DEA Agents in Silk Road Case Face Fraud Charges

[gmaxwell]

Correction to my post.  It turns out that it wasn't the case that MTGox did nothing to piss off Force and Bridges; it seems MTGox earned their ire by failing to respond to a shakedown request: http://imgur.com/a/ecQ5T (ah, Magicaltux's email screenshots are inlined in the post above).

(Force asks for 250 BTC as part of a 'partnership', Magicaltux doesn't respond, he sends more emails... later the send an "I told you so" email; the same day they filed for the warrant to seize MTGox's funds)

[1714183035]

1714183035

[1714183035]

1714183035

[1714183035]

1714183035

[1714183035]

1714183035

[gmaxwell]

I think that there must be evidence that these agents planted some or all the government's evidence that was used against Ulbricht." Given that it appears that defense made that argument under seal to the judge, and the judge rejected it, I'm guessing that there was no evidence of the sort.

That sounds like a question of fact, not of law. The judge may have erred in rejecting it.

In any case, I don't disagree with you; I was just presenting an alternative view (As you can see, I've defended your position in other posts.)-- I don't think the position I outlined is likely to go anywhere.

[Blackbird0]

I think that there must be evidence that these agents planted some or all the government's evidence that was used against Ulbricht." Given that it appears that defense made that argument under seal to the judge, and the judge rejected it, I'm guessing that there was no evidence of the sort.

That sounds like a question of fact, not of law. The judge may have erred in rejecting it.

In any case, I don't disagree with you; I was just presenting an alternative view (As you can see, I've defended your position in other posts.)-- I don't think the position I outlined is likely to go anywhere.

Well, it may be a question of fact, but that doesn't mean it goes to the jury. Federal Rules of Evidence require judges to determine whether or not evidence is rightly put before the jury. I would imagine that the government argued the FRE 403, or the rule against irrelevant evidence, should prohibit this type of evidence. I imagine they argued that the prejudicial effect would substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence.

And sorry, I hope I haven't sound defensive and I appreciate your posts. Generally on these forums, posting any sort of reasoned legal analysis gets you shot down. I understand the impulse to defend Ulbricht: people don't like the bad press against bitcoin. But bitcoin, like fiat currency, and like any tool, can be used for things we think are good, and things we think are bad. This country has chosen to criminalize the drug trade and money laundering, and Ulbricht clearly violated those laws. That he used BTC rather than USD really is of little matter. Now some people might think that the drug trade should be criminalized at all, but that's really quite apart from all this. When people wake up and realize that everyone who uses bitcoin is good and not everyone who wants to use USD is evil, our community will great great strides.

[bryant.coleman]

you cannot say there's a 0 chance. as Cryptowatch.com said USA has been capable of doing operations also on foreign soil. they could have obtained by one way or another access to mtgox server and steal/froze/seize all the BTC. that can also explain why Karpeles once said that BTC were not stolen but temporarily frozen/unavaiable.

The other Mt Gox employees have talked about the robbery and they have given the details. According to them, stealing the coins from Mt Gox offline wallets is possible only with the help of Karpeles. How can the FBI steal coins from an offline wallet, which was accessible only to Karpeles?

[Its About Sharing]

Are you basically saying that these two corrupt cops, one of which was a lead detective in the case (not just the murder for hire charge), that stole money from Ross, entrapped him for murder, blackmailed him, had access to the sys Admin account, etc. - that that has no bearing on the validity of the evidence which puts him behind bars? Are you saying that having key corrupt officials on the prosecution is a separate issue from what Ross did when their evidence/work arguably had a decent factor in his conviction? This makes no sense and I'm trying to really see your point here.

All the defense now has to work on is how these two corrupt cops had help in giving but 1 little tiny bit of false evidence. It appears they got them for damn near everything and they are deeply tied to not only the evidence, but to the actual SR site, Admin account! Had they been legit you would just have hoped they were not corrupt, but now they are. We see: what they did, the depth of what they did, the ways in what they did what they did, how the judge disallowed obvious connections/questions, etc from being admissible in court. The list goes on. This is an absolute travesty. I will not look at this situation, as disgusting as it now has become, through simplified legal jargon when every sense in most peoples bodies right now is screaming to them: "Alert, Alert, Alert something is really really wrong here."

