DEA Agents in Silk Road Case Face Fraud Charges

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

What do you think is the error in his legal opinion regarding the likelihood that these disclosures about the agents would grant a retrial? As I said, I believe that view to be correct.

His legal opinion? He's a techy. I value his legal opinion as much as I would value his medical opinion on a growth on my ass.

Also, for reasons I cited above, I believe him to be partisan.

Edit:  Look, short story - all this is based on a document released by the prosecution. To that end, it is likely to contain only information favourable to the prosecution. That is, not the full facts of the case, and the role of the DEA within it. Only an independent, sworn judicial inquiry into the conduct of the DEA and its officers will get to the truth of what went on during that investigation. Until that concludes, I firmly believe Ross' conviction to be unsound.

[1714585650]

1714585650

[1714585650]

1714585650

[1714585650]

1714585650

[1714585650]

1714585650

[Blackbird0]

What do you think is the error in his legal opinion regarding the likelihood that these disclosures about the agents would grant a retrial? As I said, I believe that view to be correct.

His legal opinion? He's a techy. I value his legal opinion as much as I would value his medical opinion on a growth on my ass.

Your just attacking his credentials though, not his substance.

Also, for reasons I cited above, I believe him to be partisan.

Edit:  Look, short story - all this is based on a document released by the prosecution. To that end, it is likely to contain only information favourable to the prosecution. That is, not the full facts of the case, and the role of the DEA within it. Only an independent, sworn judicial inquiry into the conduct of the DEA and its officers will get to the truth of what went on during that investigation. Until that concludes, I firmly believe Ross' conviction to be unsound.

Well, that's not true. The government has an obligation to disclose information that is exculpatory, that is, information that tends to negate one of the elements of the crime. We have to presume that the government has done so because the defense has failed in its attempts to get more information that it alleges is exculpatory.

After a conviction, no defendant gets the benefit of an "independent, sworn judicial inquiry." We don't have anything like that in the United States. Judges do not make inquiries, though they can appoint special prosecutors. But that happens ... never. In fact, Congress abolished the position of "Independent Counsel" and replaced with the Office of Special Counsel at the DOJ in 1999. This was all after the Lewinsky matter which we all remember so well.

There will be an "inquiry" in that there appears to be an active prosecution against this agents. But the inquiry will not be judicial, and it will done by the DOJ. It will be "sworn" in the sense that there was sworn testimony before the Grand Jury, but unless the case goes to trial, there will be no public, "sworn" statements (excepting of course the sworn plea colloquy).

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Your just attacking his credentials though, not his substance.

Damn right!!  The opinion of someone with no training in the field is worthless. The substance of an opinion follows from the credentials of those forming it. Im not going to turn up in court for a medical negligence claim with my mechanic describing my injuries.

Well, that's not true. The government has an obligation to disclose information that is exculpatory, that is, information that tends to negate one of the elements of the crime. We have to presume that the government has done so because the defense has failed in its attempts to get more information that it alleges is exculpatory.

Its better to presume that the government will tell you what it can get away with for now.

After a conviction, no defendant gets the benefit of an "independent, sworn judicial inquiry." We don't have anything like that in the United States. Judges do not make inquiries, though they can appoint special prosecutors. But that happens ... never. In fact, Congress abolished the position of "Independent Counsel" and replaced with the Office of Special Counsel at the DOJ in 1999. This was all after the Lewinsky matter which we all remember so well.

Well, thats a constitutional issue for Americans to face up to. Over here, the memory of Alfred Denning and his "appalling vista" are still fresh enough to give citizens a healthy disrespect for the so called "infallibility" of the law.

There will be an "inquiry" in that there appears to be an active prosecution against this agents. But the inquiry will not be judicial, and it will done by the DOJ. It will be "sworn" in the sense that there was sworn testimony before the Grand Jury, but unless the case goes to trial, there will be no public, "sworn" statements (excepting of course the sworn plea colloquy).

By quoting the word 'inquiry', you accept yourself that it will be of no value. Again, that does nothing to address the issue at hand. The authorities have made a monumental mess of this, but nobody will ever be brought to account. The fact that someone is in jail when there may be a solid case for his release/retrial is just grist to the mill. There is no point in pursuing foregn policies abroad, purporting to support democracy and freedom, when this is going on at home. 

