4 ms·

In sentencing, prosecutors submitted a number of comments alluding to Ulbricht's alleged but not proven in trial murder for hire plots. The assumed motive for t

In sentencing, prosecutors submitted a number of comments alluding to Ulbricht's alleged but not proven in trial murder for hire plots. The assumed motive for these alleged murder plots was the actual theft of bitcoins which we now learn was perpetrated by government agents and witnesses against Ulbricht.

gamblor956 11y ago
There were multiple criminal cases filed against Ulbricht by separate jurisdictions for wholly separate crimes. Force was involved in only a single criminal case (the alleged murder-for-hires), and that case was dropped when Force and another investigator in that case were arrested.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  I only know about the one case. Care to fill us in? >Force was involved in only a single criminal case (the alleged murder-for-hires), and that case was dropped when Force and another investigator in that case were arrested. >>In sentencing, prosecutors submitted a number of comments alluding to Ulbricht's alleged but not proven in trial murder for hire plots. The assumed motive for these alleged murder plots was the actual theft of bitcoins which we now learn was perpetrated by government agents and witnesses against Ulbricht. Here is the letter. http://cryptome.org/2015/05/ulbricht-256.pdf http://cryptome.org/2015/05/ulbricht-256.pdf Is it of no consequence that these comments rely upon a farcically compromised investigation?
  - tptacek 11y ago
    No, I don't believe it is of much consequence, since the evidence that convicted Ulbricht was not derived from Force's investigation. Again: Ulbricht used full-disk encryption and nothing else to protect his data (OPSEC lesson: don't do that), and was captured with his laptop unlocked. There was a glittering dragon hoard treasure trove of evidence on that thing. It's practically the case that everything he was charged for, he confessed --- in detail --- to his journal about. His journal! The case was over as soon as they imaged the laptop.
    - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
      Is it possible for the court to revisit sentencing without a new trial? Because I am not at all impressed with prosecutors making use of the murder plot stuff in sentencing after federal agents provoked the whole bit (not excusing Ulbricht's part in it, mind you). I think we're all a lot better off if the gov't is restrained from engaging in that kind of behavior, or taking advantage of this kind of gambit in any way.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        That's not what happened! He was indicted for the murder-for-hire scheme.
        fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        In Maryland, right? Different case. My google-fu fails me today, I don't remember and wasn't able to learn the disposition of that case.
        tptacek 11y ago
        No! Not in a different case! In the case he was convicted for! 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. You not only repeated a meme that is contradicted by the most basic filing in the whole case, but constructed a whole narrative about specific prosecutorial misconduct based on that meme.
        fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        This one? http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=126792875&z=fdea5223 http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=126792875&... Where/what is the statutory allegation? If you have a better copy that can be searched that would be appreciated.
- tptacek 11y ago
  I think this is also somewhat inaccurate, as Ulbricht was charged for the murder-for-hire scheme in the indictment that ultimately convicted him. There is a very popular misconception that he wasn't convicted for the hit-man scheme, but he was; it just wasn't a murder charge.
  - gamblor956 11y ago
    Nope, you're completely wrong. It's not a misconception that Ulbricht wasn't convicted for the hit-man scheme because that wasn't part of the New York indictment. A person is "charged" with "counts" of specific crimes. The murder-for-hire is mentioned only as an alleged overt act in pursuance of a Narcotics Trafficking Conspiracy count with which Ulbricht is charged. Someone else has already provided the indictment in the New York court case. http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=126792875&z=fdea5223 http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=126792875&... Nowhere in the New York indictment is Ulbricht charged with attempted murder or murder-for-hire. The murder-for-hire charge was part of a Maryland court case in which Force and the other convicted investigator participated and which was subsequently dropped because of their malfeasance. See Count 2 of the Superseding Indictment. https://ia601904.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.238311/gov.uscourts.mdd.238311.4.0.pdf https://ia601904.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.238.... Other commenters have already pointed out your error. Don't compound it by trying to argue legal semantics you clearly don't understand.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      I have no idea why you think a citation to the Maryland case involving Force is some kind of mic drop. What part of this analysis of the New York case that I wrote a month ago do you disagree with? Can you be as specific as possible? You've identified yourself in the past as a criminal defense lawyer (I am not a lawyer), so you should have no trouble knocking it down. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9628102 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9628102

