7 ms·

There was no such thing introduced for the trial. It was in the original press release, then it was withdrawn. Maybe it was because of Mark Force's transgressio

There was no such thing introduced for the trial. It was in the original press release, then it was withdrawn. Maybe it was because of Mark Force's transgressions, or maybe it was just for effect. Regardless, he never got the chance to defend himself against those particular allegations.

tptacek 11y ago
This is simply not true. Not only was the evidence introduced at trial, but it was tied to a specific charge, and considered at length by the court. https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1391926/gov-uscourts-nysd-422824-142-0.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1391...
- BoardsOfCanada 11y ago
  Ok, I can't reply to the one answe saying that this isn't true but accoring to the wired articel "Ulbricht, who the prosecutors have sought to prove is that Dread Pirate Roberts, hasn’t been charged with murder-for-hire in his Southern District of New York case, though he faces charges that include conspiracies to sell narcotics, launder money and more. (He does, however, face murder-for-hire charges in a separate case in Baltimore.) " This is the NY case
- ad_hominem 11y ago
  You're linking to a pre-trial motion, which means nothing about what actually happened during the trial.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    It's right there in the indictment. Count 1: Trafficking Conspiracy, Overt Acts, (b).
    - gwern 11y ago
      An indictment is also pre-trial. It is, in fact, about as pre-trial as documents get.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        The indictment is the whole premise of the trial. Please remember: the argument isn't "did the government conclusively prove that Ulbricht attempted to commission a murder". It is: "There was no such thing [here: <<evidence of a murder for hire scheme>>] introduced for the trial" (exact words taken from the comment rooting this subthread and the parent comment that provoked it). That's not only false, it's pretty much the opposite of what happened: not only was evidence of the murder-for-hire scheme formally introduced at trial, but it was ventured at trial, in a manner that put a part of the prosecution's case on the line for it. Not only did Ulbricht's team have the opportunity to rebut it, but they were obligated to do so in the course of competently representing him. Edited a bit for clarity.
        gwern 11y ago
        > The indictment is the whole premise of the trial. No, the indictment is simply the initial document filed years ago which started the case and the specific charges can be, and were (right up to before Ulbricht's sentencing, even, where I believe some charges were combined or something) amended and strategies changed. You seem to think that indictments are immutable and all you have to do is quote a line from it, but you are not a lawyer. > That's not only false, it's pretty much the opposite of what happened: not only was evidence of the murder-for-hire scheme formally introduced at trial, but it was ventured at trial, in a manner that put a part of the prosecution's case on the line for it. The prosecution did not introduce the murder for hire and during the trial, as I already quoted, explicitly disclaimed that it was trying to do so and that they were only talking about other things like control of Bitcoins.
        tptacek 11y ago
        The indictment to which we are referring was filed on February 4, 2014. It does not appear to have been superseded, and is the indictment the prosecution makes direct references to. Is there a newer indictment you can point us to? One in which the murder-for-hire scheme is not ventured as part of the case?
- BoardsOfCanada 11y ago
  So which of the charges is it (from your link): " charging Ulbricht with seven crimes: Narcotics Trafficking (Count One), Distribution of Narcotics by Means of the Internet (Count Two), Narcotics Trafficking Conspiracy (Count Three), Continuing Criminal Enterprise (Count Four), Conspiracy to Commit and Aid and Abet Computer Hacking (Count Five), Conspiracy to Traffic in Fraudulent Identification Documents (Count Six), and Money Laundering Conspiracy (Count Seven). (ECF No. 52.) "
