Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ross Ulbricht Faces New Drug Charges

timothy posted about 2 months ago | from the there's-laws-and-there's-laws dept.

Crime 102

Alleged Silk Road mastermind Ross Ulbricht now faces additional drug-related charges. Ars Technica gives a run-down on the run-down, and shows an array of driver's licenses that can't look good to a jury: According to a 17-page amended indictment filed late Thursday night, the government introduced one count of “narcotics trafficking,” of “distribution of narcotics by means of the Internet,” and of "conspiracy to traffic in fraudulent identification documents." Previously, Ulbricht was indicted in February 2014 on four formal criminal offenses: narcotics trafficking conspiracy, continuing criminal enterprise, computer hacking conspiracy, and money laundering conspiracy. Ulbricht pleaded not guilty to the previous charges, and he seems likely to plead not guilty to the new ones as well.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Guilty (2, Interesting)

digsbo (1292334) | about 2 months ago | (#47744095)

Of facilitating voluntary transactions between consenting adults.

Re:Guilty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744317)

> Of facilitating voluntary transactions between consenting adults.

What about the part where he hires a hit man?

Re:Guilty (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744809)

According to the government he actually *failed* to hire a hit man...

Quite frankly the whole thing seems quite fabricated, even if parts of it are true.

To the extent most cases are made to seem extraordinary I'd throw them all out.

Every claim which is made should be backed up with evidence. Obviously saying or implying he was the biggest drug king pin on the internet is full of crap unless you are going to discard the billions of dollars the major drug cartels are laundering. Does anybody for an instance think they aren't using modern communications? Otherwise they are using the Internet and we can discard the whole case against him as having been fabricated for all intensive purposes.

Re:Guilty (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47745081)

For all "intensive purposes"? You're a fucking idiot.

Re:Guilty (2, Funny)

sacrilicious (316896) | about 2 months ago | (#47747691)

yeah! It's "for all in tents and porpoises"... an historical reference to those who lived nomadically or disguised as intelligent sea creatures.

Re:Guilty (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47745279)

>for all intensive purposes.

That's "intents and purposes".

Re:Guilty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47745477)

Yah. That also.

Re:Guilty (1)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | about 2 months ago | (#47745571)

Maybe he meant the case was all true for non-intensive purposes...
But I doubt it.

Re:Guilty (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744351)

Of facilitating voluntary transactions between consenting adults.

Consent cannot be given if one of the parties is mentally impaired and under duress due to the well-documented effects of drug addiction. It would be one thing if Silk Road had been only a marketplace for non-addictive substances like cannabis or hallucinogens, but in fact trade in heroin, cocaine and addictive painkillers was a major part of the site.

That said, I think that a government policy of offering drug users medical treatment would be better than the current policy of criminal prohibition, but let's not pretend that Silk Road was all sunshine and rainbows among people of sound mind and body.

Re:Guilty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744529)

Cannibis is addictive. I'm not really sure who gave you the idea that it isn't addictive. It is true that it's not as addictive as many other things, but you're completely full of shit if you're suggesting that the stuff isn't addictive.

Re:Guilty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744597)

That depends on your definition of addictive. Cannabis is not physically addictive. That is, you will not experience any real withdrawal when you stop. People can become psychologically addicted to just about anything.

Re: Guilty (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47745065)

I've smoked weed heavily for many many years. Recently I stopped. No withdraws.

Re: Guilty (0)

ArmoredDragon (3450605) | about 2 months ago | (#47745513)

No withdraws.

So you didn't stop after all?

Re:Guilty (1)

reub2000 (705806) | about 2 months ago | (#47744557)

That differs from the liquor store how?

Re:Guilty (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744611)

That differs from the liquor store how?

Only a small percentage of people who habitually consume alcohol become physiologically addicted to alcohol. With heroin and cocaine, the overwhelming majority of people who habitually consume these substances develop addiction. All of this is well documented. Just because one harmful substance remains legal and culturally popular does not make much of a case for condoning trade in substances shown to be vastly more harmful.

Re:Guilty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47745117)

Just because one harmful substance remains legal and culturally popular does not make much of a case for condoning trade in substances shown to be vastly more harmful.