Sometimes those within the system (any system really) can't see outside that system. They are so "in"trained in that system the craziest of things make sense to them, because it fits that "systems" way of think, and ironically enough can be disproven in a court of law (just need reasonable doubt). And right now it seems like there is much much more than reasonable doubt going on about that trial. I feel a lot of your argument is trying to use (legal) semantics to make your point valid but all it does is try to exclude people from really seeing what is right in front of them by controlling perspective.

[snip large image]

Really, it sounds like your argument boils down to: these cops did some bad things, therefore the other cops did bad things. Moreover, those bad things go towards whether or not Ulbricht was guilty and/or the credibility of witnesses who testified.

Generally, we tend to eschew this kind of guilt by association. Just because two officers on the Baltimore team were corrupt and committed crimes does snot impugn the credibility of officers on another team. Just because two officers on the Baltimore team were corrupt and committed crimes does not mean that Ulbricht did not commit the crimes he was convicted of committing.

I'm not condoning what these officers did. Nor am I suggesting that these are the best practices for law enforcement or prosecutors. But it is difficult to say, from what has been publicly disclosed, that these officers' committing crimes is exculpatory as to Ulbricht.

Huh? What are you talking about? I'm only saying these two guys (and NO ONE else) had the ability to taint the evidence and we already know they knowingly did. They did this regarding the murder for hire. Yeah, it doesn't get much worse than cops working on a case using "inside information" to extort money from a person.

Don't distort my argument or try to red herring this.

Do you get paid by the post from the Fed or ?

[Blackbird0]

Huh? What are you talking about? I'm only saying these two guys (and NO ONE else) had the ability to taint the evidence and we already know they knowingly did. They did this regarding the murder for hire. Yeah, it doesn't get much worse than cops working on a case using "inside information" to extort money from a person.

Don't distort my argument or try to red herring this.

Ulbricht wasn't convicted of murder-for-hire. I imagine because of the problems with the Baltimore investigation.

You are using the word "taint the evidence," which is a legal term of art, which you are not using correctly. I stated above why it is being used incorrectly.

It's certainly bad that these officers extorted Ulbricht and others. That's why they are being prosecuted for crimes. But the fact that they committed crimes does not impugn the convictions against Ulbricht. The government's argument, and one that I find persuasive is that the Baltimore investigation was separate from the New York investigation, and no evidence used in the trial came from that Baltimore team.

Do you get paid by the post from the Fed or ?

[snip]

These kinds of ad hominem attacks don't do you any credit.

[mikewirth]

Oh yeah?  Haven't you ever heard about 'fruit from the poisoned tree'?  Force4 was the lead investigator.  Every bit of evidence is derived from his original efforts.  There is no evidence which does not come from the work product of a criminal whose efforts were per se adverse to Ross' position.  

How do you like them apples Legal Beagle?

The Judge won't change her mind - I agree with you on this point.  But request for retrial is an action taken against her.  No doubt she won't agree with it.  But on appeal, a different judge will decide the tree question.  

"Fruit of the poisonous tree" doesn't mean what you think it means. It's derived from the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment. It generally means that one cannot use the fruit of an unconstitutional search. It does not mean that if someone does something that we think is bad, everything that flows from those things is inadmissible. So ... since this isn't a fourth amendment issue, the doctrine does not apply.

I am sorry my friend, but I think you are gonna need a few more years of law school; fancy as you may already be.

Force4 as part of his efforts as lead investigator DID a search.  Because he acted criminally during that search - it became an illegal and unconstitutional search.  Evidence developed from that unconstitutional search - and its derivatives must be excluded from the prosecution.  