[Blackbird0]

It sounds like most of your arguments are really political ones that take issue with how the U.S. legal system is structured. I'm not really going to engage in those, since I'm just trying to respond and provide some commentary on what I view the legal issues to be.

I will note that you say "nobody will ever be brought to account." The two agents are indicted. They are facing consequences for their actions, and they will presumably continue to face consequences as their legal proceedings ramp up.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

It sounds like most of your arguments are really political ones that take issue with how the U.S. legal system is structured. I'm not really going to engage in those, since I'm just trying to respond and provide some commentary on what I view the legal issues to be.

No politics at all. Where did I mention politics? ** There are shortcomings ( as I view them, and im sure some constitutionalists in the US may agree) in the legal process brought to light by such a case. I think these need to be looked at. But I'm not subject to American law, and am not trained in the law, so its moot.

I will note that you say "nobody will ever be brought to account." The two agents are indicted. They are facing consequences for their actions, and they will presumably continue to face consequences as their legal proceedings ramp up.

If you think that the DEA's involvement begins and ends with these two, then I feel you may be looking at it in too superficial a level. Without a full inquiry ( which will not happen) you will never be able to say for sure whether justice was done or not.

" justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done"


** Ok US foreign policy might be just the teeniest bit political, so consider the remark cheerfully withdrawn! 

[Blackbird0]

No politics at all. Where did I mention politics?  There are shortcomings ( as I view them, and im sure some constitutionalists in the US may agree) in the legal process brought to light by such a case. I think these need to be looked at. But I'm not subject to American law, and am not trained in the law, so its moot.

I mean politics in the sense that you are critiquing the entire criminal justice process as a whole, rather than merely this individual prosecution.

If you think that the DEA's involvement begins and ends with these two, then I feel you may be looking at it in too superficial a level. Without a full inquiry ( which will not happen) you will never be able to say for sure whether justice was done or not.

" justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done"

I suspect it was limited to these two agents. It's hard to keep a criminal conspiracy quiet among so many people, and frankly, it's monumentally stupid for these guys to be throwing away extremely lucrative and valuable careers over this.

[Its About Sharing]

Before this gets out of hand with heartless logic, don't forget your roots.

I think you should apply this wider... question everything.

I do and encourage it in general. But this was just a quote from Benjamin, baby steps...

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

I mean politics in the sense that you are critiquing the entire criminal justice process as a whole, rather than merely this individual prosecution.

I think you may have turned that on its head....  Im speaking of limitations as they apply to this individual prosecution, and the chances of redressing any damage caused

I suspect it was limited to these two agents. It's hard to keep a criminal conspiracy quiet among so many people, and frankly, it's monumentally stupid for these guys to be throwing away extremely lucrative and valuable careers over this.

I respect your suspicions, but I do not share your faith in stupidity.... 

[bigasic]

This is a really good debate. Valid arguments from both sides. The prosecution is going to say that nothing happened except that they stole money. There is probably no evidence that they did nothing else, Ive read EVERYTHING that has been unsealed and while I think that they were dirty, (at least the dea agent was) before all of this, there is no proof. and the logs what DPR shows that he wanted a murder to take place, the Dea agent just did Dprs bidding. But on the flip side, its been stated that Carl had multiple personas. They got that info from his undercover computer, whos to say that he didnt use another computer and used many more aliases and there is much more that we dont know.. this is what I think need to be looked at, maybe it is.

On a side note, i think Ross would be in a much better situation if he would have claimed ownership of those servers. His attorney could have got all the evidence thrown out. Im no lawyer, i cant think of why he would admit that Ross started SR and not claim the servers, makes no sense to me at all.

I think that the agents were just greedy. it was in their best interest that dpr not be arrested. Carl could have kept making money and neither one of them would have been caught. So, I think that puts to bed that they set DPR up, why would you want to kill the golden goose?

[IDKwhatimdoing]

These DEA agents aren't even good to themselves, haha always "catching" crime. They are the ones who make crime!

A sad example that shows that power corrupts.

[bryant.coleman]

These DEA agents aren't even good to themselves, haha always "catching" crime. They are the ones who make crime!
A sad example that shows that power corrupts.

You are not getting it. If the society is crime-free, then these DEA guys will lose their jobs. So it is natural to expect them to create crime scenes, once the crime graph starts to go down. 

[Whitehouse]

These DEA agents aren't even good to themselves, haha always "catching" crime. They are the ones who make crime!
A sad example that shows that power corrupts.