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    The murder for hire scheme was the second overt act charged in Count One (an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy is an element of conspiracy.) [0] [0] see p. 5 of the indictment: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-sdny/legacy/2015/03/25/US%20v.%20Ross%20Ulbricht%20Indictment.pdf http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-sdny/legacy/...
    - BoardsOfCanada 11y ago
      So a murder is hidden under a less serious offence? Just search for the phrase murder in the document you linked. How many hits? Zero
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > So a murder is hidden under a less serious offence? No. Soliciting a killing for pay ("murder for hire" in informal terms) as an act to advance a conspiracy is included (hardly "hidden") as one of the alleged overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, at least one of which must have been found by a juror to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to vote to convict on the conspiracy charge.
        BoardsOfCanada 11y ago
        Oh I see. unfortunately there is no "killing for pay" in the document you linked either. Just stop making shit up.
- MadrugadaEterna 11y ago
  Actually it is true. No charge for murder. ArsTechnicha and wired agree.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Practically every filing from the case is trivially available with a single Google search, so I'm not really at all interested in how Ars or Wired chose to summarize it.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mckoss 11y ago
Agreed. From the FBI press release on his conviction[1] no mention of the murder-for-hire charge. This conviction and sentencing all stem from the drug-selling business enterprise. Our war-on-drugs sentencing is quite disproportional, IMHO; imputing societal harms that are unfounded. After all, Mr. Ulbright simply provided a safer way for consenting individuals to enter personal financial transactions. Silk Road is a drop in the bucket compared to all the transactions arranged over SMS messages and using cash - but we don't hold AT&T and the Federal Reserve responsible for running a criminal enterprise. ===== ULBRICHT, 30, of San Francisco, California, was found guilty of: one count of distributing narcotics, one count of distributing narcotics by means of the Internet, and one count of conspiring to distribute narcotics, each of which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison and a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years; one count of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison and a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison; one of count of conspiring to commit computer hacking, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison; one count of conspiring to traffic in false identity documents, which carries a maximum sentence of 15 years; and one count of conspiring to commit money laundering, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. The maximum sentences are prescribed by Congress and are provided for informational purposes only, as the sentence will be determined by the judge. ULBRICHT is scheduled to be sentenced on May 15, 2015. [1] http://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2015/ross-ulbricht-the-creator-and-owner-of-the-silk-road-website-found-guilty-in-manhattan-federal-court-on-all-counts
- cm2187 11y ago
  You seem to suggest that silkroad was an innocent market place that was used for drug trafficking without the knowledge of its creator...
  - mckoss 11y ago
    Does that matter? There was nothing drug specific about the site implementation - you could sell anything you wanted to (gold, collectables, etc). He provided a system that could be used as a valuable service for legal activities. It could also be used for illegal or banned activities in various jurisdictions. I'm just saying that it's a dangerous precedent to say that anyone creating a communication or transaction platform can be held liable for conspiring with users who use it to commit crimes.