[Blackbird0]

"Fruit of the poisonous tree" doesn't mean what you think it means. It's derived from the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment. It generally means that one cannot use the fruit of an unconstitutional search. It does not mean that if someone does something that we think is bad, everything that flows from those things is inadmissible. So ... since this isn't a fourth amendment issue, the doctrine does not apply.

I am sorry my friend, but I think you are gonna need a few more years of law school; fancy as you may already be.

Ad homimem attacks don't do your arguments any help.

Force as part of his efforts as lead investigator DID a search.  Because he acted criminally during that search - it became an illegal and unconstitutional search.  Evidence developed from that unconstitutional search - and its derivatives must be excluded. 

Firstly: the government's position is that no evidence from the Baltimore investigation was introduced in trials. So even accepting your faulty premise, there is no evidence introduced in trial that is the "fruit" of these agents' actions.

Secondly, acting "criminally" during a search does not make it unconstitutional. The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is "reasonableness," and the question is whether or not the search was valid under the Fourth Amendment. There were suppression hearings on the Fourth Amendment issue, and Ulbricht lost. He lost for totally different reasons--because he didn't assert a property interest in the things searched and seized. So even if somehow all these things were connected to the searches Ulbricht tried to suppress (see point one, they were not), and even if this was a Fourth Amendment violation (it was not), the search could not have been suppressed because Ulbricht did not assert a property interest in the thing searched.

[Its About Sharing]

Huh? What are you talking about? I'm only saying these two guys (and NO ONE else) had the ability to taint the evidence and we already know they knowingly did. They did this regarding the murder for hire. Yeah, it doesn't get much worse than cops working on a case using "inside information" to extort money from a person.

Don't distort my argument or try to red herring this.

Ulbricht wasn't convicted of murder-for-hire. I imagine because of the problems with the Baltimore investigation.

You are using the word "taint the evidence," which is a legal term of art, which you are not using correctly. I stated above why it is being used incorrectly.

It's certainly bad that these officers extorted Ulbricht and others. That's why they are being prosecuted for crimes. But the fact that they committed crimes does not impugn the convictions against Ulbricht. The government's argument, and one that I find persuasive is that the Baltimore investigation was separate from the New York investigation, and no evidence used in the trial came from that Baltimore team.

Do you get paid by the post from the Fed or ?

[snip]

These kinds of ad hominem attacks don't do you any credit.

2 separate investigations but with the same people? Is the information wrong that has stated that Force was the lead investigator? He had the SR Admin password? I don't see how you can separate the two investigations.

And regarding the ad hominem, it was a real question. I found your argument quite deceptive and hence the question, Are you a paid poster? I'm not attacking your person, just questioning it.
If you want to talk about logic that is more important to our arguments, let's start with your summarizing my points into something I didn't say nor even imply. I wonder if you even read the post to come up with your conclusion in the prior post (not quoted)  I'm not sure which logical fallacy that is??? I'll bet on "Non Sequitur" - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion..

An regarding the word "taint the evidence" being used incorrectly. Fine, I might be guilty. But the point stands, those two detectives already have been accused (thoroughly so) with some heavy crimes. They "tainted" in the sense of could have "planted/distorted" the evidence (they had direct access and in some cases created it.) I mean they have already knowingly done this, the question is just how much and where and of course, did it affect the outcome of the case. My bet is probably but we'll see during the re-trial, if there is one.

[mikewirth]

Ad homimem attacks don't do your arguments any help.

Why do you think that ad homimem attacks don't help?  I think they help immensely - you moron.  

as to 'reasonableness'  -  was it reasonable that the government was in there searching - in part - to gain a position from which it could lob extortion attacks?  That seems somewhat unreasonable to me.  Also, to say that New York didn't get any derived information from Force4 is nonsense.  Force4 and his illegal searches developed the identity of Ulbrict.  EVERYTHING which came later - was fruit of the poisonous tree.  New York - or Baltimore both teams derived and developed evidence from a bad and illegal search which should be held unconstitutional.  You can't have a fucking pig deep in the act of abuse of color - and argue reasonable.   I call raging bullshit.  (what kind of attack is that?)

