11–20 of 63 posts
>Ulbricht did not enter a plea. But his public defender,... Looks like the Federales did seize his assets. He may be about to have a bad time.
Maybe he can find a firm that takes bitcons.
So the whole extortion / murder-for-hire angle is interesting. I'm wondering how they jump over the reasonable doubt hurdle with anonymous accounts. That said, someone got access to the 26K+ bitcoins that SR "had" so if nothing else the cops seized and shut down the correct hardware.
I'm not sure how to feel about Ross, idealistic dreamer or drug dealer in idealism cover story? Or random guy who got stuck with the bust because some third party was doing all of their dirty work through his compromised laptop? Between Ulbrich and Snowden a lot of the "impact" of the Internet is going from the hypothetical to the actual.
>Ulbricht did not enter a plea. But his public defender,... Looks like the Federales did seize his assets. He may be about to have a bad time.
You can't use the proceeds of crime to fund your defense. If he can't show income then he gets a public defender. Also this is a federal defender and my understanding (I'm a Brit watching from afar) is they are like our QC's (Queens Counsel - essentially very good and experienced legal professionals) rather than the stereotypical "plead to everything and go to lunch" public defenders.
Alleged crime. I thought the US had some presumption of innocence or something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe he can find a firm that takes bitcons.
I think if the lawyer then tried to sell off his fee in bitcoins in order to get some real money, he'd crash the market. Especially since you can't use bitcoins to buy drugs anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe he can find a firm that takes bitcons.
I think if the lawyer then tried to sell off his fee in bitcoins in order to get some real money, he'd crash the market. Especially since you can't use bitcoins to buy drugs anymore.
The demand is still there and as quickly as SR goes down, many more will pop up to take their place.
Also selling 20k bitcoins over a multi week period would prevent any spike or crash in price. That's a tiny fraction of the daily coins traded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't use the proceeds of crime to fund your defense. If he can't show income then he gets a public defender. Also this is a federal defender and my understanding (I'm a Brit watching from afar) is they are like our QC's (Queens Counsel - essentially very good and experienced legal professionals) rather than the stereotypical "plead to everything and go to lunch" public defenders.
>You can't use the proceeds of crime to fund your defense. Alleged crime. I thought the US had some presumption of innocence or something.
>Ulbricht did not enter a plea. But his public defender,... Looks like the Federales did seize his assets. He may be about to have a bad time.
You can't use the proceeds of crime to fund your defense. If he can't show income then he gets a public defender. Also this is a federal defender and my understanding (I'm a Brit watching from afar) is they are like our QC's (Queens Counsel - essentially very good and experienced legal professionals) rather than the stereotypical "plead to everything and go to lunch" public defenders.
And how is it determined (beyond a reasonable doubt, with a vigorous defense) that you committed a crime to yield those proceeds?
>Ulbricht did not enter a plea. But his public defender,... Looks like the Federales did seize his assets. He may be about to have a bad time.
You can't use the proceeds of crime to fund your defense. If he can't show income then he gets a public defender. Also this is a federal defender and my understanding (I'm a Brit watching from afar) is they are like our QC's (Queens Counsel - essentially very good and experienced legal professionals) rather than the stereotypical "plead to everything and go to lunch" public defenders.
Alleged crime, but you're right. In this country, the gov't can seize your assets and deprive you of them prior to proving that you are a criminal, or that the assets have any relation to criminal conduct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You can't use the proceeds of crime to fund your defense. Alleged crime. I thought the US had some presumption of innocence or something.
The assets you presume him to have are the proceeds of a massive online narcotics market. Or is there some other source of income you're saying were seized?