tptacek 11y ago

This is simply not true. Not only was the evidence introduced at trial, but it was tied to a specific charge, and considered at length by the court. https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1391926/gov-uscourts-nysd-422824-142-0.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1391...

BoardsOfCanada 11y ago
Ok, I can't reply to the one answe saying that this isn't true but accoring to the wired articel "Ulbricht, who the prosecutors have sought to prove is that Dread Pirate Roberts, hasn’t been charged with murder-for-hire in his Southern District of New York case, though he faces charges that include conspiracies to sell narcotics, launder money and more. (He does, however, face murder-for-hire charges in a separate case in Baltimore.) " This is the NY case
ad_hominem 11y ago
You're linking to a pre-trial motion, which means nothing about what actually happened during the trial.
- tptacek 11y ago
  It's right there in the indictment. Count 1: Trafficking Conspiracy, Overt Acts, (b).
  - gwern 11y ago
    An indictment is also pre-trial. It is, in fact, about as pre-trial as documents get.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      The indictment is the whole premise of the trial. Please remember: the argument isn't "did the government conclusively prove that Ulbricht attempted to commission a murder". It is: "There was no such thing [here: <<evidence of a murder for hire scheme>>] introduced for the trial" (exact words taken from the comment rooting this subthread and the parent comment that provoked it). That's not only false, it's pretty much the opposite of what happened: not only was evidence of the murder-for-hire scheme formally introduced at trial, but it was ventured at trial, in a manner that put a part of the prosecution's case on the line for it. Not only did Ulbricht's team have the opportunity to rebut it, but they were obligated to do so in the course of competently representing him. Edited a bit for clarity.
      - gwern 11y ago
        > The indictment is the whole premise of the trial. No, the indictment is simply the initial document filed years ago which started the case and the specific charges can be, and were (right up to before Ulbricht's sentencing, even, where I believe some charges were combined or something) amended and strategies changed. You seem to think that indictments are immutable and all you have to do is quote a line from it, but you are not a lawyer. > That's not only false, it's pretty much the opposite of what happened: not only was evidence of the murder-for-hire scheme formally introduced at trial, but it was ventured at trial, in a manner that put a part of the prosecution's case on the line for it. The prosecution did not introduce the murder for hire and during the trial, as I already quoted, explicitly disclaimed that it was trying to do so and that they were only talking about other things like control of Bitcoins.
        tptacek 11y ago
        The indictment to which we are referring was filed on February 4, 2014. It does not appear to have been superseded, and is the indictment the prosecution makes direct references to. Is there a newer indictment you can point us to? One in which the murder-for-hire scheme is not ventured as part of the case?
BoardsOfCanada 11y ago
So which of the charges is it (from your link): " charging Ulbricht with seven crimes: Narcotics Trafficking (Count One), Distribution of Narcotics by Means of the Internet (Count Two), Narcotics Trafficking Conspiracy (Count Three), Continuing Criminal Enterprise (Count Four), Conspiracy to Commit and Aid and Abet Computer Hacking (Count Five), Conspiracy to Traffic in Fraudulent Identification Documents (Count Six), and Money Laundering Conspiracy (Count Seven). (ECF No. 52.) "
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  The murder for hire scheme was the second overt act charged in Count One (an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy is an element of conspiracy.) [0] [0] see p. 5 of the indictment: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-sdny/legacy/2015/03/25/US%20v.%20Ross%20Ulbricht%20Indictment.pdf http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-sdny/legacy/...
  - BoardsOfCanada 11y ago
    So a murder is hidden under a less serious offence? Just search for the phrase murder in the document you linked. How many hits? Zero
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > So a murder is hidden under a less serious offence? No. Soliciting a killing for pay ("murder for hire" in informal terms) as an act to advance a conspiracy is included (hardly "hidden") as one of the alleged overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, at least one of which must have been found by a juror to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to vote to convict on the conspiracy charge.
      - BoardsOfCanada 11y ago
        Oh I see. unfortunately there is no "killing for pay" in the document you linked either. Just stop making shit up.
MadrugadaEterna 11y ago
Actually it is true. No charge for murder. ArsTechnicha and wired agree.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Practically every filing from the case is trivially available with a single Google search, so I'm not really at all interested in how Ars or Wired chose to summarize it.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

mckoss 11y ago

Agreed. From the FBI press release on his conviction[1] no mention of the murder-for-hire charge. This conviction and sentencing all stem from the drug-selling business enterprise. Our war-on-drugs sentencing is quite disproportional, IMHO; imputing societal harms that are unfounded. After all, Mr. Ulbright simply provided a safer way for consenting individuals to enter personal financial transactions. Silk Road is a drop in the bucket compared to all the transactions arranged over SMS messages and using cash - but we don't hold AT&T and the Federal Reserve responsible for running a criminal enterprise. ===== ULBRICHT, 30, of San Francisco, California, was found guilty of: one count of distributing narcotics, one count of distributing narcotics by means of the Internet, and one count of conspiring to distribute narcotics, each of which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison and a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years; one count of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison and a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison; one of count of conspiring to commit computer hacking, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison; one count of conspiring to traffic in false identity documents, which carries a maximum sentence of 15 years; and one count of conspiring to commit money laundering, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. The maximum sentences are prescribed by Congress and are provided for informational purposes only, as the sentence will be determined by the judge. ULBRICHT is scheduled to be sentenced on May 15, 2015. [1] http://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2015/ross-ulbricht-the-creator-and-owner-of-the-silk-road-website-found-guilty-in-manhattan-federal-court-on-all-counts

cm2187 11y ago
You seem to suggest that silkroad was an innocent market place that was used for drug trafficking without the knowledge of its creator...
- mckoss 11y ago
  Does that matter? There was nothing drug specific about the site implementation - you could sell anything you wanted to (gold, collectables, etc). He provided a system that could be used as a valuable service for legal activities. It could also be used for illegal or banned activities in various jurisdictions. I'm just saying that it's a dangerous precedent to say that anyone creating a communication or transaction platform can be held liable for conspiring with users who use it to commit crimes.