Topic: DEA Agents in Silk Road Case Face Fraud Charges - page 5. (Read 14464 times)

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.

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?

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

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

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 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.

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.


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! 

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.

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.



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




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.


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. 

Your just attacking his credentials though, not his substance.


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).

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.

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.

I presume that defense received all these things in discovery, either in the form of forensic copies of the hard drives, and/or permission to inspect the originals.

Are you just trolling? If yes, then, Bravo! I like your sarcasm.   

No argument from me on that point, very probably. Human being are fundamentally rational, and react to irrational behavior in novel, rational ways.

For me, I want my government to pick dog crap off the streets, keep the lights on, fill in holes on the highway. Thats what its for. When government starts thinking its a new religon, dictating its idea of whats moral and whats not and enforcing it, then we run into problems.  For many centuries, Common Law  did a fine job of ensuring society ran well. But now its replaced with written laws, that become more complex and partisan with every generation.

Im not saying its all bad, but we seem to have lost our sense of balance. Everything is now polarized. Fundamentalist thought seems to rule the day. Society seems to have been dumbed down to the point where they can only understand concepts in terms of black or white. On or off. All the work of the great philosophers of ancient times sem to have ebeen forgotten.

 I think its time for the "middle majority" to start being more vocal. But of course, they probably won't. 

DPR was not good. Look at what has been proven about him:

1. He can be easily manipulated by government agents
2. He can be manipulated into ordering violence

That's a combination of things that could get an innocent Bitcoiner hurt. Did the person he was driven to want assassinated actually steal anything?

Then surely Silk Road is also a direct consequence of the war on drugs? When you try prohibit anything it will always create a black market. I think the true libertarian revolutionaries with regards to the drug or free market will be the people creating the decentralized exchanges. It will be interesting to see how Law Enforcement tries tackling them with no central authority to go after.


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

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

Actually, in retrospect, that is not in fact a good article. Its an Op-Ed, so its merely an opinion of someone who has no legal experience, on what is purely a legal matter.
Secondly, the author makes no effort to hide his partisan view. the following is not typical of a 'balanced' outlook:


This is a reprehensible statement to make in the context of a legal case. One of the primary tenets of Justice is that everyone gets a fair trial, and its the duty of ones council to provide this, irrespective of their guilt or innocence.

The authors use of such language in the piece identifies him as no better than the tinhats who blindly cry foul without taking time to examine the facts. He's a looney, just from the other side.

Also, his analysis is hardly insightful - several of his points are either direct quotes or paraphrases of the prosecution case unsealed during the week. We still need a legal opinion on this.

No, you probably couldn't. Criminal drug cartels are a direct consequence of the war on drugs. Up to the 1980's, many drugs from Columbia and Ecuador were collected though ad-hoc farmers co-ops, run at local levels.  The war on drugs increased the money flowing through this system to make it attractive to criminals, and then phychotic criminals. Without a 'war', the drug market is no different from other legal drugs, such as alcohol or tobacco. Look at prohibition in the US as an example of how criminality involves itself in trade that becomes proscibed.


SR was set up as a business, an exchange to facilitate buyers who wanted product and sellers who wished to sell. Thats as revolutionary as it gets. In most cases, there is nothing wrong with that, where it doesnt get out of hand. illegal, yes, but a threat to society, no.
The alleged talk of 'hits' only seems to have become an issue once some physco DEA guys got involved on the scene. They seem to have initiated (through the theft) and fuelled this aspect of the case. That is why it is now "dead in the water", to quote the article. Nice.

Unscrupulous being "not honest or fair"? I would say that pretty much summarises the DEA's role in this case.

You could probably argue Mexican Drug Cartels are doing their bit to end the war on drugs too. I wouldn't have an issue with DPR if he was true to his word and set up Silk Road as a revolutionary and libertarian idea, but to me it seems very likely he ordered hits on people and then tried to blame it on Mark Karpales which I'm very skeptical he had anything to do with it. People seem to be ignoring many of his unscrupulous acts which invalidate everything else he's done imo.