You are not getting it. If the society is crime-free, then these DEA guys will lose their jobs. So it is natural to expect them to create crime scenes, once the crime graph starts to go down. 

I think this is a ridiculous proposition and complete conspiracy theory. The gov don't have to worry about crime rates dropping to the point of 'creating' more crime otherwise the feds/police becoming redundant and unnecessary. There's plenty of crime committed without having to create more to remain employed and relevant not to mention the ridiculous laws that create it in the first place (drug prohibition for example).

[bryant.coleman]

These DEA agents aren't even good to themselves, haha always "catching" crime. They are the ones who make crime!
A sad example that shows that power corrupts.

You are not getting it. If the society is crime-free, then these DEA guys will lose their jobs. So it is natural to expect them to create crime scenes, once the crime graph starts to go down. 

I think this is a ridiculous proposition and complete conspiracy theory. The gov don't have to worry about crime rates dropping to the point of 'creating' more crime otherwise the feds/police becoming redundant and unnecessary. There's plenty of crime committed without having to create more to remain employed and relevant not to mention the ridiculous laws that create it in the first place (drug prohibition for example).

You are not getting it. The private prison industry in the United States is a multi-billion dollar business. Reduce the number of convicts, and thousands will lose their jobs. And police departments get more funding, when the crime rates spiral out of control. Everything is interconnected.

[QuestionAuthority]

These DEA agents aren't even good to themselves, haha always "catching" crime. They are the ones who make crime!
A sad example that shows that power corrupts.

You are not getting it. If the society is crime-free, then these DEA guys will lose their jobs. So it is natural to expect them to create crime scenes, once the crime graph starts to go down. 

I think this is a ridiculous proposition and complete conspiracy theory. The gov don't have to worry about crime rates dropping to the point of 'creating' more crime otherwise the feds/police becoming redundant and unnecessary. There's plenty of crime committed without having to create more to remain employed and relevant not to mention the ridiculous laws that create it in the first place (drug prohibition for example).

You are not getting it. The private prison industry in the United States is a multi-billion dollar business. Reduce the number of convicts, and thousands will lose their jobs. And police departments get more funding, when the crime rates spiral out of control. Everything is interconnected.

A+ for knowledge or information gathering. Most people don't realize that the American prison system is a private for profit industry. The ACLU has fought against the inequities of the privatized prison system for a long time.

Private prison companies, however, essentially admit that their business model depends on locking up more and more people. For example, in a 2010 Annual Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) stated: “The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by . . . leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices . . . .” As incarceration rates skyrocket, the private prison industry expands at exponential rates, holding ever more people in its prisons and jails, and generating massive profits.

And while supporters of private prisons tout the idea that governments can save money through privatization, the evidence that private prisons save taxpayer money is mixed at best – in fact, private prisons may in some instances cost more than governmental ones. Private prisons have also been linked to numerous cases of violence and atrocious conditions.

[Whitehouse]

These DEA agents aren't even good to themselves, haha always "catching" crime. They are the ones who make crime!
A sad example that shows that power corrupts.

You are not getting it. If the society is crime-free, then these DEA guys will lose their jobs. So it is natural to expect them to create crime scenes, once the crime graph starts to go down. 

I think this is a ridiculous proposition and complete conspiracy theory. The gov don't have to worry about crime rates dropping to the point of 'creating' more crime otherwise the feds/police becoming redundant and unnecessary. There's plenty of crime committed without having to create more to remain employed and relevant not to mention the ridiculous laws that create it in the first place (drug prohibition for example).

You are not getting it. The private prison industry in the United States is a multi-billion dollar business. Reduce the number of convicts, and thousands will lose their jobs. And police departments get more funding, when the crime rates spiral out of control. Everything is interconnected.

No, I get the privatized prison system, but what I'm not buying is your conspiracy theory that they're creating crime scenes merely to fill prisons when crime rate drops. That's just something you made up. There will never be a shortage of poor people they can lock up for minor crimes.

[bryant.coleman]

No, I get the privatized prison system, but what I'm not buying is your conspiracy theory that they're creating crime scenes merely to fill prisons when crime rate drops. That's just something you made up. There will never be a shortage of poor people they can lock up for minor crimes.

Most of the poor people are inside the jail for fake charges, such as cannabis possession. There are hundreds of thousands of people who are inside the jails for such fake charges. So tell me why these people are being arrested.

