Ross Ulbricht: FBI Didn't Have Search Warrant, Violated Fourth Amendment

[counter]

The motion isn't really to actually just throw out the case/dismiss the charges. It is actually an attempt to learn how the Government located the servers in the first place, and to determine IF that was done legally. If it was not done legally, then they are asking that the evidence be thrown out due to the "Fruit of the poisonous tree" meaning that if they hadn't found the servers, he would not have been caught (at least not when he was anyway).

This REALLY is the big question here, the biggest part of which is, why the hell are they in fact taking soooo damn long to show how they did it?? Most people take silence as an indicator of guilt, and if they did do everything "by the book" then why the hell not just say how it was done??

1. The Government’s Location of the Silk Road Servers
As set forth ante, all of the searches and seizures conducted pursuant to warrants and/or
orders were based on the initial ability of the government to locate the Silk Road Servers, obtain
the ESI on them, and perform extensive forensic analysis of that ESI. Thus, all subsequent
searches and seizures are invalid if that initial locating the Silk Road Servers, obtaining their ESI,
and gaining real-time continued access to those servers, was accomplished unlawfully.

a. Discovery of the Means By Which the Government Located the Servers

A definitive answer as to whether the government gained access to the Silk Road servers
lawfully or unlawfully is not possible at this stage because the government has not disclosed how
it located the Silk Road Servers. However, it is apparent that the government did not seek or
obtain a warrant to acquire the ESI on those servers, as the subsequent warrant applications note
that the ESI was provided in response to a request pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty
(hereinafter “MLAT”).
As a result, Mr. Ulbricht seeks discovery of the means and methods employed by the
government to locate the Silk Road Servers, and the contents of the MLAT request(s). Those
discovery demands are set forth post, in POINT II, at 60.
The discovery demanded is essential to determine whether the entire series of warrants
and/or orders are infected by the government’s access to the Silk Road Servers, which included
not only their ESI, but also an ability to monitor activity on those servers continuously and in
real-time.

Thanks for putting things in perspective.  This could be a real turn around in the case and I'm anxiously waiting to see how the feds respond to how they gained access to the servers.  At this point I'm suspecting they've not done things by the book.  They want the public to think they have the boogey man in custody and if they lose on a "technicality" like this their whole case turns into a witch hunt.  I'm very interested to see where this goes.

[jbreher]

The constitution is the law of the land and is superior then any other laws in the US.

That is true. But irrelevant. Read the rest of the founding documents. The Constitution says what it says because it encoded the founder's best attempt at setting up a government that acted according to their shared philosophy of governance. This philosophy included the notion that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Read your history. The BoR was controversial at its time of adoption. One of the arguments against the adoption of the BoR was that these rights existed before the government was founded, and were indeed inalienable. Some were worried that, should they encode this limited set of rights to text, other rights not so enumerated would be usurped.

How right they were.

Or, as I posted earlier, just read the 2008 Heller decision. The Supremes therein baldly state that rights exist separate from the Constitution. The Constitution cannot usurp a right that is inalienable.

[jbreher]

...

Fedaralist 84:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

[LouReed]

doubt that trial judge will dismiss the case based on a technicality, however I would say there is a good chance that he can win via the appeals process.

I wouldn't call an unconstitutional search to be a technicality and I would hope no judge wouldn't either.  That being said we don't really know how strong the claim of a 4th amendment violation is.  A judge may disagree and allow the evidence to be presented.

The motion isn't really to actually just throw out the case/dismiss the charges. It is actually an attempt to learn how the Government located the servers in the first place, and to determine IF that was done legally. If it was not done legally, then they are asking that the evidence be thrown out....

Why do so many people call this a "technicality"?
Vital, primary freedoms are of supreme importance, not a technicality.

I hope you were not referring to me cause I did not say anything about a "technicality"? They are NOT looking for a "technicality", they are asking that the Government show their course of action from the inception of the trail of warrants.

Reading this paper/request, I don't see how any judge acting under oath could allow the evidence to remain if they don't provide the requested details of how they located the server. As I said before, how they were even able to get this far without producing ALL of the evidence is beyond me, and the only reason I can think of for them to withhold said legally obtained evidence, is because it does not exist!

Anyone who hopes he is found guilty is truly out of touch with reality, and what it means for the rest of us if this happens! By making such ridiculous statements you are showing just how fucking stupid you really are!! Please take a little time to research the situation and what a guilty verdict will mean for the internet as we know it.

[Xch4ng3]

did anything like this ever get off on a technicality?

I feel sorry for the guy, appears to be desperately trying everything without believing that he's doomed.

I saw a case where a drug dealer had all charges dropped against him because the evidence presented was obtained without a warrant, I can't find the link though so hopefully someone else knows what I'm talking about.

I do agree though, there's been so many defences thrown - but I am wondering, technically the case against Ross is pretty strong why is it taking so long for them to come to a ruling? Is it because of the multiple defences prolonging the case or something else?

[moni3z]

Personally I think he's screwed. I agree his only defense is to challenge how they found him in the first place, because if he pleads guilty to being Dread Pirate Roberts that basically seals his fate in the second trial where he faces 2 counts of murder for hire, one being a federal witness. I predict the prosecutors will quote some obscure federal law about terrorist financing or something equally stupid that allowed for the FBI to act without a warrant and the judge will hear it in a closed courtroom, and agree that sure all is in good order where Ross can proceed to get his multiple life sentences because he cannot plead out. If he fails this challenge and is found guilty, his next only hope is for the political climate in the US to change at a later date where he can file an appeal to challenge the no warrant arrest. That's assuming he even survives prison, all those bitcoins that were auctioned off belonged to other drug dealers. They may run into him inside at some point and ask for their money back.

[tooil]

Personally I think he's screwed. I agree his only defense is to challenge how they found him in the first place, because if he pleads guilty to being Dread Pirate Roberts that basically seals his fate in the second trial where he faces 2 counts of murder for hire, one being a federal witness. I predict the prosecutors will quote some obscure federal law about terrorist financing or something equally stupid that allowed for the FBI to act without a warrant and the judge will hear it in a closed courtroom, and agree that sure all is in good order where Ross can proceed to get his multiple life sentences because he cannot plead out. If he fails this challenge and is found guilty, his next only hope is for the political climate in the US to change at a later date where he can file an appeal to challenge the no warrant arrest. That's assuming he even survives prison, all those bitcoins that were auctioned off belonged to other drug dealers. They may run into him inside at some point and ask for their money back.

One thing to get caught by government and it is quite another to steal from drug dealers.

Mark Karpeles will have a harder time facing drug lord than Ross Ulbricht.

[dwma]

One can hope there are a decent amount of impartial judges who do their job to uphold the law.