[ebliever]

I'm not sure I've got this straight, but it's likely that the investigation into actions of these agents has been going on for some time. If so, then as Ulbricht's trial was going on, the federal government knew that it likely had a big mess on its hands internally.

So is it reasonable/possible that they worked hard to scrub the prosecution's case to keep it clean of any evidence of contamination from Force and Bridges? If so then Ulbricht's conviction may hold up. But if they did not do this and evidence from their activities was used, then it looks like he may have a serious opening.

[bigasic]

any chance this would give ulbricht a window to climb out?

Yes.  Prosecutorial misconduct.  It can have VERY far reaching implications.  Now, the prosecution is easily shown to have reason to lie.  About this - and other things.  This is VERY good for Ross.  I am pretty sure his attorney will be asking for a retrial by the end of the week.

This isn't prosecutorial misconduct. Firstly, it's not misconduct by the prosecutors. Secondly, I'm not sure that the prosecutors were under a duty to disclose this. The agents did not testify, so this doesn't go to their credibility (Giglio). It's not exculpatory, in that it doesn't tend to negate the guilt of one of the elements of the charges against Ulbricht. That means it's not Brady. And of course it's not under the Jencks Act because the agents didn't testify.

Oh yeah?  Haven't you ever heard about 'fruit from the poisoned tree'?  Force4 was the lead investigator.  Every bit of evidence is derived from his original efforts.  There is no evidence which does not come from the work product of a criminal whose efforts were per se adverse to Ross' position.  

How do you like them apples Legal Beagle?

The Judge won't change her mind - I agree with you on this point.  But request for retrial is an action taken against her.  No doubt she won't agree with it.  But on appeal, a different judge will decide the tree question. 

Carl Force was not the LEAD investigator. He was the lead contact with DPR. He was part of the maryland group called "marco polo" the maryland office just knew what the new york and other offices were doing, but they all had separate investigations. My gut feeling is that Russ might get a new trial, but that doesn't change a lot of the facts, but i dont see how they can keep the murder for hire charge, they would have to call Carl as witness and he would just plead the fifth, unless he cuts a deal. Force is going to prison for a long time. Lets hope the government doesn't screw this one up...

[mikewirth]

Ad homimem attacks don't do your arguments any help.

One thing that even the most argumentative bastard on this site, of which you may very well be, cannot argue with is the following: Those filthy fucking dirty cops, like so many other similar cops, were reprehensible in their activities.  Cops, and lots of them, are dirty as week old laundry.  The difference is, a little soap will put the laundry back in good order.  Dirty cops are filthy for ever -  you don't ever really put them right.  

I imagine there will be a few fellows in jail for drug related offenses.  I wonder what they will think of their new DEA roommate.  I imagine ol' Force4 will get a bonus with his sentence.  That bonus being the anger of his new peers.  Force4 is well fucked - and he deserve it too.

[Blackbird0]

I'm not sure I've got this straight, but it's likely that the investigation into actions of these agents has been going on for some time. If so, then as Ulbricht's trial was going on, the federal government knew that it likely had a big mess on its hands internally.

So is it reasonable/possible that they worked hard to scrub the prosecution's case to keep it clean of any evidence of contamination from Force and Bridges? If so then Ulbricht's conviction may hold up. But if they did not do this and evidence from their activities was used, then it looks like he may have a serious opening.

What you say is most likely exactly what happened.

[Its About Sharing]

I'm not sure I've got this straight, but it's likely that the investigation into actions of these agents has been going on for some time. If so, then as Ulbricht's trial was going on, the federal government knew that it likely had a big mess on its hands internally.

So is it reasonable/possible that they worked hard to scrub the prosecution's case to keep it clean of any evidence of contamination from Force and Bridges? If so then Ulbricht's conviction may hold up. But if they did not do this and evidence from their activities was used, then it looks like he may have a serious opening.

That possibility you just mentioned sure does fit like well fitting glove, now doesn't it? I believe when I saw the trial notes that is when I really started to question
the case. Though going in I couldn't imagine the trial would be fair.