[luckyluigi]

These DEA agents aren't even good to themselves, haha always "catching" crime. They are the ones who make crime!
A sad example that shows that power corrupts.

You are not getting it. If the society is crime-free, then these DEA guys will lose their jobs. So it is natural to expect them to create crime scenes, once the crime graph starts to go down. 

I think this is a ridiculous proposition and complete conspiracy theory. The gov don't have to worry about crime rates dropping to the point of 'creating' more crime otherwise the feds/police becoming redundant and unnecessary. There's plenty of crime committed without having to create more to remain employed and relevant not to mention the ridiculous laws that create it in the first place (drug prohibition for example).

You are not getting it. The private prison industry in the United States is a multi-billion dollar business. Reduce the number of convicts, and thousands will lose their jobs. And police departments get more funding, when the crime rates spiral out of control. Everything is interconnected.

No, I get the privatized prison system, but what I'm not buying is your conspiracy theory that they're creating crime scenes merely to fill prisons when crime rate drops. That's just something you made up. There will never be a shortage of poor people they can lock up for minor crimes.

It's not a conspiracy theory when it's common knowledge that cops constantly do "sting operations" where they orchestrate the whole thing.

[bryant.coleman]

Exactly the connections between drug prohibition, prison industrial complex and political corruption in general are so obvious as to be undeniable. In all but 2 states in the US prisoners are not allowed to vote, yet they are counted for purposes of determining the number of representatives a state gets in Congress and from which districts. This is eerily similar to the "three-fifths" laws of slavery times when a slave could not vote but was counted as 3/5 of a person for determining representation in the legislature, so that the slave states would get more members in Congress. Because prisons are usually built in rural, conservative parts of the states while most prisoners come from big cities, this has the effects of getting more Republicans elected to Congress since those ignorant republican backwoods get higher numbers of legislators due to their prisoner populations. There's really nothing conspiratorial about any of this because it was all done out in the open through the political process. There's no secrecy involved, it's all completely public and documented. This is just 1 element within this vast system of oppression, the rabbit hole on this is almost unfathomably convoluted.

Remember that more than 1% of the American adult population is currently incarcerated. This 1% is not a small amount. In many of the senate / house elections, the victory margin is much lower than 1%.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

No, I get the privatized prison system, but what I'm not buying is your conspiracy theory that they're creating crime scenes merely to fill prisons when crime rate drops. That's just something you made up. There will never be a shortage of poor people they can lock up for minor crimes.

I think what he is trying to say is that what constitutes a criminal offence can be dictated by the state. Trivial offences can be criminalised, this attracting jailtime. So, in a society where there is a gradual decrease in serious crimes against the person or property, the existing framework of Law Enforcement can be kept productive. The last thing a state wants is a well trained and equipped force returned to civilian life.

"creating crime scenes"  - look at he Silk Road case. If you take the DEA out of this case, how serious is it? A website for guys selling a bit of weed and head stuff? Guys been doing that in Europe out of the Netherlands for years. Enter the DEA - and now you have have "nob" (DEA thief) trying to move 1 KILO of coke ( even the SR regulars reckoned this was suspicious and probably LE), funds being STOLEN (by DEA guy), innocent staff being framed by DEA for theft, hitmen being offered (by DEA) -etc.  Things seemed to go to sh*t once the DEA was involved.

Have a look the evidence. All the really bad stuff had the DEA involved everytime.

"creating crime scenes" ??  Maybe not such a far fetched idea after all.  

[bigasic]

Think about what would happen if the war on drugs ended.. They would have to close down 95 percent of the prisons. They would have to lay off tens of thousands of DEA and other Federal agents. Its too big of a money maker for the government. But maybe they will just start their own silk road and start another revenue stream, lol...

This is why we will never see the end of the war on drugs. I wonder how many people would be out of work? it would start from federal agents, down to all the subcontractors, so im sure the number is huge. But, they can then switch their attention to drug prevention, and rehab. I believe the stats of portugal prove that decriminalizing drugs works, but they dont want us to know. They dont have to make illegal drugs legal, just decriminalize them. its a multibillion dollar a year business for the government. So of course they are against it. Who wants to get rid of their own  job, lol!...

Ill have to look up the exact numbers on how much the government spends on this war on drugs, im sure the numbers will be impressive..