You're begging the GP's question: is weed "vastly more harmful" than alcohol?

Re:Guilty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47745181)

You're begging the GP's question: is weed "vastly more harmful" than alcohol?

The OP did not argue that weed is harmful and pointed instead to the trade in hard drugs (heroin, cocaine) on Silk Road. Do you want to make a case that those substances are not more addictive than alcohol?

Re:Guilty (1)

reub2000 (705806) | about a month ago | (#47750619)

I'm not sure which class of substances is more addicative. But the ACs said that, "one of the parties is mentally impaired and under duress due to the well-documented effects of drug addiction." That statment could apply to many legal transactions. Even if you could show that alcohol was less addicative, many purchases are still made by addicts hoping not to face reality or withdrawls.

Re:Guilty (2)

Megol (3135005) | about 2 months ago | (#47746171)

Yes. Psychosis is induced more often by weed than alcohol, smoking weed can give a lot of troubles with the lungs and cardio vascular system (mostly caused by carbon monoxide poisoning) which in turn can lead to other problems. Eating weed have less harmful effects but still can trigger psychosis.

Alcohol is a poison but if used in reasonable quantities have fewer side effects than reasonable use of weed. Yes it is well documented. No I won't google it for you.

[expecting to get downvoted by weed fanatics that think it is a harmless "natural" drug]

Re:Guilty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47746667)

Of course you won't Google it, you know this is total made-up bullshit. I take it you must profit from the drug prohibition since those are the only people who still try to make these ridiculous claims today. Psychosis? Really? I can't believe people still buy this non-sense.

Re:Guilty (2)

limaxray (1292094) | about 2 months ago | (#47746623)

[Citation Needed]

Outside of government propaganda, I haven't seen much supporting the case that drugs like cocaine have a higher rate of abuse than alcohol. Furthermore, alcohol is the only drug that I'm aware of with withdrawal symptoms that includes death.

At the end of the day, violently throwing people in cages at gun point for getting high on substances you don't approve of is far more harmful to both the drug user and society as a whole. This whole argument of which drug is more or less dangerous is stupid because the drug prohibition has done far more damage to our society than recreational drug use.

Re:Guilty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47748317)

I believe benzos are also on that list.

Re:Guilty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47748355)

Yep. [wikipedia.org] Death. Death. More death. Death. Worse death, etc..

Re:Guilty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744831)

OK- so if I get high before signing some important document (like a mortgage) I can later get out of it based on that premise?

Obviously the people already made the decision to *do drug* and the actions thereafter can't be discarded purely on this basis. If you think otherwise then nobody should ever be brought up on drug charges. While I think that is good policy I'd be hard pressed to say just because people are on drugs makes these things involuntary, etc.

At best they might have diminished responsibility, but that doesn't make the guy who provides the hosting a facilitator.

Re:Guilty (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 months ago | (#47745069)

According to the federal government, Cannabis and Hallucinogens are in fact addictive.
http://www.justice.gov/dea/doc... [justice.gov]

It's all lies to keep the war on drugs alive and well... but hey, when did the truth matter?

Re:Guilty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47748285)

I can actually confirm first-hand that cannabis is at least psychologically addictive with mild withdrawl symptoms, but it was more "I am a jerk for a week" than "OMG spiders under my skin need my fix".

Re:Guilty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47750057)

Posting anon to preserve other mods.

When the federal government funds studies that involve asphyxiating monkeys with concentrated weed smoke to prove that cannabis kills, people will [rightfully] be skeptical of other bullshit they spew on this subject. That ship has sailed.

Re:Guilty (1)

ArmoredDragon (3450605) | about 2 months ago | (#47745507)

Consent cannot be given if one of the parties is mentally impaired and under duress due to the well-documented effects of drug addiction. It would be one thing if Silk Road had been only a marketplace for non-addictive substances like cannabis or hallucinogens, but in fact trade in heroin, cocaine and addictive painkillers was a major part of the site.

I think it would be a stronger argument that somebody isn't responsible for their own behavior while intoxicated. In fact, you'd have to pretty well establish that notion before you could even get to what you just said.

Re:Guilty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47748247)

"Consent cannot be given if one of the parties is mentally impaired and under duress due to the well-documented effects of drug addiction."

you're either a socialist dipshit or an on-topic troll.