For sure they will do everything in their illegal and legal powers to make sure Ulbricht doesn't go free. But that said, the case can
fall apart and would be even beyond corruptions manipulative hands. They are on their heels now. This is not small thing.
I would not at all be shocked at a Dismissal, but they can't have dancing in the streets, now can they?
And they sure as Eternal Life don't want a made for TV movie or series, ending where he gets let go and the war on drugs basically collapses a few months later.  

[Blackbird0]

I'm not sure I've got this straight, but it's likely that the investigation into actions of these agents has been going on for some time. If so, then as Ulbricht's trial was going on, the federal government knew that it likely had a big mess on its hands internally.

So is it reasonable/possible that they worked hard to scrub the prosecution's case to keep it clean of any evidence of contamination from Force and Bridges? If so then Ulbricht's conviction may hold up. But if they did not do this and evidence from their activities was used, then it looks like he may have a serious opening.

That possibility you just mentioned sure does fit like well fitting glove, now doesn't it? I believe when I saw the trial notes that is when I really started to question
the case. Though going in I couldn't imagine the trial would be fair.

For sure they will do everything in their illegal and legal powers to make sure Ulbricht doesn't go free. But that said, the case can
fall apart and would be even beyond corruptions manipulative hands. They are on their heels now. This is not small thing.
I would not at all be shocked at a Dismissal, but they can't have dancing in the streets, now can they?
And they sure as Eternal Life don't want a made for TV movie or series, ending where he gets let go and the war on drugs basically collapses a few months later.  

It looks like a "well fitting glove," because it's something done very frequently in federal prosecution.

Let me sketch out an example of how this is done.

Let's say a confession is take from a suspect in violation of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and Miranda v. Arizona. The government cannot use that confession in court. Moreover, the government prosecutors cannot use any of the fruit of that confession. So the government regularly will set up two teams of law enforcement and prosecutors. A so-called "taint team," that knows the confession, and a "trial team" that takes case to trial. The taint team screens all the evidence to make sure it isn't tainted with the unconstitutional confession, and then gives the untained evidence to the trial team.

While a procedure quite as rigorous as that would not have been necessary here, because there is no unconstitutional taint, I bring it up to demonstrate that federal prosecutors are familiar with segregating different components into different teams in order to avoid similar problems.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

<Highly informative summary of SR/DEA/DPR>

Thank you, gmaxwell, for that excellent informative summary.

I just want to add one little-known detail:

CarlForce is the brother of ArtForz.

[Chef Ramsay]

Live by the fed sword, get rekt by it in the end when you think your expertise is too high.

I've got to say that I'm very surprised that these guys went rogue like this when they had such great jobs, thinking they could pull this move and get away with it. Unless, they were sold on the anonymity factor that really doesn't exist. I think hubris did them in and I feel for their families at this point.

[QuestionAuthority]

I think hubris did them in and I feel for their families at this point.

How about the families of the lives he interfered with during his Career, I am sure many others suffered unjustly as a result of FORCE's conduct.

It's likely he's been doing things like this for a long time, only this time he got caught. The brazen way he did it all was the sign of a man who'd done it over and over and never gotten caught.

I don't think anyone will argue that cops are superhuman. The PoPo is just as human and just as fallible as anyone in any other profession. You are correct. He was a person of low moral and ethical standards because that's who he has always been. You can give all the psych evaluations you want to cops and there will always be kooks that slip through the net. Bad cops don't worry me. The most they can do is kill a few people. Air Force pilots flying around and submarines sailing around with live nuclear warheads scares me. Not a happy thought.

[Tomatocage]

<Highly informative summary of SR/DEA/DPR>

Thank you, gmaxwell, for that excellent informative summary.

I just want to add one little-known detail:

CarlForce is the brother of ArtForz.

How do you know this? If that's true, why would he need to steal BTC? ArtForz has tons of it, and I'm sure he would have just given Carl some.

Edit: And who is/was Carl on Bitcointalk.org?