gamblor956 11y ago

There were multiple criminal cases filed against Ulbricht by separate jurisdictions for wholly separate crimes. Force was involved in only a single criminal case (the alleged murder-for-hires), and that case was dropped when Force and another investigator in that case were arrested.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
I only know about the one case. Care to fill us in? >Force was involved in only a single criminal case (the alleged murder-for-hires), and that case was dropped when Force and another investigator in that case were arrested. >>In sentencing, prosecutors submitted a number of comments alluding to Ulbricht's alleged but not proven in trial murder for hire plots. The assumed motive for these alleged murder plots was the actual theft of bitcoins which we now learn was perpetrated by government agents and witnesses against Ulbricht. Here is the letter. http://cryptome.org/2015/05/ulbricht-256.pdf http://cryptome.org/2015/05/ulbricht-256.pdf Is it of no consequence that these comments rely upon a farcically compromised investigation?
- tptacek 11y ago
  No, I don't believe it is of much consequence, since the evidence that convicted Ulbricht was not derived from Force's investigation. Again: Ulbricht used full-disk encryption and nothing else to protect his data (OPSEC lesson: don't do that), and was captured with his laptop unlocked. There was a glittering dragon hoard treasure trove of evidence on that thing. It's practically the case that everything he was charged for, he confessed --- in detail --- to his journal about. His journal! The case was over as soon as they imaged the laptop.
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    Is it possible for the court to revisit sentencing without a new trial? Because I am not at all impressed with prosecutors making use of the murder plot stuff in sentencing after federal agents provoked the whole bit (not excusing Ulbricht's part in it, mind you). I think we're all a lot better off if the gov't is restrained from engaging in that kind of behavior, or taking advantage of this kind of gambit in any way.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      That's not what happened! He was indicted for the murder-for-hire scheme.
      - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        In Maryland, right? Different case. My google-fu fails me today, I don't remember and wasn't able to learn the disposition of that case.
        tptacek 11y ago
        No! Not in a different case! In the case he was convicted for! 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. You not only repeated a meme that is contradicted by the most basic filing in the whole case, but constructed a whole narrative about specific prosecutorial misconduct based on that meme.
        fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
        This one? http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=126792875&z=fdea5223 http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=126792875&... Where/what is the statutory allegation? If you have a better copy that can be searched that would be appreciated.
tptacek 11y ago
I think this is also somewhat inaccurate, as Ulbricht was charged for the murder-for-hire scheme in the indictment that ultimately convicted him. There is a very popular misconception that he wasn't convicted for the hit-man scheme, but he was; it just wasn't a murder charge.
- gamblor956 11y ago
  Nope, you're completely wrong. It's not a misconception that Ulbricht wasn't convicted for the hit-man scheme because that wasn't part of the New York indictment. A person is "charged" with "counts" of specific crimes. The murder-for-hire is mentioned only as an alleged overt act in pursuance of a Narcotics Trafficking Conspiracy count with which Ulbricht is charged. Someone else has already provided the indictment in the New York court case. http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=126792875&z=fdea5223 http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=126792875&... Nowhere in the New York indictment is Ulbricht charged with attempted murder or murder-for-hire. The murder-for-hire charge was part of a Maryland court case in which Force and the other convicted investigator participated and which was subsequently dropped because of their malfeasance. See Count 2 of the Superseding Indictment. https://ia601904.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.238311/gov.uscourts.mdd.238311.4.0.pdf https://ia601904.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.238.... Other commenters have already pointed out your error. Don't compound it by trying to argue legal semantics you clearly don't understand.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    I have no idea why you think a citation to the Maryland case involving Force is some kind of mic drop. What part of this analysis of the New York case that I wrote a month ago do you disagree with? Can you be as specific as possible? You've identified yourself in the past as a criminal defense lawyer (I am not a lawyer), so you should have no trouble knocking it down. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9628102 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9628102