Re:Guilty (1, Informative)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about 2 months ago | (#47744375)

And you know, of conspiring to commit murder. People seem to forget that part.

Re:Guilty (2, Insightful)

digsbo (1292334) | about 2 months ago | (#47744547)

Last I heard, all our surviving presidents and most of Congress are walking around free, dude...

Re:Guilty (1)

digsbo (1292334) | about 2 months ago | (#47744559)

Of course, that's BS, because two wrongs don't make a right. But the new charge is the subject of the story, and that's really what I was getting at.

Re:Guilty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47745227)

Good point, but is it worth wasting thousands if not millions in tax payers money to chase down and try to convict someone who did nothing more then provide a means for people to conduct business. It's pretty apparent that he knows something or his lawyers and I will promise you the Feds will keep prolonging their "investigation" trying to tag on more charges to make themselves appear to have a case.

He didn't put a gun to anyones head and force them to conduct illegal activity! This country between politicians and moronic anti-drug laws has nothing but fucked up priorities.

Re:Guilty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47745949)

Wow, the cognitive dissonance is strong here.

He tried.
To kill.
Someone.

It doesn't matter how much you like him for other things he has done. It doesn't matter that other people have got away with it (sometimes with the consent of the people via war, which makes it justifiable according to many political systems).

If we go about letting people get away with trying to kill others just because enough of us like something else they did, we have the Stalinist situation where access to (in)justice depended precisely on how many connections you had.

As for the financial side, i.e. the trade in drugs, there are people in finance, politics and the military who have been involved in far worse things than he has. Again, the question is not, "Have all these other people been dealt with yet?" but, "Is he, as an individual, guilty for something which should be a crime?" There is no such thing as an informed consent between rational adults when one of the parties is a drug addict, and both heroin and cocaine are highly addictive, so there is no question to me that society has the right to forfeit all profits from recreational heroin and cocaine. Community work to help the victims of the hard recreational drug industry (neither cannabis nor alcohol, to be clear) might help. As to locking him up MERELY for dealing in drugs, well, nope, not if he himself isn't violent. Yes, the industry is violent, but that's not HIS fault, and I don't buy into the, "You're indirectly encouraging bad things!" method of justice which outlaws such things as mere viewing of terroristic or abusive images (in the UK, at least).

But he still tried to kill someone. That is violent. It doesn't matter that he could afford to pay someone else rather than do it himself - his intent is clear and causative chain is unbroken. It doesn't matter much that he failed - in sentencing, we do take into consideration whether he may have backed out and that incompetent people are less of a threat than competent people, but he still tried to kill someone.

Re:Guilty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47746295)

He tried.
To kill.
Someone.

Government prosecutors allege that he tried have someone killed.
This accusation has been denied by the accused.

If you have proof of his guilt, then I'm sure the government would like to talk to you. If not, then you should probably stop spreading aspersions, and let the court system make the decision as to his guilt based on the available evidence.

Re:Guilty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47748425)

You're being deliberately obtuse. The post was arguing that he should be left alone (because he has behaved in a way that some people admire) rather than remain subject to the law. ("chase down and try to convict"). The explicitly declared context is one of accusations, not of convictions. That doesn't need re-stating.

Re:Guilty (2)

Jahava (946858) | about 2 months ago | (#47744923)

Of facilitating voluntary transactions between consenting adults.

The illegality of those transactions is the only reason they are massively profitable, and that is likely the only reason he engaged in them.

Whether or not you agree with that illegality is irrelevant. By profiting from facilitation of illegal activity, Ulbricht leveraged an unfair market position to get ahead of the rest of the world. Anyone can break the law for disproportionate profit. He's That Guy, and if you live within the system (as most of us do), you need to support stamping him down. The alternative is that everyone break the law for profit, which consequently becomes non-disproportionate with a few other side effects.

Re:Guilty (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about 2 months ago | (#47746053)

It is totally relevant. By outlawing something harmless you create an artificial crime scene. Oh come on, there are STILL movies made about alcohol, the US and gangsters with "Chicago Typewriters". Off course any government who actually promotes crime can also use it to conveniently accuse anyone to be a criminal.

