the prosecutors pretending it's not material because it's an "ongoing investigation" (that's purposely paused until the trial finishes), but it would be very interesting to know the complete timeline and see how it meshes with that of the Ulbricht trial.

nateabele 12y ago
If the agents are convicted, you'd think Ulbricht's lawyer could appeal to have his conviction overturned...
- fweespeech 12y ago
  Except these agents were a separate investigation and their evidence wasn't included in the trial.
  - ianstallings 12y ago
    It's relevant though. Missing information is just as important as provided information when it comes to the law. That's what they mean when they say the whole truth.
    - rosser 12y ago
      Only if the missing evidence is exculpatory.
    - fweespeech 12y ago
      If Officer A arrests you for a DUI and speeding on Day X...the actions of Officer B on Day Y for a separate DUI case is irrelevant. The "missing information" as you put it, is related to a murder-for-hire trial that is separate from the Ulbricht-ran-Silk-Road trial.
- cubano 12y ago
  Even if they are not convicted, these charges are more than enough to appeal the entirety of the case against Ulbricht. As someone with direct experience with police corruption (I will save the story for some other time), I hope like heck he gets relief from his conviction due to these stunning revelations. I don't claim to know all the details or connections between these rotten agents and the non-rotten ones, but to be honest, I don't think it matters much. The actors in power have to be held to a much higher standard of conduct than the criminals do, and just the appearances of these perhaps illegal behaviors should cast grave doubt over the entire case.

emodendroket 12y ago

What difference would it have made?

matart 12y ago
I would assume just media wise
vaadu 12y ago
Any evidence these 2 agents provided would be regarded as unreliable.
- tedunangst 12y ago
  What evidence did these 2 agents provide?
  - gwern 12y ago
    For one thing, the entire Maryland hitman case collapses if you can't use anything Force touched, because he ran it from start to finish as Nob.
    - tedunangst 12y ago
      No doubt the case they were working is probably tanked, but my question was meant to be pointed more towards the trial that's already happened, where evidence has been presented (past tense).
CPLX 12y ago
It would cast a shadow of doubt over any and all evidence that these now discredited agents were involved in collecting and any testimony they made or influenced.
john_b 12y ago
IANAL, so hopefully someone more knowledgeable will chime in, but if you can show in court that a witness has comitted a crime you can show that they are not trustworthy and essentially impeach their testimony. There was so much evidence against Ulbricht that it probably wouldn't have changed the outcome, but the fact that this is only now being brought to light is very suspicious.

higherpurpose 12y ago

Ulbricht can still appeal on this basis, no?

fweespeech 12y ago

The Ulbricht case that went to trial was a different investigative team. [e.g. These agents were not involved] > The charges stem from the agents’ role in one of the federal investigations into Silk Road; a separate Manhattan-based investigation ultimately led to the filing of charges against the website’s founder, Ross W. Ulbricht, who was convicted last month on numerous counts. The website was also shut down by the authorities. > The Baltimore investigation resulted in an indictment of Mr. Ulbricht on a charge of murder for hire, but that case has remained pending and the evidence in support of it was kept out of the New York trial, apparently because of the investigation into the agents. However, I'm pretty sure the "murder for hire" trial is going to die quietly because of these agents.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
fiatmoney 12y ago
Yes, it's unheard of for agents in a "different investigative team" (that, BTW, happens to be involved in shaking down suspects) to, say, provide illegally obtained evidence to their coworkers. The government is very strict about tracking the source of evidence so it can be turned over to the defense; otherwise it'd be a clear Brady violation. They could face as much as a light chastizement from a federal judge! http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/epidemic_of_brady_violations_decried_in_kozinski_opinion http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/epidemic_of_brady_vio...
- tptacek 12y ago
  Is there some link you can point us to suggesting that that's happened in this case? There are 113,000 employees at DOJ, so, statistically, every case is always going to be one or two hops away from some kind of malfeasance somewhere, right?
  - woah 12y ago

tptacek 12y ago

It turns out one of them was probably on Ulbricht's payroll: http://www.wired.com/2015/03/dea-agent-charged-acting-paid-mole-silk-road/ http://www.wired.com/2015/03/dea-agent-charged-acting-paid-m...

toomuchtodo 12y ago
Wow. How could Ulbricht's attorney not appeal after this is made public?
- tptacek 12y ago
  You think evidence that Ulbricht bribed someone to get intelligence on another DEA investigation is going to help him? I mean: they'll probably appeal no matter what, because what do they have to lose at this point.
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    > You think evidence that Ulbricht bribed someone to get intelligence on another DEA investigation is going to help him? Not at all! > I mean: they'll probably appeal no matter what, because what do they have to lose at this point. Exactly this. Sorry I wasn't clear.
  - revelation 12y ago
    It's hardly bribery if the other party isn't acting in an official capacity. Fake authority has probably been a ploy of scammers and fraudsters since they existed. On the other hand, I'm sure theres a major problem for the government here if the guy signing seizures is doing so for his own illicit gain.
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      > It's hardly bribery if the other party isn't acting in an official capacity. You can't be an officer in a case and not be acting in an official capacity at the same time. It's not like you go home at 17:00 sharp and then turn around to the people that you just spent time with as an official and pretend that didn't happen.

gwern 12y ago

This was pretty deliberately buried, yes. I've been going through the evidence exhibits for the trial, and in retrospect, knowing what I know now, it's remarkable how carefully chosen exhibits are to hide all the traces on Ulbricht's end: for example, due to redaction failures, we know all the mentions of French Maid were scrubbed by prosecution; his journal is carefully chosen to start after Chronicpain was busted and used to rob SR1 accounts; the failed extortion attempt using the name 'A.A.' is partially redacted so it sounds like an isolated incident; and so on.

tedunangst 12y ago
What do you mean by buried? I think it's fairly obvious why the prosecutor would choose not to present this evidence if the case could be made without it. The prosecution isn't required to present everything at trial. I guess there's the question of whether the prosecution provided it to the defense or not, though I'm not sure how that would help. Ulbricht was sticking with the claim he wasn't running the site at the time, no? Seems irrelevant that some bad agents stole from the site he wasn't running.