Re:Guilty (1)

khchung (462899) | about 2 months ago | (#47744989)

Of facilitating voluntary transactions between consenting adults.

So you also think we shouldn't have laws against buying/selling organs by adults, selling yourself into slavery, and prostitution? All of them are voluntary transactions between consenting adults.

Re:Guilty (2)

ArmoredDragon (3450605) | about 2 months ago | (#47745549)

What's wrong with prostitution? Ugly person A wants sex. Hot person B wants money and will tolerate and/or even enjoy a willy inside them. Person A pays person B for sex. Both get what they want. Damn those evil people, how dare they offend God! Why...sex is ok, but only if somebody doesn't get paid damnit! (Except the god described in the old testament. He's cool with it so long as you burn incense and sacrifice a lamb or two in his name.)

And I don't see anything wrong with selling your own organs either so long as it is done with the same stipulations that are already in place for donation. This is actually what Iran does and...surprise surprise...they're the only country where very few people die while waiting on organ transplants...Oh and people get paid to save lives in the process. What a backwards civilization those Iranians are, amirite? AMIRITE BRO?

As for the slavery part; in some respects people already do that.

Re:Guilty (1)

x0ra (1249540) | about 2 months ago | (#47745707)

We all know Anna Nicole married for love...

Re:Guilty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47745763)

As for the slavery part; in some respects people already do that.

Another point to be made is that you ought to be free to "sell" yourself into slavery but that doesn't necessarily imply a court of law will honor that contract. It isn't the roll of government to enforce every lame-brain contract people come up with. Not with my tax dollars!

Like gambling with a credit card, the casino has to take the risk that they won't get paid (i.e, it is a gamble, a concept with which they are very familiar).

So just because you sell yourself to me, it doesn't mean a court will uphold the contract. They may order you to return all or a portion of the money which puts me in a pickle if you have already spent it or sent it away. A fool and his money... oh well.

Re:Guilty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47750095)

It isn't the roll of government

Not until you slap a few slices of government cheese on it, at least.

Re:Guilty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47748329)

correct, dumbass

More litigants! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744111)

So if I buy a cell phone at Walmart and the battery catches on fire I can sue Walmart too? How about the cashier at Walmart and all of the stock people? They all share responsibility!

Re:More litigants! (2)

arth1 (260657) | about 2 months ago | (#47744315)

If they knew of quality problems that might be a danger and failed to inform you in order to make a profit, yes, absolutely.

Re:More litigants! (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about 2 months ago | (#47744745)

apologist

Chokehold (2)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about 2 months ago | (#47744125)

Is it just me, or is everyone against the War on Drugs at the same time opposed to the tobacco industry?

Re:Chokehold (3, Interesting)

digsbo (1292334) | about 2 months ago | (#47744231)

Nope. I'm opposed to the war on drugs, and I have no problem with Big Tobacco, so long as they do business honestly. In my opinion, as long as they don't lie, I don't even think they should be prevented from various advertising, or need to have safety warnings on their cancer sticks.

Re:Chokehold (3, Interesting)

Canth7 (520476) | about 2 months ago | (#47744323)

Exactly. Do I have a problem with Big Tobacco? Yes - because they lie about their products and refuse to disclose the ingredients cointained within their products. Otherwise, I have no problem with multinational companies that want to sell tobacco, cocaine or heroine.

Re:Chokehold (1)

digsbo (1292334) | about 2 months ago | (#47744553)

Refusal to disclose is different from lying. It's the choice of the consumer to ingest when they have access to information that tells them "the producer is hiding something".

Re:Chokehold (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744679)

Refusal to disclose is different from lying.

Yes, it's deceit, which is worse.

Re:Chokehold (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 months ago | (#47744381)

Yeah, as long as other people are allowed to physically remove a person smoking from their vicinity and they don't get any public funding for smoking disease related heath care.

Other than that... they're selling a highly addictive substance that in normal use results in disease and premature death.

Re:Chokehold (1)

Firethorn (177587) | about 2 months ago | (#47744669)

they don't get any public funding for smoking disease related heath care.

It's actually cheaper to just pay out the healthcare than to drive it underground.

Re:Chokehold (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 2 months ago | (#47744911)

"Yeah, as long as other people are allowed to physically remove a person smoking from their vicinity..."

What's the vicinity, chum? If I'm smoking a cigar outside and you walk up and lay a hand on me, there's problems.

Re:Chokehold (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 months ago | (#47754059)

The vicinity is where I can smell it.

I believe the problem would be the cigar shoved up your nose.

Re:Chokehold (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 months ago | (#47745587)

don't get any public funding for smoking disease related heath care

Why not? They paid a lot more of the tax that funds it compared to (say) sugar addicts with bad hearts, bacon lovers with clogged ateries, or skateboarders with broken bones. All of those health problems are "self inflicted" and entirely avoidable but for some reason nanny state arseholes like you have a vendetta against smokers, you insist they pay an excessive "sin tax" and then demand they be denied any benifits from that tax. Fuck you and the holier than thou horse you rode in on.

Re:Chokehold (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47746309)

The "sin tax" is to pay for cleaning up the heaps of discarded butts, bleaching the yellow stains off walls and ceilings, chemically cleaning furnishings infused with the stink, and subsidising health-care for the people negatively affected who did not themselves smoke.

You are free to smoke.
You are not free to cause anyone else hardship by your smoking.

Re:Chokehold (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744239)

It's just you

Re:Chokehold (1)

Zaelath (2588189) | about 2 months ago | (#47744259)

It's just you.

Re:Chokehold (2)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about 2 months ago | (#47744339)

Your friendly neighborhood drug dealer is at least more honest in not claiming that snorting will make you look young and sexy like a hunk or supermodel. I really can't understand why big tobacco isn't banned while most countries will send you to death or to jail for a very very long time if you're caught with even a few grams of the stuff.

Re:Chokehold (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 months ago | (#47745071)

Is it just me, or is everyone against the War on Drugs at the same time opposed to the tobacco industry?

No. The New York Times editorial staff maintains a stance in favor of legalizing marijuana, but opposed to tobacco, including e-cigarettes.

Re:Chokehold (1)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about 2 months ago | (#47745195)

Thanks for this input. Do they not understand that this leads to high taxes on cigarettes, leading to smuggling, leading to a chokehold death of a guy trying to make a living by selling them?

Nevermind Ulbricht.

Re:Chokehold (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 months ago | (#47745211)

tbh not much of their argument seems coherent either way. I think it really comes down to the editors wanting to smoke pot, and not wanting to smoke cigarettes.

Re:Chokehold (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | about 2 months ago | (#47745325)

I'm "against" the tobacco industry, but I'm not a tobacco prohibitionist. Same as to marijuana.

On the other hand, I am against the methamphetamine industry and I am a methamphetamine prohibitionist.

Other drugs require more thought and /. isn't worth that.

Well... (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 2 months ago | (#47744155)

I certainly didn't do it.
You probably didn't do it.
That leaves only the overlords, themselves.
It's all a set up, with a scapegoat, as usual. This wouldn't make a decent T.V. show,lacks imagination. Therefore I suspect government tomfoolery in all of this.

Define torture (2, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 months ago | (#47744161)

Torture is violence or the threat of violence to extract a result. Prison is violent, so threats of prison are threats of violence.

Adding on more charges is to play the game of "we'll get you on something, so if you don't confess to this small list, we'll send you away to prison for a long time." That's threats of violence to get a result. So this is all a game of legal torture.

Cause harm and threaten harm until you get a confession, regardless of the guilt of the people involved. That's the American Way.

Re:Define torture (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744207)

Well if you define it that vaguely, I guess any sort of punishment at all is torture, and I am guilty of some kind of war crime if I ground my 13 year old daughter.

Re:Define torture (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 months ago | (#47744397)

Yes. You're also guilty if you threaten to ground her.

The government is also guilty because they've defined laws that pretty much say "If you kill someone on purpose and we can prove it beyond reasonable doubt, you're going to jail"

Re:Define torture (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 2 months ago | (#47744919)

That is moronic. Both counts.

Re:Define torture (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 months ago | (#47754063)

It's no more moronic than what AK Marc proposed.

Re:Define torture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47748327)

Didn't they already drop the attempted murder charges? I thought those were just to trick the public into thinking he is some kind of gangster.

Re:Define torture (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 months ago | (#47744817)

Then give me a definition of torture, so we can see what fits yours.

The original definition, as it was used in the Inquisition, would include taking away her iPad if she didn't do what you wanted (like clean her room). Threatening to kill her if she didn't perform sex acts with you would be "torture"? Or would you dispute that one as well? Then let's "lessen" the punishment and act demanded, and see where you draw the line.

But then, older definitions of slavery would still come close to applying to minors in the USA (with the exception that there's a fixed term, so it's more like indentured servitude), as indentured servitude was considered "slavery".

Re:Define torture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47745629)

Well for instance, it would be torture if I was to sew your asshole closed, and then keep feeding you, and feeding you, and feeding you.

Re:Define torture (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 months ago | (#47745759)

An example is not a definition.

Does any one believe there is such a thing a crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744171)

You can you what ever you want
Using the Internet to do it makes it more legal.

science does not can if you believe it or not.
The law is similar.
He can enjoy his time in prison allegedly.

TOR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744201)

Using TOR to cover his tracks isn't going to look real good to a jury either.

Re:TOR (3, Informative)

guruevi (827432) | about 2 months ago | (#47744265)

Why not? The whole proof beyond reasonable doubt comes into play here (criminal charges). If the prosecution can't prove anything, he walks. If he used TOR in order to hide suspected illegal activities, then they'll have to prove that, using TOR in itself is not a criminal activity.

Re:TOR (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 months ago | (#47744453)

It's not going to look good if you funnel your money through multiple companies to hide the real source.

He also can't disprove any allegations relating to what he's done over the Internet because he's purposefully removed all traces.

Like if I was a murder suspect and my alibi was "I was at a party on the night in question. There are hundreds of witnesses, except I was wearing a mask so no one could identify me. I also walked some of the way, took several different cars, buses and bikes in multiple directions to get there and back, so no one can even verify if I travelled there or not."

Re:TOR (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744499)

It's not going to look good if you funnel your money through multiple companies to hide the real source.

Oh, you mean not unlike American companies who funnel their money through offshore arms of the org to avoid paying taxes on it?

Yeah, somehow magically that bullshit isn't called tax evasion.

The double-standard just bruised your face you fell down so hard. Sorry 'bout that.

Re:TOR (4, Informative)

BitterOak (537666) | about 2 months ago | (#47744733)

He also can't disprove any allegations relating to what he's done over the Internet because he's purposefully removed all traces.

He doesn't have to disprove anything. In America it's up to the prosecution to prove that he did what they accused; it's not up to him to prove his innocence.

Re:TOR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744885)

Yea- seriously. It amazes me that despite how the system is suppose to work it just doesn't. The system is currently stacked against the accused. They don't actually expect anybody to be able to plead not guilty. The costs of defending oneself are astronomical. It doesn't matter if your guilty or not. Even if you have the money to put up a proper defense the outcome is likely only a little better. The way things are setup your best bet is to plead guilty and plea bargain the charges down. I had an uncle for whom they had no evidence of any criminal activity. What they did have was a circumstantial set of call logs with a person who plead guilty to insider trading (or something like that). They had zero evidence and he had shit tons of cash (all legitimately obtained- and no evidence he ever had gained once cent from the claimed conspiracy) and it wasn't worth fighting. Had he fought it the best he could have ended up with was zero prison time and a loss of everything (40 years of savings, house, business, etc) or plead guilty, spend a year in jail, and the loss of his legitimate business. Keep in mind the loss of his business was down to the accusation by the government and nothing more. That was the thing that killed him (figuratively). Not the jail time.

Re:TOR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47745089)

Wrong. According to the National Defense Authorization Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act look for 2012) that the Republicans forced Obama to sign, that is no longer true.

Re:TOR (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 months ago | (#47745225)

that the Republicans forced Obama to sign

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Re:TOR (1)

danlip (737336) | about a month ago | (#47749557)

Yeah, I'm pretty much a bleeding heart lefty and I still think blaming the Republicans for Obama signing NDAA is pretty ridiculous. There are plenty of things to blame the Republicans for, but Obama is hardly blameless either.

Re:TOR (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 months ago | (#47754055)

It's fine to support Obama, but to come up with that particular twisted viewpoint, a person would need to expect Obama to agree with him on everything.

Not only is the president still capable of vetoing bills, but it was passed with a bipartisan effort, and the administration has defended it in court.

Re:TOR (1)

ScentCone (795499) | about 2 months ago | (#47745337)

that the Republicans forced Obama to sign

Hilarious.

Re:TOR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47746251)

If all evidence brought to the court are against him then it's up to him to disprove those evidence, thus prove his innocence.

Re:TOR (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 months ago | (#47754045)

I thought it was up to the jury to decide innocence based on all the admissible information provided.
You assume that circumstantial evidence has no effect on the members of a jury.

If you can't refute evidence (of any kind), it's going to have an effect in the minds of the jury.

Re:TOR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744455)

Re:TOR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744481)

Did you miss the giant photo of fake ID cards? That is at least one charge he will go to jail on, though he will likely do maximum (or near max) time of 3-5 years

Re:TOR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744551)

Can they prove he ordered them? It's not like it's hard to find two photos of someone you'd like to fuck with, and order fake IDs to that person. IIRC the IDs were intercepted in the mail so he didn't even have them in his possession.

Re:TOR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744905)

It is actually a defense that works. People who order drugs online have them sent overnight as it takes the government longer than that to intercept. If the drugs don't show up on time then the receiver simply declines the receipt of the package and the government then has no case.

Honestly even if he did receive the package I don't see how it would be reasonable to hold him accountable until he went to use the cards. Has nobody ever received an unexpected gift in the mail or signed for something not knowing/remembering what it was? Anybody who orders lots of items online routinely has certainly faced this situation.

I don't even pick up my own packages. There are two sets of people between me and stuff I order. One is a shipping department and one is my personal assistant. Yea- I'm a CEO (small company mind you).

Re:TOR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47745203)

This guy was caught by one careless mistake that was used to back track on him. The existence of this service was not a secret and used word of mouth instead of online ads to attract users. This being the case why did it take so long to shut him down? Supposedly, if you believe all the hype, TOR is hardly going to slowdown the NSA and combined with the other magical abilities they are suppose to be wielding they are damn near omnipotent. If they are collecting and analyzing every e-mail, phone call, and text message they should have been able to ID him 15 minutes after they became aware of the service. Then again maybe some of the supposed abilities attributed to the NSA are nothing but hyperbole, exaggeration, and wishful thinking for the "entitlement" generation and the human rights crusaders who think broadband internet connections are a human right.

Re:TOR (1)

guruevi (827432) | about 2 months ago | (#47745515)

Yes, but if they're using illegal searches and wiretaps, they'll have to reveal it in court... and may not be admissible as evidence.

Re:TOR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47746987)

Yes, but if they're using illegal searches and wiretaps, they'll have to reveal it in court... and may not be admissible as evidence.

No, they won't reveal anything. Modern US law enforcement operatives use parallel reconstruction (a.k.a. perjury) to phoney up an evidence chain of custody that will "make" anything they present legal.

series of tubes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47744255)

"distribution of narcotics by means of the Internet" - is he being prosecuted by Ted Stevens?

So then (1)

DrXym (126579) | about 2 months ago | (#47746139)

Someone will have to point me to the part of Austrian School of Economics and libertarianism which says it's okay to have competitors and rivals iced.

What's with the phrasing? (1)

fa2k (881632) | about 2 months ago | (#47746287)

In the middle of the article there's a list of charges, and all refer to a "detectable amount of [drug]". That's a pretty low standard. For example, when you're handling cash you're probably trafficking a detectable amount of cocaine.

Re:What's with the phrasing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47747073)

In the middle of the article there's a list of charges, and all refer to a "detectable amount of [drug]". That's a pretty low standard. For example, when you're handling cash you're probably trafficking a detectable amount of cocaine.

Usually if the prosecution is adding more charges it means they know their case is weak and they are using the "one of these has just GOT to stick" philosophy in an attempt to get a plea bargain. That's why possession of a single pot seed is a dozen different charges in some states.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?